Higher textual criticism

[Sean Medley]

Upon first joining this forum, one of the things that struck me about the posts is that they were of a much higher calibre than other Orthodox forums to which I belong or have lurked about, reading articles. The posters here are thoughtful, objective, and very informed: quoting sources and showing a level of theological training.

I have also discovered in many posts a great deal of reference to scholarly sources which many a pious Orthodox Christian would dismissively term "Higher Textual Criticism." For instance, many have debated whether or not St. Isaac of Ninevah was a Nestorian. Many quote the works of Prof. Sebastian Brock as an authority. I have greatly appreciated his translations of patristic works, but personally found his commentaries to be very difficult to read, because they tend to rely upon the critical standards of Western academia rather than the accepted Tradition of the Church. For example, he states that St. Ephrem the Syrian was probably not a monastic, since the Syrian Christians of that time were never exposed to Egyptian asceticism. He goes on to claim that St. Ephrem was also never ordained to the diaconate by St. John Chrysostom, although this is what the Church has handed down to us in his Life.

This approach to Church History brings to mind the article by Blessed Fr. Seraphim (Rose) of Platina entitled The Holy Fathers: Sure Guide To True Christianity. It can be read in its entirety at this link:
http://www.deathtotheworld.com/seraphimrose/articles/holyfathers.html

The quotes relevant to this thread I have cut and pasted below:

"[...][L]et us make clear that for us, Orthodox Christians, the study of the Holy Fathers is not an idle academic exercise. Much of what passes for a [']patristic revival['] in our times is scarcely more than a plaything of heterodox scholars and their [']Orthodox['] imitators, not one of whom has ever [']discovered['] a patristic truth for which he was ready to sacrifice his life. Such [']patrology['] is only rationalist scholarship which happens to take patristic teaching for its subject, without ever understanding that the genuine teaching of the Holy Fathers contains the truths which our spiritual life or death depends. Such pseudo-patristic scholars spend their time proving that [']pseudo-Macarius['] was a Messalian heretic, without understanding or practicing the pure Orthodox teaching of the true St. Macarius the Great; that [']pseudo-Dionysius['] was a calculated forger of books whose mystical and spiritual depths are totally beyond his accusers; that the thoroughly Christian and monastic life of Sts. Barlaam and Joasaph, handed down by St. John Damascene, is nothing but a [']retelling of the Buddha story;['] and a hundred similar fables manufactured by [']experts['] for a gullible public which has no idea of the agnostic atmosphere in which such [']discoveries['] are made. Where there are serious scholarly questions concerning some patristic texts (which, of course, there are), they will certainly not be resolved by referring them to such [']experts['], who are total strangers to the true patristic tradition, and only make their living at its expense.
When [']Orthodox['] scholars pick up the teaching of these pseudo-patristic scholars or make their own researches in the same rationalistic spirit, the outcome can be tragic; for such scholars are taken by many to be [']spokesmen for Orthodoxy,['] and their rationalistic pronouncements to be part of an [']authentically patristic['] outlook, thus deceiving many Orthodox Christians."

My impression from reading the Fathers, which consist mostly of English translations made by Protestants, who dismiss most of the material as spurious, is that, "All this can be yours, if you just ignore the footnotes."

Any thoughts?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Medley,

Firstly, welcome to the Community. It is good to have you here, and I hope you enjoy your interaction with the forum.

You ask a good question, and one that deserves thoughtful response. I'm afraid it's getting quite late as I write this, so it will likely be neither terribly thoughtful or considered; but perhaps it can contain at least a few initial responses.

There is always a tension involved in a life of truly engaged faith: a faith which engages the whole human creation - body, mind, and soul. The tension comes in the fact that humanity is a 'reason-endowed creature', to take up the language of the services; a fact that gives rise to the question of just how, in what way and to what degree, this reason is to be involved in the life of salvation that faith strengthens and fosters. Because the 'answer' can only come in the dynamic of personal engagement with God, it is complex. There is no 'set answer', as there is no 'set person': each is unique, created uniquely by God. But human nature is to be uncomfortable with such lack of a black-and-white response; so there is an ongoing, ancient tendency in Christianity to claim that one way is right, the other wrong. 'Simple faith' is good, 'academic analysis' is bad. Yet this is always a simplification, that does not take full account of the mystery of genuine Christian encounter with the full person - encounter that in some is profoundly simple, in others profoundly complex. In most cases of authentic sanctified lives, it is both. The great fathers are often most eriudite and learned; yet in that learning, because it is learning and expression within theological encounter, are found, too, the most simple. Take, for example, the great Cappadocian fathers of the fourth century; or St Gregory Palamas almost 1,000 years later. All were extremely academic: they are able (and fully, readily, willing) to engage in complex metaphysical discussion, together with minute critical analysis. Yet this does not abrogate their faith in its simplicity and purity. It is their gift to bring these realms together.

Approach to the faith has to echo both aspects of such sanctified examples. Authentic faith requires no theological degree or academic background; and yet, these are not anathema to it. There is no 'one way' or 'right way' to find the balance: it is one that is personal, as each person is unique. Orthodoxy understands this as part of the task of spiritual growth in the Church: the balance of how much 'study' is to be fitted into the life in Christ is something discerned in the relationship of counsel given by the spiritual father.

In terms of how one is to go about this: much depends on the context. Yes, a great number of books come from sources that are not Orthodox in orientation. How much use one can make of such sources depends on many factors - not least the mindset and development of the reader.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Kosta]

Dear Sean,

I know what you mean and definately know what Fr Seraphim Rose means. I am very critical of modern Orthodox scholars on the way they approach many matters.

As far as St Isaac of Ninevah, its ridiculous to think he was NOT a nestorian since he belonged to the Assyrian Church of the East. Of course just because Nestorius is considered "one of their own" doesnt mean that they teach the Nestorian heresy as it was taught by Nestorius himself. The Assyrian church existed before Nestorius followers emigrated east. And its unlikely they had that much influence as to be able to influence the assyrian church to the poinbt where they exactly adopted the Nestorian teaching of 2 hypostasis of Christ. For instance Jacob Aphraates was an Orthodox Church Father of Persia in about 340 a.d., he obviously belonged to the Orthodox Church which eventually became the Assyrian nestorian church. Of the few writings that we have of this Father is this:

"We only Know that God is one, and the Messiah who has come is one, and the Spirit is one, and that faith is one, and that baptism is one. It has not been given to us to say more. If we say more we are mistaken..."

George Florovsky in his book Eastern Fathers of the fourth century says that Jacob distinguished between his divine and human nature but always emphasized that Christ is one hypostasis as the above quote says.

If we look up the beliefs of the Assyrian church on this issue, the statements they have issued are very Orthodox. I think Fr. George Florovsky starement about Jacon Aphraates is accurate as describing the belief of the Assyrian Church of today.

[Anthony]

I am very critical of modern Orthodox scholars on the way they approach many matters.


While I think I know what you mean, I am not sure that we should use this as a blanket term in this way. What can we assume this group of people have in common, apart from being Orthodox and being scholarly? Does this mean that they have a shared way of viewing things, which is suspect from an Orthodox point of view? I don't think we can draw that conclusion.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I suppose, at the broadest level, Orthodox must always say that genuine theological study is ascetical. The basic litmus test for good theological work is obedience and sanctification.

INXC, Dcn Matthew