Virtuous Reading: Aphrahat’s Approach to Scripture 9781463216689

Citation preview

Virtuous Reading: Aphrahat's Approach to Scripture

Analecta Gorgiana

121 Series Editor George Kiraz

Analecta Gorgiana is a collection of long essays and short monographs which are consistently cited by modern scholars but previously difficult to find because of their original appearance in obscure publications. Carefully selected by a team of scholars based on their relevance to modern scholarship, these essays can now be fully utilized by scholars and proudly owned by libraries.

Virtuous Reading: Aphrahat's Approach to Scripture

J. W. Childers



 2009

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 2008 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2009

‫ܙ‬



ISBN 978-1-60724-035-8

ISSN 1935-6854

This extract originally appeared in George A. Kiraz, ed., Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, Gorgias Press, 2008, pages 43-70.

Printed in the United States of America

VIRTUOUS READING: APHRAHAT’S APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE J. W. CHILDERS

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY A DISCIPLE OF SCRIPTURE A self-professed “disciple of the sacred scriptures,”1 Aphrahat the Persian Sage (270–ca.345)2 leans heavily on the biblical text,3 and the use of it in his Demonstrations has been the subject of sustained investigations. An apparently influential Christian ascetic leader and churchman in fourthcentury Persia,4 Aphrahat displays a breathtaking grasp of the biblical texts; 1 Demonstration 22.26 (I, 1049:3–4). I defer to the conventional method for citing Aphrahat, by volume, column, and line numbers of J. Parisot’s edition, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (Patrologia Syriaca, vols. 1, 2; Paris, 1894, 1907). 2 Sebastian Brock introduced me to Aphrahat. We read together Aphrahat’s Demonstration 23, “On the Grape Cluster” in the very first class of the Michaelmas term in my first year at Oxford. One could ask for no better guide to Aphrahat nor a more generous mentor in Syriac studies. It is with deep admiration and lasting appreciation that I dedicate the present study to my teacher, Sebastian Brock. 3 With over 1500 occurrences in Aphrahat’s 23 Demonstrations, the saturation of biblical citations and allusions is one of the most prominent characteristics of his corpus. See Tjitze Baarda, The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage. I. Aphrahat’s Text of the Fourth Gospel (Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 1975), 9; Jean Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” in Robert H. Fischer, ed., A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus. Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, Primarily in the Syrian East (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology, 1977), 192, n.4. 4 Aphrahat composed 23 Demonstrations in Syriac on various Chistian theological and spiritual topics, between the years 337–345. For basic discussions of the identity of the “Persian Sage” and the setting of his work, see S. P. Brock, A Brief Outline of Syriac Literature (Moran ‚Etho Series 9; St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute: Kottayam, 1991), 19–22; idem, An Introduction to Syriac Studies (Gorgias Handbooks 4; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006), 7–8; Marie-Joseph Pierre,

43 [1]

44

CHILDERS

in places he handles scripture as though he were “threading beads on a string, so numerous are the passages which he adduces from both the Old and New Testament.”5 In other places the images and language of scripture flow fluidly from his pen, as naturally as if he had been breathing them in during his long sojourns within the world of the biblical text: “the better versed his disciples (both ancient and modern) are in the Bible, the better they can catch the allusions and citations as they fly by.”6 Investigations of Aphrahat’s handling of scripture have taken different tacks. Textual critics, intrigued by his early date and apparent isolation from Greek influence, have tried to determine the form of his biblical source text and sought his assistance in writing the history of the early Syriac textual tradition.7 Others have explored Aphrahat’s reliance on certain bodies of biblical material, such as the Gospel parables, the Pauline corpus or the book of Daniel.8 Robert Murray has studied Aphrahat’s deployment of Aphraate le sage persan. Les exposés (Source Chrétienne 349; Paris, 1988), 1.13–202; Peter Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen (Fontes Christiani 5.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1991), 1.35–73; Naomi Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia: A Reconstructed Conversation” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1993), 18–34. 5 Baarda, Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat, 10. 6 Craig E. Morrison, “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Aphrahat’s Fifth Demonstration, ‘On Wars,’” Hugoye 7 (January 2004), 3; accessed 17 October 2007, online: http://www.bethmardutho.org/ hugoye; See Stephen S. Taylor, “Paul and the Persian Sage: Some Observations on Aphrahat’s Use of the Pauline Corpus,” in Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds., The Function of Scripture in Early Jewish and Christian Tradition (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 318. 7 E.g. Baarda, Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat; Robert J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 3; Leiden, Brill, 1983); idem, “Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus,” in Peter B. Dirksen and Martin J. Mulder, eds., The Peshitta: its Early Text and History: Papers Read at the Peshitta Symposium, Leiden, Aug 1985 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 1–48; idem, “The Early Syriac Text of Ben Sira in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat,” Journal of Semitic Studies 34 (1989): 39–75; Marinus D. Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” in Bas ter Haar Romeny, ed., The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy. Papers Read at the Third Peshitta Symposium (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 15; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 131–41. 8 E.g. Kuriakose Antony Valavanolickal, The Use of the Gospel Parables in the Writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem (Studies in the Religion and History of Early Christianity 2; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Land, 1996); John H. Corbett, “The Pauline Tradition in Aphrahat,” in H. J. W. Drijvers et al., eds., IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 229;

[2]

VIRTUOUS READING

45

biblical imagery.9 Of particular interest have been Aphrahat’s methods of biblical interpretation—especially within the context of patristic exegesis10 and in comparison to the Jewish hermeneutics of his day. Although the question of whether and to what extent Aphrahat knew and used identifiable Rabbinic traditions is debated,11 most see in him a practitioner of interpretive methods very like those employed by many ancient Jewish exegetes—and presumably by other ancient Semitic Christian exegetes as well.12 One area that has not received much attention is that of the role of Aphrahat’s epistemological assumptions.13 Hermeneutically, Aphrahat is not Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), 13–32; Taylor, “Paul and the Persian Sage,” 312–31; D. J. Lane, “Of Wars and Rumours of Peace: Apocalyptic Material in Aphrahat and Subhalmaran,” in Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward, eds., New Heaven and New Earth—Prophecy and the Millenium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 229–45; Craig E. Morrison, “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Aphrahat’s Fifth Demonstration.” 9 Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: University Press, 1975). 10 E.g. Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 191–202; J. C. McCullough, “Aphrahat the Biblical Exegete,” Studia Patristica 18 (1990): 263–68; Shinichi Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers,” in ter Haar Romeny, The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy, 207–22. 11 Earlier scholarship found numerous instances of direct reliance on Rabbinic exegetical traditions—e.g. S. Funk, Die haggadischen Elemente in den Homilien des Aphraates (Vienna, 1891), and Frank Gavin, “Aphraates and the Jews,” Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 7 (1923): 95–166. Following a more restrained method for identifying dependency, Jacob Neusner concluded that Aphrahat had little or no direct contact with rabbinical Jews—Aphrahat and Judaism. The Christian-Jewish Argument in Fourth-Century Iran (Leiden: Brill, 1971); see Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 281–88; J. G. Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” in J. A. Emerton and Stefan C. Reif, eds., Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Essays in Honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal (Cambridge: University Press, 1982), 235–50. More recent scholarship indicates that Aphrahat probably was acquainted with rabbinic traditions—see the survey in Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 5– 13. 12 See Gavin, “Aphraates,” 162–63; Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 2; Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of his Old Testament,” 140; Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” 238; William L. Petersen, “The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the 17th Demonstration,” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 249–50. 13 See the preliminary remarks in J. W. Childers, “‘Humility Begets Wisdom and Discernment:’ Character and True Knowledge in Aphrahat,” Studia Patristica 41

[3]

46

CHILDERS

an especially self-conscious practitioner. He shows little interest in displaying or discussing his hermeneutical principles. He famously practices a fairly straightforward exegetical method, one that recognizes a difference between interior and exterior aspects of the text yet mainly cites and applies scripture in a literal or “plain-sense” fashion.14 He does not seek authorization by appealing to other patristic authors, to systematizing theological rationales, or to philosophical frameworks.15 Yet beneath his hermeneutics lie epistemological assumptions that have a profound effect on his use of scripture. Like other ancient authors, Aphrahat believes that moral behavior is fundamental not only to the Christian life, but that it is also tied to the performance of the intellect. This is as much a matter of practice as of theory or assumptions. Aphrahat believes the mind is crucial to the development of moral character and that cultivating certain virtues will enhance the functioning of the mind, whereas the practice of vices will impair judgment and injure the mind’s capacities. In other words, Aphrahat exhibits what may be called a virtue approach to knowledge.16 His approach is grounded in an optimistic doctrine of creation and the conviction that salvation in Jesus Christ involves the disciple in a dynamic process of (2006): 13–22, portions of which have been adapted for the present, more extended study. I am also indebted to the participants of the program unit, “The Bible in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Traditions” that met during the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, who offered helpful feedback on a presentation of material from this study. 14 See Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.117–22; Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 192, 195–96; Koster, “Aphrahat’s use of his Old Testament,” 140; Gavin, “Aphraates,” 162–63. 15 Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.117; Valavanolickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 140, 323. 16 Virtue epistemologists prescribe a change in the direction of analysis for epistemic justification—from properties of beliefs to properties of persons. They commonly notice parallels between their own assumptions and those of ancient authors, who commonly correlate knowledge and virtue, linking sound cognitive processes to the exercise of praiseworthy dispositions. For basic orientation to the major current developments in virtue epistemology, see Guy Axtell, “Recent Work in Virtue Epistemology,” American Philosophical Quarterly 34 (1997): 1–27; idem, ed. Knowledge, Belief, and Character. Readings in Virtue Epistemology (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), xi–xxix; Abrol Fairweather and Linda Zagzebski, eds., Virtue Epistemology. Essays on Epistemic Virtue and Responsibility (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3–14.

[4]

VIRTUOUS READING

47

transformation—a kind of divinization—including the transformation of the mind. Since for Aphrahat no more fitting object of intellectual inquiry exists than the biblical text, his epistemological assumptions show themselves most frequently in his exegeses and in his rare but pointed treatments of how to handle scripture.17 The present study considers the impact of Aphrahat’s epistemology of virtue on his approach to scripture, highlighting those virtues that seem to have the greatest epistemic implications for him. The exploration begins with Aphrahat’s epistemological foundations—a telling of salvation history in which the origins, wanderings, and ultimate potential of the human mind feature notably.

CONCEIVED IN THE MIND OF GOD: CREATED TO KNOW WELL In the biblical creation narrative Aphrahat perceives a pronounced tension between humanity’s potential to share in the divine nature and its arrogant tendency to usurp the divine glory and power.18 The tension between these aspects of human experience has a direct bearing on the quest for knowledge. In Demonstration 17, “On Christ the Son of God,”19 Aphrahat expounds a lofty view of human intellectual potential: And you know, my beloved, that all creatures above and below were created first, and after all them, the man. For when God determined to create the world with all its things, first he conceived and formed Adam within his own mind, and after Adam was conceived in his thought, then he conceived the (other) creatures, as he said: “Before the mountains were conceived and the earth laboured in childbirth”; because the man is older in conception he precedes the creatures, but in birth the creatures are older and precede Adam. Adam was conceived 17 Such passages tend to occur at the beginnings and ends of discrete portions of the Demonstrations, in the forms of Aphrahat’s own commentary on his discussions and as advice to the reader, e.g. Demonstrations 1.1; 5.25; 10.9; 12.13; 22.26; 23.1. 18 See Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 1.67–8; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.157–8. 19 Aphrahat’s discussion of Adam in this context serves his larger purpose in Demonstration 17 of showing the appropriateness of calling Jesus the “Son of God” since scripture uses this title for others also—including Adam. See Petersen, “The Christology of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on the 17th Demonstration.”

[5]

48

CHILDERS and dwelt in the thought of God. And while in conception (Adam) was enclosed in his mind, by the word of his mouth God created all creatures… And after that God brought forth Adam from within his thought, fashioned him, and breathed into him of his Spirit, giving him the knowledge of discernment, that he might discern good from evil and know that God made him. And inasmuch as he knew his maker, God was formed and conceived within the thought of the man and he became a temple for God his maker, as it is written, “You are God’s temple.” And he also said, “I will dwell in them and walk in them.” Yet as for the children of Adam who do not know their maker, he is not formed within them and does not dwell in them, nor is he conceived in their thought. Instead, they are regarded before him as a beast, and like the rest of the creatures.20

In spite of Adam’s belated appearance on earth he was originally preeminent over other creatures.21 This is underscored by the observation that before coming into earthly existence, humanity had a genuine existence within God’s mind. “Adam was conceived and dwelt in the thought of God,” prior to his earthly birth. According to Aphrahat, once humanity was born into earthly existence, it enjoyed the benefit of a special capacity for knowledge.22 Adam had the “knowledge of discernment,” the capacity to distinguish good from evil and to know that God was his creator. The proper exercise of this original knowledge perpetuates the mental connection inherent in the primal relationship between human and creator. Aphrahat explains, “inasmuch as he knew his maker, God was formed and Demonstration 17.7 (1, 796:18–797:8; 800:2–16). Aphrahat’s presumptions of Adam’s preexistence with respect to other creatures bears affinities with some ancient Jewish interpretive traditions, though the emphasis on the mental connection between primal Adam and the Creator is particularly strong in the early Syriac tradition (i.e., Aphrahat, Ephrem, Liber Graduum). See the notes in Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1925) 5.79, n.22; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 2.736, n.15; see also Tryggve Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1–11 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian with Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Tradition (Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series 11; Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1978), 46–51. 22 Echoes of the traditional association of primal humanity and Wisdom may be detected in Job 15:7 (“Are you the firstborn of humanity?”) and Proverbs 8:25 (“Before the mountains were formed, before the hills I was brought forth…”). See ibid. 20 21

[6]

VIRTUOUS READING

49

conceived within the thought of the man and he became a temple for God his maker.” On the one hand, Aphrahat is explicating the Genesis narrative, yet his reference to “the children of Adam” remind the reader of the universal implications of the primal narrative. The passage exploits the dual meaning of çÓÁ. As with the English “conceive/concept,” çÓÁ (“conceive”) and its cognate ¾æÓÁ (“conception”) can refer literally to physical conception or metaphorically to the act of conceiving intellectually.23 In Aphrahat’s understanding, humans were designed to be in a relationship of reciprocal conception with their maker, in which the mind of the human—once an inhabitant of God’s mind—in turn becomes a habitation for God when a person’s conceptual faculties consecrate that space for God.24 People are meant to experience a natural mental harmony with their maker, a sharing of minds that is linked to full human existence and is associated with knowledge. Aphrahat indicates that if a person does not know the creator, then God does not dwell in that person’s mind—he or she is therefore “like the beasts, like the other creatures.” Fundamentally, Aphrahat assumes that God is the ultimate ground and source of knowledge, and that truly human intelligence exists only in a mind that is structured as a temple for God, because otherwise it lacks the ennobling vital component of the divine presence. Adam’s disobedience injured human potential and disastrously complicated the human endeavour to get knowledge, as Aphrahat explains in Demonstration 23, “On the Grape Cluster”: Because the first man presented his disobedience to the serpent, he received the punishment of the curse and became food for the serpent, and the curse has continued against all his descendants. For because he ate from the Tree of Knowledge he was withheld from the fruit of the Tree of Life, so that he would not eat of it and live forever. By this we know that because the man transgressed the commandment by the deception of the evil one and prematurely took pride for himself in 23 See Karl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (2d ed. reprint; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1995), 67. The term áÂÏ in this context carries a similar force, since it can mean, “to travail (in labour),” or “to conceive (in the mind)” (ibid., 210). 24 Cf. Demonstration 23.59: “We have formed you in our heart and we depicted your image in our mind. Our thought has beheld you and we have called you God. We have named you Father because you gave us birth” (2, 119.21–23; see Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 2.945, n.260).

[7]

50

CHILDERS order to be equal with his maker—and in the discernment of knowledge which he received a fence came into being between him and the Tree of Life—that as a result of the evil one’s cunning he was kept from its fruit… [Yet] in its kindness this very Tree of Life was not withheld from the needy, so that they might eat from it and live. Lengthening its boughs, it put forth its tendrils and extended its branches over the fence and graciously put its fruit over the protective barrier encircling it. And people, on account of the confused and harmful knowledge that they had seized prematurely, along with many torments, had the promise of the curse taken away from them by this healing device.25

When Adam seized the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, he was seeking not simply a share in the divine nature, for which he had apparently been destined anyway, but was pridefully seeking “to be equal with his maker.” Furthermore, because of the willful way in which Adam acquired the fruit, and because of his arrogant motives, the knowledge he got was “confused and harmful knowledge… taken prematurely.” It brought discrimination and differentiation, an important function of knowledge—but this differentiation took the form of a barrier separating humanity from the Tree of Life. The reward was the curse and a life full of torments. Yet the mercy of the Tree of Life was such that it extended itself beyond the barrier so as to make its salvific fruit available to those who would eat of it and accordingly become “a cluster in the bunch,” a source of blessing for the remainder of humanity until the coming of Christ. Decades later, Ephrem would develop a similar interpretation,26 the parallel trajectory of which may help clarify some of the theological implications of Aphrahat’s presentation. In his Commentary on Genesis 2.23, Ephrem maintains that God intended humans to participate fully in the divine nature by eating both fruits—provided they are humble enough to be obedient and do so appropriately: If the serpent had been rejected along with sin, Adam and Eve would have eaten from the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge would not have been withheld from them; from the one they would have gained infallible knowledge and from the other they would have received Demonstration 23.3 (2, 5.9–22; 8.17–19). Alongside parallel Jewish traditions (see n. 21 above), Ephrem taught that Adam came into existence before other creatures—Carmina Nisibena 38.9–10; Hymns on the Church 47.11 (see Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1–11, 48–49). 25 26

[8]

VIRTUOUS READING

51

immortal life. They would have acquired divinity with their humanity, and if they had acquired infallible knowledge and immortal life, they would have possessed them in those same bodies.27

It appears that for Aphrahat as for Ephrem, the restriction regarding the tree of Knowledge was temporary, designed to clarify and test the human potential to enjoy full fellowship with God. In Hymns on Paradise 12, Ephrem laments: Two trees did God place in paradise, the Tree of Life and that of Wisdom, a pair of blessed fountains, source of every good; by means of this glorious pair the human person can become the likeness of God, endowed with immortal life and wisdom that does not err. If only he had conquered just for one moment, he would have eaten of the one tree and lived, eaten of the other and gained knowledge; his life would have been protected from harm, and his wisdom would have been unshakeable…28

The story of creation and of humanity’s tragic Eden experience provides Aphrahat and Ephrem29 with a narrative framework for understanding the predicament of the human intellect, with all its promise and pitfalls. Sharing a native kinship with the divine mind, the human intellect finds itself situated between its lofty potential to ascertain divine knowledge and the baser impulses that prompt it to seek knowledge “prematurely,” in proud and selfish ways. This is a crucial aspect of the 27 Edward G. Mathews and Joseph P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works (Fathers of the Church 91; Washington, D.C.: CUA Press, 1994), 114. 28 Hymns on Paradise 12.15, 17 (translation from Brock, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990], 167, 168). 29 A similar yet distinct understanding occurs in Liber Graduum 21.1–9, where the anonymous author teaches that prior to Adam’s sin, his mind was situated directly in God’s presence in heaven, while his body inhabited the earth. The ascetic disciplines and practices of the Perfect in that author’s community are designed to recover and sustain the mind’s original heavenly orientation. See Childers, “A Broken Mind: the Path to Knowledge in Liber Graduum,” in Robert Kitchen and Kristian Heal, eds., Breaking the Mind: New Perspectives on the Syriac Book of Steps (forthcoming).

[9]

52

CHILDERS

situation that Jesus Christ came to remedy, inviting humanity to rediscover the mind’s proper orientation and functioning as a temple for its creator.

THE SAGE: ELEVATED WISDOM AND HOLY HABITATION Since the Tree of Life put out its branches beyond the barrier, the loss of paradise has made realizing the divine status only difficult, not impossible (Demonstration 23.3).30 Within Aphrahat’s optimistic anthropology, being a human soul implies the possession of a measure of discernment, free will, culpability, and the capacity to participate in divinity by means of God’s Spirit.31 Jesus Christ capitalizes on that potential, opening up the possibility for humans to share in the divine nature as originally intended. By humbly descending to take up human nature and by elevating that nature into heaven as a pledge, Christ enables people who belong to the nature of this earth to participate in the nature of heaven also.32 Along with the other benefits, such people have “spiritual senses of the mind,”33 a capacity for perception akin to that of God so that they are cognizant of spiritual truth. In short, in Christ the human potential for divinization is recovered and the process is underway, with attendant consequences—and expectations—for the operation and responsibilities of the mind. Aphrahat vividly brings together these notions of knowledge and divinization in his mystical picture of the Sage in Demonstration 14.35. He casts the experience of progressive human salvation as a quest for knowledge and wisdom: “Who has perceived the place of knowledge, and who has attained to the roots of wisdom? Who has regarded the place of understanding?”34 The Sage (¾ĆãÙÝÏ) diligently seeks the deep treasuries of divine knowledge and truth, thereby gaining wisdom and becoming the dwelling place of the divine presence, an exemplary moral agent and a point of access to the divine for other people.35 This portrait serves a specific Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 1.61–62. Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.185. 32 Demonstration 6.10, 18; see A. F. J. Klijn, “The Word kejan in Aphraates,” Vigiliae Christianae 12 (1958): 62–65. 33 Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.14). 34 Demonstration 14.35 (1, 660.23–25). 35 See especially Alexander Golitzin, “The Place of the Presence of God: Aphrahat of Persia’s Portrait of the Christian Holy Man. An Essay in Honor of Archimandrite Aimilianos of the Monastery of Simonos Petras, Mount Athos,” Interdisciplinary Seminar on the Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism (28 January 2003); accessed 27 October 2007, online: http://www.marquette.edu 30 31

[10]

VIRTUOUS READING

53

purpose in the context of Demonstration 14, which is concerned primarily with moral problems among Persian church leaders. But the description of the Sage’s exercise of both intellectual and moral virtues within a process of personal ascent and transformation further illuminate Aphrahat’s epistemology, especially if Golitizin is correct in his contention that the Sage represents the best of everything Aphrahat commends in his Demonstrations.36 Given Aphrahat’s optimistic creation theology and his dynamic soteriology, the distinctions between spiritual knowledge associated with salvation, normal knowledge associated with living in the world, and ecstatic knowledge associated with the divine vision are blurred as the corresponding practices, virtues, and results converge into a single portrait of unified Christian experience. In Aphrahat’s picture, knowledge and wisdom are a treasure that is available to “the one who unfolds the wings of his mind” to accommodate it.37 The diligent exercise of perceptive faculties is rewarded with the discovery of wondrous treasures. As the Sage studies different aspects of creation,38 including the skies and seas and all creatures, his study of these things enlarges him to such an extent that he becomes “the great temple of his creator.”39 He is struck by wonder and amazement at the marvelous things he sees and learns, including rare and ecstatic visions of the divine as he is being transformed into the very place of God’s presence.40 The Sage is /maqom/aimilianos; also Adam Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions to Law-Observance in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 14 (2006): 168. 36 Golitzin notices that Demonstration 14.35 parallels other spiritual-mystical texts but shows that Aphrahat’s portrait of the Sage has distinctive characteristics and functions (“Place of the Presence of God,” 3.1; 10.4). He asserts, “The model Christian as ‘temple’ of God can therefore justly be considered the great leitmotif of Aphrahat’s efforts, from the opening section of his first Demonstration to the conclusion of the twenty-third and last” (ibid., 10.1). Golitizin may be straining overmuch in his attempt to use Aphrahat as a means of tracing more developed Greek notions of theosis directly back to primitive Christianity and “the deepest layers of the Hebrew scriptures” (ibid., 11.3), but the elements of his explication of the Sage as Aphrahat’s mystical sketch of divinization resonate with themes and images found throughout the Demonstrations. 37 1, 661.7–8. 38 The preceding section also extols the marvels of God’s creation (Demonstration 14.34). 39 1, 661.17–18. 40 See 1, 661.22–664.1.

[11]

54

CHILDERS

fully engaged in this transforming experience, but especially in his K perceptive and inner intellectual capacities: Aphrahat speaks of his ¾æÙî ª ª (eyes), ¾ýÄĂ (perceptions), ™½Ćâ (touching), ˜½Ï (gazing), ¾Âß (heart), ¾æÙî˜ (mind/intellect), ¿ÿÙ (mind), ¿ÿÂýÐâ (thought), ¿ÿÙåûâ ª (reflection), ¾ùÁš~ (contemplating), ™½Ä (touching) and ¾ÁÍî (innermost being). Yet the adventure transforms his moral character as well: “then his thought is elevated, and his heart conceives and gives birth to every good thing…”41 In keeping with Aphrahat’s christological model of self-emptying humility, “the Sage grows strong in his thought. Though he is small in appearance, and (he makes himself) even smaller, he is infused and filled with a mighty treasure.”42 An inverse relationship exists between the Sage’s smallness and his capacity to take in and shine forth the vastness of the divine presence.43 Thus enriched, in his smallness he becomes a boundless reserve of God’s riches for others: His mind touches all the foundations and brings him a treasure of knowledge… When he gives from his own, he suffers no loss, and the poor are enriched from him treasure. There is no limit to his mind, which is gathered up and dwells in his innermost being. The place where the King dwells and is ministered to, who could calculate its treasure for you?44

Aphrahat’s picture of the Sage is not a strictly epistemological portrait and it resonates clearly with other meditations on Wisdom, yet it is construed in largely intellectual terms and its various elements correspond to epistemological elements occurring elsewhere in the Demonstrations, as we shall see. Aphrahat’s picture of salvation and divine experience entail the categories of mind and knowledge as major pieces. From the passages in Demonstrations 17, 23, and 14, it is apparent that for Aphrahat, the proper functioning of the mind is necessarily tied to salvation and the realization of the divine character in a human life. Consequently, the acquisition and use of knowledge have integral moral and even salvific dimensions—there are intellectually-grounded vices to overcome and Christlike virtues to enact. Given the central function of Christ within this soteriological scheme, it is unsurprising that the matter of 1, 664.12–13. 1, 664.18–20. 43 See Golitzin, “Place of the Presence of God,” 7; 8.3. 44 1, 664.22–23; 665.3–7. 41 42

[12]

VIRTUOUS READING

55

virtuous practices in emulation of Christ become immediately significant. For Aphrahat, a person’s ¾æÙÜ (“nature”) is not, as for many Greek writers (cf. ΚϾΗ΍Ζ), her hidden essence, an objective reality somewhat removed from the surface features of her life; instead, for Aphrahat a person’s nature is phenomenally evident and manifests itself directly in her activity.45 Aphrahat’s ideal human is fully integrated, whose inner dispositions and habits are coming to cohere with exterior practices as the entire person— mind and body—inseparably experiences transformation in Christ.

PRACTICAL VIRTUE: HANDLING SCRIPTURE WELL Aphrahat’s epistemological assumptions bear particular implications for handling scripture. The remainder of this study surveys certain virtues prominent in Aphrahat’s discussions, showing that his ideals for approaching and handling scripture are shaped and regulated by the assumptions of his virtue approach to epistemology. Some of these virtues Aphrahat explicitly emphasizes or enjoins upon his readers, while others function more implicitly as values that are deeply embedded in his apparent epistemic practices as a Bible scholar. Sincere Truth-Seeking & Disciplined Inquiry One implication for epistemic virtue is the importance of truth-seeking and an openness to learning. Aphrahat begins his Demonstrations by encouraging the reader to “open the inner eyes of [his] heart.”46 At the close of Demonstration 10, he depicts the vastness of scripture’s treasury, but warns, “Whoever is not thirsty, cannot drink. Whoever is not hungry, cannot eat.”47 Aphrahat has a high view of human free will48 and believes that only people who are honestly and diligently seeking the truth are able to discover it. In Aphrahat’s picture of the Sage, knowledge and wisdom are a “treasure” that is “open and permitted to those who ask for it.”49 He declares that “the one who has opened the door of his heart finds it, and the one who unfolds the wings of his mind possesses it. It resides in the diligent person.”50 Aphrahat himself models such diligence. His exceptional Klijn, “The Word kejan in Aphraates,” 66. Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.13–14). 47 1, 460.16–18. 48 Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 1.61–62; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.185. 49 1, 661.1–2. 50 1, 661.6–9. 45 46

[13]

56

CHILDERS

grasp on scripture is obviously the result of laborious and systematic study. He likens the careful student of scripture to the well-tilled field, ready to receive the good seed and to enjoy the rewards of abundant produce in knowledge (Demonstration 1.20).51 But stubborn attitudes thwart the intellect. At the end of Demonstration 22, Aphrahat declares, “If (the reader) will read and hear with persuasion, good! But if not, I should explain that I wrote for those open to persuasion and not for the scornful.”52 Willful prejudice on the part of the reader reflects Adam’s prideful grasping, not the kenotic surrender of Christ. Aphrahat values conscientious intellectual inquiry. Throughout the Demonstrations he constructs his arguments carefully, taking up pieces of evidence in scripture and meticulously treating them in a disciplined fashion. He entertains questions about the evidence and treats objections to his interpretations as he articulates the logic by which he understands the evidence to lend its support to his argument, exhorting his audience to “read and learn, know and perceive.”53 Upon analyzing an interpretation and finding it unsatisfactory, he concludes that the erring interpreter “does J “ÊØJ ¾Ćß).54 not know the force of the word” in question (¿ÿà⃠ÌàÙÏ Yet although Aphrahat advocates and models careful methods of inquiry and argumentation, he insists they cannot substitute for purity of heart and the desire to follow truth. For instance, when discussing the timing of paschal observance, Aphrahat carefully examines the complex issues associated with biblical Passover prescriptions and the relative chronology of the Gospel texts (Demonstration 12.1–12). Yet he concludes his investigations by reminding the reader, “you are not commanded to be vexed with bickering over words, in which there is no profit, but (to have) a pure heart that keeps the commandment and the festival and the times of the day’s observances” (Demonstration 12.13).55 After painstakingly weighing the evidence he admonishes the reader not to become exasperated by the complexity of it all: “Now if we become vexed at these things and about the fourteenth alone, let us be diligent—but not concerning the seasonal custom. Let us delight in keeping the fourteenth of every month and mourning on 1, 45.11–14. 1, 1045.2–5. 53 1, 360.15–16. 54 Demonstration 3.12 (1, 125.4). 55 1, 540.3–5. 51 52

[14]

VIRTUOUS READING

57

the Friday of every week. Thus all the days of the week we ought to do what is pleasing before the Lord our God.”56

Thorough research on the paschal mystery is beneficial and synoptic chronology can be irksome, but investigation must cohere with the essential practices of keeping a pure heart, maintaining genuine paschal praxis, and doing right each day.57 The reason to study scripture is for the sake of embodying it in the world. “Pure Scholarship” Embodiment is marked by personal integrity. The consonance of the interior and exterior person is basic to the proper functioning of human faculties.58 “Whoever knows his master’s will should do his will.”59 Although Aphrahat upholds literal understandings of spiritual disciplines, he takes pains to probe them for deeper, moral meanings. “Pure prayer” expresses itself in aid for the needy (Demonstration 4.14, 15) and “pure fasting” means avoiding evil practices (Demonstration 3.1);60 similarly, true Sabbath-keeping is a matter of giving rest to the burdened (Demonstration 13.13). One could say that for Aphrahat, “pure biblical scholarship” requires that the combination of inner intellectual activity and exterior effort must yield appropriate moral action. “Mysteries are revealed in love, knowledge is completed in love, and faith is established in love.”61 Any 1, 537.20–1, 540.1. “This demand for purity of heart does not do away with the observance, but rather transposes it to a new key. The observance of the festival is now placed within the larger context of doing good on every day before God” (Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 179). 58 Aphrahat uses various terms to describe the human person (e.g. body, soul, spirit, heart, flesh), but these do not refer to separate components out of which the person is constructed. Rather, “ce sont des modalités du vivant unifié qui désignent son activité, sa production—et même ses potentialités et ses infirmités” (Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.181). 59 Demonstration 6.1 (1, 252.5–6). 60 Lehto credits Aphrahat with “an activist spirituality,” in which purity of heart is evidenced by one’s actions (“Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 4 [2004]: 48); a proper inward disposition must express itself in acts of service, while practices of ascetic humility are incomplete if they do not produce moral action (idem., “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 173–74). 61 Demonstration 2.16 (1, 84.1–3). 56 57

[15]

58

CHILDERS

learned scholar can make observations based on clear evidence, e.g., that death comes to every person; but responding to these observations with appropriate behavior indicates the operation of a deeper quality, that of wisdom (see Demonstration 22.11). Near the beginning of his rich and complex Demonstration 23, “On the Grape Cluster,” he remarks, “It is good to learn and to consider closely the investigation of words, but it is especially fitting for us with a pure heart to fear God, the giver of the texts, who wrote and set them before us…”62 The inevitable connection between the inner and outer life means that the biblical exegete must attend to the cultivation of the inner life. For Aphrahat, prayer is a vital practice. As an integrative practice of epistemic virtue, prayer provides an environment in which to check and refine one’s inner motivations and the extent to which one’s dispositions translate into attendant behaviors (see Demonstration 4.1, 13). Hence, the regular selfexamination connected to such practices as prayer and penance is an important cognitive habit. Practices such as these can be epistemic virtues because they assist one in achieving coherence between the inner and outer person; they help integrate a person’s cognitive practices with their behavior according to the normative contours of his or her beliefs. Faith As content and as action, faith is fundamental to knowledge, particularly faith in Christ. For Aphrahat, Christ supplies the lens by which to interpret the human situation, define knowledge, and work out the goals and patterns of proper mental functioning. The “steward” that ushers the scholar into the king’s treasury so that he or she may acquire wisdom turns out to be “our Lord Jesus Christ”63 and, “when he is the steward of wisdom, he is the 62 2, 3.5–8. Unlike Ephrem, Aphrahat has few such “warnings against illicit theological investigations” (Lehto, “Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith,” 57). His most severe rebuke is in Demonstration 23.60:

We are of Adam, and here we perceive little. We know only this: there is one God, one Christ, one Spirit, one faith, and one baptism. Saying more than this is of no advantage to us. If we speak we will fall short and if we pry we will be injured. There are many who have forgotten the path and left the road and travelled in a trackless waste, on a path of scandals. They have conceived and meditated on corrupt words; they have prophesied falsehood and abandoned God. Because they desire to understand, they have become people without discernment, darkened in intellect, groping in the gloom. (2, 124.10–21) 63

Demonstration 10.8 (1, 464.6).

[16]

VIRTUOUS READING

59

wisdom, as the Apostle said: ‘Christ is the power of God and his wisdom.’ And this very wisdom has been distributed to many, yet lacks nothing.”64 Christ is the agent and goal of mental progress. In his first Demonstration, Aphrahat confesses, “the foundation of our whole faith is the true stone, our Lord Jesus Christ. And upon this very stone, the faith is laid. And upon the faith, the whole building rises until it is perfected. The foundation is the beginning of the whole building.”65 As Aphrahat constructs his metaphor, he depicts Christ as the foundation and the capstone; he even resides within the house as king. Christ is the “herald and apostle of the Most High,” to whose words Christians will attend so as to become “children of his K ).66 He is the key to knowledge. mystery” (…‡˜~ ÚæÁ For Aphrahat Christ functions as a presumption and basic control for learning, interpretation, teaching, and practice.67 This means, first of all, that the traditional teaching about Jesus is to be learned and rehearsed routinely, since it provides normative insight into the biblical text. The regula fidei68 supplies hermeneutical keys for interpreting scripture. Although Aphrahat does not appeal to other known Christian interpreters outisde scripture, it is apparent that he relies on a received narratival and doctrinal tradition for his understanding of the Christian faith, along with various exegetical traditions.69 This deposit of faith enables Aphrahat to trust that scripture can be heard to speak as the word of God and that he will find within it relevant paradigms for addressing present situations. He trusts that the content of his faith will illuminate for him the inner coherence of the biblical narrative and to discover the vital correspondences between the world of scripture and his own. Hence, his treatises are “Demonstrations”— 1, 464.8–12. Demonstration 1.2 (1, 8.4–10). 66 Demonstration 14.39 (1, 684.10–12); see Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” 139. 67 It has long been recognized that Aphrahat’s interpretations, like that of other ancient Christian exegetes, employ Christ as a basic hermeneutical key. See Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers.” 68 In Demonstration 1, “On Faith” (1.19), Aphrahat rehearses the basic items of the Christian faith. See Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.144–56. 69 See Gavin, “Aphraates,” 163; Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 279–80; idem, “Some Rhetorical Patterns in Early Syriac Literature,” in Fischer, ed., Tribute to Arthur Vööbus, 110–24; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.66, 112, 117–18; Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 338–42; Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” 131–32, 139–40; cf. Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 96. 64 65

[17]

60

CHILDERS

simply exhibitions of biblical facts that show forth their relevance for a given situation, with a minimum of complex hermeneutical mechanism.70 “And all these things that I have listed for you were created in the word of God,” he announces to his readers in Demonstration 5.25.71 When Aphrahat says, “as it is written…” this declaration “is often the decisive word in his arguments….”72 The content of Aphrahat’s faith helps him achieve coherence, an important function of any epistemology. Scripture is both a source of his authorizing narrative and, as an object of study, is subject to it. Upon the foundation of this faith, other virtues of Christ arise, especially love and humility,73 shaping moral action:74 “first a person believes, and when he has believed he loves”;75 and “through faith true love is established.”76 Right belief necessarily produces corresponding right action. The teaching and example of Christ give decisive shape to the aims and practices of the human mind attempting to recover its vital connection to the creator. Conducting oneself according to the impulses of these virtues underscores the centrality of faith and confirms the efficacy of the authorizing narrative to which Aphrahat attends and regularly explicates. Apart from ethical practices, liturgical practices and the sacraments are also constitutive of faith as an epistemic foundation. The sacraments of baptism and the eucharist are very important to Aphrahat.77 Seen as practices that are formative of cognitive processes, they involve the practitioners in the specific content of Christian truth, over time forming the structures of their thought and behavior according to the contours of that knowledge and the priorities of its values. Their rehearsal involves Christians in the enactment of key facts and experiences associated with the Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.65–66. 1, 236.27–237.1 (see Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 3, n.9). 72 Baarda, Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat, 10. 73 Faith, love, and humility are primary virtues in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations (see Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 51–52). 74 Lehto notices that for Aphrahat “faith” has multiple functions (“Aphrahat and Philoxenus on Faith,” 48–49). 75 Demonstration 1.3 (1, 8.21–22). 76 Demonstration 2.11 (1, 72.17–18). 77 See Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 107–11; 174–7; Bruns, Aphrahat. Unterweisungen, 62–7; Edward J. Duncan, Baptism in the Demonstrations of Aphraates the Persian Sage (Catholic University of America Studies in Christian Antiquity 8; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1945). Duncan treats questions regarding Aphrahat’s baptismal terminology, imagery, and practices, not so much the theology or spirituality associated with baptism in Aphrahat. 70 71

[18]

VIRTUOUS READING

61

beliefs they hold to be normative. Most importantly, the sacraments are a means of participating in Jesus himself, embodying the practitioner’s conformity to their virtuous exemplar and involving them in his work of reclaiming the human person (including the intellect) for its intended destiny of sharing abundantly in the divine nature. Similarly, for ĩʚĩdayē78 like Aphrahat the ascetic lifestyle is also a practice of identification with Jesus. In it, the dedicated ĩʚĩdayĆ embodies the singular devotion of the one-andonly Son to his Father, emulating his mind’s unwavering concentration on heavenly things (see especially Demonstration 6). Informed by faith and forming faith, practices such as these impact the mental functions of the Christian biblical scholar. Humility The seemingly paradoxical correspondence of small-to-vast in Aphrahat’s portrait of the Sage points to the importance of humble self-emptying as a prerequisite to knowledge.79 For Aphrahat, humility is the most important

78 ¾ØÊÙÐØ (ĩʚĩdayĆ) translates ΐΓΑΓ·ΉΑφΖ in the Syriac New Testament. It is the title of Jesus Christ as the “one-and-only” Son of God and is also used to designate ascetics who have consecrated themselves to lives of single devotion to K / ÚæÁ K God in imitation of Christ within the community—also known a ¾ĆãÙø ÿæÁ (bnay/bna‫ ܔ‬qyĆmĆ—“sons/daughters of the covenant”). Aphrahat is a principal witness for understanding the role and significance of ĩʚĩdayē in early Syriac Christianity. On the distinctive features of early Syrian asceticism, see Brock, “Early Syrian Asceticism,” Numen 20 (1973): 10–19; Robert Murray, “The Features of the Earliest Christian Asceticism,” in Peter Brooks, ed., Christian Spirituality. Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp (London: SCM, 1975), 72–73; Vööbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, (CSCO 184; Louvain: Sécretariat du CSCO, 1958), 1.178–84, 190–94; vol. 3 (CSCO 500; Louvain: Peeters, 1988), 1–18; Shafiz AbouZayd, Iʚidayutha. A Study of the Life of Singleness in the Syrian Orient (Oxford: ARAM Society for SyroMesopotamian Studies, 1993); see also Thomas Koonamakkal, “Ephrem’s Ideas on Singleness,” Hugoye 2 (January 1999), 4–15; accessed 24 November 2007, online: http://www.bethmardutho.org/hugoye; Sidney H. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism,” in Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, eds., Asceticism (New York: Oxford, 1995), 220– 45. 79 The sections leading up to Aphrahat’s meditation on the Sage (Demonstration 14.31–33) emphasize humility. They explore implications of the death of Christ, the kenotic imagery of Philippians 2:5–11, and the tendency of God to exalt the lowly.

[19]

62

CHILDERS

epistemic virtue, a source of many other virtues.80 Humility is the obvious remedy for the pride of Adam, who sought to usurp God’s place by pridefully seizing “premature” knowledge. In contrast to Adam’s willful and self-interested presumptiousness, “the humble person drinks up instruction like water; it enters into his veins like oil.”81 Lowering oneself in humility elevates one’s heart and mind, so that one is perceptive of heavenly things (Demonstration 9.4). It is the humble who are best able to follow Jesus as teacher.82 A humble and penitent posture gains access to the reservoir of illuminating light hidden within the olive fruit of the Tree of Life,83 enhancing perceptiveness.84 Aphrahat says simply, “humility begets wisdom and discernment.”85 Humility is an intellectual virtue because it helps the truth-seeking mind retain a receptive and flexible posture. The sense of wonder a person experiences when encountering God’s infinite wisdom brings not only delight, but also a keener awareness of one’s own limitations. In Demonstration 10.8 Aphrahat compares that experience to that of a person shown a vast treasure or brought to an unabating flow of spring-water—it is more than anyone could account for or ever hope to control. “The treasure does not fail, for it is the wisdom of God”;86 it is inexhaustible. An experience with such treasure affects behavior. Having worked through a learned text, the wise person realizes there is no shame in acknowledging, “What is written is written well, but I have not attained the understanding of it,” since no human is capable of comprehending all truth, even if he or she had “all the days of the world from Adam to the end of the ages” to study it, since “no human can rise up to the wisdom of God….”87 Humility also helps a person guard against the presumption of having exhausted every possible interpretation. Only a fool presumes to be speaking the last word, since God is the ground of all knowledge and his

See Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 170–71. Demonstration 9.2 (1, 409.25–412.1). 82 Demonstration 9.6 (1, 420.13–15). 83 Demonstration 23.3 (2, 9.7–8). 84 Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 171. 85 Demonstration 9.2 (1, 409.10–11). 86 1, 464.4–6. 87 Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1045.24–25; 1, 1048.13–17). See Gavin, “Aphraates,” 165–66; Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 323–24; Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers,” 220. 80 81

[20]

VIRTUOUS READING

63

riches cannot be counted or depleted. After sifting through the complexities of Daniel, Aphrahat acknowledges, These things that I have written to you, my beloved, (and) what is written in Daniel, I have not brought to an end, but to this side of the end… For a foolish person says, “The words reach this far—there is nothing to add to them or take away from them.” The riches of God are incalculable and unlimited, for if you take water from the sea, its loss is not known… and if you partake from the Spirit of Christ, Christ lacks nothing at all.88

In this context Aphrahat maintains that although Christ dwells within the faithful exegete, Christ is not contained by or limited to that person, just as “if the sun enters through the windows of your house, the whole sun does not come to you.”89 The wise and humble reader will remain open to further learning and to the thinking of others.90 She realizes that the goal of finally exhausting the search for truth is beyond human reach, and behaves accordingly. The latter observation leads to a more detailed consideration of the way in which humility conditions a person’s treatment of other exegetes. Humility is incompatible with envy or contentiousness (Demonstration 9.4, 7, 8). Arrogant behavior towards others signals intellectual pride and pride impairs the intellect. In Demonstration 5.25 Aphrahat warns the reader to beware of anyone who mocks the views of another while maintaining, “Mine are wise.”91 The arrogance of such a person shows that their thinking is suspect, since a refusal to listen to others hinders the search for knowledge. Aphrahat’s priorities in this area are most clear in the conclusion to Demonstration 22: Again, if the reader finds us speaking one way and another sage speaking another way, he should not be disturbed by this, for everyone speaks to his hearers according to what he can attain to. So I, who have written these things—even if some of (my) words do not agree with those of another speaker—I say this: “Those sages have spoken well, but it Demonstration 5.25 (1, 236.7–9, 13–18, 23–24). 1, 236.26–27; see Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 32. 90 Murray notes that in comparison with Greek theologians, early Syriac writers are less concerned with precise definitions or with achieving total clarity, and therefore enjoy a broader theological vision (Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 346–47). 91 1, 237.9. 88 89

[21]

64

CHILDERS seemed to me that I should speak like this.” And if anyone will speak and demonstrate to me about any subject, I will receive it from him without contention. Everyone who reads the sacred scriptures, former and latter, in both testaments, and reads with persuasion, will learn and teach. But if he is contentious about something that he does not comprehend, his mind will not receive instruction. If he finds words that are too hard for him so that he does not comprehend their force, he should speak like this: “What is written is written well, but I have not attained the understanding of it.” If he asks discerning sages who inquire into teaching about matters that are too hard for him, then when ten sages give him ten views on a single matter, he should accept what pleases him. And as for what does not please him, he should not scorn the sages, for the word of God is like a pearl that has a beautiful appearance on every side that you turn it. And remember, O student, what David said: “I have learned from all my teachers.”92

According to Aphrahat, the best teachers are also humble learners. “Instruction is found with the humble, and their lips pour forth knowledge.”93 Aphrahat desires to remain open to other insights, entertaining divergent points of view and acknowledging that there may be more than one legitimate way to see or explain a passage.94 Aphrahat is undaunted by rigorous discussion, but he warns against the opposing vices of contentiousness and pride, since they harden one’s intellect against the reception of sound teaching. Furthermore, he seems unwilling to engage in coercive discourse, preferring instead to leave final decisions up to individual interpreters. Communal Investment and Accountability At the end of Demonstration 22, Aphrahat explains: I have written these things according to what I have attained to. If anyone reads these memre and discovers matters that are not in agreement with his own thinking, he should not be scornful. For what is written in these chapters was not written according to the thinking of

Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1045.13–1048.9). Demonstration 9.2 (1, 409. 8–10). 94 See Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 323–29. 92 93

[22]

VIRTUOUS READING

65

one person, nor for the persuasion of one reader, but according to the thinking of all the church and for the persuasion of all faith.95

Aphrahat does his biblical research as one responsible to a community. He does not read scripture solely for his own benefit or to promote a private opinion. In his studies he has visited the treasury of wisdom repeatedly and drunk deeply of the fountain of knowledge and has become convinced that, “the one who receives by grace ought to give graciously.”96 He does his scholarly work with reference to the community’s needs and he writes to benefit that community,97 in response to the challenges they face, such as persecution, clerical corruption, the problem of theodicy, and the lure of the Jewish synagogue. Furthermore, he sees himself as part of a living tradition—a contributor perhaps, but one who contributes from within a tradition that is larger than himself, the momentum of which compels him to submit his conclusions to his colleagues and to the faithful of the church to seek consensus.98 Aphrahat sees himself as a collaborator with others in his community, each of which has something to contribute to the process of applying biblical knowledge for the sake of the group: These (memre) are not enough, but hear these things from me without contention, and discuss them with our brothers, who share the same conviction. Accept everything you hear that truly builds up, but pull down and utterly demolish anything that builds up strange doctrines. For contentiousness cannot build up. My beloved, like a stone-cutter I have delivered stones for the building. Let the wise stone-masons carve them and fit them into the building. And all the workers who labour on the building will receive wages from the Lord of the house.99

Aphrahat understands his work as one contribution to a project to which others also contribute; indeed, even his own contribution stands subject to the assessment and refinement of the others. Interpretations of scripture are Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1044.21–1045.2). Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.7–9). 97 See Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 321, 323, 325–36; Becker, “AntiJudaism and Care for the Poor,” 324. 98 Gavin, “Aphraates,” 163–66; Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 279–347; Pierre, Aphraate le sage persan, 1.112. Aphrahat’s reliance on tradition does not negate his creativity (Gavin, “Aphraates,” 163; Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 96). 99 Demonstration 10.9 (1, 465.8–19). 95 96

[23]

66

CHILDERS

validated partly by their coherence with the community’s tradition but partly also by their value to the community as an adaptation of that tradition to a given situation. As we have already seen, the virtue of humility leads Aphrahat to encourage behaviors of openness to new learning and appreciation for the thinking of others. Whereas Antiochene exegesis has an approach to scripture that may be described as author-oriented, in which the Bible is seen as a self-interpreting text that yields a finite range of meanings, early Syrian exegetes have a more reader-oriented approach, since for them “there is no single proper interpretation valid for everyone at the same time,” and “since God has bestowed many images of the biblical words in proportion to the preferences of interpreters, they understand only a tiny proportion of the whole.”100 Whereas for the Antiochenes, biblical interpreters are differentiated from mere readers because of their expertise in handling texts, in early Syriac hermeneutics anyone in the church may be an interpreter. Ephrem displays this orientation by focusing on the experience of the individual interpreter, who moves with delight from one meaning to the next. But for Aphrahat, the focus is more on “the variety of individuals within the Christian community…” and he “is more inclined to accept the opinions of others in the Church.”101 Aphrahat displays a respect for the role of the community in receiving, discussing, evaluating, and certifying interpretations of the text. His reader-orientation accentuates the importance of the interpreter’s virtue, since his practices make no appeal to the efficacy of a guaranteed reading strategy. It also accentuates the need for virtuous Bible interpreters to inhabit authentic Christian community. Within the community, the virtuous interpreter plays an important role. The Sage of Aphrahat’s vision in Demonstration 14.35 becomes a manifestation of the presence of God, “a theophany”102 within his or her community. Due to the mystical breadth and depth of the source of wisdom being mined, the virtuous scholar can be lavish in giving away knowledge freely, without fear of impoverishment.103 Aphrahat makes this point many times and in various ways, translating the inexhaustibility of 100

221.

Muto, “Interpretation in the Greek Antiochenes and the Syriac Fathers,”

Ibid., 220, n.57. Golitizin, “Place of the Presence of God,” 7.2. 103 See Lehto, “Moral, Ascetic, and Ritual Dimensions,” 168; Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 32. 101 102

[24]

VIRTUOUS READING

67

God’s wisdom not only into behaviors of humility but also into behaviors of generosity on the part of the teacher. His quest for biblical truth obliges him to share what he has discovered for the benefit of others. Indeed, he is eager to do so: “even that which you have not asked of me, I will importune God and instruct you about,”104 he tells his readers at the beginning of the Demonstrations. Diligent students of scripture become teachers, even while they remain in the humble posture of learners: “Everyone who reads the sacred scriptures, former and latter, in both testaments, and reads with persuasion, will learn and teach.”105 The ideal Christian community is one in which relationships are characterized by practices of mutual teaching and learning. ĩʚĩdayē such as Aphrahat, having consecrated themselves to lives of single devotion, can devote themselves more singularly to study, learning, and teaching, so that their ascetic calling becomes a blessing to the larger community:106 “Let us be poor in the world so that we may enrich many with the teaching of our Lord.”107 The Jews as Intellectual Opponents Given Aphrahat’s apparent commitment to open-mindedness, alternative perspectives, and respectful discourse, his confident rejection of the opinions of the Jews is striking.108 At first glance, this might seem like just another instance of the prejudiced, so-called anti-semitic polemic common to Christian authors of the period109—and indeed Aphrahat does apply strongly negative rhetoric from time to time, characterizing Jews who might Demonstration 1.1 (1, 5.11–12). Demonstration 22.26 (1, 1045.17–20). 106 See Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Yokes of the Holy-Ones: The Embodiment of a Christian Vocation,” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 205–18. 107 Demonstration 6.1 (1, 244.22–23). 108 The Jews’ favoured situation in Persia during a period in which Christians were being persecuted may have encouraged Christian defection. This and other possible factors are discussed in T. D. Barnes, “Constantine and the Christians of Persia,” Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985): 122–36; Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” 235–38; Lane, “Of Wars and Rumours of Peace,” 236–37, 239–40; Morrison, “Reception of the Book of Daniel,” 29; Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 13–14, 35–67; Becker, “Anti-Judaism and Care for the Poor,” 325–27. 109 On the subject of patristic anti-semitism, see Marcel Simon, Verus Israel. A Study of the Relations between Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire (AD 135–425), trans. H. McKeating (Oxford: University Press, 1986). 104 105

[25]

68

CHILDERS

disagree with him as foolish and unlearned (Demonstrations 13.11; 15.1, 8). He does not neglect to emphasize that much of Israel’s history was conditioned by their penchant for wickedness, a point he develops at some length in order to explicate the origins of various, outmoded laws (Demonstrations 15–16). Yet in his polemical treatment of Jews Aphrahat actually compares favorably to other patristic writers.110 In comparison to the virulent tone of the likes of Chrysostom, for instance, Aphrahat’s use of pejorative language is sparing,111 nor does he resort to the easy device of slander and ad hominem argumentation. Instead, even in his pretended112 dialogues with Jewish opponents, he prefers to face evidence openly and honestly, arguing his points carefully. Not only does he appeal consistently to a source of evidence universally acknowledged by Jews and Christians, the Old Testament, but he employs a plain-sense approach to the text that bears many similarities to rabbinic reading strategies and does not require the enigmatic, in-house methods used by many Christian allegorizers in their polemics against Jewish interpretations of scripture.113 With characteristic enthusiasm, Jacob Neusner remarks: Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 214–244; Cf. J. E. Seaver, who describes Aphrahat as “violently anti-Semitic,” in Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire [300–434] (Kansas University Humanistic Studies 30; Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas 1952), 38; cf. Simon, who notices that Seaver’s view is based on a very limited reading of two Demonstrations and suffers from a superficial understanding of Aphrahat’s thought and polemical purposes (Verus Israel, 401). Louis Ginzberg credited Aphrahat’s relatively irenic manner: 110

[T]o his honor be it said, that, unlike other ancient Christian apologetes, such as Origen and Jerome, who owed much to Jewish teachers, his writings are almost entirely free from any bitterness toward them personally… Aphraates showed not the slightest traces of personal ill-feeling toward the Jews; and his calm, dispassionate tone proves that it was only his firm conviction of Christianity that caused him to assail Judaism.

(“Aphraates, the Persian Sage,” in Isidore Singer, ed. Jewish Encyclopedia [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901], 1.665). 111 Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 198. 112 Opinions vary as to whether Aphrahat’s interlocutor is a real person (or persons), a merely rhetorical device, or fictitious composites “dependent on live encounters” (Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian Mesopotamia,” 12). 113 Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 6, 7, 144, 187; Snaith, “Aphrahat and the Jews,” 247–48; Koltun, “Jewish-Christian Polemics in Fourth-Century Persian

[26]

VIRTUOUS READING

69

Of all parties to the argument between Judaism and Christianity in late antiquity, Aphrahat therefore is most impressive for his reasonable arguments, his careful attention to materials held in common by both sides, and the articulated and wholly lucid, worldly character of his argumentation. On the Christian side, he stands practically alone for his interest in the opinions of actual, not imaginary Jewish opponents.114

In Robert Murray’s words, “Aphrahat hits hard, but it is a clean fight; in general, he lets Scripture speak for him.”115 Aphrahat is confident that he can slay his opponent through diligent argumentation and a trust in God’s revelation, without resorting to character assassination. Yet he cannot avoid surmising that moral defects are partly responsible for his opponents’ faulty thinking. For his part, Aphrahat believes himself to be open to instruction, even by Jewish scholars—provided they exhibit the virtues of honesty and careful handling of evidence: “If you will argue against me from the scriptures about any of these things I will accept it from you. But I will not listen to anything you have devised out of your own mind” (Demonstration 18.7).116 He suspects his Jewish “opponent” of willfully inventing counterarguments rather than genuinely and humbly seeking truth.

CONCLUSION Aphrahat’s epistemology presumes that the human mind and the task of biblical interpretation are embedded within an ongoing experience of Christian spiritual transformation. The human intellect, tragically caught between its potential to share in the divine nature and its tendency towards the prideful and independent control of knowledge, has been given the opportunity in Christ to recover its place as the temple of God. Intellectual activities such as reading, learning, reasoning, discussion, and teaching are

Mesopotamia,” 96–97; Valavalonickal, Use of the Gospel Parables, 333–35; Oullette, “Sens et portée de l’argument scripturaire chez Aphraate,” 192; Koster, “Aphrahat’s Use of His Old Testament,” 139; Pierre, Aphraate la sage persan, 1.112– 20; McCullough, “Aphrahat the Biblical Exegete,” 264–65. 114 Neusner, Aphrahat and Judaism, 244. 115 Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 41. Simon maintains, “When Aphraates takes issue with the Jews, he fights… with their own weapons and on ground they themselves have chosen” (Verus Israel, 320). 116 1, 836.14–18.

[27]

70

CHILDERS

necessarily moral acts, grounded in and partly constituent of the process of saving transformation in which the Christian intellect is engaged. Cultivating certain inner and outer virtues will assist the mind’s functioning in these endeavours, whereas the practice of vices will be detrimental. The well-formed intellect will be a fund of praiseworthy moral action in the Christian’s life, but it will also be well-formed partly as a result of such moral action. Virtuous inner dispositions—such as a genuine desire for truth, humility, an awareness of one’s limitations, open-mindedness, and generosity—must cohere with virtuous interpretive practices, such as the careful and disciplined handling of biblical evidence, participation in respectful discourse, communal investment and accountability, teaching, prayerful self-examination, an openness to correction, and the embodiment of biblical interpretation in life. Certain other practices may support these virtues, conforming them to the specific contours of Christian thought structure—practices such as the sacraments and the ascetic lifestyle. In short, good Bible interpretation requires nothing less than the total person—the inner and the outer, in community and before God. This, for Aphrahat, is what it means to be “a disciple of the sacred scriptures.”

[28]