Textual / historical criticism [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Herman Blaydoe

12-02-2008, 01:50 PM

What would you say about textual or historical critcism of Beowulf, or the Illiad? I suppose it has its place, if it helps us better appreciate the content of the text in question.

But if we are looking for this to provide the basis of our understanding, then we are missing the point entirely. We can appreciate the story of Beowulf, irrespective of its historical context, as a great hero story, an epic tale. The same is true of the Illiad, regardless if Homer actually wrote it or not.

The point is that a real understanding of Holy Scripture can only happen in the context of the Church. The "Q" Gospel is a fun conjecture, an interesting theory. The "historical" Jesus created by those outside the Church is ultimately meaningless. If they do not read and understand Holy Scripture within the community that created it, they are merely outsiders looking in, and their input must be judged accordingly. Such things that perhaps grant a greater appreciation of what the Church gives us can certainly be valuable, but those things that contradict what the Church says should not be simply accepted without question.

All these theories are simply theories, opinions, and conjectures. They are not formulated in an environment of asceticism, humility and prayer, tested by the Holy Spirit, are they? Better commentaries are produced by Chrysostom, Palamas, Damacene, Climacus than by Straus, Schleirmacher or Schweitzer. I know which ones I give authority to anyway, but I may well figure in that "unintelligent" varity of Christian, so that too must be taken into account. Your mileage may vary.

Herman the Pooh

Rick H.

12-02-2008, 02:08 PM

But if we are looking for this to provide the basis of our understanding, then we are missing the point entirely.

For me this is a short answer question. Lower criticism is generally most helpful when applied honestly and sincerely; however, higher criticism seems to always revert back being a tool in the hand of the one who would only tear down and never seek to build up.

Possibly, in the end textual criticism and higher criticism, and the search for the historical Jesus can all be problematic for the one who only knows what he/she is told.

Otherwise, Herman speaks to the core issue above.

While I would definitely not agree with everything Schleiermacher asserted,some of his work will take you where you want to go with great speed, whereby we conclude again that we should participate in critical reading as a rule.

In Christ,
Rick

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-02-2008, 03:43 PM

Byron wrote:

I wonder what the intelligent Orthodox perspective (not to say there is an 'unintelligent' variety!) on historical research (Jesus of faith, Jesus of history etc) is? Also , how do we approach such issues as textual criticism of the scriptures, 'hermeneutics of suspicion', the 'Q' source document etc.?

This past summer I was able to read The Formation of the Christian Bible by Hans von Campenhausen. I'm not sure that it falls into the category of 'the historical Jesus'. But it does look at the formation of the New Testament scriptures (the NT Bible) from the historical perspective in terms of the larger theological issues of the time. As such it refers to many early Church Fathers.

As someone who normally finds such studies and scripture commentaries about as inspiring as munching on a bowl of sand (more white washed bones than life) I was pleasantly surprised by this book. It ended up influencing my understanding of the NT Scripture & I think helped deepen it. I am more alert to certain theological themes which I honestly didn't notice in the Scriptures before.

One reason for this is the particular point stated & implicit through the whole of this book that the NT Scriptures actually are the representation of the Church's theology which had to be struggled through over time. This might sound so obvious at first as to wonder why it needs to be emphasized.

The point however is that we tend with both the Scriptures and the Fathers to read back anachronistically a ready made theology present and formed from the beginning. This raises the whole question of the relationship of truth to the Church & how this is attained over time through Her ongoing struggle.

Rightfully we get concerned over any presentation that separates theology from revelation. The historical perspective often does this. But in reaction I think we read back an assured and given theology which in fact doesn't reflect reality. In gaining confidence we lose something essential as to the nature of the truth of the Church. But in recognizing that the theology of the Church is gained over time nothing is lost and much is gained as long as see that revelation only occurs through struggle ie it is ascetic.

Anyhow, this particular book helped in this particular way. It's stood the 'time test' come upon over the years. Which is that every other study/academic commentary no matter what interesting ideas it presents is forgotten within a year or so.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Silouan Howard

12-02-2008, 04:15 PM

Forgive me if I am a little off topic, but I think this applies to the question at hand. I was given a book by a co-worker of mine (who is atheist) called "Misquoting Jesus". I havent yet read it, but its premise is that the new testament writings were changed over time by accidental scribal errors and favorable translations to support varying theological ideas in the early church, specifically the deity of Christ. Has anyone read this book before?

Rick H.

12-02-2008, 04:18 PM

Has anyone read this book before?

I have never read it Mr. Howard, but I must say it sounds like a great theory even though it doesn't hold water! :)

Byron Jack Gaist

12-02-2008, 04:23 PM

Dear all,

Thank you for your feedback. Comparing textual / historical criticism of the Bible to similar efforts for epic myths like Beowulf or the Iliad, is I think quite useful, except that it implies perhaps that the Bible is itself (nothing more than?) a collection of myths by a diversity of authors collected over time. I would agree, Herman, that
The point is that a real understanding of Holy Scripture can only happen in the context of the Church...If they do not read and understand Holy Scripture within the community that created it, they are merely outsiders looking in, and their input must be judged accordingly. Such things that perhaps grant a greater appreciation of what the Church gives us can certainly be valuable, but those things that contradict what the Church says should not be simply accepted without question. All these theories are simply theories, opinions, and conjectures. They are not formulated in an environment of asceticism, humility and prayer, tested by the Holy Spirit, are they? I think there are two different points here: one is 'sociological' in that the understanding of a text within any community to which it is 'sacred' can be said to only be legitimate when it is comprehended from within the internal frame of reference of that community - but this may lead us to relativism. The other point is a spiritual one, and it is reiterated by Fr Raphael when he writes that
in recognizing that the theology of the Church is gained over time nothing is lost and much is gained as long as see that revelation only occurs through struggle ie it is ascetic. To me these comments seem to suggest that an Orthodox approach to textual / historical criticism may be to go ahead and study the history and textual criticism, gleaning what science and scholarship can offer, but to do so within the context of a prayerful, ascetic spirituality which is ready to reject what conflicts with the accepted teaching of the Church.

I found the following in the wikipedia article on 'higher criticism'. I wonder how one might go about offering the 'Eastern Orthodox view':

Roman Catholic view
Pope Leo XIII (1810 - 1903) condemned secular biblical scholarship in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus;[4], but in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu: "[T]extual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books ... Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed." [5] Today the modern Catechism states: "#110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."

[edit] Protestant Christian view
Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation, believed strongly in the literal truth of scripture. He wrote, "All the articles of our Christian faith, which God has revealed to us in His Word, are in presence of reason sheerly impossible, absurd and false." But at other times, he accepted the authority of reason, so long as it did not contradict scripture. "Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Sacred Scripture or by evident reason... my conscience is captive to the Word of God." He even used some of the methods that would later be called "higher criticism" in his study of the Bible. He wrote, "The discourses of the Prophets were none of them regularly committed to writing at the time; their disciples and hearers collected them subsequently. ... Solomon's Proverbs were not the work of Solomon."[6]

Around the end of the 18th century Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, "the founder of modern Old Testament criticism", produced works of "investigation of the inner nature of the Old Testament with the help of the Higher Criticism". Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher also influenced the development of Higher Criticism.

A group of German biblical scholars at Tübingen University formed the Tübingen school of theology under the leadership of Ferdinand Christian Baur, with important works being produced by Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach and David Strauss. In the early 19th century they sought independent confirmation of the events related in the Bible through Hegelian analysis of the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times.[7][8]

Their ideas were brought to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, then in 1846 George Eliot translated David Strauss's sensational Leben Jesu as the Life of Jesus Critically Examined, a quest for the historical Jesus. In 1854 she followed this with a translation of Feuerbach's even more radical Essence of Christianity which held that the idea of God was created by man to express the divine within himself, though Strauss attracted most of the controversy.[7] The loose grouping of Broad Churchmen in the Church of England was influenced by the German higher critics. In particular, Benjamin Jowett visited Germany and studied the work of Baur in the 1840s, then in 1866 published his book on The Epistles of St Paul, arousing theological opposition. He then collaborated with six other theologians to publish their Essays and Reviews in 1860. The central essay was Jowett's On the Interpretation of Scripture which argued that the Bible should be studied to find the authors' original meaning in their own context rather than expecting it to provide a modern scientific text.[9][10]

Today, some Protestants oppose the methods of the higher criticism, and hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and incapable of error, at least in its original form.[11]

In Christ
Byron

Silouan Howard

12-02-2008, 04:28 PM

I have never read it Mr. Howard, but I must say it sounds like a great theory even though it doesn't hold water! :)

Yeah, i dont care to read it myself, but I feel obligated since it was given to me. I find it rather interesting that these arguments use source documents and theological positions of heretical groups to prove their points. I find it rather annoying that these scholars place all groups that labeled themselves as Christian into the normative sample of Christian thought/apostolic tradition of the early church. It seems that these scholars would use these writings (like the Gospel of Judas, for instance) sparingly since they were never accepted by the Church as valid, but only by fringe heretical groups. I find this to be bad scholarship used to place an intentional spin on everyting.

Byron Jack Gaist

12-02-2008, 04:34 PM

Rick H.

12-02-2008, 04:41 PM

Yeah, i dont care to read it myself, but I feel obligated since it was given to me.

Hat's off to you for reading it Mr. Howard! After you read it then possibly you and your friend at work can talk about it over a cup of coffee. I have read things that I really didn't want to so that bridges could be built and lines of communication opened. We are told in the Scripture to be ready to make apologia of our faith and to let our light shine (viz. evangelism and apologetics).

Probably as you know, there will be no evidence to support the above theory, but an overwhelming amount of evidence based on our fragments and manuscripts to support the contrary.

Possibly, all of this speaks directly to the Orthodox approach to such things as we are considering here?

In Christ,
Rick

Rick H.

12-02-2008, 04:45 PM

If textual criticism leads one gradually to agnosticism . . .

I'm not sure why anyone would think this to be a real possibility. Possibly, there is some confusion of terms here. Wiki is not always the best place to get a handle on things.

In Christ,
Rick

Silouan Howard

12-02-2008, 04:52 PM

Dear Silouan,

There is a brief wikipedia entry on the book you mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus It sounds like the sort of thing I was wondering about. To say something very general and emotional (and not to be taken too seriously), I have the impression that a bomb called 'science' fell on the protestant churches in the modern era which they helped bring about, and their theologies have not recovered. If textual criticism leads one gradually to agnosticism, it seems unhealthy from a spiritual point of view. If, on the other hand, faith deepens and matures as a result of the encounter, that seems a good thing.

In Christ
Byron

Sure..i have no issue with scholarly inquisition, but the problem is that most of modern arguments that are being brought up is nothing more than pointed scholasticism where the scholars use all they can to disprove Christ as myth or his deity as a creation of the early Christians. I guess I find it annoying because they would use, for instance, The Gospel of Judas and call it a Christian text when really it was a gnostic text. It just seems like poor scholasticism to me.

Rick H.

12-02-2008, 04:58 PM

It just seems like poor scholasticism to me.

Poor scholarship, but intentionally so. For example, most of the PBS specials have such a glaring agenda and it is very apparent in even just the choice of who is chosen to speak, and to represent the different sides. There is really not a huge mystery in all of this--it is a big joke; but, most of the people who watch PBS only know what they are told about Christianity!

Michael Stickles

12-02-2008, 05:00 PM

There is a brief wikipedia entry on the book you mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus It sounds like the sort of thing I was wondering about.

There is also a review of the book (http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3452) over at Bible.org. The linked review is an abbreviated version, but it links to the full review.

Mike

M.C. Steenberg

12-02-2008, 05:28 PM

The best scholars of the scriptures are the fathers of the Church, who are rigorously critical, deeply analytical, and alert to dimensions of historical accuracy, textual history, redaction criticisms, etc. And these fathers manifest this approach to scripture and its study as part of the ascetical illumination of prayer and divine encounter, which is the only way such methods remain vibrant, living, revelatory means of engaging with scriptural truth, rather than being denigrated to lifeless speculations.

The reason that so much 19th- and 20th-century textual criticism lacks appeal to Orthodox theology, is because it was so often wrested from ascesis and theologia. Wonderful tools, embraced by the fathers from the very first, were ripped away from the very foundations that gave them life. So it is little surprise that what they produced was largely deconstructionist, narrow, and prone to eventual disinterest -- as has very much been the case in many contexts already.

But as to the questions that drive such interests, these are very much of concern to Orthodox readers. Of course textual history and redaction is important; but the criteria by which we judge and measure it may be different at times. Of course style- and source-criticism are relevant to Orthodox readings of scripture; but our understandings of authorship and style questions have their own contours. Of course questions over the historicity of elements in scripture are essential; but an Orthodox understanding of 'history' is not identical to others. As to such speculations as a 'Q-hypothesis': this is, at the broadest level, little different to the second- and third-century belief of many fathers that earlier versions of the Gospels (e.g. a Hebrew or Aramaic version of Matthew, taken to be written first) served as the boilerplates for what currently exists. The specific details of the considerations may have changed (as, indeed, the intentions of those putting them forward); but such questions are hardly modern or external to Orthodox scriptural life.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Father David Moser

12-02-2008, 06:18 PM

The reason that so much 19th- and 20th-century textual criticism lacks appeal to Orthodox theology, is because it was so often wrested from ascesis and theologia. Wonderful tools, embraced by the fathers from the very first, were ripped away from the very foundations that gave them life. So it is little surprise that what they produced was largely deconstructionist, narrow, and prone to eventual disinterest -- as has very much been the case in many contexts already.

Another reason - one that is driven more by academia than anything else - is the pressure that is put on those who teach to also publish. In the US, at any rate (and I would guess at other academic institutions around the world) if someone who either aspires to or wishes to hold a professorship in a university, he (or she) must publish. More and more, however, publication is limited to "original ideas". Articles that basically say "what we have always believed to be true is in fact true" don't sell. One must have an "original" take on something or must "discover" a unique or hidden "twist" to old material. Now in the hard sciences, this is a beneficial course, because it promotes new ideas and new discoveries. But in theology, this pressure is not so helpful because it promotes the idea that "old" is bad and so traditional beliefs are not worth upholding, rather new and unique and previously unknown truths are of more value. Hence the writer who proposes a "fringe" idea or a rationalization which legitimizes a previously discredited idea is much more highly regarded than the writer who "holds fast to that which we have been given"

This hunger for new and unique insights only feeds the "itching ears" and following after all kinds of novel doctrines that the Apostle Paul spoke about. And I have noticed that those who vigorously "deconstruct" are often not so good at "reconstruction"

Fr David Moser

Max Percy

12-02-2008, 06:43 PM

I think Fr. Eugen Pentiuc's books are a good example of an Orthodox scriptural scholar whom takes textual criticism seriously.

Chris S.

12-02-2008, 09:17 PM

While Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, is an immensely popular book among people who are predominanty un-Christian and non-Christian (I know several Muslims who utilize the text as evidence for the principle claim that the Bible is corrupted), his scholarship is generally ranked among the elite in the field of contemporary textual criticism. Is it fair, then, to judge the merits of one particular work or exposition by an entire field or by an author's spiritual credentials?

Misquoting Jesus is actually a more trunctated, mass market version of Ehrman's more academic work The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of the Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, in which he discusses discrepancies between early and later manuscripts and ultimately determines that orthodox copyists included these "corrections" in order to champion the Adoptionists, Docetists, etc. Following his mentor, the eminent scholar Bruce Metzger, Ehrman upholds the likelihood that some of these "corruptions" were accidental, but the evidence is too strong to suggest otherwise in other cases (in his opinion).

I've yet to see any academic rebuttal of Ehrman's thesis, aside from the traditional assertions.

However...

It’s no news that New Testament textual criticism and the study of church history overlap, or that textual and historical data complement one another. What is news is how Dr. Ehrman attempts to re-define New Tetament textual criticism as a branch of historical research. He calls the goal of reconstructing the original text a “myopic” concern.

The reconstruction of the original text is and ought to be the concern, the goal, of New Testament textual criticism. Reconstructing transmission-history is an important part of that task, but for the textual critic it’s relevant as a step toward the goal, not as a separate goal. When it’s a separate goal, a separate discipline is entered. Textual criticism is not a sub-discipline of theology. One of Ehrman's weaknesses is that he attempts to engage in theology, in an effort to refute his Evangelical past alongside his objective discipline.

Where Ehrman fails as a textual critic in his own books is in responding to the restoration of the New Testament text which has proceeded successfully since the mid-19th century, choosing instead to attempt to carry the day by appealling to predisposed non/anti-Christians, who already agreed with him prior to his publications.

Ehrman’s books (e.g., "Misquoting Jesus," "Lost Christianities" and "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture") build on a specific model of Early Church history suggesting that what was later recognised as 'Orthodoxy' was just one of many groups which cannot be said to be "true representatives of Christianity." Ehrman's been peddling the notion for years that the Gnostic gospels and other apocrypha represent "authentic Christianity" - and that even these competing Christianities were little more than a warmed-over paganism. This is a useful fiction for the 9% of Americans who do not believe in God, or for the majority of potential Muslim converts seeking a presumably academic reason to abandon Christianity: Ehrman has uncovered the "conspiracy" at the heart of Christianity and has confirmed their biases and granted them the insider status they seek.

Mary

12-02-2008, 09:57 PM

One reason for this is the particular point stated & implicit through the whole of this book that the NT Scriptures actually are the representation of the Church's theology which had to be struggled through over time. This might sound so obvious at first as to wonder why it needs to be emphasized.

The point however is that we tend with both the Scriptures and the Fathers to read back anachronistically a ready made theology present and formed from the beginning. This raises the whole question of the relationship of truth to the Church & how this is attained over time through Her ongoing struggle.

Rightfully we get concerned over any presentation that separates theology from revelation. The historical perspective often does this. But in reaction I think we read back an assured and given theology which in fact doesn't reflect reality. In gaining confidence we lose something essential as to the nature of the truth of the Church. But in recognizing that the theology of the Church is gained over time nothing is lost and much is gained as long as see that revelation only occurs through struggle ie it is ascetic.

Anyhow, this particular book helped in this particular way. It's stood the 'time test' come upon over the years. Which is that every other study/academic commentary no matter what interesting ideas it presents is forgotten within a year or so.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr Raphael,

I don't understand what you've written. It sounds like your saying, the Church knows more now than it did in the beginning. And that our theology now, is better than that of the apostles.

Isn't that the protestant understanding? I had a teacher in bible school who expressed great surprise at the accuracy of the Apostle's creed! But how could they not know? They lived with Him for 3 years, and maybe more, if they grew up in the same neighborhood. How could we possible know Him more than they did? And what's the point of theology, if it doesn't help me know Him more or draw me closer to Him? I mean, I have a lot of information in my head, but it's all of no use, because it doesn't help me live the way I know I should. But they did! So, surely they knew something that I don't.

Please forgive me. I got confused. There should be a lock to prevent small minds from getting into threads such as this one, that they have no capacity for!

In Christ,
Mary.

Max Percy

13-02-2008, 04:29 AM

Dear Fr Raphael,

I don't understand what you've written. It sounds like your saying, the Church knows more now than it did in the beginning. And that our theology now, is better than that of the apostles.

Isn't that the protestant understanding? I had a teacher in bible school who expressed great surprise at the accuracy of the Apostle's creed! But how could they not know? They lived with Him for 3 years, and maybe more, if they grew up in the same neighborhood. How could we possible know Him more than they did? And what's the point of theology, if it doesn't help me know Him more or draw me closer to Him? I mean, I have a lot of information in my head, but it's all of no use, because it doesn't help me live the way I know I should. But they did! So, surely they knew something that I don't.

Please forgive me. I got confused. There should be a lock to prevent small minds from getting into threads such as this one, that they have no capacity for!

In Christ,
Mary.

I have found it helpful to consider these issues in the way suggested by Fr. Bernard Lonergan, S.J. He suggests that through time further questions arise within the Church that require an answer. These questions either could not or would not be likely to arise prior to the answers given to earlier questions. Allow me one small example: St. Maximus' rejection of Monothelitism presupposes Chalcedon and Chalcedon's formulation in response to the questions of that day. These are real developments in articulation of the faith. They also really helped the church. Another example may be the expression of the doctrine of the Trinity in the "extra biblical" language of "hypostasis".

Byron Jack Gaist

13-02-2008, 07:41 AM

Dear all,

Of course questions over the historicity of elements in scripture are essential; but an Orthodox understanding of 'history' is not identical to others.

That's an interesting point, Matthew. Can you say a little more on how the Orthodox understanding of history may impact on this kind of research?

Silouan wrote:
It just seems like poor scholasticism to me. Upon which R.R. Henry corrected the term as 'poor scholarship'. But in a sense, might not all this lower and higher criticism be seen as a historical continuation of medieval scholasticism?

Not that sholarship itself is un-Orthodox - on the contrary! But one of the points that I feel is coming across on this thread is that scholarship in an Orthodox context, beginning with the Fathers themselves (St Basil being an obvious example), was never separated from faith and praxis, never disputation for its own sake. Incidentally, I used to think the oldest university in the world was Islamic, but I came across this interesting info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Constantinople. I think R.R. Henry mentioned wikipedia isn't the best source of information (that's clear enough, but again one might use it discerningly - I would like to hear more from people on the dangers of the wiki however). Does anyone know more about the University of Constantinople?

As an aside, I really don't mean to cause offense to anybody, but Islam has been mentioned, and I confess, it tries my patience at times, thinking of itself as a 'perfected' religion; even the crescent moon was originally a Byzantine symbol, even the characteristic prostration everyone associates with Islamic prayer. As for sufism, well, there seems more than a little hesychasm in it, only Christ is missing. Please correct me if I'm wrong and showing my prejudice as a result of ignorance.

In Christ
Byron

Silouan Howard

13-02-2008, 02:44 PM

Dear all,
As for sufism, well, there seems more than a little hesychasm in it, only Christ is missing. Please correct me if I'm wrong and showing my prejudice as a result of ignorance.

Well, you will be glad to know that there was a sufi muslim retreat center in the area I live that is now a Greek Orthodox monastery in the lineage of Elder Joseph the Hesychast. :)

Secondly, forgive my grammar as I have to type quickly while I am here at work. I can type faster than I can think!

Through your prayers,
Silouan

Owen Jones

13-02-2008, 03:02 PM

I find one oddity in this thread. The basis of historical/critical method, or at least one basis, is the idea that the New Testament texts were written well after the events that are recounted and are therefore unreliable. One noted scholar therefore argues that we need to peal away the outer layers of the text, and what remains is the "kerygma." All else is, shall we say, propaganda. And in arguing that the texts did not become canonical until several centuries later, it sounds almost as if we are validating that point of view.

I don't think therefore that we should hinge everything on canonicity. Canonicity serves to protect hard-one truths and insights that have already been around for quite some time.

Plus, my sense is that more recent scholarship points to a much earlier dating of the New Testament than the earlier critical method people supposed.

But the real problem has to do with the meaning of words. What do we mean by historicity? No doubt there has always been an argument made in the Church that the events recounted are not made up, in the conventional sense, that they really happened. On the other hand, there is always a symbolic rendering of the historical event, otherwise it has no meaning, certainly no meaning that is of any use to us. The question is, does this work in both directions at once? Does the symbolic meaning that has already been acquired influence the telling of historical events? From a modernist, historical perspective, the answer is yes, which negates the validity of the symbolic meaning. But traditionally there is no problem with this at all. In fact, it is really foundational that the symbolic reality, the symbolic truth comes first. There is no problem seen in the symbolic truth dictating our telling of the historical event.

As a personal aside, I discovered Orthodoxy in a seminary library, specifically, The Life of Moses by St. Gregory of Nyssa. I found it quite liberating in that the two extremes of literal/historical fundamentalism on the one hand, and a kind of existential babble on the other, were rendered meaningless by St. Gregory's treatment of Moses' ascent up the mountain. Here was a "religion" that I had not been aware of before. How could I know who was telling me the truth? I knew there was something wrong with literalism. And I also knew there was something wrong with the kind of modernist, existentialist revisionism. But what was the alternative? To embrace fully the symbolic significance of, well, everything, is really the key to Orthodoxy. This does not make it less real, or less true, but just the opposite.

Nina

13-02-2008, 09:57 PM

Incidentally, I used to think the oldest university in the world was Islamic, but I came across this interesting info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Constantinople.
In Christ
Byron

I do not think the oldest university was in Constantinople. There were many other schools of thought before like in Sumeria, China, Athens, Babylon, etc.

Byron Jack Gaist

14-02-2008, 06:16 PM

Dear Nina,

Sure there were 'schools of thought', and even institutions of higher learning prior to the Univ. of Constantinople; it depends on your definition I guess:
The original Latin word "universitas", first used in time of renewed interest in Classical Greek and Roman tradition, tried to reflect this feature of the Academy of Plato (established 385 BC). The term "academia" is sometimes extended to a number of educational institutions of non-European antiquity, including China, India and Persia: academies such as Shang Hsiang, and later Taixue and Guozijian, succeeded by the medieval Academies of Classical Learning
Taxila[2] in Gandhara and the Buddhist Nalanda University[3] in Bihar (5th century BC)
The Sassanid Academy of Gundishapur was founded in the 5th century.

The University of Constantinople, founded as an institution of higher learning in 425 and reorganized as a corporation of students in 849 by the regent Bardas of emperor Michael III, is considered by some to be the earliest institution of higher learning with some of the characteristics we associate today with a university (research and teaching, auto-administration, academic independence, et cetera). If a university is defined as "an institution of higher learning" then it is preceded by several others, including the Academy that it was founded to compete with and eventually replaced. If the original meaning of the word is considered "a corporation of students" then this would be the first example of such an institution in Europe and hence the world.[

I suppose the question is academic really, if you'll pardon the pun. Are you a historian, or speaking from a particular perspective, Nina? What do you base your definition of 'university' on?

Byron Jack Gaist

14-02-2008, 06:23 PM

Dear Owen,

As a personal aside, I discovered Orthodoxy in a seminary library, specifically, The Life of Moses by St. Gregory of Nyssa. I found it quite liberating in that the two extremes of literal/historical fundamentalism on the one hand, and a kind of existential babble on the other, were rendered meaningless by St. Gregory's treatment of Moses' ascent up the mountain. Here was a "religion" that I had not been aware of before. How could I know who was telling me the truth? I knew there was something wrong with literalism. And I also knew there was something wrong with the kind of modernist, existentialist revisionism. But what was the alternative? To embrace fully the symbolic significance of, well, everything, is really the key to Orthodoxy. This does not make it less real, or less true, but just the opposite.

That's quite a touching description of your first encounter with Orthodoxy. Your viewpoints, as usual, are interesting and based on deep thought on the matter.

What is 'the symbolic significance of everything' in an Orthodox context? I think there are quite a few non-Orthodox candidates offering interpretations of symbolic significance: psychoanalysis, deconstructionism, semiotics, cultural studies and neo-Marxism, the list is pretty endless. Who says which symbolic significance is the correct one?

In Christ
Byron

Owen Jones

14-02-2008, 07:33 PM

Of course, the fact that Orthodoxy recognizes the symbolic is not in itself an apologetic for orthodoxy, nor Christianity at all for that matter. It's what the symbols represent that matters.

Nina

14-02-2008, 08:22 PM

Dear Nina,

Sure there were 'schools of thought', and even institutions of higher learning prior to the Univ. of Constantinople; it depends on your definition I guess:

I suppose the question is academic really, if you'll pardon the pun. Are you a historian, or speaking from a particular perspective, Nina? What do you base your definition of 'university' on?

I am not a historian, but what is the role of that, if we can read and have critical thinking? We are not saints (theologians) either but we are participating on monachos.

Why do not you provide the meaning of the word 'universitas' that you mention? Here it is since you mention definitions and Latin, and from the same page you have provided your quote:

The word university is derived from the Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) universitas magistrorum et scholarium, roughly meaning "community of teachers and scholars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia)".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#_note-0) Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University)

The term 'university' means 'community' since magistrorum means teachers and scholarium means scholars. Do not you think that those schools of thought all over the world were communities? That is what Latin is saying.

From the same wikipedia page (where you quote from also) we read:

The first European medieval university was the University of Constantinople (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Constantinople),

There are two adjectives before the term university here: European and medieval.

Kornelius

14-02-2008, 09:10 PM

I suppose the question is academic really, if you'll pardon the pun. Are you a historian, or speaking from a particular perspective, Nina? What do you base your definition of 'university' on?

There is an arrogance in academia that there was nothing academic prior to our known civilized world. This assumption can not be more wrong. The knowledge we have is simply a recycled knowledge of previous civilizations. All that we learn and discover has existed before; our inventions and discoveries are but reinventions, re-discoveries.

What supports such attitude is a subconscious indoctrination with Darwinism, i.e., the thesis that we evolve from primitive to civilized. Recent scientific research proves more and more the oppossite of such thesis.

For instance electric batteries have been found in ancient Egyptian tombs, and prehistoric animal bones have been discovered with bullets in them. The official version of the history is baloney, if you'll pardon the expression.

M.C. Steenberg

14-02-2008, 10:31 PM

Rather than see things degenerate into generalisms on learning, academic, etc., let us try to keep this thread focused properly on its topic of textual/historical criticism of sacred texts.

Nina

15-02-2008, 05:10 AM

Olga

15-02-2008, 05:23 AM

The Greek word for university is panepistemion, i.e. a place of learning of all disciplines. From pan (all-encompassing), and epistemi (a rigorous area of study, i.e. a discipline of learning).

Kosta

15-02-2008, 10:30 AM

The problem with the 'historical Jesus' is many groups have an ideological agenda. There conclusions are meant to draw controversy regardless of accuracy. For instance the 'Jesus Seminar' found in the verse of Mark 13.32, "But of that day and hour no man knows, not the angels which are in heaven nor the Son but the Father", an original saying of Jesus. Mark being the first written gospel shows Christ as having limited knowledge whereas the other gospels omit the phrase "nor the Son". Before this though the Jesus Seminar found the usage of "Son" by Christ for himself, was not an original saying of Jesus. They contradict themselves, attempting to show that Jesus did not view himself as a messiah or prophet. While the verse may prove their point that Christ was not omniscience they found themselves in a bind since the same verse refered to himself as Son which is viewed by the NT as a messianic heavenly title. Theres many of these self- contradictions by this group.

Likewise in books such as "Misquoting Jesus" the underlying motivation is to disprove the divinity of Christ. What you wont find in such a book is the earliest quote of John 1.18, "No man hath seen God at anytime, the only begotten God which is in the bosom of the Father He hath declared Him". All versions of the bible read "only-begotten Son" but not the 2nd and 3rd century fathers who quote from it.

They try to seize on the Trinity interpolation in the epistle 1Jn 5.7 as if it makes any difference and mmany manuscrpts leave out or atleast have a footnote telling us its only found in later manuscripts.

There are many good books on these subjects and i recommend Raymond E Brown and even John Meier

Rick H.

15-02-2008, 12:58 PM

Good work Kosta! Yes, "agenda"' is the word.

But, at the risk of being tarred and feathered by the hard-liners of orthodoxy, I am not ready to say that all of the 'onion peelers' have done (past tense) a disservice to the cause of Christ. I think we should allow some room to peel away a few layers at least, as some have done in years past.

In Christ,
Rick

Byron Jack Gaist

18-02-2008, 08:33 AM

Dear Kosta,

The problem with the 'historical Jesus' is many groups have an ideological agenda. There conclusions are meant to draw controversy regardless of accuracy. For instance the 'Jesus Seminar' found in the verse of Mark 13.32, "But of that day and hour no man knows, not the angels which are in heaven nor the Son but the Father", an original saying of Jesus. Mark being the first written gospel shows Christ as having limited knowledge whereas the other gospels omit the phrase "nor the Son". Before this though the Jesus Seminar found the usage of "Son" by Christ for himself, was not an original saying of Jesus. They contradict themselves, attempting to show that Jesus did not view himself as a messiah or prophet. While the verse may prove their point that Christ was not omniscience they found themselves in a bind since the same verse refered to himself as Son which is viewed by the NT as a messianic heavenly title. Theres many of these self- contradictions by this group.
Yes, this seems an important point to bear in mind. Research in itself is not necessarily harmful, provided its 'objectivity' is recognised as circumscribed. In this sense I would appreciate authors who are honest about their agendas, but I suspect those are few and far between. Thank you Kosta!

In Christ
Byron

John Litster

23-02-2008, 09:20 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-02-2008, 04:02 PM

Historical criticism is not a neutral approach. If taken in the usual sense it often ends up with the rejection of all or much that passes beyond 'normal credulity'. Thus all sorts of saints disappear from the Church Calendar since so little of the historical - where they were born, lived, date of martyrdom, etc- is known. Or because the version of the Life that we have is mostly composed from the miraculous.

On the other hand there is a type of re-compilation of these saint's lives that does occur over time. St Symeon the Translator's Lives of saints (the first compiled version that many of our versions still rely on) were actually put together in this way as well as the later St Dmitri of Rostov in Russian. This latter is the core version for the latest 12 volume Lives of Saints in English from Chrysostom Press.

In all of these compilations a critical process does enter in. Evident mistakes in the manuscript or oral tradition are corrected. New material is added. One sees this in the new version of the Lives of Saints from Simonos Petros on Mt Athos.

But still this is not critical in the sense of much of modern historical criticism. Perhaps some of the tools of the historian are used. But modern form criticism has been so far used to little good effect. Even where straight historical method has been used recently in studies involving saints I would say that the results are very questionable.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

23-02-2008, 06:34 PM

At one point, the Hittite civilization was considered to be a Biblical fiction, until it was discovered by archeologists! One cannot approach Scripture from the standpoint of critical doubt, any more than one can approach mathematics or physics from a standpoint of critical doubt. It doesn't work. The method is different, but one can be empirical in both science and theology, and should be, but with an openness that that is truth there. Regarding the Bible, one must approach it from the standpoint that everything that's there is there for a reason. Even, "do not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

Father David Moser

23-02-2008, 07:36 PM

In regards to this topic, I was wondering whether anyone has any thoughts on historical criticism of Saint's lives? In reading Orthodox works on the saints such as the Prologue and the Vita Patrum, I have found that practically all of them are written for the purpose of edification and inspiring devotion (a worthy enough goal in itself), but make no attempt to look at their material from a critical perspective.

The lives of the saints which are recorded as "hagiography" are indeed written not for "historical accuracy" but rather for instruction and edification. Often the hagiography is all that survives over time and the "historical details" are for the most part lost. What few details might survive present such an incomplete picture as to make it impossible to reconstruct an accurate "history" of saint.

One exception to the above that is available to us is the life of St John of Kronstadt. I would suggest starting with the hagiography - get to know the life of the saint as it is given to us by the Church for veneration and emulation. Read his writings, especially his diary published in English and Russian as "My Life in Christ" Once you have a good picture of St John as a saint then start to look at him as a historical figure. There is a biography written about him as an historical figure drawn from his personal journals and other similar documents which are still available due to his relatively recent life. This book is called "A Prodigal Saint" You can read both the hagiography and the historical biography then together and compare and contrast how he is portrayed.

I personally have had a great veneration for St John for many years. When I read the biography, however, it was challenging. It was difficult to see the great saint in the minutiae of "real life" and often the biography chose to emphasize not his spiritual stature, but his human failings. Had I not already nurtured a respect and veneration for the saint, I would not have been drawn to him at all by reading his biography - in fact I probably would have been put off.

Hagiography won't stand up to "historical criticism" simply because it was never meant to be an historical biography. The lives of the saints tell us of them as spiritual figures and not as historical figures. I don't mean to say that they are totally removed from the context of their times, but rather that the "dross" of distracting details has been removed so that we can see their true virtues set in the context of their own place and time.

To subject hagiography to historical criticism would serve only one purpose - to cloud the shining light of the saints by covering them again under the dust of history.

Fr David Moser

Alec Lowly

23-02-2008, 08:44 PM

The lives of the saints which are recorded as "hagiography" are indeed written not for "historical accuracy" but rather for instruction and edification. Often the hagiography is all that survives over time and the "historical details" are for the most part lost. What few details might survive present such an incomplete picture as to make it impossible to reconstruct an accurate "history" of saint.

One exception to the above that is available to us is the life of St John of Kronstadt. I would suggest starting with the hagiography - get to know the life of the saint as it is given to us by the Church for veneration and emulation. Read his writings, especially his diary published in English and Russian as "My Life in Christ" Once you have a good picture of St John as a saint then start to look at him as a historical figure. There is a biography written about him as an historical figure drawn from his personal journals and other similar documents which are still available due to his relatively recent life. This book is called "A Prodigal Saint" You can read both the hagiography and the historical biography then together and compare and contrast how he is portrayed.

I personally have had a great veneration for St John for many years. When I read the biography, however, it was challenging. It was difficult to see the great saint in the minutiae of "real life" and often the biography chose to emphasize not his spiritual stature, but his human failings. Had I not already nurtured a respect and veneration for the saint, I would not have been drawn to him at all by reading his biography - in fact I probably would have been put off.

Hagiography won't stand up to "historical criticism" simply because it was never meant to be an historical biography. The lives of the saints tell us of them as spiritual figures and not as historical figures. I don't mean to say that they are totally removed from the context of their times, but rather that the "dross" of distracting details has been removed so that we can see their true virtues set in the context of their own place and time.

To subject hagiography to historical criticism would serve only one purpose - to cloud the shining light of the saints by covering them again under the dust of history.

Fr David Moser

Father, it seems to me that you are coming close to saying that pious fables are preferable to the plain truth. I, too, have read "A Prodigal Saint," and it ~increased~ my devotion to St. John because I saw that he was a real human being, warts and all, and thus the rest of us, warts and all, may hope to attain to some small measure of the sanctity he did. I felt the same inspiration when I acquainted myself with the actual facts of the life of St. Maria (Skobtsova) of Paris. I feel tremendous ambivalence about the Prologue, as it's pretty obvious that many accounts to be found there are, well, literary creations. These do not inspire or edify me, not at all ...

Nina

24-02-2008, 06:11 AM

I guess purity is something innate, but easily lost.

Matthew Namee

25-02-2008, 03:16 AM

Byron Jack Gaist

25-02-2008, 07:21 AM

Father, it seems to me that you are coming close to saying that pious fables are preferable to the plain truth. I, too, have read "A Prodigal Saint," and it ~increased~ my devotion to St. John because I saw that he was a real human being, warts and all, and thus the rest of us, warts and all, may hope to attain to some small measure of the sanctity he did. I felt the same inspiration when I acquainted myself with the actual facts of the life of St. Maria (Skobtsova) of Paris. I feel tremendous ambivalence about the Prologue, as it's pretty obvious that many accounts to be found there are, well, literary creations. These do not inspire or edify me, not at all ...

Dear Alec,

I personally haven't read "A Prodigal Saint", but I also find that portraits of real human beings with faults are more credible, and can ultimately be more inspiring, than idealised accounts. It calls to question for me what a saint in fact, is in the first place. Is it someone who is always perfect? Someone who is never mistaken, cranky or plain selfish? Or is it someone who, despite their human failings, led a life of sacrifice and profound devotion to God? If they are beyond temptation, and have never had to overcome negative sides of their personality and behaviour (because they never had any), can they really be considered spiritual 'athletes' at all?

There is another aspect to this, however; I think it also true to say that, as the clouds of sinfulness in our soul lift through ascetic effort, we become more able to appreciate goodness (indeed, tolerate it, I would say, speaking for the way my sinful self experiences things) without the suspicion and critical attitudes harboured in our less enlightened states. Therefore what may appear to us to be an 'idealised' portrait of a saint, may in fact simply be an account we are currently unable to believe.

I would look for the 'real' person of the saint somewhere between these two extremes. By the way, was it Cromwell or Luther who said "paint me, warts and all?"...

In Christ
byron

John Litster

25-02-2008, 11:14 PM

I find the subject of historical investigation into the lives of the saints very interesting. I have done a bit of research into the life of St. Demetrios, and while I didn't confirm any specific details of his life, I found the experience to be a general confirmation of the truth of his story. I'll give an example. In most of the lives of St. Demetrios, it is said that he died in 306 on the orders of the Emperor Maximian. This was in the city of Thessaloniki. Immediately we have a problem: Maximian abdicated in 305, and when he did rule, it was in the west, not in Thessaloniki. One life I found even adjusted the date of St. Demetrios' martyrdom to 296, apparently to compensate for this. Well, it turns out that the infamous Emperor Galerius, the great persecutor of Christians, did rule from Thessaloniki and was certainly in power in 306. Furthermore, upon investigating his various secondary names, I found that he was also known as "Maximianus." He came down in history to us as "Galerius," but apparently the church writers used one of his alternate names in the hagiography. This is an example of what historical investigation can uncover.

Excellent point! One of the reasons that historical criticism leaves such a bad taste in the mouths of Orthodox is that so often it used by those with an agenda against what they are cricizing - something that shows quite strongly in their conclusions. When used objectively, criticism can uncover new facets and/or facts of the Saints' Lives, as with St. Demetrios. When it's not, well, we end up with such nonsense as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," claiming that the Jesus is the ancestor of all the crowned heads of Europe, Mary Magdalene was his wife, &c. Hagiography, whether from a historical perspective or no, is a fascinating study, and I'm glad to meet someone of similar interests.

Rostislav M-P

25-02-2008, 11:21 PM

The approach of positivism in ascertaining what is a "credible life" of a Saint is frought with impiety. I was once involved in translation work on a text published by an OCA monastery, where the chief translator felt it "legerdemain" and "inconsequential" to translate any miracles associated with a given saint as well as some of his spiritual writings and musings. He felt it might bias the work with "undo superstition." And there is a publishing house in Canada which has a much similar approach to hagiography. The essential of the Saint is that he/she is "in the world, yet not of it" and interceding for it, whose exploits bring him/her into closer union with God. Empirical sundriness and/or dispute of dates/times/places etc. isn't inspiring and, frankly, it's immature. It gives one the impression that one firstly does not believe in a given Holy Ones sanctity and secondly it bespeaks of a snarky notion of "I know more than the Church." Some noted thinkers have called this attitude "the arrogance of the moderns," "the hubris of our day," etc. I tend to concur. Fortunately, the Lives of Saints have not once dealt with this type of treatment, and they are still here while no one seems to remember either the work or names of their debunkers from centuries past. So it will be for the future. A good read of Dostoevsky clears up some things, and to quote him: "It is the height of inhumanity to profane what another considers holy."

Malleev-Pokrovsky

Tim Grass

25-02-2008, 11:38 PM

I find this last post bombastic and unhelpful. It's just a bunch of bias.... and closedmindedness to the idea that God can help people be critical in a good, holy way.

It's immature to say something's immature, just because you don't like it.

--tim

M.C. Steenberg

25-02-2008, 11:55 PM

Dear all,

I appreciate very much -- and on a personal note, agree with -- the comments of those above who write of the careful use of historical study of the saints. As with so many things, it is a balance and focus of approach that marks the good from the weak, or the bad. Mr John Litster's recent post seems particularly helpful: noting that one of the real problems with some of the 'critical study' of certain lives of the saints, etc., is that it is not truly critical in a real sense. Genuine critical engagement is borne of a desire to know the truth of a subject as much as one can, and an openness to receive that truth, wherever it may lead. The problem with many attempts to be 'critical' of the Church's hagiography is that it is not critical in this authentic way; rather, it comes with its own agenda and aims, to which it wishes to conform the stories. But, as John quite rightly says, 'when used objectively, criticism can uncover new facets and/or facts of the Saints' Lives' -- and this is very much the point.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Rostislav M-P

26-02-2008, 12:12 AM

John

26-02-2008, 01:10 AM

But the question that is begged in all modern criticism is precisely this: Do modern empirical and literary conventions in any way negate what the Church has taught about x saint and if they do, does that mean that veneration of given saint in the past was foolish and/or impiety. For instance, amongst the latins, St. George is no longer considered a Saint, but rather more of a legendary figure because his exploits are simply too "incredible." Or if, for instance, we were to examine the life of St. Nephon, Patriarch of Constantinople and find accounts of his dissolute life prior to his repentance with said repentance discounted as "unverifiable" are we then to disenroll him as a Saint?! All we would know through criticism would be his immoral life and the rest would be subject to questions and dubious sermonizings, because, after all, in the understanding of the moderns, homosexuality is not a "disease to be cured" and to imply thus is "unscientific" and "bigoted." So there can be no "repentance" and "kenosis" and "martyria" on these grounds. And so it goes.
Constantine Cavarnos once spoke of "unravelment" when he addressed Fr. Meyendorff's notion of "Tradition" and "traditions." He felt quite rightly that Orthodoxy is lived AS A WHOLE, a holistic ontology, and once we begin to pick and choose what is "important" and what "not," we end up as "editors" of a personalized credo which has alienated itself from Orthodoxy.

Malleev-Pokrovsky

I'm sad to see this kind of response finding its way onto the forum. We all normally behave better than this round here. Calling the RCC "Latins" is just name calling nowadays. When the Fathers used it, it described somthing accurate (the Latin-speaking church). Nowadays it doesn't, and use of it is just aimed at calling people names.

But the response is extremest in its real contents anyway. I don't mean "extremest" in a good sense, like "extremely traditional," because it isn't. It's extremest because it thinks everything always has to be taken to its extreme, so if you are critical at all, you have to go all the way and deny the truth of everything. Very unbalanced.

The other posters make really good points. Thanks for those.

John

Owen Jones

26-02-2008, 01:24 AM

Gee, I kind of enjoy reading RMM-P's posts. (Try saying his full name ten times fast!) I don't detect the same negatives some are seeing. I'm not up on recent "scholarship" on this subject, but I decry the minimalist approach to hagiography in principle. Now, what if someone comes along and says, well, Fr. Arseny never actually said he saw the light that we are told he saw in the souls of the other prisoners in the Gulag. That was just something that his expositor added for dramatic effect! What are we supposed to do with such information? Revelation is not really information and data in any case. It has to do with what moves us. Facts have no meaning.

Tim Grass

26-02-2008, 01:28 AM

Agreed, John! Thanks for that..... Owen, I agree with you too. But one doesn't have to choose between no critical engagement at all, and Rostislav's position. There are types of people who just don't like anything they call "scholarship" (with the quotes!).......... who force it to be minimalizing, faith-destroying, arrogant and false. Silliness.

--tim

Alec Lowly

26-02-2008, 01:30 AM

Alec Lowly

26-02-2008, 01:33 AM

I'm sad to see this kind of response finding its way onto the forum. We all normally behave better than this round here. Calling the RCC "Latins" is just name calling nowadays. When the Fathers used it, it described somthing accurate (the Latin-speaking church). Nowadays it doesn't, and use of it is just aimed at calling people names.

But the response is extremest in its real contents anyway. I don't mean "extremest" in a good sense, like "extremely traditional," because it isn't. It's extremest because it thinks everything always has to be taken to its extreme, so if you are critical at all, you have to go all the way and deny the truth of everything. Very unbalanced.

The other posters make really good points. Thanks for those.

John

John, it's easy to be an extremist when one is young, as Rostislav is. It takes age and experience to prove the Fathers right in their endorsement of holy moderation ...

Nina

26-02-2008, 03:16 AM

When it's not, well, we end up with such nonsense as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," claiming that the Jesus is the ancestor of all the crowned heads of Europe, Mary Magdalene was his wife, &c.

The people of such inventions are enemies of the Church and not saints. As we know the Hagiography has been often the work of Saints.

St. Anthony's for instance, St. Mary of Egypt and similar examples.

Owen, I agree with you.

Plus those who are into textual criticism of Hagiography maybe should also take into consideration those of us who actually have received and still receive inspiration from the lives of St. Demetrios, St. Catherine and so on. We do not need to double check our faith.

And age as I have seen (from lives of saints and older people who are in our midst) has nothing to do with being pure. Everything starts from the heart.

Nina

26-02-2008, 03:48 AM

Secular Logic will adulterate our spiritual sense

The Holy Fathers saw everything with the spiritual, the divine eye. Patristic texts were written in the spirit of God and it was in the spirit of God that the Holy Fathers gave their interpretations. Today this spirit is lacking and Patristic texts are hard to understand. People see everything with secular eyes and cannot see beyond that; they do not have the breadth of spirit that results from faith and love. Arsenios the Great used to leave palm leaves in the water, without changing it, and the water would have a strong stench. It is beyond us today to understand what sprang from that unclean water! "But I do not understand that," we hear some people say. They do not take the time to see if there is something there; perhaps something they overlooked. They simply reject it because they do not understand it.

When logic gets involved, we will have a hard time understanding the Gospel and the Holy Fathers. Our spiritual sense is so altered, that our logic will prove the Gospel and the works of the Holy Fathers useless, and we will say things like, "All these years of asceticism and fasting have not done us any good!" This is blasphemy. pp.250-251 With pain and love for Contemporary Man by Elder Paisios of Holy Mountain

Matthew Namee

26-02-2008, 07:37 AM

But the question that is begged in all modern criticism is precisely this: Do modern empirical and literary conventions in any way negate what the Church has taught about x saint and if they do, does that mean that veneration of given saint in the past was foolish and/or impiety.
This makes me think of a story - not sure of the source - of a very simple and unlearned monk. It was the Feast of the Ascension, and he had guests but nothing to serve them. He stuck his hand out the window and said, "O Saint Ascension, please give me something to eat!" or something to that effect. Instantly a fish jumped into his hand.

Obviously there is no "Saint Ascension;" nevertheless the legitimate piety of the monk was rewarded by God. So even if the saint you're praying to didn't actually exist (which, let's face it, is theoretically possible), it does not mean that your veneration of him is foolish or impious. Another story (again, can't remember the source) -- a group of nuns were expecting a priest to visit. A robber was climbing the wall of the monastery in an attempt to steal some goods, and he fell and hurt himself. The nuns rushed to him, and thinking that he was the priest, they dipped his hand into some water and rushed it to a sick nun, who was healed by the "holy water" despite the fact that the man who "blessed" it was not the priest at all but a common criminal! It was the faith of the nuns which made possible the miracle, in spite of the unholiness of the one doing the blessing.

The bottom line is this: historical criticism, at least from my perspective, is not an insult to pious veneration. It can, in many cases, confirm what the Church has taught about a saint. I have read marvelous defenses of Sts. Constantine and Justinian written from academic historical persepectives. My study of history has deepened my respect for saints.

As for the reference to Fr. John Meyendorff and "Tradition/traditions," I can't see how that's relevant to all this. But it should not be taken too literally, anyway -- it's just a thought device to help understand a difficult concept. Tradition operates on more of a continuum.

Byron Jack Gaist

26-02-2008, 07:49 AM

Dear Nina,

And age as I have seen (from lives of saints and older people who are in our midst) has nothing to do with being pure. Everything starts from the heart.
This seems to me an important observation. It's a mistake to confuse the external trappings of image ('wise old man / woman, white hair etc.') with the thing itself. Might one make a similar distinction between the external signs of piety, and the inner truth of faith? This is why I don't think historical or textual criticism of hagiography can diminish the greatness of a saint, nor - I must add - should it seek to do so. If a historian or 'critic' (in the Greek sense of that word, as someone who judges, appraises) is motivated negatively wrt the text and person he/she are studying, then they are unscientific, and it is likely that the product of their labour will belong in the trash can, together with the various 'holy boods/holy grails', gnostic gospels of Methusalah etc. If however, as Matthew suggests, scholarly attention is paid to the details of a saint's life in an honest search for verity (not the same thing as applying cold 'logic', which the Elder Paisios justly condemns), always keeping in mind that what may appear 'factual' to us today may well appear fictional to us tomorrow, then I think this can be another form of service to the Church, not a detraction from it. While I roundly condemn, therefore, those approaches to textual/historical criticism that are motivated by a hostile agenda, I nevertheless see a place for serious scholarship undertaken in the spirit suggested by your post from Elder Paisios.

What seems to me also undesirable, and here I'm expressing perhaps my personal preferences more than anything else, is a faith which is based on a pietistic unreality, or denial of anything which challenges it in any way. This seemes to me even un-Christian, since there is an arrogance in believing we have fully perceived everything there is to know, and therefore don't need to explore matters further. After all, even what we take for absolute givens within our own strictly Orthodox teachings, may have aspects to them which lead us gradually to realise our previous understanding of the faith was incomplete, if not entirely false. So, to be more concise, all I'm saying is that the Truth, and our current individual perception of the truth, are two different things - hence scholarship is a good thing, if undertaken in the right, Orthodox frame of mind.

Sorry about the wordiness!

Incidentally,
Arsenios the Great used to leave palm leaves in the water, without changing it, and the water would have a strong stench. It is beyond us today to understand what sprang from that unclean water! "But I do not understand that," we hear some people say. They do not take the time to see if there is something there; perhaps something they overlooked. They simply reject it because they do not understand it.
I have to confess I don't understand what St Arsenios meant by the unclean water! Can you offer a hint?

In Christ
Byron

Byron Jack Gaist

26-02-2008, 08:03 AM

Dear Matthew Namee,

It was the faith of the nuns which made possible the miracle, in spite of the unholiness of the one doing the blessing.

This is another important point, I feel. Yet it's also important to clarify that it's God who works miracles, not just the faith of persons alone. So often we hear people saying - a la George Michael, that "you gotta have faith"; while this is true, it seems important to also remember what it is we have faith in, and to trust that it's God the Holy Trinity who operates, not the miraculous power of faith alone! And yes, He could probably do it through a stone idol, leave alone the hand of a criminal!

In Christ
Byron

Rick H.

26-02-2008, 01:23 PM

Hey, what is this, "Pick on Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky Day?" ;) Well, I hope not.

However, as Matthew wrote:

As for the reference to Fr. John Meyendorff and "Tradition/traditions," I can't see how that's relevant to all this. But it should not be taken too literally, anyway -- it's just a thought device to help understand a difficult concept. Tradition operates on more of a continuum.

I think the reference to Meyendorff and T/t's is relevant in that it shows a mindset. Much like Owen picked off a certain tone on the Global Flood site that I posted, there is a mindset that is glaring in all of this. And, as I wrote early on in this thread about those who tear down but do not seek to build up, here in this reference above we see the opposite extreme as it relates to historical criticism. Even here in our consideration of this topic there is a continuum, and hopefully a middle ground.

In Christ,
Rick

Nina

26-02-2008, 01:25 PM

This makes me think of a story - not sure of the source - of a very simple and unlearned monk. It was the Feast of the Ascension, and he had guests but nothing to serve them. He stuck his hand out the window and said, "O Saint Ascension, please give me something to eat!" or something to that effect. Instantly a fish jumped into his hand.

Obviously there is no "Saint Ascension;" nevertheless the legitimate piety of the monk was rewarded by God. So even if the saint you're praying to didn't actually exist

Dear Matthew,

Not only this example shows the simplicity and the pure heart (and its use) of this monk, but at the same time reflects a way of people in some traditionally Orthodox areas, who refer to the Holy Feasts of the Lord as Saints. For instance we have Saint Sotirios (Metamorphosis of the Lord), Saint Euangelismos (Annunciation), Saint Stauros (Holy Cross) and so on. Many older people (my grandparents also) referred to the Holy Feasts of the Lord that way. And yes there is truth to it since Holy Spirit was behind all these Miracles and Mysteries. These kind of people were immersed and seeped in Orthodoxy. There is nothing intricate about it.

This past December I was told by people who are RC (family of my fiance) that 'now we are progressing so much and scientists have found out that Moses actually did not divide any sea for the Israelites to pass through; the scientists have found out that the sea was so shallow -just 10 cm- and that the Israelites could pass through easily'. I smiled and did not peep (although the question in my mind for them would have been in regards to the fate of the Egyptians and the Pharaoh following the Israelites) and kept drinking my Christmas tea. It was the night before Christmas. What could I have said even if I spoke? We were approaching Christmas, Incarnation of our Lord. One of the greatest Mysteries of our Faith. I just wondered if next year -if our criticism is as speedy as the light- we will meet just for tea, meal and exchange of gifts and revise our belief that Christ was incarnated. Why shouldn't we? After all a Child being born of a Virgin it is too big of a Mystery for our brains.

Has anyone here read the story of the Saint who was pondering the unfathomable? And how a little child appeared by the ocean side opening a little hole? And when the Saint asked the child about his purpose for digging that hole, the child told the Saint that he was trying to fit the ocean into that hole? And after saying these words the child disappeared (since he was an angel)? And the Saint learned a great lesson which he recorded and shared with us? Does anyone remember this?

P.S Dear Byron, sorry I can't respond to you consecutively -I must rush now- however God willing I will reply to you later because there is something else beautiful Geronda Paisios says also. By the way, St. Arsenios the Great came from a very affluent family and was trying to recompense for the years of luxury he spent while in the world. No wonder we call him the Great!

Nina

26-02-2008, 03:44 PM

Dear Matthew,

Not only this example shows the simplicity and the pure heart (and its use) of this monk, but at the same time reflects a way of people in some traditionally Orthodox areas, who refer to the Holy Feasts of the Lord as Saints. For instance we have Saint Sotirios (Metamorphosis of the Lord), Saint Euangelismos (Annunciation), Saint Stauros (Holy Cross) and so on. Many older people (my grandparents also) referred to the Holy Feasts of the Lord that way. And yes there is truth to it since Holy Spirit was behind all these Miracles and Mysteries. These kind of people were immersed and seeped in Orthodoxy. There is nothing intricate about it.

Replying to Rick about foreign languages on the thread of the American Orthodoxy II, I just remembered that a further explanation is needed here about how Holy Spirit is perceived as the Aghios behind the expression Saint Ascension that Matthew mentioned:

In Greek, for instance, the word Aghio (Holy, Saint) is used when speaking about Holy Spirit, and a Saint. Aghio Pnevma and Aghios Antonios. Therefore when it is translated it is natural that in English it should be respectively: Holy Spirit and Saint Antonios. 'Holy' is used to in English when referring to a saint/person as well, however not in relation to what Matthew mentioned in the story. Therefore that monk is not so unlearned after all even in secular terms.

I am not sure if I made this understandable enough since I lack knowledge and eloquence; and in addition these are things that are natural to me and I never had to think about them. Therefore all the scholars here are welcomed to present something more scholarly on the matter.

Matthew Namee

26-02-2008, 07:08 PM

I wish I had the actual text of the story about "Saint Ascension," because as I recall it clearly demonstrated that the monk really thought that there was a holy man named "Ascension." But anyway, my point is simply that even if you prayed to a saint and in reality there was no such saint, God will certainly recognize the sincerity of your faith.

This is another important point, I feel. Yet it's also important to clarify that it's God who works miracles, not just the faith of persons alone. So often we hear people saying - a la George Michael, that "you gotta have faith"; while this is true, it seems important to also remember what it is we have faith in, and to trust that it's God the Holy Trinity who operates, not the miraculous power of faith alone! And yes, He could probably do it through a stone idol, leave alone the hand of a criminal!
I wasn't trying to say that "faith" in general is good, regardless of the object of that faith. But faith in Christ can and is beneficial, obviously: As Christ said to the woman with the issue of blood, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace" (Luke 8:48). And again to the blind man, ""Go; your faith has made you well" (Mark 10:52). And so forth.

John Litster

27-02-2008, 08:31 AM

The story of "St. Ascension" puts me in mind of a similar story, that of the Uncondemning Monk, who is commemorated in the Prologue on (I believe) March 30. In a certain monastery there lived a monk who never exhibited much in the way of sanctity - he was perpetually late for services, was lazy, and overindulgent - but when he died the monks saw his soul being carried up to heaven by angels. The reason for this, an angel told them, was that despite his shortcomings the monk had never judged another person, and as a result had proven himself worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The story, although probably not historical, is a beautiful parable on the virtue of humility, composed perhaps by some abbot for the edification of his monks. However, for the critically minded Orthodox Christian, whether or not the incident actually happened should matter no more than the fact that Christ's parables were fables in themselves. My sole, admittedly petty, objection is that the story is included in a work intended to document the lives of historical people, and might be best suited to an Orthodox "Book of Virtues," but simply recognizing something for what it is - a morality tale - hardly amounts to what Mr. Maleev-Pokrovsky calls "profaning what others consider holy."

Nina

05-03-2008, 08:55 PM

In the West, on the other hand, whether for better or for worse there has been an abundance of critical examination shed upon the Lives of the saints, but to such a degree that a lot of saints who are quite beloved in the East - including St. Eustace, St. Catherine, St. Barbara, St. Marina, and countless others - have been rejected as unhistorical. While we should certainly not take quite such a hard line as this, I do believe that among Orthodox there is a good deal of reluctance to shed criticism on what is considered (and in most cases quite wrongly, I would argue), to be unerrant "Holy Tradition." There is also a prevailing attitude that questioning the Saints' Lives constitutes "cynicism," "Western rationalism," or the likes thereof.

I look forward to hearing your comments.

The Protestants and the Catholics have exerted a great deal of influence. Catholicism is now full of the atheistic spirit! There are some among them who are trying to cut down the Saints. "Saint Catherine," they claim, "was not really that great; her father was only a small and unimportant king. Saint Nicholas was not that important either. Saint George was really a myth. The Archangel Michael did not exist; he was a metaphor for the presence of God. And so was the Archangel Gabriel." Pretty soon they will be claiming that, "Christ is not God, He was only a great teacher." Then they will go even further and claim that, "God is only a force." In the end, they will claim that, "God is nature"! There are those among our own people who will go for this nonsense, even though there is so much tangible evidence, so many Prophets and prophecies, and so many living miracles. pp.324-325 by Elder Paisios of Mount Athos in With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man

M.C. Steenberg

05-03-2008, 10:17 PM

Matthew Namee

05-03-2008, 11:18 PM

It is certainly the case that Elder Paisios' comment speaks to the misuse of critical engagement.

Not, however, to the question of right engagement. Lest it be taken to be a kind of blanket statement on matters, which he did not intend it to be
I agree. The same method which can be used to tear down can also be used to build up. I would add the following basic principles:

1) Lack of evidence for a saint is not itself evidence against a saint.
2) The Church has nothing to fear from truth. Now, if someone is, in the name of "truth," manipulating historical interpretation or jumping to unreasonable conclusions and trying to lead people away from the Church, well, that's not actually a search for truth; it's merely an attempt to discredit. But research, historical inquiry -- these things are of neutral value in and of themselves, and much good can come of them if they are used with care.

John Litster

07-03-2008, 03:21 AM

Once again, I agree with both principles. I might add that one advantage we as Orthodox have in critiqueing the Saints' lives is that we are not constrained to seek rational explanations for each and every miraculous incident described. An Orthodox nun I know who travelled through Greece encountered literally dozens of first-hand accounts of the same nature as those which appear in hagiography - miraculous healings, visions, even a revelation concerning a previously unknown saint (St. Ephraim the New) in the southern Greek town of Nea Makri.

But caution must always be used, particularly in saint's lives which were written centuries (up to 400 or 500 years) after their deaths. Though oral tradition can and often does preserve much valuable material concerning these figures, it also results in mere anecdotes being exaggerated into miracles, folkloric elements introduced, and a general accretion of such material obscuring the actual character.

An illustration of this point are the Lives of some of the early Western saints, where an incident as simple as a saint (in this case, St. Winwaloe of Landevennec [6th century]) rescuing his sister from a goose which tried to peck out her eyes, was transformed into the goose actually swallowing the eyeball and the saint retrieving it and replacing it back in the little girl's socket!

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-03-2008, 04:36 PM

I think the above comments are very important so that we do not unintentionally- through respect for the printed document- end up rejecting the Patristic approach.

For example even with Scripture, the evidence is quite clear that the Fathers did question the authority & source of many texts that claimed apostolic authority. Some ended up being rejected from the canon of Scripture, others were given a secondary authority, and others were included in the canon of Scripture. And Scripture was obviously of greater authority than the tradition of the lives of saints.

Until recently most lives of saints reflected oral tradition. Which did not mean they had less authority than now -on the contrary. But it would have meant that they had a different kind of authority within the Church than in more modern times when these are committed to writing.

Once committed to writing most anything tends to gain greater authority just by the fact of the permanence of the printed word. So much the more in our modern world where the printed word due to technical factors is much more permanent than the hand written manuscript.

But this is as much as or more even a psychological factor than a spiritual/ecclesiological one. Really there is no proper reason why the permanence of the printed word should have this authority in our minds over the fluidity of the oral tradition. Mostly I would say it even rests on unquestioned assumptions & an inner disposition not related to the Church. After all, in previous times the line between written and oral must have been very fluid indeed and thus the understanding of what the 'authoritative tradition' was.

In much of this I think there is in our time an unrecognized psychological factor at work that is connected to our desire for stability through certainty. Our modern world gives us much more opportunity for this although it is largely illusory since the deluge of printed words flows by and disappears faster than the blink of an eye. But although we still seek this kind of certainty through the printed word I do not think it matches up with the Patristic understanding of authority or truth.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Nina

07-03-2008, 04:47 PM

But although we still seek this kind of certainty through the printed word I do not think it matches up with the Patristic understanding of authority or truth.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

I like very much what you say Father and especially this last sentence. I think faith and trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit plays a great role. I have come across some questions lately by certain atheists in regards to Christ, Scripture etc. I am not willing to reproduce them here because I think those cause more harm than good (by helping to make a point). However during those moments I understood the importance of faith and trust in the guidance of the Church by the Holy Spirit.

John Litster

07-03-2008, 09:58 PM

Until recently most lives of saints reflected oral tradition. Which did not mean they had less authority than now -on the contrary. But it would have meant that they had a different kind of authority within the Church than in more modern times when these are committed to writing.

Once committed to writing most anything tends to gain greater authority just by the fact of the permanence of the printed word. So much the more in our modern world where the printed word due to technical factors is much more permanent than the hand written manuscript.

M.C. Steenberg

08-03-2008, 03:02 PM

Dear all,

Fr Raphael's post above (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=61001&postcount=68) is one of the best I've read in some time, and addresses very well a tendency in much commentary to assume that any critical engagement with a text is somehow impious. Such has never been the mindset of the Church, as reflected in the writings of the fathers themselves, which are oftentimes intently critical, scholarly, focused, informed. Fr Raphael raises this with the example of patristic reflection on the authority of texts to be included in the New Testament library:

For example even with Scripture, the evidence is quite clear that the Fathers did question the authority & source of many texts that claimed apostolic authority. Some ended up being rejected from the canon of Scripture, others were given a secondary authority, and others were included in the canon of Scripture. And Scripture was obviously of greater authority than the tradition of the lives of saints.

Indeed. They also questioned the textual contents of the individual books themselves, looking at variant manuscripts of books, identifying more authentic texts, etc. They also critically engaged with the contents of the texts: much patristic commentary (especially of the 4th-6th centuries) is deeply engaged with exploring the meaning of scriptural readings, looking at various ways of interpreting symbolic meanings of passages in the scriptures; critically engaging with the interpretations of other fathers (e.g. Cyril of Alexandria's engagement with Athanasius' writings, or Basil of Caesarea's engagement with the writings of Nicaea).

Fr Raphael's strongest point, for me, comes here:

But this is as much as or more even a psychological factor than a spiritual/ecclesiological one. Really there is no proper reason why the permanence of the printed word should have this authority in our minds over the fluidity of the oral tradition. Mostly I would say it even rests on unquestioned assumptions & an inner disposition not related to the Church. After all, in previous times the line between written and oral must have been very fluid indeed and thus the understanding of what the 'authoritative tradition' was.

In much of this I think there is in our time an unrecognized psychological factor at work that is connected to our desire for stability through certainty. Our modern world gives us much more opportunity for this although it is largely illusory since the deluge of printed words flows by and disappears faster than the blink of an eye. But although we still seek this kind of certainty through the printed word I do not think it matches up with the Patristic understanding of authority or truth.It is a constant tendency to seek 'stability through certainty', as you've put it, with 'certainty' interpreted more and more in the modern world in a static, lifeless way. Certainty far too often equates to: 'these are the letters on the page, that's it'. And since this lifeless form of 'certainty' comes to dominate senses of stability and piety, to engage in any manner other than completely passively with the letters on the page, comes to be seen as impious. But this has never been the patristic mindset towards its own heritage.

I'm extremely grateful for your post.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Owen Jones

08-03-2008, 05:12 PM

Same here. So what is revelation, really? And how do we discern whether something is of God or not?

Nina

08-03-2008, 10:18 PM

First, I think there is a mistake with post # 70 of this thread. All the words of that post are those of Father Raphael. Maybe there was a mistake and John deleted his own words before submitting the post?

Second, I have a question since Fathers and these words

including St. Eustace, St. Catherine, St. Barbara, St. Marina, and countless others - have been rejected as unhistorical. were mentioned here:

If it is true that these saints are unhistorical and their lives are not recorded and so on, and since most of Fathers were priests/bishops/Archbishops/Patriarchs, were Fathers stupid and unenlightened for commemorating and celebrating the feast-days of the unhistorical/fictitious saints?

John Litster

13-03-2008, 01:03 AM

By no means is written traditional more "truthful" or reliable than orally transmitted tradition. Both, alas, are quite prone to being reworked or exagerrated, something which shows quite noticeably when early accounts are compared to later versions.

However, I would make the point that the Church, as far back as one would care to go, has had a tradition of collecting Saints' lives and committing them to writing. A great many early (sometimes even contemporary) Lives and Martyrologies attest to the energy and interest of the early Church hagiographers in preserving the memory of these holy men and women. Except perhaps in remote areas far from the Roman influence, oral tradition invariably served as the source material for the written Lives, rather than the substitute. What makes written tradition (and, I must emphasize, early and consistent written tradition) more reliable, however, is that it shows that these people were historical persons, recognized as saints by the Church from an early period. When looked at from this perspective, the "psychological" element hardly even enters the equation.

Thus, the inherent problem with such saints as Catherine and Eustace is that their names appear in no early writings. St. Catherine, for instance, who was traditionally martyred in Alexandria in the 4th century, is not heard of until the 9th century at Mount Sinai. If we are to accept the extraordinary claims made in her legend, that she was the daughter of the governor of Alexandria himself, converted the wife of the Emporer Maxentius, and was martyred under remarkable circumstances (the wheel supposedly shattering when the executioners placed her on it), then it is inexplicable that no mention of it occurs anywhere in the early Christian records of Alexandria - one of the foremost centers of learning in the Western world.

Olga

13-03-2008, 07:25 AM

Thus, the inherent problem with such saints as Catherine and Eustace is that their names appear in no early writings. St. Catherine, for instance, who was traditionally martyred in Alexandria in the 4th century, is not heard of until the 9th century at Mount Sinai.

Not quite, John. The monastery at Mt Sinai dates from the 6th, not the 9th century. It was built during the reign of Emperor Justinian the Great. Part of the treasures preserved there is a large array of icons, including some of the oldest surviving examples, many dating to the 6th century. A major reason for the survival of the icons is that this monastery somehow escaped the fury of the two iconoclastic periods of the eighth and ninth centuries.

There is a tradition that the relics of St Catherine were discovered in the area at the turn of the ninth century, perhaps this is the source of your comment.

Andreas Moran

13-03-2008, 02:51 PM

I might add that one advantage we as Orthodox have in critiqueing the Saints' lives is that we are not constrained to seek rational explanations for each and every miraculous incident described. An Orthodox nun I know who travelled through Greece encountered literally dozens of first-hand accounts of the same nature as those which appear in hagiography - miraculous healings, visions, even a revelation concerning a previously unknown saint (St. Ephraim the New) in the southern Greek town of Nea Makri.

I have just been browsing the last page's posts here. There must be many accounts known only locally of saints and miracles. About 12 years ago, I spent two weeks with Bishop Eireniaos in a monastery called Taxiarchis some way inland from Aigio on the gulf of Corinth. The monastery was founded in the early 15th cent. by Saint Leontius, who was related to the imperial family. His wife founded a convent which she established on the other side of the valley. Not long before I arrived, the Bishop had a visitation in the night from a young man called Hilarion who had been a monk at the monastery when the Turks finally came there in 1523 (I think - I ought to check my notes of my visit). Hilarion described to the Bishop how the Turks came and demanded from him, as steward, the keys to the store rooms and treasury. When he refused, the Turks cut him down with their swords, attacking his middle and legs. He went on to say that his relics had been collected after the Turks left and were hidden behind the stone altar in a cave chapel in the hillside behind the monastery. The next day after my arrival, the Bishop, a novice called Costas (now Archimandrite Arsenius) and I went up to this chapel. It was a place where the Bishop was planning to spend time in retreat and some work had been done on making it basically habitable. At the back of this cave, there was indeed a chapel and a stone ledge at the back wall had been carved out to make an altar. With tools, Costas found that the 'stone' wall had in fact been blocked up with stone and plastered over many centuries before and had been undisturbed because it looked like stone. Costas broke through and made an opening. He reached inside and, true enough, there were a number of bones: a skull, a pelvis, and one thigh bone. We collected these and put them in a bucket (not very ceremonious but all we had!) and took them back to the monastery. The Bishop washed the bones in wine and laid them out on a cloth. On the pelvis and thigh bone were cut marks consistent with a sword having been used. The fragrance from the relics was powerful and we prayed before them that night. Next day, the Bishop prepared the relics properly and we found containers for them. The Bishop told me to draw and paint an icon of Hilarion. 'I don't know what he looks like', I said. 'He's a young man of 24, thin and with a short beard', replied the Bishop. Well, I did what I could with prayer and made a drawing and showed it to the Bishop. 'Yes', cried the Bishop, 'that's him! You must paint an icon.' Eventually, I did. Now, of course, we called him Saint Hilarion even though no one had ever heard of him and he had obviously not been canonised. I doubt even now anyone knows of St Hilarion apart from the Bishop, the monks of that monastery (who are largely now dispersed) and anyone the Bishop has told. But there is a little oral, local tradition, and none the worse for not being in print. Knowledge of the lives of Saints Raphael, Nikolaos and Irene in Mytelene, and St Ephraim of Nea Makri started out in similar ways.

Owen Jones

13-03-2008, 03:15 PM

Great lesson! Thanks!

John Litster

14-03-2008, 03:03 AM

An amazing story, and very reminiscent of the miraculous uncovery of the relics of St. Ephraim. Thanks for sharing it with us! My personal theory is that St. Catherine was perhaps originally one of these saints, a little-known martyr or desert-dweller whose whose relics were revealed at Sinai through some revelation.

Thanks for the clarification on St. Catherine's monastery. However, I did some research and it seems that it was originally dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary prior the discovery of St. Catherine's relics. You're right, though - I should have mentioned that it was founded in the 6th century, as the reference to the 9th century is slightly ambiguous.

Matthew Namee

14-03-2008, 06:43 AM

I consulted the recent (and excellent) book Holy Image, Hallowed Ground: Icons from Sinai (Getty), and it says that Christian monastics lived at Sinai from as early as the second century. The first known life of St. Catherine was written in the 960s by Simeon Metaphrastes, and the earliest evidence of her veneration on Sinai is from the eleventh or twelfth centuries. The earliest icons of her date from this period. So, in terms of surviving, known historical evidence, there is nothing earlier than the tenth century.

This is not to say that her story is false. I think it would be good (and fun) to look into the various details of her life and determine their plausibility. It's possible that one or more elements of her story were added later (say, the wheel), but the substance of the story is true. Was that particular emperor (Maximian, right? -- the one who abdicated in 305 with Diocletian?) known to have ever visited Alexandria? Could we have the wrong emperor? The wrong Alexandria (there were many)? There are many ways to examine this story, and it would be foolish to just throw it out because the earliest account is from the tenth century and the story sounds incredible.

Nina

14-03-2008, 04:55 PM

I wonder, I wonder...

Can't the Saints themselves through the permission of God, appear for all these centuries and tell us that we have got their lives' stories wrong? Do not the saints love the truth and even died for truth?

For instance, the saint most mentioned recently in this thread is Saint Catherine, about whom I was reading this recently:

"Is it true that the saints come to your spring?"

They serve here," she answered. "They know that I grieve when I am deprived of church services, and so they come to serve."
"And who was the woman who walked along the stream?" I asked her again.

"Great Martyr Catherine. They were all young and beautiful there, and they all walked along the stream." (p.152) Beloved Sufferer: The Life and Mystical Revelations of a Russian Eldress Schemanun Macaria by Gennady Durasov

The person who saw St. Catherine is Schemanun Macaria. She had many saints visiting her and of course Panagia herself visited her many times. They told and revealed to her many things. Saints were coming to her like good friends visit each other. And of course there are many Orthodox who had such heavenly visitors throughout the centuries. We know many icons, relics, stories of saints were revealed to holy people by God through visions, dreams and so on. Portaitisa icon even left from the place where it was placed first, so as to be in accordance with God's Will. I think that He has directed and directs His Church.

And if St. Catherine would appear and serve to the stream of Schemanun Macaria, she would have two minutes to say: "There are so many incorrect things about me, and the icon and the wheel. Please correct them so." After all we know many saints who have appeared and revealed many things - I never heard though a revelation to have a life of a saint corrected.

Matthew Namee

14-03-2008, 06:51 PM

Can't the Saints themselves through the permission of God, appear for all these centuries and tell us that we have got their lives' stories wrong? Do not the saints love the truth and even died for truth
I don't know about this... Sure, the saints love the truth, but I don't think St. Catherine's wheel is a particularly significant "truth." I would think that a saint would be more likely to correct someone who misunderstood the reality of the incarnation or something like that.

Plus, there are different layers to the concept of "truth." Read, for instance, St. Dimitri of Rostov's lives of the saints. The basic stories are there, but there are also all kinds of additional dialogue. For example, as I recall he tells the story of Zacharias (the father of St. John the Baptist) and the Archangel Gabriel, but the discussion between the two is far more detailed than the biblical text. Are we to believe that St. Dimitri received some kind of very specific vision of what took place? Or is it possible that he employed artistic license while remaining true to the substance of the story and the theological teachings of the Church? St. Dimitri himself says in his introduction, "May I never tell a lie about a saint" (or something like that), and I am by no means accusing him of lying. But as Fr. David indicated earlier, the lives of the saints are not chiefly intended to be historical records. It's not to say that they're untrue.

When I talk about historical investigation into the lives of the saints, I am not referring to "debunking" or otherwise attacking the integrity of the hagiography. But hagiography is a particular art form. It is iconography in words. Just as iconography is not intended to strictly correspond to literal reality (an icon won't match a saint's photo), so too hagiography is not intended to be an exact account of what literally happened. It's based on the truth, just as the icon is, but it is intended to convey a reality which may transcend the specific historical events. There is a place for history just as there is a place for photography; we should not confuse hagiography for history.

Andreas Moran

16-03-2008, 02:17 AM

St Hilarion.

There is a gloss I think I can add to this story. Whilst at Taxiarchis monastery, Bishop Eirenaios asked me to paint an icon of St Leontius. We found a small piece of wood, and an old box of oil paints in a cupboard and a very stubbly paint brush. I wasn't hopeful of a good result from these materials but I had a go. Late one evening, I was painting at the desk in my cell. I was trying to paint the eyes on the icon but the brush was not fine enough. I thought to myself that if I had a needle, I could scrape the paint and improve the eyes. I put my jacket on the chair back and went to bed. The next morning, I went to the desk and, balanced on the right shoulder of my jacket was shiny new needle with a length of black cotton threaded through its eye. You can imagine my amazement. I used the needle on the icon and improved the eyes. Like a fool, I didn't keep the needle but left it there.

Byron Jack Gaist

17-03-2008, 08:36 AM

Dear Matthew Namee

When I talk about historical investigation into the lives of the saints, I am not referring to "debunking" or otherwise attacking the integrity of the hagiography. But hagiography is a particular art form. It is iconography in words. Just as iconography is not intended to strictly correspond to literal reality (an icon won't match a saint's photo), so too hagiography is not intended to be an exact account of what literally happened. It's based on the truth, just as the icon is, but it is intended to convey a reality which may transcend the specific historical events. There is a place for history just as there is a place for photography; we should not confuse hagiography for history.
This short paragraph really illuminates for me some of the issues being discussed here; thank you for putting it so clearly! I suppose that it all has to do with our concepts about truth. I'm not a relativist personally, and I don't believe that, ultimately, there are many truths (or, more correctly, I feel that the 'many' truths we do observe around us, must at some profound level resolve into just one absolute Truth); however, I do feel that The Truth (what it is, Who it is) is always much bigger than our limited capacity to imagine Him / it. Therefore attempts to pin down and isolate that truth according to our own definition (if not according to our own image) seem unecessarily constricting, and this is probably what much historical / textual criticism on the one hand, as well as much of the more pietistic way of understanding things on the other, can do. Your equation of hagiography with iconography therefore seems to me to shine a bright light on what really matters. Interestingly, your comparison of history to photography also 'rings bells', since I recently realised more concretely than ever before, just how much a photograph, despite being an 'objective' depiction, is itself in fact a story - perhaps even never quite so fictitious, as when it is trying its hardest to be 'true'.

In Christ
Byron

Matthew Namee

17-03-2008, 03:46 PM

Perhaps it would have been better for me to compare history to a portrait rather than a photo. The work of history is necessarily interpretive. No historian is capable of producing truly "objective" history. Yet the good historian, like the good portrait-painter, seeks to accurately depict his subject in a literal manner. The hagiographer, like the iconographer, seeks to accurately depict his subject in a spiritual manner. So we see St. Paul in icons of, say, Pentecost, long before he was a Christian. The iconographer knows that St. Paul was not literally there, but with spiritual eyes, he can discern with hindsight that St. Paul belongs there. Or what about icons of the Dormition -- St. Dionysius the Areopagite is depicted as a Byzantine-era bishop, a clear reference to Pseudo-Dionysius. On Friday at the Akathist service, we heard an extended interchange between the Theotokos and the Archangel Gabriel, yet can anyone doubt that the composer of the Akathist took artistic license when re-creating that interchange? It is far fuller than the Biblical account, and it was doubtless written hundreds of years later, but that does not mean that the composer is a liar or a deceiver.

Andreas Moran, your story is remarkable and inspiring. I hope that you will write a full account of the discovery of St. Hilarion's relics and publish it somewhere for all Orthodox to read. I would also love to see a copy of the icon you wrote.

Nina

17-03-2008, 04:52 PM

On Friday at the Akathist service, we heard an extended interchange between the Theotokos and the Archangel Gabriel, yet can anyone doubt that the composer of the Akathist took artistic license when re-creating that interchange? It is far fuller than the Biblical account, and it was doubtless written hundreds of years later, but that does not mean that the composer is a liar or a deceiver.

This is Liturgics and not Agiography. The Akathist is also called Salutations to the Virgin Mary. It is the Church Saluting the Theotokos. Therefore the Church inscribed truths that we know from Scripture and Tradition about Panagia. It is the Church's voice, heart and soul Saluting the Theotokos. What Panagia is and what happened through her for our salvation is not learned only during the passage of Annunciation in the NT. Many things in our Faith are based on the Scripture, Tradition and Patristic thought.

Matthew Namee

17-03-2008, 05:29 PM

This is Liturgics and not Agiography. The Akathist is also called Salutations to the Virgin Mary. It is the Church Saluting the Theotokos. Therefore the Church inscribed truths that we know from Scripture and Tradition about Panagia. It is the Church's voice, heart and soul Saluting the Theotokos. What Panagia is and what happened through her for our salvation is not learned only during the passage of Annunciation in the NT. Many things in our Faith are based on the Scripture, Tradition and Patristic thought.
Right, the Church is praising the Theotokos, but it's doing this by putting words into the mouth of the Archangel. Which is perfectly appropriate. All I'm saying is that it isn't meant to be "historical." No one (I don't think) is saying that the Archangel literally said on the day of the Annunciation all of the words ascribed to him in the Akathist. I see that St. Romanos composed the Akathist in the mid-6th century. He writes that "he stood crying to Her such things as these" and "he spake to Her in fear, only crying aloud thus." St. Elizabeth "cried to the Theotokos..." Likewise the shepherds and the wise men. St. Romanos has placed words into their mouths. He is not writing as an historian, recording what actually was said; he is writing as an hymnographer, painting a portrait in words of a spiritual reality. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. In pointing this out, I am merely attempting to make a distinction between hagiography/hymnography and history. The two categories are qualitatively different. Both have their place in the Church. We would not hang a photo of a saint on an iconostasis; we would rightfully use an icon. We would not read a biography aloud in the Church; we would read hagiography. Yet how many of us cherish the opportunity to look at not only an icon but also a photo of a modern saint such as St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco?

Nina

17-03-2008, 05:45 PM

Matthew, we know from the Tradition that the Archangel Gabriel was taking care of Panagia throughout her life and while she was in the Holy of Holies. It is indeed a mystery for us on what it was said. However we must not think that only what is included in the NT is what happened and that's the only historical truth. For instance because there is reticence, or silence in the NT for part of Christ's life it does not mean that He did not grow up like humans do. And we must not forget that St. Romanos was guided by the Holy Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit knows better than all of us what really happened and what we should dedicate to Panagia. And yes there were six centuries of revelation to Orthodoxy about Her and the Akathist comprises all that truth and knowledge we have about her.

About pictures of Saints versus their icons - I have no opinion... :D Since some extremely beloved people for me are just in the icons like Christ! Panagia! and many extremely beloved saints... And for me icons are both their picture and the icon which transports me mentally to them. :D

Nina

17-03-2008, 05:47 PM

P.S Just an aside: why do people say in English Hagiography and not Agiography? When they do not say Harchangel, but they do say Archangel? Since both words are Greek and both start with alpha.

Matthew Namee

17-03-2008, 05:58 PM

P.S Just an aside: why do people say in English Hagiography and not Agiography? When they do not say Harchangel, but they do say Archangel? Since both words are Greek and both start with alpha.
I only took two semesters of Attic Greek, but isn't there a rough breather on the alpha in "(h)agios" and a smooth breather on the alpha in "arch"? My grasp of languages is abysmal, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Matthew Namee

17-03-2008, 06:11 PM

Nina, in general response to your posts:

I'm afraid that we may be running circles round each other. Perhaps someone else can better express what I am trying to say.

Let us take the Akathist by St. Romanos. What is its purpose? To glorify the Theotokos and to draw those who sing it closer to God. Was it intended to serve as a detailed historical account of the various exchanges between the Theotokos and the Archangel, St. Elizabeth, the shepherds, and the wise men? Did St. Romanos intend for his hearers to conclude, "All of those people -- the Archangel, St. Elizabeth, the shepherds, and the wise men -- said to the Theotokos, 'Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!'"?

You say that St. Romanos was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I agree with you. But this brings in the much larger issue of inspiration, which probably warrants its own thread (and may already have had one). But even if St. Romanos was "guided" or "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, this does not mean that we should take all of his words as being those of God. That is, we cannot say, "God was there and knows what happened. St. Romanos was inspired by God. Therefore, St. Romanos knows what happened and we can take his words as historical fact." That's not appropriate, and that's not really the purpose of hymnography.

Nina

17-03-2008, 06:14 PM

Oh my! Matthew, I was browsing to bring some examples here about the pronunciation and when I came across this (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/%7Eancgreek/pronunchtml/pronunc_practU2.html)(although a reputable academic institution and with a 'socrates' word thrown in the address) I cringed and giggled at the same time from the pronunciations.

Nina

17-03-2008, 06:21 PM

Nina, in general response to your posts:

I'm afraid that we may be running circles round each other. Perhaps someone else can better express what I am trying to say.

Let us take the Akathist by St. Romanos. What is its purpose? To glorify the Theotokos and to draw those who sing it closer to God. Was it intended to serve as a detailed historical account of the various exchanges between the Theotokos and the Archangel, St. Elizabeth, the shepherds, and the wise men? Did St. Romanos intend for his hearers to conclude, "All of those people -- the Archangel, St. Elizabeth, the shepherds, and the wise men -- said to the Theotokos, 'Rejoice, O Bride Unwedded!'"?

We are not running in circles, or in the carousel. I know what you say, and I can tell you only this: Archangel, St. Elizabeth, Shepherds, Wise Men, Matthew, Gregory, Despina, Laurentius etc are all ONE. It is one Church. And yes mystically we all say those words to Panagia.

You say that St. Romanos was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I agree with you. But this brings in the much larger issue of inspiration, which probably warrants its own thread (and may already have had one). But even if St. Romanos was "guided" or "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, this does not mean that we should take all of his words as being those of God. That is, we cannot say, "God was there and knows what happened. St. Romanos was inspired by God. Therefore, St. Romanos knows what happened and we can take his words as historical fact." That's not appropriate, and that's not really the purpose of hymnography. Please do not alter my words. What is not appropriate? To believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church? Plus what do liturgics have to do with agiography and textual criticism? Are we going to criticize the rich liturgical tradition we have from our Fathers, also now?

Herman Blaydoe

17-03-2008, 07:34 PM

We are not running in circles, or in the carousel. I know what you say, and I can tell you only this: Archangel, St. Elizabeth, Shepherds, Wise Men, Matthew, Gregory, Despina, Laurentius etc are all ONE. It is one Church. And yes mystically we all say those words to Panagia.

Nobody is saying differently. That does not mean that these specific words were actually spoken by the Theotokos to the Archangel, nor do they have to have been to still be used by the Church. It does not have to be a historically accurate transcription of an actual conversation to be of value, spiritually or liturgically. I believe that is all Matthew N. is saying and I am happy to be corrected if I have misspoken.

Please do not alter my words. What is not appropriate? To believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church? Plus what do liturgics have to do with agiography and textual criticism? Are we going to criticize the rich liturgical tradition we have from our Fathers, also now?

Nobody is "altering" your words. They are there for all to see in your original post. But we are free to try and re-express what we think you are saying and you are free to correct us if necessary. You might want to check on the basic meaning of the word "criticism", it does NOT have to always have a negative connotation. One may criticise in a constructive manner, and it does not always mean to point out faults or flaws. So yes, even our liturgical tradition can stand up to critical analysis, especially if it helps us to better appreciate it.

Herman the critical Pooh (Proverbs 9:8-9)

Matthew Namee

17-03-2008, 07:47 PM

I would concur with what Herman Blaydoe has said.

Nina, forgive me if I have misrepresented what you meant, but you said the following: "And we must not forget that St. Romanos was guided by the Holy Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit knows better than all of us what really happened and what we should dedicate to Panagia." From this I take the following:

1) St. Romanos was guided by the Holy Spirit.
2) The Holy Spirit knows what "really happened."
3) The Holy Spirit knows what we should dedicate to the Panagia.

Inspiration does not preclude creativity and individual expression on the part of the one who is inspired. The Holy Spirit obviously did not take possession of St. Romanos' body and himself write the Akathist; that is not how inspiration works, in the Orthodox understanding. All I am saying is that we are not supposed to take St. Romanos' words as being "history." They are hymnography, which in many respects overlaps hagiography. I frankly do not think that if we could have spoken with St. Romanos when he wrote in the 6th century, he would have said that what he was writing was meant to be taken as a literal description of actual events. He would probably say that it is a spiritual description of actual events, or some such thing. When I say "spiritual," do not mean "not real." I don't mean to imply that spiritual reality is somehow inferior to "literal" reality or "historical" reality.

And my point in all of that is that historical inquiry and "criticism" (in the broad, scholarly sense of the word) are perfectly legitimate and harmless to Orthodoxy unless they are co-opted by those who deliberately wish to tear down the faith.

Nina

17-03-2008, 10:12 PM

I

Nina, forgive me if I have misrepresented what you meant,

No. I do not forgive you. I have until sunset (according to St. Kosmas Aetolos) to consider forgiving you. It is a joke. You did nothing, so please do not ask forgiveness.

Because of this:

1) St. Romanos was guided by the Holy Spirit.
2) The Holy Spirit knows what "really happened."
3) The Holy Spirit knows what we should dedicate to the Panagia.And because of something else I have read by Geronda Paisios I see that we are approaching the matter differently. :) You as a male. I as a female. So... this is not a problem. (I can point you to the saying of Geronda Paisios and you will understand the why.)

I frankly do not think that if we could have spoken with St. Romanos Do not worry. We are headed for there and if God wills it we will be in Heaven. And what do you think the first thing to ask Saint Romanos will be after greeting him? :)

he would have said that what he was writing was meant to be taken as a literal description of actual events.I did not say that. I said that we mystically are participating as members of the Church in those words said to Panagia, during Annunciation, now, and in the future. Since God is not restricted by time. I meant (and maybe I was reticent more than necessary) that no matter when St. Romanos said those words, those were, are and will continue to be reality. Panagia is a living person since the moment she was conceived and above all she is Pan-Agia = All-Holy. Therefore we can not separate the moment of Annunciation, the moment of the Christ's Birth etc, the moment when Akathist was written since she was always Panagia. And it was always the Church glorifying her through the mouth of the Archangel, through the mouth of Saint Elizabeth, through the pen of St. Romanos. Therefore we all participate and it does not matter when those glorifying words were pronounced, or were written as long as those embody the truths that we all know about Panagia. "Unwedded Bride" "Larger than Heavens" "Miracle that marveled the Angels" "Bridge connecting earth and Heaven" "Unwilting Rose" and so on. Because these things were not included in the NT it does not mean that they were/are not true and that those truths did not exist always regardless of the moment when you and I started reading them.

Byron Jack Gaist

18-03-2008, 08:56 AM

Dear Matthew (Namee),

You write:
Perhaps it would have been better for me to compare history to a portrait rather than
a photo. The work of history is necessarily interpretive. Yes, the artistic portrait may have been a more illustrative simile for history; nevertheless, it was exactly my point that even a 'photo' is a portrait. An example might be the photos of political figures which are selected for different newspapers and magazines. A right-wing newspaper, say, may choose a photo of a left-wing political figure which was taken at a moment when he/she looked ugly or dumb; same for a left-wing newspaper selecting a photo of a right-wing leader. Photos are also portraits - even something as 'neutral' as a landscape is usually a selective shot, and will differ, let's say, in lighting, contrast, angle, emphasis on different objects etc. depending on whether the photo is taken by a cartographer or a tourist guide! Photographers hence reveal as much about themselves through the pictures they take, as artists do when they paint someone's portrait, or indeed as historians do when writing accounts of events.

Hence I suppose also that the word 'criticism' in historical/textual criticism should appropriately be taken to simply mean 'appraisal from a given perspective'; that perspective may be hostile to the saints and all things religious, but it should at least have the honesty and self-knowledge to declare itself as such. What I find particularly distasteful about much that passes for 'objective' history is that it is written in the pretense that some kind of detached impartiality (which is itself a political vantage point) is being achieved. I think a spade should call itself a spade, and that gives others the chance to decide whether a spade is what they need (or whether a toothbrush may be more appropriate)!

So in a sense I agree with Nina's last post, which if I've understood it correctly, suggests (in contrast to her previous posts, I feel) that the question of historical exactitude is not a necessity to the comprehension of reality as it is perceived through eternity, by God in the Church, so to speak. The Church does not perceive things through the five senses alone, hence its understanding of what is 'real' can differ from everyday 'common-sense' accounts of events, yet still be true. Also, I thought that we Orthodox do not read the scriptures in a fundamentalist way, but that even Holy Writ is perceived by us to be the revelation of divine truth in human words. How much more would this then apply to a Church hymn, even one as profoundly true as St Romanos' Akathist!

In Christ
Byron

Olga

18-03-2008, 10:17 AM

P.S Just an aside: why do people say in English Hagiography and not Agiography? When they do not say Harchangel, but they do say Archangel? Since both words are Greek and both start with alpha.

The aspirant (pneuma) on aghiographia and arkhangelos are different. The former word has the daseia, the latter the psili. This has no bearing on pronunciation these days, but it did in earlier centuries. When rendering Greek words beginning with vowels in English, the custom has long been to render the daseia as h, and the psili without sound.

Monotonic Greek (one accent mark, not three, and no aspirants or other diacritic marks) was introduced over 25 years ago. Granted, it simplifies the writing of the modern language, but it is quite inadequate for older forms of Greek, such as is found in liturgy and scripture. I find it more difficult to comprehend these forms of the language when monotonic Greek is used.

Nina

18-03-2008, 03:01 PM

So in a sense I agree with Nina's last post, which if I've understood it correctly, suggests (in contrast to her previous posts, I feel)

In Christ
Byron

Byron, I do not think my last post is in contrast to my previous posts. It is completely a different matter and another dimension.

Olga, thank you for the explanation. I know very well that the H is not necessary.

Owen Jones

18-03-2008, 06:04 PM

The problem with historical/critical method is more basic. It is the question, what is history? History is not a given. Not all human beings and not all cultures think in historical terms at all. History is a symbolic form of consciousness, the has a beginning and an eschatalogical dimension to it. It is not a set of facts set on a timeline culminating in the present. Otherwise, it would be absolutely impossible to be a historian, or to think historically, because of the mass of factual materials to digest.

Byron Jack Gaist

19-03-2008, 09:20 AM

Dear Nina,

Byron, I do not think my last post is in contrast to my previous posts. It is completely a different matter and another dimension.

I'm sorry, it was just a feeling I got. I'm sure you weren't intentionally contradicting yourself, and probably you weren't, but it seemed that way to me.

Regarding the matter of the 'h' in 'hagiography', Olga's explanation is quite useful for those who don't know. I will also be a little challenging to you, Nina, but only in the spirit of loosening up - it's only letters after all, but I would suggest that since you (and I both) don't like people changing your words, then you ought to respect the English language too, and not spell 'hagiography' as 'agiography'! English has its own rules and internal logic, even if it does appear quite tiresome and irrational at times! I say this only because I know you do know how to spell 'hagiography'; I wouldn't say it to someone whose English I sensed to be limited in some way.

If what I say above has irked you, please accept my apologies and my assurance that my intention is respectful dialogue, not internet 'flaming'.

Dear Owen,

I feel you're quite right about history. One of my friends is a historian, and what you say places a lot of our conversations about life, the universe and the meaning of everything in a context I can live with. He probably wouldn't like it, though, because as much as modern historians agree that history is interpretive, they nevertheless seem to relish their own versions of events! Such is life, vanitas vanitatis.

In Christ
Byron

Nina

19-03-2008, 03:46 PM

Dear Nina,

I'm sorry, it was just a feeling I got. I'm sure you weren't intentionally contradicting yourself, and probably you weren't, but it seemed that way to me.

Regarding the matter of the 'h' in 'hagiography', Olga's explanation is quite useful for those who don't know. I will also be a little challenging to you, Nina, but only in the spirit of loosening up - it's only letters after all, but I would suggest that since you (and I both) don't like people changing your words, then you ought to respect the English language too, and not spell 'hagiography' as 'agiography'! English has its own rules and internal logic, even if it does appear quite tiresome and irrational at times! I say this only because I know you do know how to spell 'hagiography'; I wouldn't say it to someone whose English I sensed to be limited in some way.

If what I say above has irked you, please accept my apologies and my assurance that my intention is respectful dialogue, not internet 'flaming'.

In Christ
Byron

About contradiction: Do you still believe that those matters are the same? It is like speaking about stars, and programing. Totally different. In any case, since you do not "get me", it is ok, it is not a problem.

About grammar: If English was a person I would not change its words. And your words did not irk me (I was actually smiling reading them), but I am free to say things the way I wish.