Be thou, Lord, my rock and fortress;
For thy name's sake, be my guide-
Thou shalt hide me in the secret
Of thy presence from man's pride.
Thou art God; my Lord, I trust thee-
Gladly, now, my worship take.
Make thy face to shine upon me:
Save me for thy mercies' sake.
Friend much closer than a brother,
In thy presence I am blessed.
I would feel thy gentle heartbeat-
Grant that on thee I may rest.
In the multitude within me
Of my thoughts, thy comforts, Lord,
Make my soul to be delighted
As it hungers for thy Word.
Holy whispers all around me
From thy Spirit softly blown
Touch me with a calm assurance-
I am chosen as thine own.
Lord, in life thou art beside me
And through death by thee I'll stand.
To thee, I commit my spirit,
For my times are in thy hand.
The Empress Eudoxia was given a silver image of herself and displayed it prominently. Chrysostom objected and so, in 404, began his final exile. Arcadius, the Emperor, first sent him to Cucusus and then, in 405, to Arabissus. This still was not far enough away since Chrysostom was still able to write letters to friends in Constantinople, where he had been Bishop since 398. They moved him again. He was on his way to Pityus but never got there. Instead, he died in 407 in Comana.
When Chrysostom was banished for the final time, he had barely been back a year from the previous banishment. This, too, involved Eudoxia. The Empress was somewhat ostentatious and Chrysostom had urged a measure of modesty. She did not take this very well. This was not the official reason that Chrysostom was banished; however, it did provide the motivation for the Empress to ask for the condemnation of Chrysostom in a matter that should not have been her business. This involved an altercation between Chrysostom and Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria.
In 402, Theophilus had accused the Long brothers [in reference to their height] and 50 other monks of Origenism. He excommunicated them. Chrysostom, on the other hand, welcomed them when they came to Constantinople. Theophilus came to Constantinople in 403. He gathered 36 clerics, many under Chrysostom’s own jurisdiction, and set up a synod near an oak not within his own jurisdiction. Chrysostom was condemned at the Synod of the Oak. Despite rioting in his favor, he was taken away across the Bosporus.
When Chrysostom had arrived in Constaninople five years earlier, he had not made friends of the clerics. They were immoral and he said so, telling them, in no uncertain terms, to repent. And Eudoxia was not the only wealthy individual whom he had alienated. He did not think that anyone should be excessively wealthy and preached on the topic extensively. Quite extensively, in fact. Even when it had nothing at all to do with the text. The idea was to shame the rich people into giving their money to the poor people.
The text of Homily LXXXVIII is Matthew 27:45-48. This covers a span of time during the crucifixion. The earth becomes dark for three hours, Jesus asks why God has forsaken him, people think he is talking to Elijah, and someone gives him some vinegar to drink. So long as he is talking about the events of the crucifixion, or of Old Testament types that were being fulfilled, his sermon is worthy the name that he had acquired for himself- Chrysostom, or Golden Mouth. But then he segues into the women preparing the spices for Jesus body and, despite its continued elegance, any hint of decent preaching is lost for the rest of the sermon. He begins his application with these words:
Let us men imitate the women; let us not forsake Jesus in temptations. For they for Him even dead spent so much and exposed their lives, but we (for again I say the same things) neither feed Him when hungry, nor clothe him when naked, but seeing Him begging, we pass Him by.
Chrysostom continues on, expressing himself superbly. All of which is lost on me, not because he might not be right, but because there is a connection, neither with the first part of his sermon nor with the scriptural text that he is expounding. Furthermore, he is as consistent in this as he was with everything he did. Subsequent homilies in Matthew follow the same pattern. Short text, good exposition thereof as far as it went, and then, in what I can only describe as an early fifth century version of the altar call, an appeal to surrender all to Jesus by giving your money to the poor. He was remarkably single minded.
Chrysostom began his preparations for public speaking by giving himself to the study of Greek rhetoric while growing up. About the time he finished, he was baptized by Miletius. He was almost 20. Three years later, in 371, Miletius appointed him to be a lector. But then Miletius was banished by the Emperor Valens until 378. Chrysostom occupied the time by joining a monastery near Antioch. During his six year stay, he memorized both the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. In 380, Chrysostom was ordained as a deacon in Antioch and then, in 386, as a priest.
Chrysostom became well known for his abilities as a preacher. In 398, upon the office becoming vacant in that city, he was summoned to Constantinople to be Bishop. And then the problems began. People soon discovered that Chrysostom was not just given to talking. He lived according to what he said and expected everyone else to do the same. The same man who had so devoted himself to the scripture as to memorize it, admonished his own people to study the Word of God for themselves. And he who cared so much for the needy as to establish hospitals consistently preached their care to his congregation. He disapproved of excessive wealth, which could be given to the poor. Much less would he silently watch any showy displays thereof, even from the Empress Eudoxia.
In the previous post I had considered two passages from Genesis that had been offered as evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). This was limited to pointing out what was wrong with the original analysis. Now, I want to consider the structure of each of these passages in the context of Genesis. The most that I can hope to demonstrate is that the origins of the book of Genesis are best explained under a single author. Within the parameters of this post, I cannot demonstrate that this author was Moses or that he wrote the rest of the Pentateuch. I cannot demostrate that this is an historical record rather than a work of fiction. For the sake of argument, I will write as though there was only one author. I will propose a literary structure for the book and the specific passages and then leave it to the reader to decide whether or not this structure is plausible and, if so, whether or not it is best explained by a single author. I will call the author "Moses." [Feel free to use a Bible because I don't want to type out all the verses.]
The book of Genesis comprises a prologue and a series of ten "toledots." These can be identified by the phrase, "these are the generations of____." They are as follows:
1) the heavens and the earth (2:4)
2) Adam (5:1)
3) Noah (6:9)
4) the sons of Noah (10:1)
5) Shem (11:10)
6) Terah (11:27)
7) Ishmael (25:12)
8) Isaac (25:19)
9) Esau (36:1)
10) Jacob (37:2).
They range anywhere from narrative biography to genealogy. As a rule, the subject matter of the toledot is not that identified in the title but whatever is immediatley following. For instance, that of Terah is largely about the life of his son Abraham. The main exception is that of Noah, which actually is about Noah (there is, immediately following the title, a short genealogical note mentioning his three sons). Most, if not all of the toledots are linked by a hook device. Some are more easy than others to indentify. For those that aren't so obvious, other suggestions are welcome. The hook device is found at the end of the previous toledot (or the at the end of the prologue in the case of the first toledot). It is a brief reference either to the subject matter, opening key words, or the title of the next toledot. These hooks, in the order of the toledots, are:
1) "work"- God's rest from work (2:2) and the statement that there was as yet "no man to work the ground" (2:5). It might also be the title itself as referenced in 2:1.
2) Seth and Enosh (4:26; 5:6). This hook is a short preview of the full genealogy with which the toledot opens.
3) Parallel statements of God's intent to destroy all life on the earth; along with a mention of Noah (6:5-8; 9-17).
4) This toledot opens with the genealogies of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who are featured in the previous pericope (9:18-29).
5) This toledot consists exclusivley of a genealogy of Shem. The hook wraps around the preceding narrative of the Tower of Babel to another genealogy of Shem through a different descendant.
6) "Abram, Nahor, and Haran" (11:26; 27).
7) This could be Ishmael himself (25:9). I think it more likely to be the mention of the sons Keturah bore Abraham (25:1,2) compared with the note that Ishmael was the son that Hagar bore to Abraham (25:12).
8) This hooks links to the previous hook (the toledot of Ishmael is very short). This time, there is no mention of who bore Isaac to Abraham; instead, "Abraham fathered Isaac."
9) Esau himself (35:29).
10) Jacob himself (37:1).
The hook device for the toledot of Shem was found in the double genealogy. This is another common feature found throughout Genesis: parallel genealogies in which the chosen line is always found in the second. The toledot of the heavens and the earth ends by tracing Adam's descendants through Cain. The toldeot of Adam begins by tracing his descendents through Seth. The two Shem genealogies split between Eber's two sons. The first follows Joktan and the second follows Peleg leading to Abraham. There is a note in the first that, in Peleg's days, the earth was divided. This genealogy, along with the genealogies of Shem's brothers Ham and Japheth, is also known as the "Table of Nations." The division that scatters these descendants across the earth is recorded in the Tower narrative found between the two Shem genealogies. The toledot of Ishmael consists of a genelaogy of his descendants. It is placed immediatley prior to the toledot of Isaac, which, although not a genealogy, is a record of Isaac's sons Jacob and Esau. The same thing happens with the toledot of Esau. It is a genealogy set just prior to final narrative of Jacob's descendants.
This is as far as I will go with the structure of the book as a whole. Within each toledot are various structuring devices. Some are more common than others, some even overlap others. I will only focus on the narratives in question. The first is the flood narrative found in the toledot of Noah. This toledot consist of two parts, the second being the account of Noah's vineyard. My only interest is in the first. The evidence alleged in favor of the DH was that this narrative consisted of doublets that consistently alternated between Yahweh and Elohim. Each of any pair of doublets was explained as being from a different source, either J or P, idenified by the use of the divine name. I have agreed that the doublets exist but have already shown that, in this case, the name theory does not fit. Now, I would like to take this same evidence, doublets and altenations of the divine name, and interpret it in line with a single author hypothesis.
The flood narrative consists of a series of five doublets or parallel passages. The existence of the first has already been explained by the hook device. They are not all merely repetitions of the same event. The first three consist of repitition and expansion: the same chronological time is repeated and developed in the second section. In 6:5-8, Yahweh plans to wipe out every living thing on the earth. It is noted that "Noah found favor in the eyes of Yahweh." In 6:9-17, this is repeated (with a name change to Elohim) along with instructions for Noah to build an ark. The second doublet is found in 6:18-22 and 7:1-5. In the first half, Elohim tells Noah to bring one pair of every kind of animal onto the ark In the second half, Yahweh tells Noah to bring seven pairs of clean animals onto the ark. This is additional information, not a contradiction. He also explains why: because of the upcoming flood. The third doublet is found in 7:6-10 and 11-24. In the first half, Noah actually takes his family and the animals onto the ark and waits for the rain. In the second half, this information is repeated along with a narrative of the flood proper. This is the doublet in which both halves refer to Noah obeying the command of Elohim. The second does contain the note that "Yahweh shut him in."
The fourth doublet, found in 8:1-12 and 13-19, does not repeat the same time period. The second half is chronologically subsequent to the first. This time, however, the events of the first half foreshadow the events of the second. The receding waters of the first half parallel the dried land of the second. The dove, first bringing an olive leaf and then failing to return to the ark, predicts the exit from the ark in the second. The fifth doublet, found in 8:20-22 and 9:1-17, may either be in chronological sequence, recording God on two separate occassions promising never agian to wipe out all life; or, it could be another case of repitition and expansion. If it is the latter, then the events of 8:20-22 actually come after those of 9:1-7 (they would parallel 9:8-17). Once again, each half of the doublet uses a different name for God. The first half uses Yahweh; the second, Elohim.
If there is a chronological switch in the fifth doublet, it may be explained by another structuring device that also overlays the flood narrative: the chiasm. The name is taken from the Greek letter "Chi," which looks something like an "X." The chiasm was a common structuring device in ancient literature. It could range from a single sentence to the outline of an entire book, or anything in between. An example of the smaller kind can be found in the flood narrative, 9:6, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." The second phrase reverses the order of the first. The pattern is ABCC'B'A'. This pattern can be extended indefinitely and often includes a mid-point: ABCDC'B'A'. While the smaller chiasms tend to be a matter of style, larger chiasms serve an interpretive function. In modern writing, the main idea is commonly found close to the beginning, such as in a topic sentence. In ancient writing, the main idea is found at the midpoint of the chiasm. While reverse repitition of single words serves for smaller chiasms, larger ones have more options. The halves may be identified by the use of key words or phrases, synthetical or even antithetical themes, or parallel narratives of the same or substantially similar subject matter.
The flood chiasm is outlined as follows:
A) Genealogy-Shem, Ham, and Japheth (6:9,10).
B) Key words: God promises to destroy all flesh on the earth (6:11-17).
C) Noah told to take the animals onto the ark and to provide them with food (6:18-22).
D) Divine name is Yahweh. Instructions regarding clean animals (7:1-5).
E) Entering the ark (7:6-10).
F) Flood begins (7:11-16).
G) Waters rise- mountains covered (7:17-20).
H) Main point: Death of every living thing (7:21-24).
G') Waters recede mountains uncovered (8:1-12).
F') Flood ends (8:13,14).
E') Exiting the ark (8:15-19).
D') Divine name is Yahweh. Noah is offering the clean animals (8:20-22).
C') Animals delivered into Noah's hand. He may use them for food (9:1-7).
B') Key words: God promises not to destroy all flesh on the earth (9:8-17).
A') Genealogy-Shem, Ham, and Japheth (9:18,19).
Notes- The possible chronological switch between 8:20-22 and 9:1-7 is best explained by the positions expected for D' and C'. Other than the single statement that "Yahweh shut him in," this name is only found in D and D' (it also occurs in the hook, but this stands outside of the chiasm). The switch from "Elohim" is nothing more than a means to provide a key word for identifying these sections of the chiasm. Sometimes a particular divine name is required, but this needs to be determined from the context, not from a structural analysis. The use of key words is important in single narrative chiasms. The most common means of communicating the Bible, or for that matter, any kind of narrative in the original tongue was verbally. The sounds of the words were intended to be heard in a specific order in order to clue the listener in on the possible repitition of a theme. Identifying enough of the outer themes was essential to identifying the main point.
Chiasms can also be larger than a single narrative and be used to tie together several related stories. The first major section of the toledot of Terah consists of a chiasm:
A) Abram obeys God in faith [leaving home] (12:1-9).
B) Abram and Sarai in the court of a Pharaoh (12:10-20).
C) Stories of Lot and Sodom (13,14).
D) Ishmael (16).
E) God's covenant with Abraham and his offspring. (17:1-14).
D') Ishmael (17:15-27).
C') Stories of Lot and Sodom (19).
B') Abraham and Sarah in the court of Abimelech (20).
A') Abraham obeys God in faith [sacrifice of Isaac] (22).
Notes- The word or themes that define a particular chiasm are not necessarily the main point of their respective pericopes. "Ishmael, " for example, is simply a key word that only occurs at DD' in this chiasm. He is mentioned again within the chiasm (21), but not by name. Gaps are acceptable. Not every narrative has to match up as long as some do and in the right order (a little bit of variation is allowed, but the overall structure cannot be lost). It is entirely possible that Moses filled this in in greater detail. I have seen chiastic schemes suggesting that he did. In my opinion, it's better to be safe and throw out everything that doesn't seem obvious or that I am not equipped to notice. For instance, many chiastic indicators are available only in the original language. Even worse, the language of translation might indicate markers that aren't really there. Since the idea is to determine author intent, it's best to underestimate. The main function in chiasms of this size and type is to emphasize the central narrative (E).
I have not tried to demonstrate the historicity of Genesis or whether it is connected in any way to the rest of the Pentateuch. For all anyone can tell from this, the DH might be true for the other four books. The sole purpose of this post is to show that a single author hypothesis for the book of Genesis is not unreasonable. True, it is possible that a later redactor could have the skill required to get this level of organization by piecing separate works together. But it is not as likely. Besides, this begs the question of the central conceit for the DH. Supposedly, the lack of order is so obvious that liberal scholars have no choice but to postutlate multiple sources. Evidentally, doublets and divine name variations can have no other explanation. However, if I have succesfully shown that they can have another explanation, that such things may even be the rule in Hebrew writing, then the idea of a later redactor seems to be an unecessary complication.
This follow up to the Documentary Hypothesis post was entered last Sunday. It was divided between an argument against Mosaic authorship and an argument for the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). I responded to the first part over there, saying that I would save a response of the second until now. My first response to the DH was intended to show the negative redemptive-historical implications of the DH. In response to the aforementioned follow up, I defended against the idea that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (although, in that thread, there was no attempt made to show that he had). The discussion also landed over here where it ended up looking into the epistemological assumptions behind the various positions, especially those of Smijer, the author of the original post. This post will focus on critiquing the merits of the DH. The following post will attempt to show a viable literary alternative.
There is a limit to what can be accomplished here. I cannot demonstrate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, nor can I show when it was written. As a further limitation, I will restrict the focus to Genesis, particularly the passages that Smijer used. If I can tip the accepted evidence in favor of a single author for Genesis, it would still be very easy to sit back and claim multiple authorships and redaction for the other four books.
There should be no doctrinal reasons for rejecting the DH. A theory of unified literary structure is not the provenance of conservatism. It is also embraced by liberal scholarship. All it can prove to the mutual satisfaction of both parties is that someone knew how to write a good story. The further this literary structure is studied, the larger the wedge between original preconceptions. This is especially true of the historical narrative. Greater appreciation for the story telling techniques will lead to greater skepticism that the events could have occurred this way, if at all. In other words, the better the structure, the more likely that it is fictional. For the Christian, however, structured narrative should pose no barrier to belief. The record of redemptive history and the events of redemptive history have the same Divine Author.
The focus here is literary structure, not inspiration. Those who do believe scripture to be inspired will already have the authorship question settled. The NT divides the OT into “Moses (the Pentateuch), the Prophets (including the historical books- called the “former prophets” in Jewish scripture), and the Psalms (including the Wisdom literature). But enough of that. Not all parties in the current debate agree on scriptural inspiration, so, in deference, direct biblical testimony will not be entered into evidence.
The DH is an attempt to trace the origins of the Pentateuch by means of literary analysis. It has some presuppositions: Religion is the product of man and, as such, evolves with him. This evolution occurs both as a whole and within the various religions. It can stagnate in a particular religion or even take a step backward. The general progression includes animism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, and finally, enlightened atheism. Concurrent with this position is the rejection of any form of revelation or scriptural inspiration.
It is agreed that the OT is a [human] product of the ancient Jewish peoples. How do the evolutionary presuppositions of religion apply? The stage at the place and time of their early history was between polytheism and monotheism. There were still several gods, but one was only obligated to worship the god of his particular nation. Conquest of a nation implied conquest of their god. [It should be noted that this snapshot is in line with the biblical record. The current dispute is whether God was simply a member of the Canaanite pantheon.] Included among these nation-gods were Yahweh and Elohim. Israel, in its earliest form, would have been no more than an expedient confederation of various people groups. They would be joined politically and defensively, but each group would retain its own god, worship style, and literature. Eventually a unified religion is seen as a necessary national asset. In order to bring about this unified religious expression, a priestly cult is invented along with a narrative explaining its “ancient” origins. The narrative is not a complete fabrication but includes the splicing together of various sources. J and E material is blended with the newly added P material. The D material provides the link to subsequent history.
The positive evidence for this scenario is found in nothing more than a literary analysis of the Pentateuch in its current form. Note, however, no manuscript evidence has been found to suggest that it ever existed in any other form or forms. The DH starts with the theory of religious evolution and analyzes the Pentateuch accordingly. Does any of this prove that it is wrong? No. There could be some manuscripts hiding somewhere or they could have been destroyed. Admittedly, their current absence does not prove that they never existed. Even if the complete story of religious evolution is not accepted, there really was a Canaanite pantheon. It is not unreasonable to hypothesize confederations of convenience. The question is whether, in light of the viability of the traditional account of ancient Jewish history, such a hypothesis is necessary in this case. It is possible to believe in such an evolutionary account of the Jewish religion; to believe that it was synthesized by priests with an invented narrative, but to reject the cut and paste notion of the JEDP proponents. All by way of saying that any success in demonstrating the unlikelihood of the DH is not going to translate into positive evidence for Mosaic authorship, redemptive history, or divine revelation. Just so we know where we are here.
Smijer offers two examples from Genesis for our consideration: the flood narrative and the parallel narratives of Abraham’s lie concerning his wife Sarah. Let’s consider the first. The DH alleges that this is a combination of J and P sources; that, at one time, there existed at least two separate flood narratives that were later combined by a redactor.
The narrative is not straightforward, at least, not by modern standards. It keeps doubling back and repeating itself. It is not, however, quite as bad as suggested when Smijer, pretending to agree with a single author theory, claims that this author repeats himself “practically every other verse in this story.” That’s not fair to the DH.
According to the DH, one of the original narratives refers to Yahweh, the other to Elohim. [Incidentally, it is easy enough to see this variation in English- the translations are ‘LORD’ and ‘God’ respectively.] Allegedly, these sources can contradict each other. An example is given under "Duration of the Flood." In one account, "the rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights;" in the other, "the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days." Do I really have to spell out how these are reconciled? Smijer makes the further claim that the name of God is alternated with each repetition. That would make for an easy illustration of the DH, but it’s just not the case. The name changes do not always coincide with the repetitions. For instance, Genesis 7:11-24 repeats and expands upon vs. 6-10. In vs. 6, Noah is 600 years old when the flood waters come upon the earth. Vs. 11 is more precise. Noah is 600 years, 2 months, and 17 days (this might also mean something like February 17 when Moses was 600). This time the reference to the flood of waters coming upon the earth is also more descriptive. Here, the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens are opened. The rain falls for forty days and nights. Both of these verses set the stage for their respective repetition. In both accounts, Noah, his family, and the animals enter the ark. There are variations. The first account distinguishes between clean and unclean animals; the second records the names of Noah’s sons. In the first account, Noah waits for seven days on the ark before the flood actually starts. There is a simple statement that the flood began. The second account skips any mention of the waiting period, but it leads into an expanded account of the flood proper in vs. 17-24.
The biggest problem to the theory that each source had its own name for God is, in both accounts, Noah is acting under the command of Elohim. Immediately after the record of Elohim’s command in the second narrative, Yahweh shuts Noah in. But, if we are to follow the DH, Yahweh has been misplaced. The statement would fit perfectly into the second repetition if the name had only been Elohim. The account of the flood proper, immediately following the statement about Yahweh, doesn’t mention God at all. When he is mentioned again at the beginning of chapter 8, where the waters begin to subside, it is Elohim. The source theory is not matching up with the observation about the doublets.
If both parts of this doublet use Elohim, it is possible that the flood narrative is still composed of J and P sources but that the latter likes to use repetition. This seriously begs the question. The simplest explanation is to admit that a single source is responsible for the whole thing. But that‘s not what the DH does. It sticks to the theory and does a hatchet job to make it fit. Get into the more advanced forms and divisions are made even within sentences. The part about Yahweh shutting them in is from the J source, even if it has been stripped of its original context. The repetition of Elohim can be explained in one of two ways: redactor error or a third source. The E source just happened to use the same name as the P source. It gets less and less likely.
The second example is that of the parallel prevaricating patriarch narratives, which constitute an example of doublets on a larger scale. The evidence for multiple authorships is sleek: the first uses Yahweh, the second Elohim. Smijer makes his own observations to question the veracity of these accounts, but these depart from an analysis of the literary structure and are therefore irrelevant to the point.
The next post will consider both of these narratives again in the broader context of Genesis with an attempt to offer a viable alternate interpretation to the literary structure.
You love me Lord, because you've chosen to,
And not for righteous works that I have done.
For as the early clouds and morning dew,
My goodness can't survive the risen Sun.
Fast save me now with healing in your wings,
For, by your lovingkindness, I am torn.
Because I oft transgress in many things,
You scrourge this son who, by your will, was born.
Yet, grant the grace to love you all my days,
To thirst unquenched unless I'm bound to you,
To make you all my passion and my praise,
To ever bow amazed at all you do.
My Father freely gave from up above
His only Son to offer. God is love.
The elder Gregory of Nazianzus would have preferred that his son and namesake follow in his steps as bishop. Gregory the younger had other plans and in 361, upon being ordained a priest in Nazianzus by his father, ran away to Pontus. Gregory had been born into a wealthy Christian family in 326. He had been classically trained but, wanting to expand on his education, had decided to travel. While away, he had met Julian (later the apostate emperor), Athanasius (concerning whom he wrote an oration), and Basil. Gregory had come home in 356, but then, around 358-360, had gone to visit Basil’s monastic community whereupon, discovering his distaste for being cloistered, he had returned home.
Gregory came back from Pontus on Easter of 362, having been persuaded to come and help his poor dying father. The arrangement would last for about ten more years. At that time, Basil appointed Gregory bishop of Sasima, an outpost on the Parthian border. Sasima was small, very small, and so, Gregory ran away to Nazianzus. A couple of years later, his father died. Gregory took over his duties but only lasted for a year before he ran away to Seleucia in Isauria. This lasted until 378 when the pro-Arian emperor, Valens, died and was replaced by the pro-Nicene Theodosius. A small Nicene congregation in Constantinople asked Gregory to be their pastor. He agreed and soon became one of the most popular pastors in the Eastern Church. An audience with Emperor Theodosius resulted in Gregory being elevated to the office of Bishop of Constantinople.
He was still there in 381 when the second of the ecumenical councils was called, the main purpose of which was to settle the questions concerning the deity of the Holy Spirit. When Miletius, the president of the council, died, Gregory stepped in to take his place. But some Alexandrian bishops objected and had him removed on the basis of the canons of Nicea. A man could be bishop in only one place. Since Gregory had previously been appointed Bishop of Sasima, he had no right to be Bishop of Constantinople. And so Gregory resigned and ran away to Nazianzus. The people there still wanted him to be bishop of their city, but canon law would not have allowed it. Gregory retired to the family estate in Arianzus where, in 390, he died.
Along with Basil and Basil’s younger brother Gregory, Gregory of Nazianzus formed a group of theologians who would come to be known as the Cappadocians. There greatest contribution to orthodoxy was in clarifying the doctrine of the Trinity and in disproving the Arians. They standardized the formula: one “ousia” and three “hypostases.” Gregory’s unique contribution was to focus individually on the persons within the Trinity in order to note what distinguished them from one another. He considered how they were related to one another and, thereby, what the origin of each was. The Father was “agennesia,” or unbegotten; the Son was “gennesia,” or begotten; and the Holy Spirit was "ekporeusis,” or proceeding. Basil had also considered the relationships within the trinity; however, his emphasis was on the Father and the Son. Gregory was the first to explicitly include the Holy Spirit in this relationship and to state what that relation was. The Holy Spirit is related to the other two persons of the Trinity by means of procession.
Although Gregory performed a great service for the Church by defending the deity of Christ against the Arians, his defense of the full humanity of Christ was equally invaluable. His argument was against Apollinaris, who represented the culmination of what is known as the “Logos-flesh” model of the incarnation. Apollinaris defended Nicene orthodoxy; he did believe that Christ was fully divine. But he did not believe that Christ was fully human. Rather than possessing a human body and a human soul, Christ’s soul was replaced by the Logos. Justo L. Gonzalez sees Apollinaris as a trichotomist: a human being is composed of body, soul, and spirit. In this view, the spirit is the seat of personality and the intellect. Jesus had a human body and a human soul, but not a human spirit. Either way, though, the Christ of Apollinaris is missing some essential human parts.
Yet the matter is not solely about the composition of a human being; it is a question of soteriology. Gregory takes it back to the fall of Adam and writes:
For that which He [Christ] has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the portraiture of humanity (Epistle 101).
By Apollinaris’ own reckoning, the Son of God assumed human flesh and that is all. The mind, or the soul, was not assumed but was replaced. And, as Gregory indicates, this would be fine if the mind had not also fallen. However, since the whole man has fallen, and since Apollinaris claims that the whole man can be redeemed even though the whole man has not been assumed, I am forced to ask why the Logos had to assume anything. What is the point of the rest of the incarnation? If the mind can be saved without it, why not the body?
Gregory shows the absurdity of appealing to the passage that states, “The Word was made flesh,” saying:
…it is time for them to say that God is God only of flesh, and not of souls, because it is written, “As Thou hast given Him power over all Flesh,” …meaning every Man. Or, again, they must suppose that our fathers went down into Egypt without bodies and invisible…because it is written, “They went down into Egypt with threescore and fifteen Souls.”…They who argue thus do not know that such expressions are used by Synecdoche, declaring the whole by the part…(Epistle 101)
Despite the apparent advantages for the doctrine of salvation, Gonzalez does not see that the Christology of Gregory is much better than that of Apollinaris. He observes that “Gregory thought it necessary to affirm that the center of the Savior’s personality is in his divinity, so that his humanity is, as it were, absorbed by the divine nature.”
Speaking specifically of Gregory of Nyssa, yet by implication also of Gregory of Nazianzus, Gonzalez claims that they had the “tendency to take the divinity of Jesus Christ as the starting point and to attribute to him only the highest degree of humanity that may be compatible with this starting point.” From either perspective, the humanity of Christ appears to be diminished.
I believe, however, that Gonzalez has misread the text. He goes on to give the justification for the Cappadocians’ view of the incarnation. Salvation was, to them, a matter of deification. Gonzalez explains, “Thus, for the Cappadocians the important thing was that in Christ God truly assumed humanity, and not that his humanity remained identical to ours or as free as ours.”
Gonzalez is correct in his unspoken assumption that, ultimately, Christ’s humanity and our humanity must remain the same. However, the Cappadocians never denied this. It is Gonzalez’ claim that Gregory’s Christology diminishes Jesus’ humanity. He cites Gregory’s example of starlight on a sunny day. Gonzalez might have a point, if Gregory were defending the deity of Christ. But he is not; he is defending the union of two perfect natures in one person. The question is, “How shall one thing contain two completenesses?”
Here is matter of inquiry; for indeed the question is worthy of much consideration. Do they not know, then, that what is perfect by comparison with one thing may be imperfect by comparison with another, as a hill compared with a mountain, or a grain of mustard seed with a bean or any other of the larger seeds, although it may be called larger than any of the same kind?... So Moses was God to Pharaoh, but a servant of God, as it is written; and the stars which illumine the night are hidden by the Sun, so much that you could not even know of their existence by daylight…(Epistle 101)
Or as humanity compared with deity. If there is no difference between a mountain and a hill, between a mustard seed and a bean, between starlight and sunlight, between God and Moses, then the nature of at least one component within each of these pairs has been changed. When Gregory considers the two natures of Christ, when he observes the eclipse of the one into the other, he does not deny the full humanity of Christ. Instead, he affirms it, and, in so doing, places before us the end of our own salvation.
Christ, the Shepherd of my life,
I rest me in thy fold.
Faithful art thou, Lord, and True-
Thy counsels are of old.
My spirit longs to hear thy name,
My soul to see thy face.
Bless me, Lord, and keep me always
Covered in thy grace.
I will exalt thee, thou art God,
Thy praise, my lips shall form;
For thou hast been a strength, O Lord,
A refuge from the storm.
Thou that makest dry the sea
Because it is thy will,
Wipe the tears from off mine eyes,
Assure me, "Peace be still."
When all about shall seem to be
A whirl wind on the sea,
My mind shall stay in perfect peace
Because I trust in thee.
There's a link over on Josiah's blog with an admonition to be polite should anyone care to join the discussion. I'll do my my best. It has to do with the Documentary Hypothesis (JEPD) and the lack of positive evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The crux of the argument is that belief in Mosaic authorship is a faith claim that, consequently, cannot count as evidence. Various places in scripture claim that Moses was responsible for part, if not all, of the Pentateuch. Supposedy, though, since belief in the truth of scripture as a whole is a matter of faith, so are its individual claims. To an extent, I can agree. I accept on faith that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God. Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that the proposition, "God, who cannot lie, exists and he has written a book," does not obtain apart from my own belief about the subject. Some faith claims do concern things that simply are not true in reality; however, it is also possible to have faith in something that just happens to be the case.
If it is true, apart from anyone's belief or disbelief, that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; if within the Bible there are claims that Moses wrote its first five books, then it follows as a matter of unimpeachable logic that Moses did write these books. The minor premise is not, in itself, in dispute. There is a question about whether or not the claim articulated in this premise counts as evidence for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. That depends entirely on whether or not one accepts the major premise. It is implied that, because acceptance of the major premise is a matter of faith, the minor cannot be counted as evidence. On the contrary, belief in the veracity of the major is precisely why the minor can be regarded as evidence. In fact, because the argument is formally sound, the only way to reject the evidentiary nature of the minor is to reject the truth of the major. There are two ways to do this. Either subject the claim to falsification; or make an a priori assumption that God, if he exists at all, is either unwilling or unable to inspire an inerrant book. If the first method is employed, then I am curious to know just what expectations were not met. In other words, how is scripture any different from a volume that God might actually have inspired? Whether imagining what "real" scripture might have looked like, or just rejecting outright the possibility of an inerrant Bible, a faith claim is still involved. There can be no intelligible evidence for anything apart from faith in a larger premise. It is no less a matter of faith to reject the inspiration of scripture than it is to accept it. It eventually boils down to faith in my own ability to see it all. What my senses are unable to detect, I am unwilling to believe. The debate over Mosaic authorship or JEPD is not between faith and carefully reasoned scholarship; it is between the consequences of two faith claims. If the Bible is the Word of God, then Moses must be the author of the Pentateuch. If the Bible is not the Word of God, then the candidates for authorship are greatly expanded. It is possible to believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch without believing in the inspiration of scripture. The reverse is not true.
What about the claim itself that scripture is inspired? I have already conceded that this is a matter of faith. This does not mean, however, that this claim is immune from the tests of reason. It is wide open to falsification. Take for example, the first point of "positive evidence" offered in support of Mosaic authorship: Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. I will agree that this does not count as positive evidence, but that is not the point I wish to make here. Even if they no longer believe it to be the case, Wellhausen and the proponents of JEPD did, at one time, make the claim that anyone around during the time that Moses allegedly lived would have have been illiterate. Had they been able to substantiate this claim, then the belief in the inspiration of scripture would have been falsified. The claim of Mosaic authorship would have been untrue and, therefore, incompatible with the idea of verbal, plenary inspiration. As to the point itself, while not an example of positive evidence, neither does it count as a fallacy. It is a defense of the possibility of Mosaic authorship made necessary because not everyone involved in the discussion of JEPD is aware of or honest about the state of historic literacy.
In some cases, the question of human authorship of a biblical book is somewhat academic. Take Hebrews as an example. The book is anonymous. I am personally of the opinion that Paul did not write it. Many orthodox believers disagree with me. It's not that big a deal. It isn't always a matter of when a book was written. The Chronicles are a post-Exilic product. Yet, this does not mean that the history recorded in them is not accurate. It is not a question of a previously written work being edited and arranged. Hezekiah did this with much of the Proverbs. Nor is a multiplicity of authors necessarily a problem. Consider the Psalms. What, then, is the problem? It is that the Pentateuch purports to establish the historical foundation for Covenantal faith and practice. The real question behind the debate over the origin of the books of the Law is whether or not the ancient Jewish and subsequent Christian faith is a man-made construction or a divinely ordained revelation.
The Documentary Hypothesis operates under the assumption that the Jewish faith evolved over time. The Pentateuch was a redaction of several sources, each one of which had a different view about God. The letters stand for Jehovah, Elohim, Priestly, and Deuteronomist. According to the theory, religious practice and theology developed and a history was invented to support this. The idea is perfectly in line with mainline or liberal Christianity. In this tradition, the core of religious belief is morality or ethical integrity. If God were to write a book, it would be a list of morals, a how-to of good living practices. But then, who needs God? Given time, we can be pretty decent on our own. Smijer points out that only the very liberal churches that accept JEPD reject the bodily resurrection of Christ. If there is any truth to this, then all I can say is praise God for inconsistent minds. The resurrection, even if it did happen, is utterly meaningless if the Christian faith is not grounded, from its very inception, on God's self-revelation in history. The death and resurrection of Christ is the answer to my breach of God's Law. However, if Moses did not write the Pentateuch, then God did not reveal the Law; it is a human invention. And, if this is the case, then faith in Christ, aside from being unnecessary, is probably not even the best way to achieve my moral potential. Step aside, Wellhausen, it's my turn to be God.
Origen was born into a Christian home in Alexandria in about 185 AD. His father, Leonidas, was martyred in 202 under the persecution of Septimius Severus. According to the story, Origen’s own early martyrdom was possibly prevented when his mother hid his clothing, thus preventing him from leaving the house. Whether true or not, it does illustrate the zeal that Origen would always have for the Christian faith.
Origen began to support himself by teaching literature and philosophy. As a result of the persecution, Alexandria lacked sufficient leaders to train candidates for baptism. Two brothers, Plutarch and Heraclas, asked Origen to take up this task. Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, made it official.
During all this time, Origen remained a layman, since ordination was not required to teach. However, in about 216, he went to Palestine where some of the bishops asked him to preach in their churches. Origen agreed to this, but, when Demetrius found out about this, he ordered Origen to return to Alexandria. Years later, Origen was traveling to Antioch and passed through Palestine. Once again, the bishops asked him to preach; this time, though, they took the precaution of ordaining him. Far from solving the problem, this only created a larger one. Demetrius was incensed. He interpreted this move as an evasion of his authority.
Demetrius did not believe that Origen was qualified for ordination. He certainly had the qualifying skills for office; however, Origen’s overzealous and all too literal application of the passage in Matthew 19:12 concerning those who have “made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of heaven,” in Demetrius’ eyes, barred him from this privilege. With the consent of two synods that Demetrius had called in Alexandria, Origen was excommunicated and defrocked. While Demetrius and the synods of Alexandria may have had some legitimate concerns, it is quite likely that Demetrius was influenced by personal motives; namely, envy of Origen’s abilities and popularity. In any event his actions, along with those of the synods, seem to have gone too far. These were not a mere reprimand of Origen, but, implicitly, of the church in Palestine.
When Heraclas, the same who had first asked Origen to teach, having become the Bishop of Alexandria did not overturn the actions of Demetrius, Origen was resigned never to return to his home town. Except for frequent trips throughout the Empire, he spent the remainder of his life in Caesaria in Palestine. There, he spent his time teaching and writing in a school that he had founded. This lasted until the Decian persecution when Origen was taken prisoner and tortured in an attempt to make him renounce his faith. The circumstances of his death are debated. He was either martyred or he died in the city of Tyre due to weakness from his recent imprisonment.
Origen was, perhaps, the most prolific writer of the ancient church. Few of these works survive. Around eight hundred works are known at least by title, but Epiphanius claims that total number was closer to six thousand. Among Origen’s major works were the Hexapla, Contra Celsum, and De principiis.
The Hexapla stands as an early example of conservative textual criticism. Its purpose was to expound the Masoretic text of the Old Testament. This Hebrew text formed the first of six columns. The second column consisted of a Greek transliteration of this text. This was followed by four Greek translations. Three were by individuals: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotus. The fifth column was reserved for the Septuagint, which Origen carefully annotated to indicated differences with the Masoretic text. If they were available, Origen would also include other translations. Consequently, some passages, especially those within the Psalms, were expanded to as many as nine columns.
Contra Celsum is, as the title suggests, an apologetical work against Celsus. Celsus, a pagan philosopher had written a work against Christianity entitled The True Word. It appears to have been of little consequence and Origen would have been content just to ignore it. Nevertheless, at the request of his friend Ambrose, Origen decided to write a point by point refutation.
De principii, which means, “On First Principles,” was a relatively early work. Justo L. Gonzalez admits to using this work to outline his exposition of Origen’s theology. He discloses the fact that most of this work has survived only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, who also took it upon himself to correct the text. This may present more of a problem than Gonzalez is prepared to admit. There is virtually unanimous agreement among modern scholars that Origen was heavily influenced by Platonist philosophy. While Rufinus should not be blamed for inserting these ideas into Origen’s work, his proclivity for editing has not made any easier the task of figuring out what Origen actually did believe.
Recently, the idea of Origen’s platonic influence has been questioned. While it is much too large a task to investigate these claims for myself, I would like to express tentative agreement based on a narrowly focused but representative example of Origen’s work. I have in mind his two surviving homilies on the Song of Solomon (Song of Songs).
Origen was a member of the Alexandrine school of theology. Supposedly, this school was given over to an allegorical approach to scriptural interpretation. This approach has been characterized by being overly symbolic and ahistorical. Combine this misconception with the idea that Origen was attempting to synthesize theology with Platonist philosophy and Origen’s work becomes a prime target for misinterpretation. Perhaps this oversimplifies the matter; however, I have noted similar critiques of Biblical Theological exegesis of the scriptures: it is allegorical and platonic. Knowing that this critique is unjustified now, I am compelled not to accept immediately these assumptions when reading Origen’s homilies on the Song of Songs.
His exegesis does have problems. Most notable to me is his idea that certain words always mean the same thing throughout scripture. By not allowing for a more localized context for meaning, some of his interpretations seem forced. Less problematic are some possible mistranslations of words. But, despite all of this, his interpretation is governed, not by the idea that the literal and historical do not matter, but by the idea that all of scripture is about Christ. In this, he is in agreement, not only with how Christ and the Apostles interpret the Old Testament, but also with a fundamental principle of Biblical Theological interpretation. Any given text is about Christ. The question is, “How?” While I may disagree on some of his particulars, I must admire Origen, both for his commitment to understanding the very words of scripture and for his insistence upon seeing Christ in all of scripture.