Who Wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

Who wrote the Synoptic Gospels? Their titles bear the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but did those men actually draft them? Modern scholarship has called this previous assumption into question, with some going so far as to say that the men whose names adorn the books were long since dead.

Ground Rules

When writing on a controversial subject such as this, some ground rules are in order for this discussion to show my approach towards an objective conclusion.

First, while false attribution was not unheard of in the early Christian community (the Gospel of Thomas, not part of the canon, is an example of this), it is unfair for biblical critics to simply make the assumption that the canonical Gospels were misattributed and shift the burden of proof to those who hold to traditional authorship.

Second, anti-supernaturalism as a bias must be set aside. An example of this is the assumption that Matthew (or at least the 23rd chapter) had to be written after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, because Jesus simply could not have prophesied the destruction of the Temple. The author of Matthew had to put that in later.

An even more glaring example of this is the belief among literary scholars that mythic traditions take one or two generations to evolve, thus an assumption is made that the Gospels, which proclaim Jesus’ deity, must have been the byproduct of this evolution. Ergo, the Gospels were written and compiled at least a generation or two after Jesus’ life. Such an assumption is philosophical and prejudicial.

With these concerns in mind, let us then proceed with an objective mind.

The Gospel Sources

The early Christian tradition, articulated by many but most notably by the famed theologian Augustine, is that the Synoptic Gospels were written in the order in which they now appear in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Post-Enlightenment scholarship challenged this assumption, and today mainline and liberal scholars embrace the view that Mark was the first Gospel written.

In addition, mainstream biblical scholars hold that Mark based his Gospel on a source document known as “Q.” There is absolutely no evidence for any Q document, but literary analysis of the Synoptic similarities along with Jewish rabbinical tradition (namely the practice of keeping records of rabbinical teachings) support the hypothesis. New Testament scholars have since added two additional sources: “L” and “M” – for which, once again, there is no hard evidence. These are assumed to be strains of mainly oral tradition.

The authors of Mark (first) and then Matthew and Luke are assumed to have utilized these various sources in putting together their Gospel accounts.

Matthew

Who wrote the Gospel that first appears in the New Testament canon, the Gospel of Matthew? Doubts about Matthew’s authorship stem largely from the fact that New Testament scholars now widely believe that Mark was written first. Would Matthew, an actual eyewitness of Jesus’ life, rely on the writing of Mark, who was not an eyewitness?

This skepticism, of course, assumes that Matthew primarily utilized Mark, yet this theory of Synoptic Gospel inter-connectivity has never been conclusively established, certainly not to a degree that would have the author of Matthew actually dependent on Mark’s Gospel. Thomas Jefferson utilized George Mason’s Virginia Constitution when writing the Declaration of Independence, but utilization does not equate to absolute reliance. No historian would argue that Jefferson was helpless in his task of authoring America’s independence document absent Mason’s handiwork. Accordingly, even if Matthew had Mark’s Gospel at his disposal, it hardly discredits the notion that the apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources, not counting the title itself, specifically attribute the Gospel to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus. Those sources are Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea, all significant leaders or writers in the early Christian community. Moreover, the Gospel of Matthew was in wide circulation in the early church, and was circulated as an account written by Matthew, with no apparent question or contestation.

Confronted with this very strong evidence from ancient history, Matthew, the disciple of Jesus Christ, is the author of the first Gospel in the New Testament canon.


Was The Gospel Of Matthew The First Gospel Written, Composed Before 70 A.D., And Originally Written In Hebrew?

Traditionally, the universities of the western world have taught that the Gospel of Matthew was not the first Gospel written, that it was written in Greek, and that it was authored after 70 A.D.

However, as more and more discoveries have been made, those assumptions have been shown to be stone cold wrong.

As researchers are looking into the writings of the early church leaders, they are finding that not only was the Gospel of Matthew most definitely the first Gospel written (almost certainly before 50 A.D.), but that it was originally written in Hebrew!

Just check out what some of the early church writers from the first few centuries of the church have to say on this matter:

Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4) "As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16) "Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each translated (or interpreted) them as best he could."

Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1) "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Eusebius (H.E. 3.24.6) "Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent."

Epiphanius (ca. 315-403), bishop of Salamis, refers to a Gospel used by the Ebionites (Panarion 30. 13.1-30.22.4). He says it is Matthew, called "According to the Hebrews" by them, but says it is corrupt and mutilated. He says Matthew issued his Gospel in Hebrew letters. He quotes from this Ebionite Gospel seven times. These quotations appear to come not from Matthew but from some harmonized account of the canonical Gospels.

There is also early testimony that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, carried a Hebrew copy of the Gospel of Matthew to India. Two of the earliest Church historians, Eusebius and Origen, wrote about this. "It is reported," wrote Eusebius, "that among persons there who knew Christ, (Pantaenus) found the Gospel according to St. Matthew (which had arrived ahead of Pantaenus by more than a century). For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left them (in India) the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language which they had preserved." In his ground-breaking book, A History of Christianity in Asia, Princeton scholar and author Samuel Moffett reveals that Pantaenus, a church historian and missionary who traveled to India in 180 A.D., discovered the copy of the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew that Bartholomew had taken with him. Read here for more.

There is a similar tradition that the Apostle Barnabas, the follower of the Apostle Paul, also carried with him and was buried with an early version of the Gospel of Matthew. According to tradition, it was through Barnabas that Matthew's Gospel was transmitted and maybe even translated into Greek. Barnabas primarily taught the Jews in Cyprus and it is said in his Acts that he used the Gospel he received personally from Matthew not only to teach, but to work miracles as well. The Acts of Barnabas even mention a probability that Matthew wrote his Gospel in at least two documents, a narrative of miracles and one of doctrines. If this is true it may have been Barnabas that compiled the documents of his fellow apostle. At his death the supposed writer of the Acts of Barnabas, John Mark, saved Matthew's Gospel and hid it away in the tomb of Barnabas. In 478, during the reign of the Emperor Zeno, archbishop Anthemios of Cyprus announced that the hidden burial place of Barnabas had been revealed to him in a dream. The saint's body was claimed to have been discovered in a cave with a copy of the canonical Gospel of Matthew on its breast; according to the contemporary account of Theodoros Lector, who reports that both bones and Gospel book were presented by Anthemios to the emperor. Severus of Antioch examined this Gospel around the year 500, seeking to find whether it supported the piercing of the crucifed Jesus by a spear in Matthew 27:49 which some taught (it did not). According to the eleventh century Roman historian Georgios Kedrenos an uncial manuscript of Matthew's Gospel, believed to be that found by Anthemios, was then still preserved in the Chapel of St Stephen in the Imperial Palace. If this uncial version is Barnabas' copy, then we can assume he translated it into Greek. If not, Barnabas may have been buried with the original Hebrew version. Of course, there is a possibility that he had a Greek version written by Matthew. Read here for more.

This information further confirms that Matthew, an eyewitness to the miracles and events of Jesus' ministry, was indeed the author of the first Gospel and verifies both the Jewishness and early date of the first Gospel.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Egypt's Copts Facing Persecution

IRI Nnews
November 12, 2009

Cairo, Egypt - A new report on religious freedom in Egypt says Coptic Christians, who make up about 10 percent of the 80 million population (CIA factbook), face major rights violations and are being increasingly persecuted.

The quarterly 36-page report (see Arabic version) by independent rights organization the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), said the government denies Copts the right to build churches or pray at home.

It said the homes of some Copts, particularly in southern Egypt, were demolished or closed because the government suspected them of being clandestine churches, and that physical attacks against Copts had continued over the past three months, with at least three losing their lives.

According to EIPR, there are an average of four attacks against Copts every month; there have been 144 attacks nationwide over the past three years.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

An Atheist Defends Religion

New Book Blasts Attacks by Unbelievers

By Father John Flynn, LC

ROME, NOV. 15, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Catholic Church is one of the greatest forces for evil in the world, at least according to atheist Richard Dawkins. This is just the latest of many volleys by him against religion and God.

His remarks were published Oct. 23 on the religion section of the Washington Post's Web site, when he was asked to comment on the move by the Catholic Church to facilitate the entry of Anglicans.

The polemics over religion raised by the spate of books and commentaries in recent years continues to flow freely. A recent debate in London on the motion that the "Catholic Church is a force for good in the world," attracted over 2,000 people, the Catholic Herald reported Oct. 23.

Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, who argued the negative case, enjoyed a substantial win over their opponents -- Ann Widdecombe, a conservative party parliamentarian, and Archbishop Onaiyekan of Abuja in Nigeria -- obtaining 1,876 votes against 268.

Another recent example comes from Australia columnist where Catherine Deveny put God on the psychiatrist's couch and proclaimed that: "God has narcissistic personality disorder."

In her Sept. 2 article published by the Age newspaper, Deveny asserted that God suffers from "feelings of grandiosity," and an "obsession with fantasies of success," along with being "devoid of empathy," and "behaves arrogantly."

The atheists' offensive has in its turn given rise to numerous books defending God and organized religion. An interesting turn in the debate comes from a book just published by someone who does not believe in God, but still defends religion.

Better off

In "An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off with Religion Than Without It," (Alpha Books), Bruce Sheiman offers a new perspective to the contest between believers and atheists.

The "God question" can't be resolved to the satisfaction of the contending sides, he states but what Sheiman does set out to do is to consider the value of religion itself. He does not seek to prove God exists, but defends religion as a cultural institution.

Regarding his personal views, Sheiman explains that he is not a person of faith, but he does not "stridently repudiate God." He describes himself as an "aspiring theist" because "religion provides a combination of psychological, emotional, moral communal, existential, and even physical-health benefits that no other institution can replicate."

The best way to convincingly dismiss the case for atheism, he explains in his introduction to the book, is not by arguments that seek to prove the existence of God, but to demonstrate the enduring contribution of religion.

"Religion's misdeeds may make for provocative history, but the everyday good works of billions of people is the real history of religion, one that parallels the growth and prosperity of humankind," Sheiman affirms.

One way that religion benefits us is by giving our lives meaning, Sheiman notes. We are aware we live in a world of great power and potentiality, but in contrast to animals that just live in a utilitarian relationship with the world, humans are aware that this world exists apart from ourselves.

Sheiman then recounts some examples of how primitive societies sought to give sense to their lives in the midst of the wider world by means of religion. Their myths and rituals helped those peoples to connect the mortal realities to the eternal and spiritual.

In the modern world science has in many cases replaced religion in terms of explaining the world and the universe, but Sheiman points out, while we can accept what science says about how the universe works, this does not explain to us what it means for our lives.

In other words, how the world works is not the same as why the world works. In our drive to discover what Sheiman terms lowercase truth -- facts and knowledge -- we have sacrificed uppercase truth -- meaning and purpose.

Moral nature

Another aspect of religion is morality. It's clear that people can be moral without religion, Sheiman affirms, but it's also evident that religion makes people good. In fact, he asserts, humans exhibit ethical behavior that goes well beyond the explanatory power of group cohesiveness.

Sheiman cites research that demonstrates how religious activity is associated with greater social interaction. Just as religion builds community, so too does it foment morality, he adds.

It does this through an understanding that moral action is the path to a union with God and that we have some sort of moral contract whereby doing good means we participate in the highest good

Intrinsic to all religions is a belief in goodness, both that of the divine and that of humanity, Sheiman explains. Atheists often lack an understanding of religious morality, he argues. It's not a simple reward/punishment system. "The most cynical see in religion a blind obedience to moral authority and an oppressive behavioral-control system," he commented.

While some religious adherents exhibit an authoritarian orientation, this can also be the case for just as many non-religious people, Sheiman maintains. For most people God is seen as a loving father, and the moral high ground to which humans aspire, he asserted.

One contribution of religion to society that Sheiman highlights is the Christian notion that humans are made in the image of God. Since humans are meant to share in the divine nature they are to be respected as children of God.

Such a view leads to countless acts of sacrifice and compassion every day, he comments. In fact, sociological studies reveal that religious people are more caring and compassionate than their non-religious peers and give more money to charity. This practice is not restricted to a particular religion, Sheiman points out.

Religion also provides a solid foundation for moral behavior through an adherence to absolute values. By contrast, Sheiman notes, without religion people can have a morality, but if the moral precepts are man-made they become fallible and insubstantial, a function of personal opinions or even calculating self-interest.

This leads him to comment that our minds are called to something more than a relative truth. As humans we strive to find the first cause and if moral imperatives do not depend on God then they are not absolute and remain relative.

Science by itself cannot lead to a moral culture, he continues. "Right and wrong do not come from physics or biology," he states.

"Religion thus becomes the most important cultural and institutional source of ethical principles precisely because it is felt to be above human caprice," he adds.

Progress

In another chapter of the book, Sheiman relates how religion was behind the Western world's progress in such fields as democracy and freedom, and science and technology.

Over time if we have grown as a civilization it has been at least partly because of religion, he argues. While this does not absolve religious leaders for their destructive acts it does lead us to conclude that overall religion has had an overall positive impact, he concludes.

The alternative conclusion is that we would be further along in our progressive trajectory without religion. This is implausible, Sheiman maintains, as historians cannot identify any other cultural force as robust as religion that could have carried civilization along.

Sheiman also criticizes the selective reading of history by some atheists, who are only too quick to attribute the most negative aspects of history to religion, while rarely conceding the debt civilization owes to religion.

A believer could well reply to Sheiman that his faith in God does not depend on some kind of profit and loss accounting of history or his personal life. Nonetheless, at a time when many atheists denigrate churches and faith as totally irrational and negative, Sheiman's book serves as a useful antidote to such a superficial and irrational attack on belief.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Darwinism: The Ideology Behind Marxism and Teenage Nihilism

Where Chairman Mao and Teenage Nihilists Got Their Motivation

Nov 12, 2009
Creation - Evolution Headlines

What propelled Mao Zhedong to become the biggest mass murderer in world history? Let a professor of Chinese history answer the question. James Pusey (Bucknell U), writing in Nature this week for a series on “Global Darwin,”[1] was explaining the vacuum left by the collapse of the reform movement in the early 20th century. A “group of intellectuals” found Marxism attractive. It was the fittest ideology:

"Many tried to fill it: Sun, Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kaishek) and, finally, the small group of intellectuals who, in indignation at the betrayal at Versailles, found in Marxism what seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive.

"This was not, of course, all Darwin’s doing, but Darwin was involved in it all. To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a ‘racial’ struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled.

"Who taught Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin."

The ideology that led Mao to murder 77 million of his own people began with a view of nature that values struggle and fitness over the individual. Though acknowledging that the political currents in China were complex, with reformers like Yan Fu and Sun Yat-sen incorporating Darwinian principles without radical revolution, Pusey placed the worldview that empowered Marxist ideology squarely at the feet of Darwin. Darwin was Mao’s ideological mentor.

Darwinian ideas can produce murderous results in individuals, too. The Sunday Times Online printed an article that described the Darwinian motivations behind some of the serial killers of recent memory. “The naturalist [Darwin] outraged the church, prompting a bitter debate that still sets creationists against evolutionists,” Dennis Sewell wrote. “Now a sinister link has emerged between his work and the recent spate of high-school killings by crazed, nihilistic teenagers.”

Despite Darwin’s personal reputation as an “amiable Victorian gent,” Sewell continued, he “has been fingered as a racist, an apologist for genocide, and the inspiration of a string of psychopathic killers.” The shooters at Columbine High School, for instance, saw themselves as eliminators of the weak. Harris wore “Natural Selection” on his T-shirt the day of the shooting spree. Many other artifacts gathered afterwards, described in the article, uncovered the boys’ fascination with “survival of the fittest.”

In 2007, detectives intercepted a school shooting in Pennsylvania. They “discovered that their suspect often logged on to a social networking site called Natural Selection’s Army,” the article says. Sewell discussed a personality cult around Harris and Klebold in certain chatrooms and websites, including a computer game that lets the player act out the massacre. “Natural Selection” apparel is hot with these aficionados, and “‘Natural Selection’ is the name of a popular computer game in which competing teams attempt to annihilate one another – a sign that Darwin’s term is still associated by many teenagers with sudden and extreme violence.” Another case is the killing spree in 2007 in Finland by Pekka-Eric Auvinen, who declared in his manifesto before the event that he was a social Darwinist wanting to weed out the unfit. In his words: “It’s time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track.”

Sewell acknowledged that Darwin himself would have been horrified by all this. He knows that other great figures have been used by murderers as their inspiration. Still, he was not ready to let the bearded old man off the hook. “One conclusion implicit in evolutionary theory is that human existence has no ultimate purpose or special significance.... Darwin also taught that morality has no essential authority, but is something that itself evolved,” he continued. These simple (and simplistic) ideas are certainly accessible to disturbed adolescents who feel nothing stops them from taking natural law into their own hands. And Darwin himself wrote in 1881, “Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”

Sewell is author of the book The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics. His Times article was published on the Science page, not the Opinion page. On page 2, he continued supporting his premise that Darwin’s views feed into the nihilism behind high school shootings – and political genocides – because it destroys all moral restraint. One particular example shows this is not an isolated interpretation. He said, “Cheerleaders celebrating Darwin’s 200th birthday in colleges across America last February sang ‘Randomness is good enough for me, If there’s no design it means I’m free’ – lines from a song by the band Scientific Gospel.” With a gospel like that, no wonder some go beyond the mere abandonment of sexual mores taught by their parents. “But wackos such as Harris and Auvinen can just as readily interpret it as a licence to kill.” Sewell ended by pointing out that we cannot begin to address the issues when presented only with a “bowdlerized account of Darwin’s work” – i.e., a sanitized version portraying Darwin as a scientific saint. He said, “The more sinister implications of the world-view that has come to be called ‘Darwinism’ — and the interpretation the teenage nihilists put on it – are as much part of the Darwin story as the theory of evolutions [sic].”

---------------------
1. James Pusey, “Global Darwin: Revolutionary road,” Nature 462, 162-163 (12 November 2009).

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

My Twisted Life as a Scientologist

Mandy Mullen at an anti-scientology rally

... and how I kicked the 100-pound parasite off my back

By MANDY MULLEN
November 15, 2009
People

The Church of Scientology is under fire for a spate of recent defections and bizarre teachings, including the idea that humans are infested with the souls of dead space aliens. MANDY MULLEN, 20, a shop assistant from Old Bridge, NJ, joined Scientology last year when the religion claimed it could fix her spinal disorder, Scoliosis. But, she tells The Post, it did nothing but destroy her finances and mess with her mind — forcing her to break free a few months ago . . .

“Your face makes me want to puke.”

“You look like a big dufus sitting there.”

For two straight hours, I sat in a chair, not allowed to move a muscle or blink, staring into the eyes of the man slinging insults at me.

I was in a TR — or Training Routine — at the Church of Scientology on West 46th Street in Midtown Manhattan, a session that cost $150.

The process was called “auditing.” Ultimately, it was supposed to make your IQ skyrocket and give you greater confidence and control in life. At one point, the church brass even told me that Scientology — the religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952 that offers spiritual rehabilitation — could straighten my spine, which has been curved with Scoliosis since I was born.

I discovered Scientology one year earlier while I was surfing the Internet in Old Bridge, NJ, where I live with my parents. I came across a web forum called 4chan, where dissenters of Scientology plan protests outside of the church.

I had never been a spiritual or religious person — I was raised Christian but never went to any sort of church. Still, I only lived two hours away from the Midtown headquarters, and I was curious. I thought, “why are all these people protesting? It sounds so cool!”

So I checked it out myself. At Scientology headquarters I was led into a Basic Course Room in the basement where I met a woman who told me I had to buy a $150 class on Communications.

I told her I wanted to think it over. I was 19 and I worked at a convenience store after school and I said that my mom would freak out if I came home $150 poorer.

That’s when she tried to intimidate me.

“Mommy doesn’t want you to do it,” she said in a teasing baby voice. “Are you going to hang on Mommy’s apron strings for the rest of your life?” The class was an investment that would make me a better earner in the future, she said.

I realized that she wasn’t going to let me leave until I paid for the course. I was literally shaking.

That’s the way they work — they don’t want you to pause and consider things critically, a mode they call “in think.” They don’t give you time to be “in think” and question their practices

But their tactics worked. I paid the fee and started my training.

The International Association of Scientologists regularly came to town to throw lavish fundraisers for members of the church. The minimum fundraising quota was always $500,000 and they would reach it in under two hours. Staffers would charge through the congregation yelling at people to donate. “This is your planet and all you care about is your money!” they yelled. “You should be giving every last dollar! If you don’t give your money you’re a Suppressive Agent!”

At one rally I saw a grown man break down in tears. “I’ve donated so much money that I’m broke. I have nothing left. You took all my money,” he pleaded.

One of the church leaders glared at him and yelled, “I know you’re holding out and that makes you a Suppressive Force!”

Meanwhile, I was moving up the ranks inside the church — I graduated from newbie to the “Academy” level and spent $1,000 for four courses.

In Academy, all the students sit in a classroom reading works by L. Ron Hubbard and filling out worksheets. In class, you’re not allowed to yawn — that means you’ve misunderstood a word that you read. If you lean over in your chair, you have to make a clay “demo” of one of the Hubbard theories.

Because I have Scoliosis, it always looks like I’m leaning. “Mandy, get the Play-Doh!” the teachers would bellow at me.

When I told my parents I was taking Scientology courses, they were horrified. But I lied to them about how much money I was spending there. I said it was all complimentary while, in fact, I was throwing thousands — all my savings and earnings — at the church.

For the leaders of the church, my parents posed a big problem. One leader, who was assigned to me, said I had to separate from my family because members could not be in the presence of those who criticize Scientology, even if they’re parents, children or a spouse. But I said I didn’t have enough money to move out and support myself.

My leader, however, could never see the other side. Once I told him that I’d looked at the Web site of the protesters against Scientology but I didn’t agree with them — I loved the church. He flew into a rage. “That’s like saying I don’t burn n- - - ers, I just like to party with the KKK!” he said.

A few months ago I met with an ethics officer of the Scientology police, and told him about my worries, including the man crying at the fundraiser. “I’m seeing a lot of things I don’t like here,” I said.

His response was that every church needed money to run. We kept arguing until he slammed his fist down and told me: “You’re too open-minded to be a Scientologist.”

At that moment I got up and walked out the front doors — into the noise and daylight of Manhattan. Right outside, clustering on the sidewalk, was a group of Scientology protesters. Without a moment’s hesitation, I joined them.

When I turned around I saw my leader, staring at me with a look of pure concentrated rage.

But I’m not afraid of them. My father’s a police officer and that means that they’ll leave me alone. Deserting the church is like having a 100-pound parasite pried off your back. I may be broke but I finally feel free — because I have a mind of my own.

— As Told To Annie Karni

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Latest Islamic Missionary Tactic: 1-877-WHY-ISLAM

Around 5,480 People Convert to Islam Through Mobile Hotline

EarthTimes
November 5, 2009

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia - Around 5,480 people converted to Islam in Saudi Arabia through the "Bring me to Islam" cell phone hotline service, media reports said on Thursday. The service, provided in 12 languages, was launched to raise awareness among foreign communities in the kingdom, the Saudi daily Okaz reported.

Any person can suggest names of non-Muslims he thinks they might convert to Islam through text messages to the hotline, along with their numbers and the language they speak.

Later, preachers would call these non-Muslims and try to introduce them to Islam, without revealing the number of the person who suggested their names.

Preachers would call again if the person showed a desire to continue receiving these phone calls, Okaz said, adding that around 800,000 phone calls were made, costing 120,000 Saudi Riyals (32,000 dollars).

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Skull and Bones Secret Society at Yale (CNN Video)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

A Challenge to the Quranic Text

The Oldest Quranic Manuscripts


The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Quran

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Nativity Fast, Otherwise Known As Advent, Has Begun

On the Nativity Fast

Guidelines for the Nativity Fast

The Nativity Fast Focuses on Almsgiving

How to Avoid Christmas Depression: The Eastern Orthodox Nativity Fast May Prevent Post-Holiday Blues

American Christmas and Orthodox Nativity

Encyclical for the Nativity Fast

The following sermons by St. Leo the Great were delivered during the Nativity Fast to prepare the faithful for Christmas and Theophany. These sermons were delivered during the "tenth-month," i.e. December. This coincides with our modern fast season of Advent. December still means "tenth-month," but is the actual twelfth month because of the addition of July and August, added later.

On the Fast of The Tenth Month, I

On the Fast of the Tenth Month, V

On the Fast of the Tenth Month, VI

On the Fast of the Ten Month, VIII

How did the contemporary Nativity Fast come to be?

The first mention of a preparatory period before Christmas is mentioned in a decree of the Council of Saragossa (380). The Council Fathers stated that every Christian should daily go to church from December 17 until the Theophany (January 6th). At the Synod of Mac (581) in Gaul (present day France) it was decreed that from November 11, the day of St. Martin, until December 24 every Christian should fast three times a week (Monday, Wednesday, Friday).

Our pre-Nativity period of preparation developed rather late. Scholars do not agree about the exact time it began. Some hold that it began in the sixth century. Others believe it began in the seventh or eighth century. The present liturgical pre-Nativity season was finally established at the Council of Constantinople (1166). The Council decreed that the fast would begin on November 15 and last until December 24 inclusive. Thus, there was created another 40 day fast.

The pre-Nativity fast is often called "Philip's Fast" because it begins on the day after the feast of St. Philip. The fast was introduced to prepare the Church for a worthy celebration of the great and holy day of the Birth of Christ. The regulations for the fast were far more lenient than the Great Fast before Pascha. Only Monday, Wednesday, and Friday were days of strict fasting without meat, dairy products or oil (in Slavic countries). On Sundays fish was permitted. Lay people were at first permitted to eat fish on other days, too, until the monastic rigoristic influence prevailed.

It is interesting to observe that the famous 12th century Byzantine canonist Balsamon expressed the opinion that it would be enough if the lay people fasted only one week before Christmas. In 1958 a modern Greek author, Christos M. Enislides, welcomes Balsamon's suggestion and believes that the best solution would be for the Church at large to abstain from meat and dairy products for 33 days; during the last seven days of the fast everybody should observe the strict fast. But for now this is a mere proposition and should not be seen as the rule.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Pavle Dies

Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Dies

15 November 2009
BBC News

The head of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Pavle, has died in Belgrade, the Church has announced.

The 95-year-old patriarch, who became leader of the Church in 1990, was admitted to the city's military hospital two years ago.

He died on Sunday morning. Though he reportedly suffered from heart and lung conditions, the Church did not specify the cause of death.

Most of Serbia's population of seven million people are Orthodox Christians.

Pavle was a respected theologian and linguist, known for personal humility and modesty.

After the fall of communism and rise of Serb nationalism, the Church regained a leading role during his rule.


Serbian Orthodox Church Head Pavle Dies at 95

By DUSAN STOJANOVIC
Associated Press
15 November 2009

BELGRADE, Serbia – Patriarch Pavle, who led Serbia's Christian Orthodox Church through its post-Communist revival and the turbulent 1990s marked by ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, died Sunday. He was 95.

Pavle, who took over the church in 1990, had been hospitalized for two years with heart and lung problems. He died of cardiac arrest in his sleep, the church and the Belgrade Military Hospital said.

Bells tolled from Serbian churches after the news of Pavle's death and the state-run television aired documentaries about his life. Serbia's government proclaimed three days of national mourning starting Monday.

A respected theologian and linguist also known for personal humility and modesty, Pavle took over the dominant Serbian church just as the collapse of communism ended years of state policy of repressing religion. He also headed the church during the turbulent years of the Balkan wars in the 1990s and the collapse of former President Slobodan Milosevic's regime in 2000.

President Boris Tadic said Patriarch Pavle's death is a "huge loss" for the nation. Tadic said Pavle was "one of those people who by their very existence bring together the entire nation.

"His departure is my personal loss too," Tadic said, explaining he had often consulted with the patriarch about crucial national decisions.

Tadic added that Patriarch Pavle was respected worldwide by both the Orthodox Christian churches and the pope.

The news about patriarch's death was first announced by influential Bishop Amfilohije, who has served as the acting head of church during most of Pavle's hospitalization. State TV showed Amfilohije breaking into tears as he told a gathering of believers that Pavle had died. A sobbing Amfilohije then said a prayer for the Patriarch.

The church said its highest body, the Holy Synod, is expected to meet early Monday and possibly announce when Pavle's successor will be chosen. According to church procedure, at least 40 days will have to pass after Pavle's death for a new patriarch to be elected.

There have been reports of a power struggle within the church over who will succeed Pavle. The favorite for the post among several candidates is Amfilohije, a hard-liner known for his anti-Western and nationalist stands.

Pavle often spoke against violence in the ethnic wars Orthodox Serbs fought in the 1990s against Catholic Croats and Bosnian Muslims during the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II.

"God help us understand that we are human beings and that we must live as human beings, so that peace would come into our country and bring an end to the killing," Pavle had appealed — mostly in vain — in 1991 as fighting raged between Serbs and Croats over disputed territories in Croatia.

"It is only the will of the devil that is served by this war," the patriarch was quoted as saying in 1992 but stopped short of naming names, notably not going explicitly against Milosevic.

The Serbian Church eventually broke with its tradition of formal neutrality in 2000, openly urging the Serbian strongman to step down after the regimes humiliating defeat in 1999 following NATO bombing that ended Milosevic's crackdown against ethnic Albanian separatists in Kosovo.

The church's demand for Milosevic's resignation — which he ignored — helped lead to the popular revolt that eventually ousted the autocratic president in October 2000. Milosevic died in 2006 during his trial on war crimes charges at a U.N. tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands.

The patriarch then launched a damage-control campaign for Kosovo, struggling to rally international support for protection of ancient Serbian churches and monasteries that came under attacks by Kosovo's mostly Muslim ethnic Albanians.

Critics, however, faulted him and other Serbian religious leaders for failing to be equally vocal when Serb troops previously destroyed Catholic churches and Muslim mosques in Croatia and Bosnia, or launched major ethnic-cleansing campaigns against non-Serbs in the Balkans.

Pavle was born as Gojko Stojcevic on Sept. 11, 1914, in the village of Kucani, which was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire at the time and is now in Croatia.

From 1944 to 1955, he was a monk at the Raca Monastery in central Serbia. From 1950, he lectured at the Prizen Seminary in Kosovo — the position which he retained until his election as the patriarch on Dec. 1, 1990.

Bishop Lavrentije said the Patriarch's death is no reason to be sad because the Patriarch always had sought to reach out to God. Lavrentije said Pavle "has been more in heaven" than on earth.

"The Serbian people now have someone to represent them before God better than anyone else," Lavrentije said.

See also:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Pavle_of_Serbia
- http://www.gerontas.com/content/view/1860/171/

(excellent interview with Patriarch Pavle in Greek)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Fate of the Relics of the Apostle Philip

St. Philip the Apostle (Feast Day - November 14 and July 31)

In 2001 I had the opportunity to visit the city known in ancient times as Hierapolis, in Asia Minor. My main purpose in visiting the ruins of this once famous city was to see the remarkable octagonal Martyrium of the Apostle Philip, who according to tradition was martyred by being crucified upside-down by the superstitious pagans of Hierapolis. This was said to have occurred approximately around the year 80 AD.

There was a strong tradition upheld regarding the location of the relics of the Holy Apostle Philip following his martyrdom. The earliest testimonial to the Apostle Philip's final resting place being at Hierapolis comes from a letter by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, bishop of Rome (c. 189-198). An extract from this letter, written c. 190, has been preserved by Eusebius:

"For in Asia, also, great luminaries have fallen asleep, who shall rise again on the last day during the parousia of the Lord when He comes with glory out of heaven to gather all the saints, (including) Philip, of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis and his two daughters, elderly virgins, and another of his daughters who after living in the Holy Spirit rests in Ephesus."

A second century follower of the heretic Montanus named Proclus adds to Polycrates' testimony regarding the existence of tombs of the Apostle Philip and his daughters. In the account of his debate with Gaius, he writes:

"After him there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, in Hierapolis in Asia; their tomb is there and that of their father."

It should be explained that Proclus was leader of the Montanists in Rome, and this may account for the discrepancy regarding the details of how many dughters of the Apostle Philip were actually buried in Hierapolis. Polycrates, living nearer to Hierapolis and being bishop in the city where one of St. Philip's daughters was said to be buried, is considered a much more reliable witness as far as the details are concerned. However, it is also possible that Proclus did know this detail, but for apologetic purposes embellished the truth a bit.

Why would Proclus embellish the truth? Because it was in his best interest as a leader of a movement that based itself on the prophetic powers of Montanus and his two closest disciples Prisca and Maximilla, also known as "the Three". Montanus originated his movement at Hierapolis where Papias was bishop at the time and it flourished throughout the region of Phrygia. Montanus in many ways may have seen himself as another Apostle Philip with his prophetesses "living in the Spirit", as Polycrates put it. The Montanists traced their prophetic tradition to Philip's daughters and back even further to other prophets, and the Martyrium must have played a significant role in the life and witness of the "New Prophecy" in Hierapolis.

However, scholars have long speculated why the above two testimonies of Polycrates and Proclus identify the Apostle Philip with the four prophetess daughters. After all, the New Testament accounts are very clear that it was not the Philip the Apostle with four prophetess daughters, but Philip the Evangelist, one of the first seven deacons, who had four prophetess daughters (Acts 6:1-7; 21:8-9). If indeed this were Philip the Apostle, then the fact that he died with his "two daughters" who were "elderly virgins" would be somewhat of a contradiction with the more reliable testimony of Clement of Alexandria, who says his daughters married: "Or do they also scorn the apostles? Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage" (Miscellanies, 3.6.52). Though Clement here does not say how many daughters Philip had nor is he clear if he had them all married or just a few. It may be possible both Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evangelist had four prophetess daughters, but it is more unlikely that the testimonies of Polycrates and Proclus have blended two traditions either out of confusion or deliberately.

Because of this confusion most scholars today dismiss the idea that it was the Apostle Philip who was martyred and venerated in Hierapolis, and prefer to believe the testimonies of the above two witnesses that lend more credence to the fact that it was Philip the Evangelist who was martyred and venerated in Phrygia. Others who do regard Hierapolis as being indeed the place of martyrdom and veneration of the Apostle Philip point to the possibility that Philip the Apostle may have also had virgin daughters who followed him that may have been prophetesses. Though these are both valid theories, I don't believe either are entirely factual.

To understand possible alternative theories we would need to dig a bit deeper into the evidence. So far we know of a tradition of a certain Philip and his daughters being buried in Hierapolis existing early on and this is a reliable testimony to its truth. We also know that in the second century Montanism originated in Hierapolis as a sort of "charismatic" movement within the early church which emphasized the gift of prophecy. What we don't know yet is the fact that Montanism continued to exist in isolated areas of Phrygia, where it flourished until the eighth century. What is also important is how long the Martyrium of the Apostle Philip lasted and how long his relics lay there.

The Martryium to the Apostle Philip was built either in the late fourth century or early fifth century. It may be possible that it was built by Emperor Theodosius who, in a vision, received from St. John the Theologian and St. Philip the Apostle the assurance of victory over the tyrant Eugenius, the morning before the battle, in 394, as Theodoret relates. However its existence as a shrine where the relics of the Apostle Philip could be venerated lasted no more than a century or so. It has been commonly explained that this was due to the great number of earthquakes which frequently struck the region of Phrygia. We know it was destroyed by fire from the archaeological evidence, but what brought on this fire is unknown. However this does not account for it not being rebuilt during the peak of medieval Roman power. What seems more likely, or at least in combination with the frequent earthquakes, is that the shrine of the Apostle Philip may have been overtaken by Montanists and became a means for Montanism to continue flourishing in the region of Phrygia. After all, in the sixth century, at the orders of the Emperor Justinian, John of Ephesus led an expedition to Pepuza (approx. 20 miles from Hierapolis, Pepuza was called by Montanus the "New Jerusalem") to destroy the Montanist shrine there, which was based around the tombs of Montanus, Prisca (Priscilla) and Maximilla. Was there possibly a connection between this shrine and the shrine of the Apostle Philip? Is it possible the relics of the Apostle Philip were removed at this time by order of Emperor Justinian to give them a better home in Constantinople, and in turn the Martyrium destroyed by the same emperor to prevent the spread of Montanism? After all, the burning of a structure primarily built of stone is unlikely to have been accidental. It is strange that a martyrium devoted to keeping alive the memory of one of twelve apostles would have been destroyed so soon, unless that martyrium were deemed to have been tainted in some way by heretics and schismatics. This is only speculation, but I leave it open as a possible theory because what we do know is that while the Martyrium of Philip burned to the ground never to be rebuilt, his relics were brought to Constantinople and housed there, probably in the Church of the Holy Apostles, for a short time.

The interesting thing is that we have no testimony about the relics of St. Philip's daughters being housed in the Martyrium. They may have been there, but we just don't know and nothing about their relics are ever mentioned beyond the two testimonies quoted above. This fact leaves us with a number of questions and possibilities. Personally, I do not believe the Philip martyred in Hierapolis was Philip the Evangelist, but do in fact believe that it was indeed the Apostle Philip as tradition strongly hands down. All the testimonies we have reference this Philip venerated in Hierapolis as being the apostle, while a strong tradition holds that Philip the Evangelist became bishop of Tralles in Lydia and died there in his old age; most likely with his four daughters. There is also archaeological evidence in the necropolis of Hierapolis, such as the inscription of Eugenios the Archdeacon who, though a probable Montanist, is described as being "in charge [of the church] of the holy and glorious apostle and theologian Philip". One possibility however could be that the relics of two of the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist were brought to Hierapolis by Montanists from somewhere, since they wanted their patrons near them in the city Montanism originated. If this is the case, it may have been the Montanists who confused the two Philip's in order to have that charismatic continuity between Philip the Evangelists prophetic daughters and their own movement which they ascribed to the Holy Spirit in their native Phrygia. Another possibility could be that the two women known as Philip the Apostle's daughters were in fact his two daughters, but they had nothing to do with Philip the Evangelist's four daughters. Though they may not have accompanied Philip the Apostle on his apostolic journey's, they may have come following his martyrdom either as virgins or widows to continue their father's mission. To give credibility to this possibility, we should mention that in a passage in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.39) he quotes Papias (whose writings only appear in fragments mainly within Eusebius) stating that Philip the Apostle's daughters were still alive in his time telling stories of the apostles: "That Philip the Apostle lived at Hierapolis with his daughters has already been mentioned, but it must now be told told how Papias, who knew them, heard a wonderful story from Philip's daughters. He tells of the resurrection of a corpse in his own lifetime...." Interestingly Papias, through Eusebius, does not mention anything about Philip's daughters being four in number nor of being prophetesses, though he does mention they had the power to raise the dead.


Yet, another possibility as to who the two daughters of the Apostle Philip could have been is taken from the tradition of his preaching in Hierapolis and his martyrdom from the Synaxarion. We are told in this testimony that Philip was accompanied by the Apostle Bartholomew and Philip's sister, Mariamna, who was a virgin. We also know that in Hierapolis Philip is said to have helped convert about 100 virgins from paganism to Christianity. Furthermore we are informed he and his companions helped bring about a conversion in the wife of the ruler of that region, who requested of her pagan husband to live a chaste marriage. Could it be that those virgins converted by Philip the Apostle were considered spiritual daughters of his and two of them, possibly even his sister and the wife of the leader of the region in his time, were preserved next to him and confused with the Apostle's physical daughters? It's a possibility, but still mere speculation.

The evidence and all these possible explanations merely point to one probable fact: that the Martyrium of Philip housed the actual relics of the Apostle Philip. We also know at some point his relics, with no mention of his daughters, were taken to Constantinople. By the sixth century the date of his martyrdom, together with that of the Apostle James the Less, appears as May 1, but that is actually the date of the dedication of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Rome, which Pope Pelagius I (556-561) began to construct at the time of the removal of the bodies of the two apostles (or a significant part of them at least, since later testimonies reveal portions of the relics of the Apostle Philip still in Constantinople) from Constantinople, probably in 560, and which was completed by Pope John III (561-574) with possible economic aid from the Eastern Roman viceroy Narses. The tradition of the presence of significant relics of Philip in Rome was confirmed by a survey which took place in 1873. Up to that date a reliquary containing his right foot, almost intact (and another reliquary containing the femur of James the Less) was preserved in the Basilica of Santi Apostoli while the bodies of the two apostles were venerated under the central altar. Excavations in January 1873 brought to light a conglomarate of plaster and bricks under which lay two slabs of Phrygian marble (possibly from Hierapolis) exactly alongside, bearing a Greek cross (with equal arms) carved in relief, and below them, perpendicularly beneath the altar, a loculus in which there was a small chest containing some bones, most of them fragments or flakes, some teeth and a quantity of compacted material consisting of decayed bone, and also residues of fabric that subsequently analyzed proved to be wool with a valuable purple dye. The tests on the finds were done by a scholarly committee including pathologists, physicists, chemists and archaeologists (among others, Angelo Secchi, Giovanni Battista De Rossi and Pietro Ercole Visconti), and a detailed report was written and published. It was possible to make out that the remains belonged to two distinct adult males. To one, Philip, more slender in build, were attributed the bones surviving intact (in particular fragments of a scapula, a femur and skull) and also the foot kept in the reliquary; to the other of more robust build, in particular a molar (belonging to James the Less). It was not however possible to attribute to either of the two individuals the remaining fragments because of their state of decay. The archaeological context undoubtedly dated to the sixth century, and therefore the building constructed by Pelagius I and John III. The survey thus confirmed the accuracy of the report on the removal of 560. The quantity of the relics suggests that part of them were dispersed in the removals (at least two for each apostle) from the East to Rome. In 1879, after a certain period on display for the veneration of the faithful, the relics found under the altar were placed in a bronze coffer within a marble sarcophagus set up in the crypt of the church, below the place where they were found. The relic of the foot was left out, in a reliquary, which is not currently on display to the faithful.

According to a recent story, a Peace Corps volunteer, Tom Bissell, went in search of the various resting places of the twelve apostle of Jesus. When he came to Rome he lamented the sorry state of the relics of two great apostles:

"...the Church of the Holy Apostles in Rome, which holds relics of Sts. Philip and James, draws few pilgrims. When he visited, Bissell said, the church was frequented mainly by street people coming for charity.

Bissell said the local priest at Holy Apostles told him he was the first person in his eight years there who ever came asking about Sts. Philip and James. Their bones, after earlier sojourns in the ancient cities of Hierapolis and Constantinople, are preserved in a crypt below the main altar."

Though the relics of the Apostle have fallen into relative obscurity in Rome, this is not the case on the island of Cyprus. A portion of the skull of St. Philip the Apostle reached Paphos, specifically the village of Arsos, following the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders in 1204. It was transferred to Cyprus specifically on July 31, 1204, hence its annual feast day which is celebrated by the faithful till this day. A church dedicated to the Apostle Philip was built in this village to house the miraculous skull (which has four imperial seals on it, among which is that of Emperors Theodosius the Great and Heraclius), and today is considered one of the areas oldest monuments. A section of this piece of the skull was distributed to various places. When Constantinople was restored to the Romans in the late thirteenth century the relic of the Apostle was transferred to another village in Paphos, known as Arsinoi, for security reasons. The reliquary containing the relics was stolen in 1735, so in 1770 Metropolitan Panaretos of Paphos had another reliquary made which is the same we see today. For purposes of greater security, in 1788, the silver reliquary containing the skull of the Apostle (along with a crown that was made for the skull in 14th or 15th century Constantinople) were transferred to the ancient Monastery of the Holy Cross in Omodos where it remains till this day. Also to this day, many miracles occur by the grace of God coming through this skull.

The Martyrium of the Apostle Philip
The Church of the Holy Apostles in Rome
The crypt of the Apostles Philip and James in Rome
The tomb of the Apostle Philip in Rome
The skull of St. Philip in Cyprus

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Gregory Palamas and the True Nature of the Hesychastic Dispute

St. Gregory Palamas (Feast Day - November 14)

by Panagiotis K. Chrestou

The Causes of the Hesychastic Dispute and the Chief Actors

The causes of the dispute are: that the anti-hesychasts identified the levels of philosophy and theology, whereas the hesychasts distinguished them; that the anti-hesychasts made theology the object of investigation, whereas the hesychasts used it as a means of therapeutic experience; that the anti-hesychasts did not accept the existence of common notions, whereas the hesychasts did so; that the anti-hesychasts as rationalists based knowledge on the capacities of the human mind, and regarded the knowledge of God to be impossible because of God's transcendence, whereas the hesychasts believed that the knowledge of God is possible through His energies which shine forth, even though He remains unknowable with regard to His essence (κατά την ουσίαν).

Barlaam fought the hesychasts because he sought the renewal of theology with the assistance primarily of Plato and secondarily of Aristotle. Becoming isolated in Byzantium, on account of his quarrelsome attitude, he did not succeed in his objective, which he did not pursue any further when he subsequently returned to the West. His followers also failed.

It was the hesychastic Gregory Palamas, however, who accomplished theological renewal through the construction of his own system of theology and mysticism. This was actually the positive implication of practical hesychasm, which Palamas used as his starting point in his reaction to Barlaam and his followers. Thus, hesychastic theology became for Byzantium, from the point of view of influence, what scholastic theology was for the West, although in essence it was an antipode to the Western synthesis. Distinguishing essence and energies in God, as the Cappadocians did, but more clearly than them, Palamas declared that God was a person who remained unknown as far as His essence was concerned, but who revealed Himself with regard to His energies. Identifying these uncreated energies with the general notions, Gregory Palamas found a way to defend by means of them the partial knowledge of God, which is complemented by faith.

The Theology of Gregory Palamas

Man's demands, however, are not satisfied by theology either in its scholastic cataphatic form or in its negative apophatic form, or even its peculiar Palamite form, because in all these forms theology is "λόγος" (discourse), as Palamas himself came to discover and, hence, to seek afterwards the vision (θεωρία) which is above "λόγος". Theology as simple knowledge and understanding of God cannot be the end of a movement toward God, and apophatic theology as an immersion into the dark cloud (γνόφος) is not what the Christian ought to search for, who is obliged to move beyond it, to communion with God, the so-called divine contemplation (θεοπτία), which is so exceedingly higher than theology, as possessing something that is higher than simply knowing it. "Theology is as distant from the vision of God in light and as separate from being in touch with God, as knowing is from obtaining something."* At first glance, it seems that here we have to do with a mere difference of words; that what the mystics used to call theology (θεολογία) Palamas now calls divine vision (θεοπτία). Yet, it should not be forgotten that words usually leave their indelible marks on the realities they signify. Palamas does not reject "theology" but minimizes its significance. Practicing (ήθος) and being in touch with God are detached from the theologian, but they remain constant characteristics of the one who pursues the vision of God (θεόπτης).

* Gregory Palamas, On the Hesychasts, 1, 3, 42.

(From Chrestou's Greek Orthodox Patrology: An Introduction to the Study of the Church Fathers, pp. 189-190.)

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Dionysian Authorship of the "Corpus Areopagiticum" According to Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae

[I am reposting this from last month since Vlad has been so kind as to complete the translation of Fr. Staniloae's "Introduction", and has provided additional information about the text. I have added these excerpts to that posting as well. - J.S.]

[On October 3rd I posted a few texts by the Rev. John Parker in which he set out to prove, against most scholarly opinions of the late 19th century, that the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite are authentic 1st or early 2nd century writings written by the author they are ascribed to. The only Orthodox scholar I was aware of that defended this patristic thesis was Fr. John Romanides, who even though he wrote nothing to my knowledge on the subject, nevertheless defended it in passing in an audio lecture I have in which he comments sarcastically: "Modern theologians call St. Dionysius a 'pseudo' as if he is a liar or deceiver, which they make him out to be". It was brought to my attention at that time by Vlad Protopopescu that the eminent Romanian Orthodox theologian Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae also defended this thesis in his last writing before his falling asleep in the Lord, which happened to be his translation of the entire Corpus Areopagiticum. According to Vlad, this was a thesis he defended in the academia but it was quickly dismissed without consideration. Since one of my many goals is to liberate St. Dionysius from the fetters of the academics who dismiss him as a neoplatonic wannabe, I asked Vlad to translate the "Introduction" to Fr. Dumitru's translation in which Fr. Dumitru defends the apostolic dating of the Corpus Areopagiticum. To put the "Introduction" in its proper context, Vlad has informed me of the following:

"It should be mentioned that Fr. Staniloae answered to very specific issues, namely to the translations made in Romania of The Celestial Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, The Divine Names, and The Mystical Theology made by Fr. Cicerone Iordachescu, who was a Professor and on the Faculties of Theology at Chisinau and Cernauti, and in collaboration with Theofil Simensky, a Professor of Classical Languages at the University of Iasi (both before WWII); also to a French translation by Maurice de Gandillac in 1943. My view is that Fr. Staniloae held these opinions since that time (which he expressed in his various courses at the Theological Academy of Sibiu, where he was a professor until 1947 and subsequently on the Faculty of Theology in Bucharest where he offered a course on 'Ascetics and Mystics' until 1949 when the chair of 'Ascetics and Mystics' was abolished). It is very likely that the 'Introduction' to the translation was compiled mainly from notes and last talks, which will account for the apparent "outdatedness" that his critics made much about."

He also says concerning the only passage in the "Introduction" which he did not translate, since it answers a particular theory of one of Fr. Staniloae's students:

"In the 'Introduction' Fr. Staniloae addresses also a recent theory emitted by a Romanian doctor Fr. George Dragulin. According to Fr. Dragulin the real Dionysius was Dionysius Exiguus. Fr. Staniloae, who was the director of the thesis, dismisses it gently, although shows some 'sentimental' sympathy. Dionysius Exiguus was born in Scythia Minor (Dobrogea of today) and the thesis was rather an exercise in national pride. In fact Fr. Staniloae sticks to his guns. Fr. Staniloae's purpose was to combat the idea that one can affirm that Dionysius shows a pantheistic philosophy, as the learned Professors asserted. He quotes the thesis of Fr. Dragulin only to show that he affirms the perfect Orthodoxy of Dionysius who combatted Neoplatonism. Fr. Staniloae's argument is precisely the challenge of Dionysius to the philosophies of his day, which were 'Platonic'."

I am grateful to Vlad and I pray this translation serves to enlighten doubters and faithful alike concerning the apostolic or post-apostolic authorship of these highly revered texts of Orthodox patristics. - J.S.]

Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae (1903 – 1993) was undoubtedly a great contemporary Orthodox theologian and a Christian thinker of “truly ecumenical proportions” (Charles Miller, The Gift of the World: An Introduction to the Theology of Dumitru Staniloae). Olivier Clement, the French Orthodox, declared that the 20th century has known only three true theologians: Vladimir Losski, Fr. Justin Popovic and Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae. He was a pioneer in the return of theological thinking to the Fathers of the Church which occurred in the first part of the 20th century. He translated into Romanian a great number of the writings of the Fathers, being a pioneer also in the revival of St. Gregory Palamas, being the first to publish unknown manuscripts of the saint that he discovered in Paris. His Life and Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, was published in Romanian in 1938 and therefore unfortunately remained virtually unknown for a long time. His translation of the Philokalia of St. Nicodemus (to which he added a great number of other writings, so that now people speak of the "Philokalia of Stăniloae"), of Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa is the proof of his complete mastery of the mystical/ascetical tradition of Orthodoxy in which he was immersed, not only in the “academic” mode, but living it as well. He was in permanent contact with the monastic life, very rich at all times in Romania, where the hesychast tradition is still alive and great spiritual fathers and mothers still talk to the people. His very last work, published posthumously (1996), was a translation into Romanian of the Complete Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, together with the Scholia of St. Maximus the Confessor and a number of his own commentaries. Fr. Stăniloae was definitely a defender of the traditional attribution of the Areopagitica to the disciple of St. Paul. In his "Introduction" he offers a series of arguments which point to the validity of the traditional attribution. Needless, but sadly, to say that a new generation of “patrologists” with doctorates at “the most prestigious Western Universities” poured scorn and ridicule on his “gaffes” and “obstinacy” in trying to demonstrate “against all scientific common sense the identity of the author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with the disciple of the Apostle Paul, for the sole reason that the thesis ‘accepted by all specialists was… occidental’”. Here are a few excerpts from the "Introduction" to demonstrate where the common sense was.

Vlad Protopopescu - Sydney

Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Complete Works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, "Introduction":

I. The Alleged Neoplatonic Pantheism of the Areopagitic Writings

We can say that the presentation of Dionysius as a pantheist has encouraged in the western Christian world a separatist and secularist vision of the world in relation to God, which in turn reinforced the philosophies of the world as the unique reality… This understanding was the reason why in the West, Dionysius was suspected as encouraging pantheism, whereas in the East he always enjoyed a great authority as a source of Christian spirituality.

In regards to the alleged pantheistic mark of the areopagitic writings, which would therefore have them written after Plotinus and Proclus, we deem necessary to prove their Christian character. That will allow us to show the uncertainty of a date after Proclus for the writings, and as unfounded the exclusion of the possibility that they have been authored by Dionysius from the Areopagus of Athens who was converted by the Holy Apostle Paul to the Christian faith. This possible conclusion will be enhanced by some other facts, no less conclusive than those adduced by the deniers of the authorship of Dionysius of the Areopagus.

II. The General Christian Content of the Areopagitic Writings and Their Principal Components as a Basis for Their Attribution to Dionysius the Areopagite

We cannot notice in all the areopagitic writings any concern with the defense of the Holy Trinity, any concern with the defense of the teaching about the Christ as hypostasis in two natures, any concern with nestorianism or monophyisitism. This suggests that they had been written neither after the First Ecumenical Synod, nor after the Second, the Third or the Fourth, i.e. between the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth. Of course one cannot say that there is no teaching about the Trinity or about Jesus Christ. Also lacking are the developments about the Holy Trinity from the writings of St. Athanasius the Great, St. Basil the Great or St. Gregory Nazianzen. There is no concern with the union of the two natures in the unique hypostasis of the Word from the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria…

The theme of the Dionysian writings is the defense of the teaching about God in Trinity as different from the world, in other words a defense of the Christian faith in general against the philosophical thinking of the time, but using its vocabulary. Was a rejection of the pantheistic philosophies at the end of the fifth century still necessary? Who could have been keener to win the intellectuals, formed in the mould of the pantheistic philosophies than a philosopher himself? Could he have remained idle since becoming a Christian and not use his gifts in an activity for which he was qualified? He could have put together those writings around the year 100 AD, when the opposition against the Christian teachings was taking shape.

One can raise today the same objection raised by an Orthodox theologian in 533 during his polemic with a Severian Monophysite: How can we be sure that these writings belong to Dionysius of Areopagus, when we cannot see them used by the Fathers since? To this objection one can answer: The writings were not offering any arguments for the defence of the Holy Trinity or of the teachings about Christ. They must have been, perhaps, less copied and they were used in more restricted circles. In general, the Fathers were not perusing too much the writings of the preceding Fathers, but almost exclusively the Holy Scriptures.

But how does the author of the Areopagitica defend the Christian Faith, using the philosophical language of the time?

a. He makes a clear distinction between the being (trans. n. – in Romanian fiinţa) of all things among which we live and the One above being. In Greek being is derived, like in Romanian, from the verb to be: it is actually the participle of the verb to be (trans. n. – a fi, fiinţă). That is, that being is the same as existence. The author of the Areopagitica uses for God the term the one above being, not in the sense of the highest being, but in the sense of beyond existence. He is not simply existence, but is beyond existence, because all things that exist, as we know them, must have a cause. God is beyond existence because He has no cause, but is the cause of everything. That points to a total difference between God and the world. The author makes an “existential” difference between everything that exists and Him – this gives Him the power to be the sole cause of everything. Dionysius defends the idea of God as totally different from the world, in contrast with pre-Christian philosophies.

b. The author borrows from Plato the idea of the identity of existence with good. Existence itself is a good. The highest existence is the highest good. But Plato does not draw the conclusion that the good implies an eternal relation between Person and Person, as the author of the Areopagitica does.

But God is not simply goodness, but is above goodness. It is goodness caused by nothing and the cause of all goodness .This is a different kind of goodness than the one known by us. The goodness of God is from itself, and is one with perfect freedom.

The stages of existence, dependent of one another, the higher ones obliged to sustain and raise the inferior ones in existence, therefore in goodness, and the inferior ones attracted by the superior ones, are all in a state of dependence between themselves, but also of God who is above all goodness, good in itself, the perfect good. This is the foundation of the celestial and world hierarchies and of their relations. The obligation (of the superior hierarchies) towards the inferior and the attraction of the inferior (ones) towards the higher give an internal basis to the relations between the members of the hierarchies. Dionysius asserts thus not only the existence of a God different from the visible world, but also the existence of a hierarchical order superior to this world, a thing rejected by ancient philosophy.

According to Dionysius, the hierarchy of the entire creation links not only the angelic world with the earthly one, but also all the orders of the angelic world with those of the earthly world. In this hierarchical vision, all the inferior steps receive divine illumination from those above and the superior ones have the duty to communicate these illuminations to the inferior ones. Only the supreme angelic order receives illumination exclusively from God. But that does not mean that God is in direct relations only with the hosts of the supreme order (Thrones, Cherubims, Seraphims), nor that He is separated from the hosts under them. The orders that follow the first one live also in God, but as united with the first. The first order communicates their knowledge of God to the inferior ones. Not even men can feel the relation with God without a relation with other people, and therefore, albeit unconsciously, with the angels.

Everything that exists in the world is a unit. But there are different degrees of unity between them and an overall unity between all. But these units are composed and dependent on one another and of the One who has nothing composed and is not united involuntarily with others, but is the One by itself and independent of all. He is the Uncaused Cause of all units in the world and of the unity between themselves. The things of the world show that they are dependent on the One who is above everything - that we know as units.

This One, who is also the supreme good by itself, is not opposed to love. His Unity is a living unity, not opposed to the Trinity. His Unity is a unity of love. He is a living One or the One full of love in Himself. Through love He goes eternally out of Himself, remaining eternally in Himself. God remains in Himself and goes out of Himself in Himself eternally, but when He so desires, He goes out of Himself into other things, producing them by creation and wanting to draw them close to Him.

His procession out of Himself does not oblige Him to proceed into the things that are different from Himself. He does not go out of Himself in Himself, as Trinity, in order to create things, as Fr. Cicerone Iordachescu said. Therefore proodoi cannot be translated as “emanations” as was done by Fr. Iordachescu.

c. All these attributes of the divinity places Him above understanding. God cannot be characterized by the characters proper to the world. He is neither existence, nor goodness, nor unity, nor understanding… But negation of these attributes has not the meaning of nothingness, but the superior meaning of things above what is proper to the world. The author of the writings stresses very often this fact.

The man attaining sainthood lives in God, rather than explaining Him through rational concepts.

d. Another “existential” difference between God and the world is asserted by the author of the Areopagitica when he considers God as non-passive, not exposed to relations and passions, whereas the world, by its very dependence of God, is passive and subject to relations and possibilities of passions. But the passivity of world components has different degrees. The angels are passive, because they are dependent in their being on God, but at the same time they have a responsibility towards Him. But responsibility unites in itself dependence and freedom. They can, therefore, contend against their dependence or responsibility towards God, as some of them have done. An inferior degree of creatures, humans, have not only the dependence from God united with the responsibility towards Him, but also a purely passive part, the body, with its processes and passions. But man can, through his responsibility towards God, fill his body with the divine powers [energies] and make it participate in the freedom of the spirit. An even inferior degree of creatures has only the passivity of the senses, deprived of consciousness - these are the animals, and the plants. But they have as their reason to exist the sustaining of the physical life of man. At the very bottom of this category is the simple matter of the earth and the minerals, which are purely passive, but also necessary for the life of man.

In pantheism, everything is dependent on everything. There is nothing independent above the whole and everything, because the essence from which everything is emanated is itself subject to a law.

The author of the Areopagitica makes therefore a categorical distinction between God and the world. But he also links firmly the world to God. This can be seen from the fact that, on the one hand, God goes out of Himself conferring being upon the things different from Him, and on the other hand He goes out through “processions” (proodoi) to the things in order to “bring” them back to Him, to fill them with the gifts of His goodness. Those who saw a pantheistic character in the writings have confused these two kind of acts or “processions” of God. But, if there is no difference between them, why would God continue to raise to Him and in Him the things brought into existence by Him? The author uses different terms for the bringing into existence of the things of the world, of the angels and man, which he calls paragein (to give existence) and for the gifts which he bestows subsequently to the created things in order to rise them to Him, which he calls proodoi. It is wrong to confuse the terms.

But the creative act, as well as the acts of enrichment of the creatures through ever increasing gifts, show the creatures inseparably united with God. Although the author speaks of distinctions or separations between the creatures, and between the creatures and God, he does not exclude a certain inseparability between Him and creatures, even when they close themselves to the waves of goodness and superior life which come from Him; because things could not exist if they were not maintained in existence by the Cause who is above all existence. It is impossible to think of a total separation of the world from its Cause.

A very important component of the theme of the relation of God with the world, which is central to the Dionysian writings, is the fact that all things different from God are brought into existence to serve as symbols through which we see the works of God. They have thus a certain capacity to receive in themselves and to transmit through themselves the works of God. Actualizing the things and the human gestures as symbols, they are sanctified and made the means of sanctification of ones through the others. That confers a liturgical character to their existence.

In the earliest Christian times the liturgical life – hymns, sanctifications, blessings - was extremely rich. From its rich extension in the Apostolic Constitutions or the Liturgy of St. James, the Liturgy became shorter until it crystallized in the shape of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The fact that the areopagitic writings point to a very rich liturgical life of the Christian communities is another proof of their antiquity. The Orthodox East, the faithful keeper of the apostolic tradition, persists to this day the practice of multiple acts of sanctification, along with the conscience that God is present in all His sanctifying works. Dionysius has influenced the theological explanation of this active presence of God in everything by His works or by His uncreated energies, which are different from his being. We see this in the works of St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas. The West, rejecting this distinction, as we can see in the opposition Barlaam made to St. Gregory Palamas, and unable to admit a union of men and the world with the essence of God – because that would confound everything with God - has persisted in the conscience of a God distant from the world and people, with a church led by a vicar (a deputy of the absent Christ) and/or has fallen into the extremes of a pantheist mysticism (Eckhart, Jacob Bohme), or in the philosophies that affirm that this world is the only reality.

In the East, as in the areopagitic writings, the Son of God took on human nature in order to make it the medium of our divinization, of our sanctification, which sustain us on the path of a more controlled and holier life. That is why all Fathers, including Dionysius, use the bold terms ‘divinization’, ‘gods’, and of course ‘by grace’… St. Gregory Palamas has found in the writings of Dionysius most of the arguments in his defense of the assertion of the hesychast monks that through the incessant prayer of Jesus they see in their hearts Jesus in light. One can see this in the multiple quotations from Dionysius. Generally speaking the writings of Dionysius have been in the Orthodox world the grounds for the affirmation of the active presence of God in the life of the Church and in the world.

III. Other Indications That Seem to Point to the Post-Apostolic, even Apostolic Age of the Dionysian Writings

In The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Dionysius said that Baptism and the Liturgy were performed by the bishop assisted by a few priests but many deacons. In general older people were baptized, but not children. This situation was proper to the early Church, when churches were founded in cities, where bishoprics were founded and the first faithful were older people.

The bishop is also shown performing the burials. Another sign that the writings belong to the early Christian times, when Christians were persecuted, is the mention of the ‘therapeutes’ (doorkeepers or porters), sort of sextons, usually not married, who were guarding the doors of the places of assembly. This service was no longer required in the 5th-6th centuries when the time of persecutions had passed.

Another objection against the antiquity of the areopagitic writings is that in the sixth chapter of The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Dionysius described the consecration of monks, which appeared only in the fourth century. But we know that St. Anthony the Great became a monk in the third (he was born in 255). Was he following an older tradition? It is not unlikely that there were a few Christians who chose the purity of a life of solitude… Maybe they were the therapeutes of the Dionysian Epistles, a term that St. Maximus the Confessor translates plainly as “monachos”. (f.n. The linking of the therapeutes of Philo of Alexandria with the first Christian community in Alexandria was made already by Eusebius of Cesareea. St. Jerome affirmed that the monks of his time were perpetuating the life of the therapeutes. John Cassian made the same affirmation ascribing an apostolic origin to the institution. That means that the monastic institution is as old as Christianity itself!)

This is a very poor and general summary of the richness and profundity of the areopagitic writings that our translation is far from rendering it faithfully. Because the language itself is so subtle and complex that nobody can render it satisfactorily. In French they have been translated eleven times… This is the reason that we undertook to offer a new translation (f.n. In Romanian, besides those of Fr. Cicerone Iordachescu and Theofil Simensky.) striving to express it in Romanian terms more traditional and spiritual, avoiding as much as we have been able the neologisms of French origin (f.n. Much too current in modern Romanian). This is the reason why we disagree with Fr. Cicerone Iordachescu, when he says: ‘The writing of Dionysius reminds us of the dialectic of Plato and Hegel, without possessing the genius of those great masters of human thought.' We deem that the thinking of Dionysius is far more satisfactory than Plato’s or Hegel’s.

In conclusion, in view of all the arguments offered, we want to keep the name of Dionysius the Areopagite as the author of these writings. Even if the author was someone living at a later time but he took the name, we respect his will and declare him worthy of the appellation of Saint, as all the Church Fathers did.

As a contribution to the understanding of the Areopagitic writings, we have also translated the Scholia of St. Maximus the Confessor. Hans Urs von Balthasar thought that the Scholia did not belong to Maximus, but to John, bishop of Scythopolis in Galilee in the first half of the sixth century. But Otto Bardenhewer believed that they belonged to St. Maximus. I think that his opinion is far more probable.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr