Contemporary "Christian" "Worship" vs. the Worship of the Early Church

(Inspired by The Sacred Page); draw conclusions as you wish.

1. Sunday worship in the early Church:

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67 (AD 150-155)

"When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up as new-born children, we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Pentecost. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross]." - Tertullian, The Chaplet, 3 (AD 204)

2. Contemporary Sunday "worship":





3. Orthodox Christian Sunday worship:

Why I don't like modern apologists

(h/t: Otagosh)

"Contemporary popular apologists tend to look for any way to salvage the text, no matter how unlikely or untenable the argument. They'll use scholarly sources selectively, or pounce on one scholar's argument and run away with it, without any concern for the fact the vast majority of scholars haven't been persuaded by it. They're not interested in what's plausible, only what's "possible," if it serves their immediate purposes. They trade in eisegesis, wild speculation, and fanciful interpretations, reading into the text what isn't there, indeed, what's often contradicted by the very passages they cite...

"But they seem oblivious to the real harm they're doing. Not only are they giving permission for Christians to be dishonest with the material, they're reinforcing delusions that disconnect well-meaning Christians from reality...

"These apologists are perpetuating an insular Christian culture, giving well-meaning Christians permission to switch off their brains and their consciences and go about their business, pretending everything is all right. The apologists don't care to convince those struggling on the margins of faith - they're preaching only to the converted, only to those who are looking for easy answers to questions others are asking them, but which they aren't asking themselves."

Thom Stark, Is God a Moral Compromiser?

I've noticed the same tendencies myself, which is one of the many reasons that I've taken pains to distance myself from apologists in recent months. I've said it many times in the past and I will say it again: Truth never needs falsehood to defend it. If you have to lie to support your position, it is a very good indicator that your position is wrong.

Religious tolerance, religious pluralism, and a brave new world

Ben Witherington asks, in the light of recent scholarly reevaluations of the policies of St. Constantine the Great, on his blog:

How should Americans, and perhaps especially our President approach the issue of religious tolerance? It seems clear enough to me that on the one hand, considering the drift away from our Judaeo-Christian roots of government in some respects, that we could not and should not expect to have a President like Constantine, especially in view of the Bill of Rights including freedom of religion as a moral principle of the state. On the other hand, there is no reason why we could not rightly expect to have a President who is a committed Christian, favors that religion, is happy to give tax breaks to churches and other charitable organizations, while at the same time, like Constantine, not de-funding other legitimate well established religious groups. Tolerance in this model, again, does not mean consent or agreement, it means tolerance. This is not the same thing as someone saying ‘all world religions are equal paths to God and equally legitimate’.

Think on these things.

My response, somewhat rambling and very uncertain:

There certainly is much food for thought here. I only recent read Elizabeth Digeser’s thesis concerning the policy of “religious concord” by St. Constantine and I have yet to read Peter Leithart’s book though it’s been sitting on my shelf waiting for me since Christmas.

I think that there are many other issues that surround the issue of religious toleration and what that means in America. For instance, while this nation’s founding fathers were not all themselves committed Christians, they certainly could not have imagined a country like ours with such (and growing) religious diversity. If they could not (and they clearly expressed that they could not — few Americans could until fairly recent times) picture an America in which blacks and whites lived side-by-side peacefully and even (!) inter-married, they definitely could not have pictured an America in which Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, and individuals with dozens of other religious affiliations do so. They were firmly entrenched in the traditions of Western Civilization with its Catholic-Protestant roots (atheism and its forerunner deism are both the product of the Western religious tradition, whether their modern adherents want to accept that or not), the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Reformation.

The question that we encounter now is what do we do as we experience an influx of people coming from cultures who do not share such foundation concepts of Western Civilization as the separation of church and state, individualism, and so on. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian (albeit a convert from Western Christianity), I also count myself as a member of that growing population for whom such ideas are foreign ones, difficult to reconcile with our religious, philosophical, and cultural worldviews.

I certainly don’t have the answers; only the future will tell how all of this will play out as the demographics of the United States continue to change, getting further and further from the world that the founding fathers took for granted.

Ultimate evidence of the Resurrection

(h/t: MYSTAGOGY)

The mind can prove the truth of the Resurrection through reason based on the scriptures, and a non-believer cannot but admit the power of its arguments, as long as a sense of truth is not yet dead in him. A believer does not need proof, because the Church of God is filled with the light of the Resurrection. Both of these indicators of truth are faithful and convincing. But counter-reasoning can spring up and contradict mind’s reason, and faith can be trampled and shaken by perplexities and doubts, coming from without and arising within.

Is there no invincible wall around the truth of the Resurrection? There is. It will occur when the power of the Resurrection, received already at baptism, begins to actively be revealed as it purges the corruption of soul and body, and establishes within them the beginnings of a new life. He who experiences this will walk in the light of the Resurrection, and anyone talking against the truth of the Resurrection will seem to him insane, like a person saying in the daytime that it is night.

St. Theophan the Recluse

Earliest visual representation of the Crucified Christ

From a short but very interesting post by Larry Hurtado:

The earliest of the various “christograms” is the tau-rho (the capital rho superimposed on the capital tau, the device resembling a capital “P” superimposed on a capital “T”). We have examples of this device in several copies of NT writings dated to ca. 175-250 CE (P75, P66 and P45). And it’s still more intriguing that the letters in this device (also appropriated from prior non-Christian usage) don’t represent any name or word. Instead, the device is used as part of the special way that the Greek words “cross” and “crucify” are written in these manuscripts, and it seems intended to serve as a “pictographic” representation of a crucified figure, Jesus. This makes it the earliest visual reference to the crucified Jesus, some 150 or more years earlier than what art historians have tended to see as the first depiction of the crucified Jesus.

Neaderthals believed in the afterlife

(h/t: A Blog About History)

From Discovery News:

Evidence for a likely 50,000-year-old Neanderthal burial ground that includes the remains of at least three individuals has been unearthed in Spain, according to a Quaternary International paper.

The deceased appear to have been intentionally buried, with each Neanderthal's arms folded such that the hands were close to the head. Remains of other Neanderthals have been found in this position, suggesting that it held meaning.

Neanderthals therefore may have conducted burials and possessed symbolic thought before modern humans had these abilities. The site, Sima de las Palomas in Murcia, Southeast Spain, may also be the first known Neanderthal burial ground of Mediterranean Europe.

"We cannot say much (about the skeletons) except that we surmise the site was regarded as somehow relevant in regard to the remains of deceased Neanderthals," lead author Michael Walker told Discovery News. "Their tools and food remains, not to mention signs of fires having been lit, which we have excavated indicate they visited the site more than once."

Walker, a professor in the Department of Zoology and Physical Anthropology at the University of Murcia, and his colleagues have been working at the site for some time. So far they have found buried articulated skeletons for a young adult female, a juvenile or child, and an adult -- possibly male -- Neanderthal.

"We cannot say whether these three individuals were related, though it is likely," he said, explaining that DNA has been denatured due to high ambient temperatures. "Surely the child was related to one of the others, though."

The three skeletons represent some of the best-preserved, and most methodically excavated remains of Neanderthals.

"Such discoveries are extraordinarily uncommon," Walker said.

The Neanderthals were found covered together with rocks burying their remains. The researchers believe it's likely that other Neanderthals intentionally placed the rocks over the bodies from a height. While it cannot be ruled out that an accident killed the three individuals, the scientists believe that wasn't the case.

"I think there is just enough evidence at Sima de las Palomas to think that three articulated skeletons are unlikely to have been the result of a single random accident to three cadavers that somehow escaped the ravages of hyenas and leopards, which were present at the site," Walker said.

Unburnt bones of two articulated panther paws were embedded in rock "in an area where the rest of the animal's skeleton was conspicuous by its absence notwithstanding its proximity to the human skeletons," the authors write.

The researchers speculate that a Neanderthal cut off the panther paws and kept them. It is also possible that the paws were added to the bodies before burial, perhaps holding some ritual significance.

The remains of six to seven other Neanderthals, including one baby and two juveniles, have also been excavated at the site. The tallest individual appears to have been an adult who stood around 5'1".

Erik Trinkaus, a professor of physical anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, is one of the world's leading experts on Neanderthals. He told Discovery News that "it is certainly possible that they (the Neanderthals at Sima de las Palomas) were buried."

He said a few dozen documented Neanderthal burials from Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Southwest Asia have already been documented.

Trinkaus added that the Neanderthal remains from Spain will "provide us with our first glimpse of overall Neanderthal body form in Southern Europe, as well as additional specimens for a number of aspects of Neanderthal biology."

Enjoying the saints in late antiquity

(h/t: Medievalists.net)

By Peter Brown

Early Medieval Europe, Volume 9, Issue 1 (2000)

Abstract: The discovery at Mainz by Franĉois Dolbeau of a new collection of sermons of Augustine has enabled us to study, in far greater detail, the attitude of Augustine to the reform of the cult of the martyrs between 391 and 404. This study aims to understand Augustine’s insistence on the need to imitate the martyrs against the background of his views on grace and the relation of such views to the growing differentiation of the Christian community. It also attempts to do justice to the views of those he criticized: others regarded the triumph of the martyrs over pain and death as a unique manifestation of the power of God, in which believers participated, not through imitation but through celebrations reminiscent of the joy of pagan festivals. In this debate, Augustine by no means had the last word. The article attempts to show the continuing tension between notions of the saints as imitable and inimitable figures in the early medieval period, and more briefly, by implication, in all later centuries.

Click here to read this article from Stanford University...

Ancient Coptic graffiti adorns walls of 3,200 year-old Egyptian temple

(h/t: Unreported Heritage News)

Who says nuns don’t have any fun?

A new research project led by Professor Jennifer Westerfeld, of the University of Louisville, is taking a look at a unique set of graffiti scribbled onto the walls of a 3,200 year old Egyptian temple.

The temple was built at Abydos by Seti I, a powerful pharaoh who pushed the borders of the Egyptian empire as far as modern day Syria. It contains two courtyards, two hypostyle halls, chapels and an enigmatic structure known as the “Osireion,” which may commemorate the Egyptian story of creation.

Today this complex is covered in a large amount of graffiti dating from ancient times up until the medieval period. Westerfeld believes that a community of nuns contributed to this defacement, writing on its walls around 1,500 years ago.

“A significant corpus of late antique graffiti from the temple appears to have been produced by a community of Coptic nuns who periodically visited the site,” she writes in the abstract of a paper recently presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE).

Coptic is the Egyptian branch of Christianity and became widely practiced after the religious reforms of the Roman emperor Constantine in the early 4th century AD.
Westerfeld said that a find like this, if validated, is unprecedented.

“Such a collection of epigraphic evidence for female monastic activity is virtually unparalleled in Egypt,” she writes. “This material has never been fully edited or studied.”

In an email Professor Westerfeld declined an interview request, cautioning that this research is at a “very preliminary” stage and more work needs to be done.

However, if she is right, we’re about to learn about a community that, until now, has not had a voice in Egyptian history.

Explaining Mythicist Sleight of Hand

Dr. James McGrath at Exploring Our Matrix has a great post exposing one of the common tricks of the mythicist crowd:

Magic tricks are fun, and having had the privilege of knowing a magician or two, I've also had the occasional trick explained to me. For some, knowing how any trick works seems to "spoil the magic," but from my perspective, understanding how some tricks work only tells you what you should have known already - that you are being deceived. When you realize how that is being accomplished, I find that you appreciate the magician who can do it successfully even more.

I'd like to explain how one of mythicism's classic tricks works. I'm sure that some mythicists, like many magicians, would prefer that the illusion not be ruined, and so if you'd rather enjoy the illusion of mythicism rather than know how it works beneath the level of appearances, stop reading now.

Keep reading...

Short Book Review: St. John Chrysostom's homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew

This book, filled with the moving spirituality and deep insights of one of the greatest of the Church Fathers and certainly the greatest orator that the Church has ever possessed, was the best Lenten reading that I've had the privilege of spending time with yet. I was right on schedule throughout, as I read his homilies on the last several days of Christ's earthly life throughout Holy Week and finally read the final homily, on the Resurrection, on Pascha afternoon. There is a good reason that St. John is remembered by the Church as "Chrysostom," meaning "Gold-tongued." On every page he is eloquent, touching, beautiful, insightful, inspiring, edifying all at once. He opens up the Gospel of St. Matthew in so many ways and in such a manner that I would not have thought it possible without reading it for myself. If you want deeper insights into the Scriptures and into living the Christian life, read the homilies of St. John Chrysostom -- beginning with this collection of homilies.

The first martyrs for Christ

... were ten thousand infants.

Holy Mount Athos on CBS News' "60 Minutes"

If you missed this wonderful show last night (or even if you didn't), here is the video. This, simply put, is why I am an Orthodox Christian.

Atheistic morality debate: Skierkowa's 2nd rebuttal

David points out that my first rebuttal did not, in his words, “address the topic of the debate, namely, whether a consistent atheistic morality is possible.” That makes me wonder: is my position statement a legitimate part of this debate, or not? I explained my position in detail, then David explained his. My rebuttal was a response to that. Now, rather than rebutting my position, he is using his first rebuttal to defend his. This is understandable, up to the point at which he criticizes me for not making an assertive argument. I carefully explained my position in detail, and that statement stands unanswered.

Perhaps David believes that my opening statement is irrelevant, because his “clarification” at the start of this debate rendered it moot. I maintain that it doesn’t, unless he wishes to concede the point. He replies, “If Skierkowa chose not to inform himself of my position beforehand, I cannot be blamed for his negligence.”

As an excuse for starkly abandoning the topic he agreed to, this insults our intelligence. Why should I be at fault for not having read some of his previous writings, (although I did,) when he apparently couldn’t be bothered to read my position statement for this debate? Furthermore, he was just as free to peruse my previously stated views, whereupon he’d have found that I consider the very existence of this debate to arise from ill-informed bigotry. But that did not stop me, in the spirit of sincere discourse, from accepting the topic at face value.

Answer me this question, David: if your views, as I apparently should have known, are those you’ve described, then why did you propose this topic? Believe me, there are many rich topics over which an atheist and a theist can grapple.

I leave it to our readers: am I being unreasonable? Please let us know what you think.

Apart from all this, the crux of David’s argument is terribly flimsy. He appeals to our allegedly unique modern values, which he insists are Christian, as the standard by which we ought to judge Christianity and its rivals. If he’s right about the source of our morality, (he’s not,) who would be surprised if Christianity won this rigged contest?

Let us grant –purely for the sake of argument—that some significant portion of our secular morality owes its existence explicitly to Christian tradition. He asserts that atheism is morally inferior purely on the grounds that our more-or-less Christian society approves of its own more-or-less Christian values. But if this were an atheistic society, even in the absurdly deranged scenario David paints, then of course that society would also approve of its own values.

Is David so confident in modern society that he doesn’t think the denizens of an atheist world would find anything in our world to criticize on ethical grounds? Surely not, considering how many things Christians themselves seem to find deplorable in society.

But we must ask: is our society a strictly Christian one in ethical terms? David defends his historical claims by appealing to eminent scholars. Let’s be clear that I don’t object to this. We have the privilege of “standing on the shoulders of giants;” let us do so.

The problem here isn’t appeal to authority, but that David’s authorities disagree with him. I’ll spare details for the sake of word count, but I encourage our readers to learn more about these scholars. In no particular order:

Richard Tarnas writes that Western civilization as we know it today formed in three major transformations, which were triggered by the reintroduction of Classical knowledge during the Renaissance: Copernican cosmology, Cartesian metaphysics, and Kantian epistemology (distinguishing what we perceive from what actually is). This is perfectly consistent with the syncretism of Greek and Christian thought that I described earlier, but rather a stretch from the monolith of Judeo-Christian ethics that David portrays.

Jaroslav Pelikan discussed the same topic in: Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. He examined the sacred writings of Buddhism and Hinduism, expressing throughout his career a profound respect for moral traditions throughout the world, not just those of Jews and Christians.

Russell seems only to be included for David to criticize. I’ll only say that he was an atheist who taught us much about ethics.

Christine Hayes, a particularly insightful researcher, wrote an entire textbook about the importance of Hellenistic (Greek) influence on Judaism, even before the time of Christ.

Thomas Cahill devoted an entire volume of his award-winning Hinges of History series to this: Sailing the Wine Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter. He also wrote prolifically about the importance of the pagan Celts on the formation of modern society.

Donald Kagan has built a career on the proposition that our culture is significantly (though of course not exclusively) Greek.

Huston Smith is an especially perplexing choice for David to pin his arguments on; far from exalting Christianity as an exclusive source of western ethics, Smith wrote extensively about the value of Eastern tradition, and in fact left his Christian upbringing to become a practicing Hindu, then Buddhist, and finally a Sufist (a heavily Eastern-inspired branch of Islam).

David correctly points out that Classical thought reentered the West in the Renaissance. I never intended to contradict this obvious fact. But I had to stifle a chuckle when David referred to Machiavelli. It appears to have escaped his notice that The Prince is a work of irony written in support of republicanism.

David is hypocritical about emotion. His whole argument seeks to appeal to your distaste for, as an example, infanticide, but when I appeal to your distaste for senseless slaughter in the wake of a battle, that’s irrational. If my criticism of Jewish culture is groundless, he should acknowledge the same about his whole thesis, which is to prefer “our” morality over some “other” morality.

In discussing normative ethics, emotion is a central component, as I’ve said before. “Appeal to Emotion” is a fallacy because our feelings about a proposition don’t change its truth value. What I seek to make here is a reference to emotions.

What can morality concern itself with, if not human well-being? How could well-being have any meaning without emotion? To borrow from Sam Harris, imagine someone took the same reasoning David applies to ethics, and applied it to medicine:

“As an atheist, how can Skierkowa justify his belief that having cancer is somehow worse than not having cancer without appealing to Judeo-Christian values?”

Of course, I can do that because we don’t need any particular cultural perspective to comprehend that health is better than illness, just as happiness is better than sadness.

David misunderstands the role of evolution. It provided us with tools to perceive moral issues, not a model of moral behavior. Evolution is a natural process, not a responsible moral agent. Long before there were hominids, it selected in favor of cognitive recognition of patterns like reciprocity and justice. Even though justice is not made of particles, that doesn’t mean we aren’t perceiving a real thing. Morality explores the relationships between emotional states, in a similar fashion to the way math explores the relationships between quantities.

Christ is risen! Truly He is risen!

Words cannot express

What makes the West so special?

In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (pp. 69-72), Samuel P. Huntington offers the following list of "distinguishing characteristics" of Western civilization:

• The Classical Legacy [he includes "Greek philosophy and rationalism, Roman law, Latin, and Christianity" under this heading]
• Catholicism and Protestantism [he astutely identifies Eastern Orthodoxy as a separate civilization from the West]
• European languages [which he groups "loosely into the broad categories of Roman and Germanic" languages]
• Separation of spiritual and temporal authority [the Church-State dualism of the West versus the various other approaches with attempt to somehow combine the two and/or subordinate one to the other]
• Rule of law [and especially that even the Ruler/s is/are subject to the rule of law and not above it]
• Social pluralism [according to Huntington, "these groups initially included monasteries, monastic orders, and guilds, but then expanded to include in many areas of Europe a variety of other associations and societies"]
• Representative bodies [a product of the above-mentioned social pluralism as each group vied for official representation to/in the ruling power/s]
• Individualism [this, according to Huntington, is the single most powerful and unique aspect of Western civilization]

After listing and explaining these essential elements of Western civilization he concludes:

The above list is not meant to be an exhaustive enumeration of the distinctive characteristics of Western civilization. Nor is it meant to imply that those characteristics were always and universally present in Western society. Obviously they were not: the many despots in Western history regularly ignored the rule of law and suspended representative bodies. Nor is it meant to suggest that none of these characteristics appeared in other civilizations. Obviously they do: the Koran and the shari'a constitute basic law for Islamic societies; Japan and India had class systems paralleling that of the West (and perhaps as a result are the only two major non-Western societies to sustain democratic governments for any length of time). Individually almost none of these factors was unique to the West. The combination of them was, however, and this is what gave the West its distinctive quality. These concepts, practices, and institutions simply have been more prevalent in the West than in other civilizations. They form at least part of the essential continuing core of Western civilization. They are what is Western but not modern about the West. They are also in large part the factors which enabled the West to take the lead in modernizing itself and the world.

"Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached, that shall be told also which this woman hath done." (Matthew 26:13)

Who then is so wretched as to set his face against so much truth? For lo! what He said is come to pass, and to whatever part of the earth thou mayest go, thou wilt see her celebrated.

And yet neither was the person that did it distinguished, nor had what was done many witnesses, neither was it in a theater, but in a house, that it took place, and this a house of some leper, the disciples only being present.

Who then proclaimed it, and caused it to be spread abroad? It was the power of Him who is speaking these words. And while of countless kings and generals the noble exploits even of those whose memorials remain have sunk into silence; and having overthrown cities, and encompassed them with walls, and set up trophies, and enslaved many nations, they are not known so much as by hearsay, nor by name, though they have both set up statues, and established laws; yet that a woman who was a harlot poured out oil in the house of some leper, in the presence of ten men, this all men celebrate throughout the world; and so great a time has passed, and yet the memory of that which was done hath not faded away, but alike Persians and Indians, Scythians and Thracians, and Sarmatians, and the race of the Moors, and they that dwell in the British Islands, spread abroad that which was done secretly in a house by a woman that had been a harlot.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 80 on the Gospel of St. Matthew

Charity is better than martyrdom

Let the one fast, and deny himself, and be a martyr, and be burnt to death, but let another delay his martyrdom for his neighbor's edification; and let him not only delay it, but let him even depart without martyrdom; who will be the more approved after his removal hence? We need not have many words, nor a long circumlocution. For the blessed Paul is at hand, giving his judgment, and saying, "To depart and to be with Christ is better, nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you;" even to his removal unto Christ did he prefer his neighbor's edification. For this is in the highest sense to be Christ, even to be doing His will, but nothing is so much His will, as that which is for one's neighbor's good.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 77 on the Gospel of St. Matthew

Why people disbelieve the Resurrection in spite of overwhelming evidence

First, from John Sanidopolous at MYSTAGOGY, a very insightful review of a not-so-very insightful article:

In a classic religion-vs-science confrontation, Live Science took on the question, “Jesus Christ the Man: Does the Physical Evidence Hold Up?” The answer may say more about science than about Jesus.

To begin with, reporter Natalie Wolchover drew distinctions between scientific evidence and belief – as if scientific evidence requires no belief or assumption or interpretation. She says the belief of Christians in Jesus’ life comes from “textual evidence in the Bible” – betraying first of all a bias that textual evidence is less credible than scientific evidence. Her headline also implies that evidence must be physical. This rules out logical and textual evidence and eyewitness testimony. It also begs questions about whether other beliefs accepted by scientists are based on physical evidence alone.

. . .

All the same, she drew a middle ground on the historicity of Jesus, quoting Marcus Borg, a secular scholar at Oregon State: “We do know some things about the historical Jesus – less than some Christians think, but more than some skeptics think.” That judgment, though, rests on what documents one takes as credible. Borg did not question the fact that Jesus lived, but from the textual evidence, presented a synopsis of Jesus’ life sanitized of the miraculous. Acknowledging that “More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition,” he proceeded to the crux of the story - the cross and resurrection:

He was executed by Roman imperial authority, and his followers experienced him after his death. It is clear, Borg said, that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be “lord” or “the son of God.”

To make such claims, Borg (and Wolchover, the reporter) had to rule out of court the eyewitness testimony of Thomas, the doubter, who reached into the wounds of the risen Jesus (John 20:24-27), of John, who said their hands touched Him (I John 1:1-4), and of all the disciples who saw him eat and drink in their presence (Luke 24, John 21), and the 500 who saw him at one time (I Cor 15:1-11), most of whom were still alive when the testimony was written.

Moreover, to deny the resurrection, they would have to completely discount the life testimony of the Apostle Paul (I Corinthians 15, written at most 25 years after the crucifixion), the fact that Paul had been a hostile witness (I Timothy 1:12-16), yet spread his testimony of the risen Christ throughout the Middle East and Europe, finally being martyred without flinching from his testimony.

They would have to deny that Matthew, Mark, Peter, John (1 John 1:1-10), James and possibly the writer of Hebrews were also eyewitnesses of Jesus and the resurrection, and that the New Testament authors, including Luke (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-3), Peter (2 Peter 3:16-21), John (I John 4:1-6), Paul (2 Timothy 3) all advocated telling the truth, each of them staunchly opposing myths and fact-free speculations (I Timothy 4:1-4).

Furthermore, they would have to ignore the fact that all the apostles (except possibly John), who claimed they had seen the resurrected Christ, died martyr’s deaths without recanting. Plus, they would have to explain the explosive growth of the early Church in a time of persecution, when all the enemies of the new faith would have to do to squelch it was produce the body of Jesus and parade it down the streets of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Wolchover and Borg had to dismiss a priori the possibility of predictive prophecy (Isaiah 53, Luke 24, esp. vv. 25-26).

No philosopher of science would affirm that the opinions of Borg and Wolchover were dictated to them by the scientific evidence itself. Their knowledge of Christianity too seems limited to fringe and controversial claims that can be easily dismissed. Clearly a different set of authorities would produce different conclusions. The question of what constitutes evidence is a philosophical question about science, not a statement by science. Invariably, one must consider the biases that fallible human beings bring to a question.

Read the full post...

And an article from Mother Jones, which, while not specifically mentioning the Resurrection of Christ, certainly applies:

"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger (PDF), in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. But it was too early for that—this was the 1950s—and Festinger was actually describing a famous case study in psychology.

. . .

In the annals of denial, it doesn't get much more extreme than the Seekers. They lost their jobs, the press mocked them, and there were efforts to keep them away from impressionable young minds. But while Martin's space cult might lie at on the far end of the spectrum of human self-delusion, there's plenty to go around. And since Festinger's day, an array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called "motivated reasoning" helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, "death panels," the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.

The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call "affect"). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of milliseconds—fast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we're aware of it. That shouldn't be surprising: Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It's a "basic human survival skill," explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

Read the full article...

I've noted in the past on this blog and elsewhere that Resurrection-denial (like that of Bart Ehrman) often takes up the same arguments and forms as Holocaust-denial and similar phenomena. I've discussed here, for instance, how Bart Ehrman consistently misses his own points in his books, such as in his contribution to The Gospel of Judas in which he states, early in his chapter, the undeniable fact that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the four earliest gospels and then, near the conclusion of his chapter, makes the strange comment that the early Church Fathers were essentially bigots who wouldn't allow other voices to be heard because they didn't include the later, apocryphal gospels in their canon of the New Testament. The facts are, as John laid out in his post, there is more than abundant historical evidence for the Resurrection of Christ; if any event but the Resurrection had such abundant historical evidence in its favor it would be believed and taught as unquestionable fact in every history book.

But it is the Resurrection, after all, and that makes people uncomfortable. I know from personal experience that it is uncomfortable to have to accept as fact something that will permanently change your life, that will make great demands upon you and require great sacrifices, and that you just don't want to accept. And so we have the point made by the second article quoted above; unfortunately, there are many people who, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, will never accept that Christ is indeed risen and so they will not change their lives, they will not submit, and they will not sacrifice. The choice that must be made is one between personal comfort and truth -- and it is very sad that so many have chosen and will choose the former of the two.

St. Melito of Sardis on Pascha (ca. AD 170)

He [Christ] arose from the dead and mounted up to the heights of heaven. When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried, he rose up from the dead, and cried aloud with this voice: Who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free; I gave the dead man life; I raised up the one who had been entombed.

Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ.

Therefore, come, all families of men, you who have been befouled with sins, and receive forgiveness for your sins. I am your forgiveness, I am the passover of your salvation, I am the lamb which was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom, I am your light, I am your saviour, I am your resurrection, I am your king, I am leading you up to the heights of heaven, I will show you the eternal Father, I will raise you up by my right hand.

This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.

This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.

St. Melito of Sardis, On Pascha

Segregation of the sexes in worship

In my reading today I came across this very interesting, even if somewhat vague, explanation of the origins of the separation of the sexes in liturgical worship, a practice still common (though less so than it once was) in the Orthodox Church:

It were meet indeed that ye had within you the wall to part you from the women; but since ye are not so minded, our fathers thought it necessary by these to wall you off; since I hear from the elder ones, that of old there were not so much as these partitions; “For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female” (Galatians 3:28). And in the apostle [Paul]’s time also both men and women were together. Because the men were men, and the women women, but now altogether the contrary; the women have urged themselves into the manners of courtezans, but the men are in no better state than frantic horses.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 73 on the Gospel of St. Matthew

I find St. Chrysostom's words here especially intriguing because I (as I think most do) have always associated the separation of the sexes in Orthodox worship with its roots in Jewish worship, which also involves such a separation. Now that I've come across this passage, I think I might do more research into this topic. I wonder how accurate Chrysostom's words here are and what is the actual relationship, if any, between the Orthodox Christian and Jewish practices. I'd also like to know whether Chrysostom was in Antioch or in Constantinople when he gave this homily, especially with its reference to the men and women being walled off "by these" (I picture him gesturing emphatically with his hand in typical Mediterranean/Middle Eastern fashion as he says that). Any help in answering any of these questions is appreciated.

Audio recording of Tutankhamun’s trumpets

(h/t: Sevaan Franks at A Blog About History)

Recently looted from the Cairo Museum during the recent uprising was one of Tutankhamun’s trumpets, found in his tomb when it was opened in 1922. In 1939 they were played for a BBC radio recording, which you can listen to here.

The audio recording is located on the right side about halfway down the page. Take a minute to listen to the music enjoyed by a king who lived 3000 years ago. This is why I love history.

Death and the law of God

It was not merely that he might live the natural life that God had produced man, but that he should live virtuously, that is, in relation to God and to His law. Accordingly, God gave him to live when he was formed into a living soul; but He charged him to live virtuously when he was required to obey a law. So also God shows taht man was not constituted for death, by now wishing that he should be restored to life, preferring the sinner's repentance to his death. As, therefore, God designed for man a condition of life, so man brought on himself a state of death; and this, too, neither through infirmity nor through ignorance, so that no blame can be imputed to the Creator. No doubt it was an angel who was the seducer; but then the victim of that seduction was free, and master of himself; and as being the image and likeness of God, was stronger than any angel; and as being, too, the afflatus of the Divine Being, was nobler than that material spirit of which angels were made. Who maketh, says he, His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire. He would not have made all things subject to man, if he had been too weak for the dominion, and inferior to the angels, to whom He assigned no such subjects; nor would He have put the burden of law upon him, if he had been incapable of sustaining so great a weight; nor, again, would He have threatened with the penalty of death a creature whom He knew to be guiltless on the score of his helplessness: in short, if He had made him infirm, it would not have been by liberty and independence of will, but rather by the withholding from him these endowments. And thus it comes to pass, that even now also, the same human being, the same substance of his soul, the same condition as Adam's, is made conqueror over the same devil by the self-same liberty and power of his will, when it moves in obedience to the laws of God.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 2, chapter 8

Legendary Saints Were Real, Buried Alive, Study Hints

(h/t: A Blog About History)

From National Geographic:

Analysis of the skeletons—sealed off for centuries in an Italian cathedral until recently—seems to support the legend of Chrysanthus and Daria, who are said to have been persecuted in the city of Rome for being Christians.

According to ancient stories, the Roman Empire killed the celibate Roman husband and wife in the third century A.D., after they had converted many Romans to the fledgling religion.

Though there’s no way to identify the skeletons with 100 percent certainty, “all of the evidence we have gathered points toward the relics having belonged to Chrysanthus and Daria,” investigation leader Ezio Fulcheri, a paleopathologist at Italy’s University of Genoa, said in a statement.

Continuing reading...

Homily 50 on the Gospel of St. Matthew by St. John Chrysostom

“And when He had sent the multitudes away, He went up into the mountain apart to pray: and when the evening was come, He was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves for the wind was contrary.” - Matthew 14:23-4

For what purpose doth He go up into the mountain? To teach us, that loneliness and retirement is good, when we are to pray to God. With this view, you see, He is continually withdrawing into the wilderness, and there often spends the whole night in prayer, teaching us earnestly to seek such quietness in our prayers, as the time and place may confer. For the wilderness is the mother of quiet; it is a calm and a harbor, delivering us from all turmoils.

He Himself then went up thither with this object, but the disciples are tossed with the waves again, and undergo a storm, equal even to the former. But whereas before they had Him in the ship when this befell them, now they were alone by themselves. Thus gently and by degrees He excites and urges them on for the better, even to the bearing all nobly. Accordingly we see, that when they were first near that danger, He was present, though asleep, so as readily to give them relief; but now leading them to a greater degree of endurance, He doth not even this, but departs, and in mid sea permits the storm to arise, so that they might not so much as look for a hope of preservation from any quarter; and He lets them be tempest-tost all the night, thoroughly to awaken, as I suppose, their hardened heart.

For such is the nature of the fear, which the time concurs with the rough weather in producing. And together with the compunction, He cast them also into a greater longing for Himself, and a continual remembrance of Him.

Accordingly, neither did He present Himself to them at once. For, “in the fourth watch,” so it is said, “of the night, He went unto them, walking upon the sea” (Matthew 14:25); instructing them not hastily to seek for deliverance; from their pressing dangers, but to bear all occurrences manfully. At all events, when they looked to be delivered, then was their fear again heightened. For,

“When the disciples,” it is said, “saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit: and they cried out for fear” (Matthew 14:26).

Yea, and He constantly doth so; when He is on the point of removing our terrors, He brings upon us other worse things, and more alarming: which we see took place then also. For together with the storm, the sight too troubled them, no less than the storm. Therefore neither did He remove the darkness, nor straightway make Himself manifest, training them, as I said, by the continuance of these fears, and instructing them to be ready to endure. This He did in the case of Job also; for when He was on the point of removing the terror and the temptation, then He suffered the end to grow more grievous; I mean not for his children’s death, or the words of his wife, but because of the reproaches, both of his servants and of his friends. And when He was about to rescue Jacob from his affliction in the strange land, He allowed his trouble to be awakened and aggravated: in that his father-in-law first overtook him and threatened death, and then his brother coming immediately after, suspended over him the extremest danger.

For since one cannot be tempted both for a long time and severely; when the righteous are on the point of coming to an end of their conflicts, He, willing them to gain the more, enhances their struggles. Which He did in the case of Abraham too, appointing for his last conflict that about his child. For thus even things intolerable will be tolerable, when they are so brought upon us, as to have their removal near, at the very doors.

So did Christ at that time also, and did not discover Himself before they cried out. For the more intense their alarm, the more did they welcome His coming. Afterward when they had exclaimed, it is said,

“Straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid” (Matthew 14:27).

This word removed their fear, and caused them to take confidence. For as they knew Him not by sight, because of His marvelous kind of motion, and because of the time, He makes Himself manifest by His voice.

What then saith Peter, everywhere ardent, and ever starting forward before the rest?

“Lord, if it be Thou,” saith he, “bid me come unto Thee on the water”(Matthew 14:28).

He said not, “Pray and entreat,” but, “bid.” Seest thou how great his ardor, how great his faith? Yet surely he is hereby often in danger, by seeking things beyond his measure. For so here too he required an exceedingly great thing, for love only, not for display. For neither did he say, “Bid me walk on the water,” but what? “Bid me come unto Thee.” For none so loved Jesus.

This he did also after the resurrection; he endured not to come with the others, but leapt forward (1 John 21:7). And not love only, but faith also doth he display. For he not only believed that He was able Himself to walk on the sea, but that He could lead upon it others also; and he longs to be quickly near Him.

“And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth His hand and caught him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” (Matthew 14:29–31).

This is more wonderful than the former. Therefore this is done after that. For when He had shown that He rules the sea, then He carries on the sign to what is yet more marvelous. Then He rebuked the winds only; but now He both walks Himself, and permits another to do so; which thing if He had required to be done at the beginning, Peter would not have so well received it, because he had not yet acquired so great faith.

Wherefore then did Christ permit him? Why, if He had said, “thou canst not,” Peter being ardent would have contradicted Him again. Wherefore by the facts He convinces him, that for the future he may be sobered.

But not even so doth he endure. Therefore having come down, he becomes dizzy; for he was afraid. And this the surf caused, but his fear was wrought by the wind.

But John saith, that “they willingly received Him into the ship; and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went,” (John 6:21) relating this same circumstance. So that when they were on the point of arriving at the land, He entered the ship.

Peter then having come down from the ship went unto Him, not rejoicing so much in walking on the water, as in coming unto Him. And when he had prevailed over the greater, he was on the point of suffering evil from the less, from the violence of the wind, I mean, not of the sea. For such a thing is human nature; not seldom effecting great things, it exposes itself in the less; as Elias felt toward Jezebel, as Moses toward the Egyptian, as David toward Bathsheba. Even so then this man also; while their fear was yet at the height, he took courage to walk upon the water, but against the assault of the wind he was no longer able to stand; and this, being near Christ. So absolutely nothing doth it avail to be near Christ, not being near Him by faith.

And this also showed the difference between the Master and the disciple, and allayed the feelings of the others. For if in the case of the two brethren they had indignation, much more here; for they had not yet the Spirit vouchsafed unto them.

But afterwards they were not like this. On every occasion, for example, they give up the first honors to Peter, and put him forward in their addresses to the people, although of a rougher vein than any of them.

And wherefore did He not command the winds to cease, but Himself stretched forth His hand and took hold of him? Because in him faith was required. For when our part is wanting, then God’s part also is at a stand.

Signifying therefore that not the assault of the wind, but his want of faith had wrought his overthrow, He saith, “Wherefore didst thou doubt, O thou of little faith?” So that if his faith had not been weak, he would have stood easily against the wind also. And for this reason, you see, even when He had caught hold of Him, He suffers the wind to blow, showing that no hurt comes thereby, when faith is steadfast.

And as when a nestling has come out of the nest before the time, and is on the point of falling, its mother bears it on her wings, and brings it back to the nest; even so did Christ.

“And when they were come into the ship, then the wind ceased” (Matthew 14:32).

Whereas before this they had said, “What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him!” (Matthew 8:27) now it is not so. For “they that were in the ship,” it is said, “came and worshiped Him, saying, Of a truth Thou art Son of God” (Matthew 14:33). Seest thou, how by degrees he was leading them all higher and higher? For both by His walking on the sea, and by His commanding another to do so, and preserving him in jeopardy; their faith was henceforth great. For then indeed He rebuked the sea, but now He rebukes it not, in another way signifying His power more abundantly. Wherefore also they said, “Of a truth Thou art Son of God.”

What then? Did He rebuke them on their so speaking? Nay, quite the contrary, He rather confirmed what they said, with greater authority healing such as approached Him, and not as before.

“And when they were gone over,” so it is said, “they came into the land of Gennesaret. And when the men of that place had knowledge of Him, they sent out into all that country round about, and brought unto Him all that were diseased; and besought Him that they might touch the hem of His garment; and as many as touched were made perfectly whole” (Matthew 14:34–36).

For neither did they approach Him as before, dragging Him into their houses, and seeking a touch of His hand, and directions from Him in words; but in a far higher strain, and with more of self-denial, and with a more abundant faith did they try to win themselves a cure; for she that had the issue of blood taught them all to be severe in seeking wisdom.

And the evangelist, implying also that at long intervals He visited the several neighborhoods, saith, “The men of that place took knowledge of Him, and sent out into the country round about, and brought unto Him them that were diseased.” But yet the interval, so far from abolishing their faith, made it even greater, and preserved it in vigor.

Let us also then touch the hem of His garment, or rather, if we be willing, we have Him entire. For indeed His body is set before us now, not His garment only, but even His body; not for us to touch it only, but also to eat, and be filled. Let us now then draw near with faith, every one that hath an infirmity. For if they that touched the hem of His garment drew from Him so much virtue, how much more they that possess Him entire? Now to draw near with faith is not only to receive the offering, but also with a pure heart to touch it; to be so minded, as approaching Christ Himself. For what, if thou hear no voice? Yet thou seest Him laid out; or rather thou dost also hear His voice, while He is speaking by the evangelists.

Believe, therefore, that even now it is that supper, at which He Himself sat down. For this is in no respect different from that. For neither doth man make this and Himself the other; but both this and that is His own work. When therefore thou seest the priest delivering it unto thee, account not that it is the priest that doeth so, but that it is Christ’s hand that is stretched out.

Even as when he baptizes, not he doth baptize thee, but it is God that possesses thy head with invisible power, and neither angel nor archangel nor any other dare draw nigh and touch thee; even so now also. For when God begets, the gift is His only. Seest thou not those who adopt to themselves sons here, how they commit not the act to slaves, but are themselves present at the judgment-seat? Even so neither hath God committed His gift to angels, but Himself is present, commanding and saying, “Call no man Father on earth” (Matthew 23:9); not that thou shouldest dishonor them that gave thee birth, but that thou shouldest prefer to all those Him that made thee, and enrolled thee amongst His own children. For He that hath given the greater, that is, hath set Himself before thee, much more will He not think scorn to distribute unto thee of His body. Let us hear therefore, both priests and subjects, what we have had vouchsafed to us; let us hear and tremble. Of His own holy flesh He hath granted us our fill; He hath set before us Himself sacrificed.

What excuse shall we have then, when feeding on such food, we commit such sins? when eating a lamb, we become wolves? when feeding on a sheep, we spoil by violence like the lions?

For this mystery He directs to be always clear, not from violence only, but even from bare enmity. Yea, for this mystery is a mystery of peace; it allows us not to cling to wealth. For if He spared not Himself for us, what must we deserve, sparing our wealth, and being lavish of a soul, in behalf of which He spared not Himself?

Now upon the Jews God every year bound 303 in their feasts a memorial of His peculiar favors to them: but for thee, every day, as I may say, through these mysteries.

Be not therefore ashamed of the cross: for these are our venerable things, these our mysteries; with this gift do we adorn ourselves, with this we are beautified.

And if I say, He stretched out the heaven, He spread out the earth and the sea, He sent prophets and angels, I say nothing in comparison. For the sum of His benefits is this, that “He spared not His own Son” (Romans 8:32), in order to save His alienated servants.

4. Let no Judas then approach this table, no Simon; nay, for both these perished through covetousness. Let us flee then from this gulf; neither let us account it enough for our salvation, if after we have stripped widows and orphans, we offer for this table a gold and jeweled cup. Nay, if thou desire to honor the sacrifice, offer thy soul, for which also it was slain; cause that to become golden; but if that remain worse than lead or potter’s clay, while the vessel is of gold, what is the profit?

Let not this therefore be our aim, to offer golden vessels only, but to do so from honest earnings likewise. For these are of the sort that is more precious even than gold, these that are without injuriousness. For the church is not a gold foundry nor a workshop for silver, but an assembly of angels. Wherefore it is souls which we require, since in fact God accepts these for the souls’ sake.

That table at that time was not of silver nor that cup of gold, out of which Christ gave His disciples His own blood; but precious was everything there, and awful, for that they were full of the Spirit.

Wouldest thou do honor to Christ’s body? Neglect Him not when naked; do not while here thou honorest Him with silken garments, neglect Him perishing without of cold and nakedness. For He that said, “This is my body,” and by His word confirmed the fact, “This same said, “Ye saw me an hungered, and fed me not;” and, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me” (Matthew 25:42, 45). For This indeed needs not coverings, but a pure soul; but that requires much attention.

Let us learn therefore to be strict in life, and to honor Christ as He Himself desires. For to Him who is honored that honor is most pleasing, which it is His own will to have, not that which we account best. Since Peter too thought to honor Him by forbidding Him to wash his feet, but his doing so was not an honor, but the contrary.

Even so do thou honor Him with this honor, which He ordained, spending thy wealth on poor people. Since God hath no need at all of golden vessels, but of golden souls.

And these things I say, not forbidding such offerings to be provided; but requiring you, together with them, and before them, to give alms. For He accepts indeed the former, but much more the latter. For in the one the offerer alone is profited, but in the other the receiver also. Here the act seems to be a ground even of ostentation; but there all is mercifulness, and love to man.

For what is the profit, when His table indeed is full of golden cups, but He perishes with hunger? First fill Him, being an hungered, and then abundantly deck out His table also. Dost thou make Him a cup of gold, while thou givest Him not a cup of cold water? And what is the profit? Dost thou furnish His table with cloths bespangled with gold, while to Himself thou affordest not even the necessary covering? And what good comes of it? For tell me, should you see one at a loss for necessary food, and omit appeasing his hunger, while you first overlaid his table with silver; would he indeed thank thee, and not rather be indignant? What, again, if seeing one wrapped in rags, and stiff with cold, thou shouldest neglect giving him a garment, and build golden columns, saying, “thou wert doing it to his honor,” would he not say that thou wert mocking, and account it an insult, and that the most extreme?

Let this then be thy thought with regard to Christ also, when He is going about a wanderer, and a stranger, needing a roof to cover Him; and thou, neglecting to receive Him, deckest out a pavement, and walls, and capitals of columns, and hangest up silver chains by means of lamps, but Himself bound in prison thou wilt not even look upon.

5. And these things I say, not forbidding munificence in these matters, but admonishing you to do those other works together with these, or rather even before these. Because for not having done these no one was ever blamed, but for those, hell is threatened, and unquenchable fire, and the punishment with evil spirits. Do not therefore while adorning His house overlook thy brother in distress, for he is more properly a temple than the other.

And whereas these thy stores will be subject to alienations both by unbelieving kings, and tyrants, and robbers; whatever thou mayest do for thy brother, being hungry, and a stranger, and naked, not even the devil will be able to despoil, but it will be laid up in an inviolable treasure.

Why then doth He Himself say, “The poor always ye have with you, but me ye have not always?” (Matthew 26:11, John 7:8). Why, for this reason most of all should we give alms, that we have Him not always an hungered, but in the present life only. But if thou art desirous to learn also the whole meaning of the saying, understand that this was said not with a view to His disciples, although it seem so, but to the woman’s weakness. That is, her disposition being still rather imperfect, and they doubting about her; to revive her He said these things. For in proof that for her comfort He said it, He added, “Why trouble ye the woman?” (Matthew 26:10). And with regard to our having Him really always with us, He saith, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). From all which it is evident, that for no other object was this said, but that the rebuke of the disciples might not wither the faith of the woman, just then budding.

Let us not then bring forward these things now, which were uttered because of some economy, but let us read all the laws, those in the New and those in the Old Testament, that are set down about almsgiving, and let us be very earnest about this matter. For this cleanses from sin. For “give alms, and all things will be clean unto you” (Luke 11:41). This is a greater thing than sacrifice. “For I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:18). This opens the heavens. For “thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4). This is more indispensable than virginity: for thus were those virgins cast out of the bridechamber; thus were the others brought in.

All which things let us consider, and sow liberally, that we may reap in more ample abundance, and attain unto the good things to come, by the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

Hypatia and one of the reasons we repent during Lent

From Fr. Orthoduck:

In Lent, we do not simply concentrate on ourselves. During Lent, we also read the Fathers that we may learn more of the grace of Our God. We read so that we may learn to discipline ourselves and grow in the holiness of Our God. But, if we are fully intending to use Lent as a time of learning and as a time of repenting not only for our sins, but for the sins of all of us, then we will read the accounts of history, the negative accounts. It will often cause us pain to read them, but it is important that we do so, so that we may learn the appropriate lessons from Our Lord and Our God. Reading Christian history is often a painful thing. I teach an online class in World Religions for a major state university. And every term, I am faced with students who will cite events from history as part of their argument against Christianity. And, the events they cite from history are often painful, if one has any sense of Christian history. I cannot use the argument that it was done by “those” people. You see, I know my sinful self. It was done by me. Everyone of the mistaken notions found in history are my notions. I may not have acted on them, but they are in my heart, for I am a sinner. Lent is the time when we recognize that in each and every one of us dwells each and every sin which humanity has committed. Following is the story of Hypatia of Alexandria. It is an example of our sin:

Born between AD 350 and 370; died March 415 was a Greek scholar from Alexandria, Egypt, considered the first notable woman in mathematics,who also taught philosophy and astronomy. She lived in Roman Egypt, and was killed by a Christian mob who accused her of causing religious turmoil. Some suggest that her murder marked the end of what is traditionally known as Classical antiquity, although others such as Maria Dzielska and Christian Wildberg observe that Hellenistic philosophy continued to flourish in the 5th and 6th centuries, Wildberg suggests until the age of Justinian.

A Neoplatonist philosopher, she belonged to the mathematical tradition of the Academy of Athens represented by Eudoxus of Cnidus; she followed the school of the 3rd century thinker Plotinus, discouraging empirical enquiry and encouraging logical and mathematical studies. The name Hypatia derives from the adjective upaté, the feminine form of upatos, meaning “highest, uppermost, supremest”.

Although Hypatia’s death has been interpreted by some as an example of conflict between religion and scientific inquiry, contemporary historians of science have a different view: she essentially got caught up in a political struggle. In the words of David Lindberg, “her death had everything to do with local politics and virtually nothing to do with science”. …

Believed to have been the reason for the strained relationship between the Imperial Prefect Orestes and the Patriarch Cyril, Hypatia attracted the ire of a Christian population eager to see the two reconciled. One day in March AD 415, during the season of Lent, her chariot was waylaid on her route home by a Christian mob, possibly Nitrian monks led by a man identified only as Peter, who is thought to be Peter the Reader. The Christian monks stripped her naked and dragged her through the streets to the newly Christianised Caesareum church, where she was brutally killed. Some reports suggest she was flayed with ostraca (pot shards) and set ablaze while still alive, though other accounts suggest those actions happened after her death.

False monks have been the bane of Christianity during all too many centuries of the Church. True monks are a blessing, but false monks are one of Satan’s best tactics to discredit us. Please note that Hypatia was killed during Lent, during the season of repentance for our sins. Lord, have mercy.

St. John Chrysostom on the Eucharist

Let us also then touch the hem of His garment, or rather, if we be willing, we have Him entire. For indeed His body is set before us now, not His garment only, but even His body; not for us to touch it only, but also to eat, and be filled. Let us now then draw near with faith, every one that hath an infirmity. For if they that touched the hem of His garment drew from Him so much virtue, how much more they that possess Him entire? Now to draw near with faith is not only to receive the offering, but also with a pure heart to touch it; to be so minded, as approaching Christ Himself. For what, if thou hear no voice? Yet thou seest Him laid out; or rather thou dost also hear His voice, while He is speaking by the evangelists.

Believe, therefore, that even now it is that supper, at which He Himself sat down. For this is in no respect different from that. For neither doth man make this and Himself the other; but both this and that is His own work. When therefore thou seest the priest delivering it unto thee, account not that it is the priest that doeth so, but that it is Christ’s hand that is stretched out.

Even as when he baptizes, not he doth baptize thee, but it is God that possesses thy head with invisible power, and neither angel nor archangel nor any other dare draw nigh and touch thee; even so now also. For when God begets, the gift is His only. Seest thou not those who adopt to themselves sons here, how they commit not the act to slaves, but are themselves present at the judgment-seat? Even so neither hath God committed His gift to angels, but Himself is present, commanding and saying, “Call no man Father on earth;” not that thou shouldest dishonor them that gave thee birth, but that thou shouldest prefer to all those Him that made thee, and enrolled thee amongst His own children. For He that hath given the greater, that is, hath set Himself before thee, much more will He not think scorn to distribute unto thee of His body. Let us hear therefore, both priests and subjects, what we have had vouchsafed to us; let us hear and tremble. Of His own holy flesh He hath granted us our fill; He hath set before us Himself sacrificed.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 50 on the Gospel of St. Matthew

When abortion and infanticide were liturgy

From a very interesting post by J. K. Gayle at Aristotle's Feminist Subject on the development of the word "liturgy" from a Hellenic to Jewish to Christian context:

And pregnant women also must take care of their bodies, not avoiding exercise nor adopting a low diet; this it is easy for the lawgiver to secure by ordering them to make a journey daily for the due worship of the deities whose office is the control of childbirth. As regards the mind, however, on the contrary it suits them to pass the time more indolently than as regards their bodies; for children before birth are evidently affected by the mother just as growing plants are by the earth. As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life; for the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive. And since the beginning of the fit age for a man and for a woman, at which they are to begin their union, has been defined, let it also be decided for how long a time it is suitable for them to serve [λειτουργεῖν leitourgeīn] the state in the matter of producing children. For the offspring of too elderly parents, as those of too young ones, are born imperfect both in body and mind, and the children of those that have arrived at old age are weaklings.

Aristotle, The Politics, Book VII (1335b line 28)

New blog on Jewish liturgy

(h/t: Joel M. Hoffman at God Didn't Say That: Bible Translations and Mistranslations -- Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman's son, cool enough!)

There's a new blog on the block (i.e. interwebs) called Life and a Little Liturgy by Jewish liturgist Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman, who has published a few books on the subject (see below) -- As most of you probably already know, the history of Christian liturgy (which, obviously, derives from Jewish liturgical practice) is a subject that I am very interested in. I'm looking forward to following his posts and learning more about this fascinating topic.

Some books by Rabbi Hoffman on Jewish liturgy:

Moscow Patriarchate Encourages Scientists To Study the Church Fathers On Human Psychology

(h/t: MYSTAGOGY)

From Interfax (15 April):

The Moscow Patriarchate urged scientists to study discoveries of the Orthodox holy fathers in human psychology.

"Modern science has not absorbed or insufficiently absorbed the wealth of a heritage left by the Early Christian spiritual and intellectual tradition," the head of the Synodal Information Department Vladimir Legoyda writes in an article published by Izvestia newspaper.

According to him, one reason is that "the language of today's science was formed in Europe primarily by Christian believers; however, a large corpus of texts written by the holy fathers has not been translated into this scientific language."

"Christian ascetics made such great discoveries in human nature that Freud couldn't even dream of, if I may say so. Of course, not strictly scientific in form, they contain quite detailed descriptions of many psychological laws of personal development," the article says.

Legoyda states that Western culture went past the works of the Church Fathers and Christian ascetics "who have been studying the secret laws of the human soul for centuries"; so "this situation may be and needs to be changed."

"The ecclesiastical pastoral experience is well aware of such maladies inherent to the modern world and treated by psychiatrists as stress, passions, tension and loneliness. Christianity has gathered unparalleled experience analyzing the human soul which is undoubtedly indispensable to modern science," Legoyda added.

There is quite a bit of potential here and I look forward to seeing what comes out of this. I've commented myself in the past that the Church Fathers were far ahead of their times in their discoveries and observations concerning human psychology. One excellent book that begins to touch on this topic is:

Artificial toes in ancient Egypt

(h/t: Dr. Claude Mariottini)

The photo above is an artificial toe which was attached to the right foot of an Egyptian priest’s daughter.

The photo appears in an article published in Archaeology Magazine which also mentions that some mummified remains have been found with artificial limbs and false eyes to replace missing parts. According to a scientist at the University of Manchester, the Egyptians probably were pioneers in prosthetic medicine.

Patristic irony

It is usual, indeed, with persons of a weaker character, to be so built up in confidence by certain individuals who are caught by heresy, as to topple over into ruin themselves. How comes it to pass, they ask, that this woman or that man, who were the most faithful, the most prudent, and the most approved in the Church, have gone over to the other side?

Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, 3

Indeed, Tertullian, indeed...

Artwork from the Roman Catacombs

(h/t: Fr. Stephen Smuts)

A video with a short explanation and description of the art in the Roman catacombs as well as some visuals of these beautiful ancient icons:

Liturgy in John's Gospel

Joel at Unsettled Christianity has an interesting post in which he points out that many passages in the Gospel of St. John seem to reflect early Christian liturgical practice; as someone with a great interest in the history of Christian liturgy, I think this is a fascinating topic. Joel gives the following example:

Jesus told her, “Your brother will rise again.”

“Yes,” Martha said, “he will rise when everyone else rises, at the last day.”

Jesus told her, “I am the resurrection and the life Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die. Do you believe this, Martha?”

“Yes, Lord,” she told him. “I have always believed you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who has come into the world from God.”

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

Anyone else see the call-and-response style here? I sure do, and I think now I'll be giving John's Gospel another read with an eye for liturgy...

"The word 'Easter' comes from the name of a pagan goddess."

Rather than do one large post as I did with my post on the supposed pagan origins of Christmas, I will be posting several short posts over the next several days which address the various common claims concerning the pagan origins of Easter. Along the way I will also tell interesting stories concerning the history of the feast. This is the first in that series of posts; in this post, I will address the common claim, which is unfortunately even often repeated by many Christians, that the word "Easter" derives from the name of a pagan goddess.

The first thing that needs to be said here is that "Easter" is not the most accurate name for the Feast of the Resurrection of Christ. The more ancient, and so more accurate, name is "Pascha," the Greek word for "Passover." This word has been used as the name of this feast since Christianity's earliest days and really is far more appropriate than the name Easter. Calling the feast Pascha preserves the feast's important link to the Jewish Passover which foreshadowed it and reminds us that this is the Christian Passover.

All of that said, the term Easter is hardly of the pernicious origins that some claim. Ironically, the source of the claim, now championed mostly by Neo-Pagans, atheists, pseudo-Christian cults, and other conspiracy-minded groups and individuals, is actually a Christian saint, Bede the Venerable, who lived in the late seventh and early eighth centuries. According to Bede,

Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance. (Venerable Bede, The Reckoning of Time [De ratione temporum], chapter 15)

The problem with Bede's claim here, and with modern folks using it as a source, is that there is no other ancient source that makes this claim which does not draw upon Bede for its information. I'll state that again, a bit more emphatically: There is no other source, whether pagan or Christian, for even the existence of a goddess with such a name, much less that she had a feast celebrated on the Spring equinox which Christians later borrowed for the name of their own Paschal feast. Clear enough, I hope.

So where did Bede get this information from? The truth is that no one knows. Historians, scholars, and various non-historians and non-scholars have conjectured any number of possible sources, but the plain fact is that we don't know and we never will unless an earlier source is found, which is highly unlikely. It is a signifant possibility that Bede may have made it up altogether to explain the origins of the name; this was a common technique employed by ancient and Medieval historians to explain events, names, people, etc. of which the origins were not actually known. For example, if one reads the hagiographies of various medieval saints, it doesn't take long to start to wonder at the fact that all of them seem to have been born in nearly the exact same type of village and to the exact same time of parents and to have exhibited the exact same type of qualities in childhood. It was simply a literary technique of the time: when in doubt, use a cliche.

Modern philologists and historians, however, have a wider purview than did our ancient and medieval counterparts. As a result, we also have access to more information than they did as well as easier means of processing such information. Scholars who study the history of languages have established that the roots of the word "Easter" are found in the Proto-Indo-European language, the prehistoric language that is the common ancestor of nearly all European and Southeast Asian languages. The Proto-Indo-European word "aus," meaning "to shine," gave birth to the Proto-Germanic word "austra," which, in turn, gave life to the Old English word "Easterdæg," the predecessor of our modern English "Easter." In short, the origins of the word are found in a verb meaning "to shine."

Importantly, there are strong associations with and references to light, and so to shining, in traditional Christian Paschal symbolism and liturgical language. For example, Orthodox Christians to this day refer to the week following Pascha Sunday as "Bright Week." Given this association between "shining" and Pascha, it is quite possible, even likely, that the use of the word "Easter" to refer to the Resurrection of Christ is in fact entirely of Christian origins and not the result of any pagan or other borrowing at all. Early Medieval Anglo-Saxon Christians may have seen the importance of this light symbolism in Pascha and applied it to their name for the Feast of Feasts. While this certainly cannot be a conclusive judgment about the origins of the word, it is a far more likely possibility than the common myth that "Easter" derives from the name of a pagan goddess, which is not only unlikely but untrue.

Short book review: "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

I'm not one to read a book more than once, but for this one I've made an exception -- a few times -- and I will probably make many more exceptions in the future. This novel is a masterpiece of literature and of philosophy. Dostoyevsky offers one of the most fervent apologetics for Orthodox Christianity, one of the most moving descriptions of the content of the Orthodox Faith, one of the most stirring defenses of its necessity, and one of the most cogent -- in fact, the most cogent -- refutations of modern atheism ever written, and he does all of this while telling an engaging story about a murder mystery. Dostoyevsky masterfully and beautifully combines the spiritual traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church, the theology of St. Isaac of Syria, his personal life experiences, the teachings of the Fathers of the Optina Monastery, and an amazing storytelling ability to make this book what it is -- a prophecy of the 20th century, one of the greatest books ever written, and my personal favorite book.