Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 95. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009. 232 pages. ISBN 978-90-04-17414-6.
Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology: Clement of Alexandria and Other Early Christian Witnesses. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 95. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009. 232 pages. ISBN 978-90-04-17414-6.
The Festal Letters oI the Patriarchs oI Alexandria
Evidence Ior Social History in the Fourth and FiIth Centuries
Pauline Allen Worldview and Melodic Imagery in Clement the Alexandrian, Saint Athanasius, and their Antecedents in Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus Doru Costache Clement oI Alexandria`s Exegesis oI Old Testament Theophanies Bogdan G. Bucur 'The Passions oI His Flesh St Cyril oI Alexandria and the Emotions oI the Logos Andrew Mellas Trinitarian Hermeneutics in Hilary oI Poitiers` Commentary on the Psalms Rebecca Burgess ISSN 0819-4920 PHRONEMA VOLUME 29 Number 1 2014 1ournal of St Andrew`s Greek Orthodox Theological College Sydney, Australia P H R O N E M A
V O L .
2 9
( 1 )
2 0 1 4 !"#$%&'( is the oIfcial peer reviewed journal oI St Andrew`s Greek Orthodox Theological College, Sydney, published twice yearly in the Autumn and Spring oI the southern hemisphere. It presents articles and book reviews Irom Orthodox and non-Orthodox on various topics. !"#$%&'( provides Ior blind peer review in which both the identity oI the author and the reIerees is undisclosed. The Editor welcomes contributions oI articles and reviews to this journal Irom both Australian and international authors. Intending contributors to !"#$%&'( should see the InIormation Ior Authors. !"#$%&'( is indexed in the Australasian Religion Index. It is likewise indexed in the ATLA Religion Database and included in the Iull-text ATLASerials (ATLAS) collection, both products oI the American Theological Library Association. !"#$%&'( is also included in EBSCOhost, a premium research database service. Disclaimer The views expressed in the journal are those oI the individual authors and are not necessarily those oI the Editor, or the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese oI Australia, or St Andrew`s Greek Orthodox Theological College. Subscriptions (two issues per year) Within Australia $AUD50 (GST incl.) Overseas $AUD70 Address correspondence to: Editor PHRONEMA St Andrew`s Greek Orthodox Theological College 242 Cleveland Street REDFERN NSW 2016 AUSTRALIA. Email: phronema-editorsagotc.edu.au Homepage: http://www.sagotc.edu.au/phronema/ " St Andrew`s Greek Orthodox Theological College 2014 !"#$%&'( A Journal Published by the Faculty oI St Andrew`s Greek Orthodox Theological College Volume 29, Number 1, 2014 )$%*&%*+ Editorial ................................................................................................... v The Festal Letters oI the Patriarchs oI Alexandria Evidence Ior Social History in the Fourth and FiIth Centuries ................................................................................. 1 Pauline Allen Worldview and Melodic Imagery in Clement the Alexandrian, Saint Athanasius, and their Antecedents in Saints Ignatius and Irenaeus ............................................................. 21 Doru Costache Clement oI Alexandria`s Exegesis oI Old Testament Theophanies ...... 61 Bogdan G. Bucur 'The Passions oI His Flesh St Cyril oI Alexandria and the Emotions oI the Logos ......................... 81 Andrew Mellas Trinitarian Hermeneutics in Hilary oI Poitiers` Commentary on the Psalms ................................................................ 101 Rebecca Burgess Book Reviews ..................................................................................... 121 InIormation Ior Authors ...................................................................... 147 128 Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatologv. Clement of Alexandria and Other Earlv Christian Witnesses. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 95. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009. 232 pages. ISBN 978- 90-04-17414-6. Structured in three parts and equipped with a section on methodology and various indices, Bucur`s Angelomorphic Pneumatologv presents an enthralling study in several witnesses oI early Christian pneumatology, Iocusing on the rapports between the Holy Spirit and the angels as articulated within the relevant sources. For this undertaking, the author takes the weak pneumatology that characterises most early Christian writings as a pretext and Clement the Alexandrian as a guide (cI. ix-x, xii, 189) an approach, the author warns us, not deprived oI diIfculties. Indeed, Clement`s pneumatological thinking is not at the IoreIront oI contemporary scholarship, a situation which is very likely related to the overall dismissal oI 'the other Clement (a catchphrase coined by Bucur himselI), oI the Hvpotvposeis and its remnants, namely, Eclogae propheticae, Adumbrationes and Excerpta ex Theodoto, as unimportant. Nevertheless, the current indiIIerence oI scholars seems to have historical roots. Bucur reIers their lack oI enthusiasm Ior the Iorgotten parts oI the Clementine program back to the suspicions levelled, in the ninth century, against the 'blasphemies oI the Alexandrian by Photius oI Constantinople (cI. 25-26). Precisely against this background, Bucur undertakes to explore 'the other Clement in search oI the more developed pneumatology oI the Alexandrine (cI. 3-6, 189-90). In terms oI its methodology, the book considers both the primary sources and the latest scholarship through 129 !"#$%&'( )$*+'& -./012 -304 the lens oI Christian Oeyen`s !"#$%&"$'()*+%+#,$ interpretation oI Clement and St Justin Martyr (cI. x-xi, 3-4, 30 etc.), together with Bishop Alexander Golitzin`s 'interiorized apocalyptic (cI. xxv, 50-51). Alongside this Irame oI reIerence, however, a range oI key scholarly concepts are being utilised to unlock the signifcance oI the early Christian texts, such as spirit christology and angelic pneumatology, or, as Bucur justifably preIers, angelomorphic pneumatology, and binitarianism, whose defnition precedes the actual study and with reIerence to which the author takes due precautions in terms oI their inherent limitations (cI. xxiii, xxv-xxix). 1 The analysis oI Clement`s teaching begins with a review oI !"# -*)*'- /')$-*,+",- in relation to the pedagogical criterion (cI. 27) that possibly underlies the plan oI the corpus, which would Iollow the schema Protreptikos Paidagogos Didaskalos (cI. 11-24). OI Platonic resonance, this schema illustrates, the author proposes, an almost typical progression Irom ethics to physics and then to epoptics, with 01&+*1&+-$,- or 2,3)-4)%+- and its components corresponding to the last and loItiest stage (cI. 18-21). The relevance oI this discussion consists in that it prepares the reader to properly grasp the complexities entailed by writings oI this, third-stage calibre. Whilst this classical schema is readily noticeable in the outline oI the Clementine corpus as drawn by the author, behind this Iamiliar Ieature there is discernible another dimension, which is given equal attention. More precisely, and reiterating the conviction oI Osborn that the literary corpus oI Clement undertakes to record the traditional wisdom oI the 'elders (cI. 11-12), Bucur points out that by all accounts the latter were Jewish Christian teachers whose approach was more mystagogical than pedagogical (cI. 43-51, 87); a crucial aspect Ior the understanding oI both the plan oI the Clementine corpus and, more importantly, the angelic or angelomorphic language oI the early Christians, as we shall soon fnd. The signifcance oI this aspect becomes increasingly obvious in the book under consideration yet receives Iull disclosure only in its conclusion, which assesses the Clementine corpus in terms oI a 'mystagogical curriculum 1 The author has returned with more caveats to these concepts in a recent study, 'Early Christian Binitarianism: From Religious Phenomenon to Polemical Insult to Scholarly Concept,` 5+3$6" 78$+%+#1 27:1 (2011): 102-20. 130 !""# %&'(&) (cI. 189). In a nutshell, Bucur exploits the underlying plan oI the corpus as an instrument or a criterion that, the reader discovers throughout this Iascinating work, illumines progressively la cour des miracles oI early Christian pneumatology. Another important aspect pertaining to the methodology oI this book, Ior some reason not mentioned in the introductory outline, consists in the distinction between unity and multiplicity oI which Bucur makes use at any step, including when he addresses structures pertaining to Clement`s theological worldview. This consistency makes the Ieature oI unity and multiplicity a key component oI the argument, alongside the angelomorphic typology. For instance, it emerges as a distinction within the binitarian schema reIerring to God and the Son/Logos/Spirit (cI. 28-32), where God is one whereas the Logos/Son/Spirit appears as the 'unity oI the many or the cosmos. OI course, this theological distinction reIers to the diIIerent rapports that God and the Logos/Son/Spirit maintain with the cosmos. Nevertheless, whilst the Logos/Son/Spirit is more involved in the cosmos than God the Father, it is not a multiple entity itselI. The author proposes that in Clement multiplicity is an exclusive characteristic oI the creation, being signifed beIore anything else by the seven protoctists or the frst created angels/spirits (cI. 31-32; these correspond to the 'seven spirits, 'seven angels or 'seven stars oI the Book oI Revelation; cI. 93-99), which are themselves part oI a broader, hierarchical schema a term not used by Clement, warns Bucur, and applicable only to the creation (cI. 33). In turn, this broader hierarchy comprises archangels and angels (cI. 32-42). This 'hierarchically ordered cosmos, Ieaturing several angelic ranks (80), within which the protoctists appear 'as an angelomorphic representation oI the Spirit (83) and thus pose the problem oI divine unity and cosmic diversity, draws on Second Temple Judaism and Jewish Christian traditions, anticipating the Dionysian system oI the world. I put aside Ior a while the distinction between unity and multiplicity to remark that in pointing to the ancient Jewish and Jewish Christian sources oI this worldview (cI. 59-71), Bucur returns to that other parameter, mystagogical in nature, Ior his construal oI Clementine pneumatology, i.e. the interiorised apocalypticism. More specifcally, whilst analysing the 131 !"#$%&'( )$*+'& -./012 -304 Alexandrian`s vision oI the ascending movement oI the angelic hierarchies Irom the lower ranks toward the higher ranks a transIormative process which Irom a morphological viewpoint can be taken as spiritual evolution (cI. 43-51) the author observes that when fltered through 'a sustained process oI internalization and spiritualization (50-51; cI. 40, 61), as seems to be the case in Clement, the inherited angelic imagery appears as actually signiIying the mystical experience. Thus, the Clementine metaphors oI angelic evolution and transIormation should be understood as pointing to the change oI one`s perception in the spiritual journey. This renders as unwarranted, notes Bucur, any literal reading oI Clement`s reIerences to the Spirit and the angels (cI. 81). In the light oI the above, indeed, and again by making explicit use oI Oeyen`s interpretation (cI. 73), Bucur sees the angelic imagery oI the Alexandrine, more precisely the seven protoctists, as reIerring to the Spirit in its various maniIestations an approach that seemingly borrows Irom the Shepherd of Hermas (cI. 115, 119). What makes possible this pneumatological interpretation oI the protoctists is the realisation that more oIten than not angelomorphisms are tightly connected in Clement and his sources with the process oI divine inspiration and prophecy (cI. 52-54) or the mystical experience Iacilitated by the economic` maniIestations oI God. Both points, namely, the metaphorical condition oI Clement`s angelomorphic pneumatology and the economic` nature oI such representations, constitute the backbone oI Bucur`s argument and are highly relevant to the theme oI binitarianism and its relation with the doctrine oI the Trinity; a topic to which I shall return. What matters Ior now is that Ior Bucur, defnitely, the pneumatology oI Clement and its angelomorphic stances cannot be dissociated Irom the Alexandrine`s spirit christology, within the broader scheme oI a 'binitarian theological Iramework (cI. 73). Within this Iramework, the author agrees with a plethora oI scholars, there is not much room Ior a distinction between the Son/Logos and the angelomorphic Spirit (cI. 75), and so Ior a strong pneumatology; a Ieature shared in common with the Shepherd of Hermas (cI. 120-26) and St Justin (cI. 139-41). In Iact, as the author points out, most times when Clement mentions the 'Spirit, the 'Spirit oI Christ and even the 'Holy Spirit, he actually reIers to 132 !""# %&'(&) the Son, more precisely the Son in his activity as Logos/ (cI. 75- 79, 80-81). Thus, in many instances pneumatology, disguised or not in the veils oI angelology, becomes Clement`s preIerred way shaped by earlier traditions oI speaking oI the economy` oI the Son (cI. 79-80). The same conclusion is reached in the analysis oI inspiration in the Book oI Revelation (cI. 104-10), one oI Clement`s early Christian sources. OI interest here is that the binitarian schema, within which the Son and the angelomorphic Spirit represented by the protoctists appear as two sides oI one divine agency in the world, brings us back to the recurrent theme oI unity and multiplicity. In Bucur`s words, 'The interplay between the Logos as and the angelic (or, Ior that matter, Logos as and the angelic ) refects Clement`s understanding oI the interplay between unity and multiplicity, more precisely, his understanding unity as multiplicity (80). Clement`s binitarianism is thereIore about a logical, and strongly metaphorical, way oI mediating between the oneness oI God and the plurality oI the creation through the rich imagery oI the Son/Spirit who at once is one and maniIested in many (angelic) Iorms. It emerges that the themes oI unity and multiplicity, which Bucur specifcally addressed elsewhere, ! and the angelomorphic imagery, 3 are inextricably connected in the book`s argument. The second and third parts oI the work confrm the above fndings both in certain sources oI Clement, such as the Book oI Revelation (Ch. 3), the Shepherd of Hermas (Ch. 4) and the writings oI St Justin Martyr (Ch. 5), and later in the Syrian tradition as represented by Aphrahat (Ch. 6). Needless to say, the exploration oI these sources unIolds according to the same outline oI the angelomorphic pneumatology, binitarianism and spirit christology (cI. xxiii), Bucur fnding out that a coherent and ! See his Foreordained Irom All Eternity: The Mystery oI the Incarnation Ac- cording to Some Early Christian and Byzantine Writers,` Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008): 208-209. 3 CI. Bogdan G. Bucur, From Jewish apocalypticism to Christian mysticism,` in Augustine Casiday (ed.), The Orthodox Christian World (New York: Routledge, 2012): 466-80; idem, Hierarchy, Prophecy, and the Angelomorphic Spirit: A Contribution to the Study oI the Book oI Revelation`s Wirkungsgeschichte,` Journal of Biblical Literature 127:1 (2008): 173-94. 133 !"#$%&'( )$*+'& -./012 -304 shared vision pervades all these early Christian sources. For instance, in terms oI binitarianism, the author notes that the Book oI Revelation both aIfrms the enthronement oI the Son/Lamb together with the Father and assimilates the Spirit with the glorifed Christ (cI. 89, 100-104). Similarly, the theology oI the !"#$"#%& () *#%+,- uses spirit` to reIer either to Christ or the angelic spirits (126-36, 138), and so advances the typically binitarian schema oI the transcendent God and the economic` Son/Spirit rendered in angelomorphic terms. Furthermore, Bucur asserts the binitarian character oI St Justin`s theology; in his words, 'the Logos and the Spirit are, Ior Justin, the same reality, which presents itselI in a complex and paradoxical relation oI simultaneous unity and multiplicity, and with defnite angelomorphic traits (155). In terms oI angelomorphism, and entirely like 'the other Clement, the 'angelic imagery oI Revelation conveys a 'pneumatological content and thus points to a typical depiction oI the Spirit with angelic Ieatures (cI. 92, 99, 111) as likewise do the !"#$"#%& () *#%+,- (cI. 120-26, 138), St Justin Martyr (cI. 148-55) and later Aphrahat (cI. 185-86). And so on. The main argument oI the book, that there is a complex pneumatology hidden behind the angelomorphic imagery and language oI most early Christian writings, including 'the other Clement, is consistently addressed and abundantly substantiated with textual evidence, whilst the author keeps up with his promise not to read too much (cI. x) into the sources under scrutiny. Seeking to conclude my review, I believe that, apart Irom the Iormidable scholarship displayed throughout Bucur`s book, his demarche opens up interesting avenues Ior making sense oI the slippery slope represented by the binitarian stances within the sources explored therein. The author points out already in his introduction the challenges experienced by a modern reader accustomed to the canonical doctrine oI God as Iormulated in later ages when Iacing the widespread use oI binitarian schemas in the early Christian centuries. To counteract any possible objection, Bucur aptly shows that such schemas were not perceived as jeopardising monotheism (cI. xxvii-xxviii). Nevertheless, his argument oIIers an implicit solution Ior a more typically Christian problem, namely, the rapports between trinitarian and binitarian representations oI God. 134 !""# %&'(&) Indeed, the wide range oI materials analysed in this book lead to the conclusion that, Iar Irom competing (as the relevant scholarship reviewed by the author suggests, mainly by opposing the preIabricated` liturgical Iormulae oI the ancient Church and the mature` Trinitarian speculation oI later theologians; cI. xxiii, xxviii, 3, 4, 74, 92, 110, 139-40, 142, 175-76, 177-78, 187, 191 etc.) ! the two schemas Iunctioned in the early Church not only in parallel but likewise in complementarity. The elucidation oI this complexity resides within Bucur`s very argument and mainly in his use oI the categories oI unity and multiplicity, and interiorised apocalypticism. Let me explain. As the author states at some juncture in relation to the angelomorphic pneumatology oI Clement, nothing can be taken literally in the textual evidence analysed within the book. What prompts Bucur to posit this is his distinction between the language oI theology and reality or the content oI theology (cI. 191), Iollowed by the conviction that both angelomorphism and spirit christology pertain to the language oI theology and thus require a decoding through the lens oI interiorised apocalypticism. In other words, the reIerences to both Christ as Spirit and the Spirit as angel(s) should not be considered aIfrmations regarding reality; they are ways in which reality is perceived and represented by the human mind. This aspect is very signifcant. Since binitarianism is directly connected with both the angelomorphic pneumatology and the spirit christology oI the ancients, the same judgment should be applied in its case; thereIore, any literal binitarianism has to be discarded. For instance, given that the analysed early Christian writings employ scriptural passages like Isaiah 11:2-3, Zechariah 3:9 and Matthew 18:10, both as sources Ior a theological language and purposely to give expression to God`s activity, it Iollows logically that the binitarianism witnessed to by such writings both pertains to the language oI theology and attempts to articulate God`s maniIestations in the multiplicity oI the world not God`s inner liIe. It is precisely God`s economic` activity, to use this anachronism opposed by Bucur (cI. 192), and not God in God`s selI that is the object oI binitarian speculations. As ! For Bucur`s newer insights into this matter, see his 'Early Christian Binitari- anism,` esp. 111-14. 135 !"#$%&'( )$*+'& -./012 -304 such, the binitarian elaborations are meant neither to parallel nor to compete against the trinitarian doctrine; they simply reIer to another aspect than the inner liIe oI God, namely, God`s activity. Binitarian schemas such as those present in 'the other Clement and its sources, both anticipate St Athanasius` discourse on the one economic` energy oI God, and predate by centuries the Palamite elaborations on the divine energies. The Iocus oI the early Christian authors on the concrete aspect oI God`s activity or economic` maniIestation, rather than on the loIty matters oI God`s inner liIe, should not come as a surprise. Apart Irom their awareness oI the Holy Trinity, as proven by their liturgical and catechetical Iormulae, their use oI binitarian schemas was just another way in which they conveyed the message that theology is about participating in God`s presence and not about speculative representations oI the divine. There is another, and related, aspect that may be implied yet not aIfrmed by Bucur`s distinction between the language and the content oI theology, together with his conviction that the categories oI binitarianism, spirit christology and angelomorphic pneumatology cannot be dissociated Irom the mystagogical Iramework oI the Church (cI. 191-92). I am thinking oI the modern category, defnitely consistent with the ecclesial tradition, oI !"# disciplina arcani, which is presupposed by Clement`s loIty theology, pertaining to epoptics, oI the Hvpotvposeis or Didaskalos and its sources. The useIulness oI this category resides in that it can easily accommodate both languages, namely, the trinitarian and the binitarian ones, whilst speaking to diIIerent audiences. As illustrated by the baptismal ritual described, Ior example, by St Justin Martyr (cI. First Apologv 61), in the early Christian centuries the disclosure oI the Trinity to the neophytes took place only aIter a long process oI catechetical induction, at the very moment oI their baptism. Thus, the mystery oI the Trinity, oI the inner liIe oI God, was exclusively shared by the initiated or the enlightened ones, i.e. by those Iully integrated in the liIe oI the Church, and not something to be divulged to the uninitiated. It is only natural that superior insights into the mystery oI the Holy Trinity were available to those advanced in Iaith, contemplation and the Christian experience. In turn, the uninitiated were granted access to aspects pertaining, say, to divine providence and so the 136 !""# %&'(&) 136 binitarian teaching, which articulated the complexities pertaining to the one God variously active in the world and which as shown by Bucur were usually conveyed via an entrancingly rich imagery, angel(omorph)ic and otherwise. Given that it required a mystagogical decoding Irom the vantage point oI the interiorised apocalypticism, this second Iorm oI preaching God both protected the mystery and lured the curious into the net oI ecclesial assimilation. Thus, to wrap this matter up, whilst the trinitarian discourse, reserved Ior the enlightened, would have been seen by the early Christians as pertaining to what later Church Iathers called theology` or the inner liIe oI God, binitarianism, as a public teaching oI the Church, would have been construed as addressing the multiIarious economic` activity oI the one God in the world. And so, iI applied to the issues at hand, in dismissing the logic oI either/or when discussing the rapports between trinitarian and binitarian representations oI God the category oI "#$ disciplina arcani which in my opinion is perIectly compatible with Bucur`s mystagogical criterion oI interiorised apocalypticism could be another way oI solving the impasse. In Iact, and Iollowing the same methodology adopted in the book here considered, in his recent study on binitarianism 5 the author arrived at similar conclusions without making recourse to the disciplina. Convincing in its argument, impressive by its scholarship and challenging in its various propositions, Bucur`s book should be acknowledged as a major contribution to Clementine studies, to pneumatology and to the general understanding oI the early Christian representations oI God. Furthermore, it represents a genuine vindication oI 'the other Clement as theologically sound within the landscape oI early Christian literature, both against the indiIIerence oI contemporary scholars and the accusations levelled against him by Photius. Doru Costache St Andrews Greek Orthodox Theological College 5 CI. Bucur, 'Early Christian Binitarianism,` 112.
Robert Romanchuk-Byzantine Hermeneutics and Pedagogy in The Russian North - Monks and Masters at The Kirillo-Belozerskii Monastery, 1397-1501-University of Toronto Press (2007)
Tobias Nicklas, Joseph Verheyden, Erik M. M. Eynikel, Florentino Garcia Maritnez-Other Worlds and Their Relation to This World_ Early Jewish and Ancient Christian Traditions (Supplements to the Journa