Pages

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Interpreting The Church Fathers

In another thread, I gave Orthodox two links to articles I've written about the sinlessness of Mary (here and here). In response, he wrote:

"If we just take the identified ECFs here, and not the commentaries, there's nothing here about Mary sinning. One quote about Mary not being perfectly righteous (orthodox would say she was born with the propensity to sin of Adam, thus she did lack something to be perfectly righteous.) a quote about Jesus being the only 'Man' who was sinless. Then a bunch of quotes about various things that occured in Jesus' life where you are apparently ASSUMING that must mean she is thought to have sinned."

Notice the unreasonable manner in which he interprets "man". Notice how he ignores the use of other terms in these sources, like "all", not just "man". Notice how he tries to avoid interacting with the scholars I cited, since those scholars aren't original documents.

Here are some examples of what these patristic sources said about Mary. Read these comments of John Chrysostom and see if you, like Orthodox, are unable to discern any references to Mary as a sinner:

"even to have borne Christ in the womb, and to have brought forth that marvellous birth, hath no profit, if there be not virtue. And this is hence especially manifest. 'For while He yet talked to the people,' it is said, 'one told Him, Thy mother and Thy brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' [Matthew 12:46-48] And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach. See at all events both her self-confidence and theirs. Since when they ought to have gone in, and listened with the multitude; or if they were not so minded, to have waited for His bringing His discourse to an end, and then to have come near; they call Him out, and do this before all, evincing a superfluous vanity, and wishing to make it appear, that with much authority they enjoin Him. And this too the evangelist shows that he is blaming, for with this very allusion did he thus express himself, 'While He yet talked to the people;' as if he should say, What? was there no other opportunity? Why, was it not possible to speak with Him in private?" (Homilies On Matthew, 44)

"For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, 'Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?' [Matthew 12:48], because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occassion....And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' [John 2:4] instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much for the salvation of her soul" (Homilies On John, 21)

We've already repeatedly seen Orthodox's poor exegetical skills with regard to scripture. He seems to have a lot of problems with interpreting the church fathers as well.

10 comments:

  1. All that stuff is just your interpretation, Jason. The ECFs' writings are clear in the extreme, much clearer than the Scriptures - you're just completely unable to see the truth staring you in the face b/c you're not an Eastern Orthodox.

    Or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. >even to have borne Christ in the
    >womb, and to have brought forth
    >that marvellous birth, hath no
    >profit, if there be not virtue.

    Commentary: Mary is required to choose to obey too. She can't rest on her laurels.

    >And this is hence especially >manifest. 'For while He yet talked
    >to the people,' it is said, 'one
    >told Him, Thy mother and Thy
    >brethren seek Thee. Butt He saith,
    >who is my mother, and who are my
    >brethren?' [Matthew 12:46-48] And
    >this He said, not as being ashamed
    >of His mother, nor denying her
    >that bare Him; for if He had been
    >ashamed of her, He would not have
    >passed through that womb; but as
    >declaring that she hath no
    >advantage from this, unless she do
    >all that is required to be done.

    Commentary: Again, Mary must be obedient too.

    >For in fact that which she had
    >essayed to do, was of superfluous
    >vanity;

    Commentary: Superfluous means unnecessary. Vanity here doesn't mean the sin of pride, but the other meaning of "futile", "worthless".

    >in that she wanted to show the
    >people that she hath power and
    >authority over her Son, imagining >not as yet anything great
    >concerning Him; whence also her >unseasonable approach.

    Commentary: Continuing the theme of unnecessary and futile, we now have "unseasonable". Mary was not yet informed and aware of the greatness of her Son, thus resulting in her unseasonable and redundant attempt to exercise power over him. Still, having become aware, she needed to obey Jesus' teaching.

    >See at all events both her
    >self-confidence and theirs. Since
    >when they ought to have gone in,
    >and listened with the multitude;
    >or if they were not so minded, to
    >have waited for His bringing His
    >discourse to an end, and then to
    >have come near; they call Him out,
    >and do this before all, evincing a
    >superfluous vanity, and wishing to
    >make it appear, that with much
    >authority they enjoin Him. And
    >this too the evangelist shows that
    >he is blaming, for with this very
    >allusion did he thus express
    >himself, 'While He yet talked to
    >the people;' as if he should say, >What? was there no other
    >opportunity? Why, was it not
    >possible to speak with Him in
    >private?" (Homilies On Matthew,
    >44)

    Commentary: Due to Mary's lack of knowledge of her Son's greatness, she interrupted her Son. This was inappropriate, and her Son had to correct her. Mary is required to obey this instruction like everybody else. But sinlessless doesn't mean perfect knowledge about correct behaviour. It means a willingless to obey once the instruction comes.

    >For where parents cause no
    >impediment or hindrance in things
    >belonging to God, it is our
    >bounden duty to give way to them,
    >and there is great danger in not
    >doing so; but when they require
    >anything unseasonably, and cause
    >hindrance in any spiritual matter,
    >it is unsafe to obey. And
    >therefore He answered thus in this
    >place, and again elsewhere, 'Who
    >is My mother, and who are My
    >brethren?' [Matthew 12:48],
    >because they did not yet think
    >rightly of Him; and she, because
    >she had borne Him, claimed,
    >according to the custom of other
    >>mothers, to direct Him in all >things, when she ought to have
    >reverenced and worshiped Him. This
    >then was the reason why He
    >answered as He did on that
    >occassion....And so this was a
    >reason why He rebuked her on that
    >occasion, saying, 'Woman, what
    >have I to do with thee?' [John
    >2:4] instructing her for the
    >future not to do the like;
    >because, though He was careful to
    >honor His mother, yet He cared
    >much for the salvation of her
    >soul"

    Commentary: Mary was unaware of her Son's position, so she treated him according to the custom of other mothers. Her son had to correct this situation and misunderstanding on Mary's part. That someone may need correcting because they have not got a full understanding, does not indicate the presence of sin.

    What we've got here is Jason, in the same manner as athiests trying to make scripture contradict itself, now trying to make the church fathers contradict each other.

    And what if he were to be successful? It is of no more consequence than my quoting the Mauretanian fragment to show that canon lists of scripture vary. Which would prove what? Orthodoxy does not claim every church father is infallible. What it claims is that the church is led into all truth. Either believe it, or admit you have no canon of scripture. There is no middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mary was unaware of her Son's position and greatness? The angel told her before conception that "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). The angel also told her that "the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God" (Luke 1:35b).

    I don't have anything of substance to add to the discussion, but those claims struck me as patently false based on Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rebekah,

    You seem to be unaware that the Scripture is far less clear than the ECFs, and we are obligated to believe that the ECFs say what the EOC and Orthodox say they say.
    If you missed that, well, now you have no excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Commentary: Superfluous means unnecessary. Vanity here doesn't mean the sin of pride, but the other meaning of "futile", "worthless".

    --Uh huh. Tell us, is this what the word meant in the original language in the century written or is this just your 21st century gloss? Second, so what? Jason didn't offer commentary. Rather, Jason asked us to read them. If Mary was essaying to do something futile, then how is essaying futility an act that comports with sinlessness?

    >>But sinlessless doesn't mean perfect knowledge about correct behaviour. It means a willingless to obey once the instruction comes.

    Uh-huh. Is that what it would mean to 2nd century Jewish religion or to your 21st century gloss? The issue isn't the definition of "sinlessness," rather the issue is how she violated the Law, if at all.

    >>Mary was unaware of her Son's position, so she treated him according to the custom of other mothers.

    Uh-huh. Virgin birth, annunciation, etc., and you honestly think she was unaware of her Son's position?

    >>>Orthodoxy does not claim every church father is infallible. What it claims is that the church is led into all truth. Either believe it, or admit you have no canon of scripture. There is no middle ground.

    And as we've seen this is nothing more than a vague self-referential claim that appeals to tradition to validate itself. How neat. Can you give us a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant for this claim that does not assume what it needs to prove in the process?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mauretanian fragment

    >>>Uh-huh; I'm going out on a limb here and assume this is the Muratorian fragment. To be blunt, when the high minded make such obvious and blatant blunders, it does not bode well for their overall argument...

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Orthodox said:

    "Superfluous means unnecessary. Vanity here doesn't mean the sin of pride, but the other meaning of 'futile', 'worthless'."

    Chrysostom made that comment just after referring to how Mary would need to do "all that is required to be done". He was contrasting Mary's need to do what's required with her engaging in vanity instead. If you don't do what's required (and Chrysostom tells us that he's addressing what's required in the area of "virtue"), and you engage in vanity instead, then that's sin. That's why Chrysostom goes on to refer to how Mary and Jesus' unbelieving brothers didn't do what they "ought to have done". He places Mary in the same category as the unbelieving brothers, having them act together in doing something other than what they ought to have done. He refers to how Mary was "imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him". Again, is it acceptable for people who lived with Jesus for decades to still not "imagine anything great" about Him when He's carrying out His public ministry? Chrysostom is commenting on Matthew 12. Prior to Matthew 12, Jesus has told people to repent and believe the gospel, to follow Him, etc. If you still don't think anything great of Him by the time of Matthew 12, then that's sin. I could go on, but even without finishing up Chrysostom's comments on Matthew's gospel, we already see multiple examples of sins he thought that Mary committed.

    And you're still ignoring the other examples I cited in the articles I linked you to. Those other sources also refer to Mary as a sinner in a variety of ways. You said that you didn't see any references to Mary's sinning in my citations. If you were being honest, then your skills in interpreting patristic documents seem to be about as good as your skills in interpreting scripture.

    You've mentioned, again, the fact that the church fathers held to different canons of scripture. As I told you before, I don't make claims about the canon comparable to your claims about your doctrines and your denomination. I don't claim that the fathers were members of my denomination, that my denomination was the only one that existed during the first millennium, that John 16:13 is about my denomination's doctrinal reliability throughout church history, etc. You're the one who makes such claims.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >Again, is it acceptable for people
    >who lived with Jesus for decades to
    >still not "imagine anything great"
    >about Him when He's carrying out His
    >public ministry?

    There are different levels of greatness. You have to be pretty great not to have to obey your mother.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Orthodox said:

    "There are different levels of greatness."

    As I documented, Chrysostom made the comment after referring to Mary's failure to do what's "required". And he says that Mary was "imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him". It was at a time in His ministry when He had already called on people to repent, believe the gospel, and follow Him. Earlier in the same chapter of Matthew's gospel, Jesus referred to His own greatness (Matthew 12:6), and He rebuked the Pharisees for not recognizing it. Further on in that same chapter, just before the section where Mary appears (the section Chrysostom was commenting on), Jesus once again refers to His greatness and rebukes those who don't recognize it (Matthew 12:41-42). Why should we think that it was non-sinful, then, for Mary, later in that same chapter, to be "imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him"?

    As I've shown, there are multiple portions of Chrysostom's comments that suggest that sin was involved. To dismiss all of his comments as not referring to sin is absurd.

    ReplyDelete