Chrysostom, Judaism, and the Cessasionists

Being born and bred in Pentecostal churches, my ears always perk up when miracles pop up in what I’m reading. I love when God choses to heal bodies, or generally do anything like that. I have plenty of gripes with the charismatic movements, but it’s still my home (and my heritage), and I’m happy to be here for now.

Anyway, here’s an interesting tidbit from John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Psalms. In this one he’s addressing Psalm 109. It seems that most of the homily is devoted to refuting non-orthodox viewpoints, and he begins by attacking the Jewish interpretation. Here’s an excerpt where he interrogates a rhetorically created Jew:

But if you attack our [beliefs], O Jew,[*] what will you say in defense of the Old [Testament]? If someone were to say to you, “Why are the things of Moses true?” What would you say? “Because we believe them.” Certainly this is not any better than us, for we also believe, and you are but one nation, but we are of the whole world! You are convinced by the things of Moses, just as we are convinced by Christ, and what you make the end, we make the foundation. Do you believe because of the prophecies? But we have many more! So if you do away with ours, you overshadow your own as well. Do you believe because of miracles? But you have none to show except the signs of Moses, and these have come and gone. But we have the miracles of Christ, which are varied and abundant, and which happen even to the present day, and we have prophecies that surpass the brightness of the sun! Do you believe because of the laws? But our philosophy is superior to these. Why then? Because he led you away from the bondage of the Egyptians? But this is not equal at all to the hostile world, which the Egyptians by themselves do not surpass.

John Chrysostom, Homily on Psalm 109 (LXX), from Patrologia Graeca 55.266-267, my own translation.

I bolded the part that jumped out at me. John’s line of reasoning is pretty interesting here. He doesn’t simply cite the miracles of Christ recorded in the gospels, but he cites the miracles that “happen even to the present day,” which is a much bolder claim. This also makes me wonder if the “prophecies that surpass the brightness of the sun” might include more than the prophecies of Christ in the OT. I’d be surprised if he didn’t have Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple in mind. He may even have Christian prophets in mind as well, though that would be difficult to argue from this passage alone. The “but we have many more” would lead me to think he’s referring to prophecies that the Jews wouldn’t accept, which would include anything in the NT, but also extra-canonical Christian prophecy.

In terms of representing Jewish belief, I initially thought that John was being unfair here. After all, there were other miracles in the Old Testament. You had Joshua and the Sun, and Elisha and Elijah come to mind. However it looks like he narrows the comparison from OT and NT to Moses and Jesus as points of comparison. Christ as risen Lord would then be able to perform miracles “up until the present day,” while Moses could not. (Though would John have thought dead saints could perform miracles?). Of course, he does move back and forth quite easily between Moses and the Old Testament in general, because he goes on to say, “I say these thing, not to make the Old fight with the New…” I suppose that’s another sign of John’s great rhetorical skill, that he can slip easily between different referents to draw out the one that is most advantageous to him. We may not care for it, but it undoubtedly made for good rhetoric, and would’ve been fun to listen to.

[*] “O Jew” rings loudly in my ears too. I hate the Christianity has a long streak of anti-Semitism, and it’s certainly a nasty, nasty stain for us to bear. But let’s not judge John too quickly, even if he sounds harsh to post-holocaust ears.

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

A Golden Quote from the Golden Mouth

I was (attempting) reading some Greek yesterday from my recently acquired Patristic Greek Reader. It has readings from a wide variety of fathers. Yesterday I was reading from Melito of Sardis’ On the Passover and some from Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew. Melito definitely deserves a post of his own, but I wanted to note here a quote of Chrysostom’s that jumped out at me:

“Ουδε γαρ σκευων χρειαν εχει χρυσων ὁ Θεος, αλλα ψευχων χρυσων”

“For God doesn’t need vessels of gold, but golden souls.”

Little bits like these definitely encourage me to read more Chrysostom, even though his Greek is very difficult for me. I’ve lots to learn ;-).

~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)