Category Archives: Patristica

I recommend to my readers (particularly those who are of a mind with me regarding the thoughts in my post on wonder in encountering the Bible) the purchase and attentive reading of Sebastian Brock’s The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (revised edition, Cistercian Publications, 1992). In it, Professor Brock introduces the reader to (as the title says) the spiritual world vision of Ephrem the Syrian, providing numerous translated excerpts from Ephrem’s hymns as illustration. The result is either a new or a better appreciation of brilliance of Ephrem the Syrian as thinker, theologian, and author. What is so fascinating about this little book is that it reads as though Brock and Ephrem wrote it together, the text flows so well. An example regarding three forms of theology follows:

Theology, like any other intellectual pursuit, can take on three different forms, depending on the attitude of mind present in the person setting out on the path of enquiry.

(The first form:)

[T]he mind may seek to dominate and subjugate the object of its enquiry. Such an attitude has characterized much scientific and other enquiry from the time of Francis Bacon onwards.

(The second form:)

[T]he mind sets out to study the object of its enquiry in as dispassionate and “scientific” a way as possible.

Turn me back to Your teaching:
       I wanted to stand back,
but I saw that I became the poorer.
       For the soul does not get any benefit
except through converse with You.
(Hymns on Faith 32:1)

(The third form:)

The third approach, which is Ephrem’s, is that of engagement, an engagement above all of love and wonder. Whereas the second approach involves only a one-way movement, from the mind to the object of enquiry, this third approach is a two-way affair, involving a continual interaction. Only by means of such an interaction of love can human knowledge of divine truth grow. Ephrem continues in the same hymn:

Whenever I have meditated upon You
      I have acquired a veritable treasure from You;
Whatever aspect of You I have contemplated,
      a stream has flowed from You.
There is no way in which I can contain it:

Your fountain, Lord, is hidden
      from the person who does not thirst for You;
Your treasury seems empty
      to the person who rejects You.
Love is the treasurer
      of Your heavenly treasure trove.
(Hymns of Faith 32:2-3) (Brock, 43-44)

It’s fascinating to realize here that, while the subject here is theology, the issue Ephrem describes is that of epistemology and engagement. Ephrem describes an overarching appreciation (expressed later in the above-quoted hymn as love and wonder) for not only the author of the work he is studying—whether it be Scriptures, the world, or the various aspects of salvific theology proper—but also for the work itself. It is love of the subject matter which opens up understanding of it to Ephrem, which leads to greater love for the subject itself, and for its author. Who cannot recognize themselves in that?

As an example, let’s consider the relationship of an expert scholar and a reader. The reader has always learned from the works of this scholar, so the reader has come to appreciate not only the work, but also the person of the scholar. The reader comes to spend more time with the works of the scholar than works of other scholars, and the reader is repaid for these efforts. The reader’s engagement leads to a richer learning experience. Other readers who, for whatever reason, don’t engage with the scholar’s work end up the poorer. Or, as Ephrem says above:

Your fountain, Lord, is hidden
      from the person who does not thirst for You;
Your treasury seems empty
      to the person who rejects You.
Love is the treasurer
      of Your heavenly treasure trove.

Well. In any case, this is a thought-provoking and fascinating book. Highly recommended!

These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the Holy Scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to show you the way. I say nothing of the knowledge of grammarians, rhetoricians, philosophers, geometricians, logicians, musicians, astronomers, astrologers, physicians, whose several kinds of skills are most useful to mankind, and may be ranged under the three heads of teaching, method, and proficiency. I will pass to the less important crafts which require manual dexterity more than mental ability. Husbandmen, masons, carpenters, workers in wood and metal, wood dressers and fullers, as well as those artisans who make furniture and cheap utensils, cannot attain the ends they seek without instruction from qualified persons. As Horace says:

Doctors alone profess the healing art
And none but joiners ever try to join.
Ep 2.1.115-16

The art of interpreting the Scriptures is the only one of which all men everywhere claim to be masters. To quote Horace again:

Taught or untaught we all write poetry.
Ep 2.1.117

The chatty old woman, the doting old man, and the wordy sophist, one and all take in hand the Scriptures, rend them in pieces and teach them before they have learned them. Some with brows knit and bombastic words balanced one against the other, philosophize concerning the sacred writings among weak women. Others—I blush to say it—learn of women what they are to teach men; and as if even this were not enough, they boldly explain to others what they themselves by no means understand. I say nothing of persons who, like myself, have been familiar with secular literature before they have come to the study of the Holy Scriptures. Such men when they charm the popular ear by the finish of their style suppose every word they say to be a law of God. They do not deign to notice what prophets and apostles have intended but they adapt conflicting passages to suit their own meaning, as if it were a grand way of teaching—and not rather the faultiest of all—to misrepresent a writer’s views and to force the Scriptures reluctantly to do their will. They forget that we have read centos from Homer and Vergil; but we never think of calling the Christless Vergil a Christian because of his lines:

Now comes the Virgin back and Saturn’s reign,
Now from high heaven comes a Child newborn.
Eclogue 4.6-7

Another line might be addressed by the Father to the Son:

Hail, only Son, my Might and Majesty.
Aeneid 1.664

And yet another might follow the Savior’s words on the cross:

Such words he spoke and there transfixed remained.
Aeneid 2.650

But all this is puerile, and resembles the sleight-of-hand of a mountebank. It is idle to try to teach what you do not know, and—if I may speak with some warmth—it is worse to be ignorant of your ignorance.

St Jerome, excerpt from Epistle 53 to St Paulinus of Nola. As presented in F. Sadowski, The Church Fathers On The Bible: Selected Readings (Alba House, 1987).

I’ve briefly mentioned the Popular Patristics Series published by Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press before. My appreciation of the volumes has only grown since then, as I’ve managed to pick up the entire series. In this post, I provide a list of the works included in each volume, and the texts utilized in their translations, and other stuff that I think useful to know. The list follows the publication order, with each volume given its number in the series. It is not hard to miss some big names among those contributing to this series, though it is somewhat surprising in a series of translations designed for the general reading public. Among the contributors is a shared love for the Church Fathers and a noble desire to spread knowledge of these treasures of Christianity which we find in their writings. I hope others will find this list as useful as I do.

1. Saint John Chrysostom — Six Books on the Priesthood
Translation and Introduction: Graham Neville
Work: On the Priesthood (complete).
Text: J. A. Nairn. De Sacerdotio of Saint John Chrysostom. Cambridge Patristic Texts. 1906.

2. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem — Lectures on the Christian Sacraments
Introduction and Greek Text: F. L. Cross
English Translation: R. W. Church
Works: Procatechesis; Mystagogical Catecheses I-V
Text: F. L. Cross, in this volume.
Note: This volume is unusual in the series in that it includes both a Greek text and an English translation. Most of the other volumes lack presentations in the original language.

3. Saint John of Damascus — On the Divine Images
Introduction and Translation: David Anderson
Work: Three Treatises on the Holy Images
Text: Migne PG 94.1231-1420
Note: This volume is unusual in that a later number in the series is a new edition of the same work, by a different translator. See number 24.

4. Saint Athanasius — On the Incarnation
Introduction: C. S. Lewis
Translation: A Religious of C.S.M.V.
Works: 1.) On the Incarnation; 2.) Letter to Marcellinus
Texts: 1.) F. L. Cross, Athanasius De Incarnatione: An Edition of the Greek Text, SPCK, 1939; 2.) Benedictine edition of 1698; Migne PG 27

Continue reading “Popular Patristics Series”

The second edition, revised and expanded, of Frank Williams’ translation of Book I of The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis is now available. My copy arrived today. The library binding was a bit of a surprise (it doesn’t match my copy of the volume containing Books II and III, which is the usual olive-green cloth with gold stamping of the other Nag Hammadi & Manichean Studies volumes), but it’s otherwise another fine example of bookmaking, a standard of Brill. As I have a copy of the original edition of 1987 (there was also a corrected reprinting of 1997) checked out from the library, I thought it would be fun to compare.

The introduction has grown from 27 pages (including a bibliography of five items) to 34 pages of introduction and a now separate 5 pages of “Editions and Works Consulted.” The subject index has grown from seven to ten pages. New to the 2009 edition are a half page list of Corrected Passages (in which Williams lists the emendations to the Greek text of Holl which he’s followed), and a twelve page Index of References, including all references in the text, footnotes, etc, in three parts: “Nag Hammadi Codices,” “Other Gnostic Sources,” and “Patristic Sources.” Surprisingly, there is no Scriptural index. The translations included in the volume (The Letter of Acacius and Paul, and Book I of the Panarion proper) have grown from 352 to 380 pages, only two of which belong to the Letter. A very interesting and helpful difference between the two volumes lies in the page headers. In the original edition, the page headers were only Section I, Section II, or Section III, reflecting the Anacephaleosis in which each sect was found. In the new edition, the Section is noted in the header of the left-facing page (verso) and a short title for the sect is given in the header of the right-facing page (recto), e.g., Valentinians, Secundians, Ptolemaeans, etc. Rather than the Section/Anacephaleosis number, however, it would have been more useful to have the chapter number, as it is the standard used in referring to the various sects/chapters of the Panarion. My trusty pencil will take up the noble task of effecting this in my own copy.

Flipping through and comparing the two translations, it becomes apparent that this new edition is not simply a slight reworking of the old, but rather qualifies as a new translation altogether. Identical renderings between the two editions are not widespread. Following are Williams’ renderings of 30,1,1-3, the beginning of the Sect (Epiphanius’ usage is to call each chapter a Sect) on the Ebionites (notes and editorial markings are removed):

1987 edition:
Following these and holding the same views, Ebion, the Ebionites’ founder, emerged in his turn–a monstrosity with many shapes, who practically formed the snake-like shape of the mythical many-headed hydra in himself. He was of the Nazoraeans’ school, but preached and taught differently from them. For it was as though a person were to collect a set of jewelry from various precious stones, and a garment from clothing of many colors, and dress up to be consipcuous. Ebion, in reverse, took any item of preaching from every sect if it was dreadful, lethal and disgusting, if it was ugly and unconvincing, if it was full of contention, and patterned himself after them all. For he has the Samaritans’ repulsiveness but the Jews’ name, the viewpoint of the Ossaeans, Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans, the nature of the Cerinthians, and the badness of the Carpocratians. And he has the Christians’ name alone–most certainly not their behaviour, viewpoint and knowledge, and the Gospels’ and apostles’ agreement as to faith!

2009 edition:
Following these and holding views like theirs, Ebion, the founder of the Ebionites, arose in the world in his turn as a monstrosity with many forms, and practically represented in himself the snake-like form of the mythical many-headed hydra. He was of the Nazoraeans’ school, but preached and taught other things than they. For it was as though someone were to collect a set of jewelry from various precious stones and an outfit of varicolored clothing and tog himself up conspicuously. Ebion, in reverse, took any and every doctrine which was dreadful, lethal, disgusting, ugly and unconvincing, thoroughly contentious, from every sect, and patterned himself after them all. For he has the Samaritans’ unpleasantness but the Jews’ name, the opinion of the Ossaeans, Nazoraeans and Nasaraeans, the form of the Cerinthians, and the perversity of the Carpocratians. And he wants to have just the Chrisians’ title–most certainly not their behavior, opinion and knowledge, and the consensus as to faith of the Gospels and Apostles!

Greek text (Holl’s text, which Williams used, as found in TLG): Ἐβίων, ἀφ’ οὗπερ Ἐβιωναῖοι, καθεξῆς ἀκολουθῶν καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις φρονήσας, πολύμορφον τεράστιον καὶ ὡς εἰπεῖν τῆς μυθευομένης πολυκεφάλου ὕδρας ὀφιώδη μορφὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀνατυπωσάμενος, πάλιν ἐπανέστη τῷ βίῳ, ἐκ τῆς τούτων μὲν σχολῆς ὑπάρχων, ἕτερα δὲ παρὰ τούτους κηρύττων καὶ ὑφηγούμενος. ὡς γὰρ εἴ τις συνάξειεν ἑαυτῷ ἐκ διαφόρων λίθων τιμίων κόσμον καὶ ποικίλης ἐσθῆτος ἔνδυμα καὶ διαφανῶς ἑαυτὸν κοσμήσῃ, οὕτω καὶ οὗτος τὸ ἀνάπαλιν πᾶν ὁτιοῦν δεινὸν καὶ ὀλετήριον καὶ βδελυκτὸν κήρυγμα, ἄμορφόν τε καὶ ἀπίθανον, ἀ<ντι>ζηλίας ἔμπλεον παρ’ ἑκάστης αἱρέσεως λαβὼν ἑαυτὸν ἀνετύπωσεν εἰς ἁπάσας. Σαμαρειτῶν μὲν γὰρ ἔχει τὸ βδελυρόν, Ἰουδαίων δὲ τὸ ὄνομα, Ὀσσαίων καὶ Ναζωραίων καὶ Νασαραίων τὴν γνώμην, Κηρινθιανῶν τὸ εἶδος, Καρποκρατιανῶν τὴν κακοτροπίαν, καὶ Χριστιανῶν βούλεται ἔχειν τὸ ἐπώνυμον μόνον (οὐ γὰρ δήπουθεν τήν τε πρᾶξιν καὶ τὴν γνώμην καὶ τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ τὴν τῶν εὐαγγελίων καὶ ἀποστόλων περὶ πίστεως συγκατάθεσιν)·

It seems that Williams has spent the last decades well, familiarizing himself ever more with the text in order to produce a much smoother, more readable, and more immediately satisfying translation. The awkward renderings in the older version are gone, and the new translation certainly shows itself to be a fine representation of the accessible and colloquial style found in Epiphanius’ original, which is also touched on in Williams’ introduction. The new translation is certainly lively, moreso than the somewhat stilted older edition, particularly in the colorful language that Epiphanius is given to use in reference to the ideas of the various heresies!

This translation of the full Panarion by Frank Williams is the only one currently available in any modern language. There are editions with excerpts, most notably Philip Amidon’s The Panarios of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Selected Passages (Oxford, 1990), but no other full translations of the complete Panarion. Perhaps a more affordable paperback edition of the two volumes of Williams’ translation will appear in the future, the better to make accessible this truly amazing work.

His piety was redoubled by a very strong concern with orthodoxy. For example, in one of his homilies on Saint Luke he says: “As for myself, my wish is to be truly a man of the Church, to be called by the name of Christ and not that of any heresiarch, to have this name which is blessed over all the earth; I desire to be, and to be called, a Christian, in my works as in my thoughts.” Love and faith are fused in this outcry; it is the force of love which exacts rightness of faith. He often alerts us to the danger of false doctrines from which, he observes, “human nature finds it difficult to purify itself.” Such doctrines are for him in the true sense, so to speak, “the abomination of desolation.” He insists that one must protect oneself against them by vigilance and by prayer. Not content to invoke “the rule of the Scriptures” or “the evangelical and apostolic rule,” he constantly appeals to “the rule of the Church,” “the faith of the Church,” “the word of the Church,” “the preaching of the Church,” “the tradition of the Church,” “the doctrine of the Church,” “the thoughts and teaching of the Church.” In the bones of the paschal Lamb he sees a symbol of the “holy dogmas of the Church” of which not one shall be broken. He does not want “that there be any disagreement on doctrine among Churches.” He is Adamantius, “the man of iron”; “doctrinal firmness” is one of the virtues closest to his heart. He exalts the constancy in the faith and stability of dogma. Even before Saint Augustine, he speaks of “chastity of the heart,” that is, of the understanding, and doctrines that stray from the rule of faith seem to him worse than evil ways of life. Again, he says that “one must guard oneself against committing an offense of the head” and against eatin the sacred foods outside the temple, that is, “against harboring thoughts different from the faith of the Church on divine dogmas.” One must receive the faith of God in the spirit which the Church teaches us, and must not do like the heretics who search the Scriptures only in order to find some confirmation of their own doctrines. Their pride raises them “higher than the cedars of Lebanon” and their sophistries are full of deceit. But it is no use for them to pretend that they have a tradition which comes down from the apostles; they are professors of error. While the faithful Christian in no way strays from the great tradition, they appeal to secret Scriptures or to secret traditions in order to confirm their lies. Thus they want to make us worship a Christ whom they have invented “in solitude,” while the only authentic Christ reveals himself “within the house.” They disfigure those vessels of gold and silver which are the sacred texts, in order to fashion them into objects according to their own fancy. They are thieves and adulterers who seize the divine words only to deform them by their perverse interpretations. They are counterfeiters for they have coined their doctrine outside the Church. Falso teacher, false prophets, spinning out of their own minds what they propound, they are the liars of whom Ezekiel speaks. By a perverse trickery they often cover their idols, that is, their empty dogmas, with sweetness and chastity so that their propositions may be smuggled more easily into the ears of their listeners and lead them astray more surely. They all call Jesus their master and embrace him; but their kiss is the kiss of Judas.

Who is this remarkable personality who bore the nickname Adamantius? Why, it is Origen, of course! The above is found on pages xiii-xiv of the 1973 reprinting by Peter Smith of Gloucester, Massachusetts of the G. W. Butterworth translation of Origen’s On First Principles. It is excerpted from the 1966 edition’s Introduction, which is actually a translation (by William Babcock) of selections from chapters one and two of Henri de Lubac’s Histoire et Esprit, l’intelligence de l’Écriture d’après Origène (Paris, 1950).

I have always found a somewhat salacious delight in the irony of hearing those of a more pseudo-intellectual and falsely liberal bent complaining about the Church’s condemnation of Origen, holding up instead an image of Origen as a neo-gnostic like themselves, for whom dogma is “of the little people,” all the while ignoring his utter devotion to the Church! Little do they know him, this Adamantius! He would have been the first to disabuse them of their heresies both petty and gross, flaying, dismembring, and incinerating such foolish ideas, finally discarding the remnants on the ash-heap of theological history.

But we do find problems in Origen’s writings, despite his true Christian faith and his devotion to the Church. And with his recognition, entirely deserved, of being one of the more brilliant men of his generation, Christian or otherwise, we find that even his more peculiar ideas took on a lustre and maintained a staying power in certain circles, even in the face of developments of the understanding of theology in the universal Church which were opposed to Origen’s understanding. This was a problem, that certain circles, convinced of Origen’s genuine intelligence, thought his ideas were better than those that the Church held as correct. (It still happens today, far too often, though not with anyone of genuine brilliance and authentic faith like Origen’s–ours is a paltry age of the intellect when such faithless vapidities are listened to as have been.) Now, we can be sure that Origen would not have held such ideas in the face of ecumenical synodical decisions to the contrary; he would simply have rejoiced in the doctrine of the Church, as he always had. Yet, he died long before, and so lacked the benefit of, the Ecumenical Councils that would establish the formulation of doctrines to preserve the faith against heresy. And unfortunately, in one of them, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II of 553, in chapter 11 of the surviving canons of the council, Origen is anathematized:

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.
NPNF Second Series, volume 14, page 314

Two lists of anathemas are likewise attached to this council: a list of Fifteen Anathemas against Origen, and a list of Nine Anathemas against Origen written by the Emperor St Justinian himself. Unfortunately, because of the anathemas, Origen’s original writings have been almost completely destroyed (except for a collection of excerpts and several works in Latin translations of variable faithfulness), and so the consideration of these ideas (some of them very peculiar, indeed) as representative of Origen’s positions must be taken with a certain amount of faith. But I think here it is important to note those last phrases of the official act of anathematization: “all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.” All we know of Origen, and contrary to the other heretics listed with him, is that he would not have held “to the end the same opinion,” but in the light of the Church’s teaching he would certainly have changed his opinion to reflect that of the Church. There can be no doubt about this. His devotion to the Church, evident in the de Lubac citations above, would have allowed of nothing else. Unlike Arius and the others listed in the anathema, from what we know of Origen he would never have, despite his nickname, adamantly defended his speculative theology in the face of the teaching of the Church. So, one could say, even at this distance, that according to a strict reading of the anathema in which Origen is named, there is room to excuse him, for even though some of his ideas may certainly be worthy of anathema, he would not have held them when challenged by the Church in the body of an Ecumenical Council.

But there is something more important to keep in mind. There is always room for you to pray for another soul, too. Say a prayer for Origen sometime, for a loyal son of the Church. It’s just what he would ask of you, and just what he would do for you.

[This post has been updated to include editions published since 2010.]

I am now the very happy owner of a copy of The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery in 1984. It’s long been out of print and the price for a copy is now generally outrageously high. But several years of patience paid off, and I obtained a copy for a relative bargain. Even though I’ve read most of it before, now that I have my own copy I feel like sequestering myself for however long it takes to get through all of it.

Since my mind has been on St Isaac’s writings, I thought I’d fill a post with a quick bibliography of available editions of translations of the known, surviving works of Saint Isaac the Syrian, as much to straighten things out in my own head as to provide help for others seeking translations of his writings or the Syriac texts. A very helpful outline of several texts and translations, initially put together by Sebastian Brock, is available here. The Syri.ac site describes itself as ‘An annotated bibliography of Syriac resources online’. There’s so much stuff there, it’s easy to get lost. Anyhow, back to Isaac of Nineveh.

There are three known collections of discourses written by Saint Isaac. Only the First Series was translated from the original Syriac in ancient times into Western languages (first into Greek, and then other tertiary translations were made from the Greek), which led to a love of Saint Isaac’s writings throughout the Christian world from the late first millennium onward, especially in monastic circles.

The First Series
This set of 77 discourses is currently available in a second edition of The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrianfrom Holy Transfiguration Monastery (see here). It is an abridged version of the homilies from their long out-of-print first edition which I mentioned above, in a smaller format, printed according to their typically high standards: it, too, is a beautiful book. The second edition has revised the language sparingly, and added two homilies that were not included in the first edition. The HTM translation used the Greek version of St Isaac’s writings, adapting it where necessary to better reflect the original Syriac; that process was continued in the second edition. The original translator, Dana Miller, referred continually throughout to the Syriac, providing extensive notes (these are not included in the second edition, nor are the appendices included in the first edition, though several of them may be downloaded here), and translating the materials in the appendices all directly from Syriac. He indicates in the introduction that he was able to consult with Professor Sebastian Brock during the translation process, in more than a token manner. It is truly not only the best, but indeed the only usable full translation of the First Series in English. Avoid the Wensinck translation–it is a poor translation (Wensinck was not fluent in English). The Syriac text was published by Paul Bedjan as Mar Isaacus Ninivita: de Perfectione Religiosa (Paris/Leipzig, 1909). The Greek text which was the basis for the HTM translation was established by Miller himself through the use of microform copies of various manuscripts, and with reference to Bedjan’s Syriac text and others. A critical Greek text has since been published by Marcel Pirard, Logoi Askētikoi Isaak tou Syrou (Holy Monastery of Iviron, 2012) (Μάρκελλος Πιράρ, Λόγοι Ασκητικοί Αββά Ισαάκ του Σύρου, κριτική έκδοσις ελληνικού κειμένου [Ιερά Μονή Ιβήρων, 2012]).

The Second Series
The Second Series was never anciently translated, so was not known to Western Christians until just a few years ago. This series consists of 41 discourses, the third of which is actually comprised of four “centuries” (a work with 100 sections; in this case the Four Centuries include 100, 105, 100, 100 chapters respectively, ranging in length from a sentence to several pages). It was thought that the only manuscript was disastrously lost during the First World War, but Professor Sebastian Brock discovered an almost entirely complete manuscript in 1983 in Oxford. Thus this collection is lacking the very beginning of the First Discourse (though likely not too much), and there are lacunae elsewhere that a manuscript from another line of descent would be useful to have (all other partial surviving manuscripts appear to be copies of the lengthiest surviving one on which the text is based). Overall, however, it’s quite a good manuscript. Sebastian Brock has translated all but the Third Discourse (the Four Centuries). An English translation (and perhaps the Syriac; I haven’t seen this article yet) of Discourses One and Two were published in “St Isaac the Syrian: two unpublished texts” (Sobornost 19[1997].1: 7-33). One may subscribe or purchase the article in electronic format from the Sobornost page of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius. Brock’s translation of Discourses Four through Forty-One was published in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium series, volume 555 (Scriptores Syri Tomus 225), is available here and elsewhere(ISBN 9789068317091). He published the corresponding Syriac text in volume 554, with a more detailed introduction on textual matters. There is also a Greek translation of the Second Series, N. Kavvadas (Καββαδάς), Isaak tou Syrou Asketika (Ισαάκ του Σύρου, Ασκητικά), 3 vol. Thēra: Thesbitēs (Θεσβίτης), 2005.

There are two translations currently available of the Four Centuries, though not in English. There is Dom André Louf’s Isaac le Syrien: Oeuvres Spirituelles – II: 41 Discourses récemments découverts published by the Abbaye de Bellefontaine. This is a French translation of the entire Second Series, with a very helpful introduction. A second translation of only the Four Centuries and several other selections from the Second Series is that into Italian by Paolo Bettiolo, Isacco di Ninive: Discorsi spirituali e altri opuscoli, available here. Bettiolo will also be publishing the Syriac text for the first three discourses of the Second Series in the CSCO series, hopefully soon, so that others may take a crack at translating them without having to resort to a photocopy of a manuscript as Dom Louf did.

Third Series
The Third Series, also unknown in the West until recently, is the shortest of the three collections, comprising 17 discourses, of which three are also found in the earlier collections, so it is essentially the source of 14 new discourses. The text and translation for the Third Series was published in 2011 by Br Sabino Chialà in the Corpus Christianorum Scriptorum Orientalium series, with the Syriac text in volume 637 (Scriptores Syri Tomus 246; see here), and with the Italian translation in volume 638 (Scriptores Syri 247, see here). There is also an inexpensive paperback edition of the Italian translation alone available from the Monastero di Bose, here. André Louf has also translated the Third Series: Isaac le Syrien Œuvres Spirituelles III d’après un manuscrit récemment découvert, also published by the Abbaye de Bellefontaine (see here). Sebastian Brock will apparently at some point be translating this Third Series into English, as well.

Varia
Br Sabino Chialà also mentioned in a talk several other (unpublished?) discourses attributed to St Isaac which require further study.

It has been the case in the past that various works of St Isaac were misattributed to others, and vice versa. Perhaps a few more stray discourses will appear, and other works, but not likely any larger collections, though it would certainly be a pleasant surprise to have more of those!

Excerpts
There are various books which contain numerous excerpts of St Isaac’s writings in English translation, of which I am familiar with three good ones which are all currently available and affordable. St Isaac of Nineveh: On Ascetical Life, a translation by Mary Hansbury of the first six discourses in the First Series. There is also Headings on Spiritual Knowledge: The Second Part, Chapters 1-3, translated by Sebastian Brock (cribbed from the CSCO volume?). Both are books in the Popular Patristics Series of St Vladimir’s Seminary Press. Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev included numerous quotations from both the First and Second Series in his The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian. And lastly, the indefatigable Sebastian Brock published a neat little bilingual Syriac-English volume of selections from the First and Second Series, entitled The Wisdom of Saint Isaac the Syrian. I’m sure there are any number of other such books which include selections of St Isaac’s writings, as well. These are good for a start.

From the depth of wisdom and godliness,
thou didst draw forth wisdom
springing up to eternal life.
Nurtured by this fountain
found in thy sacred writings,
O lofty-minded Isaac,
we taste of Christ God’s grace.

Megalynarion for St Isaac

Following on my post Conversion of a Patriarch? and Chaim’s post The deathbed conversion of a patriarch?, I thought to post the other tale related by Count Joseph of Tiberias to Epiphanius, as related in the latter’s Panarion 30.7.1-8.7 (the translation is that of Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis [Brill, 1987]). Setting the scene, it is several years after 365, the year in which Hillel II died. Hillel’s son and successor, Gamaliel V, was not yet of age at Hillel’s death, so his upbringing was entrusted to Joseph (in these years before his conversion to Christianity, he was still a well-respected elder at the Patriarch’s court in Tiberias) and another elder. Epiphanius was born in Palestine, south of Gaza, which explains his reference in an aside to “my country” when telling the story.

❧

[T]he boy Ellel had left to be reared as patriarch was growing up. (No one usurps the positions of authority among the Jews; a son succeeds a father.) Just as the lad was reaching full vigor some idle youths of his age, who were used to evil, unfortunately met him. (I guess he was called Judas, but because of the time I am not quite sure.) The youths of his age got him into many bad habits, seductions of women and unholy sexual unions. They undertook to help him in his licentious deeds with certain magic devices–made certain love-philtres and compelled free women, by incantation, to be brought against their will for his seduction.

Josephus and his fellow elder, who were obliged to attend the boy, bore this with difficulty. Often they charged him verbally, and admonished him. But he preferred to listen to the young men, and he hid his indecencies and denied them. And Josephus did not dare to voice his accusations of him openly; he admonished him, however, as though from professional duty.

Well, they went to Gadara for the hot baths. There is an annual gathering there. Persons who wish to bathe for a certain number of days arrive from every quarter, to rid themselves of their ailments, if you please–though it is a trick of the devil. For where God’s wonders have been, the adversary already spread his deadly nets–men and women bathe together there!

There happened to be an unusually beautiful free woman in the bath. With his accustomed licentiousness the young man brushed against the girl’s side as he strolled about in the hot-air room. But being Christian, she naturally made the sign of the cross. (There was no need for her to break the rules and bathe in mixed company. These things happen to simple laypersons, from the laxity of the teachers who do not forewarn them through their instruction.) Still, that God might make his wonders manifest, the youngster, I mean the patriarch, failed in his enterprise. For he sent emissaries to the woman and promised her gifts; but she insulted his messengers and did not yield to the pampered youth’s futile efforts.

Then, when his helpers learned of the passion the boy had betrayed for the girl, they undertook to equip him with more powerful magic–as Josephus himself described to me minutely. After sunset they took the unfortunate lad to the neighboring cemetery. (In my country there are places of assembly of this kind, called “caverns,” made by hewing them out of cliffsides.) Taking him there the cheats who were with him recited certain incantations and spells, and did some things, with him and in the woman’s name, which were full of impiety.

By God’s will the other elder, Josephus’ partner, found this out; and on realizing what was happening, he told Josephus. And he began by bemoaning his lot, and said, “Brother, we are wretched men and vessels of destruction! What sort of person are we attending?” Josephus asked what the matter was, and no sooner were the words out of his mouth than the elder seized his hand and took Josephus to the place where the persons doomed to die, with the youth, were holding their assembly in the cemetery for magic. They stood outside the door and eavesdropped on their proceedings, but withdrew when they came out. (It was not dark yet; it was just about sundown, and visibility was still good.) After the monsters of impiety had left the tomb Josephus went in and saw certain vessels and other implements of jugglery on the ground. He made water on them and covered them with a heap of dust, he said, and left.

But he knew the kind of woman on whose account they had plotted these wicked things, and he watched to see whether they would win. When the sorceries did not win–the woman had the aid of the sign and faith of Christ–he learned that the young man had waited for the girl’s arrival on three nights, and later quarrelled with those who had performed the jugglery, because it had not succeeded.

❧

Such a lively tale! In the end, it sounds to be no more than a teenage crush, though a serious one, that the young Gamaliel was suffering from. And if it weren’t for his rough friends, there would likely be no tale to tell here at all. The drama is heightened by the “doomed to die” which would be related either to a presumed Divine judgment on the way for such rank impiety, or the Imperial ban on such magic. Since the Patriarch Hillel V held the post from 365 to 385, we can rather expect that his repentance was forthwith and he was spared such an immediate punishment. The account of Josephus “making water” (urinating) on the magical implements is delightful. This story, with the Christian woman avoiding the powerful magic of the young and wealthy Jewish Patriarch, is presented as the third of the various experiences that led Josephus step by step toward his conversion to Christianity. Another thing that is extraordinary about this story is that Epiphanius’ Panarion was published in 378, while the Patriarch Gamaliel V was still alive, though some dating schemes I’ve seen online would make it a close call. Perhaps the work was not so popular immediately as it was to become with time; Epiphanius clearly avoided any resultant odium in offending one of the most powerful men in the region.

Epiphanius of Salamis, in his Panarion, relates the following somewhat shocking story about the Jewish Patriarch Hillel II (320-365):

When Ellel was dying he asked the bishop who then lived near Tiberias for holy baptism, and received it from him in extremis for allegedly medical reasons. For he had sent for him, as though for a doctor, by Josephus [of Tiberias, the highly-placed Jewish convert and source of this story], and he had the room cleared and begged the bishop, “Give me the seal in Christ!” The bishop summoned the servants and ordered water prepared, as though intending to give the patriarch, who was very sick, some treatment for his illness with water. They did what they were told, for they did not know. But pleading indulgence for his modesty the patriarch sent them all out, and was allowed the laver and the holy mysteries.

But I shall resume my description of the reason for the patriarch’s conversion, and also make Josephus’ own reason plain in every detail to those who care to read it, in the words he used to me. “Just as the patriarch was being granted baptism,” he told me, “I peeped in through the cracks in the doors and saw what the bishop was doing to the patriarch—found it out and kept it to myself. For besides,” Josephus said, “the patriarch had a very ample sum of money ready, and he reached out, gave it to the bishop, and said, ‘Offer it for me. It is written that things are bound and loosed on earth through the priests of God, and that these are what will be loosed and bound in heaven.’ When this was over,” he said, “and the doors were opened, the patriarch’s visitors asked him how he felt after his treatment, and he replied, ‘Great!’ He knew what he was talking about!”

Ephiphanius, Panarion 30.4.5-4.7; 6.1-6.4. Translation by Frank Williams (Brill, 1987)

This account appears in a section of the Panarion regarding the Ebionites. While in Tiberias and working with the Patriarch, Josephus ran across some sequestered copies of Ebionite translations of New Testament books into Hebrew, including, of course, the Gospel of Matthew (known as the Gospel “According to the Hebrews”), but also the Gospel of John, and the Acts of the Apostles. It was the reading of these, and the Patriarch’s deathbed conversion, as Josephus related to Epiphanius, that led to Josephus’ own conversion. Josephus was eventually made a count (κομης/comes) by Constantine, a signal honor. He later built churches in both Tiberias and Sepphoris, and perhaps in Capernaum and Nazareth and elsewhere in Galilee, where no previous Gentile-style churches had been established, though there were synagogues of various groups of Jewish Christians still extant (Ebionite, Nazoreans, and others). There is some question as to whether Josephus established Gentile communities in these churches, or whether his buildings were simply in the style of Gentile churches (presumably that of the triple-apsed basilica).

I wonder what we are to make of the account of Patriarch Hillel II’s deathbed conversion to Christianity? Did Josephus misinterpret what he saw? Did he invent it as a supersessionist tale? Or to somehow inflate his importance? Did it, most surprisingly of all, actually happen? Stranger things have happened, but I find that absurd.

Sin, Gehenna, and death do not exist at all with God, for they are effects, not substances. Sin is the fruit of free will. There was a time when sin did not exist, and there will be a time when it will not exist. Gehenna is the fruit of sin. At some point in time it had a beginning, but its end is not known. Death, however, is a dispensation of the wisdom of the Creator. It will rule only a short time over nature; then it will be totally abolished. Satan’s name derives from voluntarily turning aside from the truth; it is not an indication that he exists as such naturally.
St Isaac the Syrian. Extract from Ascetical Homily 27

Interesting! It seems a form of apokatastasis is in view here. I recall someone mentioning an association of Isaac with the concept, but hadn’t run across any citation. While he doesn’t come out and say it (by that point, you’d be labeled a heretic by defending the position), it is hinted: if Gehenna had a beginning, it’s going to have an end, at a time known or unknown. Most interestingly is the depiction of Satan as not inherently evil, or, in other words, as not incapable of repentance. With Gehenna gone, emptied of its prisoners, the implication is of the repentance of them all, as well as of Satan. Thus apokatastasis, or restoration of all to the Divine. Very interesting!

[T]he expectation of a restoration of Jerusalem also generated a wave of eschatological fervor among judaizing Christians toward the end of the fourth century. The importance of the city and the temple for judaizing Christians during this period can be seen in the interpretation of prophetic texts that speak of the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. Commenting on Isaiah 35:10, “the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing,” Jerome says that the “Jews and our Judaizers” interpret this text to refer not to the “advent of the Savior” but to the second coming, when the Jews will enter Zion with gladness. Similarly, commenting on Zachariah 14:10–12, “Jerusalem shall be inhabited for there shall be no more curse,” he observes that the Jews and judaizing Christians say that this refers to the building of the city and a time when “circumcision will be practiced, sacrifices offered, all the precepts of the Law observed, so that Jews will no longer become Christians but Christians will become Jews” (Comm. in Zach. 14:10). …

Both the resurgence of judaizing Christianity in the late fourth century and the plan of Julian to restore the city of Jerusalem to the Jews were intimately linked to the existence of vital and visible Jewish communities in the cites of the eastern Mediterranean. Julian’s plan to rebuild the temple is unintelligible unless there were Jewish communities who read the Jewish Scriptures and observed the laws of Moses. Julian’s arguments about the legitimacy of the Law of Moses, as set forth in the Contra Galilaeos, and his claim that Christians had apostasized from the Law of Moses, replacing it with a second law, would have had no force if there were no Jewish communities that did observe the Law of Moses. Unless there was a legitimate inheritor of the patrimony of ancient Israel, it made no sense to argue that Christianity was an illegitimate offshoot, an apostate sect.

In an environment, then, in which Judaism was still very much present, Julian issued his challenge to Christianity. By highlighting the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, Julian attacked Christians at an extremely vulnerable point. His arument was not new. Earlier critics had made a similar point, but what was new was that Julian made it central and supported his religious arguments with the announcement that he would return Jerusalem to the Jews and restore the ancient temple and its sacrifices. And though his efforts were unsuccessful, that such an idea could come so close to realization, that the money, men, and materials to carry out the task were available, and that the work had actually begun on the site of the temple ruins, alarmed Christians. How futile confident appeals to history would appear if the project were successful; what perils lay ahead if the prophecy of Jesus [Matthew 24.2: “Truly, I tell you, not one stone will be left here upon another, all will be thrown down.”] could be refuted by the efforts of a Roman emperor, a mere man?

In is attempt to execute this plan, Julian, in the word of John [Chrysostom] had “put the power of Christ on trial” (Pan. Bab. 2.22; [PG] 50.568). The bravado and boasting of Christian writers about Julian’s failure only betrayed how profoundly he had scandalized the Church. This is why John and other Christian writers emphasized the importance of actually seeing the ruins in Jerusalem (Jud. et gent. 16., [PG] 48.834; Jud. 5.11., 901). As late as the middle of the fifth century, Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus north of Antioch and a native of Antioch, traveled to Jerusalem and when he saw the desolation “with his own eyes,” rejoiced in the truth of the prophecies (Affect. 11.71).

Robert Wilken. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (University of California Press, 1983), pp 146-148.

The Wilken book comes highly recommended. It’s goal is to make sense of a group of eight anti-Judaizing homilies given by St John Chrysostom while a young presbyter in Antioch, in the years 386 and 387. A complete English translation of the homilies with introduction is available in Paul Harkins, Saint John Chrysostom: Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 68 (Catholic University of America Press, 1979). Their original context and import of the homilies is, unsurprisingly, dissimilar to their later usage in medieval times and even into the modern period, when they were entirely improperly used in support of antisemitism. The fourth century was still a pluralistic world: one in which the Christians were by no means certain that the next emperor would be Christian, one in which the old pagan institutions and philosophies still lived, one in which Jewish communities were respected and integrated into the broader culture. In these homilies, Chrysostom utilizes invective, a standard rhetorical format, combined with some unsophisticated appeals to contemporary Christian understandings of prophecy, in order to convince his listeners to persuade their Christian “Judaizing” friends and family members to discontinue attending synagogues, celebrating the Jewish festivals, and so on—essentially leading a double religious life. (Or, as has been suggested by others, were these “Judaizing” Christians simply better neighbors, sharing festivals and events with respected friends, with community, civility, and reciprocal respect held more important than religious intolerance?)

These sermons do not read at all well today, certainly not as well as Chrysostom’s later, more theologically astute writings and homilies, for which he is quite renowned. Contemporary rhetoric doesn’t care for the over-the-top, no-holds-barred quality of invective that was acceptable and understood in the fourth century, the heyday of the Second Sophistic. Similarly, the appeal to prophecies as understood in the fourth century falls on different ears. These days, it’s much more common among Christians to hear prophecies bandied about to support the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, rather than its perpetual desolation. In that sense, these homilies truly are relics of a lost world. Wilken’s book brings the most important aspects of that lost world back to life, situating the homilies clearly in the context of their original hearing.