Pre-existence of souls in the Wisdom of Solomon?

[Scott Pierson]

Wisdom of Solomon 8 :19

“As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.”

The notes in the Harper Collins NRSV study Bible state :“ 'I entered an undefiled body' clearly implies the notion of the souls preexistence” and the notes in the Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) claim that the verse implies the “platonic doctrine” of the preexistence of souls. I looked the verse up in a translation of the Septuagint that I have to see if the wording was significantly different then the NRSV, RSV or New Jerusalem Bible but it wasn't. Did Origen, Evagrius, Didymus the Blind or any of the other Origenists make reference to that verse as a support for the preexistence of souls and how is it supposed to be understood.

[Scott Pierson]

How prevalent was the theory of the souls preexistence in the early Church. I know that Origen, Didymus the Blind and Evagrius are often considered to have held to the view but I've also read that Clement of Alexandria might have and also seen some things written by a few different saints as well that seem to point in that direction (even in Saint Gregory the Theologian though Saint Maximus the Confessor understands the text in a way that does not support preexistence). Can we assume that the St Cassian holds to it because he was a disciple of Evagrius ? What about the many "Origenist" desert fathers?

Saint Antony for example rather then talking about the soul being created with the body talks about the soul being united with the body (it had to exist un-united first in order to unite right? .. I mean you wouldn't talk about fire uniting with heat because they both come into existence at the same time.) and he seems to say that the mind is unborn and naturally immortal as well

Here are some quotes from him that seem very Origenistic / "Platonic" and seem to support preexistence but maybe I'm reading them wrong any advice on the true meaning would be appreciated :


“Uniting with the soul the body emerges into light from the darkness of the womb; but the soul, uniting with the body becomes confined in the darkness of the body. Therefore we should not pity the body, but curb it as an enemy and adversary of the soul. For indulgence in good eating evokes passions...

As a man leaves his mother's womb naked so does the soul leave the body; one soul emerges pure and bright, another is stained by its downfalls, yet another is blackened by many sins. Therefore an intelligent God loving soul, remembering and reflecting the trials and extreamitys that follow death, lives righteously.. Just as when you leave the womb you do not remember what happened in the womb, so when you leave the body you do not remember what happened in the body. As one leaving the womb you became better and larger in body, so on leaving the body pure and unpolluted you will became better and incorruptible in heaven. As the body must be born after completing is development in the womb, so a soul , when it has reached the limit of life in the body alloted it by God, must leave the body.”

“The soul is in the world, since it is born; but mind is above the world since it is not born. A soul, which understands what the world is and wishes to be saved, has a rigid rule- to think ever within itself ' here comes the trial (of death), and the inquisition of deeds, where you will not be able to endure the glances of the Judge, and the soul is about to perish.' ... The mortal is subordinate to the immortal and serves it, that is, the elements serve man, through the loving-kindness and essential goodness of God the Creator.”

“ In his body man is mortal, but in his mind and word immortal. “

“ A real man strives to be pious. That man is pious who desires nothing alien to him, What is alien to man is everything created. So, disdain all things, as befits the image of God. Man is an image of God when he leads a right life pleasing to God, and that is impossible unless he renounces all that is passionate. He whose mind loves God is skillful in all things salutary to the soul, and in every act of devotion required of him. A God loving man blames no one else for he knows that he too sins..

“Sin has found support in the material, and the body has become its seat. But an intelligent soul, having understood this, throws off the burden of materiality and, arising from under this weight, apprehend the Almighty God, carefully watching the body and mistrusting it as an enemy and an adversary. In this way, having conquered evil passions and matter, the soul is crowned by God.”

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

How prevalent was the theory of the souls preexistence in the early Church. I know that Origen, Didymus the Blind and Evagrius are often considered to have held to the view but I've also read that Clement of Alexandria might have and also seen some things written by a few different saints as well that seem to point in that direction (even in Saint Gregory the Theologian though Saint Maximus the Confessor understands the text in a way that does not support preexistence). Can we assume that the St Cassian holds to it because he was a disciple of Evagrius ? What about the many "Origenist" desert fathers?

Saint Antony for example rather then talking about the soul being created with the body talks about the soul being united with the body (it had to exist un-united first in order to unite right? .. I mean you wouldn't talk about fire uniting with heat because they both come into existence at the same time.) and he seems to say that the mind is unborn and naturally immortal as well

Here are some quotes from him that seem very Origenistic / "Platonic" and seem to support preexistence but maybe I'm reading them wrong any advice on the true meaning would be appreciated :


In some sense however all things do pre-exist in God.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

I was reading through some of my books to see if anyone else mentioned anything about the Letters of Saint Antony and Origenism and so far all I found was this from “Desert Christians, An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism” by William Harmless, S.J. :


The letters draw on terminology and perspectives associated with Origen. Origen had hypothesized that before the beginning of the material universe, there was an original unity of preexistent minds, and that the original Fall occurred when these preexistent minds “cooled” (psycho) in their fervor and fell into “souls” (psyche). The letters seem to presume this Origenist terminology and perspective.

<he then quotes St Antony>


“As for rational beings in whom the law of promise grew cold and whose faculties of the mind thus died, so that they can no longer know themselves after their first formation, they have all become irrational and serve the creature instead of the creator”. (Antony, Ep 2:4-5)

[Scott Pierson]

In some sense however all things do pre-exist in God

Father Bless,

In the mind or will of God ?

I'm not sure how that would relate to the Wisdom of Solomon or St Antony quotes though?


“As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.”

Maybe the "thought" of him existed in Gods mind before he was created and it was a really good thought so he gave him a good body when he made him ?

And with Saint Antony he seems to be saying that mind itself was never born and is naturally immortal and that it unites with the body at birth.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father Bless,

In the mind or will of God ?

I'm not sure how that would relate to the Wisdom of Solomon or St Antony quotes though?



Maybe the "thought" of him existed in Gods mind before he was created and it was a really good thought so he gave him a good body when he made him ?

And with Saint Antony he seems to be saying that mind itself was never born and is naturally immortal and that it unites with the body at birth.

I would say that all things pre-exist within the pre-eternal counsel of the Holy Trinity but yet do not have created being until they are brought into this kind of existence.

It is this mysterious and ultimately unknowable pre-existence in God that the phrase 'created out of nothing' refers.

On the one hand it refers to how no created thing is of the uncreated Divine nature; if so this would make creation one in nature with God which it is not.

On the other hand creation is not from something external to God- 'from nothing' does not refer to some state or substance external to God- for that would make that thing co-eternal with Him or something which He was in need of in order to create.

So 'created from nothing' refers to the Christian mystery which informs us that created being comes from God but yet is distinct from God.

A number of theologians- especially modern- have considered this manner of God's creating and refer to it as God transcending Himself.

A creation which is in the image of its Creator but which yet is distinct from Him is that which from which begins the mystery of salvation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

Thats a really thought provoking response Father. The past few days I've been pondering the same question (the relation of God to creation) . Its just such a brain bender. On the one hand you don't want to make creation something outside of or completely alien to God because that would limit His infinity by setting up another “thing” beside Him and the Trinity would no longer be the Absolute without a second but rather one thing among others (and then you would have to posit something greater or more all inclusive than God that contained both God and Creation like a world in which both exist so to speak) BUT on the other hand it would be blasphemy to say that a rock IS God or that man is God like in some vague “pantheist” theories. In some way I guess God and creation are not one and also not two / non dual (non dualism but not monism). Exactly how such a reality could be expressed properly without falling into the first or second pitfall above mentioned I'm not sure. I think many Christians have “played it safe” by tending more toward the dualist side out of fear of “pantheism” but absolute dualism is really just as much an absurdity and unworthy of God as going to the other extreme.

I was reading the last chapter of a book I previously put up with out finishing “ Christianity Lineaments of Sacred Tradition” and it (the one chap. I didn't read) ended up being the best chapter in the whole book and it was on this subject. The author was saying the very same thing about the “nothing” of the phrase Creation ex nihilo being the Uncreated Energies of God which are no-thing / not a thing and the source of everything. I would say out which came everything but there is no place outside God for them to come out into, being “everywhere present and filling all things” and such. He calls his views panentheims as opposed to pantheism. I think he made a lot of good points though I cant say I've thought through all the implications such a view would have.

here are some quotes from the book:


If the statement that God creates the world out of nothing is taken to signify that absolutely nothing existed prior to creation, then the question is posed as to whether this nothing existed or did not exist prior to creation. Was there nothing prior to creation, or was there not nothing? If the answer is that there was nothing prior to creation, then this nothing would in fact have been a kind of something, a positive vacuum, a kind of non-I in relationship to God , or a non-God; and at the basis of creation would lie an irresolvable dualism between God and non-God of a type equally as radical as the dualism which the statement is attempting to exclude.

If, on the other hand, it is said that this nothing did not exist prior to creation, so that prior to creation there was no relationship between God and this nothing such as would posit an absolute dualism at the basis of the world, what we are asked to give our assent to is a kind of absurdity. For how can there be a denial of relationship before there is such a thing as relationship, or privation of existence before there is any existence? The notion lacks all meaning.

Moreover the term “prior” employed in the phrase “ prior to creation”, presupposes a temporal dimension. But time characterizes exclusively the created world and thus there can be no such thing as “prior”, in so far as this word posses a temporal connotation, until creation appeared. From this point of view then, to attempt to clarify whether the “nothing” did or did not exist prior to creation is a completely pointless endeavor.

The term nothing, if it is interpreted as denoting an entirely negative category, does not refer or correspond to any reality, either metaphysical, logical of physical. It refers or corresponds only to a negative and entirely hypothetical figment of human thought. It is unlikely , to say the least, that God creates the world out of such a figment.

The fact that, none the less, this figment of human thought leads directly to the formulations of its conceptual counterpart, the theory of the double order of truth, and hence opens up the door to those developments which have issued in the ecological crises, is not difficult to explain. For it posits the existence of two orders of reality, the supernatural and the natural, between which there may be analogical resemblance but between which there is certainly no inter penetration such as would permit it to be understood that God is intrinsically present in everything that He creates, while everything that is created, simply be virtue of that fact alone, participates, though it may be in a potential and not as actualized manner, in the Divine.

It posits the existence of these two non-interpenatrating orders of reality, between which there is not and cannot be any natural or co generic relationship, because if the world is created out of nothing conceived in this purely negative and privative sense, it must be created outside God. For clearly this nothing is not a quality of Gods own nature and reality- on the contrary, it is entirely privative of God. Nor can it ever become a quality of Gods own nature and reality in such a way that it cold be said that there is a natural relationship between God and the nothing. Hence the world that is created out of this nothing must exist outside God, and there can by definition be no natural.. relationship between God and that which is outside God.

God can neither be intrinsically present in that which is outside Him, for then it would not be outside Him, and nor correspondingly can that which is outside God simply by virtue of the fact that it is created be said to participate in the Divine, for such participation presupposes the indwelling presence of God....

Fortunately this type of cosmology is not the only cosmology that the Church and the Christian tradition have to offer. The phrase “ Creation ex nihilo” or, rather “ God creates the world ex nihilo”, for He creates it at each instant ex nihilo- may be interpreted , and has been interpreted by Christian theologians (one may specify St. Gregory of Nyssa, the author of Cropus Dionysiacum, and John Scotus Eriugna among them) in a way totally different from that of which we have already spoken. According to this different interpretation the term “nihil” or “nothing” does not denote an absolute blank, the privation of every quality or an entirely negative category. It is not a mere figment of human thought that does not correspond to any reality whatsoever. On the contrary, it is a positive category. It denotes the absence of all space, time and matter, or of everything extended in space and time- the absence, that is to say, of all that can be called “thing”. It thus denotes a realm of divine interiority in which there is “no thing”. It refers to that in God which is free from all form, material or non-material, and to us presents no identity because it is beyond the capacity of our minds to grasp it. In so far as we can envisage it at all, it may be envisaged as the fathomless incomprehensible ground or depths of Gods uncreated energies and possibility's, the pre-ontological “nihil” from which all things proceed.

....

This does not mean that the world does not have a beginning. It does have a beginning, but in a totally non-temporal sense: its beginning or origin lies in God's transcendent creative power...

The creation is not the separation or projection of an extra divine world or of the extra divine beings that constitute the world; nor it is emanation in the strictly neoplatonic sense. It is theophany, differentiation by increasing incandescence from within. It is a process through which God reveals Himself to Himself. It is an act of self-revelation through which God not only knows Himself in created beings but is also known by them, there being basically no difference between these two acts of knowing: our knowledge of God is also Gods knowledge of Himself, or in and through us God becomes aware of Himself....

Thus nature-the created world- is a mode of discourse or the revelation of God to man, communicating to him the mystery of the unity in the variety of all things. It demonstrates the dialectic of the unity in opposites. God and His creation are related both by differences and similarity by opposition and antagonism as well as by affinity and complementarity. Of creations two poles, spirit and matter, matter is characterized by attraction and repulsion, while the spirit is characterized by its upward transforming and reconciling impulsion. The logic of the unity and duality of spirit and nature is the logic of a non-dualist spirituality that denies the monist single principle of ultimate explanation as well as the dualistic two principles. It reunites sameness and difference, proximity and distance.

In addition, the fact that God is present in all things simply by virtue of their being created, and hence no special sacramental activity is needed in order to imbue them with divine grace, does not mean that man has no priestly role as mediator between God and creation. That God is present within all created things, and that all created things are therefore intrinsically holy and should be treated as such does not mean that this divine presence is always actualized in all things, or in actu, it can equally be latent in all things or in potentia. Thus there is need of sacramental activity in order to bring his divine Presence, whether in man or in other created things, from a latent to an actualized state.”

I know Fr Bulgakov said the same thing about “creation ex nihilio” meaning creation out of God as well.

[Louis A. Morrone]

This might sound stupid, but I'll give it a try. Could it be that you're all thinking too hard? Creating something out of nothing could be as simple as opening the refrigerator and combining cheese, egg, salt and pepper and creating an omelette. There, I created something out of nothing! Maybe creating something out of nothing is an idea rather than something physical. An idea that was never thought of before can be creating something out of nothing.

Thanks,

Louis

[M.C. Steenberg]

Creating something out of nothing could be as simple as opening the refrigerator and combining cheese, egg, salt and pepper and creating an omelette. There, I created something out of nothing! Maybe creating something out of nothing is an idea rather than something physical. An idea that was never thought of before can be creating something out of nothing.

Ah, but that is not creation out of nothing. That is creation out of cheese, egg, salt and pepper.

Creation out of nothing is making your omelette without these things.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thats a really thought provoking response Father. The past few days I've been pondering the same question (the relation of God to creation) . Its just such a brain bender. On the one hand you don't want to make creation something outside of or completely alien to God because that would limit His infinity by setting up another “thing” beside Him and the Trinity would no longer be the Absolute without a second but rather one thing among others (and then you would have to posit something greater or more all inclusive than God that contained both God and Creation like a world in which both exist so to speak) BUT on the other hand it would be blasphemy to say that a rock IS God or that man is God like in some vague “pantheist” theories. In some way I guess God and creation are not one and also not two / non dual (non dualism but not monism). Exactly how such a reality could be expressed properly without falling into the first or second pitfall above mentioned I'm not sure. I think many Christians have “played it safe” by tending more toward the dualist side out of fear of “pantheism” but absolute dualism is really just as much an absurdity and unworthy of God as going to the other extreme.

I was reading the last chapter of a book I previously put up with out finishing “ Christianity Lineaments of Sacred Tradition” and it (the one chap. I didn't read) ended up being the best chapter in the whole book and it was on this subject. The author was saying the very same thing about the “nothing” of the phrase Creation ex nihilo being the Uncreated Energies of God which are no-thing / not a thing and the source of everything. I would say out which came everything but there is no place outside God for them to come out into, being “everywhere present and filling all things” and such. He calls his views panentheims as opposed to pantheism. I think he made a lot of good points though I cant say I've thought through all the implications such a view would have.

here are some quotes from the book:



I know Fr Bulgakov said the same thing about “creation ex nihilio” meaning creation out of God as well.


I just noticed that my last week's reply to this post has disappeared. I guess it's a case of its reverting to the "ex nihilo" from which it came! :)

Anyway- from what I recall from what I posted I referred to how you might find interest in St Maximos the Confessors' cosmology; especially how he sees creation in terms of its purpose in Christ.

You might profit from reading Man and the Cosmos by Lars Thunberg (The Vision of St Maximus the Confessor); esp. ps 79- 91.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Louis A. Morrone]

Ah, but that is not creation out of nothing. That is creation out of cheese, egg, salt and pepper.

Creation out of nothing is making your omelette without these things.

INXC, Matthew

Thanks for your response, but if a unique idea was thought of, one that didn't come from anything previous, maybe that would be like creating something out of nothing. Also, the relationship between a man and God comes into play because for us, something could be created out of nothing because we are ignorant, but for God, he has more knowledge and ideas so in fact what he creates wouldn't have been created out of nothing although to us it would seem so. Perhaps saying something is created out of nothing is just a way people can understand in their own minds what happened,(although it's not true) since it's too complex for us. God's creation comes from nothing we can understand!

Just a thought.

Thanks, Louis

[Scott Pierson]

Thank You for the suggestion Father Raphael. I actually have that book but I've never really read more then the first chapter. I will have to look at it again. I was reading Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor by Hans Urs von Balthasar and he had some interesting Saint Maximus the Confessor quotes on the topics I'll post them soon.

I'm still not sure if that idea of prexistence necesarily accounts for what St Antony or the Wisdom of Solomon was refrenceing though. Both seem to be implying that some element of man or his nature ( the nous with St Antony and the Soul with the Wisdom of Solomon) prexisted the body and with St Antony he even goes so far as to say that the mind is "unborn" and "immortal". With the Wis. verse it seems to imply that some sort of merit was acquired by King Solomons soul prior to its being attached to the body. If the prexistence refrenced in those instances was simply an existence as a "thought" of God or something of that nature then that "existence" would not be the self or a part of mans makeup . The mind that is unborn , etc mentioned by St Antony seems to be a "part" of the human person , his mind, and not some element that is other like the divine idea that he was created based on and is supposed to live up to. With the St Maximus pre existence view could one even claim that that which preexisted was his self , part of his self or his mind, soul, etc ?

I dont understand what he means when he states that the pious : " desires nothing alien to him, What is alien to man is everything created". Why would everything created be alien to a created being . Wouldnt that be like saying that heat and smoke are alien to fire.

[Scott Pierson]

I was just reading my Harper Collins NRSV study Bible again and I noticed that the explanation for James 3: 6 claims that the the phrase "The cycle of nature" (or in the notes "wheel of birth") is a refrence to the " stoic and pythagrean concept of rebirth". I guess the actually greek is "trochos genesis". I wonder if Origen or any of the other folks who believed in the souls prexistences of the body ever refrenced that as evidence supporting the view or if that interpratation is so far off mark no one in the early Church ever thought to understand it that way.

trochos = trokh-os' from 5143; a wheel (as a runner), i.e. (figuratively) a circuit of physical effects:--course.

genesis = ghen'-es-is from the same as 1074; nativity; figuratively, nature:--generation, nature(-ral).

[Father David Moser]

Ah, but that is not creation out of nothing. That is creation out of cheese, egg, salt and pepper.

Creation out of nothing is making your omelette without these things.


This is clarified a little more when one looks at the creation account in Hebrew or Slavonic (I assume also Greek). There are two different words used meaning "to create" which in English come out the same. One word means "to create something where nothing existed previously" (ex-nihilo) while the other means "to shape that which already exists into a new form". On the first, fifth and sixth days of creation, the first word is used to describe God's activity while on the second, third and fourth days the second word is used. The fathers indicate that this tells us that on the first, fifth and sixth days new and unique creations were accomplished. On the first day, the universe itself (time and space) was created where nothing existed previously - before this there was only God, there was no time, no space, no energy, no matter. The next three days God spends shaping time, space, energy and matter into the forms with which we are (more or less) familiar. On the fifth day something new happens, Godcreates animals. What is it about animals that is different from the rest of creation? Animals have a soul - this is the new creation, the creation of a soul. Thus the soul is created "ex-nihilo". The third time this word is used is in the creation of man. Again, what is it that man has that is different from the rest of creation? He has a spirit (or a soul with a spirit). The spiritual nature of man's soul is also created "ex-nihilo" or out of nothing. So there are there three unique, discontinuous acts of creation recounted in Genesis - the original creation of the universe, the creation of the soul (animals) and the creation of the spirit (man). The use of this term in contrast with "shaping that which aleady exists into a new form" argues that the soul - either the mortal animal soul or the immortal human soul - did not "pre-exist" but rather came into being at the moment of its creation. It was not shaped from that which already existed but was a new unique creation.

Fr David Moser

[Robert Hegwood]

It was my understanding that the prevailing if not the official view of the Orthodox faith with regard to the creation of new human souls post Adam is Traducionism. Pre existing souls are rejected on the grounds that in coming to earth they leave a place of blessed estate and essentially roll dice with their eternity...they may live so as to return to the presence of God...but there is a very high chance they will not and will go to the other place.

Newly created souls are rejected on the grounds that they would be unfallen and thus unlike the rest of us.

That only leaves souls drawn forth from the biological parents (traduced).

It makes sense to me, but I don't know if there are other considerations that would shed some further light on these various views.

[Scott Pierson]

You know I've heard of 'Traducionism' before and that a few of the early fathers seemed to hold such a view but Its not something I've seen discussed that often in Orthodoxy. I was under the impression that that view was in the minority and was eventually left behind all together (among the Fathers). Most often I hear people say that the soul is created by God at the time of conception (and the coming into existence of the body ). Maybe the fallen state is passed on via the body/flesh which we inherit from our parents and not via the soul which is created directly by God?

[John Charmley]

You know I've heard of 'Traducionism' before and that a few of the early fathers seemed to hold such a view but Its not something I've seen discussed that often in Orthodoxy. I was under the impression that that view was in the minority and was eventually left behind all together (among the Fathers). Most often I hear people say that the soul is created by God at the time of conception (and the coming into existence of the body ). Maybe the fallen state is passed on via the body/flesh which we inherit from our parents and not via the soul which is created directly by God?

Dear Scott,

I've been following this interesting and informative discusison with great interest, and finally have something to contribute.

I have been reading St. Cyril's Commentary on the Gospel of St. John which has just been republished by the Oriental Orthodox Library , (follow the link at http://www.britishorthodox.org/publications.php if interested), and he has quite a lot to say on the subject of the prexistence of souls.

Most of what he has to say is in Chapter IX, and is in exegesis on the words which lighteth every man that cometh into the world

St. Cyril begins in typically robust fashion:

that it is most exceedingly absurd to suppose that the soul pre-exists, and to think that for elder transgressions it was sent down into bodies of earth, we shall endeavour to prove according to our ability by the subjoined considerations

He provides 24 arguments, which would make for an exceedingly long post, but most of them, thankfully, are developments from his first proof:


If the soul of man have existence prior to the formation of the body, and, declining to evil according to the surmises of some, has for punishment of its transgression a descent into flesh, how, tell me, does the Evangelist say that it is lighted on coming into the world? For this I suppose is honour and the addition of fair gifts. But not by being honoured is one punished, nor yet chastised by being made recipient of the Divine good things, but by meeting with what is of the wrath of the punisher. But since man on his coming into the world is not in this condition, but on the contrary is even lighted, it is I suppose clear that he that is honoured with flesh has not his embodiment for a punishment.

It is also worth citing this comment:


Paul teaching us that there shall be in due time an investigation before the Divine Judgment-seat of each man's life says, For we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he done, whether it be good or bad. But if it be only for the things done in the body that a man either receiveth punishment at the hands of the Judge, or is accounted worthy of befitting reward, and no mention is made of prior sins, nor any charge previous to his birth gone into: how had the soul any pre-existence, or how was it humbled in consequence of sin, as some say, seeing that its time with flesh is alone marked out, for that the things alone that were done in it are gone into?

All good Orthodox material, I hope. There is an on line version for those who don't want to pay for the full commentary, at: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_01_book1.htm#C9

I hope this helps the discussion along.


In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

Seeing as how v1 and v2 are both over 600 pages each I think I would like to buy the book rather than reading it online. I think looking at the computer that long might make my eyes hurt a little lol. They look like very interesting books though I'll have to get them soon.

[John Charmley]

Seeing as how v1 and v2 are both over 600 pages each I think I would like to buy the book rather than reading it online. I think looking at the computer that long might make my eyes hurt a little lol. They look like very interesting books though I'll have to get them soon.

Dear Scott,

They are available at http://www.lulu.com/orthodoxlibrary

The first volume is a bit heavy going because Pusey's translation is, frankly, odd. I know St. Cyril's Greek is on the flowery side, but translated into a Victorian's version of romantic Elizabethan English, it becomes a trifle weird at times; but it is worth persevering. The second volume, with a different translator, is altogether easier.

St. John is so important, and St. Cyril's commentary is so full of insights that I am finding them invaluable. I have to confess that before this I had only read St. Cyril's Christological works, but now that I have these commentaries, I can only say that I wish his other commentaries were also available.

The printers got the volumes to me within a week of my ordering them, and like all the Oriental Orthodox Library (driving force one Peter Farrington - to whom we owe a real debt of thanks) the books are beautifully produced.

If you get them, you won't regret it.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The printers got the volumes to me within a week of my ordering them, and like all the Oriental Orthodox Library (driving force one Peter Farrington - to whom we owe a real debt of thanks) the books are beautifully produced.

If you get them, you won't regret it.


I just took a look at the volumes by following your link. Magnificent work done by Peter!

What's Lulu though? A kind of open source Amazon.ca? Is it centred in England? I couldn't find a full explanation on the site.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Just going to bed so I'll be brief...

It's a Print on Demand printer with printers in the US, UK and Spain which are used depending on where the buyer is located.

So if someone in the US buys a book it is printed and despatched from the US, likewise when John has ordered here in the UK it was printed and despatched from the UK.

I have plans/dreams/ambitions to add another 30 volumes over the next year, mostly those of interest to the OO, and students of the OO, covering theology, liturgy, spirituality and history. But I will also be including controversial/heretical works that are part of the history of controversy where OO have been most concerned.

Peter

[Andrew]

I thought the basic Orthodox understanding of the human person is that our bodies and souls are naturally bonded in such a way that we cannot even begin to fathom how they can be seperate, thus the utter unnatural state of death. Also, to my understanding, it the soul is not naturally immortal... after death, our souls go into the unnatural state of being seperate from our bodies by the grace of God, not by the soul's own property. So, any statement of preexistence of the soul would indicate a Gnostic soul-body dualism antithetical to the Orthodox faith.

[Theophrastus]

....So, any statement of preexistence of the soul would indicate a Gnostic soul-body dualism antithetical to the Orthodox faith.

Unless, of course, the soul's pre-existence involved a spiritual body of sorts.

[Scott Pierson]

I wasn't trying to imply that the pre-existence of souls is necessarily an Orthodox teaching . It seemed like St Antony believed in it so I was asking if I was maybe just understanding him wrong. I was also wondering how that verse from Wis. Solomon should be understood and if it was used as a support for the pre-existence of souls by people such as Origen, Evagrius, etc who held to the view.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I wasn't trying to imply that the pre-existence of souls is necessarily an Orthodox teaching . It seemed like St Antony believed in it so I was asking if I was maybe just understanding him wrong. I was also wondering how that verse from Wis. Solomon should be understood and if it was used as a support for the pre-existence of souls by people such as Origen, Evagrius, etc who held to the view.

One thing to keep in mind is that there are a variety of views from within the Church which one can find about the relationship between soul & body. Since the soul is universally given pre-eminence & that in which we chiefly find the image of God the question of its creation in relation to God naturally arises. I'm not sure there is any one description of this to be found.

Rather the spectrum ranges in between the fact that within the soul we definitely do discover the image of God. But at the same time- and here's where the Church saw something unique in the ancient world- the soul is other than God. It's within this 'needles' eye' of the soul being in the image of God but yet distinct from Him (an incredible thing when you think of it) that one can find varying descriptions about the soul.

Perhaps in the above sense there is some sort of Orthodox preexistence of souls possible; I'm not sure.

But the important thing to keep in mind is that when most within the Church speak of pre-existence of souls they are referring to an Origenist cosmology. Here the entry of souls into the material represents a kind of Fall. The ascetic life as a preparation and then death as a reality offers the possibility of a return to a divine realm which is more in accord with the souls' spiritual nature than is the material creation.

It's this latter kind of cosmology which the Church has condemned. But not necessarily other ideas about the relationship of soul to body.

In Christ- Fr Raphael