Note:
You may have noticed that I haven’t been posting as frequently in the past week or so. I spent some good time with family last week and started up school again this week, so my time has been significantly occupied and I am having to accustom to my new schedule.
Also, I have been working on moving my blog to a self-hosted server (not that I don’t appreciate wordpress.com, but I’m looking for more freedom and flexibility for this site). I will provide an update of that as soon as I can–probably early next week. I would like to thank Bryce Haymond (author of www.templestudy.com) and his brother Brad for their support, advice, and help in making this change (for the better) possible.
School Journal
One of my intentions in starting this blog was to be able to share with others the interesting and exciting insights that I have been learning as a graduate student in Theology at Marquette University. I consider it a great privilege and blessing to be able to be a part of this program and to pursue theological/religious studies in depth. I know that there are many people who would love to have this opportunity but have not been able to–so I see it as a great responsibility for me to share what I am learning with others.
Because I started this blog at the end of May, after classes had already ended, and did not attend courses over the summer, this will be the first opportunity I will have to share with you what I am actually learning in my theology courses. Although a certain percentage of it will probably be too boring to share here (no offense to any of my professors), I will try to make sure that I post the most exciting points on my blog. In doing so, I want to make it clear that although I may mention my professors names here, I take full responsibility for the content posted. What I share will be based on my own notes from both lectures and readings, and should not be taken to represent direct or exact quotes from my instructors (I don’t want anyone to hold them to anything I incorrectly cite them as saying). However, I will try to reproduce what I am learning as accurately and responsibly as I possibly can.
I am taking three courses this semester:
- Theology 251 — The Age of the Fathers–Dr. Michel Barnes
- Theology 204 — Intro to Systematic Theology–Dr. Ralph Del Colle
- Theology 228 — Apocalyptic Literature–Dr. Andrei Orlov
For those of you who are familiar with this blog, you can probably guess that Apocalyptic Literature with Dr. Orlov would be my favorite class. So far it has been incredibly exciting, and I can’t say enough how much I respect Dr. Orlov and his amazingly extensive knowledge of this literature–I have looked at some of his writings in a number of posts here. However, I am also very excited about my other courses as well, and have found both Professors Barnes and Del Colle to be excellent instructors with equally impressive knowledge of their subject matter. Although I am very interested in pseudipigrapha and the intertestamental period, I am also quite passionate about the early Patristic era–the age of the early Church Fathers.
Anyways, instead of continuing my tedious rambling, I will now share with you some of the most interesting points that I learned in my classes this week. Depending on the subjects covered during a given week, I may not always include all three classes.
- The Council of Nicaea
Age of the Fathers–Greek Philosophy as the Background for Nicene Theology
On Monday, Dr. Barnes launched into a discussion of trinitarian theology, looking specifically at the creedal/liturgical phrase describing Christ as “one in being/essence with the Father.” The key word in this phrase is the Greek homoousios –”same substance.” Dr. Barnes question was (paraphrasing): Why did they decide to use this word to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father? Wouldn’t the simple Father/Son description be sufficient? Homoousios is found nowhere in the scriptures. It wasn’t even in common use as a term at the time of the Council of Nicaea. Many of the bishops who accepted the use of the term didn’t even know what it meant initially, much less their parishioners at home. So why did they use it?
A search of available early Christian works doesn’t give us much insight into the history of its use. Homoousios is used more in “gnostic” texts more than “orthodox” Christian texts in the first centuries AD. Origen uses the word three times. Clement uses it once, when quoting gnostics. Pamphilus uses the word, when quoting Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria uses the word in a letter to the members of his congregation, trying to explain to them what in the world it meant and why it should be used to describe the Son of God. In general, the term is employed to show that Christ was considered to be Son of God because he was of the same nature as God, and not adopted. The authors of the Nicaean creed decided that this was a word that, although not found in the scriptures, expressed (they felt) the most correct sense of the scriptures. Although the word became part of the creed, there was still much misunderstanding and argument, and the idea had to be further revised and clarified numerous times in later creeds.
- Origen
But where did Athanasius and his colleagues get this idea? Why was it necessary to decide whether Jesus was of the “substance/essence” of the Father? They felt the need to distinguish Jesus as Son of God from the rest of us as sons or daughters of God. This was because of the idea that had entered Christianity that there was an immense gulf between what God is, and what we, his creatures are. This idea came from Hellenistic culture and the principles of Greek philosophy so popular at the time. In his book of “Lecture Notes” provided to the class, Dr. Barnes lays out the theory that the paradigm that these Christians were working from was heavily influenced by Greek thought. I quote from this booklet, starting on page 8 (emphasis in original):
Many ideas or teachings in both ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy were important for theology in the Common Era…Some of these teachings (or doctrines) date back to Plato…[or at least] date from the Hellenistic period. Here is a selected list of key doctrines that will help you understand early Christian theology:
-
There is a tendency to describe God by talking about the kind of existence God has, and to contrast the kind of existence God has with the kind of existence we humans have. Thinking about something in terms of the kind of existence it has, or just thinking in terms of kinds of existence is what is meant by the terms “metaphysics” or “ontology”. The kind of existence of something that exists (an existent) is called the being of an existent.
-
There is a sensitivity to the difference between things (better: existence) that can’t and don’t change (“immutable”) versus things that can and do change (“mutable”). Immutable existence is the best kind of existence (mutable existence always lets you down). God is immutable. Material existence is mutable existence. Also: whatever is immutable is certain (because it never changes).
-
There is an understanding of a “God” who is good, in fact the Good. Goodness here means many, many things. Good in the sense that God is absolutely perfect, with no flaws, nothing lacking, no mutability (= immaterial = no decay = eternal ). Perfection means not needing, and not needing means able to give;
-
Differences in being cash out as differences in goodness or desirability. This is often expressed in terms of a hierarchy. Something immutable is better, more desirable, “higher” than something mutable.
-
Because the Good is different from everything else (perfect, immutable, immaterial, eternal) it is separate from everything else. Or, to express this metaphysically, the difference between the kind of existence (the being) of the Good and our being means that the Good exists uniquely.
As you can imagine, figuring out a bridge over the gap between immutable/perfect being (commonly identified with not being material) and mutable imperfect being (commonly identified with being made out of matter) was an important philosophical and theological problem.
Barnes goes on to explain how there was a deep mistrust and disdain for material things in antiquity–especially the body and the passions the body produces. Anything that is material decays–anything that has a cause external to itself will have a beginning, development, decay, and end. Anything that is truly good (divine) must not change or decay in this way. If God does not decay, if He is eternal, then he must not be material–and if not, he must have no external cause outside himself. He is the First Cause (p. 12).
Through this reasoning, we get the following conclusions (p. 13):
God = uncaused, immaterial, unchanging
Material = caused, change, decay (the exact opposite of God)
So this is the ideological paradigm that many Christians had accepted when they met to establish the Nicaean Creed. Why did they have to come up with such a foreign term to describe how Jesus could be Son of God? Because Greek philosophy had convinced them that human beings were the opposite of what God was. For Jesus to be divine, he would have to be of the same substance or nature as the immutable and eternal Father. But this notion of ousia seems to have originated with Aristotle (Categories), instead of with Jesus or the Apostles. Our class discussion, together with the readings, emphasized the dependence on these early Christian doctrines and creeds on Greek philosophy. As Dr. Barnes put it:
[It is] true that I privilege philosophy as the discourse that a good student of patristic theology needs to know…
…traditionally Roman Catholic theology has explicitly been allied to philosophy…
…the intellectual milieu in which patristic authors wrote was a synthesis which itself depended upon a philosophical content.
As there is not time or space to continue, I will save the numerous insights I gained from Dr. Orlov’s class on Apocalyptic Literature for next time. You will probably not want to miss this one…
TempleStudy.com
What I Learned in Theology Class 8-29-08
Note:
Also, I have been working on moving my blog to a self-hosted server (not that I don’t appreciate wordpress.com, but I’m looking for more freedom and flexibility for this site). I will provide an update of that as soon as I can–probably early next week. I would like to thank Bryce Haymond (author of www.templestudy.com) and his brother Brad for their support, advice, and help in making this change (for the better) possible.
School Journal
One of my intentions in starting this blog was to be able to share with others the interesting and exciting insights that I have been learning as a graduate student in Theology at Marquette University. I consider it a great privilege and blessing to be able to be a part of this program and to pursue theological/religious studies in depth. I know that there are many people who would love to have this opportunity but have not been able to–so I see it as a great responsibility for me to share what I am learning with others.
Because I started this blog at the end of May, after classes had already ended, and did not attend courses over the summer, this will be the first opportunity I will have to share with you what I am actually learning in my theology courses. Although a certain percentage of it will probably be too boring to share here (no offense to any of my professors), I will try to make sure that I post the most exciting points on my blog. In doing so, I want to make it clear that although I may mention my professors names here, I take full responsibility for the content posted. What I share will be based on my own notes from both lectures and readings, and should not be taken to represent direct or exact quotes from my instructors (I don’t want anyone to hold them to anything I incorrectly cite them as saying). However, I will try to reproduce what I am learning as accurately and responsibly as I possibly can.
I am taking three courses this semester:
For those of you who are familiar with this blog, you can probably guess that Apocalyptic Literature with Dr. Orlov would be my favorite class. So far it has been incredibly exciting, and I can’t say enough how much I respect Dr. Orlov and his amazingly extensive knowledge of this literature–I have looked at some of his writings in a number of posts here. However, I am also very excited about my other courses as well, and have found both Professors Barnes and Del Colle to be excellent instructors with equally impressive knowledge of their subject matter. Although I am very interested in pseudipigrapha and the intertestamental period, I am also quite passionate about the early Patristic era–the age of the early Church Fathers.
Anyways, instead of continuing my tedious rambling, I will now share with you some of the most interesting points that I learned in my classes this week. Depending on the subjects covered during a given week, I may not always include all three classes.
Age of the Fathers–Greek Philosophy as the Background for Nicene Theology
On Monday, Dr. Barnes launched into a discussion of trinitarian theology, looking specifically at the creedal/liturgical phrase describing Christ as “one in being/essence with the Father.” The key word in this phrase is the Greek homoousios –”same substance.” Dr. Barnes question was (paraphrasing): Why did they decide to use this word to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father? Wouldn’t the simple Father/Son description be sufficient? Homoousios is found nowhere in the scriptures. It wasn’t even in common use as a term at the time of the Council of Nicaea. Many of the bishops who accepted the use of the term didn’t even know what it meant initially, much less their parishioners at home. So why did they use it?
A search of available early Christian works doesn’t give us much insight into the history of its use. Homoousios is used more in “gnostic” texts more than “orthodox” Christian texts in the first centuries AD. Origen uses the word three times. Clement uses it once, when quoting gnostics. Pamphilus uses the word, when quoting Origen. Dionysius of Alexandria uses the word in a letter to the members of his congregation, trying to explain to them what in the world it meant and why it should be used to describe the Son of God. In general, the term is employed to show that Christ was considered to be Son of God because he was of the same nature as God, and not adopted. The authors of the Nicaean creed decided that this was a word that, although not found in the scriptures, expressed (they felt) the most correct sense of the scriptures. Although the word became part of the creed, there was still much misunderstanding and argument, and the idea had to be further revised and clarified numerous times in later creeds.
But where did Athanasius and his colleagues get this idea? Why was it necessary to decide whether Jesus was of the “substance/essence” of the Father? They felt the need to distinguish Jesus as Son of God from the rest of us as sons or daughters of God. This was because of the idea that had entered Christianity that there was an immense gulf between what God is, and what we, his creatures are. This idea came from Hellenistic culture and the principles of Greek philosophy so popular at the time. In his book of “Lecture Notes” provided to the class, Dr. Barnes lays out the theory that the paradigm that these Christians were working from was heavily influenced by Greek thought. I quote from this booklet, starting on page 8 (emphasis in original):
Many ideas or teachings in both ancient Greek and Hellenistic philosophy were important for theology in the Common Era…Some of these teachings (or doctrines) date back to Plato…[or at least] date from the Hellenistic period. Here is a selected list of key doctrines that will help you understand early Christian theology:
As you can imagine, figuring out a bridge over the gap between immutable/perfect being (commonly identified with not being material) and mutable imperfect being (commonly identified with being made out of matter) was an important philosophical and theological problem.
Barnes goes on to explain how there was a deep mistrust and disdain for material things in antiquity–especially the body and the passions the body produces. Anything that is material decays–anything that has a cause external to itself will have a beginning, development, decay, and end. Anything that is truly good (divine) must not change or decay in this way. If God does not decay, if He is eternal, then he must not be material–and if not, he must have no external cause outside himself. He is the First Cause (p. 12).
Through this reasoning, we get the following conclusions (p. 13):
God = uncaused, immaterial, unchanging
Material = caused, change, decay (the exact opposite of God)
So this is the ideological paradigm that many Christians had accepted when they met to establish the Nicaean Creed. Why did they have to come up with such a foreign term to describe how Jesus could be Son of God? Because Greek philosophy had convinced them that human beings were the opposite of what God was. For Jesus to be divine, he would have to be of the same substance or nature as the immutable and eternal Father. But this notion of ousia seems to have originated with Aristotle (Categories), instead of with Jesus or the Apostles. Our class discussion, together with the readings, emphasized the dependence on these early Christian doctrines and creeds on Greek philosophy. As Dr. Barnes put it:
As there is not time or space to continue, I will save the numerous insights I gained from Dr. Orlov’s class on Apocalyptic Literature for next time. You will probably not want to miss this one…