|
|
Defining the Corpus of Patristic Literature
Nicholas Conner, S.T.L. (candidate)
St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology
Defining the corpus of
patristic literature is a difficult and nebulous task. One cannot approach the
subject by assuming that there is a list of authors compiled in a static
system.[1]
Unlike the Scriptures, there is no closed canon. Patristic writings represent
an ongoing historical process as Sacred Tradition unfolds through the mind of
the Church. The Church, in Christ Jesus, remains the Incarnation of hagia sophia
through the time/space continuum of history, in each new generation.
It is important to consider
the need of identifying and defining patristic literature because of the
theological mission of the Church, in general; and the mission of theologians
of the Church, in particular. Georges Florovsky
speaks of the mission of contemporary theologians when he wrote, "This
brings us to the concept of a Neopatristic
synthesis, as the task and aim of Orthodox theology today."[2]
The difficulty in defining
patristic literature is an absence of clearly defined boundaries.
For example, to set a date
which would limit the literature to those authors of antiquity would be an
artificial and premature restriction. Georges Florovsky
discusses the difficulty of defining the "patristic age":
The
limit of the 'patristic age' is variously defined. It is usual to regard St.
John of Damascus as the 'last Father' in the East...[3]
Florovsky speaks of the problems concealed within a restrictive
definition of patristic authors, limited to the ecumenical councils:
On
the other hand, it can be contended that the 'the Age of the Fathers' has
actually come to its end much earlier than St. John of Damascus...But the usual
Eastern formula of 'Seven Ecumenical Councils' is actually not very much
better, when it tends, as it currently does, to restrict the Church's
spiritual authority to the eight centuries, as if the 'Golden Age' of the
Church had already passed and we are now dwelling probably in an Iron Age, much
lower on the scale of spiritual vigor and authority...[4]
Perhaps some people prefer
the recognition of patristic literature be limited to the safe confinement of
the Seven Ecumenical Councils because this period has a clearly documented
history, allowing us to know the various Fathers who contributed to each of
them. The unequivocal nature of these councils, solidified in their canons,
enables the reader to confidently assert the certainty of the contributors who
are recognized as Church Fathers.
However, one encounters a
problem by narrowing the definition of the patristic period to the Seven
Ecumenical Councils. This problem is a yet another artificial parameter for
defining patristics. It expressed in an underlying
assumption that authors have made no contribution to patristic literature if
they have been condemned by canons; or if they are simply not acknowledged in
the development of canons. If one relegates patristic authorship exclusively to
those authors whose written ideas are recognized canonically this relegation
would, again, prohibit the recognition of many authors. By acknowledging this
barrier one can appreciate the contributions of many different authors. This
also provides for the allowance of the many later authors who are clearly
embraced as representing the patristic mind of the Church, even though their
writings did not contribute to the Canons of those great Councils which
preceded them.
Outside of the defined dogma
of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Church in her wisdom has allowed for a
certain ambiguity. This ambiguity provides the creative freedom necessary for
the transmission of the patristic mind of the Church - a Living Tradition, expressed within the historical
context of each new generation of the Church. It is for this reason that Florovsky concludes that restrictive definitions of patristics is a death to Living Tradition:
A restrictive
commitment of Seven Ecumenical Councils actually contradicts the basic
principle of the Living Tradition in the Church. Indeed, all Seven. But not only the Seven.[5]
Thus, one can embrace later
Church Fathers, well beyond the antiquity of the Nicene period. It can be
safely assumed that later literature is patristic in nature. Such authors as
Saint Photios the Great, Saint Symeon
the New Theologian or Saint Gregory Palamas, to name
only a few, have made paternal contributions to the Church within the
theological construct of patristic tradition.
These, and other more recent
authors, represent an example of Florovsky's Neopatristic synthesis. Imbued with a
consciousness of the earlier Fathers, they wrote about contemporary issues of
their time, remaining faithful to the Tradition which had been passed down.
The corpus of patristic
literature is not a sealed collection, closed by canon or time restraints. It
is, rather, an instrument of Living Tradition, "not of the letter but of
the Spirit."[6] This
organic nature of patristic writings is the very reason that strict definitions
of its corpus are so elusive.
Patristic literature, then,
cannot be judged as such, merely by its antiquity. Rather, it is recognized by
its content, consisting of a synthesis of several elements. The patristic
tradition is consistently harmonious in its Hellenistic and Hebraic epistemology.
While some critics view this adaptation of Greek thought as a decline in the
purity of the Gospel through the Hellenization of
Christianity, Lossky explains that it was quite the
opposite:
...this
was not the rationalization of Christianity but the Christianization of reason, a transmuting of philosophy into contemplation, a
saturation of thought by a mystery which is not a secret to conceal, but an
inexhaustible light.[7]
Even those rare patristic
authors who had an aversion to reading pre-Christian philosophy express,
perhaps unknowingly, the influence of Hellenism. By default, their theology is
formed in the thinking of the other Fathers who were thoroughly trained in
Greek sophia.
It is the thinking of many
theologians that it was part of the providential plan of God that the Church
should grow up within a Greek context. Vladimir Lossky
writes about the divine importance of Hellenism for the Church:
But
theology must be of universal expression. It not by accident that God has
placed the Fathers of the Church in a Greek setting; the demands for lucidity
in philosophy and profundity in gnosis have forced them to purify and to
sanctify the language of the philosophers and of the mystics, to give the
Christian message, which includes but goes beyond Israel, all its universal
reach.[8]
The patristic mind, however,
is neither purely Hellenistic nor Judaic, because patristic literature
expresses a contemplation of revelation foreign to both - the mystery of Trinitarian and Christological themes.
The patristic authors derived from their Trinitarian theology, a theocentric anthropology and cosmology, expressed in
patristic soteriology with Christocentric
theosis as
its aim. Consequently, the nature of patristic thought is ascetical, mystical
and worshipful.
Patristic literature was
written in the milieu of ascetics. Therefore, such ascetical writings cannot be
fully appreciated by a mere cognitive process. This principle can be seen in an
account of Elder Leonid of Optina. One of his
disciples asked him, "Which books of the Holy Fathers is it better to
read: that of Climacus, or of Isaac the Syrian or of
Abba Barsanyphius?" Elder Leonid's response is
telling:
Read
the words of the saints by your actions.[9]
Perhaps this is the value one
can find in the criticism of those who express an aversion against the
intelligentsia and academia. While there is a demand for rigorous scholarship,
the patristic text can only be more fully approximated when such scholarship is
combined with ascetical discipline.
Due to the mystical content
of patristic theology, its Hellenistic demand for linguistic clarity and
precise definitions are consumed in the apophatic
way, acknowledging the limitations of language, concepts, and names. Lossky exposes the patristic limitations which are even
placed on such a great mind as that of Plotinus:
The
apophatic way, in the Dionysian sense, demands in
speaking of God the negation of the highest names; even the One of Plotinus
does not suit this God Who transcends every human
notion.[10]
St. John of Damascus was able
to compile a synopsis of all the preceding Fathers in an articulate treatise, Exposition
of The Orthodox Faith. Remaining faithful to the
patristic spirit, however, he concedes to the apophatic
way:
But
neither do we know, nor can we tell, what the essence of God is, or how it is
in all, or how the Only-begotten Son of God, having emptied Himself, became Man
of virgin blood...[11]
Lastly, Patristic literature
is worshipful and, therefore, liturgical. Patristic theology is generally
absorbed into the life of the Church and preserved through her liturgy and
Sacraments. The liturgical Church is as patristic as she is apostolic, and it
is through communion within her Body that one discerns the difference between
patristic and non-patristic literature. The liturgy not only preserves the
theological integrity of patristic thought, it provides a living communion with
the patristic Saints who have gone before us. It is within this Sacramental
life that such discernment springs from the mind of the Church which, in turn,
possesses "the mind of Christ."[12] Patristic
literature is an expression of that Nous,
continuously and eternally fulfilling "the intent that now the manifold
wisdom of God might be made known by the Church."[13] Thus the
patristic spirit transcends time, recognizing that antiquity is the wrong
measuring stick for determining patristic literature. Within her liturgical
life, time and eternity meet, and that which resonates in harmony with the phônê of the
Church is appropriately acknowledged as patristic.
Notes:
[1] This is not to say that appropriate lists of
primary contributors should not be proposed.
Many healthy lists of patristic authors have been proposed. While proposals tend to agree on some
authors, such as the Cappadocians, there is rarely
complete uniformity of agreement about which patristic authors are most
significant.
[2] Florovsky, Georges. Aspects
of Church History: Volume IV, Buchervertriebsanstalt,
1987, p. 22
[3] Florovsky, Georges. Aspects
of Church History: Volume IV, Buchervertriebsanstalt,
1987, p. 19
[4] Florovsky, Georges. Aspects
of Church History: Volume IV,Buchervertriebsanstalt,
1987, p. 19,20
[5] Florovsky, Georges. Aspects
of Church History: Volume IV, Buchervertriebsanstalt,
1987, p. 20
[6] See II Corinthians 3:6
[7] Lossky, Vladimir. Orthodox
Theology: An Introduction, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1978,
p. 38
[8] Lossky, Vladimir. Orthodox
Theology: An Introduction, St. Valdimir's
Seminary Press, 1978,
pp. 30, 31
[9] Sederholm, Fr. Clement.
Elder Leonid of Optina, St. Herman of Alaska
Brotherhood, 1990, p. 201
[10] Lossky, Vladimir. Orthodox
Theology: An Introduction, St. Valdimir's
Seminary Press, 1978,
p. 23
[11] St. John of Damascus, Exposition of the
Orthodox Faith; Schaff, Phillip,D.D./ LLD
and Wace, Henry, D.D.. Nicene and Post Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers:
Second Series: Volume 9, John of Damascus, Hendrickson Publishers, 1999, p. 2
[12] See I Corinthians 2:16
[13] Ephesians 3:10a NKJV
|
|
BACK TO CURRENT ISSUE
|
|
