لغة الله في التقليد الآبائي

by Mark Sheridan, بيشوي جرجس (Translator), موريس وهيب (Translator)

يهدف كتاب "لغة الله في التقليد الآبائي" إلى توضيح كيف فهم اللاهوتيون المسيحيون المبكرون المعضلة التي تطرحها النصوص التي تنسب الخصائص والعواطف البشرية إلى الله، وتفصيل كيفية تعاملهم معها. لإنجاز هذه المهمة، يزود الكاتب القارئ بالكثير من النصوص الأولية من آباء الكنيسة إلى جانب شروحات مفصلة لتفسيراتهم، وهو يعتمد باستمرار على مؤلفين مثل كليمنضس، وأوريجانوس، وديديموس، وذهبي الفم، وغيرهم. يتمحور جوهر بحثه حول أن هناك معيارًا مزدوجًا مستخدمًا على نطاق واسع لتفسير النصوص الصعبة في الكتاب المقدس، ويشرح كيف قرأ الكتاب اليهود والمسيحيون المبكرون هذه النصوص مجازياً أو لاهوتياً من أجل اكتشاف الحقيقة الواردة فيها، حيث أدركوا أن التفسير البنائي والملائم لهذه النصوص يتطلب أن يبدأ المرء من فهم أن “الله ليس إنسانًا”. يجلب المؤلف التقليد الآبائي إلى حوار مع المفسرين المحدثين لإظهار الأهمية الثابتة للتفسير اللاهوتي الخاص بهذا التقليد لعصرنا هذا.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Christian

258 pages, Paperback

First published January 5, 2015

Reviews

[Ronni Kurtz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful volume for considering Patristic exegesis. Sheridan gives special attention to Origen and Chrysostom throughout the work. If you're interested in anthropomorphism, anthropopathism, divine accommodation, pre-modern exegesis, this book will be a helpful resource for you.

[Mikeskinner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mark Sheridan has truly given the world a gift with his recent publication, Language for God in Patristic Tradition, published by IVP Academic. I’ve used the book as a resource for a previous post – Cassiodorus on the Violence in Psalm 137 – and am thrilled to now offer a full review. During my time as a graduate student, I became very interesting the patristic theology and hermeneutics. I was always particularly interested in how they dealt with biblical “anthropomorphisms” which might conflict with a classical theist’s view of God as un-changing, all-knowing, and more. With this book, Sheridan expertly navigates the reader through the interpretive strategies of the early church Fathers as they wrestled with our sacred texts.

The explicit goal of the book is to show how ancient Christian theologians understood the problem of certain presentations of God that attributed human characteristics and emotions to the divine and to detail how they dealt with it. To accomplish this task, Sheridan provides the reader with plenty of primary texts from patristic writers along with detailed expositions of their interpretations. He continually draws on authors such as the Alexandrians, Clement, Origen, Didymus, Chrysostom, and more. The heart of his discovery: there is a widely used double-criterion for interpreting the difficult texts of Scripture: 1] It must be useful to humans (since it was written by God and preserved by the Spirit for the spiritual maturity of the church) and 2] it must be “worthy of God” – that is, it must be read in light of certain truths about God that were already known. The early Christians drew some of their criteria for what is worthy of God from Plato and other Greek philosophers but also, and primarily, from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

Three case studies are offered in the book to illustrate how ancient authors used this hermeneutical strategy:
A. The Creation Story (saturated with anthropomorphisms)
B. The Story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar (which seems to condone adultery)
C. The Conquest Narratives of Joshua (which seems at odd with Jesus’ life and teachings)

The case studies show that the early Christians were not shy about addressing the problem of the divine nature as presented in problematic texts. I particularly enjoyed the way that the Church Fathers interpreted the violent conquest stories in light of the divine love of humanity revealed in Jesus Christ. The two criterion led them to allegorical interpretations – readings that would not be considered appropriate to a historical-grammatical exegete. However, these theological readings (interpretations made in light of their understanding of the nature of God) are often beautiful and perhaps more faithful to the overall narrative of Scripture than modern alternatives. Sheridan also offers a chapter on how the Church Fathers read the many disturbing images in the Psalms – an interesting and incredibly fruitful exercise. He has clearly mastered this material and the result is an interesting, engaging, and convincing presentation of the interpretive strategy of the early church writers when it came to problematic texts in the Scriptures. Lastly, his very precise and brief appendix on the presuppositions, criteria, and rules employed in Ancient Christian Hermeneutics is worth the price of the book itself. It will be standard reading for all of my classes that discuss the different methods of interpretation throughout Christian history.

I highly recommend this book for:
– courses on the patristic writers or on hermeneutics in general
– those interested in patristics or hermeneutics
– those troubled with “problem texts” in the Scriptures
– those interested in the way we use language to speak about God
– preachers
(In his foreword, Thomas C. Oden writes, “This book will keep the preaching pastor out of a whole lot of trouble. Constantly in biblical teaching we use human language to speak of God, knowing very well that God transcends human speech. We may stumble over the Bible’s words if we are unaware of how profoundly the classic Christian tradition has examined this question. This book gives the ordinary reader access to that wisdom.” I couldn’t agree more.)

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the challenges of biblical interpretation is the way that the Bible describes God. In some places in the Bible, God is above the heavens and there is none like him. In other places, God seems like any other earthly ruler--sitting on a throne,waging ware, standing, laughing, getting angry.  The difficulty of sorting out God's godhood from his human descriptions has been an issue that theologians have wrestled with from the early centuries of Christianity. We have a lot we can learn from the Ancient theological approach to Scripture

Mark Sheridan is a Benedictine monk and vice rector and dean of the faculty of theology at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm in Rome. He has written several monographs and edited the Genesis 12-50 volume of the ancient Christian Commentary on the Scripture. In Language For God in Patrisitic Tradition:  Wrestling with Biblical Anthropomorphism, Sheridan examines ancient biblical interpretation, exploring what the church fathers have to teach us about reading Scripture and their theology of God.

One of the hallmark's of patrisitc tradition is the commitment to interpreting the Bible in a manner "worthy of God"  and "useful for us." Anthropomorphism and anthropopathism in the Bible, make God seem "too human."  Sheridan demonstrates that the general patristic consensus was that God was wholly unlike humanity; however where the Bible involves human matters, 'it carries the human intellect, manners and way of speaking' (30). Thus the otherness of God is preserved, but the fathers had a way of parsing those places of scripture where God seemed all-to-human.

Sheridan's eight chapters form a tight and compelling argument. In chapter one, Sheridan reads Numbers 23:19,"God is not a man nor as the son of man to be threatened," in tension with Deuteronomy 1:31." [He] carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place." This illustrates the way in which the Bible talks about God differently, in reference to Godself and in relationship to us in the economy of salvation. Sheridan shows how the fathers picks up this distinction.

In chapter two through four, he illustrates the major influences on the patrsitic interpretive tradition. Chapter two explores the way the Greek philosphical tradition handled the capricious, too-human pantheon of gods in the Homeric epics. Ideas about what is 'worthy of God' in Plato, have their influence on the theological development of the church's early centuries.  Chapter three describes the Hellenized Jewish interpretation of scripture (especially Philo) and they handled passages where God was too human and too passionate. Chapter four examines the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament and the manner in which the patristic tradition saw their interpretive strategy in continuity with Paul and the gospels. Chapter five surveys major early Christian writers  and the various ways they employed the "worthy of God" strategy in interpreting the Bible. While there are differences between early theologians, and regions (Alexandria and Antioch in their approach to 'allegory'), there is a broad consensus on what is worthy of God and what isn't. Passages whre God 'gets angry' are placed inside a larger theological frame where God is impassible and divine emotional outbursts are merely connote the human experience of God's wrath.

Chapter six highlights three cases which exemplify patristic interpretation: Genesis 1-4; Genesis 16 (the Hagar  and Sarah story); and the conquest narratives. The creation story (and fall) has a number of anthropomorphisms. Sheridan demonstrates the way ancient interpreters bracketed out any biblical interpretation that would be demeaning to God's dignity.  The Sarah/Hagar story presented a different challenge. Because this story related Old-Testament saints behaving badly (i.e. Sarah and Abraham using and abusing Sarah's slave), it was interpreted variously as an allegory or a morality tale. The conquest narratives were allegorized because of  patrsitic discomfort with the way God commanded the total destruction of the Canaanites (and what that implied about God's character). Chapter seven shows how the Patrisic tradition handled he imprecatory Psalms.

Chapter eight, Sheridan's final chapter, describes what he thinks modern interpreters ought to learn from our ancient counterparts. Sheridan holds up as sound, the patristic 'rule' of interpreting anthropomorphisms and difficult texts in a manner that is 'worthy of God and useful to us.' At various points our interpretations will diverge with patristics because we bring a different set of questions and assumptions to the text (i.e. ancient interpreters sought to defend the Bible against ancient mythos whereas modern interpreters seek to set the creation story with in the context of Ancient Near East literature). Yet Sheridan also challenges us to learn from patristics how to move beyond what the narrative of scripture describes to ask what it means for our lives (i.e. differences in contemporary and ancient approaches to Genesis 16).   At other points, Sheridan thinks that we ought to listen keenly to the questions that patristic scholars are asking. Contemporary evangelical scholars read the conquest accounts literally, seeking to minimize their destructive nature (i.e. hyperbole in the text, reading the destruction in Joshua alongside the gradual conquest in Judges, etc). Sheridan argues we have a lot to learn form the ways the fathers asked what divine conquest says about the character of God, and how to interpret these sections in a worthy manner.  He sees similar value in allowing patristics to inform our understanding of the imprecatory psalms (and how we are to pray them).

Sheridan offers a great overview of patristic interpretation and is incisive in his analysis of the way the ancient church interpreted scripture. The notion of interpreting in a manner 'worthy of God' seems a noble aim and certainly ancient authors as diverse as Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Ambrose and Gregory of Nyssa each helped untangle anthropomorphisms for us.

Yet as valuable as I find this study and patristic interpretation I am not totally convinced. First off, and this may just be my evangelicalism talking, I am suspicious of where allegory ignores or replaces the literal meaning of the text. In pastrictic interpretation the literal meaning sometimes provides clues to the deeper meaning of the passage. At other times, the deeper, allegorical meaning is used to  replace or explain the literal sense away. I have less problem when the text is metaphorical in its anthropomorphisms (i.e. God walking in the garden, etc) but feel the rub a little more when a whole section of sacred scripture (like the Canaanite conquest) is spiritualized because the early interpreters saw this piece of Israel's history as beneath God. I admit that the literal interpretation of Canaanite destruction opens up questions about God's character and goodness that are difficult; yet I think employing allegory is too easy and too readily shirks the difficulty of wrestling with the text.  Additionaly, I worry about the ways in which the Greek philosophical tradition informs the patristic understanding of what is 'worthy of God.' I applaud the way the fathers  sought to guard the image of God from seeing God as a capricious person; however I am uncertain that ancient Christian understanding of Divine immutability always does justice to the God revealed in Jesus Christ.

My caveats name where I sit loose to some patristic conclusions, but. I think we have a lot to learn from them and Sheridan provides a great and accessible overview of their interpretive approach.  I would have found this a helpful book in seminary as I sought to untangle historic interpretation. This book is sufficiently non-technical for the the general reader. I give this 4.5 stars and recommend it for anyone interested in theological interpretation,  historical theology or spiritual exegesis.

Notice of material connection: I received this book from IVP Academic in exchange for my honest review.

[Karim Farid · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب متقسم لسبع فصول، بيشرح فيهم الكاتب الرؤية اليونانية القديمة لتفسير صورة الإله والتصورات الإنسانية عنه، بعدين بينتقل للتفسير اليهودي اللي كان متأثر بالتفسير اليوناني في إسكندرية، بعد كدة بيناقش تفسير كُتاب العهد الجديد، وتفسيرات المسيحيين في القرون الأولى وبعدين بيتكلم على التفاسير الحديثة، وإن كان الجزء الأخير ده كان محتاج يبقى أطول شوية.
الكتاب مفيد ومهم ومليان أفكار كتير وطريقته مش صعبة، وبيطرح تساؤلات مهمة بس مش بيجاوب عليها أوي.
الترجمة العربي والحواشي بتاعتها ممتازة.

[William Kuevogah · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good reminder that hyperliteral, fundamentalist readings of biblical narratives, leading to anthropomorphic conceptions of God, is a modern phenomenon; the ancients, from the Presocratics to the Church Fathers, recognised that the human forms, activities and passions attributed to (the) God(s) were not true to the nature of divinity.

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 4 out of 5]

Много добра книга - информативна, добре изследвана и много ясно написана.

[Remon Talaat · Rating 5 out of 5]

من اجمل ما قرات

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

When reading the Church Fathers, there are times when they are befuddling. Why did they suddenly take this turn or that, which seemingly has nothing at all to do with the passage at hand? Why did they go to such great lengths to explain themselves? Many times we need a road map. Mark Sheridan has provided just such a map, uncovering for the reader the mindset of the patristic writers in their wrestling and explanation of God’s self-revelation. The author gleans primarily from Origen’s body of work to demonstrate how the Alexandrian father influenced exegesis for centuries afterward, even to today.

The author begins by examining the early writers as they wrestled with God's transcendence in communicating with mankind. How could someone so completely “other” express himself in human terms? Could a self-limiting language accurately convey the expanse of divine meaning? What has been left unsaid that can only be extracted through the work of the Holy Spirit? These questions are not those readily considered by the modern reader of Scripture, but to one such as John Chrysostom, this was paramount:

"Chrysostom seems constantly to be concerned that his hearers will take the text too literally, and he frequently (several hundred times) introduces this distinction between God’s 'considerateness' in formulating things in a human way and what is 'a sense befitting God'" (Sheridan, 41).

The literal meaning of a text was never in doubt, and we see the great care with which they mined the depths of Scripture in order to correctly expound the spiritual meaning and application. Knowing their reverence for the Bible, we can understand how writers like Origen earned a reputation for overly spiritualizing in his commentaries and homilies. We can readily admit that he overstepped the typology and figures the inspired writers used.

Alexandrian homileticians were not the only group to attempt to a spiritual extraction from their sacred text. Philo, a Jew living at the time of Christ, was noteworthy in his use of allegory to explain the Hebrew Scriptures. Also, a chapter is offered to the Greek and Latin philosophers who attempted the same rhetorical device to explain their concepts of divinity. Perhaps this might be the weakest aspect of the book, since the intent is to explain biblical rather than pagan anthropomorphism, but it does lend an historical background to the patristic practice.

After this background information, Sheridan turns his attention to specific passages of the Hebrew Scriptures: first, by gathering patristic comments on Jesus’ and Paul’s use of Torah in teaching; second, by engaging three classic cases from the nation of Israel; and third, by reviewing the imprecatory portions of Psalms. Each of these requires its own chapter to properly establish how the Fathers interacted with these in light of the New Testament. These chapters of applying what has been presented in the prior chapters and developing the exegetical sense of the early church, especially as it relates to the Alexandrian school. Lastly, we are offered a comparison of modern with patristic understanding of the problem texts mentioned in the previous chapters.

Overall, this book is worth the read and is not beyond most readers. Preachers and teachers would do well to take up this work and learn how the Early Church addressed the Bible. Plus there is bonus material. As good as this book is, I found the appendix to be absolute gold. Sheridan summarizes Christian hermeneutics during the first centuries of the church. The three major points addressed are:

1. Presuppositions about the Nature of the Text of the Scriptures
2. Criteria for a Correct Interpretation
3. Some Rules of Interpretation

This summary information from the Church Fathers is as applicable to today as it was 1700-1800 years ago and demonstrates that these early expositors were taking greatest care. I dare say that if the modern Church took the same level of care in their attention to holy things, much exegetical nonsense would be avoided.


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from IVP Academic. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

[Mmetevelis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an amazing introduction to Patristic exegesis as a whole. There is an incredibly useful appendix detailing the methods of ancient biblical interpretation and an exhaustive glossary of major writers in the ancient church. The chapters are arranged chronologically as well as thematically - detailing the history of the allegorical mode of interpretation as used first to treat Homer and then by Philo and ultimately by the patristic writers. Detailed analysis is given to how these writers dealt with texts that were particularly troubling to them and to us such as the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Genesis accounts and the command to wipe out the Canaanites in Joshua.
While I enjoyed all the material presented and its logical cohesion I kept wondering about the contours of this method of interpretation among the spectrum of writers listed (which was vast). More explanation about different theological schools relationships with allegorical exegesis would have been helpful as well as more insights into the particular ways different writers applied it. I kept wondering if the consensus that Sheridan was trying to illustrate was truly there. (I loved a quote in which Tertullian almost seems to be arguing against avoiding anthropomorphism by the patristic criteria of exegesis being "worthy of God." "What could be more worthy of God than the salvation of man?")
Also, the conclusion could have used more of a nuance in its discussion of exegesis. Sheridan seems to think that the only modern choices for interpretation are historical criticism and extreme literalism. He is right to point out that these are a false dichotomy which in their own ways bypass the gravity and the puzzlement of the scriptural text but he doesn't engage with other alternatives in reading scripture - or at least mention the Reformation critique of the allegorical method of reading the texts. Fundamentally the patristic way of reading scripture though at times beautifully constructed, marvelously creative, and spiritually illuminating fails to satisfy the challenges of the texts because they merely become a way of emptying the text of meaning and rediscovering it in an imagined higher law. By turning the texts themselves into "shadow" many of these writers obscured the true light of the gospel.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent introduction and overview of how the Church Fathers approached certain difficulties in the biblical texts, especially how they understood various Old Testament passages in light of the New Testament.

In addition to the influence of the New Testament, Sheridan makes a plausible case for how some early, non-Christian, Greek and Latin thinkers (Xenophanes, Philo, etc.) influenced various Church Fathers who would go on to greatly affect the tradition of Christian Bible interpretation.

Most of this book is dedicated to giving historical examples of how these thinkers addressed an assortment of biblical texts with a "Christian understanding" or in a way that was "fitting with God." This was especially insightful since how we currently understand notions such as allegory and typology seems to be quite different from the way these Church Fathers understood them. Nevertheless, Sheridan's discussion makes sense of why the Church Fathers often approached certain biblical texts in, to our perspective, rather fanciful ways.

At the end of the book Sheridan explains that though some of the assumptions that drove these Church Fathers' interpretations are still in use in modern biblical exegesis, others are no longer really plausible. I wish Sheridan had said more here. In fact, my only real criticism about this book is that I wish Sheridan had gone on to say more about what we could learn from the Church Fathers for our own use in biblical hermeneutics today. Though we realize some of their methods were insufficient in certain ways, it seems we may have also lost some of their insights as well.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sheridan has provided a pretty incredible primer to patristic writing and biblical interpretation. I was particularly struck by how similar today's questions about biblical texts are to the major questions facing the so-called early church. We moderns aren't the only ones who have issues with the book of Joshua! Overall, I walked away from this with a deeper understanding, and appreciation, of how the earliest Christian theologians wrestled with important issues. The chapter on how ancient philosophers approached "myth" was a stand-out part of the book. All this being said, the reader should be aware: this is not the most exciting prose! If the above description is something that grabs your interest, you will probably enjoy this. Otherwise, you may find it dry and dull.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every Biblical literalist should be required to read this scholarly but very readable work on Biblical interpretation in the time of the early Christian church.