Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi- Volume 1: Studies in the Old Testament (Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition) 9781433114588, 9781453908372, 9781433114601, 9781453908389, 9781433114618, 9781453907900, 1433114585

Citation preview

Dykstra_cpi_cb_NORMAN~1.qxp 11/14/2014 9:20 PM Page 1

5

Tom Dykstra is an independent scholar who has edited many of Paul Nadim Tarazi’s books since 1988. He has an M.Div. from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. Dr. Dykstra is the author of Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel and numerous articles in biblical studies. He has also published books and articles about Russian history, including Hallowed Be Thy Name: The Name-Glorifying Dispute in the Russian Orthodox Church and on Mt. Athos, 1912–1914 and Russian Monastic Culture: “Josephism” and the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery 1479–1607.

Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi VOLUME 3

@

DYKSTRA, ed.

This is the third of three volumes dedicated to Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi. Volume 3 of Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi is a collection of articles discussing the latest findings in a variety of theological subjects related to the Bible as received and interpreted in the Orthodox Church tradition. Scholars from around the world have contributed their recent findings in the field of their research and teaching in this volume.

PETER LANG

WWW.PETERLANG.COM

B I B L E I N T HE C HRI ST I A N ORT HODOX T RA DI T I ON

@ Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi VOLUME 3 Studies in Intertestamental, Extra-Canonical, and Early Christian Literature

@ Edited by

Tom Dykstra

Dykstra_cpi_cb_NORMAN~1.qxp 11/14/2014 9:20 PM Page 1

5

Tom Dykstra is an independent scholar who has edited many of Paul Nadim Tarazi’s books since 1988. He has an M.Div. from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. Dr. Dykstra is the author of Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel and numerous articles in biblical studies. He has also published books and articles about Russian history, including Hallowed Be Thy Name: The Name-Glorifying Dispute in the Russian Orthodox Church and on Mt. Athos, 1912–1914 and Russian Monastic Culture: “Josephism” and the Iosifo-Volokolamsk Monastery 1479–1607.

Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi VOLUME 3

@

DYKSTRA, ed.

This is the third of three volumes dedicated to Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi. Volume 3 of Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi is a collection of articles discussing the latest findings in a variety of theological subjects related to the Bible as received and interpreted in the Orthodox Church tradition. Scholars from around the world have contributed their recent findings in the field of their research and teaching in this volume.

PETER LANG

WWW.PETERLANG.COM

B I B L E I N T HE C HRI ST I A N ORT HODOX T RA DI T I ON

@ Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi VOLUME 3 Studies in Intertestamental, Extra-Canonical, and Early Christian Literature

@ Edited by

Tom Dykstra

Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi

@

BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION Vahan S. Hovhanessian General Editor Vol. 5

This book is a volume in a Peter Lang monograph series. Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi VOLUME 3 Studies in Intertestamental, Extra-Canonical, and Early Christian Literature

Edited by

Tom Dykstra

PETER LANG

New York  Bern  Frankfurt  Berlin Brussels  Vienna  Oxford  Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data provided for Volume 1 Festschrift in honor of Professor Paul Nadim Tarazi, Volume 1: Studies in the Old Testament / edited by Nicolae Roddy. p. cm. — (Bible in the Christian Orthodox tradition; v. 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible—Theology. I. Tarazi, Paul Nadim. II. Roddy, Nicolae. BS511.3.F47 221.6—dc23 2012035352 Vol. 1: ISBN 978-1-4331-1458-8 (hardcover) | ISBN 978-1-4539-0837-2 (e-book) Vol. 2: ISBN 978-1-4331-1460-1 (hardcover) | ISBN 978-1-4539-0838-9 (e-book) Vol. 3: ISBN 978-1-4331-1461-8 (hardcover) | ISBN 978-1-4539-0790-0 (e-book) ISSN 1947-5977 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

© 2015 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................ vii Preface ................................................................................................................. xi Acknowledgments ............................................................................................. xiii V. Rev. Fr. Paul Nadim Tarazi: Brief Biography and Bibliography ................... xv Abbreviations .....................................................................................................xxi Orthodox Biblical Studies in Greece in the Second Half of the 20th Century, John Karavidopoulos ........................................................................................... 1 The Contribution of Professor Paul N. Tarazi to the Development of Romanian Biblical Studies, Stelian Tofană .................................................... 13 “Bow your head low to the great; rescue the oppressed from the oppressor.” Ben Sira and the Struggle with Elitism, Michael G. Azar .............................. 23 Can These Bones Live? Ezekiel, Jesus and the Challenge of the “Other,” John A. Jillions .................................................................................................................37 Peaceful or Violent Eschatology: A Palestinian Christian Reading of the Psalter, Yohanna Katanacho .................................................................................. 51 You are the Man, 2 Samuel 11-12 as a Rhetorical Paradigm for Contemporary Preaching, Rev. Fr. Sergius Halvorsen.................................................................... 65 A Linguistic and Metaphoric Approach to Scripture, Rev. Fr. Christopher Salamy .....................................................................................................................79 Does the Biblical Qadosh Lead to a Hypostatic Personhood? Bishop Maxim Vasiljevic .................................................................................................................. 93 Early Syriac Evidence on the Chosen People and the Promised Land, Merja Merras ....................................................................................................................103 Perspectives on Women in Early Christian Apocryphal Texts, Cornelia B. Horn and Robert R. Phenix, Jr. .......................................................................................115 Teach Us John Chrysostom: Biblical Education and Rhetorical Art, Ann Bezzerides ...............................................................................................................133 Notes ................................................................................................................. 161 Index ................................................................................................................. 195

Foreword

T

he first two volumes in this Festschrift series focus mainly on Old Testament and New Testament exegesis. This last volume in the series includes articles that relate to the field of scriptural studies in different ways. Some examine biblical texts, but with more of an emphasis on practical or theological implications. Others study how early Christians understood and applied what they learned from Scripture. Still others are about modern scholars who study Scripture. The volume begins with two surveys of modern scriptural scholarship. John Karavidopoulos chronicles the development of scriptural studies in Greece in the latter half of the twentieth century. He looks at the causes of increased interest in Scripture, identifies the biblical texts that scholars studied most frequently, and recounts the development of disciplines such as textual criticism and historical criticism. He concludes with recommendations for future directions that Greek scholars should take. Stelian Tofană also surveys the history of biblical scholarship in his own country—Romania in this case—but focuses on an aspect of that history especially relevant to this Festschrift publication: the influence of Fr. Paul Nadim Tarazi. He shows how Tarazi challenged Romanian biblical scholars to look at Scripture in new ways. Tofană asserts that Tarazi’s work helped to define “an anastasic Christology of the New Testament,” that is, one that keeps the appropriate balance and unity between Christ’s death on the cross and his resurrection. The common theme in the next group of articles is one especially dear to Fr. Paul Nadim Tarazi’s heart: scriptural exegesis leading to practical conclusions for our lives and behavior. In the first installment of this group, Michael G. Azar shows how the author of Sirach offers an example and advice that differs from the confrontational style that we see in some of the prophets. According to Ben Sira, we can do God’s work without making ourselves odious to those in authority over us. Azar summarizes Ben Sira’s advice as “‘Endear yourself to the congregation; bow your head low to the great. Give a hearing to the poor . . . Rescue the oppressed from the oppressor’ (4:7-9), but do so tactfully.”

viii

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

John A. Jillions finds in the New Testament a different sort of corrective to an Old Testament prophetic message. He suggests that Orthodox Christians have too uncritically assimilated Ezekiel’s warning against outsiders or foreigners. In Ezekiel’s culture, foreigners were dangerous because they could seduce Israel away from its God. But Jesus proclaimed a new message for a different cultural reality, one that welcomes “the other” into the messianic community. Can Orthodox Christians follow Jesus’ call and “embrace a more inclusive way of thinking about the other, especially other Christians?” By explaining the unique context behind Ezekiel’s apparent rejection of such inclusiveness, Jillions hopes to help create an environment in which the answer to that question is positive. Yohanna Katanacho’s article describes another instance of tension between conflicting attitudes in different biblical texts. Certain psalms could be read as ethnocentric (for example the royal ones, such as 1-2 and 72), but Katanacho interprets them within the context of the failure of the Davidic covenant (Book III of the Psalms, Pss 73–89, especially Psalm 89) and the suffering of the righteous (e.g., Psalm 73). He applies his interpretation to the national and personal disorientation that Palestinians and Israelis currently experience. The crisis presents a choice between a militant, ethnocentric approach à la Psalm 72 on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a theocentric reading that arises out of humility and advocates life instead of death (à la Psalm 86). Applying Book III in this way is consonant with the gospel in that it thwarts perceiving the nations as enemies, expands God’s covenantal mercy to include all the nations, and restores God as king of kings. If the Palestinians, Israelis, and others would take this scriptural message to heart, they could all enjoy a world in which “the enemy is transformed into a brother who has equal inheritance in holy space.” But how does one go about convincing others to follow the dictates of Scripture? Sergius Halvorsen finds advice for effectively preaching the word of God in the example of the prophet Nathan. Nathan had to make especially skillful use of rhetorical technique in order to get a powerful king to admit his sin, and as Halvorsen points out, “the relationship between Nathan and David is very much like the relationship between the preacher and the hearer in the twenty-first century North American parish.” The preacher has no power over his parishioner, and in some ways the reverse is true, yet the preacher must call upon the parishioner to repent. Whereas Michael Azar’s article points out that this relationship calls for tact, Halvorsen’s article examines one particularly effective strategy for employing tact to this end. The next two articles are also about biblical texts, but they look at Scripture more broadly in order to draw more general conclusions. Like the preceding articles, “A Linguistic and Metaphoric Approach to Scripture” by Christopher Salamy emphasizes the practical implications of our understand-

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

ix

ing of Scripture. But here the goal is to determine the appropriate methodology that we should use for deriving those practical implications. Salamy warns against philosophizing, historicizing, and projecting one’s own cultural assumptions into a text that was written in and for a foreign culture. When we recognize that Scripture was not intended to convey data about God or about human history, we are free to focus on the original intent of the message. Only this approach makes it possible for people today to adopt the conceptual framework of God’s Word, and thereby to act in accordance with that conceptual framework. The last article that directly focuses on scriptural texts is a theological treatise by Bishop Maxim Vasiljevic titled “Does the Biblical Qadosh Lead to a Hypostatic Personhood?” This article seeks to determine what the command to “be holy because I am holy” means in its original biblical context, aside from later notions about what the word “holiness” means. Bishop Vasiljevic finds that holiness implies personal uniqueness but not separateness. “Here, it is important to emphasize the context within which the call ‘Be holy…’ (Lev 19:1) requires one to love one’s neighbor as oneself (‘love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord”; Lev19: 18).” A holy person, like the holy Christ and the holy God, accepts the uniqueness of other persons. Coming directly from Scripture, this understanding was embedded in Orthodox church tradition long before it became popular in Western culture: “It is precisely this type of logic which makes Orthodoxy so valuable to all those who lately are in favor of otherness and differences.” The next group of articles looks at extra-canonical early Christian texts. In the introduction to “Early Syriac Evidence on the Chosen People and the Promised Land,” Merja Merras observes that “We cannot find in the New Testament any trace at all of the land of Israel meaning the area of the former Old Testament Israel and Judah, which was occupied at the time by Romans.” She then proceeds to show that early Christian Syriac texts from the fourth century accurately reflect the New Testament understanding: they don’t interpret the Old Testament promises as pertaining to physical regions of the earth but rather to the heavenly kingdom. She suggests that this was true universally among Christians until the eighteenth century. Before then, “there was no need to see the land of Palestine as a land which God had promised to the Jews.” Then, some Christians began to read Scripture as if it were composed of historical texts. Ultimately this led some to see the modern state of Israel as a continuation of the biblical Israel, and to see modern Jews as the chosen people to whom the physical land of Palestine was promised. The following article in this group is a survey of attitudes toward women in Christian apocryphal texts, written by Cornelia B. Horn and Robert R. Phenix, Jr. They analyze the Gospel of Thomas; traditions about Mary Magdalene; apocryphal texts such as the Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, and Acts of Phil-

x

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

ip; and infancy narratives of Mary and Jesus. Although some studies have emphasized that women could exercise authority in the communities that produced this literature, Horn and Phenix question whether the evidence justifies generalizations of that nature. The portrayals of women are so diverse as to make generalizations problematic, and the texts often present women in positions inferior to men. When women did assume greater authority than men, it could come “at the price of their identity as women.” And in the scattered instances where women played important roles, that situation “might be older than Christianity itself, having been adapted from some currents of GrecoRoman religious practice.” It is fitting that this volume, and with it the entire Festschrift series, concludes with an article by Ann Bezzerides that examines the exegetical and rhetorical techniques employed by John Chrysostom in his preaching. Chrysostom is the church father who above all others exemplifies the approach to Scripture that Fr. Paul Nadim Tarazi has devoted his life to promoting. Indeed, the conclusion to this article fits perfectly as the conclusion to all three of these Festschrift volumes, for in this text we could replace “John” and “Chrysostom” with “Fr. Paul” and “Tarazi,” and the words would still ring true: As a master rhetorician, Chrysostom employed the tools of classical rhetoric for Christian ends. The art of rhetoric was and is the art of persuasion—of convincing people’s minds, stirring their hearts, and leading them to action. Chrysostom’s focus was on exhorting laypeople to know God’s word for their own continual transformation. John was not interested in presenting dry academic lectures, but sought to exhort his flock to hear the scriptural text in a way that would provoke emotion—awe, fear, joy, sorrow, zeal, and yearning—that this Scripture might have a productive end in their lives. Any analysis of his preaching must account for his selfconscious catechetical goals: that his ultimate aim was to motivate his congregants to adopt the scriptural narrative as their own narrative, to have their lives shaped and molded by the scriptural word.

Tom Dykstra

Preface

T

he Holy Bible, biblical text, exegesis, and understanding the biblical message in its original context, without the influence of medieval and later doctrinal and theological precipitations, truly outline the scholarly career of the Very Reverend Dr. Paul Nadim Tarazi, a leading Orthodox theologian in the field of biblical study. The professor of Old Testament at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Professor Tarazi has also lectured extensively in universities and seminaries around the world. He is the author of numerous books and articles in the field of biblical theology and exegesis. Professor Tarazi is the founder of the “Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies” (OCABS) and its online Journal (JOCABS). He is also the founding pillar of the unit “Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL). His forty years of teaching career around the world and his theological research in the field of biblical studies has produced generations of biblical scholars with a unique and critical approach to biblical exegesis and interpretation. It was, therefore, only befitting that leading international scholars who have been students or colleagues of Professor Tarazi come together in Festschrift to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his teaching career by offering a critical appreciation of his contribution to biblical studies, and by exploring the continuing scholarly discussion of issues related to the Biblical text, exegesis and theology. A daylong celebration took place on Saturday October 23, 2010, under the auspices of His Eminence Archbishop Philip, Metropolitan of the Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America. The Festschrift convened at the conference hall of St. George Antiochian Church in Little Falls, New Jersey, was scheduled 9am–4pm, with the participation of over 30 international scholars. This book is the third of three volumes covering the proceedings of the Festschrift. The first volume includes papers exploring the latest scholarly debate in the fields of Old Testament Studies. Volume two includes articles dealing with the New Testament, and this volume publishes papers discussing biblical theology in general.

xii

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

Heartfelt thanks and gratitude to Tom Dykstra, Ph.D., for editing the articles of this volume. Special thanks and appreciation to Reverend Fr. Marc Boulos, Pastor of St. Elizabeth Orthodox Mission, in Eagan, Minnesota, for the layout and finalization of this volume. Finally, congratulations to Professor Tarazi–a man “approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). May the Lord grant him many years of fruitful service and witnessing in the vineyard of the Lord. Bishop Vahan J. Hovhanessian, Ph.D. Series Editor

Acknowledgments

T

he Very Reverend Fr. Paul N. Tarazi Festschrift Committee would like to acknowledge with deep appreciation the following supporters and benefactors:

The Reverend Fr. Marc and Alla Boulos Edward and Nina Costandi John Josef Costandi Payman and Carla Langroudi The Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies Ralph and Mary Lee Sergi Bassam Tarazi Jalal Tarazi Jamal and Christine Tarazi Nabil and Leila Tarazi and Children Nouhad and Farida Tarazi Kamal Tarazi Paola Tarazi Reem Tarazi and Family

V. Rev. Fr. Paul Nadim Tarazi: Brief Biography and Bibliography

F

r. Paul Tarazi has been teaching Scripture for well over forty years. His teaching ministry includes full-time professorship at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, as well as adjunct positions at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA, and the St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology in Balamand, Lebanon. His courses cover the full range of scriptural studies in Old and New Testaments, Biblical Hebrew and Greek, Academic Arabic, and Homiletics. He has been a guest lecturer at numerous universities and institutions in the United States and Canada, as well as Australia, Chile, Estonia, Finland, Israel, Palestine, Romania, and Serbia, and has represented the Antiochian Orthodox Church at various ecumenical gatherings. A prolific writer, Fr. Paul has authored (as of this writing) seventeen books, including detailed commentaries on Galatians and 1 Thessalonians, a seven-volume Introduction to the Old and New Testaments, and six commentaries published in The Chrysostom Bible: A Commentary Series for Teaching and Preaching. His book, Land and Covenant, commissioned by His Eminence Metropolitan PHILIP, is a comprehensive scriptural analysis of the issues pertaining to what is popularly known as the Holy Land and to God’s promise regarding it. Many readers of this book consider it to be a thorough introduction to the totality of Scripture in both Old and New Testaments. Fr. Paul has also contributed numerous articles in books and academic journals. Ever in highest demand as a speaker, both nationally and internationally, Fr. Paul is known for his dynamic style and his ability to engage an audience’s interest while explaining complex matters of scriptural interpretation. Fr. Paul has served as theological and editorial consultant for the General Assembly of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. He currently serves as editor-in-chief of JOCABS, a journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies (OCABS). A group of Fr. Paul’s former theological students founded OCABS in 1999 to promote the awareness of the centrality of the Gospel in the Christian life, to provide

xvi

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

resources for those who teach and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ on the parish level, to conduct seminars in the area of advanced biblical studies, and to develop a foundation to provide material support for those pursuing advanced degrees and special research and publishing projects. Fr. Paul’s work with OCABS includes audio commentaries on all the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Fr Paul serves on the steering committee of the “Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” unit of the Society of Biblical Literature, which was established in 2007 by an international group of scholars, all of which are his former students. Born in Jaffa, Palestine, Paul Nadim Tarazi moved to Cairo, Egypt and then to Beirut, Lebanon, where he studied at the Christian Brothers French School prior to attending the Jesuit University School of Medicine, in Beirut. He then pursued theological studies at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Bucharest, Romania where he received his Th.D. degree in New Testament. Ordained to the holy priesthood in 1976, Fr. Paul has shepherded parishes in Connecticut and New York and is currently assistant priest at the Assumption Greek Orthodox Church in Danbury, Connecticut.

Bibliography The Chrysostom Bible, OCABS Press Commentary series: Joshua: A Commentary (2013) Ezekiel: A Commentary (2012) 1 Corinthians: A Commentary (2011) Romans: A Commentary (2010) Colossians and Philemon: A Commentary (2010) Philippians: A Commentary (2009) Genesis: A Commentary (2009) The New Testament Introduction: Volume 1, Paul and Mark (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1999; Beirut: An-Nour, 2001 [Arabic]) Volume 2, Luke and Acts (Crestwood: SVS Press, 2001) Volume 3, Johannine Writings (Crestwood: SVS Press, 2004) Volume 4, Matthew and the Canon (St. Paul: OCABS Press, 2009) The Old Testament Introduction: Volume 1: Historical Traditions. Crestwood: SVS Press, 1991; rev. 2003; Beirut: An-Nour, 1998 (Arabic). Volume 2: The Prophets. Crestwood: SVS Press, 1994; Beirut: An-Nour, 1998 (Arabic).

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

xvii

Volume 3: Wisdom Literature. Crestwood: SVS Press, 1996; Beirut: AnNour, 1999 Arabic). Land and Covenant. Minneapolis: OCABS Press, 2009. Galatians: A Commentary. Crestwood: SVS Press, 1994. I Thessalonians: A Commentary. Crestwood: SVS Press, 1982; Beirut: An-Nour, 1983 (Arabic). Al-Wa’a‫ܒ‬h. Beirut: An-Nour, 1989 (Arabic). OCABS Audio Commentaries: The New Testament (101 hours) The Old Testament (84 hours)

Selected Articles in Journals and Edited Volumes “Introduction.” Pages 1-7 in Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East. Edited by V. S. Hovhanessian. New York: Peter Lang, 2009. “Chrysostom on Isaiah: A Paradigm for Hearing Scripture.” In Syriac and Antiochian Exegesis and Biblical Theology for the 3rd Millenium. Edited by R. D. Miller. Gorgias Precis Portfolios 3; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006. “The Book on Jeremiah and the Pentateuchal Torah.” Pp. 7-36 in Sacred Text and Interpretation, Perspectives in Orthodox Biblical Studies. Edited by Th. Stylianopoulos. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006. “Pursuing the Mind of Christ: Lessons on Vocation from the Old Testament.” Pp. 13-42 in Christ at Work, Orthodox Christian Perspectives on Vocation. Edited by in A. M. Bezzerides. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006. “St. Paul and His Letters.” Ortodoksia 47 (Finland, 1998): 67-77. “Israel and the Nations According to Zechariah 14.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 181-92. “The Parish in the New Testament.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36 (1992): 87-102. “Continuity and Discontinuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament.” Finnish Exegetical Society (1992). “The Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Middle East.” Pp. 681-88 in Kirchen im Kontext unterschiedlicher Kulturen, Auf dem Weg, in das dritte Jahrtausen. Edited by W. Heller. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. “An Exegesis of Psalm 93.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 35 (1991): 13748. “The Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Middle East.” Lutheran Academy (1990).

xviii

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

“Biblical Aspects on Justice and Peace, from an Orthodox Perspective.” Faith and Order Commission WCC (1989). “The Addressees and the Purpose of Galatians,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33 (1989): 159-79. “Syndesmos and Its Future.” Syndesmos Twelfth General Assembly Report (Syndesmos, 1988). “Jerusalem in Christian Orthodox Perspectives.” Pp. 47-52 in Jerusalem: Key to Peace in the Middle East. Edited by O. Kelly Graham. Triangle Friends of the Middle East, 1987. “Du Baptême,” Contacts 39 (1987): 182-206. “The Antiochian School of Biblical Exegesis.” The Word 30 (1986): 7-9. “‘Thus Saith the Lord’: The Fundamental Aspects of Prophetic Preaching.” Pp. 13-26 in God’s Living Word: Orthodox and Evangelical Essays on Preaching. Edited by Th. Stylianopoulos. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1983. “The Gospel of Christ as God’s Power for Salvation (Rom 1:16).” Pp. 27-41 in God’s Living Word: Orthodox and Evangelical Essays on Preaching. Edited by Th. Stylianopoulos. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1983. “The Living Word: Effective Preaching of God’s Word Today.” Pp. 42-56 in God’s Living Word: Orthodox and Evangelical Essays on Preaching. Edited by Th. Stylianopoulos. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1983. “Covenant, Land and City: Finding God’s Will in Palestine.” The Reformed Journal 29 (1979): 10-16. “Witnessing the Dynamics of Salvation.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 22 (1978): 179-91. “Bid’at Shuhud Yahwah.” Beirut: Nativity of the Virgin Church (1975). n.p. “Time and the Signs of the End.” St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Education Day Journal (1999): n.p. “Scripture in Theological Education.” St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Education Day Journal (1998): n.p. “What is the Gospel of Christ?” St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Education Day Journal (1997): n.p. “The Bible and Orthodox Christians.” St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Education Day Journal (1994): n.p. “Orthodox Christians and the Understanding of Scripture.” St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Education Day Journal (1991): n.p.

Selected Presentations “Hermeneutical Shifts vis-à-vis Palestine in the 20th Century, Romans 9-11.” Paper presented at the Conference on the Invention of History: A Centu-

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

xix

ry of Interplay between Theology and Politics in Palestine. Bethlehem, Palestine, August 23-29, 2009. “Paul, the One Apostle of the One Gospel.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Paul in His Milieu: Land, Religion, Culture. Tantur Ecumenical Institute, Jerusalem, May 7-14, 2009. “David and the Psalter.” Paper presented at the Conference of the Middle East Chapter of Alliance Biblique. Beirut, Lebanon, January 25-30, 2009. “The Promised Land: The Old Testament Perspective,” Paper presented at the International Theological Conference on the Promised Land, World Council of Churches, Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches, Palestine / Israel Ecumenical Forum. Bern, Switzerland, September 10-14, 2008. “Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching.” Paper presented at the International Theological Conference on St. John Chrysostom, Bucharest University. Bucharest, Romania, November 12-14, 2006. “Deuteronomy as a ‘Reprise’ of Genesis 1–2: A Redaction Critical Reading.” Paper presented at the ANZATS/ANZSTS Conference, Queens College Parkville. Melbourne, Australia, July 5–9, 2004. “Reading Scripture.” Paper presented at the Institute for Spiritual Studies. Melbourne, Australia, July 6, 2004. “The Book of Jeremiah and the Pentateuchal Torah.” Paper presented at the Conference of Sacred Text and Interpretation: Perspectives in Orthodox Biblical Studies, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. Brookline, MA, October 28–November 1, 2003. “Continuity and Discontinuity Between the Old Testament and the New Testament.” Paper presented at Exegetical Day, Finnish Exegetical Society. Helsinki, Finland, February, 1992. “The Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Middle East.” Paper presented at the Symposium on Churches in the Context of Differing Cultures, Lutheran Academy, Tutzing. Bavaria, Germany, May 1990. “Israel and the Nations, according to Zechariah 14.” Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the Middle East Council of Churches and the German Task Force Group on the Middle East. Cyprus, September, 1989. “Biblical Aspects on Justice and Peace from an Orthodox Perspective.” Paper presented at the Meeting of the Justice and Peace Integrity of Creation Programme, Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches. Kiev, May, 1989. “The Parish in the New Testament.” Paper presented at the Fourth Meeting of the Orthodox Theological Schools, Syndesmos. Poland, February, 1989. “Syndesmos and Its Future.” Paper presented at the Syndesmos General Assembly. England, 1988. “Du Baptême,” Paper presented at the Triennial Meeting of the Orthodox Youth of Western Europe. Paris, France, 1987.

xx

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

“Jerusalem in Christian Orthodox Perspectives.” Paper presented at the Conference on Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Perspectives, Duke University. Durham, NC, November, 1977. “Witnessing the Dynamics of Salvation.” Paper presented at the Second International Conference of the Orthodox Theological Schools. Pendeli, Greece, 1976.

Abbreviations AfOB AJSLL ANET ANF ANZATS ANZSTS AOAT AThR AYB BCBC BDB BSac Bib BZAW CBQ CBQMS COS DJD GOTR HALOT HTR HUCA JANES JBL JHS JJS JOCABS JSOTSup NICOT NTR NESTTR

Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ante-Nicene Fathers Australian and New Zealand Association of Theological Schools Australian and New Zealand Society for Theological Studies Alter Orient und Altes Testament Anglican Theological Review Anchor Yale Bible Believers’ Church Bible Commentary Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew Lexicon Bibliotheca Sacra Biblica Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Context of Scripture Discoveries in the Judean Desert Greek Orthodox Theological Review Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of the Ancient Near East Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series New International Commentary on the Old Testament New Theology Review Near East School of Theology Theological Review

xxii OCABS OTL SBL SJOT SVSQ TDOT UBS UF UT VT VTSup WBC WMANT ZAW

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI• Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies Old Testament Literature Society for Biblical Literature Scandanavian Journal of the Old Testament St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament United Bible Societies Ugarit-Forschungen Ugaritic Textbook Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

•

J O H N

K A R A V I D O P O U L O S

•

Orthodox Biblical Studies in Greece in the Second Half of the 20th Century1 Introductory Remarks



T

he rapid development of Biblical research in Greece during the 20th century and more precisely during its latter half is evident in the bibliographic explosion of works related to the field. In fact, Greek biblical bibliography presents an exceptional increase in pace during the second half of the 20th century. The reasons that contributed to this numeric and no less qualitative expansion are, in my opinion, the following: a) The material and spiritual wreckage that accrued during the Second World War led to an immediate need for the Church and theology to offer answers to questions that arose in people, established upon the solid basis of the biblical and patristic sources of the faith. This must have been a general phenomenon in Europe. I mention here, for example, the Renouveau Biblique in the Roman Catholic world, which was developed by the need for Roman Catholic biblical scholars of the beginning of the 20th century (for example, M.-J. Lagrange) to respond to Protestant hermeneutics. This, of course, was encouraged by the remarkable Papal encyclicals Mystici corporis Christi (29.6.1943), Divino afflante Spiritu (30.9.1943) and Mediator Dei (20.11.1947), especially the second. In the Protestant world, it is worth mentioning the hermeneutical methods of form criticism (Formgeschichte), redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte) and demythologization theory (Entmythologisierung). The demands were similar in the Orthodox world, since the needs which arose after the end of the Second World War, and in Greece especially after the end of the Civil War (1946-1949), were enormous and required immediate attention.

2

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI• b) The specialized studies of Greek biblical scholars in European and American Universities, where they were met by various challenges, resulted in the scholarly engagement between the Church’s hermeneutical tradition and contemporary scholarly trends. Even negative challenges produce fruitful scholarly research with positive results. c) Finally, the creation of a second School of Theology in Greece, at the University of Thessaloniki in 1942 (following that of Athens in 1837), increased the number of biblical scholars in Greece and consequently the training of students in the area of biblical studies.

The three reasons mentioned here also set the parameters of my topic: I will present the biblical research of the last 50-60 years, taking as my starting point the establishment of the second School of Theology in Greece (1943), which almost coincided with the end of the Second World War (1945). I will, of course, limit myself to the research of Greek Orthodox theologians, since it is difficult, at least at present, to have a broader familiarity of the scholarly production of the Orthodox interpreters in other countries.

Subject Matter and Areas of Research Almost all the areas of biblical studies attracted the attention of Greek researchers. However, one must note that the amount of studies on the Old Testament vis-à-vis that on the New Testament is not proportional. As one would expect, most of the studies are on the New Testament. To be more precise, of the 4,200 titles of Greek articles and monographs authored during the 20th century which I counted, only 1,400 belong to the OT field of research. The rest are on the NT. Hence, the ratio of NT to OT studies is two to one (2/1). Included in the OT field are, of course, those studies referring to topics on Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which in fact concern both Testaments. Despite the fact that there are monographs on various specialized OT topics: hermeneutical, historical, linguistic, archeological, theological, etc., I consider the lack of a complete series of hermeneutical commentaries on the OT as a significant deficiency. There was certainly no lack of translations of the Old Testament, either from the original Hebrew text or from the Septuagint version. Apart from the Modern Greek translations of the Septuagint, we also have some more extensive paraphrases of it. Of course I am only taking into account scholarly studies, and not the multitude of simplified works which are directed to a wider readership.  With regard to the New Testament, it should be noted that important studies concentrating on the Synoptic Gospels were published, with the emphasis not so much on philological or critical problems as on issues of interpretation. The Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles were also studied

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

3

but on a smaller scale, whereas the Gospel of John was examined extensively in a great number of studies, especially by the late Professor Savas Agouridis who devoted a great part of his life to the study of the Fourth Gospel.2 The Book of Revelation was studied less by scholars and more by lay exegetes, who frequently misinterpreted rather than interpreted the text. However, in the last decade of the 20th century and in the first years of the 21st it came to the forefront with a limited number of commentaries and some specialized studies. I should specifically mention the year 1995 when Patmos celebrated the 1,900th anniversary since the writing of the Book of Revelation, during which two international scholarly conferences took place, one on the topic of “Ecology and Revelation” and the other on “The Revelation of John. A Theological and Philological Approach.”3 Yet, the epistles of Paul have literally dominated scholarly research. Many doctoral dissertations, specialized studies, hermeneutical commentaries and other monographs or articles have Paul and his theology as their topic. From a total of 4,200 titles (i.e. monographs and articles) in the 20th century, 800 of them (about 20%) concern Paul. If someone counts only the NT titles (2800), then the 800 on Paul constitute 35% of the whole.4 Someone might ask, how can this preference for Paul by many Greek researchers be explained? The following thoughts may lead to the answer: a) The Apostle Paul is considered to be the founder of the Church of Greece (Philippi, Thessaloniki, Veroia, Athens, Corinth, Nicopolis). It is therefore natural for research to be on his work and his epistles. Moreover, in 1950, exactly in the middle of the 20th century, the anniversary of the 1900 years since the establishment of the Church in Greece was celebrated in Athens, with various speeches, festivities, and the publication of celebratory volumes. Thus, a motive was offered for a wider study of Paul’s work. b) The figure of the Apostle Paul was promoted in every way by various Christian brotherhoods in Greece (Zoe, Soter, etc.). Though they did not have solid theological bases – something for which they are usually criticized – they nevertheless played an important role in the spiritual reorganization of the country in the post-war era. Already in 1925 the then Archbishop of Athens and all Greece Chrysostomos Papadopoulos (1923-1938) decreed that the celebration of Great Vespers on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul (29 June), was to be held at the sacred rock of Areopagus where, according to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul preached in Athens. c) Finally, the NT epistles in general do not present the thorny philological and theological problems that occupied scholarly research on the gospels in the West in the decades immediately after the War. West-

4

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI• ern scholars sought to resolve these issues in their way, one not always acceptable to Orthodox scholars.

In order for someone to become aware of the volume and the quality of Pauline studies of the second half of the 20th century, it is sufficient to compare them with the corresponding studies of the first half of the same century, as echoed in the book by Nicholas Louvaris, Introduction to the Pauline studies, 1st ed. Athens 1919, 2nd ed.1960. In the preface of the first edition, after quoting the opinion of the distinguished German philologist Wilamowitz (“… three men are capable of exalting and strengthening the spirit of humans, Plato, Goethe and Paul”), Louvaris anticipates the justified surprise of the Greek reader to this phrase, taking into account the fact that the Greek reader did not know Paul as he should. He attributes this to the fact that in his view “our religious education is defective in everything,” and he continues: “thus, we gain knowledge of the great Apostle only from the reading of passages from his epistles in the churches.” This was the situation in 1919. It dramatically changed in the second half of the century, especially in the area of Pauline studies.

Series of Commentaries on the New Testament During the 1950s the series of commentaries on the NT by Panagiotis Trembelas prevailed. Trembelas, a member of a Christian brotherhood, was a great theologian, who occupied himself with various theological subjects, mainly Liturgics, Homiletics, and Biblical interpretation. His series of commentaries on the entire NT except Revelation (from 1951) nourished many generations of theologians, as well as Christians who were generally interested in the Bible. In his series he presents the commentaries of the Church Fathers complemented by the views of some foreign scholars of the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. Another characteristic of this series is the fact that Trembelas separates his commentary from theology. Interpretation in these commentaries acquires a truly grand ethical and spiritual breadth, but underemphasizes the theological aspect of the sacred text. Thus, the biblical history of the divine economy (the Heilsgeschichte), the eschatological message of Jesus, the cosmic and ecumenical dimension of salvation, and the theology of the incarnation, diminish or even recoil before the ethical and edifying element, which certainly – we should emphasize – was useful for our country in the post-war era.5 Of course, we should quickly add – for a more complete view of things – that the inadequate theological character and the exalted moralizing treatment of Trembelas is not a fruit of the Orthodox hermeneutical tradition but a

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

5

phenomenon that stems from a conservative protestant and a pietistic sphere of influence. The need for new hermeneutical commentaries in our time was soon felt. As a result, from the 1970s on, some individual commentaries on entire books of the NT, or on specific sections of them, appeared. Subsequently, in the 1980s, a new series was begun in the University of Thessaloniki entitled Hermeneia of the New Testament. So far 10 volumes have been published. The main objective of the series is to present contemporary scholarly research in dialogue with the hermeneutical tradition of the Church. The books which have been commented on to date are as follows: 1. (Gospels) Mark and John and 2. (Epistles) 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Revelation. In the field of preparing commentaries on the books of the NT there remains yet a long and difficult road to be traveled. At the same university another series entitled Bibliotheca Biblica, presently numbering 43 volumes, aims to assist students in the area of biblical studies.

Introduction to the New Testament Issues of introduction to the NT have attracted the interest of Greek theologians to a very limited extent. Such issues were confronted either in the context of the hermeneutical commentaries or other hermeneutical works or in textbooks introducing the NT. The latter are usually synopses of international research with very few points of originality, and the crucial subject discussed is the question of the authenticity of the authorship of certain books of the NT. At this point one observes the following paradox: theologians with progressive views on issues of interpretation or theology appear to be extremely conservative and hesitant in issues of authenticity and genuineness of the books of the NT. For example, sometimes they give the impression, when dealing with the issue of the authenticity of some books of the NT, that the Orthodox theologian is obliged to refute the arguments against the genuineness of these books, so that he/she may avoid harsh criticism or other undesirable consequences. The situation in this matter is slowly changing in our day. The most widely known Introductions that may be mentioned here are those of V. Ioannidis, S. Agouridis, J. Karavidopoulos, J. Panagopoulos and Ch. Voulgaris.

Textual Criticism of the New Testament With the exception of some isolated works, the field that has been especially neglected is that of textual criticism of the NT. The need for the Orthodox to participate in international critical editions – as for example my participation in the preparation of the 4th critical edition of the New Testa-

6

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

ment of the United Bible Societies, known as The Greek New Testament – was evident and demanded mostly by foreign scholars. This bitter fact leads us immediately to the following question: Why was there virtually no scholarly interest in critical studies on the text of the NT, in the Orthodox world – especially in Greek-speaking countries – apart from some isolated cases, while other branches of biblical studies have attracted and still attract the interest of researchers? If we examine the causes, among them we will find the following: a) Textual criticism, according to E. S. Colwell, is a difficult and adventurous area. Colwell himself for 30 years was occupied in this area, and especially with the Byzantine lectionaries, at the University of Chicago. He characteristically wrote: “One who works in the textual criticism of the New Testament today is like a traveller in a far country where all the landmarks were made by clay and the rains were heavy. The old maps and road-guides are useless, for the fixed points have either vanished or been transformed.”6 This characteristic image given by the American scholar is considered to be so accurate that it is still quoted today by those dealing with textual criticism.7 It so happens that a researcher spends most of the decades of his life in an effort to critically restore a text and ends up, according to the reviews of other specialists, who obviously base themselves on other critical methods, in a scholarly Waterloo, of the type: his work is “a splendid failure” (criticism of Lake on the work of Westcott and Hort, which was repeated by Kurt Aland for H. von Soden). On the international level, in contemporary universities and research centers of all continents, there is a large number of biblical scholars, some of whom may be “surrendered” to work solely on textual criticism. Conversely, due to the limited number of biblical scholars in Greece, some of whom would like to be devoted entirely to textual criticism, they are required, by the circumstances they face, to be occupied with the entire spectrum of biblical studies. b) This last fact underlines the priority of biblical interpretation and theology over that of textual criticism. The needs, especially in our country, were numerous after the Second World War and required an immediate response from theologians, especially biblical scholars, who had to give biblically based answers to the existential questions of the faithful. Consequently, the development of hermeneutical theology took an obvious priority over the minute occupation with the critical problems of the text of the Scripture, the manuscripts, and its editions. However, the interpreters did not seem to understand that exegesis is enriched by the study in detail of parts of the readings of the

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

7

manuscripts, by questioning their origin, and by studying the ecclesiastical environment from which they emerged and the conditions which caused or imposed them. c) A special factor which made many scholars hesitate to deal with topics of textual criticism is the coexistence of two texts of the NT in the Greek world: the critical edition (either the Nestle-Aland edition or The Greek New Testament of the UBS) in academia; and the Patriarchal edition of 1904 (frequently reprinted by the Apostolic Diakonia, the publishing house of the Church of Greece) currently in liturgical use and available for the everyday reading of believers. Normally the coexistence of two texts should promote critical studies and lead to recognition that the text of the critical editions is based on ancient manuscripts and that these manuscripts are a treasure of the Church and moreover, of the undivided church of the first centuries. d) Let us also add this historical deficiency: it is often forgotten that during the life of the Church the text of the Scriptures was not neglected. The works of the presbyter and martyr Lucianus in the 4th century in Antioch, the copying of the manuscripts in monasteries, the diligent miniature writings, and finally the edition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the beginning of the 20th century (1904) witness to the Church’s interest in the text of the Scriptures and its careful preservation. Recent studies in Greece on text-critical issues stress the need to study more carefully the Byzantine text of the New Testament and the need as well to prepare a critical edition of it.

Translations of the New Testament Let us not omit to mention here the pastoral need for providing translations, especially of the NT, for the wider population. I am referring to the Modern Greek translation of the NT, which was published by the Greek Bible Society in 1985 and the 2nd edition published in 1989 by six professors of NT Hermeneutics at the Universities of Athens and Thessaloniki. An important contribution to the field of biblical studies was (and still is) the Journal Deltion Biblikon Meleton (Journal of Biblical Studies), which has been published continuously since 1971, by the Artos Zoes (“Bread of Life”) Foundation under the direction of Professor Savas Agouridis, as well as the Greek translations of important theological works (including works by A. Schweitzer, R. Bultmann, O. Cullmann etc.) published by the same foundation.

8

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

Characteristics of Post-war Greek Biblical Research In addition to the abovementioned descriptive outline of Greek biblical research, I will now refer to some of its more essential characteristics, especially in the field of interpretation without, of course, seeking to cover every possible trait. On its path to discover its identity, biblical interpretation in our century went through various phases, which were not always clearly defined, or rather, presented some tendencies which were not generally accepted by everybody. Certain Orthodox interpreters, influenced by the neo-patristic thought of the Russian professor in Boston, Fr. Georges Florovsky, held that the genuine Orthodox interpretation of the Holy Scripture is that which is based on the Church Fathers, i.e. patristic exegesis. Thus, these interpreters considered it necessary in their studies to quote patristic phrases as proof of their orthodoxy. In opposition to the latter, another tendency was to completely disregard patristic interpretations, on the justification that these commentaries constitute a part of the history of the interpretation of Holy Scripture and not an essential element of contemporary exegesis. These two views, that of patristic exegesis, and, that which, on the contrary, disregarded it, were synthesized in such a way that led to a creative dialogue between patristic exegesis and contemporary research. Already in the First Conference of Orthodox Theology which was held in Athens in 1936, that is, a little earlier than the period which interests us here, one can observe a significant effort for gaining a deeper awareness of the sources on the one hand, and on the other hand an attempt to present the aims of Orthodox hermeneutics, while at the same time engaging in a critical and creative dialogue with the hermeneutical tendencies prevailing in the West. After the Conference – but not as its fruit – biblical criticism, and especially the historical-critical method of approach to the biblical texts, was adopted as a method which would lead one to a better understanding of the sacred texts of Scripture, enlightenment of the problems of the text, and the edification of the faithful. We can say that the historical-critical method is currently still the prevailing method of approach to the biblical texts, in spite of the criticism against this method from conservative and from post-modern exegetes alike. It is in the context of the synthesis which we are talking about, that the following remark of Th. Stylianopoulos in his article “Historical Studies and Orthodox Theology or the Problem of History for Orthodoxy” needs to be understood: “From the standpoint of biblical scholarship, the Fathers cannot be regarded as absolute keys, only helpful aids. . . . There is no doubt whatsoever that the modern scholar is in a far better position to understand, not necessarily the religious value, but the original historical meaning of the biblical texts.”8

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

9

Further to this dispute about the value of the patristic hermeneutical tradition, a clear tendency which appeared in biblical studies is the examination of the eschatological character of the biblical texts along with the Jewish background that they presuppose. A less clear tendency, perhaps in contrast to the previous one, but in some cases earlier, is the recognition of the Greek factor, i.e. the Greek thought, language and philology in the shaping of the NT texts. Such a tendency, however, although cherished by many Greeks, did not receive the extent of studies which were made on the Jewish background and the eschatological element in the NT texts. Certainly, this last tendency echoes the progress in the study of Judaism in Europe. It was natural that schools or methods of contemporary hermeneutical scholarship would be transferred to Greece. This is due to the fact that many Greek theologians studied in American and European Universities. This was also caused by the ease in communication between European countries during the post-war era. Form criticism was applied on a large scale, without its extreme views. It was also extended by some researchers outside the field of the gospels and the Pauline epistles, and pre-Pauline elements of the faith of the early Church were investigated and noticed. In a smaller number of studies one can recognize the methods of redaction criticism or tradition criticism, while very few works in Modern Greek bibliography contain a structural or rhetorical analysis of the texts, which is of current interest in Europe and America. The same applies to feminism and the sociological analysis of biblical texts, although in recent years, biblical studies with a sociological analysis or feministic approach have begun to appear. As for Bultmann’s theory of demythologization, this met severe criticism from Greek Orthodox biblical scholars, but also from systematic theologians, in a language (Greek) that neither Bultmann nor his students had the chance to know, so as to reply at least to the points where this criticism was unfair and excessive. The historical factor was taken seriously in the explanation of the Scriptures. This observation has a twofold application: the one concerns the biblical text itself, which should not be understood and interpreted outside history but within the particular historical circumstances of its age; the other concerns the historical context and the environment of the interpreter of every age. In order to understand especially the second aspect, the best illustration is the interpretation of Revelation during the years of the Turkish occupation in Greece. On the one side, the relationship of the enslaved Greeks with the Roman Catholic Church, and on the other, their unfriendly stance towards the Turks, greatly determined the interpretation of some passages and some figures from the book of Revelation (especially the beasts in chap. 13). This characteristic of Orthodox interpretation, i.e. the recognition and underlining of the historical character of biblical revelation but also its under-

10

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

standing as relevant to one’s own time, can be found throughout the history of biblical interpretation in the Church, firstly with Irenaeus and all the ecclesiastical writers who passionately fought Gnosticism, which dissolves history into an ideology, into a platonic dualism. This is also how one can explain why fundamentalism did not thrive in Orthodox Theology, with some exceptions, mostly on the level of popular exegetical works by various Christian brotherhoods. A final characteristic with which I will conclude this brief enumeration of the characteristic elements of Orthodox biblical interpretation is the freedom of expression of theological views. Thus, the multiformity and polyphony of traditional ecclesiastical exegesis is repeated in contemporary Orthodox works. It is another issue that this freedom was used by some to formulate more traditional views and less for progressive ones. However, the issuing of Patriarchal encyclicals such as the Papal encyclicals that I mentioned in the beginning of this article has not been observed in the Orthodox world.

Conclusion - Perspectives for the Future I tried to give a succinct and objective picture of Greek biblical research during the last five to six decades. The achievements either of those interpreters who have departed this world, or those who are alive, create a justified perception of satisfaction but at the same time a consciousness of their responsibility to contemporary people. The deficiencies which were observed, and others not mentioned, witness to the journey that still remains and awaits the new generations of Orthodox scholars. In my opinion this journey has to tread the following areas, to mention a few: a) Completion of the series of hermeneutical commentaries to the NT which was begun already in the 1980s. b) A more serious dialogue with Western scholars and more precisely not a one-sided criticism of their views in our language (Greek), but creative discussion with them in one of the more widely used European languages. Such a serious scholarly dialogue is taking place in the frame of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (Committee of Eastern Europe), under the supervision of Professor Ulrich Luz and a committee comprising eastern and western exegetes. c) More weight on the textual criticism of texts with the aim of a critical edition of the Liturgical, or as it is called by many scholars, Byzantine text of the NT. The project has already begun with the critical edition (based on Byzantine manuscripts in written or electronic form) of the Gospel of John. The edition was prepared and published by the Insti-

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

11

tute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing at the University of Birmingham with the cooperation of Orthodox scholars.9 d) A more direct relationship between the results of international biblical studies with the life and the needs of laypeople, in a way that interpretation will also serve the needs of the Church. e) Finally, an effort towards a more productive incorporation of the biblical message in the cultural environment of our age, an inculturation as it is usually called. Certainly, these areas are just indicative and do not exhaust the greatness of the work of contemporary Orthodox scholars.

•

S T E L I A N

T O F A N Ă

•

The Contribution of Professor Paul N. Tarazi1 to the Development of Romanian Biblical Studies Assessments, Challenges, Perspectives Preliminaries

I

n the last few years, and especially after the fall of the communist regime, Romanian biblical studies has registered qualitative and quantitative development: books and studies were published; the thematic area of biblical studies in the Faculties of Theology diversified; biblical journals appeared; and centers for biblical research and biblical associations were founded. Although not covering extensive areas of research, the vast majority of published biblical studies constitute the foundation of both current and future research. Thus, many subjects approached in these studies were subsequently developed within doctoral theses, biblical commentaries, textual criticism works, and biblical introductions, or as research projects. Therefore, standing on the contributions of predecessors, the area of Romanian biblical studies nowadays develops competitive research, trying to become a scientific landmark for generations to come.

The Thematic Diversity of Paul Tarazi’s Studies, Published in Romanian, and Their Challenging Character Paul Tarazi occupies a special place within Romanian biblical research. He did not publish extensively during his doctoral research in Romania at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Bucharest (1968-1974). He couldn’t have published indeed under the former regime; on the one hand, due to the fact that he was a foreign doctorate student, and on the other hand, because the publishing space granted to doctorate students was very often limited to the papers specific to the Ph.D. program at that time. However, throughout all of his works, Paul Tarazi has promoted a challenging style of approach in biblical studies, as the following analysis will show.

14

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

a. Death and New Life in Christ according to the Epistle to the Romans in Paul Tarazi’s View While most New Testament biblical scholars consider the general theme of the Epistle to the Romans to be justification by faith, Paul Tarazi considers that the epistle unfolds around two cardinal terms, namely death and life. The gospel of the Apostle comes to a climax in eternal life, which is the goal, the end, and the conclusion of every Christian existence: “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life” (Rom 6:22). Based on this finding, Paul Tarazi asserts: “It is not at all a coincidence that when Saint Paul speaks about the manifestation or revelation of divine justice, he introduces either the concept of life (1:17), or the concept of death (3:25). For the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles,’ the death of Christ and the new life in Christ are the starting point and finishing point of any ‘Pauline theology.’” Consequently, the main theme of the Epistle to the Romans would not be justification by faith, but rather new life by faith in Christ.8 From this point of view, Tarazi introduces a new concept in Romanian biblical theology concerning the theme of the Epistle to the Romans. As for the relationship between life and death, Paul Tarazi considers them to be two antagonistic realities in Pauline theology. And what enhances this antagonism is the fact that Christ, through his death, has made us take part in his life (Rom 5-6). Consequently, in order to correctly understand the problem presented by Saint Paul, Paul Tarazi asserts: “We must take into account the fact that according to Pauline theology, the sequence is death-life, and not lifedeath.” As a matter of fact, the entire New Testament message is not a presentation of the earthly life of Jesus, followed by his death, as two distinct realities. In this respect, the reader of the gospels can easily observe the way in which Christ interprets his earthly life as a way towards the cross and towards death (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33), and even more, towards a continual cross (Luke 9:23).9 Paul Tarazi does not strictly remain in the sphere of a kenotic Christology, marked by the cross only, but he rather understands that the unity of the earthly life and death of Jesus is accomplished in the resurrection. In the same time, this unity also constitutes the prelude to the new life of a Christian, namely the one after the death starting with the sacrament of baptism. In this regard, he quotes Romans 6:4-8, where Saint Paul, within an authentic baptismal theology, develops the idea of the centrality of Christ in the process of our transformation from the old man to the new one who continuously grows and develops in him: “Therefore we have been buried with him (ÊÍżÌÚξļŠÇħÅ ¸ĤÌŊ) through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

15

the dead (ďŸ ĹÊÈ¼É óºñÉ¿¾ ÉÀÊÌġË ëÁ żÁÉľÅ) through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (ÇĩÌÑË Á¸Ė ÷ļėË ëÅ Á¸ÀÅĠ̾ÌÀ ½ÑýË È¼ÉÀȸÌûÊÑļÅ). For if we have become united with Him (ÊįÄÎÍÌÇÀ º¼ºĠŸļÅ) in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him (ÊÍżÊ̸ÍÉļ¿¾), that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin…Now if we have died with Christ (Òȼ¿ÚÅÇļŠÊİÅ ÉÀÊÌŊ/|), we believe that we shall also live with Him (ÊͽûÊÇļŠ¸ĤÌŊ/|)”. Tarazi concludes that the resurrection is “the axis around which faith, righteousness, and a new life of the Christian gravitate”. In developing this idea, Paul Tarazi emphasizes the fact that salvation and justification are the “fruit” of the resurrection of Christ. This is clearly expressed in the words of Paul: “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Rom 10:9). Even when the object of faith is God, he is presented as the one who has raised Jesus Christ from the dead: “Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Now not for his sake only was it written, that it was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, he who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom 4:22-25). We are invited to take part in this new life of the resurrection; and while Jesus Christ was declared to be Son of God through his resurrection, we are also called to resemble the image of this son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (Rom 8:29). If on the one hand, our resurrection is linked to the resurrection of Christ, on the other hand, his resurrection mirrors ours: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain . . . For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised” (1 Cor 15:13-14.16). “Christ’s resurrection is not at all demonstrative, but effective,” Paul Tarazi asserts. Just as the earthly life of Jesus reached its climax and paroxysm in the resurrection, the resurrection should define the daily life of the believer. In order to illustrate this truth, Tarazi quotes Joseph Huby: “When Saint Paul speaks of the new life, he understands it to be the Christian life on earth as containing the seed of the glorious Resurrection; and when he speaks of the glorious resurrection he sees it as the extension and flourishing of Christian life on earth.” For this reason, we have access to eternal life inasmuch as we rise from the dead as Jesus Christ did. This ensues from the fact that Saint Paul doesn’t speak of our resurrection before he would have spoken about our death with Christ: “Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live

16

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over him… Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Rom 6:8-9.11). In this sense, Saint Paul uses terms which do not allow the reader to misunderstand his writings at all: “Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death . . . knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him” (Rom 6:4-6). Hence, Tarazi considers the death of Christ (crucifixion and burial) to be “a sine qua non condition of salvation from sin, that is from death (6:14, 16-17, 22-23), because he who has died has been freed from sin (6:7). But, in response to the question of how this process of salvation could be accomplished, Saint Paul unequivocally asserts: through baptism.” Thus, in baptism we are invited “to die together with Christ,” and we accept this death for as much as “we believe that we shall also live with him” (Rom 6:8). In other words, baptism is an invitation to new life, understandable only as much as we believe and confess that Christ has risen from the dead (6:4; 10:9). Therefore, Paul Tarazi concludes: “the life of the baptized is his living in God” (Rom 6:9). The baptized person is a risen person living on earth, bearing the hallmark of his life in God into which he was introduced by Jesus Christ. Thus, the baptized person lives as if death wouldn’t exist since he lives beyond it, surpassing it: “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Rom 6:12-13). At the same time, Paul Tarazi then asserts, those who have been baptized are “channels through which the presence of God is realized in the world. In other words, the level of faith in the world depends on the level at which Christians live their life inaugurated through their baptism. That is why the words of Christ are especially addressed to Christians: ‘When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?’ (Luke 18:8). Therefore, baptism is for the believer both the starting point and also the means by which he is offered the possibility of partaking of what Jesus Christ offers through his sacrifice and resurrection.”

b. The Cross – Content of the Apostolic Kerygma. A biblical perspective of Paul Tarazi Speaking about the meaning of the cross of Christ, Paul Tarazi considers that the epistle addressed by St. Paul to the Christians in Galatia and his first letter sent to the Corinthians are illustrative in this respect. One of the first issues he addresses is that of the symbol of the cross. In this sense, Tarazi correctly asserts that, over time, this instrument of the re-

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

17

demptive sacrifice of Christ, the cross, became the very symbol of the redemptive act. Thus, to speak of the meaning of the cross of Christ is to speak of the meaning of his death. In order to illustrate this truth Paul Tarazi primarily makes mention of the conception of the Apostle Paul expressed in his epistle to the Galatians. After Saint Paul, in the first part of the epistle, explains the way in which he understands salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ, he returns in chapter 5 to expressing his perplexity towards the shift in the minds of the Galatians: “You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion did not come from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough. I have confidence in you in the Lord, that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished” (Gal 5:7-11). Tarazi believes that in this passage, the Apostle Paul uses the word “cross” to convey the content of his preaching, one centered on the idea of sacrifice; in addition, the association of the cross with the idea of “scandal” excellently reflects what “Christ crucified” meant to the Jews - foolishness (1 Cor 1:23). From Tarazi’s point of view, a similar meaning to that presented in the passage above is also given by the Apostle Paul to the following text from Galatians: “Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh. But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (6:1214). Furthermore, the Apostle Paul considers the ritual of circumcision to be opposed to the cross which is for him the symbol of the new creature (6:15). To illustrate this concept, Paul Tarazi also refers to a passage found in 1 Cor 1:17-18. Here, the Apostle Paul links the word ĝ Ê̸ÍÉġË to both the verb Á¼ÅÑ¿ĉ and the noun ÂĠºÇË: “Ĥ ºÛÉ ÒÈñÊ̼ÀÂñŠļ ÏÉÀÊÌġË ¹¸ÈÌĕ½¼ÀÅ, ÒŬ Џ ¼Ĥ¸ºº¼Âĕ½¼Ê¿¸À·ÇĤÁ ëÅ ÊÇÎĕß ÂĠºÇÍ, ďŸ Äü Á¼ÅÑ¿ĉ ĝ Ê̸ÍÉġË ÌÇı ÏÉÀÊÌÇı.  ÂĠºÇË ºÛÉ ĝ ÌÇı Ê̸ÍÉÇı ÌÇėË ÄòÅ ÒÈÇÂÂÍÄñÅÇÀË ÄÑÉĕ¸ ëÊÌĕÅ, ÌÇėË »ò ÊĿ½ÇÄñÅÇÀË ÷ÄėÅ »įŸÄÀË ¿¼Çı ëÊÌÀÅ” (1 Cor 1:17-18). Tarazi’s interpretation of the passage is as follows: “The verb Á¼ÅĠÑ shows that the cross can be emptied, which means that the cross in itself holds something of substance. This ‘substance’ is expressed through the word ÂĠºÇË, which is mentioned twice in the above verses, first, related to ÊÇÎĕß, and second, together with Ê̸ÍÉġË. Saint Paul stresses this point to the Corinthians as they seemed to have forgotten that the Cross possesses in itself a ‘language’ and even expresses a whole speech, and it is not permitted to be destroyed.”

18

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

In his interpretation, Tarazi is correct, since a contextual analysis (1 Cor 1:18-2:5) leaves no room for doubt about the fact that ÂĠºÇË is none other than kerygma itself (1Cor 1:21-23; 2:3), specifically, the preaching that can be emptied of its contents, even made to no avail in the belief of Corinthians, should Christ not have risen from the dead (1 Cor 15:14). Regarding the resurrection of the Lord, the Apostle Paul states: “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1Cor 15:11). Therefore, for Tarazi, the word “cross” encompasses both “the entire mystery of salvation, accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,” and, at the same time, the faultless content of the apostolic kerygma. The same meaning of the cross is also found by Tarazi reflected in the epistle to the Philippians when he makes mention of the following two passages. The first one is Philippians 3:18-19: “For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.” From the content of the epistle, it is understood that these “enemies” of the cross of Christ are none other than those false apostles whom Paul mentioned numerous times, and whose end is death (Gal 5:10), for they do not admit Jesus Christ as the true savior. Tarazi believes that from this fact one can understand that the cross represents “the entire Christian teaching and the entire evangelical teaching in its entirety, and false teachers tried to hinder its dissemination in every way.” The second passage the author refers to, and which makes mention of the cross, is a part of the Christological hymn, found in 2:6-11: “And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (2:8). For Tarazi, the expression “even death on a cross” can only be understood in the present context if we acknowledge the fact that “the cross itself was recognized, in the apostolic era, as the symbol of Christ’s death, and consequently, the symbol of our salvation.” This particular symbol of Christ’s death also represented, for the early Christian Church, the essential content of the apostolic discourse. As a result, Tarazi develops at the same time an entire soteriology and ecclesiology around the cross of Christ in Romanian biblical theology. This is what he writes as a conclusion to the assertions quoted above: “All this shows that the Church, with all the greatness of God that dwells in it (Eph 3:21), cannot be the Church, unless its roots go deep in the true meaning of the cross. The Church also has understood this reality well, insomuch as in the life of every believer, the Church connected the sign of the cross to its deepest testimony of faith: Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit now and ever and unto the ages of ages.”

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

19

c. The Church and the “Mystery” of Christ in the Light of Ephesians 2:11-22, 3:4: Paul Tarazi’s Perspective Although the majority of biblical scholars believe that the book of Ephesians is an ecclesiological one, Paul Tarazi expresses an alternate opinion in a study he published in 1973, namely, that the epistle is a christological one: “The epistle to the Ephesians is rather a presentation of the salvation plan of God, a testimony of the fulfillment of God’s will ‘ÄÍÊÌûÉÀÇÅ ÌÇı ¿¼ÂûĸÌÇË ¸ĤÌÇı’ [Eph 1:9], the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The author of Ephesians purposely states, ‘that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief’ (Eph 3:3). If I avoided labeling the Epistle to the Colossians as a christological one, I was determined to do so by the conviction that also the epistle to the Ephesians is, in the same manner, a christological one.” Tarazi tries to uphold his viewpoint by analyzing the text found in Eph 3:4. Here, Tarazi explains how he interprets the “mystery” of Christ. Before doing so, he emphasizes the fact that for Saint Paul the plan of God concerning man is accomplished and fulfilled, for he says that “all that God allots us, he follows through on ëÅ ÉÀÊÌŊ ¾ÊÇı: spiritual blessings (Eph 1:3), sanctification (Eph 1:4), adoption (Eph 1:5), the Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13), faith (Eph 1:15), the resurrection and being with him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6), the richness of his grace (Eph 2:7). We have been saved through faith (Eph 2:8), Jesus Christ being the center and the scope of creation.” When asked where this plan is accomplished and carried out and how it is done, Tarazi replies: “the Church is the new Creation and new era of Jesus Christ. Placing everything that exists – within this eon and the eon that is to come – under the rule of Christ, God, the Father, has appointed him as head of the Church that is his mystical body. The Church is even Ìġ ÈÂûÉÑĸ ÌÇı ÌÛ ÈÚÅ̸ ëÅ ÈÜÊÀŠȾÉÇÍÄñÅÇÍ” (Eph 1:23). Furthermore, Saint Paul says that the mystery of Christ was eternally hidden in God, so that the heavenly dominions and powers would finally understand this mystery through the Church. Concerning the ‘mystery’ of Christ, it is discovered and accomplished through his very body - the Church. In St. Paul’s vision, this “mystery” is accomplished in the unification in a single body, namely the Church of Christ, of the two separated worlds, the Gentile and Judaic. More precisely, the content of this mystery consists in the fact that the Gentiles take a share together with the Jews in the Messianic promises that were once given only to the Jews. In this respect, the prophets simply re-emphasize the point that the pagans will also be part of the messianic Jerusalem, having joint inheritance to the same messianic promises. Or, for the Apostle Paul the era of this ‘Messianic Jerusalem’ was established by Jesus Christ in his own person. Therefore, to be in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:13), is equivalent to being neither a stranger nor a guest, but

20

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

a fellow citizen with the saints in the house of God: “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (2:19). When reading the text from Eph 2:14-17 which, according to Tarazi, represents the demonstration of this Pauline thesis, as well as an exegesis of the words in the book of Isaiah the Prophet (57:19) the reader is surprised by the repetitive use of the words “peace” (¼ĊÉûž) and “hatred” (ìϿɸ). After affirming that Christ is our peace (Eph 2:14), Tarazi considers that the Apostle Paul describes the work of Jesus Christ through a triple parallelism, expressed through three verbs: ÈÇÀûʸË:, ÂįÊ¸Ë , and Á¸Ì¸ÉºûʸË; while the purpose of this work is defined through a double parallelism: ďŸ ÁÌĕÊþ Á¸Ė ÒÈÇÁ¸Ì¸ÂÂÚÆþ (Eph 2:14, 16). Therefore, Jesus Christ created from the two (the Jew and the Gentile) a single entity, suppressing in himself, namely in his body and blood, “hate” and “the law of prescriptions”, which formed a wall of separation between the two. The paragraph 2:15-16 reveals the twofold purpose of this suppression: on the one side, the creation of the two into one, new man, and secondly, the reconciliation of the “two” in God. With reference to Martin Dibelius, Tarazi correctly affirms that the reconciliation of enemies is rooted in their own reconciliation with God. Thus, everything is focused on underlining the idea that the ultimate purpose of the work of Jesus Christ is the reconciliation of all within God, through the Cross: “he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross” - »ÀÛ ÌÇı Ê̸ÍÉÇı (Eph 2:16). It is worth mentioning that this entire work of merging the two worlds and bringing them into one body (ëÅ îÅĖ ÊļĸÌÀ – 2:16) is noted by Tarazi as being Trinitarian. Referring to Ephesians 2:18, he concedes that although the verse is a repetition of the text found in Eph 1:13-14, it still brings a newness: both (ÇĎ ÒÄÎĠ̼ÉÇÀ) – namely the Jewish and the Gentile nations – have access to the Father. Even if this access takes place through Jesus Christ (2:18), that is, in the person of Christ (2:16), it is realized, likewise, through one Spirit. As a matter of fact, this is the entire “newness” – thinks Paul Tarazi – that was inaugurated through Jesus Christ: through the Son, in the Spirit, towards the Father; “for through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph 2:18). For this reason, St. Paul concludes: “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God (Eph 2:19). The Trinitarian mindset determines, therefore, the whole discourse of the author regarding the discovery and the meaning of the mystery of Christ.” Further expanding on this subject, Tarazi concludes that the verses found in Eph 2:20-22 are of particular relevance. The Church is presented here as being a dynamic structure (ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄü - 2:21). On the one hand, it is the body of

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

21

Christ, while on the other hand it tends towards him. Jesus Christ, the cornerstone, is both the foundation and the head of the Church. In verses 2:21-22 the Apostle Paul depicts a sensational image of “ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄü” of which he affirms that “in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord” - ¸ĥƼÀ ¼ĊË Å¸ġŠ׺ÀÇÅ ëÅ ÁÍÉĕĿ (2:21). The structure is a single entity and has Jesus Christ, the apostles and the prophets as its foundation. Referring to the uniqueness and unity of this “ÇĊÁÇ»ÇÄü,” Tarazi makes some truly impressive remarks: “Yet, her unity is not synonymous with inflexibility and her uniqueness doesn’t imply that she was made and eternally established once and for all. On the contrary, the house of God is a live temple that is continually forming, adjusting and growing. In this temple, the living, the eternal and the changing embrace, the divine and the historical intertwine, the uncreated and created harmonize.” The “living” is established in this temple by the Holy Spirit: “in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Eph 2:22). Thus, “the Holy Spirit is the one who makes every constitutive part in this dwelling place of God to be itself a dwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit ensures the diversity and uniqueness over time, thus maintaining its unity. He is the one who allows the “I” to be completely and wholly discovered in the “us.” Continuing this idea, Tarazi states furthermore: “One fact remains sure: In order for the Christian to become a dwelling place of God, he must be incorporated into the structure. This in turn, reminds us that we cannot tend towards and yearn after the cornerstone without being part of the structure; and in order to be grafted into the structure, we must accept its foundation, namely the apostles and prophets. In its entire historical backdrop, this temple is an eschatological one. The measure in which this temple remains on its foundation will determine the extent to which it will be sustained and headed by the cornerstone, who is Jesus Christ.” As a general conclusion, Paul Tarazi states that the “mystery” of Christ was not news for the “two,” as prophets of ancient times announced the fact that Gentiles will be admitted to join the same inheritance, thus becoming members of the same body, and they will be beneficiaries of the same promises. The newness lies in the way in which everything was accomplished, namely in the body of Christ that is the Church, within which the Spirit of God continuously renders actual the “mystery” of Jesus Christ.

Conclusions Through his work, Paul Tarazi makes a significant contribution in defining an anastasic Christology of the New Testament, by correctly emphasizing that the unity between Christ’s earthly life and death is fulfilled in his resur-

22

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

rection. This represents for the Christian the prelude of his new life inaugurated through the sacrament of baptism, where one dies and resurrects with Christ in a simultaneous renewing act. For Paul Tarazi, the Church, being the body of Christ, is the place where the two worlds, Judaic and Gentile, have merged into one entity for all time. Simultaneously, the body of Christ is the symbol of the continuous fulfillment of the Messianic promises in the midst of the “New Israel,” namely the Christian people. According to Paul Tarazi’s view, the cross is not only the altar of sacrifice on which the reconciliation of man with God was accomplished, but also the content of the apostolic kerygma of all times, based on which Christianity defines itself as being a kenotic one. Therefore, in Romanian biblical theology, Paul Tarazi’s research may constitute a landmark of a constantly challenging approach to the message of the Biblical text.

•

M I C H A E L

G

.

A Z A R

•

“Bow your head low to the great; rescue the oppressed from the oppressor.” Ben Sira and the Struggle with Elitism Introduction

S

econd Temple scribes such as Ben Sira held in tension two primary societal functions: on the one hand, they sat within elite circles, as intellectual retainers, serving their political and religious authorities to varying degrees and fulfilling necessary duties as advisors and ambassadors.1 On the other hand, scribes were charged with the task of preserving their own cultural heritage, their paideia, in the midst of a competing and encroaching Hellenistic paideia. Both of these tasks required an elite standing—a life devoid of the physical labor that defined the vast majority of Judean society and, therefore, a life dependent on wealthy benefactors. While Ben Sira was, as scholars often note, an active supporter of the priestly aristocracy (especially when compared to the authors behind 1 Enoch), he was by no means a content supporter. His writings betray a significant dissatisfaction and struggle with elitism—with his own privileged position in society, with the authorities above him, and with the elite nature of his sapiential predecessors—that significantly shape his understanding of the relationship between the privileged and the socially disadvantaged. Out of the dialectic of submission to one’s own authorities and fidelity to one’s own cultural repertoire, Ben Sira’s cautious understanding of how to act to those socially above and below him is born.

Elements of the Struggle in Sirach Unlike, perhaps, James or Luke, Ben Sira’s struggle with the elite does not fructify in his outright condemnation of the rich on account of their being rich; rather, Ben Sira is more tactful and reflective. While he believes that

24

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

both poverty and wealth may come from God (11:14-28; cf. 33:13),2 he frequently highlights the pitfalls that await the rich and the troubles that wealth will bring—both practically and religiously. Ben Sira is even inclined to speak of a special favor granted to the poor and lowly (cf. 21:4-5; 35:14-26), though he does not stress such favor; rather, as poverty allows one to be less inclined to sin (20:21-3),3 riches have the opposite effect: Many have come to ruin because of gold, and their destruction has met them face to face. Blessed is the rich person who is found blameless, and who does not go after gold. Who is he, that we may praise him? For he has done wonders among his people. Who has had the power to transgress and did not transgress, and to do evil and did not do it? His prosperity will be established, and the assembly will proclaim his acts of charity. (31:6, 8-9, 10b-11)4

Elsewhere, Ben Sira, after highlighting the Lord’s judgment of the angry and vengeful (27:30-28:1), warns, “In proportion to the fuel, so will the fire burn, and in proportion to the obstinacy, so will strife increase; in proportion to a person’s strength will be his anger, and in proportion to his wealth he will increase his wrath” (28:10). Ben Sira also has a similar “cautionary and critical”5—or, perhaps, cautionary and skeptical—understanding of the sin that awaits those in commerce: “A merchant can hardly keep from wrongdoing, nor is a tradesman innocent of sin. Many have committed sin for gain, and those who seek to get rich will avert their eyes” (26:29-27:3; cf. 31:5-6). Thus, Ben Sira’s problem with commerce and the rich and powerful is the same: their lives are ripe for sinful practices, from which only the fear of the Lord can rescue them (27:3). To find a person both rich and blameless is rare (8:2; 13:24; 14:3-10; 31:9-11). With such a negative assessment of wealth—and his warning that the state of the wealthy may change rapidly (11:14-21)—Ben Sira reveals a struggle inherent to his own wealthy profession. After all, he cautions his readers to think of poverty in times of wealth because one’s condition can change in an instant (18:25-6). Such a pessimistic view of the sin that lies almost inherent in wealth leads Ben Sira to warn his students not to seek high office: Do not seek from the Lord high office, or the seat of honor from the king. Do not assert your righteousness before the Lord, or display your wisdom before the king.

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

25

Do not seek to become a judge, or you may be unable to root out injustice; You may be partial to the powerful, and so mar your integrity. (7:4-6)

As his students ought not seek high office, so they ought not despise laborers below them on the social scale (an injunction seemingly opposed to his observations in chapters 38-9): “Do not hate daily labor, or farm work, which was created by the Most High” (7:15). Such labor, it seems, comprises the sort of humility that the Most High seeks (7:17). Common assessments of Sirach take his speech in chapters 38-39 as indicative of his elite social standing, but a passage such as 7:4-6 clearly reveals a deeper struggle within Sirach. In the passage typically put forth by commentators in their assessment of Ben Sira’s elitist standing (38:24-39:12), Ben Sira contends that day laborers (same expression as in 7:15) and those of regular manual professions cannot become wise because their minds are full of their trades, while scribes have the necessary leisure to increase their paideia and wisdom (38:24-30). The former rely on their hands and are essential to the fabric of the city and world, but they are not sought after for council, nor do they warrant eminence at public assemblies. They do not act as judges and do not keep company with rulers (38:31-34a). Conversely, Ben Sira declaims, “How different the one who devotes himself to the study of the law of the Most High!” (38:34b). Unlike the regular laborers, scribes study and seek wisdom from prophecies, parables, and proverbs (39:1-3); they serve among the great (ļºÀÊÌŠÅÑÅ) and rulers (÷ºÇÍÄšÅÑÅ) and travel extensively, learning what is good (39:4). They pray, and “concerning their sins, they make supplications” (39:5). Furthermore, the Lord, if he is willing, will grant wisdom to the one who devotes himself to the study of the law, and the scribe in turn will “pour forth words of wisdom of his own and give thanks to the Lord in prayer” (39:6). As the Lord will direct his steps, revealing his mysteries, so the scribe will glory in the Lord’s covenant and thus be praised by coming generations (39:7-11). Despite such seemingly elitist observations, the struggle that precedes this speech in chapters 38-9 causes Ben Sira’s words here to appear not as “an echo of the professional snobbery of the scribe”6 but as an assessment of whence and from whom one ought to seek wisdom and council. As Ben Sira frequently cautions against feigned wisdom without paideia and experience (e.g. 3:1731), so here he also warns against seeking council from those who have yet to learn (cf. 37:11). In a Hellenistic context of competing paideias, Ben Sira necessarily falls into the self-glorification of his own cultural heritage and profession, but we should not assume his self-glorification to be elitist or snobbish. Rather, he presents his own paideia in attractive, and thus apologetic, terms.

26

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

With his stress on humility and the fleeting nature of riches, he does so carefully. We must note that among the “glories” of the scribal life are prayer, thanksgiving, and repentance (39:5-6). Scholars who depend thoroughly on Sirach 38-9 for a complete picture of the Second Temple scribe frequently do not take Ben Sira’s rhetoric and apologetic nature into sufficient account. There is little doubt that scribes took their places among the great of society and served their roles as retainers, advisors, tradition preservers, and ambassadors. However, Ben Sira’s frequent injunctions in favor of humility, the two opposing views regarding the desired societal role of a scribe (7:4-6 and 38:34b-39:11), and the fact that Ben Sira but once mentions the roles of scribes among rulers and the great in his speech on the glorious lives of scribes (39:4)—in the context of a poem that primarily focuses on the scribe as a preserver of Israel’s traditions, the Lord’s covenant, and the penitent who prays—serve to reveal that there is a deeper struggle with his own elitist standing than commentators typically have recognized. Ben Sira necessarily treaded carefully when speaking of the priestly aristocracy that likely ruled Judea and employed both Ben Sira and his students in their service.7 There is no doubt that he supported the temple priesthood (again, unlike 1 Enoch). With “the commandment” in mind, Ben Sira exhorts his hearers to revere and follow the priests as they fear and love the Lord (7:30): “Fear the Lord and honor the priest, and give him his portion, as you have been commanded: the first fruits, the guilt offering, the gift of the shoulders, the sacrifice of sanctification, and the first fruits of the holy things” (7:31). Much like the Torah (cf. Deut 14:28-9), Ben Sira couples this concern for the priests and sacrificial rites with a concern for the poor: Stretch forth your hand to the poor [ʯʥʩʡʠ, ÈÌÑÏŊ], so that your blessing may be complete. Give graciously to all the living, and withhold not kindness [ʣʱʧ] from the dead. In all you do, remember the end of your life, and then you will never sin. (7:32-33, 36)

While the priestly aristocracy may have been partly to blame for the situation of the lower classes, Ben Sira nonetheless does not present a complete overturning of society in order for the plight of the oppressed classes to be heard. But this does not mean that Ben Sira is a content supporter of the priestly rulers themselves. Rather, his struggle with elitism is more complex as he encourages his students to be mindful of those both above and below one’s own social standing, all for the sake of the commandment. Moreover, Ben Sira’s ethic of caution hardly allows him to oppose the rich and powerful too directly:

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

27

Do not contend with the powerful, or you may fall into their hands. Do not quarrel with the rich, in case their resources outweigh yours. (8:1-2a)

While he later praises Elisha for his ability to withstand the intimidation and fearfulness of rulers (48:12), Ben Sira nonetheless argues that in submission to the powerful—and not against them—one must still care for the socially disadvantaged. Elisha is to be praised, but we are to be cautious. Ben Sira places the blame on the rich for making the life of the poor much more difficult than it already is. He cautions his own readers not to associate with anyone mightier or richer than them (13:2) because, while a rich person has free reign to do wrong, a poor person (ʬʣ, ›IJȦȤȩȢ) “suffers wrong” (ʤʥʲʰ, ó»ţÁ¾Ì¸À) and must apologize (13:3). Thus, again, Ben Sira is outlining the likelihood, almost inevitability, of a rich person’s sinning while a poor person is the one who suffers wrongdoing. Therefore, he subsequently warns of the advantage the rich and influential may take of his own students (13:4-16). Such a warning is not foreign to Proverbs, though Ben Sira subsequently indeed “describes the antagonism between rich and poor more sharply than is customary in traditional wisdom literature.”8 As such, the warning he gives to his students of the evil inclinations of the rich become much stauncher as he compares the rich and the poor, seeing the divide between them as akin to the divide between the ungodly and godly, the proud and humble: What fellowship has a wolf with a lamb? No more has a sinner with a godly man. What peace is there between a hyena and a dog? And what peace between a rich man and a poor man? Wild asses in the wilderness are the prey of lions; likewise the poor are pastures for the rich. Humility is an abomination to a proud man; likewise a poor man is an abomination to a rich one.

(13:17-20, RSV; cf. 21-24)9 Rather than oppose rulers with apocalyptic imagery, Ben Sira carefully expresses his critique of his rulers indirectly through a reflection on the ideal ruler (9:17-10:18).10 As hands are the tools of an artisan, so wise words are the tools of a ruler, and if the ruler himself is wise and educated, he will also produce and reap the benefits of a wise and educated people: “An uneducated king ruins his people, but a city will become fit to live in through the understanding of its rulers” (10:3). Warning of the ill effects of a poor ruler,11 Ben Sira subtly asserts, “The government of the earth is in the hand of the Lord,

28

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

and he will raise up the useful leader over it at the right time” (10:5).12 Thus, Ben Sira warns, sovereignty, although enacted through humans, belongs to the Lord and to the Lord alone. Such a warning ought to prevent pride in one’s sovereignty, but, as Ben Sira goes on to show, arrogance is characteristic of all too many rulers. Warning that the Lord hates arrogance (10:7), Ben Sira reminds his audience, “Sovereignty passes from one nation to another because of injustice, insolence, and wealth. How can dust and ashes be proud? Because in life the human body decays” (10:8-9). The Lord will not only bring “unheard-of calamities” to the proud (10:13), but he may even overthrow proud kings and nations themselves, only to replace them with the humble (ÈÉÜÇË) and lowly (̸ȼÀÅŦË; 10:15). Before concluding this speech, Ben Sira again warns that God will destroy nations on account of their pride, violence, and anger (10:16-18). Ben Sira opposes rulers much like 1 Enoch, though he does so more carefully. Immediately following, Ben Sira describes who really deserves honor and glory (10:19-11:6), asserting that the “fear of the Lord” is true glory for all: the rich, the esteemed, and the poor (ˇʸʥʩʸʫʰʣʦ, ÈÂÇŧÊÀÇË Á¸Ė ìÅ»ÇÆÇË Á¸Ė ÈÌÑÏŦË; 10:22). Thus, one who is poor (ʬʣ, ÈÌÑÏŦÅ) but wise ʬʩʫˈʮ, ÊÍżÌŦÅ)13 and fears the Lord is more honorable than princes (10:23). He cautions not to make a showy display of one’s wisdom, but to “honor” one’s self with humility (10:26-28). And in a striking contrast of the rich and poor, he notes, The poor [ʬʣ, ›IJȦȤȩȢ] are honored for their knowledge, while the rich are honored for their wealth. One who is honored in poverty [ਥȞ ›IJȦȤİȓ઺14], how much more in wealth! And one dishonored in wealth, how much more in poverty! (10:30-1)

Ben Sira recognizes that honor is more often given to the rich than to the poor, but his juxtaposition of pride and humility suggests that this ought not be so. Accordingly, he brings this poem to a close with observations regarding the deceitfulness of appearance: People ought not be praised for outward appearances, but for the fruit they bear. Furthermore, they ought not exalt themselves by wearing fine clothes or seeking honor (11:1-4) because, Ben Sira notes, The poor person’s wisdom lifts his head high and sets him among princes. Praise not a person for his looks; loathe not a person for his appearance. Least is the bee among winged things,

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

29

but she reaps the choicest of all harvest. Mock not whoever wears a loincloth only, and jibe at no person’s bitter day: For strange are the works of the Lord, hidden from humans his deeds. The oppressed often rise to a throne [Gk: Many kings are made to sit on the ground], and some that none would consider wear a crown. The exalted [Gk: rulers] often fall into utter disgrace; the honored are given into enemy hands. (11:5-6)15

Ben Sira’s struggle with elitism concerns not only his governing authorities, but also his priestly rulers. While Ben Sira is clearly in support of the temple and its institutions in general, he warns harshly of improper sacrifices. With a voice more at home in prophetic literature, he counsels that goods offered to the Most High ought not be ill-gotten, for with such the Most High will not be pleased, nor will a multitude of sacrifices entice him to forgive sins (34:21-23).16 He goes on to assert, Like one who kills a son before his father’s eyes is the person who offers a sacrifice from the property of the poor. The bread of the needy is the life of the poor; whoever deprives them of it is a murderer. To take away a neighbor’s living is to commit murder; to deprive an employee of wages is to shed blood. (34:24-7)

Ben Sira here bears a prophetic stamp in his opposition to common temple practices that neglect the socially disadvantaged (cf. Amos 2:6-8; Is 1:1617). He subsequently speaks of sacrifices more metaphorically—as keeping the law, almsgiving, and practicing kindness (35:1-13)—and thus, while Ben Sira is clearly in praise of the priesthood (at least Simon and those with him; cf. 50:121), he clearly recognizes the legitimacy of sacrifices without a temple. This tension between unlawful temple practices and Ben Sira’s high regard for the priesthood betray a struggle akin to his struggle with political authorities, albeit not as severe. Moreover, as he highlights the judgment that awaits those who govern improperly, so here, in the context of observations regarding proper temple practices, Ben Sira (again with inspiration from the prophets) has recourse to God’s divine judgment that lies in wait for those who oppress the poor, the widows, and the orphans (35:14-26). Ben Sira’s indebtedness to the prophets in this speech on proper temple practices makes his prophetic prayer for deliverance in 36:1-22 not seem nearly as out of place. He simply expresses more blatantly in 36:1-22 what he chooses to express more tactfully elsewhere. 17

30

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

In 29:1-20, Ben Sira offers advice regarding loans and surety. While this speech begins and ends with comments directly related to loans, the core and fulcrum concerns practicing kindness and almsgiving. Contradicting most of the wisdom tradition that preceded him, Ben Sira recasts the purpose of material goods as intended for the benefit of a neighbor or the poor, and, while he criticizes surety and lending (cf. 8:12; 21:8), he nonetheless allows it (cf. Prov 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18; 20:16; 22:26-7; 27:13).18 When he does allow it, he encourages caution and prudence (as he does in regards to all of his ethical and social advice), but in 29:1-20, it seems that the “social presence of poverty puts the brake on prudence”19 and causes Ben Sira to encourage giving, even to the point of “losing” money. According to Sirach, one should not hoard money and so “waste” it (29:9). Victor Asensio aptly observes: “To justify this recommendation, Ben Sira does not resort to experience, but to the positive divine law: ‘for the love of the Law’”20 (29:9; cf. Deut 15:1-11). Ben Sira’s departure from experientially-based advice and his use of the Torah as the primary referent for his advice on surety and almsgiving presents a significant departure from older wisdom tradition: “For the sake of the commandment, help the poor” (29:9).

Rhyme and Reason: Thematic Roots of Ben Sira’s Struggle Arrogance and Humility Ben Sira’s high regard for humility lies at the root of his struggle with elitism. His collection of speeches and proverbs fittingly opens with a praise of wisdom (1:1-10), which at its highest is the “fear of the Lord” (1:11-30). He exhorts his listeners to humble (̸ȼÀÅŪÊÇÍÊÀÅ) themselves before the Lord and follow his law (2:17). This concern for humility, which Ben Sira establishes from the very beginning of his book (and which he shares with his predecessors), governs all aspects of Sirach: “the greater you are, the more you must humble yourself,” for “by the humble (ʭʩʥʰʲ) [the Lord] is glorified” (3:18-20). Ben Sira, in the same speech in chapter 3, compares the humble to the almsgiver and the stubborn and arrogant to one who does not give: “Water extinguishes a burning fire, and almsgiving atones for sins [ʺʠʨʤ ʸʴʫʺ ʤʷʣʶ, ë¼¾ÇÊŧž ëÆÀŠʼ̸À ÖĸÉÌţ¸Ë]. Those who return graciousness give thought to the future; when they fall, they will find support” (3:30-1; cf. Prov 11:4). Related to the themes expressed in this speech on humility, and appropriately following it, Ben Sira speaks of the need to care for the poor: My child, do not cheat the poor [ʩʰʲ] of their living, and do not keep needy eyes waiting. Do not grieve the hungry, or anger one in need.

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

31

Do not add to the troubles of the desperate or delay giving to the needy. Do not reject a suppliant in distress or turn your face away from the poor. Do not avert your eye from the needy [įİȠȝȑȞȠȢ], and give no one reason to curse you; for if in bitterness of soul some should curse you, their Creator will hear their prayer. Endear yourself to the congregation; Bow your head [IJĮ›İȚȞȩȦ] low to the great Give a hearing to the poor, and return their greeting politely. Rescue the oppressed from the oppressor; and do not be hesitant in giving a verdict. Be a father to orphans, and be like a husband to their mother; you will then be like a son of the Most High, and he will love you more than does your mother. (4:1-10)

Ben Sira’s bold assertions against those who oppress the lower strata of society stray out of previous wisdom literature and further into the prophetic. The possibility of Ben Sira’s contentions with those in power appears even more strongly a few verses later, when Ben Sira again reflects on the importance of silence and humility in paideia: Do not subject yourself to a fool, or show partiality to a ruler. Fight to the death for truth, and the Lord God will fight for you. (4:27-28; cf. 7:6-7)

Ben Sira’s stress that it is the Lord who will fight for the one who contends for truth is key, as the subsequent poem warns not to trust in one’s riches, status, or ability (5:1-6:4). E.P. Sanders correctly recognizes that what underlies Ben Sira’s opposition to the unjust behavior of the wealthy is “arrogance and pride towards both man and God.”21 Ben Sira treats the unjust rulers as he does the arrogant learners: Both must seek to accomplish/learn God’s commandments by relieving themselves of arrogance and pride and instead practicing humility and caution. At the root of his concept of social justice is humankind’s tendency towards arrogance rather than thankfulness, pride rather than humility. Caution is what keeps one from transgressing the law and acting arrogantly.

32

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

Forgiveness, Mercy, and Ben Sira’s God While humans merely care for their neighbors, God’s “compassion” extends to every living thing (18:13; cf. 51:29-30). The emphasis on mercy, compassion, and forgiveness, as well as an equal openness towards one’s ability to repent and amend one’s ways, are primary characteristics of Sirach that serve to distinguish it from older wisdom literature.22 In the opening to his book, as we noted above, Ben Sira enjoins his students to trust and seek God and follow his commandments; those who do so will not be disappointed: For the Lord is merciful and compassionate; He forgives sins and saves in time of trouble (2:11).

As the Lord’s “majesty is equal to his mercy” (1:18c; cf. 5:6), so Ben Sira expects those who practice God’s commandments to extend the same mercy and forgiveness. While mercy and forgiveness factor little, if at all, into the ethics of Proverbs, or that of Hellenistic culture, for Ben Sira, it becomes a defining trait of the Lord’s servants. Ben Sira even goes so far as to make divine forgiveness itself contingent upon humankind’s own ability to forgive: “If anyone has no mercy toward another like himself, can he then seek pardon for his own sins?” (28:4; cf. 28:2-3, 5; 8:5). Such an emphasis on mercy and forgiveness—largely prophetic motifs—undoubtedly colors Ben Sira’s understanding of his own elitist standing and the treatment that the rich offered to the poor. The Fear of the Lord, the Commandment(s), and the Prophetic Influence Ben Sira, according to Daniel Harrington, was “countercultural” in his placing “the search for wisdom and the fear of the Lord above material possessions, authority over others, and honor from others.”23 What sets Ben Sira apart from his Hellenistic counterparts, besides his well-known equation of Torah and wisdom, is his concern for the fear of the Lord and, therefore, his “humble submissive attitude toward the tradition.”24 Such a concern for humility, while foreign to the Greek sense of honor, was common to the wisdom tradition. While riches and status frequently bring honor and glory (cf. 40:141:13), for Ben Sira the fear of the Lord is better than any glory (40:18-27). This view of the fear of the Lord as the overarching characteristic that “alone justified a sense of accomplishment”25 drove Ben Sira into a struggle with his own elitist standing. It is not wealth and education that should ultimately bring one honor, but something else: “The rich, and the eminent, and the poor—their glory is the fear of the Lord” (10:22).26 For Ben Sira, the “fear of the Lord” is both wisdom and paideia (1:27). The fear of the Lord recapitulates the commandments (15:1; cf. 10:19; 19:20, 24), and through obedience to the commandments—for that is, after all, at the

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

33

root of Ben Sira’s paideia—wisdom is given (6:32-7). This stress upon Torah, and its equation with wisdom, is the most defining characteristic of Sirach, and it is this stress that had the greatest effect on both the way that Ben Sira adapted and reinterpreted his wisdom tradition as well as his own struggle with his elite scribal standing. He particularizes the universal endowment of wisdom—what was once an inheritance for all nations—into the teachings of Moses. As we have seen already, both Ben Sira’s understanding of the treatment of the poor and his struggle with elitism stem from this dialectic between wisdom and Torah. E.P. Sanders aptly summarizes such a dialectic: One cannot quarrel with the argument that the importance of a pious relationship with God was a principal concern of the author; but the argument of the book, and in that sense its theme, seems to lie in the dialectic between wisdom and law. Ben Sirach argues that if a man wants wisdom (which everyone does), he should not seek it from secular teachers, but rather observe the covenant with Moses…. The relationship is dialectical, and neither [wisdom nor the Torah] subordinates the other. Wisdom is good and is to be sought; it is embodied in the Torah; one will be wise who fears God and obeys the Mosaic commandments…. Ben Sirach seeks a fruitful theological harmonization which maintains the value of the wisdom tradition but which sets it within the framework of the election of Israel and the divine law given to Israel through Moses.27

Sanders, though failing to see key changes in Ben Sira’s ethics vis-à-vis his inherited wisdom tradition, nonetheless rightly highlights this unique dialectic evident on every page of Ben Sira’s collection. However, Ben Sira’s dialectic goes one step further: It is not simply that Ben Sira’s Torah colors his reception of the wisdom tradition, but that this Torah is seen through a lens akin to prophetic literature. Around the time of Ben Sira’s life, the prophetic corpus was likely still developing and growing, and, as noted earlier, scribes of the Second Temple probably played a significant role in the transmission and inscribing of such oral traditions (and perhaps were responsible for additions, such as the newer material in Isaiah or Deuteronomic material in Jeremiah).28 As Richard Horsley analogously notes, the scribal revival of their Judean heritage bore similarities to the later Second Sophistic revival of classical Greek literature.29 Scholars frequently contend that Ben Sira’s concern for the poor is nothing far beyond that in Proverbs,30 but, while Proverbs has a comparatively lower concern for the poor than that of the prophets, Ben Sira, as we have seen, struggles with this “traditional” stance under the increasing influence of the prophets.31 The very verbal registry that Ben Sira uses for his discussion of wealth and poverty itself confirms a significant prophetic intrusion into his sapiential heritage.32 In Ben Sira’s own description, the one who devotes himself to the law of the Most High “seeks out the wisdom of all the ancients, and is concerned with prophecies” (39:1), even before he “seeks out the hidden meaning of proverbs” (39:2).

34

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

Conclusion: Honor, Shame, and Ben Sira’s Art of Politicking Both Ben Sira and the authors of the near-contemporaneous Enochic material sought, in their respective ways, to adapt their own Judean heritage, especially social justice concerns, to their new Hellenistic context and to use that heritage as a tool of criticism. That being said, 1 Enoch is most often taken to be at odds with Sirach in its greater concern for the socially disadvantaged. However, the differences in their rhetoric do not necessarily entail a different worldview with regards to the lower classes, but rather a different political approach.33 In other words, Ben Sira, perhaps because he was in the accepted mainstream, chose to work “within the system” rather than “against the system” as did the Enochic authors. In Sirach, the temple-state is not entirely bankrupt, and, as such, Ben Sira’s primary task was to train scribes to operate successfully within that system, a system that shared the Hellenistic concern for honor—specifically public acknowledgement—and shame. Since Ben Sira’s advice is primarily to those who appear destined for some sort of political office, as advisors to the mighty and as preservers of Judean tradition, he concerns himself with advice regarding not only how to operate successfully in terms of one’s own career, but, more importantly, as a faithful preserver of the developing Judean paideia. Collins rightly observes, “The person who aspires to serve the great, as Ben Sira does, is not well positioned for the role of the social critic. It is to his credit that he speaks out against the abuse of wealth, but he is no radical polemicist.”34 As scribes, Ben Sira’s students had to learn how to navigate their own political system carefully and cautiously, constantly aware of the tension created between their aristocratic patrons and their inherited paideia.35 In order to faithfully transmit their covenantal commitments, scribes such as Ben Sira, who himself might have had drastic confrontations with political authorities (cf. 51:1-12), had to carefully advocate on behalf of the poor while not alienating themselves from their employers and benefactors (especially if they were even at risk of alienating themselves through mere improper banquet behavior; cf. 32:1-13).36 In Sirach, the Judean paideia competes with the widely favored Hellenistic paideia, as well as other Hebrew paideias, and in order to compete successfully, one must compete cautiously. What governs Ben Sira’s political maneuvering is precisely that: caution. Ben Sira frequently exhorts his students to tread carefully when before the rich and powerful. Núria CalduchBenages fittingly summarizes Ben Sira’s advice regarding relationships with wealthy authorities: On the one hand, there is no denying that Ben Sira presents a rather negative image of the authorities, which is a faithful representation of the hard reality of that time . . . In the face of this reality, instead of demonstrating his disapproval or promoting rebellion, the sage recommends submission (not offering

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

35

resistance), obedience (bowing one’s head), moderation (not speaking too much), and prudence (keeping a distance). All these are attitudes which maintain the established order avoiding any type of confrontation. 37

Thus, Ben Sira does not encourage a confrontation of the system and its injustices in too direct a manner, for such an approach would only alienate himself and preclude any potential for being a successful advocate of the socially disadvantaged. Admittedly, Ben Sira’s ethics of caution38 “lacks the fire and passion of the Hebrew prophets,”39 though the content behind his cautionary approach is much the same. Ben Sira’s political rulers did not fear the Lord in quite the same manner as did the rulers present with the prophets anyway. Influenced by the prophets and deeply affected by the Torah, Ben Sira betrays a deep sense of a struggle with elitism—the elitism of his own social standing, his sapiential heritage, and the Hellenistic and Judean authorities, upon whom he was dependent. Thus, he enjoins his students, “Endear yourself to the congregation; bow your head low to the great. Give a hearing to the poor . . . Rescue the oppressed from the oppressor” (4:7-9), but do so tactfully.

•

J O H N

A

.

J I L L I O N S

•

Can These Bones Live? Ezekiel, Jesus and the Challenge of the “Other” “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was full of bones…and lo, they were very dry. And he said to me, ‘Son of man, can these bones live?’ And I answered, ‘O Lord God, thou knowest.’” (Ezek 37:1-3)

Introduction

O

ne of the remarkable facts about the Bible’s place in the institutional life of Judaism and Christianity is that it enshrines the prophetic tradition within itself as an entire category of self-criticism, renewal, and reform. The prophet can call the community to do better, to return to its vocation, or to leave its comfort zone and head into unfamiliar territory. This prophetic dimension, both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, is undomesticated, messy, and unpredictable. The Orthodox Church‘s use of the Bible is sometimes criticized for silencing this prophetic voice. We are always talking about the Bible in the Church, the Bible in the tradition, the Bible and the Fathers, all to say that the Bible can only be rightly understood within the Church’s corporate understanding of God’s revelation. And that is fine, up to a point, because we accept the fact that reception, interpretation, and reinterpretation over time of divine revelation is a communal process. But all too often this emphasis on tradition can dull the Bible’s prophetic edge. If the Bible’s words at any point would seem to challenge the Orthodox Church today, then the knee-jerk reaction is that we are not reading the Bible “in the Church,” that we have allowed a Protestant spirit of sola scriptura to infect us. But do we permit God’s voice in the Scriptures to challenge the Church? If not, we risk turning Orthodoxy into an idol. This is a point that Fr. Paul Tarazi often raises, and I would like to use this paper as an opportunity to ask if God is challenging how we Orthodox view the non-Orthodox, beginning with other Christians.

38

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

Because prophets are unsettling they invariably provoke antagonism and nowhere is this more apparent than when they start calling into question how the community relates to its religious neighbors, the “foreigner,” “the other.” This paper will look at the very different prophetic voices of Ezekiel and Jesus on this fractious issue in the Orthodox Church today. I will argue that Ezekiel’s vision of the divinely chosen community is an exclusive vision focused on an adherence to past revelation and faithfulness to received tradition that is hostile to experiences with “the other.” In Ezekiel’s 6th century BC context the foreigner is short-hand for all that seduces Israel away from faithfulness to the God who chose Israel and separated them from the nations. Therefore any syncretism, any mixing with these foreigners religiously (or even socially) is an abomination. This parallels the dominant Orthodox view today that the Orthodox Church is to be identified with the Chosen People, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that all non-Orthodox are therefore “gentiles” to one degree or another. Unless they renounce their foreign past, from the Orthodox perspective there can be no question of mixing with them in one communal body as fellow Christians. In other words, it seems to me that the Orthodox have taken up an Old Testamental view of the other in their relations with the non-Orthodox. But is this parallel justified today, given the wide range of new experiences—defying any single categorization—that Orthodox have with others in our pluralistic world? Ezekiel’s exclusive view contrasts markedly with Jesus’ vision of a much more open community that places less emphasis on past tradition. Jesus focuses less on faithfulness to the past than on discernment of God’s Spirit in the present. Instead of making a blanket judgment on outsiders, he demonstrates a new way of looking at them, and in so doing finds examples of faith that not even the Chosen People can match. In this way Jesus opens the door for an inclusive ecclesiology that makes room not only for Gentiles but for a wide range of expressions among the followers of Jesus Christ. If Ezekiel’s test of community is primarily based on its exclusivity and fidelity to God’s revelation in the past, Jesus’ test is primarily openness both to the other and to God’s new direction in the present. This is not to say that Ezekiel excludes new infusions of divine inspiration or that Jesus excludes faithfulness to tradition. Not at all. But their balances between faithfulness to tradition and openness to new experience are radically different. I argue that Jesus’ inclusive and discerning outlook on foreigners is much more appropriate for the Orthodox Church to adopt in our day.

Ezekiel Ezekiel and the Old Testament prophets were primarily conservative reformers, calling Israel back to faithfulness to God by resubmitting themselves

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

39

to Moses and the Law. New conditions such as the exile and its aftermath could create new external conditions and ways to reinterpret that faithfulness, but essentially the people of Israel were perpetually being challenged by the prophets to go back. They were to go back to following the Lord’s commandments, and this meant in the first place to reject foreign influence. They were to get rid of their foreign idols, foreign wives, foreign neighbors, foreign morality, and foreign practices. The foreigner, the “other,” was invariably a snare and temptation for those called to be qadosh, holy, separate, set apart from the nations to serve God’s purposes. Ezekiel prophesied for thirty years, from 593 to 563 BC, i.e., before, during and after the terrible first years of the exile. He saw the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC, the destruction of the Temple and the exile to Babylon as the natural consequences of apostasy by rulers, religious leaders, priests, and prophets who had abandoned their faithfulness to the Torah and been seduced by foreign practices that undermined Israel’s call to holiness. Here is a catalogue of Israel’s rebellions against God’s ordinances, and most of these can be traced to Israel’s syncretistic entanglement with foreigners: ƒ They acted according to the ordinances of the nations around them (Ezek 5:6ff., 11:12) ƒ They have “taken idols into their hearts” (Ezek 6:9, 8:9-13, 14:1-11) ƒ They were unjust and proud and used their God-given beauty for their own vanity and harlotry (Ezek 7:20, 16:15ff., 23:1-49, 24:20ff.). ƒ They practiced crime and violence (Ezek 7:23, 12:19). ƒ They worshipped the sun (Ezek 8:16ff.). ƒ They practiced magic and fortunetelling (Ezek 13:17ff.). ƒ They admitted foreigners into the sanctuary (Ezek 44:6ff.). In summary, the people forgot the God who made them separate from the nations, and the consequence was this horrific record of sins (Ezek 22:6-12). Worse, those who should have been warning the people had abandoned their vocation. The clergy didn’t teach or try to turn this around (Ezek 22:25ff., 34:1-31). The prophets spoke comforting messages out of their own minds and not the Word of God (Ezek 18:1ff.). Everyone ignored the harsh realities of true prophecy (Ezek 12:21ff.; 20:49). Only after the terrors of destruction and exile had overtaken them were the people ready to hear the prophet’s message. And at that stage, Ezekiel not only rebukes and calls to repentance, but also brings hope, showing in his person the softness of heart that God promised in time to send to all his people (Ezek 11:14-21). This is the message too of the valley of dry bones (Ezek 37), giving hope to the exiles, “who have no more hope of resuscitating the Kingdom of Israel than of putting flesh on a skeleton and calling it to life”. Or-

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

40

thodox Christians are familiar with the dramatic place of this reading during the matins of Holy Saturday, in front of the epitaphios, with Christ symbolically in the tomb and the resonances of resurrection amidst the hopelessness of death (Ezek 37:1-14). But it is worthwhile considering the verses that follow this reading, because the vision of the resurrected people of God remains an exclusive picture of the purified chosen race, reunited under the Messianic king, carefully observing the Law and totally separate from the abominations of everyone around them. Thus says the Lord God: I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. They shall never again defile themselves with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. I will save them from all the apostasies into which they have fallen, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God. My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes. They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your ancestors lived; they and their children and their children’s children shall live there forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will bless them and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary among them forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations shall know that I the LORD sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary is among them forevermore. (Ezek 37:2128)

The final chapters of Ezekiel (Ezek 40-48) speak of the restored temple to which the glory of the Lord returns, but it remains an exclusively Jewish temple, purified of all foreign presence. Say to the rebellious house, to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: O house of Israel, let there be an end to all your abominations in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant with all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of my sacred offerings; but you have appointed foreigners to act for you in keeping my charge in my sanctuary. Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. (Ezek 44:6-9)

Jesus Ezekiel’s vision presents us with a closed sanctuary that excludes foreigners, because they are associated with all that pulls Israel away from faithfulness to God. But what happens when the tables are turned? What happens when it is the foreigners who are often the best examples of true faithfulness? This is

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

41

precisely the new set of conditions that Jesus encounters in his day. Time and again he points to outsiders as the examples of faith he would want his disciples to follow. And this leads to the overturning of all Israel’s expectations. “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (Matt 8:10-12)

It is precisely at this point that Jesus’ prophecy differs from Ezekiel and the classical prophets, because he rebukes conservative traditionalism and announces the opening of the kingdom to outsiders. His two harshest prophetic acts demonstrate this and stand in stark contrast to Ezekiel. First, Jesus cleanses the Temple not to rid it of foreigners, but exactly the opposite, to make a place for them, allowing it to be a house of prayer for all nations (Mark 11:17). Second, in his woes against the “scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites” (Matt 23:1-36) Jesus rebukes the arrogance, triumphalism, pride, and harsh exclusivity of the conservative religious leaders who advocated strict adherence to the tradition, but in so doing were neglecting justice, mercy, and faith. Ezekiel faced a similar challenge, but from the opposite direction. He was railing against liberal religious and political leaders whose neglect of past tradition (under the influence of foreigners) led them into all the abominations he catalogued. These sharp words and actions underline the message of Jesus’ banquet parables, that everyone is invited in (Matt 22:1-4; Luke 14:16-24). Another parable speaks of the wide net that is cast for the kingdom, bringing in all kinds of sea creatures, good and bad, with the sorting occurring later (Matt 13: 4750). Then there is the parable of the wheat and weeds growing together, and again the sorting happens at the end of the age, not now (Matt 13:24-30). This opening of the kingdom’s boundaries is perfectly in line with the entire public witness of Jesus, who controversially had no trouble mixing and having tablefellowship with all sorts of people normally excluded from polite religious company. In addition to this opening in regard to the “other” there was another new factor that radically distinguished Jesus’ prophecy from that of Ezekiel. Jesus did not have the same reform-oriented, “return to the old teaching” focus on the past. He wasn’t calling his listeners to merely go back to being faithful to the ancient, tried and true covenant. Instead, his disciples were to look forward in expectation and to discern the movement of the Spirit, especially in their experiences and relations with the other, those previously excluded, those “outside the camp” with whom Jesus consorts. He was calling them from the certainties of tradition to the more uncertain task of discernment. While the prophets had emphasized faithfulness to the old Law, Jesus was announcing that the new Messianic age was upon them, and that this would be sig-

42

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

naled by the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon “all flesh” (Joel 2:28). This was different from the prophets of old in one key respect: listeners to past prophetic messages calling for reform could look back to the written and oral Torah and see that these things were true. They could test the word of Ezekiel against the tradition already given to them. But Jesus’ message was not verifiable in the same way. It required discernment, not just repentance. It required more than faithfulness to the tradition of written torah and oral community teaching. It required that they all become prophets listening for the word of God spoken directly to them, to read God’s word in their own experience and to verify for themselves. This would be very unsettling for anyone schooled in communal faithfulness to God’s Law. Instead of mainly asking, “What did the past teach us?”—which is what we expect from a religion of tradition—the Gospel instead asks, “How do we know, when something new comes along, if it is of God?” This required everyone to listen not just to the tradition but to say yea or nay for themselves, based on their own personal experience. In the New Testament it is that testing of experience which becomes the great divider between those who followed Jesus and those who did not. New Testament encounters with Jesus often pit a Scripture/Tradition ideology (what the teachers says it means) against actual real life experience. Some stick with the ideology, but others are challenged by their new experience and begin to call into question what they’ve been told, in effect saying, “Wait a minute, the teachers say Jesus is a deceiver, but I’ve met him, I’ve heard him, I’ve seen what he does . . . how could he be evil? How could something this good not be of God?” That process played out repeatedly in the lives of faithful Jews who encountered Jesus. But it was an understandable struggle for those raised on faithfulness to the God of Israel and the Law of Moses. It is no wonder that some of the most faithful couldn’t be budged, or needed a special intervention, like Paul. This is precisely why a leading contemporary Jewish scholar and rabbi, Jacob Neusner, says it would be impossible for him to be a follower of Jesus. The message he hears from Jesus is not the Torah as he has received it and knows it. In A Rabbi Talks With Jesus, Neusner says, “It was not that I was not persuaded in the virtue of the man, or the wisdom of some of what he said. It was that I did not hear from him the message the Torah had told me to anticipate…God had bound the people to God in a covenant, giving the Torah as terms of agreement, engraving even into our flesh the very sign of the covenant. Nothing I heard from Jesus spoke of covenant, nothing of Israel, nothing of obligation of the whole of Israel, all together and all at once; everything spoke of me, not us . . . I think Neusner’s analysis is correct, and this is surely why so few Jews ultimately joined the Christian movement. The gospel they heard was not the Judaism they knew. As much as we have rightly rediscovered the Jewishness of

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

43

Jesus in the last few decades, the fact remains that his message was a challenge to Judaism because it required something other than reform based on a return to the tradition. Jesus recognized that tradition was a powerful force. People like what they already know, especially if what they know is satisfying. “No one after drinking old wine desires new; for he says, ‘The old is good’” (Luke 5:3839). The old message of Judaism, centered on the Torah and its communal memory was the faith devoted Jews had pledged to maintain, for which they had been persecuted, suffered, and died. They had tested and tasted this faith and found that it was good. The Maccabean martyrs were still a fresh memory in the first century, so how could a pious Jew contemplate turning his back on the Torah to follow this upstart Jesus who had been rejected by the Jewish teachers and elders? Perhaps this is why Jesus recognized that “new wineskins” were needed right from the start to keep the old wine from being destroyed and to allow the “new wine” to mature in its own time (Matt 9:17).

Testing new experience in John I would like to consider in more details the dynamics of Jesus’ prophetic movement toward the new and inclusive, and away from the merely traditional and exclusive, using as examples some of the encounters with Jesus in the Gospel of John. I will look very briefly at a number of passages just to highlight how people are confronted with a decision to make about Jesus in a process that in every case pits old ideology against new experience. Similar examples can be found in the other gospels, but John’s depiction of the tension is the clearest. John 3:1-21, Jesus and Nicodemus Nicodemus is confused, or better, conflicted. His experience tells him that Jesus is a good man: his works show this, his teaching shows this. But Nicodemus’ ideology still tells him he can’t come out publicly in favor of Jesus because the authorities have contradicted what Nicodemus knows by experience to be true, and they have said Jesus is not good. Nicodemus becomes a little bolder in John 7 and asks the council to at least give Jesus a fair hearing (John 7:51), but he backs down quickly in the face of a sharp and sarcastic rebuke from his colleagues about what God can and cannot do: “Are you from Galilee too? Search and you will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee” (John 7:52). Not until Jesus is dead does Nicodemus feel courageous enough to come out publicly and join with Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus (John 19:39-42), allowing his experience to win out over ideology and fear. John 4:1-42, Jesus and the Samaritan woman The Samaritan woman’s experience of Jesus unsettles the fixed ideas she has of Jews and Jewish teaching, and leads her to set aside her prejudices and

44

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

to accept that he is the Messiah who “will show us all things”, including worship that transcends institutional geography and tradition (“neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem”, John 4:21). Then she brings this new conviction to her village compatriots, who take her word at face value—trusting what she has told them—and use it as the starting point for their own testing. And only after their own encounter with Jesus do they commit. “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world” (John 4:42). John 6: 22-71, Jesus, His Disciples, and the “Hard Saying” This is a more subtle conflict between ideology and experience. Jesus’ claims to be the bread of life and to give his flesh are grandiose even for most of the disciples. They have known Jesus, spent time with him, heard his teaching, but this is too much, so they withdraw after this “hard saying.” They must have sympathized with other villagers from Galilee who could not reconcile these preposterous claims with their own personal experience of Jesus: “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’” (John 6:43). Only the closest apostles at that point are willing to give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and trust him above their own experience and conflicting thoughts. “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68, 69). Trust takes them forward in this case. But it is not blind trust, because it is based on their previous experience of Jesus. More than that, Jesus assures them that their trust will ultimately be verified, not by the received tradition, but by God’s openended promise to teach them by direct illumination. John 6:45 is the key verse here: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.’” Jesus quotes Isaiah 54:13, “And they shall all be taught by God” (see also Joel 2:28-29). This underlines the democratization of the experience of God, which allows everyone’s personal experience to potentially have a more trusted voice in the life of the community. This was also one of Paul’s main points. In probably the earliest writing we have in the New Testament Paul says his readers are theodidaktoi, they have been taught by God (1 Thess 4:9). Indeed, one of Paul’s main themes in his Corinthian correspondence is that they have all been called, and therefore must be on guard against abdicating their vocation to others, including so-called “super apostles” (2 Cor 11:5). John 7:37-52, Jesus and the “…division among the people over him” This passage (and the whole chapter, especially John 7:11-52) is very illuminating regarding the tension between a Scripture/Tradition ideology and evidence-based reality testing. Jesus had done many signs and some people

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

45

wondered if he could be the Messiah. But others, seeing the same signs, accused him of having a demon (John 7:20; see below John 10:19-21). Some test the possibility that Jesus is the Messiah against their reading of the Scriptures and the tradition, and conclude that whatever their experience of Jesus, their ideology says “no prophet is to arise from Galilee” (John 7:52). The teachers stress that the public’s evaluation of Jesus is laughably ignorant, and tell the soldiers impressed by Jesus’ words (“no man spoke like this man,” John 7:46) that they have been led astray and should listen to their educated betters: “Have any of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, who do not know the law, are accursed” (John 7:49). In this case experience is initially trusted, but is then tested and its conclusions rejected by ideology. In other words, Jesus’ actions are good, but this does not mean he is the Messiah. Later, in John 10:19-21, we see people again having a conflict between their experience and what they are supposed to believe: “How can someone with a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (John 10:21). Jesus is clearly frustrated by the inability or refusal of people to trust their own experience. “If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am with the father” (John 10:37-38). What more can he do if they are unwilling to trust their experience? Are they waiting for someone to tell them what they are experiencing? If they can’t label an experience as good—and therefore of God—what is left? They need to learn first how to trust their experience. However, in a similar incident in Matthew (Matt 9:34), some opponents of Jesus radically mistrust experience right from the start, claiming that the good the crowds apparently see in Jesus is in fact evil. Jesus is accused by the religious leaders of casting out demons by the prince of demons, a charge repeated again in Matt 12:24. Jesus defends himself against this charge, but he sees how pernicious the argument is. What can he do if the very deeds that are meant to demonstrate God’s goodness are read instead as evil? No experience is valid with such an outlook, because every experience is filtered through an eye that is “dark” with prejudice, a refusal to allow experience to speak, let alone be tested (Matt 7:22-23). This he concludes is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the unpardonable sin (Matt 12:31-32; cf. Mark 3:22ff.). Such deliberate mistrust and mislabeling of experience leads to an Orwellian world of doublespeak in which war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is power. John 9:1-41, Jesus and the man born blind The healing of the man born blind provides another striking example of the collision between ideology and experience. The Pharisees refuse to believe the healing happened at all, but when thwarted on that line of attack, they revert to ideology. Whether the healing happened or not is irrelevant: Jesus is

46

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

not from God. They dismiss the competence of the formerly blind man to make a judgment. He may have had some healing experience, but their tradition supersedes whatever conclusions the man would want to draw from his experience. The man reasons logically 1) that he was miraculously healed; 2) that this is a good thing; 3) that good things come from God; 4) that Jesus must therefore come from God; and 5) that if the teachers of the law can’t see this, they must be the ignorant ones. The man refuses to bend to the Scripture/Tradition ideology and learning of the teachers, and rests his case on the evidence of his personal experience and rational thought. The teachers in turn are contemptuous of his experience, his argument, and his total lack of credentials: “‘You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?’ And they cast him out” (John 9:35). In the denouement of the story Jesus tells the Pharisees that it is their stubborn unwillingness to admit new information that makes them guilty. They claim to see, but right in front of them something is happening that they simply delete from their description of reality because they are so firmly wedded to their ideology. They have not learned how to adjust their map of the world based on new information. So, while they are faithfully conservative, they are increasingly out of touch with reality. “‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now you say ‘we see,’ your guilt remains.’” (John 9:41)

Orthodoxy and “The Other”: Movement Forward? I have looked at the contrasting ways in which Ezekiel and Jesus, for different reasons and in their own contexts, addressed the question of the “other,” and the related question of how community tradition received from the past is balanced with present experience, especially when the two are in conflict. Ezekiel stressed exclusivity and faithfulness to the tradition given by God in the past, in the written and oral Torah. With Jesus, the balance shifts dramatically to favor the testing and discernment of new experience over tradition. Indeed, in one example after another the gospels show that tradition, instead of being a positive force, can itself become an idolatrous ideology that prevents a new encounter with God. The tension between ideology and experience in the Gospel encounters with Jesus is also seen every time something new faces the early church, and all the more sharply as the church became more and more settled into its own new traditions. The most dramatic and protracted dispute concerned the question of admitting Gentiles into the Church and letting go of the old rules of the Torah. At every stage the temptation was to say “the old is good” and stay there. And some did. But the Church as a whole moved forward over time— through new experiences, disputes, misunderstandings, uncertainties and great debate—under what was perceived to be the guidance of God’s Holy

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

47

Spirit. With every new question a new discernment was required that tested received opinion against current experience to discover what the Spirit was saying to the churches (Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). And in no disputed question was the answer immediately obvious. Indeed, it was often the most conservative protectors of received tradition who ultimately found themselves on the wrong side of the Orthodox Tradition (the conservative rejecters of homoousios for example). We Orthodox Christians, so deeply rooted in the past, have picked up a set of instincts that makes us more comfortable with tradition than with new experiences and change. This now brings me back to the issue of how we are to relate to the “other,” because this becomes an especially acute and divisive problem when Orthodox live increasingly in the midst of heterogeneous, pluralistic, multicultural societies with many vibrant forms of Christian life, let alone other religions. The last one hundred years has given us an unprecedented new encounter with other Christians and other religions, an encounter whose meaning for the life of the Orthodox Church is still being worked out. There is a minority of traditionalists who reject virtually all forms of ecumenical engagement, but even mainstream Orthodox relations with the nonOrthodox follow a cautious approach still shaped by the conviction that the fullness of Christian life is found only within the canonical confines of the Orthodox Church. In this understanding the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. A handful of Orthodox theologians in the 20th century (S. Bulgakov, L. Zander, A. Kartashev, N. Afanasiev, N. Zernov, L. Gillet, P. Evdokimov and others) began to question this exclusivity and to seriously consider whether this new era might be God’s way of opening us to a wider understanding of his Church. While their thinking on this was largely rejected or ignored, I think it is time to reconsider their work. This is not the place to do so at any length, but I do want to point out that the wider and more inclusive community envisioned by Jesus has an echo in some modern Orthodox thought. Among these theologians, personally I find Nicolas Zernov’s (1898-1980) assessment most appealing and in line with Jesus’ risky and controversial openness towards others. In the days of my youth, when I first found the church, I was impatient in my zeal for the truth. I was convinced that only we, the Orthodox, and the Russians in particular, had preserved the authentic apostolic tradition and had the fullness of the sacraments. I wanted to save everyone else by bringing them into Orthodoxy. But gradually I became convinced that we don’t have a monopoly on truth.  My acquaintance with the non-Orthodox gave me the possibility of meeting a stream of leading western Christians—deeply thoughtful people with sacrificial hearts and holiness of life. They placed before me the mystery of the church’s division. I became convinced that it was no accident that the Providence of God allowed the members of

48

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI• the Church to lose their agreement. Right now, throughout the world the ecumenical movement has begun to reunite the broken pieces of the Church. This is a difficult but necessary schooling to lead us all to a fuller understanding of truth than was accessible to us as divided Christians on our own.

Zernov spent most of his life in Europe, but his highest hopes for Christian reconciliation were based on what he saw in North America. Its pluralism and its ability to integrate hierarchy with commitment to openness, freedom, fairness, and democracy made North America precisely the right soil for the growth of Christian unity. Perhaps he was too romantic on this point and underestimated the conservative and fundamentalist dimensions of North American life. But the idea that North America may be a unique laboratory for the working out of Christianity’s ecclesial future also finds echoes today. Metropolitan Phillip (Saliba) of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America recently expressed a similar confidence at the Orthodox Episcopal Assembly in New York City: The Mother Churches must realize that Orthodoxy in America is the best gift to the world. And instead of being crushed by the burdens of the past, let us formulate a clear vision for the future. Thomas Jefferson, one of the fathers of our American revolution, once said: “I love the visions of the future rather than the dreams of the past.” (Metropolitan Phillip, May 26, 2010)

Zernov’s successor at Oxford, Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia was at the Lambeth Conference in 2008 as an observer and was interviewed about the controversial issues then being addressed by the Anglican Church. He made it clear that there is no precedent in the ancient Christian tradition for ordaining women as priests or bishops, for blessing same-sex marriages or for ordaining practicing homosexuals. In the Anglican debate he said the most serious problem is the apparent refusal to consider more carefully this voice from the tradition, in consultation with other churches, before taking unilateral action. When facing decisions on anything new the Church must be attentive to keeping a balance between ‘catholic consensus’ and ‘prophetic action’. But these new questions also challenge the Orthodox. If the Orthodox have stressed consensus in the past, he said, they must nevertheless remain open to the possibility of Spirit-inspired change coming from the most unexpected places. Christ did not tell us that nothing should ever be done for the first time. The whole witness of the early Church points in a different direction. So how do you balance these two things - the need for consensus with the need for freedom in the Spirit, the need for loyalty to holy tradition, with the need to be open to new initiatives?’ 

“So how do you balance these two things…?” Metropolitan Kallistos leaves that question unanswered, and rightly so, because there is always a tension between the already and not yet, between tradition and new movements of

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

49

God’s Spirit that brings even old, dry bones to life. Can the Orthodox Church‘s “visions of the future” embrace a more inclusive way of thinking about the other, especially other Christians? This is still an open question, worthy of prayer, reflection, discussion and debate.

•

Y O H A N N A

K A T A N A C H O

•

Peaceful or Violent Eschatology: A Palestinian Christian Reading of the Psalter 1

R

ecent Psalm studies have begun to consider the theological significance of the order of psalms in the final form of the Psalter.2 Wilson in particular argues that the fourth and fifth Books (Pss 90-106; 107-145) respond to the problem raised by the first three books (Pss 2-89).3 These first three books point out the collapse of the Davidic covenant while the last two books provide an answer from the perspective of wisdom. Wilson points out that the psalms at the seams of the books are theologically significant. Therefore, theologians should pay more attention to the intentional placement of these psalms (Pss 1-2, 41-42, 72-73, 89-90, 106-107 and 144-145).4 He adds that Psalm 2 is the foundation of Davidic Zion theology, Psalm 72 is a pointer that the promises to David are transferred to his descendants, and Psalm 89 is a lament that bemoans the failure of the traditional Davidic theology. Then he affirms that Psalms 1, 90, 107, and 145 provide a frame in which the sages answer the challenge raised by the first three books. These wisdom Psalms frame the royal Psalms (Psalms 2, 72, 89, and 144) providing a relecture in which the final composition points out that God is the true and lasting King recalling the foundational pre-monarchical faith of Israel and directing the faithful to trust in Yahweh as King, rather than in fragile and failing human princes. Wilson’s insights are very helpful but he overstates his case. His arguments would have been stronger if he had heeded McCann who had earlier suggested that the first three Books have already started answering the challenges raised by a militant Davidic theology.5 Nevertheless, Wilson’s theological insights are worth engaging, especially in light of recent eschatological interpretations of the Psalter that support a restorative eschatology and argue that the Davidic kingdom is reestablished by conquering the nations militarily. Israel and God’s promises to her are at the heart of this ethnocentric or Israel-centered approach. Both Robert Cole and David Mitchell support a restorative eschatological reading.6

52

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

However, in this paper, I will point out some of the deficiencies within their understanding of eschatology and argue for a theocentric eschatological reading in which the past is transformed in light of a new divine spatiotemporal reality.7 A theocentric eschatological approach is simply a meeting between the spatiotemporal divine reality and the human reality. This meeting that is embedded in a theocentric cosmic worldview is not only informative but is also transformative. It integrates previous elements into new contexts, highlighting the divine reality and deconstructing previous perceptions of that reality. Stated differently, our reading advocates a canonical intertextual reading which is more than a canonical interpretation, for it attempts to find the editorial traces in the final canonical redaction; it highlights the importance of the role of the redactor(s)/reader(s) as she or he decontextualizes then contextualizes antecedent texts.8 Vorndran argues that a proper interpretation should involve descriptive analysis followed by a synthetic interpretation.9 After the interpreters identify and describe the hypotexts (the linked texts) found in the hypertext (the hosting text with hyperlinks), they discuss the contributions of the hypotexts to the meaning of the hypertext. In addition, the intertextual interactions create repeated patterns and themes that should guide our reading strategy, response and attitude, i.e., what Firth calls “thematic modeling.”10 Indeed, our reading is not an epistemological approach that is divorced from an ontological reality, for we cannot encounter God properly without a theology of humility. In this approach, God alone establishes his Kingdom and the depiction of David as the militant king fades, while his portrait as the righteous servant dominates. The ideal situation of Psalms 1-2 or 72, in which the righteous prospers and the militant Davidic king conquers the nations, needs to be reread in the context of the failure of the Davidic covenant in Psalm 89 and the suffering of the righteous in Psalm 73. The orientation of Psalms 1-2 and 72 is influenced by a state of national and personal disorientation, especially in Book III (Pss 73-89). Both Palestinians and Israelis experience this state of disorientation. Both of them are faced with a choice. They need to choose between advocating a militant ethnocentric approach and a theocentric reading that advocates life instead of death. Should they propagate the worldview of Psalm 72, i.e., traditional militant Davidic theology, or reread it in light of Psalm 86? This choice is at the heart of this paper.

Robert Cole Cole argues that Psalm 72 is the basis for understanding the canonical and rhetorical message of Book III.11 He believes that the dominant theme of Book III is the postponement of the fulfillment of the promises of Psalm 72, which portrays a militant Davidic figure who subdues the nations.12 The pertinent theme is seen through a pattern of questions and answers. More specifically,

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

53

Cole points out that Psalm 73 presents the opposite conditions of Psalm 72. Psalm 74 starts a string of questions that compose the major ingredients of the rhetorical links in Book III. These questions are found in Pss 74:9-11, 77:8-10, 79:5, 80:5, 82:2, 85:6, and 89:47.13 Cole believes that these backbone links are basically concerned with the temporal dimension of the fulfillment of the promises of Psalm 72. Psalms 7576 reaffirm these promises and answer the time questions of Psalm 74. They point out that the peace of Psalm 72 will come only after judgment, and that the destroyed Zion of Psalm 74 will not “cease to exist forever.”14 On the contrary, there will be a restored Zion in which deliverance will occur. Moreover, in response to the question of Psalm 77 about the duration of God’s wrath, Psalm 78 points out not only the duration of Israel’s rebellion, implying their just judgment, but also the choice of Zion as God’s eternal dwelling. In response to the questions raised in Psalms 79-80, Psalms 81 and 82 provide a divine response questioning the duration of Israel’s rebellion and injustices, and pointing out the exact opposite of the conditions of Psalm 72. The question of Ps 85:6 and the requests in Psalm 84 find answers in Ps 85:9-14. The question of Ps 89:47 about the duration of God’s wrath on his Messiah is answered in Psalm 90 in which “God’s extra-temporal perspective” is highlighted.15 Cole argues that Book III is best interpreted “as prophetic of the eventual restoration of the monarchy.”16 He says: “Just as Psalm 72’s delayed promises of a kingdom are lamented throughout Book III, so is the non-appearance of its king.”17 Within this conceptual framework, the verb “#+)” in Ps 72:20 “should be rendered ‘are perfected’, in the sense that the previous description represented the perfection, culmination and fullest outworking of the promise of David.”18 In other words, “Psalm 72 at the end of Book II is the last word on the subject of the promised eschatological kingdom to David’s house, surpassing any previous or subsequent descriptions within the Psalter.”19 Further, “prayers” in Ps 72:20 should be understood as prophecies.20 Cole has advanced the discussion concerning the purposeful placement of Book III. He points out several important lexical and thematic links, such as the righteous-walking in Psalms 84-86, and the theme of Sheol in Psalms 8689. He demonstrates that the rhetorical questions found in Psalms 74:9-11; 77:8-10; 79:5; 80:5; 82:2; 85:6; and 89:47 play an important role in the cumulative message of Book III. In addition, he raises many thought-provoking questions related to the eschatological interpretations of Book III. It is, however, important to point out that Cole’s arguments have serious shortcomings. First, against ancient manuscripts and the consensus of scholars, Cole hastily dismisses the possibility that the sentence # =#+6= #+) in Ps 72:20 means the end of the prayers of David.21 Against the prima facie evidence, he sees it as the perfected prophecies of David. In other words, he reads into the

54

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

text his own ideas without demonstrating the falsity of the dominant perspective or the plain sense of the text. Cole, further, fails to recognize distinctions, tensions or paradoxes in the Psalter. He appeals, instead, to selective evidence and does not present other legitimate views. For example, he assumes that a literal interpretation of the Hebrew phrase “-+#3+” as “forever” is the only valid understanding of perpetual promises. Otherwise, the promise of an eternal throne will fail. This understanding of time is different from the informative studies of Verhoef or Tomasino.22 In short, Cole unjustifiably confines himself within one theme that cannot explain every link within Book III. Second, Cole fails to define clearly his eschatological assumptions and how they shape his interpretation. His insistence on using a “slippery” word (eschatology) without a clear definition is a major shortcoming and an unintended invitation to theological confusion.23 By framing the question as promise/prophecy and fulfillment, Cole has created unnecessary problems. These are: 1. Cole assumes a fixed promise and a one-time fulfillment that is restorative in nature. Both assumptions are restrictive. They restrict the freedom of God and the way he brings about the fulfillment of promises. The eschatological kingdom advocated by Cole is, at best, part of Israel’s traditional and popular theology (vox populi) that promotes a Realpolitik aiming at advancing her power, institutions, and values without giving God the freedom to deconstruct her beliefs and reconstruct them by his words and actions. In other words, the Kingdom of God is not a static construct that is contingent to Israel’s reality, faithfulness or disobedience. Israel’s reality or dissonance should be adjusting to the reality of fulfillment as advocated by God.24 Through the new divine reality, the people of God experience a radical transformation. 2. By insisting on restoring the kingdom of Psalm 72 or by advocating a restorative eschatology, Cole misses the importance of the utopian vision of Psalm 87 and its powerful language that invites the reader into a new reality, i.e., Zion is the city of God and the mother of the nations.25 It would have been better if Cole had brought together the various visions into dialogue. The vision of Psalm 87 stands in tension with the vox populi that sees the nations as the enemies. 3. Cole’s insistence on understanding Book III only from a prophetical eschatological perspective is plagued with reductionism. Unfortunately, Cole overlooks, inter alia, the theological movement of the text, i.e., the transformations in the characterizations of the identity of God and the move towards monotheism and universality in the Psalter.

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

55

David Mitchell Similar to Cole, Mitchell reads the Psalter eschatologically. He argues that the final redactor(s) advocate an eschatological agenda or message. He thinks that the meaning of eschatology is basically predicting a program of future events.26 Based on his studies in Zechariah 9-14, Ezekiel 34-38, Joel 3-4, and other texts, he suggests that the eschatological program includes the following events: Yhwh will gather scattered Israel to the land promised to their forefathers. Thereafter an alliance of hostile nations will gather to attack them. Yhwh will destroy the invaders and save Israel. Then Israel will worship Yhwh on Zion, together with the survivors of the nations.27

This conceptual grid shapes his understanding of the Psalter. It is possible to suggest that this is a case of petitio principii, for it seems that Mitchell assumes what he tries to prove or is begging the question. Anyway, Mitchell argues that the aforementioned eschatological events are matched by the following thematic progression in the Psalter. (1) The Asaph Psalms start with the ingathering of Israel in Psalm 50 and end with the ingathering of the nations that attack Jerusalem in Psalm 83. (2) The temporary Messianic kingdom of Psalm 72 ends with the death of the king in Psalm 89 and with the exile of Israel in the wilderness in Book IV. (3) Israel is rescued by its heavenly Messiah in Psalm 110 and she experiences the joy of victory in Psalms 111-118. (4) The songs of ascents point out the “recent divine deliverance from a massive foreign attack” and the “joyful ascent to the Feast of Sukkoth in the aftermath of war.”28 More recently, Mitchell confirms this understanding as he discusses the Korahite Psalms. He argues that the “Korahite tradition and the Korah Psalms feature the theme of redemption from Sheol.”29 After reconstructing the Korahite tradition, he asserts that redemption from Sheol is not only dominant in their tradition but is also foundational for understanding the Korah Psalms (Pss 42-49; 84-85; 87-89). He points out the Korah Psalms’ interest in the underworld and the “accumulated Sheol imagery” at the end of the two Korah groups.30 Then, based on his observations, he suggests that the Korah Psalms should be understood within the Psalter’s eschatological program. First, he argues saying that low-key Sheol imagery first appears in Psalms 42 to 44, where it represents Israel’s exile, for which they long and from which they pray to be redeemed.31 The second component of the eschatological program appears in the catastrophic day of Psalm 46 when the nations will fall alive into Sheol. Mitchell says, In Psalm 47, after delivering Jerusalem amid cataclysms, the king receives the homage of the nations at his Jerusalem throne. Psalm 48 then returns to the Jerusalem

56

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI• deliverance: God will redeem his people and carry them over Death-Sheol. Finally, to close the first Korah group, Sheol language appears full-on in Psalm 49.32

Further, he highlights the Sheol imagery in the second Korah sequence, arguing that placing Psalm 86 in the midst of that collection is related to Sheol imageries. The David of Psalm 86 needs redemption from Sheol for, in Psalm 88, he is in the realm of death, suffering its terrors, and, in Ps 89:49, he is the one who can be redeemed from Sheol, as has already been suggested by the combination of his righteousness in Ps 86:2 and the assertion of Ps 49:16. Several aspects of the aforementioned criticisms leveled against Cole apply also to Mitchell. Indeed, Mitchell presents a reductionistic view of eschatology that is event and future centered. The Psalmist’s perception of eschatology is different from Mitchell’s narrow understanding, i.e., a future program of events or, at the risk of redundancy, eschatacentric eschatology.33 VanGemeren rightly asserts that the “psalmists show generally little interest in eschatology in the narrow sense, that is, in how the future will unfold. The psalmists have a theocentric understanding of eschatology.”34 Theocentric eschatology generates not only future expectations but also transforms the reader into a wholehearted worshiper who honors God, lives now a godly life, and actively anticipates the in-breaking of the divine reality. By choosing to step into the theocentric chronotope or spatiotemporal reality, the psalmists give God the freedom to define or redefine their theology and to restructure their perception of space, time, and the theology associated with them. These correspondences generate joy and lament: through reflection they give birth to wisdom.

A Theocentric Eschatological Approach We have seen how a restorative eschatological reading is marked with reductionism. It is fitting now to present a different reading in which a militant royal perspective is reread in the Psalter. Psalm 86 plays a significant role in this new reading as we shall argue below. First, the Psalm eliminates perceiving the nations as enemies, a perspective that dominates Book III. Second, it expands God’s covenantal mercy to include all the nations. Sinai theology is reread in light of Zion Theology and the role of the nations is seen in light of a Davidic figure who intercedes for the nations instead of subduing them. Third, David becomes the representative of the whole creation, not just Israel, as he presents a monotheistic worldview in which there is one global true God (Ps 86: 10) who is interested in all of his creation. Indeed, the eschatological vision of Psalm 87 and the worldview of holy space in Psalm 85 are intimately related to a significant theological shift in Psalm 86. We shall unpack these points after affirming the intentional placement of Psalm 86. This Psalm has a significant placement. It is the only Davidic Psalm in Book III and it is placed in the midst of the second Korahite sequence (Pss 84-

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

57

85; 87-88).35 Further, its editorial placement is clear in light of the postscript of Psalm 72 which asserts that the prayers of David are concluded. Interestingly, Psalm 86 starts with a prayer of David and it is connected with Book IV (90106) which also starts by a prayer, albeit by Moses. In addition, Ribera-Mariné studies the “anthological” nature of Psalm 86, suggesting that it is an intentional means for creating a dialogue with a set of texts and for rereading these texts.36 More specifically, this rereading is a “sapient reflection of the former tradition.”37 Let us now unpack some of this sapient reflection. First, the enemies are not the nations but the arrogant. Throughout Book III Asaph Psalms complain about the nations who want to destroy God’s holy places (Ps 74:8). The nations are mocking the power and protection of the God of Israel (Ps 79: 10), plotting the elimination of Israel’s existence (Ps 83:5), and scheme to inherit the pastures of God (Ps 83:13). But Psalm 86 stops the drums of war against the nations, advocating a different worldview. Moreover, in light of juxtaposing Psalm 86 to Psalms 85 and 87 that present a utopian multicultural vision of holy space, the intentional omission of the enmity of the nations in Psalm 86 is significant. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia brings to our attention the similarities and differences between Psalms 54:5 and 86:14. Psalm 54 states that the nations are the enemies, while Psalm 86 rereads the “same” text asserting that the arrogant are the enemy, not other ethnicities.38 The two variants, “arrogant” or -'$ and “strangers” or -':$, are interesting. Instead of seeing their differences as scribal errors, i.e., confusing the dalet  and resh :, it is possible to argue that Ps 86:14 rereads Ps 54:5, eliminating any negative connotations associated with the nations. Konkel points out that :$ could imply a “stranger in the ethnic or political sense.”39 Thus, its absence is theologically significant. It disappears when David is extending God’s loving kindness to the nations, when he describes them as God’s creation that honors him, and when he points out that the nations are equal citizens of Zion (Psalm 87). They are not the nations of Psalm 72 who bow down, lick the dust, offer gifts, and serve the militant king. While David in Ps 72:11 expects all kings to bow down (##%=nI hw”ßhy 25 “Näin sanoo Herra: Kansa joka pääsi miekkaa pakoon, sai armon autiomaassa. Israel palaa jälleen maahansa ja löytää rauhan. Herra ilmestyi minulle, hän tuli kaukaa ja sanoi...” 24

Perspectives on Women in Early Christian Apocryphal Texts * 1

2

3

4

Copyright 2010: Cornelia B. Horn and Robert R. Phenix. We are grateful to Jacob Van Sickle for assistance in editing this article. Of the voluminous body of studies on women in the canonical biblical texts, only two helpful works or sets of works that facilitate entering the topic can be singled out for reference here. Amy-Jill Levine, in collaboration with Maria Mayo Robbins, has been editing the series Feminist Companion to the New Testament and Early Christian Writings (14 vols.; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2001-current), with articles on women and biblical material informed by feminist approaches. Ten of the fourteen volumes of this series focus directly on parts of the New Testament canon. A very helpful guide to the study of well-known and less recognized women in the canon is Carol Meyers, general ed., Toni Craven and Ross S. Kraemer, associate eds., Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000). Women in apocryphal writings were featured prominently in Levine and Robbins’ eleventh volume: A Feminist Companion to the New Testament Apocrypha (2006). Thus far the journal Apocrypha. Revue internationale des littératures apocryphes, the central publishing organ of new research of AELAC (Association pour l’étude de la littérature apocryphe chrétienne) has covered issues pertinent to the project of reconstructing women’s history in the ancient world on the basis of apocryphal writings only to a limited extent. One might refer to P. W. Dunn, “Women’s Liberation, the Acts of Paul, and Other Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. A Review of Some Recent Interpreters,” Apocrypha 4 (1993): 245-61; and also to the helpful methodological considerations in Annik Martin, “L’historienne et les apocryphes,” Apocrypha 13 (2002): 9-27. A fuller assessment and a more sustained and comprehensive presentation and evaluation of the contribution of apocryphal texts to that project is still a desideratum. Scholars do not agree on the identity of the referents behind such names though. See, for example, the discussions collected in F. Stanley Jones, ed., Which Mary: the Marys of Early Christian Tradition (Symposium Series. Society of Biblical Literature 19; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002). For Salome see, for example, Kathleen E. Corley, “Salome and Jesus at Table in the Gospel of Thomas,” Semeia 86 (1999): 85-97; and Richard Bauckham, “Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark,” Novum Testamentum 33.3 (1991): 245-75. On Anna, see Anne Moore, “Cantankerous Grandmother: Anna in the Protevangelium of James” (paper presented in the program unit Ancient Fiction and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Studies, San Diego, Calif., November 2007). For significant reevaluations of scholarly constructions of Gnosticism and the usefulness of that title or lack thereof see, for example, Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003); and Michael A. Williams,

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

5

6

7

8 9 10

11

12

13

179

Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 121, refers to a suggestion made by R. Schipper to identify the sister of the youth with Mary of Magdala. For an important review of scholarship on the text, see Pierluigi Piovanelli, “L’Évangile secret de Marc trente trois ans après, entre potentialités exégétiques et difficultés techniques,” Revue Biblique 114 (2007): 52-72 and 237-54. For a discussion of the dating see April D. DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation: with a Commentary and New English Translation of the Complete Gospel (Library of New Testament Studies. Early Christianity in Context 287; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 7-9. Gospel of Thomas 114 (ed. Johannes Leipoldt, Das Evangelium nach Thomas koptisch und deutsch [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 101; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967], 52; our translation). For additional translations see Marvin W. Meyer, “Making Mary Male: The Categories ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ in the Gospel of Thomas,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 554-70, here 561; Marvin W. Meyer, “Gospel of Thomas Logion 114 Revisited,” in For the Children, Perfect Instruction. Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year (eds. Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Stephen Emmel, Karen L. King, and Imke Schletterer; Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 54; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002), 101-11, here 101; DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, 296-97; Marvin Meyer, with an interpretation by Harold Bloom, The Gospel of Thomas. The Hidden Sayings of Jesus (San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 65; and Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1991), 322. For further discussion, see especially Meyer, “Making Mary Male,” 561-67. Ibid., 563-64. See Philo, Philo, Supplement II. Questions and Answers on Exodus. Translated from the Ancient Armenian Version of the Original Greek, (tr. Ralph Marcus; LCL 401; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1953), 14-17. This and the following examples are taken from Meyer, “Making Mary Male,” 565. See Tripartite Tractate 1.78 (see Harold W. Attridge, Elaine H. Pagels and Dieter Mueller, trans. and introduced, “The Tripartite Tractate (I,5),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English [ed. James M. Robinson; Leiden: Brill, 1996], 58-103, here 73). See Annie and Jean-Pierre Mahé, ed. and trans., Le témoignage véritable (NH IX,3): gnose et martyre (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section «Textes» 23; Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1996), 98-99. For an English translation see Søren Giversen and Birger A. Pearson, “The Testimony of Truth (IX,3),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 44859, here 452. See Pierre Létourneau, ed. and trans., Le dialogue de Sauveur (NH III,5) (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section «Textes» 29; Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2003), 98-99. For an earlier introduction and English translation see Stephen Emmel, Helmut Koester, and Elaine H. Pagels, “The Dialogue of the Savior (III,5),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 244-255, here 254. See also Silke Petersen, “Zerstört die Werke der Weiblichkeit!”: Maria Magdalena, Salome und andere Jüngerinnen in christlich-gnostischen Schriften (Nag Hammadi und Manichaean Studies 48; Leiden: Brill, 1999).

180

14

15 16 17 18

19 20 21

22 23 24 25

26

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

See Malcolm Peel and John Zandee, ed. and trans., “NHC VII,4: The Teachings of Silvanus,” in Nag Hammadi Codex VII (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 30; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 249-369, here 300-303. For an English translation, see also Malcolm L. Peel and Jan Zandee, “The Teachings of Silvanus (VII,4),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 379-95, here 384-85. Françoise Morard, “Une evangile écrit par une femme? L’Évangile de Marie,” Bulletin du Centre Protestant d’Études 49.2-3 (May 1997): 27-34, here 29. See Philo, vol. 1 (trans. F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker; LCL 226; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1929), 60-61 and 118-21. Discussed in Morard, “Une evangile écrit par une femme?,” 29. Gospel of Philip 70 (Hans-Martin Schenke, ed. and trans., Das Philippus-Evangelium [NagHammadi-Codex II,3]. Neu herausgegeben, übersetzt und erklärt [Texte und Untersuchungen 143; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1997], 50-51 [#78], our translation; for an English translation, see also Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures. A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions [The Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York: Doubleday, 1987], 343 [#70]). Gospel of Thomas 22 (Leipoldt, Das Evangelium nach Thomas, 32; Miller, The Complete Gospels, 309). Gospel of Thomas 97 (Leipoldt, Das Evangelium nach Thomas, 50; Miller, The Complete Gospels, 320, with modifications). See, for example, Uwe-Karsten Plisch, “Die Frau, der Krug und das Mehl. Zur ursprünglichen Bedeutung von EvThom 97,” in Coptica, Gnostica, Manichaeica. Mélanges offerts à Wolf-Peter Funk (Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section «Études» 7; eds. Louis Painchaud and Paul-Hubert Poirier; Louvain: Éditions Peeters, 2006), 747-60; and Kamila Blessing, “The Woman Carrying a Jar of Meal (Gos. Thom. 97),” in The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work and Wisdom (Biblical Seminar 86; ed. Mary Ann Beavis; New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 158-73. Acts of Andrew 37 (Jean-Marc Prieur, ed. and trans., Acta Andreae [Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum 6; Turnhout: Brepols, 1989], 488-89; our translation). Acts of Andrew 39 (Prieur, Acta Andreae, 490-91; our translation). See Morard, “Une evangile écrit par une femme?,” 31, especially for a discussion of a parallel in Tatian. The present discussion on Mary Magdalene is based on François Bovon, “Le privilège paschal de Marie Magdalène,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 50-62. For an English translation of this article see “Mary Magdalene’s Paschal Privilege,” in New Testament Traditions and Apocryphal Narratives (trans. J. Haapiseva-Hunter; PTMS 36; Allison Park, Penn.: Pickwick, 1995), 147-57. Further helpful recent discussions of Mary Magdalene include Gregor Emmenegger Sieber, “Maria Magdalena in Gnostischen Texten,” Apocrypha 19 (2008): 56-75; Carla Ricci, “Mary Magdalene, the Woman of Light,” Journal of the European Society of Women in Theological Research 16 (2008): 117-136; and Erika Mohri, Maria Magdalena: Frauenbilder in Evangelientexten des 1. bis 3. Jahrhunderts (Marburger Theologische Studien 63; Marburg: Elwert, 2000). See Epistula Apostolorum (Coptic) II.10(21) (Carl Schmidt and Isaak Wajnberg, ed. and trans., Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jüngern nach der Auferstehung: Ein katholisch-apostolisches Sendschreiben des 2. Jahrhunderts [Texte und Untersuchungen 43; [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1919; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1967], 25-155 [German] and 1*-26* [Coptic], here 39 and 2*). See

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

27 28 29 30

31

32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41

181

also the comments by Jacques-Noël Pérès, L’Épître des Apôtres accompagnée du Testament de notre Seigneur et notre Sauveur Jésus-Christ (Apocryphes. Collection de Poche de l’AELAC 5; Turnhout: Brepols, 1994), 48; Julian Hills, Tradition and Composition in the Epistula Apostolorum (Harvard Dissertations in Religion 24; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 81; and Manfred Hornschuh, Studien zur Epistula Apostolorum (Patristische Texte und Studien 5; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965), 104-105. Bovon, “Le privilège paschal,” 56-57. See Susan Haskins, Mary Magdalen. Myth and Metaphor (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1993), 16-20. For this characterization, see also Bovon, “Privilège paschal,” 50; followed by several other authors in a number of subsequent articles. The best description of these fragments is found in Dieter Lührmann, “Die griechischen Fragmente des Mariaevageliums POx 3525 and PRyl 463,” Novum Testamentum 30.4 (1988): 321-38. Gospel of Mary 9 (Robert McL. Wilson and George W. MacRae, ed. and trans., “The Gospel of Mary,” in Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 [Nag Hammadi Studies XI; ed. Douglas M. Parrott; Leiden: Brill, 1979], 453-71, here 460-61; Anne Pasquier, ed. and trans., L’Évangile selon Marie (BG 1) [Bibliothèque copte de Nag Hammadi. Section «Textes» 10; Québec: Les Presses de Université Laval, 1983] 34-35; Karen King, trans., The Gospel of Mary of Magdala. Jesus and the First Woman Apostle [Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 2003], 14-15 [King numbers the relevant section as 5]; our translation). Ibid., 10 [King 6] (Wilson and MacRae, “The Gospel of Mary,” 460-461; Pasquier, L’Évangile selon Marie, 36-37; King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, 15; our translation). Ibid., 17 [King 10] (Wilson and MacRae, “The Gospel of Mary,” 466-467; Pasquier, L’Évangile selon Marie, 36; King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, 17; our translation). Ibid., 18-19 [King 10] (Wilson and MacRae, “The Gospel of Mary,” 466-471; Pasquier, L’Évangile selon Marie, 44-47; King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala, 17-18; our translation). See Douglas M. Parrott, ed. and trans., Nag Hammadi Codices III,3-4 and V,1, with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,3 and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1081: Eugnostos and The Sophia of Jesus Christ (Nag Hammadi Studies 27; Leiden: Brill, 1991). Lührmann, “Die griechischen Fragmente des Mariaevangeliums,” 333. Pistis Sophia bk. II, 72 (Carl Schmidt, ed., Pistis Sophia [The Coptic Gnostic Library] [trans. Violet MacDermot; Nag Hammadi Studies 9; Leiden: Brill, 1978], 162-63). See M. G. Mara, ed. and trans., Évangile de Pierre (Sources chrétiennes 201; Paris: Cerf, 1973). Lührmann, “Die griechischen Fragmente des Mariaevangeliums,” 334. Gospel of Philip 63 (Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 36-37 [#55]; our translation; for an English translation, see also Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 339 [#48]). Émilien Lamirande, “Marie-Madeleine disciple, témoin et apôtre, d’après l’ancienne littérature chrétienne I. Données évangéliques et littérature apocryphe ou gnostique,” Science et Esprit 56.2 (2004): 153-70, here 165, note 62 for further literature. For a recent examination of the ritual use of the kiss in early Christianity, see Michael Philip Penn, Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2005).

182

42

43

44

45

46 47 48 49

50

51 52

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

Gospel of Philip 59 (Schenke, Das Philippus-Evangelium, 28-29 [#32]; our translation; for an English translation, see also Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 335 [#28]). Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die dreifache Maria. Zur Rezeption von Joh 19,35 in EvPhil 32,” in Alte Welt und Neuer Glaube. Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte, Forschungsgeschichte und Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Novum Testamentum et orbis antiquus 29; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1994), 145-162. In the writings of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, one can observe how a concentration of the roles assigned to different figures named Mary is narrowed down onto Mary the mother of Jesus. Yet at the same time it allows for an implicit participation of other women in Mary’s role. For discussion see Cornelia B. Horn, “Frühsyrische Mariologie: Maria und ihre Schwestern im Werk Aphrahats des Persischen Weisen,” in Die Suryoye und ihre Umwelt. Viertes deutsches Syrologen-Symposium in Trier 2004. Festgabe Wolfgang Hage zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Martin Tamcke and Andreas Heinz; Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 36; Münster: LIT-Verlag, 2005), 313-32, here especially 331-32. Karen L. King, “The Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” in Searching the Scriptures. Volume Two: A Feminist Commentary (ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, with Ann Brock and Shelly Matthews; New York: Crossroad, 1994), 601-34, here 620 Michel Tardieu, Écrits gnostiques: Codex de Berlin (Sources gnostiques et manichéennes 1; Paris: Cerf, 1984), 25; cited in Françoise Morard, “L’Évangile de Marie, un message ascétique?,” Apocrypha 12 (2001): 155-71, here 156. See Morard, “L’Évangile de Marie, un message ascétique?,” 156-57. Morard, “Une evangile écrit par une femme?,” 31-2. Acts of Andrew 42, 44, and 46 (Prieur, Acta Andreae, 494-99). Gospel of Thomas 49 (Leipoldt, Das Evangelium nach Thomas, 38; our translation; see also the translations in Miller, The Complete Gospels, 313; and in DeConick, The Original Gospel of Thomas in Translation, 179). Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis III.13, 92.2 (Otto Stählin and Ludwig Früchtel, ed., Clemens Alexandrinus. Zweiter Band. Stromata. Buch I-VI [GCS Clemens Alexandrinus 2; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1960], 238; John Ferguson, trans., Clement of Alexandria. Stromateis. Books One to Three [The Fathers of the Church. A New Translation 85; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1991], 314). The citation of the text from the Gospel of the Egyptians also is to be found at Second Clement 12.2 where Ehrman has translated, “For when the Lord himself was asked by someone when his kingdom would come, he said, ‘When the two are one, and the outside like the inside, and the male with the female is neither male nor female’” (The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 1, Second Clement. 12.2 (Ehrman, LCL). Second Clement 12.3 (Ehrman, LCL). See Morard, “Une evangile écrit par une femme,” 2930, for further sources. Acts of Thomas I.12 (William Wright, ed. and trans., Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum and other Libraries with English Translations and Notes, Vol. 1: The Syriac Texts; Vol. 2: The English Translations [London, 1879; reprinted Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968], vol. 1, p. [Syriac]; vol. 2, pp. 155-156 [English]; trans. Han J. W. Drijvers, “5. Thomasakten,” in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. II. Band: Apostolisches, Apokalypsen und Verwandtes [ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; 5. Auflage der von Edgar Hennecke begründeten Sammlung; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989], 289-367, here 308). For discussion, see also Morard, “Une evangile écrit par une femme,” 32.

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

53

54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61

62

63 64

65

66

183

The main points discussed here follow Charlotte Methuen, “Widows, Bishops, and the Struggle for Authority in the Didascalia Apostolorum,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 46 (1995): 197-213. Tertullian, Ad uxorem I.6 (Charles Munier, ed. and trans., Tertullien. A son épouse [Sources chrétiennes 273; Paris: Cerf, 1980], 110-13). Methuen, “Widows, Bishops, and the Struggle for Authority in the Didascalia Apostolorum,” 205-206 for citations. Acts of Thomas XI.135-XII.139 (Wright, Apocryphal Acts, vol. 1, pp. - , and vol. 2, pp. 268272 [counted as act eight]; Drijvers, “5. Thomasakten,” 354-356). Methuen, “Widows, Bishops, and the Struggle for Authority in the Didascalia Apostolorum,” 210. Methuen, “Widows, Bishops, and the Struggle for Authority in the Didascalia Apostolorum,” 212-213. Apophthegmata Patrum (alphabetical collection) (Sarah 4 and 9) (Benedicta Ward, trans., The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. The Alphabetical Collection [London: Mowbray, 1975], 193): Saying 4: “Another time, two old men, great anchorites, came to the district of Pelusium to visit her. When they arrived one said to the other, ‘Let us humiliate this old woman.’ So they said to her, ‘Be careful not to become conceited thinking to yourself: “Look how anchorites are coming to see me, a mere woman.”‘ But Amma Sarah said to them, ‘According to nature I am a woman, but not according to my thoughts.’” Saying 9: “She also said to the brothers, ‘It is I who am a man, you who are women.’” See also Morard, “Une evangile écrit par une femme,” 33. Lamirande, “Marie-Madeleine disciple,” 166-167. Acts of Philip VIII.2 (François Bovon, Bertrand Bouvier, and Frédéric Amsler, ed. and trans., Acta Philippi. Textus [Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum 11; Turnhout: Brepols, 1999], 241). See also the discussion of the theological significance of this figure of Mary Magdalene in Frédéric Amsler, Acta Philippi. Commentarius (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum 12; Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 1999), 312-15. François Bovon, “Women Priestesses in the Apocryphal Acts of Philip,” in Walk in the Ways of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (ed. Shelly Matthews, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, and Melanie Johnson-Debaufre; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 109-121; reprinted in François Bovon and Glenn E. Snyder, ed., New Testament and Christian apocrypha: collected studies II (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 237; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 246-258. Acts of Philip (Martyrdom) 19-20 and 31 (Bovon, et al., Acta Philippi. Textus, 370-75 and 39697). Still classic studies of the role of women in apocryphal acts are Virginia Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stories of the Apocryphal Acts (Studies in Women and Religion 23; Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen, 1987); and Stevan L. Davies, The Revolt of the Widows: the Social World of the Apocryphal Acts (London: Feffer & Simons, 1980). Joy Louise Lapp, “Chaste Women: Characterization in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles and the Greek Romance Novels” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2002; in scope, this study was limited to the Acts of Paul and Thecla, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Acts of Peter. Acts of Philip IV (Bovon, et al., Acta Philippi. Textus, 114-131.

184

67

68 69

70

71 72 73

74

75

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

For easy access to this text with an English translation see Amir Harrak, trans., The Acts of MƗr MƗrƯ the Apostle (Writings from the Greco-Roman World 11; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005). Much of what follows is based on Lapp’s summary, “Chaste Women,” 235-239. Acts of John 81-83 (Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, ed. and trans., Acta Iohannis. Praefatio-Textus [Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum 1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983], 282-89). Jill Gormann, “Reading and Theorizing Women’s Sexualities: the Representation of Women in the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena,” Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 2003. The Greek text of the Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca was presented, together with an introduction, by M. R. James in Texts and Studies 2.3 (1893): 43-85. See for example Lapp, “Chaste Women.” Acts of Philip 14.9 (Bovon, et al., Acta Philippi. Textus, 328-29). Thecla clearly is not the only woman who extends her activities also to the realm of baptism. Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip has just been mentioned. Further examples include those of mothers baptizing their children (for instance the wife of Socrates of Antioch, a military commander, who baptized her children with her own blood as recorded in the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria; Sara, known from the Arabic and Ethiopic synaxaria; and Domnina, known through the writings of John Chrysostom and Eusebius of Emesa) and the case of the prostitutes in the Longer Syriac Martyrdom of the Mimes. For references and fuller discussion for the last two cases, see Cornelia B. Horn, “Reconstructing Women’s History from Christian-Arabic Sources: the Witness of the Arabic History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria regarding Challenges and Ecclesial Opportunities Family Life Provided for Women,” Parole de l’Orient 32 (2007): 419-44, here 433-36; and Cornelia Horn, “Women, Prostitution, and Violence in the Syriac Martyrdom of the Mimes,” in a volume on recent developments in Syriac Studies arising from a conference held in Tübingen in 2007, ed. Dimitrij Bumazhnov (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forthcoming). For discussion of Nino’s role in the evangelization of Georgia see, for example, Cornelia B. Horn, “St. Nino and the Christianization of pagan Georgia,” Medieval Encounters 4.3 (1998): 242-64. On the Martyrdom of the Mimes, see Cornelia Horn, “The Martyrdom of the Mimes, Syriac MS 75 (Sachau 222): Content and Context,” The Harp 18 (2005): 55-69; and Cornelia B. Horn, “The Martyrdom of the Mimes: A Syriac Witness to Women’s Life in Oxyrhynchus,” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Chicago, Ill., 1-3 November 2008). One later witness to the composite apocryphal Book of Mary was edited and translated in E. A. Wallis Budge, The History of the Blessed Virgin Mary and The History of the Likeness of Christ Which the Jews of Tiberias Made to Mock at (2 vols.; London: Luzac and Co., 1899; reprinted New York: AMS Press, 1976). Remains of an earlier witness to a Life of Mary in multiple books were published in Agnes Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca. The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus Mariae with Texts from the Septuagint, the Corân, the Peschitta, and from a Syriac Hymn in a Syro-Arabic Palimpsest of the Fifth and Other Centuries, with an Appendix of Palestinian Syriac Texts from the Taylor-Schechter Collection (Studia Sinaitica 11; London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1902). For studies of the composite nature of important apocrypha and implications deriving therefrom, see Cornelia B. Horn, “From Model Virgin to Maternal Intercessor: Mary, Children, and Family Problems in Late Antique Infancy Gospel Traditions and Their Medieval Trajectories,” in Christian

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

76

77

78

79

185

Apocryphal Texts for the New Millennium: Achievements, Prospects, and Challenges. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held in Ottawa, September 30th - October 1st, 2006 (ed. Pierluigi Piovanelli; Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha; Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming); and Cornelia Horn, “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives on Structural and Motif Parallels Regarding Jesus’ Childhood in Christian Apocrypha and Early Islamic Literature: the ‘Book of Mary,’ the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John, and the Qur’Ɨn,” Apocrypha. Revue internationale des littératures apocryphes, 19 (2008): 267-91. Tim Horner, “Jewish Aspects of the Protoevangelium of James,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12.3 (2004): 313-35; Lily Vuong, “Purity, Piety, and the Purposes of the Protevangelium of James,” in Jewish and Christian Scriptures: The Function of “Canonical” and “Non-Canonical” Religious Texts, vol.2 (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Lee Martin McDonald; New York: T & T Clark, forthcoming); and Lily Vuong, “Accessing the Virgin: Gender and Purity in the Protevangelium of James” (Ph.D. diss., McMaster University, 2010). We are grateful to Lily Vuong for sharing her work with us prior to its publication. See, for example, George Themelis Zervos, “Christmas with Salome,” in A Feminist Companion to Mariology (ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Maria Mayo Robbins; Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, 2005), 77-98; and Jane Schaberg, “The Infancy of Mary of Nazareth,” in Searching the Scriptures. Volume Two: A Feminist Commentary (ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, with Ann Brock and Shelly Matthews; New York: Crossroad, 1994), 708-27. Arabic Infancy Gospel 18-22 (Mario E. Provera, ed. and trans., Il Vangelo arabo dell’Infanzia: secondo il ms. laurenziano orientale (n. 387) [Quaderni della Terra Santa; Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1973], 82-93 [paragraphs 17-22]; in French, Charles Genequand, trans., “Vie de Jésus en Arabe,” in Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. 1 [Bibliothèque de la Pléiade; Paris: Éditions Gallimard, AELAC, and Éditions Brepols, 1997], 207-38, here 21821). For further discussion of the role of this girl, see Horn, “From Model Virgin to Maternal Intercessor.” Cornelia Horn, “Mary between Bible and Qur’Ɨn: Soundings into the Transmission and Reception History of the Protoevangelium of James on the Basis of Selected Literary Sources in Coptic and Copto-Arabic and of Art Historical Evidence Pertaining to Egypt,” Islam and Muslim-Christian Relations 18.4 (2007): 509-38; and Cornelia Horn, “Intersections: The Reception History of the Protoevangelium of James in Sources from the Christian East and in the Qur’Ɨn,” Apocrypha. Revue internationale des littératures apocryphes 17 (2006): 113-50.

Teach Us John Chrysostom, Biblical Education and Rhetorical Art 1

2

Homily 24 on Genesis. And again in Homily 10 on Genesis: “If we have a precise realization of this, we will be able while relaxing at home, both before eating or after eating, to take the sacred books in our hands and gain benefit from them and provide spiritual nourishment for our soul… This, after all, is the secret of our salvation, our spiritual riches, our security. If we defend ourselves in this way day by day, through reading, through listening, through spiritual discourse, we will be able to keep ourselves unharmed and render the devil’s wiles ineffectual.” Over and over again in his homilies Chrysostom will stress this. See also: John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist; Homilies 1-47, trans. Sr. Thomas Aquinas Goggin, vol. 33, Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1957; reprint, 2000), 182-83. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 9.

186

3

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

J. N. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1995), 94. 4 Ibid. 5 Hill makes this point in a paper entitled “St John Chrysostom, preacher on the Old Testament,” delivered on March 23, 2004 as the annual St John Chrysostom lecture at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Brookline, MA. I do not strictly exclude the term “exegesis” to refer to Chrysostom’s commentary on Scripture, as it has been so much a part of scholarship on Chrysostom that it would be complicated to extract. 6 Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 156. 7 A good example of the extent to which Chrysostom was interested in the details of in interpreting scriptural texts is in his Sixth Sermon on Lazarus and the Rich Man Chrysostom: “Here in his reply Abraham did not say merely ‘you have received’ (츹¼Ë) , but ‘you have received as your due’ (ÒȚ¸¹¼Ë). The addition of the prefix makes a big difference. As I have often said to you, my beloved, we ought to be interpreters even of syllables. ‘Search the Scriptures,’ it is written; for often one iota or one dot awakens an idea. To learn that the addition of one letter can have a meaning, remember that this same patriarch Abraham (in Greek ¹É¸ŠÄ) was formerly called Abram. God said to him, ‘Your name shall not be Abram but Abraham.’ He added an ‘a,’ and made him the father of many nations.” In John Chrysostom, On Wealth and Poverty, trans. Catharine P. Roth (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984). 8 Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 156. 9 “This is everywhere a rule in Scripture: when it wants to allegorize, it tells the interpretation of the allegory, so that the passage will not be interpreted superficially or be met by the undisciplined desire of those who enjoy allegorization to wander about and be carried in every direction.” John Chrysostom, Interpretatio in Isaiam, ed. Duane A. Garrett, trans. Duane A. Garrett, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 1-8 with an English Translation (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), 5.3. 10 Ibid., 6.4. 11 Ibid. Chrysostom is also not averse to understanding the “spiritual sense” to a scriptural narrative. For example, in his commentary on Psalm 44:1, “Our fathers told us the work you performed in their days, in days gone by,” he says, “It is also possible for us to take this verse in a spiritual sense…” Yet after a very short interpretation, he remarks, “But let us go back now to the historical sense.” His short spiritual interpretation (which is spiritual to the extent that I have trouble following it!) is: “If their fathers narrated it also to them, yet the grace of God allowed us as well to learn their story through the visitation of the Spirit. Now, how would one take it in a spiritual sense? By referring it to the achievements of the new grace, namely, that we have been lifted up to heaven, that we have been thought worthy of the kingdom, that God became man, destroying the barrier of the partition. But let us go back now to the historical sense…” John Chrysostom, St John Chrysostom: Commentary on the Psalms, trans. Robert C. Hill, 2 vols., vol. 1 (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 1998), 236. Later on in this homily he will again mention this “spiritual sense” by following an explanation of OT narrative with one brief sentence beginning, “Now, if you wish to take this in a spiritual sense…” John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 239.

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

12

13

14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21

22 23

24 25 26

27 28 29 30

31 32

187

Duane A. Garrett and Chrysostom John, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 1-8 with an English Translation, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity ; V. 12 (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1992), 202. In his Homily 10 on Genesis, Chrysostom is explaining how some OT passages carefully speak of what is still to come. To illustrate this point, he exhorts his congregation to “listen to the words of blessed David prophesying in loud tones the events of Christ’s crucifixion so many generations before the event: ‘They pierced my hands and my feet,’ and again, ‘They divided up my garments among themselves.’” David M. Rylaarsdam, “The Adaptability of Divine Pedagogy: Synkatabasis in the Theology and Rhetoric of John Chrysostom” (Ph.D. dissertation, Notre Dame, 1999), 1. Garrett and John, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 18 with an English Translation, 176. John Chrysostom, Isa Interp., 6.4. Garrett and John, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 18 with an English Translation, 22. Garret quotes an argument by Lampe that Irenaeus offered an early alternative to the widespread use of allegory. Ibid., 177. John Chrysostom, Isa Interp., 1.4. Garrett and John, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 18 with an English Translation, 177. “Christ too does not in every case heal by word but also by touch…So why did he do this? Because of the limitations of those coming to him.” John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 239. Garrett and John, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 18 with an English Translation, 175. John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids Mich.: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Calvin College http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.html, 2002), hom.1. John Chrysostom, Isa Interp., 1.4. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 239. See footnotes 28-35 on page 254. Commenting on the creation narrative in Genesis, he says, “Does there not seem from the sequence of the expressions to be some contradiction in what is said? Perish the thought: there is nothing contradictory in the contents of Sacred Scripture.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 131. Hom. Matt 1.6, NPNF. John Chrysostom, Isa Interp., 5.3. Garrett and John, An Analysis of the Hermeneutics of John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Isaiah 18 with an English Translation, 175. Peter Gorday, Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9-11 in Origin, John Chrysostom, and Augustine, vol. 4, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1983), 134. Ibid., 135. Perhaps G. H. Chase’s 1887 study offers the most helpful hint about the direction Chrysostomic analysis needs to take. Chase remarks that Chrysostom had four qualities

188

33

34 35 36 37

38

39

40 41 42 43

44

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

that made him a great interpreter of the Bible: first, a profound love for the Scriptures; second, common sense; third, sensitivity to human life and emotions and the ability to discern expressions of those feelings in the Scriptures; and fourth, the use of vigorous, clear language. G.H. Chase, Chrysostom: A Study in the History of Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1887), 193-4. Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation, Hermeneutische Untersuchungen Zur Theologie 40 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, xxii. Ibid., 19. Ibid., xxi. She mentions here specifically epithets, encomia, ekphraseis. Ibid., 22. “Some concept of rhetoric, under different names, can be found in many ancient societies. In Egypt and China, for example, as in Greece, practical handbooks were written to advise the reader how to become an effective speaker.” George Alexander Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994), 3. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, trans. George Alexander Kennedy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1.3. “Epideictic” means approximately “demonstrative”—the speeches on ceremonial occasions, such as public festivals or funerals, which were aimed at praise or blame. It is also important to reference a well-argued recent article in Biblical Interpretation, in which Malcolm Heath argues that we must be wary of studies which survey ancient rhetoric based on a systematic rather than historical basis. Regarding Aristotle’s text specifically, “there is a constant temptation to fall back on a text which, though familiar to us, was not representative even in the fourth-century BCE and never had currency in later times as a teaching text or an authoritative guide to theory.” Ultimately we do Christian rhetoric injustice if we try to definitively categorize homilies into one set category. Malcolm Heath, “John Chrysostom, Rhetoric and Galatians,” Biblical Interpretation 12, no. 4 (2004): 370-1. That Aristotle’s On Rhetoric was little-known and used after Aristotle’s death and up to the 10th century C.E. is argued by George A. Kennedy in his critical edition of the text. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, 305-09. Studying the relationship, in fact, is a kind of case study for gospel-culture issues. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 258. Kennedy cites Paul, Luke, and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews. Greek rhetorical schools existed throughout Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, the birthplace of Christianity. Matthew’s gospel takes a middle ground; it is strongly Jewish in focus, but passages in Matthew that parallel language in Mark often convert proclamations into enthymemes, that is, they add supporting reasons. And again in 1 Corinthians: “I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words of wisdom; for I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified…. Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which was decreed before the ages for our glorification.” Paul is trying to counteract the influence of Apollos or others who had been preaching in Corinth and whose eloquence had undermined his influence there, but he himself is a master of many techniques of persuasion. “Corinth was a prosperous and sophisticated

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

45 46

47

48 49 50

51 52

53 54

55 56 57 58 59 60

189

Greek city; it is not surprising that eloquence should have an appeal there.” Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 259. See among others Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament, Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament Series (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1990). Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 258-9. This use of rhetoric in the first four centuries AD was called “The New or Second Sophistic.” The term “Second Sophistic” signifies the renaissance of Greek Rhetoric that dominated Greek literature for about the first four centuries AD. It brought a revival of Greek oratory by closely imitating the old Greek masters of expression. As a consequence of this revival, the study of rhetoric was seen to be the most important element of higher education. The rhetorical devices used by the Second Sophistic are not new nor are they restricted to the sophistic orators; “it is rather in their abuse that the sophistic manner reveals itself. The most striking feature of rhetoric is its artificiality. Art was displayed for art’s sake, instead of serving as a vehicle of ideas.” It was this use that the Christians would react to. Thomas Edward Ameringer, “The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St. John Chrysostom; a Study in Greek Rhetoric” (Dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1921), 10-19. Andre Resner, Preacher and Cross : Person and Message in Theology and Rhetoric (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 44. De Praescriptione, PL II co. 20a-b cited in Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 261. Pelikan claims that the “three hierarchs” (St Basil the Great, St Gregory the Theologian, and St John Chrysostom) are united chiefly not by their theology which “rather demonstrates the diversity that was still possible within the borders of post-Nicene Orthodoxy” but by their Christian rhetoric. Pelikan, ed., The Preaching of Chrysostom : Homilies on the Sermon on the Mount, 51. Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric”, 25-26. Ibid. Ibid. In Galations 1:10, Paul says, “Am I now trying to win the approval of men…Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” Chrysostom comments on this passage, “He who wishes to persuade men, is led to act tortuously and insincerely, and to employ deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the assent of his hearers. But he who addresses himself to God, and desires to please Him, needs simplicity and purity of mind, for God cannot be deceived. Whence it is plain that I have thus written to you not from the love of rule, or to gain disciples, or to receive honor at your hands. My endeavor has been to please God, not men.” Quoted by Lauri Thuren, “John Chrysostom as a Rhetorical Critic: The Hermeneutics of an Early Father,” Biblical Interpretation 9 (2001): 2:196. Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric”, 27. Ibid. Ibid., 28. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 239. Emphasis added. John Chrysostom, Six Books on the Priesthood, 128 (v.2). George Alexander Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, Second, revised and enlarged ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 166.

190

61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72 73

74 75 76

77

78 79

80

81 82 83

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

Mayer and Allen argue that in fact his rhetorical education is most evident in his homilies delivered on special occasions, a point which would not be surprising given that schools of rhetoric would have specifically trained their pupils to speak eloquently on special public occasions. Pauline Allen and Wendy Mayer, John Chrysostom, Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge, 1999), 27. A fascinating recent study is Heath, “John Chrysostom, Rhetoric and Galatians.” Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric”, 56. “Warfare” metaphor in On the Priesthood, IV.3. Ibid. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 131. Ibid., 191. Ibid., 193. John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, hom.1. Ameringer notes “One of the serious faults of Chrysostom’s style was his immoderate redundance of metaphors,” but then later concedes that “though wearisome to a modern reader, (they) must have been highly acceptable to Chrysostom’s audience.” Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric,” 66. Ibid., 66 quoting PG 52, 416, 14. For a fuller account of examples of Chrysostom’s use of metaphor, see Ibid., 56-61. Ibid., 68 quoting PG 56, 165, 32. Ibid., 68-9. Ameringer says that John mentions that Christ used parables to make the divine truths more acceptable to the Jews by inserting in his teaching terms that were in common use, such as threshing-floor, harvest, winepress, vineyard, field, etc. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 130-31. Ibid., 160. Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 67. Not all scholars of Chrysostom have appreciated his comparisons, and the study by Ameringer in 1921, which has the most extensive categorized examples of Chrysostom’s use of metaphors, also heartily critiques many of them. This speaks more about Ameringer’s taste in his own day than it does on their function then or now. Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric”, 68-85. Ameringer concludes, “in practice he often loses sight of the real purpose of the comparison as defined by himself. He frequently indulges in a heaping up of comparisons, thus giving a vain display of rhetorical pyrotechnics.” Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric”, 85. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 6. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist, trans. Sr. Thomas Aquinas Goggin, vol. 33, Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1957), 19. William A. Maat, A Rhetorical Study of St. John Chrysostom’s De Sacerdotio, vol. LXXI, The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1944). Ibid. Ibid. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 246.

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

191

84 John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, hom.1. 85 John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 134. 86 Ibid., 130. 87 Ibid., 131. 88 Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 70. 89 “This species of rhetoric is discussed and prescribed in all the Greco-Roman rhetorical handbooks from the fourth-century B.C.E. into the Roman imperial period (Aristotle, Anaximenes, Cicero, Quintilian, Theon), and up to Chrysostom’s own contemporaries (Apthonios and, a century earlier, Menander). The genre had famous prototypes which were endlessly retaught and reenacted in the progymnasmata (rhetorical exercises) of the Greco-Roman paideia, such as Pericles’ funeral oration (Thuc. 2.34ff.) and Demosthenes’ epitaphios (“funeral oration” [Or. 60]), which Chrysostom would have learned in his early education, and practiced under the eye of his teacher of rhetoric, Libanios.” Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 95-6. 90 Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century, 113. 91 See Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 97. 92 Ibid., 96. 93 Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 94. It is interesting to note that he doesn’t mention imitating a martyr to death, but because of his “virtue” and “philosophy.” 94 Ibid., 185-6. That Chrysostom himself identifies his sermon on Philogonius as an encomium is clear from his comment mid-sermon, “I should have spoken about the time when Philogonius was entrusted with this office—it forms no small part of the encomium, and is rather an extremely fitting indication of the man’s quality.” Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 190. 95 John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, hom.1. Interestingly, later on in the sermon he speaks of the Great Commission as an encomium to the apostles, saying, “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Ib. xxviii. 19, 20.) A high encomium this for the Apostles; to have such a charge entrusted to them, I mean, the salvation of the world! words full of the Spirit!” John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, hom.1. 96 John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist; Homilies 1-47, 6. Quoting 1 Cor 2:10. 97 For a fresh translation of these seven encomia, see Appendix 1 in Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 440-87. 98 Ibid., 96. 99 John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church; Series 1, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids Mich.: 2002), hom.13. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.html. Chrysostom’s quote of this verse includes ÁÚ¿ÑË ÁÛºĽ ÉÀÊÌÇı, which is omitted in our version: the Vulgate has it. 100 For a detailed study of the epideictic rhetoric of this passage, see Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 104-17. 101 John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, hom.13.

192

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

112

113 114 115 116

117 118 119 120

121

122

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

See Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 100. John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, hom.13. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 101. She is quoting Theon, Hermogenes, and Apthonios. Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric,” 86. Ibid. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 101, n.30. Mitchell explains that this is especially emphasized by Wilken John Chrysostom and the Jews, 109-110. Ameringer, “Study in Greek Rhetoric”, 86. Ibid. Citing 52, 395, 64. Ibid. Quoting 50, 494, 53. “Set your mind on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” Mayer and Allen, John Chrysostom, 79-80. Chrysostom is fond of the ekphrasis on wealth; another is found in John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, hom.13.. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist; Homilies 1-47, 4-5. John Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, hom.13. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet, 22, see also 28. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 248. One can also speculate that Chrysostom followed Libanios in incorporating progymnasmatic forms into his oratory. Progymnasmata means “preliminary exercises” and they were the exercises taught in the rhetorical schools to prepare students to write and deliver declamations. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, 202, 49. One of the most important surviving progymnasmata is a treatise by Apthonius of Antioch, who was like Chrysostom a student of Libanios and wrote in the second half of the fourth century. Several of the fourteen exercises that Chrysostom describes could, if taught by Libanios or even if they were current in the schooling of the time, have easily influenced and formed Chrysostom’s high regard for biblical narrative. See George Alexander Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, ed. John T. Fitzgerald and Donald A. Russell, trans. George Alexander Kennedy, vol. 10, Writings from the Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 89-128. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 138. Ibid., 237. John Chrysostom, St. John Chrysostom: Commentary on the Psalms, 234-5. We know that when Chrysostom preaches sermons on the Bible to adults, he is careful to remind them where they are in the Bible and how a passage fits into the larger picture of salvation history. We may conclude, then, that a child’s knowledge of the basic stories of Scripture is the foundation for understanding how the stories fit together, although Chrysostom does not state this outright. M. L. W. Laistner, Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire; Together with an English Translation of John Chrysostom’s Address on Vainglory and the Right Way for Parents to Bring up Their Children (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1951), 102-03. Chrysostom also advocates that the parent should not only say what the Biblical passage says about Cain’s plight, because “the child does not understand this yet,” but should come

•FESTSCHRIFT–VOLUME III•

123 124 125 126 127 128

193

up with an analogy to make the meaning of the Biblical text real to the child. Apt analogies must be an integral part of storytelling, for they help make a biblical concept meaningful. No sooner has Chrysostom emphasized this than he says that this telling is to introduce nothing that is untrue but only what is related in the Scriptures. The way the story is told is to be both engaging and true to the original. Chrysostom offers no indication that this would be difficult. More often than not, the elaboration Chrysostom gives to a sparse biblical narrative is the probable motivation of characters. This motivation, arguably, is what a reader or hearer would have to assume to make sense of the biblical text. Chrysostom’s dramatization of the story makes the moral lesson of the story unambiguous for the hearer. (Ibid., 104.) Ibid., 105. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 111. (The heading according to Chrysostom.) Ibid. Ibid., 112. Once again, this is something his training in classical rhetoric would have prepared him to do. John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Psalms, 113.

Index Acts of Andrew, 82 Acts of Philip, 90 Acts of Thomas, 89 Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca, 91, 92 Afanasiev, N., 12 Agouridis, Savas, 3, 7 Alexandrian school of theology, 50, 96 Allegorical interpretation of Scripture, 5053, 81, 96-97 Anglican Church, 13 Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, 13 Antiochian school of theology, 50, 56, 96 Aphrahat, 69 Atanasije Jevtic, Bishop, 60

Florovsky, Georges, 8 Form criticism, 1, 9

Baptism, 15 Ben Sira, 23ff. Bulgakov, Sergei, 12

Lakoff, George, 48, 50

Chrysostom, John, x, 38, 50, 73, 95ff. Cole, Robert, 15, 16 Comparison (in rhetoric), 107 David, Bathsheba, and Nathan, 31 de Saussure, Ferdinand, 46 Demetrius of Phalerum, 36 Diatessaron, 73 Dibelius, Martin, 19 Didascalia Apostolorum, 88 Ekphrasis, 114 Encomium, 111 Ephesians, 18 Ephrem the Syrian, 73 Eschatology, 15, 18-19 Eucharist, 59, 64 Evdokimov, P., 12

Gillet, Lev, 12 Gospel of Mary Magdalene, 86 Gospel of Thomas, 79 Homiletics, 29 Intertextuality, 16 Johnson, Mark, 48, 50 Kallistos (Ware), Metropolitan of Diokleia, 13 Kartashev, A., 12

Mary Magdalene, 82, 91 Maximus the Confessor, 60-61, 64 Metaphor in Scripture, 29, 43, 106, 107, 113 Mitchell, David, 15, 19 Mitchell, Margaret M., 100 Neusner, Jacob, 7 Objectivism, 49, 102 Orthodox Church, 2-3, 12-14, 63 Otto, Rudolf, 61 Phillip (Saliba), 13 Philo, 80 Plotinus, 61 Protoevangelium of James, 93 Proverbs, 30, 33 Redaction criticism, 1, 9

19 Retrojection, 44 Revelation, 3, 9 Rhetoric, 102-104, 109 Sheol, 17 Sitz im Leben, 44 Stylianopoulos, Th., 8 Subjectivism, 49 Synkatabasis, 98 7H[WXDOFULWLFLVP 7KHFOD 7KHRGRUHRI0RSVXHVWLD 7RUDK 7UDGLWLRQ 7UHPEHODV3DQDJLRWLV =DQGHU/ =HUQRY1LFRODV =LRQ

•PAUL NADIM TARAZI•

@

BIBLE IN THE CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX TRADITION Vahan S. Hovhanessian, General Editor

This series aims at exploring and evaluating the various aspects of biblical traditions as studied, understood, taught, and lived in the Christian communities that spoke and wrote—and some continue speaking and writing—in the Aramaic, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Romanian, Syriac, and other languages of the Orthodox family of churches. A particular focus of this series is the incorporation of the various methodologies and hermeneutics used for centuries in these Christian communities, into the contemporary critical approaches, in order to shed light on understanding the message of the Bible. Each monograph in the series will engage in critical examination of issues raised by contemporary biblical research. Scholars in the fields of biblical text, manuscripts, canon, hermeneutics, theology, lectionary, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha will have an enormous opportunity to share their academic findings with a worldwide audience. Manuscripts and dissertations, incorporating a variety of approaches and methodologies to studying the Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox traditions—including, but not limited to, theological, historiographic, philological and literary—are welcome. Further information about this series and inquiries about the submission of manuscripts should be directed to: Acquisitions Department Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 29 Broadway, 18th floor New York, NY 10006 To order books in this series, please contact the Customer Service Department: (800) 770–LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647–7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647–7707 FAX or browse online by series: www.peterlang.com