A Fun Dabbling of Textual Criticism

As I’ve been reading some of Chrysostom’s commentary on the Psalms, I had wondered how long it would take me to notice a difference between his text of the Psalms and mine. It’s quite funny that it took me this long to find one, because there is one right at the beginning of the work! Chrysostom is great for this kind of thing because he loves to make rather detailed points about the text. He’s fond of saying things like, “The prophet didn’t say this (insert slight difference), but this.” The change in the text with Rahlfs is very minor, but it would break his argument at this point (or hinder this particular point any way).

The text in question is the fourth Psalm. Here’s Rahlf’s text:

Εν τῷ ἐπικαλεῖσθαί με εἰσήκουσέν μου ὁ θεὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης μου

And here’s Chrysostom:

Εν τῷ ἐπικαλεῖσθαί με εἰσήκουσέ με ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης μου

Can you spot the difference? It’s very slight, it occurs in the word following εισηκουσεν:

Εν τῷ ἐπικαλεῖσθαί με εἰσήκουσέν μου ὁ θεὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης μου (Rahlfs)
Εν τῷ ἐπικαλεῖσθαί με εἰσήκουσέ με ὁ Θεὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης μου (Chrysostom)

Why is this important? Well Chrysostom goes on to make this point:

Πρὸς γοῦν τοὺς ἐν πονηρίᾳ μὲν ζῶντας, προσδοκῶντας δὲ τῷ μήκει τῶν
ῥημάτων δυσωπεῖν αὐτὸν, ὅρα τί φησιν. Ὅταν πληθύνητε τὴν δέησιν, οὐκ εἰσακούσομαι
ὑμῶν. Ἐὰν ἐκτείνητε τὰς χεῖρας, ἀποστρέψω τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου ἀφ’ ὑμῶν. Ἄρα πρὸ
τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων παῤῥησίαν δεῖ τὸν εὐχόμενον ἔχειν, καὶ πάντως ἕψεται τὰ τῆς
αἰτήσεως. ∆ιά τοι τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Προφήτης οὐκ εἶπεν, Εἰσήκουσεν ἐμοῦ, ἀλλὰ, Τῆς
δικαιοσύνης μου
, τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῦ παῤῥησίαν δεικνὺς, καὶ ὡς μετὰ ταύτης
αὐτῷ προσῄει διὰ παντός.

And a rather rough translation.

To those that live in evil, who give to Him lofty words, see what is written: Whenever you utter your request, I will not hear you. If you stretch out your hands, I will turn my eyes from you. Before all others your prayer must have boldness, so by all means follow the boldness of this prayer. Because of this the prophet didn’t say, “He heard me,” but “He heard my righteousness.” Having shown God this righteousness, he prayed through all things.

I’m not so sure about the “So before others…” line, so for the Greekers out there please double check that one for me.

First, the difference between the readings. As I understand it, Rahlfs reading would be translated like this:

In my cry to him, God, who is my righteousness, heard me.

Chrysostom’s would go like this:
In my cry to him, God heard my righteousness.

I don’t have easy access to a textual apparatus, though I could find no mention of the variant in Swete’s apparatus (which is online at archive.org). Swete’s LXX followed Chrysostom’s text on this one though.

So what is Chrysostom up to here? As always, he’s extremely concerned with the moral character of his congregation. In teaching them to pray, he is goes out of his way to point out that one prays through good works. The opposite is true too. Sin blocks prayer, and he trots out the famous passage from Isaiah where God castigates Israel for observing religious ceremonies while failing to do justice. Thus, he naturally points out that God hears our actions just as loud as our words. The argument is summed up nicely in a short sentence early in the homily:

Οὐ γὰρ δὴ ῥημάτων πλῆθος πείθειν τὸν Θεὸν εἴωθεν, ἀλλὰ καθαρὰ ψυχὴ καὶ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν ἐπίδειξις.

For it is not the fullness of words that convinces God, but a pure soul and the demonstration of good works. (again, not sure about ειωθεν).

Textual Criticism is normally of no interest to me, but I found this little bit interesting ;-).

Ignatius Progress

I worked quite a bit on my Ignatius paper today, and got quite a bit done. Today was devoted to his rhetoric, and I collected several pages worth of epithets, metaphors, antithesis, and other rhetorical features from his letter to the Romans. The man could certainly be rhetorical ;-).

I also learned that “Asianism” as a rhetorical school is a much more slippery term than I originally thought. I’ve read that Ignatius belongs to this school (and after today I’d agree), but what we know about this school seems to come mostly through critics. Cicero talks about it some, as he as accused of being an “Asianist.” Basically this school of rhetoric was particularly fond of emotional appeals. Their speeches were almost poetic, containing lots of antithesis, startling metaphors/epithets, and rhythm (the hardest word to spell ever!).

Ignatius definitely exhibits features of this school. He loves startling metaphors and antithesis. Just read Romans 5. If you highlight both of those features you’ve highlighted most of the letter. He can heap up epithets with the best of them (something John Chrysostom was fond of too). The salutation of Romans is almost entirely one big epithet (well, many epithets) describing the Roman Church. He also seems to use assonance, though I need to review my reconstructed koine pronunciation before I mention that ;-). I also particularly like his paronomasia, or word play.

Perhaps my favorite aspect of Ignatius’ rhetoric is how he frequently directs his audience to Christ. Many of his metaphors evoke the liturgy. Wheat, Bread, and Drink come up quite often. He urges the Romans to become a chorus, singing by Jesus Christ to God the Father. These elements are brilliant rhetorical moves. After all, he’s drawing on a powerful set of shared experiences. However, I do think they’re theologically sound because they’re rooted in the Church’s practice, which is ultimately rooted in the Cross via the Bread and Wine.

That does, of course, bring me to the next task. Rhetoric its fine and dandy, but if what he’s arguing for isn’t sound, then the rhetoric is in vain! Fortunately, I think you can make a good theological case here from Paul’s letters. However, I need to finish the rhetoric first ;-).

Off to sleep!

~alex

John Chrysostom and the Psalms

Since I’ve been reading through the Greek psalms recently, I’ve been curious about how the Fathers read the Psalms.  John Chrysostom is probably the most notable of the early Greek Fathers, so I naturally turned to him first.  The wikipedia page informed me that he wrote homilies on the Psalms, and that many of them are extant, but it didn’t give me a list of what Psalms he commented on!  I was then even more surprised to find out that no one has done a critical text of his homilies on the Psalms.  They have been translated into English.  There is a list of the extant homilies in the in that product  description, but I didn’t see that my first go around ;-).

Still curious to see which ones he commented on, I stumbled about a PDF of the work from Migne’s Patrologia Graeca. (HT Roger Pearse).  The PDF is pretty good, from a cursory glance.  It had been OCR’ed, so it was searchable!  I believe it was a Russian group who did the scanning, so huge props to them! Unfortunately, there was not a table of contents, and the titles for each Psalm where in Greek numerals (think Roman numerals with a Greek twist).  However, I was able to whip up a nice Ruby script to give me the information I wanted.  I’m thinking of creating either a series of PDFs (one per psalm), or just redoing the entire PDF with a table of contents and Arabic numerals.

I did find a few oddities in the PDF.  Psalms 9-12 got inserted twice, as best as I could tell.  Also, the OCR didn’t seem to like the digammas which were used in the numerals.  The digamma is a Greek letter that was largely obsolete by the classical period, but it has hung around as a numeral.  Also, I’ve noticed a discrepancy with that product description of the English translation.  It states that “Psalms 4-13, 44-50, and Volume Two contains commentaries on Psalms 109-150 (with the exception of the long Ps 119)” are commented on.  It looks like that misses Psalm 41 (Hebrew 42), which Chrysostom also commented on.  Also note that the English translation follows the Hebrew numbers.

Either way, here’s the list of Psalms that John Chrysostom commented on, with both the LXX chapter number and the Hebrew (English) chapter number.  If I do any more work with them, I’ll post something.

4 (LXX) – 4 (Hebrew)
5 (LXX) – 5 (Hebrew)
6 (LXX) – 6 (Hebrew)
7 (LXX) – 7 (Hebrew)
8 (LXX) – 8 (Hebrew)
9 (LXX) – 9-10 (Hebrew)
10 (LXX) – 11 (Hebrew)
11 (LXX) – 12 (Hebrew)
12 (LXX) – 13 (Hebrew)
9 (LXX) – 9-10 (Hebrew)
10 (LXX) – 11 (Hebrew)
11 (LXX) – 12 (Hebrew)
12 (LXX) – 13 (Hebrew)
41 (LXX) – 42 (Hebrew)
43 (LXX) – 44 (Hebrew)
44 (LXX) – 45 (Hebrew)
45 (LXX) – 46 (Hebrew)
46 (LXX) – 47 (Hebrew)
47 (LXX) – 48 (Hebrew)
48 (LXX) – 49 (Hebrew)
49 (LXX) – 50 (Hebrew)
108 (LXX) – 109 (Hebrew)
109 (LXX) – 110 (Hebrew)
110 (LXX) – 111 (Hebrew)
111 (LXX) – 112 (Hebrew)
112 (LXX) – 113 (Hebrew)
113 (LXX) – 114-115 (Hebrew)
114 (LXX) – 116:1-9 (Hebrew)
115 (LXX) – 116:10-19 (Hebrew)
116 (LXX) – 117 (Hebrew)
117 (LXX) – 118 (Hebrew)
119 (LXX) – 120 (Hebrew)
120 (LXX) – 121 (Hebrew)
121 (LXX) – 122 (Hebrew)
122 (LXX) – 123 (Hebrew)
123 (LXX) – 124 (Hebrew)
124 (LXX) – 125 (Hebrew)
125 (LXX) – 126 (Hebrew)
126 (LXX) – 127 (Hebrew)
127 (LXX) – 128 (Hebrew)
128 (LXX) – 129 (Hebrew)
129 (LXX) – 130 (Hebrew)
130 (LXX) – 131 (Hebrew)
131 (LXX) – 132 (Hebrew)
132 (LXX) – 133 (Hebrew)
133 (LXX) – 134 (Hebrew)
134 (LXX) – 135 (Hebrew)
135 (LXX) – 136 (Hebrew)
136 (LXX) – 137 (Hebrew)
137 (LXX) – 138 (Hebrew)
138 (LXX) – 139 (Hebrew)
139 (LXX) – 140 (Hebrew)
140 (LXX) – 141 (Hebrew)
141 (LXX) – 142 (Hebrew)
142 (LXX) – 143 (Hebrew)
143 (LXX) – 144 (Hebrew)
144 (LXX) – 145 (Hebrew)
145 (LXX) – 146 (Hebrew)
146 (LXX) – 147 (Hebrew)
147 (LXX) – 147:12-20 (Hebrew)
148 (LXX) – 148 (Hebrew)
149 (LXX) – 149 (Hebrew)
150 (LXX) – 150 (Hebrew)

Church Fathers (in French!)

I got a few books from the library today. Among them was a sources chrétiennes edition of Origen’s Commentary on Romans. This is a critical text with French translation, and loads of helpful commentary. I’m pleasantly surprised at my French. I’m able to follow along quite nicely and get the gist of what’s being said. Reading in a foreign language can be a mystical experience at times… Now, if only I could read Greek like I do French ;-).

Oh, and I must say, the “source chrétiennes” series is phenomenal, if this work is any indicator. I hope to get my hands on more.

Duh moments in Greek

So, I had a Duh! moment today while reading the Greek version of Psalm 2. The verse in particular was the 2nd:

καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ
        κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ

For some reason, it never occurred to me that when my English Bible says, “and the rules gather together, against the Lord and against his anointed,” that the early Church would have read this as “and the rulers gather together, against the Lord and against his Messiah. (Gk. Christ)” For some reason I never connected the two in this psalm. Of course the early Church read this messianically! It talks about the nations raging against God and his Christ. I hope I have more “Ah hah!” moments as I work through the psalms. It seems like if we want to understand the early Church’s exegesis, then it’s even more important to read the OT in Greek than it is Hebrew. That is what they were using after all! (for the most part ;-) ) [1]

~alex

[1] I do have a vested interest in that view. After all, I know a little bit of Greek. I don’t know any Hebrew. ;-)

ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ in the Apostolic Fathers

So I’m thinking of doing some posts on πίστις Χριστοῦ in the apostolic fathers. I’m rather interested to see how the early Fathers understood the now controversial phrase, which can be understood as either “faith in Jesus Christ” or “faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” This is a huge debate in Pauline scholarship right now. I’m tentatively in the “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” camp, though I haven’t really read enough of either side. I’ve run some searches through accordance to see what I could find. One particularly interesting bit came in chapter 1 of Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians. I’ll post the Greek and English here (Michael Holmes’s translation).

“Γνοὺς ὑμῶν τὸ πολυεύτακτον τῆς κατὰ θεὸν ἀγάπης, ἀγαλλιώμενος, προειλάμην ἐν πίστει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ προσλαλῆσαι ὑμῖν.
καταξιωθεὶς γὰρ ὀνόματος θεοπρεπεστάτου, ἐν οἷς περιφέρω δεσμοῖς ᾄδω τὰς ἐκκλησίας, ἐν αἷς ἕνωσιν εὔχομαι σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἡμῶν ζῆν, πίστεώς τε καὶ ἀγάπης, ἧς οὐδὲν προκέκριται, τὸ δὲ κυριώτερον, Ἰησοῦ καὶ πατρός·
ἐν ᾧ ὑπομένοντες τὴν πᾶσαν ἐπήρειαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου καὶ διαφυγόντες θεοῦ τευξόμεθα.”

1) “When I learned how well ordered your love toward God is, I rejoiced and resolved to address you in the faith of Jesus Christ.
2) For inasmuch as I have been judged worthy to bear a most godly name, in these chains that I bear I sing the praises of the churches, and I pray that in them there may be a union of flesh and spirit that comes from Jesus Christ, our never-failing life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is preferable, and—what is more important—of Jesus and the Father.
In him we will reach God, if we patiently endure all the abuse of the ruler of this age and escape.”

Whenever I try to resolve this question, I feel the weight of my Greek ignorance! I’m nowhere near knowledgeable enough to make a reliable judgment on the basis of grammar and syntax, but hopefully I can appeal somewhat to theology and context (two things I can do a bit better than Greek thankfully ;-) ).

Holmes here translates the first bolded phrase as “address you in the faith of Jesus Christ.” To me, this reading sounds like it’s focused on doctrine. “I address you as one who believes the correct things about Jesus.” I don’t think that’s the best way to understand the phrase though. (One thing to do would be to look and see if Ignatius uses “faith” as a short way of saying “Christianity.” He may, though I can’t think of any off the top of my head). I think a better way to render the phrase is “by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” with the rest of the chapter as supporting context.

My primary reasons here come from the beginning and end of verse 2. In the beginning of the verse, Ignatius writes, “in these chains I bear, I sing the praises of the churches.” I think the echo is a liturgical one; he’s drawing on the practice of singing together during the Eucharist. The next line follows the “song” with a prayer for the unity of the Church. The liturgy, as Ignatius understood it, was fundamentally participatory. In the Eucharist, the Church shared in the broken body and shed blood of Jesus (according to 1 Cor 10:14-17). This supports a “faithfulness of Jesus” reading because Ignatius is participating in the faithfulness of Christ. He is able to address this church only because of Christ’s faithfulness. In suffering for him, Ignatius shares in his sufferings, and thus shares in Jesus’ faithfulness.

This point is reinforced by the final part of the verse, where Ignatius writes, “In him we will reach God, if we patiently endure all the abuse of the ruler of this age and escape.” The exhortation here is to faithful sufferings, but the basis is participatory: “in him we will reach…” Because of the echoes to the liturgy and to faithful suffering, I think that a “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” reading is justified. Indeed, with Ignatius’ strong emphasis throughout his letters on “suffering with Christ,” many of uses as πἰστις probably have strong “faithfulness” connotations.

Anyway, that’s enough for now. More to come later!

~alex

On Paul and the Apostolic Fathers

I loved reading through the Apostolic Fathers and seeing the allusions to the New Testament. I’ve just been going over Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, chapter 5. It’s remarkable how he combines so many Pauline themes into his epistle. Polycarp’s Philippians 5 definitely alludes to Galatians. It starts with “God is not mocked (Θεὸς ού μυκτηρίζεται).” We also get his allusion back to “walking in the Spirit” with Polycarp’s reference to “the walk (περιπατειν).” Tracing this through to v. 3, we see the “flesh versus Spirit” dichotomy, with Polycarp sharply warning against the “desires of the world (επιθυμια ἐν τῳ κοσμῳ).”

Another fascinating aspect of this is how he conflates several related Pauline letters. For instance, Galatians 5 contains a vice list which ends with “those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (βασίλεαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν)” But Polycarp shows full awareness of the very similar vice list in 1 Corinthians 6 because he quotes vices from that list that aren’t in Galatians. Both end with the bit on not inheriting the kingdom. We also have a subtle allusion to early parts of 1 Corinthians in Polycarp’s Philippians 5:2. Polycarp says that “if we live in a manner worth of him, we will rule with him (συμβασιλεύσομεν), if indeed we trust.” The same word for ruling is used ironically in 1 Corinthians 4:8, where Paul says, “Already you have become rich! You have become kings—and that without us! How I wish that you really had become kings so that we might be kings with you (συμβασιλεύσωμεν)!” In light of chapter 6, where Paul talks about the church judging on the last day, the irony here is not that the Corinthians “are kings,” (they will be someday), but that they are already kings.

Likewise, the flesh/Spirit antithesis in Galatians 5 seems to bring in Ephesians 4-6. Polycarp not only speaks of the flesh “desiring what is contrary to the Spirit,” but also talks about the flesh “waging war against the Spirit. (στρατευεται, literally to serve in the military).” This echoes the great military language of Ephesians 6, where we are instructed to “put on the full armor of God.” Likewise, Polycarp’s affinity for παριπατεω (to walk) links with the adverb αξιῶς (worthy). Paul puts the two together Ephesians 4:1, where the Church is urged to “walk (περιπαῆσαι) in a manner worthy (αξιῶς) of the calling you have received.”

Watching the Apostolic Fathers read Paul is a treat. Or rather, watching Paul write through the Apostolic Fathers is a treat ;-) In this one chapter, Polycarp has leveraged at the very least, 1 Cor 4-6, Eph 4-6, and Gal 5-6. And those are just the ones I found. This early bishop was clearly significantly shaped by Paul, both by his letters, and no doubt by the liturgy that developed from his work. We have a lot to learn from these guys!

~alex

Romans 12:6 and the Charismatics

I read quite a bit about the charismatics gifts back when I first started following God, but I was never satisfied with the explanation of this verse:

Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith;” Romans 12:6 (ESV)

Most of the teaching I heard around this verse seemed to have some almost “magical” definition of faith behind it. If we prophesy past our “faith bar” it’s not proper prophecy anymore! Of course that’s a parody and caricature, but it still seemed gets at how I viewed this verse. The ESV Study Bible’s note proved a little more helpful, “Paul instructs prophets to speak only when they have confidence that the Spirit is truly revealing something to them, and not to exceed the faith that God has given hem by trying to impress others.”

A thought occurred to me as I read this, what if Paul’s talking about trustworthiness instead of faith? The same Greek word πιστις is used for both concepts. This word plays a big part in the Pastoral epistles, particularly with the formula, “this saying is trustworthy.” Thus, the idea Paul would be communicating is to not prophesy past the trust you’ve established with the community. With itinerant prophets roaming around, this could be a problem.

That said, I’d have to argue for the whole passage being read that way, and look at how exactly Paul uses the word throughout the whole letter. It might be anachronistic to read the Pastoral Epistles back into Romans since they came later. However, this does make more sense of the passage, particularly in the context of Romans 12 and the ethical instruction to the church. Whether it makes sense in context with the whole of Romans is not yet clear to me.

~alex

Quote of the Day

“Since I welcome every available opportunity to pontificate on subjects that I know nothing about, a colloquium on discourse analysis provides a singularly apt occasion to display this rare skill.” Moisés Silva

I can identify… ;-)

~alex