MelIta Theologica Journal of the Faculty of Theology ISSN: 1012-9588 Copyright Melita Theologica Press: Best Print, Qrendi, Malta
Melita Theologicais a peer-reviewed journal of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta. The journal has been published biannually since 1947, initially by the then Royal University Students Theological Association (RUSTA) and, since 1980, as a joint venture between the Theology Students Assocation and the Faculty of Theology. As from 2012 Melita Theologica is being published jointly by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Malta, the Theology Students Association, and the Foundation for Theological Studies. MELITA THEOLOGICA
Volume 68 – Number 1 2018
Editor-in-Chief: Contents Martin Micallef Co-Editor: 1 Susan E. Gillingham John Anthony Berry Reception History, Biblical Studies and the Issue of Multivalency Editorial Board: Martin Micallef, chairperson; Emmanuel Agius; Michael Fletcher Carl M. Sultana; Konrad Grech; Claude 17 Mangion; Hector Scerri; Paul Sciberras; Being Responsible in the Between: Dorianne Buttigieg. On William Desmond’s Metaxology and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Administrative Board: Theology-of-the-Cross John Anthony Berry; Bernard Micallef; Christopher Caruana; Peter Ellul; Paul Sciberras Jesmond Manicaro; Martin Micallef. 45 The Tradition of Religious Translations Advisory Board: in Malta Francesco Asti (Pontificia Facoltà Teologica dell’Italia Meridionale, Naples); Maurizio Barba 65 Nicholas Joseph Doublet (Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, Rome); Johannes Benedict XV: Beutler (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome); A Historiographical Reading (Part 1) Michael T. Buchanan (Australian Catholic University); Lisa Sowle Cahill (Boston College); Beate Kowalski Peter De Mey (KU Leuven); Gerard Hughes 79 (University of Oxford); Mathijs Lamberigts (KU Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew Leuven); Augustin Mendonça (St Paul University, Ottowa); Elzbieta Osewska (Cardinal Stefan 105 Emmanuel Agius Wyszynski, University, Warsaw); Josef Stala The Technocratic Paradigm and its Ethos (Pontifical University of John Paul II, Cracow); Anthony Francis-Vincent (Pontificia Università 111 Joseph Gabriel Grech Salesiana, Rome); Robert Wicks (Loyola Retrieving the Tradition: University, Maryland). Excerpts from Past Issues of Published jointly by: Melita Theologica The Faculty of Theology, Joseph Gabriel Grech, University of Malta; “The Dark Night of the Ascent Theology Students Association; of Mount Carmel (Part 1) Foundation for Theological Studies Melita Theologica 6/2 (1953): 98-109 Editorial Office & Subscriptions: Melita Theologica 115 Book Reviews Faculty of Theology University of Malta 123 Guidelines For Contributors Msida MSD 2080 Malta [email protected] Yearly subcription for two issues:
Malta: €12.00 Europe: €25.00 Other Countries: €30.00 MELITA THEOLOGICA Susan E. Gillingham* Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 1-15
Reception History, Biblical Studies and the Issue of Multivalency
eception History” is a relatively new method in biblical studies, although I “Rwould argue that people have been doing this, without giving it this name, for centuries.1 Basically it is an approach which is interested in the “afterlife” of a biblical text, discovering a plethora of readings by looking at the use of a text not only through the more traditional commentary and later translations, but also through its various representations in liturgy, music, art, poetry, drama and film. Given that the use of biblical texts in liturgy was beginning to develop at
* Susan Gillingham D.D. is Professor of the Hebrew Bible at the University of Oxford and Fellow and Tutor in Theology at Worcester College. Her chief research interest is in the Book of Psalms: their setting in ancient Israelite and early Jewish religion, the literary and theological shaping of the Psalter, and the reception history of psalmody over the last two and a half millennia, both in Jewish and Christian traditions, in translations, commentaries, sermons, liturgy, art, music, poetry, drama, film, and modern discourse. She is currently involved with a two-year interdisciplinary research project, “The Oxford Psalms Network” (https://torch.ox.ac. uk/psalms). 1 Part of this paper was published in a different format and with different emphases as “Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View of Reception History,” in Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice, eds. Emma England and William J. Lyons (New York and London: Bloomsbury), 17-30. I am grateful to the commissioning editors, Andrew Mein and Dominic Schafer, for permission to use this work. This paper is a revised version of the Aquinas Lecture I gave at the Faculty of Theology, University of Malta, in April 2017, under the title “Is Reception History no more than Biblical Studies on Holiday?” I am most grateful to the Dean, Rev Dr Emmanuel Agius, and to Rev Dr Paul Sciberras, Head of the Department of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, for their kind invitation, and also to Rev Dr Stefan Attard, Lecturer in the Department of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, for his hospitality and invaluable help. The lecture itself contained projections of images from illuminated Psalters and other works of art, and several examples of musical compositions, both of which are impossible to reproduce in a journal. I have provided appropriate links wherever feasible, and I trust that the argument runs on without being able to “see” and “hear” the psalms.
1 2 MELITA THEOLOGICA the same time as the different canons of Scripture were being formed, liturgical reception history is a very ancient phenomenon. Similarly, given that biblical texts - especially the Gospels and Psalter - were illuminated in manuscripts well over a millennium ago, art reception history as visual exegesis has some very early antecedents. What is new, however, is the way we have started to use reception history to aid our understanding of the impact of a text in our own cultural context: it challenges us, as we look at the multivalent trajectories of a biblical text through the centuries, to examine the hermeneutical assumptions that we, as modern readers, bring to that text.2 This challenge to our own approach to Scripture is also not new. The discipline of “the history of interpretation,” which can be traced back to Jewish and Christian exegesis as early as the fourth and fifth centuries CE, is similarly concerned with multivalent readings. The distinctive feature of reception history is that it goes beyond simply amassing a “history of interpretation”: the latter is essentially a “word-centred” approach interested in the many ways in which Scripture has been read and used, whereas reception history is concerned with more intuitive and imaginative non-verbal and pragmatic approaches as well. This therefore greatly increases the potential for multiple meanings. Reception history is about biblical studies in many dimensions, and it sometimes exposes contradictory interpretations, often demonstrating that different interpreters have used the text polemically to their own advantage. Hence reception history scholars do not usually advocate one particular reading of the text over another: they seek to expose the various hermeneutical constructs readers through the centuries have brought to biblical texts, with the key purpose of demonstrating that one text speaks with many different voices. Before we see how this works in practice, in terms of the application of reception history to a specific text, we also need to be clear about how we now understand “biblical studies.” There have been some dramatic changes in this academic discipline over the last fifty or so years, and it is important to see how it interacts with “reception history.” In the 1960’s there was still some confidence about the assured results of what we call “historical criticism” in biblical studies, when it was assumed that we could know a good deal about the date, provenance, author, and purpose of most biblical texts. As is well documented, historical
2 See Christine E. Joynes, “Reception History,” in Oxford Encyclopedias of the Bible, http:// www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t998/e27; Masiiwa R. Gunda, “Reception History of the Bible: Prospects of a New Frontier in African Biblical Studies,” in Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice, eds. Emma England and William J. Lyons (New York and London: Bloomsbury, 2015), 127-128. Reception History - Susan E. Gillingham 3 criticism underwent continuous fragmentation, so that it became less clear whether the biblical student should place primary importance on, for example, textual criticism, or source criticism, or form criticism, or redaction criticism. The historical-critical approach began to seem like some great archaeological dig, with many different levels of critical enquiry into the text, so that it was difficult to know where to start first. Some thirty years ago, partly as a result of the questions asked by feminist interpreters, social scientists and liberation theologians, a new approach became part of biblical studies, and this had an enormous impact upon the way reception history has been integrated within it. Rhetorical studies, in various guises, became a crucial methodology for asking different questions about the meaning of biblical texts: this took the emphasis away from looking at the ‘text in context’ to thinking instead of the “reader in context.” Rhetorical studies gave rise to a whole range of other methodological approaches, and with it came a fresh understanding of the Bible as literature - not just as ancient literature, but as literature capable of being understood by using more contemporary literary techniques. This also contributed to the issue of multivalency referred to earlier. With the multiplication and fragmentation of so many different methodological approaches to biblical studies there were many different ways of reading, and hence many different interpretations, of the same text. Reception history, in my view, actually creates a bridge between the more traditional historically-orientated approaches to the Bible and more recent literary and theological approaches. There are two key contributions this discipline can offer, each suggested by the term itself. First, this is about reception history; secondly, it is about reception history.
Reception History This approach is closely related to the more traditional historical-critical concerns of biblical studies, in seeing the “text in context.” This perspective also makes it a close relation to that other discipline referred to earlier as “the history of biblical interpretation.” Reception history, however, is concerned with many more levels in our historical understanding of the text than simply staying with historical-critical issues about the purported date, purpose, and author of a biblical text. Because it is interested in cultural history, and in the influence of a particular text in and on many different cultures, it is as much about a “history of culture” as about a “history of the text.” This is why it is very different from the history of biblical interpretation, as it is not so much a catalogue of cultural influences but more a concern with theimpact of a text within different cultural 4 MELITA THEOLOGICA contexts. We shall return to the aspect of impact shortly, when we look at Psalm 137.3 Some scholars apply the historical enterprise of reception but start with the reception of text in a particular cultural setting and work backwards to the earlier history of the text in its biblical setting. Other scholars work from the history of the text in its biblical setting forwards to the reception of the text in later cultural settings. I usually do the latter, and so I start with the text itself. Applying this to my study of the psalms, I would look first at a psalm in Hebrew, then probably assess a very early stage of reception, namely its translation into Greek; I would then look at the psalm as part of the literature of the Second Temple Period (especially, where relevant, in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Staying with Jewish reception, I would then look at the ways in which a psalm has been “received” through later Jewish traditions, such as the rabbinic Midrashim and the Aramaic Targums, as well as through Jewish commentators such as Rashi and Kimhi. But this is only the Jewish reception of a psalm, and only up to the late Middle Ages; so I would then return to a “parallel” reception history which has a Christian focus. I would examine the use of a psalm in the New Testament, in the Church Fathers, not least Origen and Augustine, and, where relevant, Jerome’s Latin translations of the psalms; I would then read the commentaries of, for example, Cassiodorus and Bede, and so turn to the Glosses. This would lead on to looking at medieval commentators such as Aquinas and Peter Lombard. In my view this is always a historical approach, even though it has a cultural remit. I would then look at Christian commentators from the Middle Ages onwards, through the Early Modern period, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and so up to the present day, focussing on commentators such as Erasmus, Luther and Calvin, and, more recently, on commentaries with a feminist, liberationist, psychological and social focus. This reception history approach is best illustrated with reference to a particular psalm. I shall use Psalm 137 with the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) as the English translation.4 In order to assess the importance of later translations and commentaries, both Jewish and Christian, we need to have a sense of the psalm in its original (Hebrew) language, and to be aware of important words or phrases, for the original language lies at the base, directly or indirectly, of all translations and interpretations that follow. So the first thing we might notice in Psalm 137 is that
3 See the Appendix. 4 See the Appendix which offers a translation of this psalm in the NRSV, underlining the key issues in the Hebrew which follow here. Reception History - Susan E. Gillingham 5 in the Hebrew the psalm has an internal coherence with its constant theme of ‘remember’ (verse 1 of verses 1-4; verse 6 of verses 5-6; and verse 7 of verses 7-9). Hence it was apparently intended to be read as a coherent whole. The second feature is that the Hebrew imitates the sound of mourning through its repeated ‘u’ sounds in verses 1-3, which eleven times use in various ways the first person plural form; a slightly different effect is created in verses 5-6 which by contrast use the first person singular form four times with an ‘i’ sound. The psalm has been carefully crafted, despite its dreadful ending, for both the ear and the eye, and this too affects the reception of the psalm in later traditions. When we view the psalm from the perspective of its reception in Jewish cultural history, through a range of midrashim and commentaries, we see how repeatedly the psalm was used by Jews as a lament for a lost homeland, with Jerusalem at the heart of it. This started with the Babylonian exile in the th6 century BCE; the psalm was further used during the Greek occupation of the Temple in the 2nd century BCE, and also after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE; it was then adapted through a sequence of ongoing persecutions, ending with the Holocaust and the founding of the modern State of Israel in 1948. From its earliest use to its latest reception, the psalm has been for different Jewish communities a type of “identity marker,” with Jerusalem understood as the “earthly city.” When we look at the psalm’s reception history in Christian cultural history, the readings from the church fathers, reformation commentators and contemporary writers reveal a wide range of views, usually very different from the Jewish interpretations of the psalm. Although Psalm 137 was not used in the New Testament, it was read by the church fathers in many allegorical ways (including the ending, where for example the “little ones” are read as our evil thoughts). A key focus is on Jerusalem as a heavenly city. There is however an interesting correspondence with Jewish experience in sixteenth century Europe, as disenfranchisement and exile became a Christian experience too: so, following Jewish reception, the psalm was at that time read in an increasingly physical rather than allegorical and spiritual way. Empathy for the different uses of Psalm 137 in different periods of cultural history is vital, for in doing so, we see just how and why Jewish and Christian responses diverge and sometimes merge. Thus, reception history is, in part, a historical project, and one which brings to the light the multivalency of the text of the psalm. 6 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Reception History We noted earlier that there are two key issues suggested by the term “reception history.” The second issue focuses on the fact that this isreception history. This is where the discipline differs most from that of “the history of interpretation.” Reception history is sometimes known as Wirkungsgeschichte, to indicate that this is a study of the influence or the impact of a text, and the way a text is received and interpreted in a later period will probably be very different from the way it was received in its earlier context. For example, in the New Testament and in the Church Fathers many of the psalms were not only read as prayers but also as prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. This is more about the “reader in context” than the “text in context.” Another example is the way later interpreters have not taken a bland acceptance of an earlier meaning, but have offered instead a resistance to it, being critical of an earlier meaning in the light of its impact at a later stage in the process. The last verses of Psalm 137 are particularly relevant here, as readers have attempted to account for the vitriol in these verses in many different ways. Reception history is about the ways in which readers from very different faith traditions and different social contexts have tried to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ the words of the psalms so that they make sense in their own time. Admittedly this may be only a verbal process. It could be through words re-created by Hebrew poets called piyyutim; or through the words of Protestant Reformers composing metrical psalms, to bring out new theological insights for their own time; it could be through imitations of psalms composed by political dissidents, both Catholic and Protestant, in sixteenth and seventeenth century England and Europe. In the case of Psalm 137 in particular, it could be through contemporary writings, in different European languages, taking up the strident words of lament, as appropriated especially by Holocaust survivors. “Seeing” and “hearing” a psalm in different ways is, however, more than looking at the reception of the words from one language medium into another. It also involves, for example, “seeing” through visual reception, and ‘hearing’ through musical reception.5
5 Two earlier papers reproduce many of the images under discussion here. See “The Reception of Psalm 137 in Jewish and Christian Traditions,” in Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms. Conflict and Convergence, ed. Susan E. Gillingham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 64-82; “The Psalms Then and Now: ‘Reception History’ as a way of Seeing and Hearing the Psalms (Annual Bedell Lecture, National Bible Society of Ireland),” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 39 (2017): 1-16, now at https://www.nationalbiblesocietyofireland.ie/wp- content/uploads/2016/12/Psalms-For-PIBA.pdf Reception History - Susan E. Gillingham 7
Psalm 137 offers us a good model of how visual exegesis reveals the impact of reception in different cultural settings. One example is a thirteenth century Italian work, called the Parma Psalter, a lavish and defiant manuscript made during Jewish persecution, at a time when in Jewish tradition it was really unusual to illustrate prayer books and psalms. The image (on fol. 198A) is only of verse 1, where the picture of two individuals weeping follows the Hebrew words “by the waters” (of Babylon). We see the harps hung up on the trees: this is a symbol of weeping without being able to sing to musical accompaniment, a witness to Jewish practice since the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. A similar motif is found in a nineteenth century image of Jews mourning, also showing the harps in trees, but here the Jews are explicitly reflecting on the temple ruins: two inlaid images, bringing this more up to date, are of Mount Zion and the Mosque of Omar.6 Images of this psalm were often placed on doors of synagogues - again as a memory of the loss of Jerusalem and the continuing exile. A very different reading of this psalm in Jewish art is in the great wall mosaic in the Knesset by Marc Chagall.7 It has his characteristic image of an angel, this time with a shofar, calling the people to return to Zion; the Jewish Menorah, lit outside the walls of Jerusalem, gives the image a semblance of hope. The mosaic was completed in 1966 when Jerusalem was still under Jordanian control, and shows the visual impact of the psalm with a very recent connotation. Christian illustrations of the psalms are found as early as the ninth century in the churches both in the West and East. One very early example is a sketchy brown line drawing in the ninth century Carolingian Utrecht Psalter.8 Here, on fol. 77r, we see Christ instead of Chagall’s angel; he is in heaven, supported by the hand of God, which is coming out of heaven. The reading here is through those New Testament texts where Christ prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem (as in Matt 23:27; Lk 13:34, 21:20-24 and Jn 2:19-22). This is a particularly Christian reading of the psalm. Just as Edom and Babylon fell and so vindicated the Jews, the sack of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 CE gave Christians a different sense of vindication in their inheritance of a new, spiritual Jerusalem. The twelfth century Eadwine Psalter (fol. 243v), a later English representation of the Utrecht Psalter, probably from Canterbury Cathedral, has similar details and the interpretation
6 See http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-memorial-of-the-temple-ruins-illustration-to- psalm-137-by-the-waters-149148561.html. 7 See http://www.davidwstowe.com/song-of-exile/part-3/ 8 See http://psalter.library.uu.nl/page?p=160&res=1&x=0&y=0 8 MELITA THEOLOGICA is clearer still.9 From the context of the Crusades, the battles here are not just between the Jews and Edomites and Babylonians: they depict the downfall of all kingdoms, Jerusalem included, and Christ’s victorious kingdom over all. This is both a political and spiritual understanding of Jerusalem as a heavenly city. The ninth centuryKhludov Psalter, this time from Byzantium, reads the psalm in yet another way.10 It portrays the Jews, under the trees, with their lyres hanging on the branches, unused; but the taunting of the soldiers in this image is in the context of the iconoclastic controversies between Christians and Jews in ninth century Constantinople, giving the psalm an anti-Semitic reading. Other more recent Christian illustrations focus on the mourning of women in this psalm: it speaks of their social oppression, but the period is now the twentieth century CE. The singing of women is actually to bring about their liberation.11 Or again, a black and white cartoon image of this psalm from the Great Depression in England, set in the early 1930s, and sketched by the social commentator Arthur Wragg, views the “captivity” in a more political way.12 We see two tenement block windows, the top one with a withered plant on the sill and a birdcage with two birds inside, and the bottom window with another birdcage, with a white silhouette of just one bird: it is hard to know whether, being caged, the bird is unable to sing, or whether it is attempting some choked warbling. The overall impression seems to be silence. The caption under it is taken from verse 4: “How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?” More recently an Oxford artist, Roger Wagner, has offered a different social and ecological interpretation of Psalm 137. Wagner illustrates, from the late twentieth century, the devastation of the industrial landscape by the London Docks; it is another witness to the loss of land and loss of identity expressed at the beginning of Psalm 137.13 Visual exegesis - i.e. a study of the visual reception of a psalm - can capture so many facets of the images and metaphors in this psalm which might be missed when using verbal exegesis alone. But visual exegesis is not the only way of appreciating this psalm without being dependent on words. Audio exegesis - a study of the reception of the psalm through music - is another important
9 See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eadwine_psalter_-_Trinity_College_ Lib_-_f.243v.jpg 10 See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chludov_rivers.jpg 11 See http://liturgy.co.nz/psalm-137 12 See the Arthur Wragg’s image in the Appendix at the end of this paper. 13 Roger Wagner’s image can be seen in my paper in Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 39 (2017): 1-16, at https://www.nationalbiblesocietyofireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ Psalms-For-PIBA.pdf Reception History - Susan E. Gillingham 9 way of seeing the psalm in a new light. Again, what follows is a small selection of musical arrangements of Psalm 137, and here we may note a certain irony, given that the contents of the psalm speak of being unable to sing with musical accompaniment. One interesting comparison is the arrangement of this psalm by Philip de Monte in his “Super flumine Babylonis,” with William Byrd’s response in his “Quomode cantabimus” - both from Elizabethan England. De Monte was exiled on the Continent, on account of his Catholic faith; William Byrd had worked with de Monte in the court of Mary Tudor from 1554-55. De Monte’s “Super flumina Babylonis” was a motet on the first four verses of Psalm 137 and it was a covert gesture of support for colleagues such as the Catholic-inclined Byrd, who was now composing in the Protestant court of Queen Elizabeth I. De Monte’s composition, with the words “How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” and the references to being coerced into singing a “song of Zion” were most appropriate at this time. Byrd responded with his own composition “Quomodo cantabimus” in 1584, using the next verses of the psalm and echoing de Monte’s motet.14 It also was arranged in eight parts and it was incorporated an inverted three-part canon. But for Byrd, the additional emphasis was on memory: “I will remember” and “Remember O Lord.” Byrd’s adaptation of Psalm 137 might be contrasted with a Jewish composition of some fifty years later, this time in the court of Mantua in Italy, where Salomone Rossi was court musician.15 Using to his advantage the renaissance spirit of greater tolerance to Jewish culture, Rossi started to compose and publish Hebrew music for secular performances based upon music from the Jewish ghetto. By 1633 a collection of thirty-three psalms had appeared: these were polyphonic melismatic chants, with elaborations where the voices in the psalm suggested them, and were as much influenced by Monteverdi and the plainchant tradition in the church of Mantua as by the ghetto. In Psalm 137, the chorus is unaccompanied, and is full of dissonant chords and mournful tensions, sung by low and heavy voices: not only did this accord with the ban on music in the synagogues but it also alluded to the hanging up of the harps on the trees. The music evokes each stage of the people’s suffering which is expressed in the psalm: it starts with a chromatic progression around the Hebrew word “wept,” and continues into a flowing passage in unison for
14 For a performance of de Monte’s and Byrd’s motets, sung by The Sixteen and conducted by Harry Christophers, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQlqALeIadc (de Monte) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxXYJchrly0 (Byrd). 15 For a performance of this psalm, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XcjQLW1a98 10 MELITA THEOLOGICA the Hebrew word “river” (nāhār). The reference to the hanging up of harps is achieved first by lowering the key by a semitone, with an unexpected F sharp in the soprano part at the end of the phrase. Rossi viewed the complete psalm as a poetic drama, from the Jews’ first exile in Babylon, their sufferings in the land under Seleucid rule, the Fall of their Temple, their suffering under the Romans in the first century of the Christian Era, the ensuing Jewish Diaspora, and now the people’s continual suffering all over Europe. Rossi is one of the few composers to include the ending of the psalm: the Edomites’ taunting towards the end of the psalm (“Destroy it! Destroy it!”) repeatedly uses harsh, grinding chords. This could not be more different from the arrangement by Giuseppe Verdi in his third Act of Nabucco.16 The “Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves” remembers the time in exile in Babylon: however, this arrangement also has a more contemporary social and theological comment, influenced by the play from which it came, published in 1836 by Bourgeois and Cornue. The Rastafarians offer a more recent interpretation of Psalm 137. Theirs is more akin to the Jewish “narrative” account of the psalm. Here, “Babylon” is initially the people of the West who sold the people of African ancestry into slavery in the Americas, and the “exiles” become the persecuted black Jamaican masses. What is striking is the way the genre of the psalm is completely reversed: what was a complex Hebrew lament is now a protest song, not full of self-pity, but defiantly “chanting down,” in reggae rhythms, “Babylon’s” might: the actual process of singing becomes the agent of social change. It also uses the ending of the psalm. So the dreadful “jihad” in verse 9, against Babylonian domination, becomes the revolutionary call for liberation and justice. The song is for “King Alpha” - Haile Selassie - and the chorus after verse 2 makes it a freedom song quite unlike any other. A less vitriolic version was popularized by the Melodians in 1969.17 There are also several videos of this psalm, each focused on the call for justice for the oppressed, including one by Boney Em.18 Learning through art and music, we can “listen,” “hear,” and “understand” at many different and often unexpected levels compared with the ways we might respond when using textual exegesis. This is reception history expressed through an interest in the impact of the text. Nevertheless, it is clear that reception history is a fairly new discipline and it is important to be critical about it as well. One obvious issue is that, given its multivalency, there is a tendency to take the attitude that “anything goes”: a
16 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY79yY247Eo 17 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BOa-tLeS3o 18 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go7aIG_vB_o Reception History - Susan E. Gillingham 11 corrective to this sort of cacophonic approach is to focus more on the theoretical theological underpinning of the discipline. The terminology of “Reception History” is linked to Rezeptionsaesthetik used in the Konstanz School of literary studies in the 1960s, and developed by Hans Robert Jauss in his work on the relationship between the aesthetics of reception and Wirkungsgeschichte. Jauss’ work on the multiple meanings resonant in the one text has correspondences with Stanley Fish’s Is There a Text in this Class?19 From these roots several important works have already been produced in English - mostly over the last decade or so - which discuss the theory of reception history. One example is the Oxford Handbook of Reception History, edited by Jonathan Roberts and others.20 Another is John F.A. Sawyer’s A Concise Dictionary of the Bible and its Reception. Two other notable studies are Reception History and Biblical Studies, edited by Emma England and William John Lyons, and Authoritative Texts and Reception History: Aspects and Approaches, edited by Dan Batovici and Kristin de Troyer.21 Biblical Reception, edited by Cheryl Exum and David Clines from Sheffield Phoenix Press as from 2012, is a notable journal in this field, as also is the journal Reception: Texts, Readers, Audiences, History, edited by Amy Blair and James Machor, from Penn State University Press, begun in 2008.22 Works like these provide a methodological rigor to this discipline. In the light of this, scholars are now actively seeking to avoid being overly descriptive in their accounts of reception history. But it is a real challenge, when drawing together a vast amount of data, often over a long period of time, and collating together multiple responses to one single text, to keep focussed on a
19 See John Sawyer in http://bbibcomm.net/files/sawyer2004.pdf, pp. 1-2, referring to Hans Robert Jauss’s Towards an Aesthetic of Reception, trans. Timothy Bahti (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1982), and the seminal work by Stanley E. Fish, Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1980). 20 See Jonathan Roberts, Michael Lieb and Emma Mason eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Roberts points to the “multiplicity and diversity” of the papers: “…the material is hermeneutically stimulating precisely because it will not coalesce. The more history of reception of the Bible one reads, the clearer it becomes that the human importance of the Bible does not lie in a single foundational meaning that, by dint of scholarly effort, may finally be revealed.” (p. 8). 21 John F.A. Sawyer, A Concise Dictionary of the Bible and its Reception (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009); Emma England and William J. Lyons eds., Reception History and Biblical Studies (London and New York: Bloomsbury, 2015); and D. Batovici and K. de Troyer eds., Authoritative Texts and Reception History: Aspects and Approaches (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishing, 2016). 22 Cfr. https://www.sheffieldphoenix.com/showbook.asp?bkid=192; also http://www. psupress.org/Journals/jnls_Reception.html 12 MELITA THEOLOGICA clear hermeneutical key. There are many examples in print of what might be termed “anthology without a purpose.” Usually one wants to ask after reading or hearing such papers, “So What?” I would argue that if the exercise is little other than the assembling of information, one should probably avoid publishing it. Publications which have risen above this issue are often in the area of the reception of the Bible in literature, music, art and film. Works by Cheryl Exum and Chris Rowland were among the earliest and are the best known.23 Here a creative dialogue is established between the text and visual, musical or dramatic modes of reception; in my view, the problem of being over-descriptive only takes over when that dialogue dries up, for then all one hears is a description of the reception. Another area which requires further attention is learning how to deal positively with the inevitable issue of subjectivity. Every interpreter is “frozen” in a particular time, place and culture, but here exposure to more unfamiliar Christian and Jewish examples of reception, not only in the West but also in the East, adds both breadth and depth to the interpretative process. The problem of being “subjective” is inescapable in any area of biblical studies, and reception history is no different in being constrained by culture, gender, race, and personal history, but it does have the advantage of constantly seeking a wider perspective on the biblical text. Another important point, noted earlier, is that reception history is not a sub- discipline of ‘the history of interpretation.’ The latter approach is found more substantially in, for example, Magno Saebø’s lengthy edited volumes, Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, and, more concisely, in the one volume Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, edited by John Barton.24 Reception history is of course related to this, but its interest is much broader than the commentary tradition (important as it is), especially when it is concerned with visual and musical reception and the social and political impact of texts. One ambitious project of this nature, begun in 2009, is the proposed thirty volumes on all aspects of reception history, initiated by de Gruyter in Göttingen, which aims to publish some three volumes a year. It is clearly going
23 Cheryl Exum, The Bible in Film, and Bible and Film (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishing, 2006); Chris Rowland, Blake and the Bible (Yale: Yale University Press, 2011). 24 John Barton ed., The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Magno Saebø ed., Hebrew Bible Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation, I/1: Antiquity (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996); I/2: The Middle Ages (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000); II: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008); III/1: The Nineteenth Century (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013); III/2: The Twentieth Century (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). Reception History - Susan E. Gillingham 13 to be an exceptionally thorough job, with over thirty editors working in five different divisions.25 Another example is the Wiley-Blackwell Bible Commentary Series, where writers are contracted into writing on just one biblical book. Being a one-authored work, the depth and breadth that can be achieved are limited, but the benefit is that this provides cohesion and continuity.26 I tried to do this with my 2008 book on Psalms through the Centuries.27 Two further volumes of Psalms through the Centuries look at the reception history, Jewish and Christian, of Psalms 1-72 and then of Psalms 73-150.28 In all these projects there is an obvious need for scholarly support and advice (and e-mail communication and the accessibility of so much internet access helps enormously to this end). My recent commentary on Psalms 1-72 works through each psalm, taking in reception through compilation, then translation, then Jewish and Christian commentary; it then looks at the reception of each psalm through their performance, for example in liturgy, art and music. There is no way, however, that I can presume competence in every medium and certainly not through every historical period. I am constantly grateful to colleagues who are experts in patristic exegesis, or in rabbinic midrash, or who are liturgical experts, or art historians, or musicologists; they are in the UK, the Irish Republic, and in America, South Africa, Israel, France, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, - and of course in Malta too. Sometimes it seems like a great jigsaw puzzle, with individuals helping to place the pieces on a very large table, and my job is to try to assemble it into a coherent, albeit multi-faceted whole. As a discipline, reception is also wide open for creating collaboration through colloquia and conferences, where several papers are presented on the reception of just one biblical text, or one biblical character, or one theological theme, through a multiple number of media, over a defined period of history.
25 See www.degruyter.com.ebr for details of the extent of this project. 26 The details of the series can be found on http://bbibcomm.net and http://www. blackwellpublishing.com/seriesbyseries.asp?ref=BC. Works on the Old Testament include publications by David G. Gunn, Judges through the Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004); Eric S. Christianson, Ecclesiastes through the Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006); and Jo Carruthers, Esther through the Centuries (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007). 27 See Susan Gillingham, Psalms through the Centuries, Volume One (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008); I also wrote a book for Oxford University Press in 2013 which covered just the first two psalms in the Psalter in some 150,000 words: see Susan Gillingham, A Journey of Two Psalms: The Reception of Psalms 1 and 2 in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 28 See for example Susan Gillingham, Psalms through the Centuries, Volume Two: A Reception History Commentary on Psalms 1-72, Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries (Oxford and New York: Wiley Blackwell Publishing, 2018). Volume Three, on Psalms 73-150, is forthcoming. 14 MELITA THEOLOGICA
These can be turned around into a publication of conference papers within, say eighteen months, so even more dissemination can take place. One example is an international conference I hosted in Oxford on Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms in 2010.29 Reception History also offers a model of collaboration between the academic community and confessing faith communities, both Jewish and Christian. To the outsider, biblical studies in the academy can sometimes seem to be an introverted discipline, and if it is to be respected in the outside world it needs to find as many ways as possible of crossing the divide between the church and synagogue as well. If Reception History is about the impact and the performance of biblical texts in all aspects of cultural history, then a faith-orientated element must also be a vital part of the collaborative process. To my mind, collaboration within and outside the discipline is one of the ways reception history brings biblical studies to life.30 So this new discipline illustrates that we cannot presume a privileged control of text, because it is open to so many different readings. Reception history invites us to use our imagination as well as critical analysis in our approach to Scripture, if we are to include in its remit liturgy, music, art, poetry, drama and film as well. It challenges us to see how the text might be relevant for our own culture, just as it has had an enormous impact on different cultures over the centuries. In short, reception history should be unashamed in its pursuit of multivalent meanings: in fact, this is perhaps its greatest contribution to biblical studies.
Appendix Psalm 137 and the theme of “remembering” 1 By the rivers of Babylon - there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. 2 On the willows there we hung up our harps. 3 For there our captors asked us for songs, and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying,
29 Susan Gillingham ed. Conflict and Convergence: Proceedings of the Oxford Conference on Jewish and Christian Approaches to the Psalms (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 30 Taking a much wider framework of reference, it is also important to note the work which has been done comparing First World and Third World receptions of biblical texts: one seminal example would be The Global Bible Commentary,ed. Daniel M. Patte (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004). This is a model of reception history “in the present tense,” showing how the diverse social and economic contexts of readers can expose both the oppressive and liberating dynamics of biblical texts, and thus illustrate how reception history must also be an active process as well as a receptive one, offering acritical analysis of biblical texts rather than a bland acceptance of them. Reception History - Susan E. Gillingham 15
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” 4 How could we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! 6 Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy.
7 Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem’s fall, how they said, “Tear it down! Tear it down! Down to its foundations!” 8 O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! 9 Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!
Arthur Wragg: How shall we sing the Lord’s Song in a Strange Land?
Professor Susan Gillingham Worcester College Walton Street Oxford OX1 2HB UK [email protected] MELITA THEOLOGICA Michael Fletcher* Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 17-44
Being Responsible in the Between: On William Desmond’s Metaxology and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Theology-of-the-Cross
Between Inseparability and Distinction
etaxology is a discourse of the between: between unity and plurality, Minseparability and distinction, sameness and otherness, identity and difference, self and others, the univocal and the equivocal. Metaxological philosophy is about being responsible, through faithful discourse, to both the promise of univocity and the promise of equivocity.1 These concepts may sound abstract, yet the question must be asked: is it possible that William Desmond’s metaxological metaphysics could be relevant for Christian theology? If so, the enigmatic character of this philosophy must first be made intelligible for theologians if it is ever to be considered relevant and appropriated. Mindfulness towards Christian theology unveils several theological matters which paradoxically uphold both inseparability and distinction. For instance, in Trinitarian theology it is confessed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three yet one; in Christology it is confessed that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human; in Soteriology it is confessed that humanity becomes one with God and yet remains creature; and in Ecclesiology, it is confessed that all followers
* Michael Fletcher is a PhD candidate in Systematic Theology at KU Leuven, Belgium. His primary research concerns utilizing Bonhoeffer’s theology-of-the-cross, and therefore, metaxology, for the purposes of ecumenism. 1 William Desmond, Being and the Between (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995), 178.
17 18 MELITA THEOLOGICA of Jesus Christ are the one body of Christ. These theological matters deal with the exact same issues of inseparability and distinction which metaxology carries a discourse between. It is with these issues in mind that this article intends to demonstrate that metaxology—as a hermeneutic of passio essendi—helps one be responsible in the between. Or in the theological terminology of Martin Luther and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, metaxology is closely associated with the theology-of- the-cross. The ultimate hope is that this article will help theologians be responsible in the between, by utilizing metaxology and the theology-of-the-cross for contemporary challenges which concern both identity and difference, such as ecumenism and interreligious dialogue. In order to help theologians be responsible, firstly, I will make intelligible Desmond’s philosophical “system” for theologians. This is done most easily by demonstrating how it illuminates Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology-of-the-cross. Secondly, so as to remain faithful to the metaxological, I will demonstrate that Bonhoeffer’s theology-of-the-cross in fact illuminates Desmond’s metaxology. Indeed, in some ways, Bonhoeffer even seems to have been more metaxological than Desmond. Bonhoeffer’s theology-of-the-cross is not a confined doctrine of the atonement or the work done on the cross in itself (if it were, it would not be akin to the metaxological). His theology-of-the-cross is rather a hermeneutic for viewing all of reality. Specifically, it means to continually view all things through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that these three may never be separated.2 Furthermore, it also means to view Jesus Christ as being fully human and fully divine, and that the one Christ-reality is both the center (Mitte) and the mediator (Mittler). But even more, Bonhoeffer was incredibly existential in wanting to know who Jesus Christ was for today, and because of this, Bonhoeffer’s doctrine of the church was nothing less than a community-of- the-cross, whereby this community is called to fully participate in all aspects of the one Christ-reality. Sections 1-5 will espouse Desmond’s metaxology, and section 6 will give a concrete praxis which goes more fully between Desmond and Bonhoeffer. The first 5 sections seek to elucidate Desmond primarily in his own right; however, occasionally, I do utilize Bonhoeffer to help illuminate Desmond. Pragmatically, this will serve to avoid getting too bogged down with Desmondian terminology.
2 Bonhoeffer is in agreement with Luther’s definition as well, for during theHeidelberg Disputation of 1518, Thesis 20 he stated that the theologian-of-the-cross is the person who views all things (including the resurrection) “through suffering and the cross.” Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 19
Desmond is the primary interlocutor of this research. This is because I am of the conviction that metaxology needs to be made more accessible, especially for theologians. Bonhoeffer is the secondary interlocutor of this research, firstly, because Bonhoeffer’s critique of Hegel was almost identical to Desmond’s, and this parallel has never been addressed in literature. Secondly, “it is necessary to see Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a 20th century exemplar of what Martin Luther called the theology of the cross.”3 Specifically, the contemporary context is in the wake of Hegel, therefore, it is more appropriate to address Bonhoeffer rather than Luther Since explaining Desmond’s metaxology requires substantial treatment, I will limit fully addressing Bonhoeffer and being responsible in the between, for the final section. This may seem liketoo much is devoted towards Desmond, however, I maintain this structure because Desmond needs to be explained, and because I have elsewhere written on Bonhoeffer for those who wish to study him in more depth.4
Excess and Lack One could say that the metaxological journey begins in Plato’s cave, because it teaches of both excess and lack. The hyperbolic givenness of the between throws itself beyond one’s chained body onto the walls of the cave. As this prisoner is unchained and journeys away from the cave, they are blinded by an excess of light.5 Desmond uses this platonic imagery of being blinded through describing it with both Aristotle and Hegel. “[T]here is a blinding by the light. We are like bats at sunlight, as Aristotle said, not just like owls of Minerva in the equivocal
3 Douglas John Hall, “Seminar: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Ethics of Participation,” (2004): 1, accessed October 10, 2014, http://www.ucalgary.ca/christchair/files/christchair/Hall_D. Bonhoeffer.pdf. 4 For more on Bonhoeffer and how I appropriate his theology-of-the-cross, refer to my articles, Michael Fletcher, “Is the Church Dead? Bonhoeffer’s Theology-of-the-Cross and the Future of Ecumenical Ecclesiology,” Theologica Wratislaviensia 11, Dietrich Bonhoeffer na 500 lat Reformacji (2016): 29-45; Michael Fletcher, “Bonhoeffer’s Last Words, ‘Our Victory Is Certain’: Recognizing and Receiving the Ecumenical Church as a Present Reality” in Beiheft zur Okumenischen Rundschau 177, Just Do It?! Recognition and Reception in Ecumenical Relations, Proceedings of the 19th Academic Consultation of the Societas Oecumenica (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH, 2018): 393-404. Furthermore, my forthcoming PhD dissertation from KU Leuven addresses the Bonhoefferian aspects of this article in much greater detail. The tentative title is,The Ecumene-of-the-Cross: A Bonhoefferian Response to the Ecumenical Problem as a Christological Problem. 5 Plato, The Republic, trans. Allan Bloom, 2nd ed. (NY: Basic Books, 1991), l; 515d–516a. 20 MELITA THEOLOGICA twilight of falling dusk, as Hegel said.”6 The Aristotelian bat is blinded by excess, whereas the Hegelian owl is blinded by lack. Both “birds” are “blinded,”7 where neither blinding is trivial in Desmond’s philosophy. Even so, Desmond is often found correcting Hegel’s lack. Hegel’s owl can only spread its wings at dusk, implying that philosophy is a historical journeying, where wisdom is groping blindly in the dark grey on grey.8 According to Hegel, the philosopher is blind because the lack of light and color, all is grey on grey.9 Hegelian philosophy cannot teach of the future or even allow for a future hope, for it is concerned with the rationality of the past. Desmond and Bonhoeffer both correct Hegel, but neither disregard Hegel (Hegel is dealt with in detail in §5.3). Desmond understands that there are two blindings, that of the bat and that of the owl. The first blinding is fromexcess ; similar to the prisoner leaving the cave. The second blinding is fromlack ; similar to the philosopher (re)entering the cave to go tell others what has been learned. In both cases, there is blind groping until vision is acclimated. In the second instance, the danger persists in forgetting that there is an origin of excess, this is Desmond’s (and Bonhoeffer’s) corrective of Hegel. Hegel has neglected the excess. The Morning Prayer for Hegel is always ever an Evening Prayer.10 Hegel’s prayer is reflective, though it ultimately bends back upon itself via the other, and not the other as the excessive agapeic origin.
A Hermeneutic of Desire Desmond began his metaxological career with a thorough examination of the origins of desire, whether desire comes from lack or excess. One could say that
6 Desmond, Being and the Between, 138. 7 Nevertheless, bats are not birds and bats are not blinded by light because they are technically guided by sonar. 8 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, “The Philosophy of Right,” inGreat Book of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 46; 7. 9 William Desmond, Philosophy and Its Others: Ways of Being and Mind, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990), 220. Ironically, bats are the ones that actually see in grey on grey, not owls. All allegories fall apart at some point. 10 Hegel said, “reading the morning paper is the realist’s morning prayer. One orients one’s attitude toward the world either by God, or what the world is.” Hegel, Miscellaneous Writings of G.W.F. Hegel, in Spep Studies in Historical Philosophy, ed. Jon Stewart, (IL: Northwestern University Press, 2000), 247. The morning paper only contains the past events, thus this morning prayer is always groping through the grey on grey. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 21 metaxology is a “hermeneutic of desire.”11 Does desire arise because of lack or because of excess? Is desire based off of astonishment or off of a perplexity?12 Astonishment leaves one in mysterious awe from excess. Perplexity on the other hand is a type of self-acknowledgment in that the person comes to sense a type of lack. The self can no longer see outside of the self. There is both excess and lack within desire, though lack often overrules. Childlike astonishment can turn into childish perplexity. One of Desmond’s goals is “to consider the resurrection of astonishment and perplexity….”13 This “resurrection”, the renewed thought concerning both excess and lack, plenty and poverty, is found in Desmond’s paradoxical “dark radiance.”14 The dark radiance, and the resurrection of astonishment and perplexity, is understood through a Desmondian understanding of agape and eros. Anders Nygren created a dualistic opposition between agape and eros, and whenever apage is used to overcome eros, one can usually trace that to Nygren.15 In reading Desmond, it is not so implausible to interpret that is he is using agape to overcome eros,16 because Desmond often speaks negatively oferos . However, to be more precise, Desmond is in actuality speaking negatively of the erotic absolute. Because of this negativity, one could easily disregard that Desmond speaks positively about erotic perplexity. Desmond is not using agape to overcome eros; rather, he is reuniting eros with its parents.17 Eros’ reunion with its parents is demonstrated through Desmond’s retelling of the story of Eros’ conception. Desmond’s reading of Eros contains within
11 William Desmond, Desire, Dialectic, and Otherness: An Essay on Origins (Chelsea, MI: Yale University Press, 1987), 9. See William Desmond, Perplexity and Ultimacy: Metaphysical Thoughts From the Middle (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995), 21. 12 Desmond, Being and the Between, 20. 13 William Desmond, The Intimate Strangeness of Being: Metaphysics After Dialectic (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 293. And again, “Our aging, even our dying, can be a different beginning, a different birth—rebirth of the agapeic astonishment before the glory of creation.” See Desmond, Being and the Between, 297. 14 William Desmond, God and the Between (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008), 340. 15 Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, trans. Philip S. Watson, Revised (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1953). 16 For instance, even the respected scholar Joris Geldhof seems to have interpreted Desmond as being in alignment with Nygren. “It is possible [unlike Desmond], however, not to conceive of eros and agape in terms of a sharp contrast, but to consider them complimentary.” Joris Geldhof, “The Between and the Liturgy: On Rendering W. Desmond’s Philosophy Fruitful for Theology,” in Between Philosophy and Theology: Contemporary Interpretations of Christianity, ed. Lieven Boeve and Christophe Brabant (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2010), 92. 17 For further discussion see Desmond, Perplexity and Ultimacy, 104-105. 22 MELITA THEOLOGICA it a duality, that of Poros and Penia, resource and poverty.18 The conceiving of Eros happened during a feast of the gods, whereupon Poros was inebriated on nectar and seduced by Penia, who conceived the child Eros. Eros is the love- child of plenty and lack. Thus, he lacks because of his mother; however, he is also overflowing with abundance because of his father. Eros was adaimon —a between being.19 The divine festivity, coupled with the resourceful Poros, represents an overflowing abundance; an agapeic and hyperbolic excessive givenness. Poros is eternally resourceful, thus Poros never lacks. Because Eros is conceived of resource, it is imitative and resourceful like its father, Poros. However, Eros’ mother Penia is always lacking in her poverty and Eros is also imitative of its lacking mother. Eros, as a between being, occupies a special space between resource and poverty. Eros is more than imitative of its parents, for in the between space, Eros is also able to be creative in a sense. Eros is able to transcend lack. Lack cannot go beyond lack, only excess can go beyond lack. However, excess cannot go beyond lack unless it has lack, which excess will never have. This is why Eros is so vital. Poros as Poros cannot transcend lack, for Poros is always resourceful, thus never experiencing lack. Eros cannot transcend lack apart from the prior excess which it has been granted. “We must say that erotic perplexity is born from agapeic astonishment.”20 Desire from lack is not necessarily a bad thing, the danger comes with the “amnesia of its own birth;”21 this is when the monster is born, and Hegel’s erotic absolute overtakes. In other words, the Platonic eros is always a between, whereas, the Hegelian eros always emphasizes lack and therefore returns the self to the self, albeit via the other. This is also known as what Bonhoeffer calls the “heavenly double” or what Desmond calls the “counterfeit double.” Bonhoeffer gives wonderful pragmatic insight into this type of erotic and agapeic love in a letter he wrote to Eberhard Bethge, his best friend and biographer, on May 20, 1944. Bethge had voiced concern that his thoughts were occupied with his love for Renata, his wife, and that, in a sense, it could be taking away from his love towards God. Dietrich responded,
18 Desmond, Desire, Dialectic and Otherness, 211, note no. 14. 19 Plato, Symposium, trans. Seth Benardete (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), l; 202b–203a. 20 Desmond, Being and the Between, 14. 21 Ibid. “Let us not forget the crucial ambiguity in the transition from agapeic astonishment to erotic perplexity—namely, the birth of the latter out of the former, but the possible forgetting of the former in the latter’s sense of lack or ignorance.” Ibid., 16. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 23
There is a danger, in any passionate erotic love, that through it you may lose what I’d like to call the polyphony of life. What I mean is that God, the Eternal, wants to be loved with our whole heart, not to the detriment of earthly love or to diminish it, but as a sort of cantus firmus to which the other voices of life resound in counterpoint.22 Bonhoeffer and Bethge were both musicians—Dietrich almost became a professional musician but decided to become a theologian instead—so it makes sense that he could write with such musical metaphors. Thecantus firmus (lit. “fixed song”) is the preexisting melody which forms the basis of a polyphonic composition, where a polyphonic composition has two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody. The most beautiful polyphonic songs need counterpoint if they are to be truly beautiful, and they are held together by the cantus firmus. Bonhoeffer knew this and he likened thecantus firmus to a type of agapeic excess of love poured into our hearts by God, and the counterpoint to a type of erotic perplexity of human love shared among one another. Both elements are absolutely vital. This “polyphony of life” is nothing less than a simplified way of describing what Bonhoeffer also called the ultimate and penultimate things, and that these are related to each other through desire as both excessive and lacking. According to Desmond, and Bonhoeffer, the Platoniceros is always a between, whereas, the Hegelian eros always emphasizes lack and therefore returns Myself to Myself, albeit via an “other.” This would be the case if one had forgotten about the cantus firmus. It is now with mindfulness of desire as both lack and plenty that we discuss the “being” of God.
The Analogy of Relation Is Desmond reestablishing a type of analogy of being? Persons such as John Milbank interpret him in this way.23 However, if he is doing something different, then the question we must ask is, “what separates Desmond’s thinking of the between from the metaphysics of analogy in Aquinas?”24 John Caputo interprets the metaxological to be different than this classical metaphysics of analogy for the
22 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,DBWE 08, Letters and Papers From Prison, ed. John W. de Gruchy, trans. Isabel Best (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), DBWE 8:393-394. 23 John Milbank, “The Double Glory,” in Slavoj Zizek and John Milbank,The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic, ed. Creston Davis (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2009), 110-233. 24 John Caputo, “Foreword,” in William Desmond, The William Desmond Reader, ed. Christopher Ben Simpson (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2012), vii. 24 MELITA THEOLOGICA same reasons as myself, namely, “it emphasizes the concrete and experiential….”25 This does not mean that Desmond is denying classical metaphysics in the slightest, but rather, his journey is saturated with a type of phenomenology of experience and relation, which I see to be in perfect agreement with what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called the analogy of relation in his lecture series on Creation and Fall. In God and the Between, Desmond uses the phrase “God being over-being” to convey that God’s overdetermined excess enables the ethos of being. “God is not the between or a being in the between but hyperbolic,”26 and the hyperbolic excess is blinding. How does one discuss this “dark radiance”? The best way is to describe it in terms of the relational imagery which Desmond paints in the last paragraph of God and the Between, Our end is in that dark light. And in that dark light we end. There is a ‘being nothing’ that purges our clogged porosity, letting us differently sojourn in the between. In an ultimate patience, I am nothing, the other is more than enough to fill the heart, there is nothing between us, nothing but the enabling between ...There is nothing empty about the nothing we have become.27
This imagery ofnothing is strikingly similar to the type of imagery which Bonhoeffer used in order to describe creation, freedom, and the analogy of relation (which he proposed in contradistinction to the analogy of being). Between Creator and creature there is simply nothing. Therefore, creation is one of freedom, there is no necessity when there is nothing between them...and thus, it is a creation ex nihilo....[There is] no kind of necessity....Creation comes out of nothing.28
Bonhoeffer is here describing the classical doctrine of creationex nihilo in terms of the nothing between the Creator and the creature. And because there is nothing, the creation can be one of absolute freedom. Contra Hegelian necessity, Bonhoeffer is claiming absolute freedom on God’s part. And contra (his interpretation of ) Barth, he is claiming that God’s freedom is not merely a freedom from, but a freedom for . And following this, the creature, created in the image of God, is likewise free for the other. This is the analogy of relation. The reason Bonhoeffer cannot maintain the unmovable orders of creation is because
25 Ibid., vii. 26 Desmond, God and the Between, 288. 27 Ibid., 340. 28 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,DBWE 03, Creation and Fall, ed. John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas S. Bax (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), DBWE 3:32. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 25 these orders would end up espousing necessity on God’s part, not freedom. God creates out of freedom, and he continues to uphold out of freedom. God is the giver of the primal ethos, the milieu of being in which all beings come to be, “the enabling milieu.”29 This milieu can also be referred to as “the between.” As I quoted earlier, “God is not the between or a being in the between but hyperbolic.”30 God, as the agapeic origin, gives the milieu to be, and God is always hyperbolic with respect to the milieu.31 God gifts the between, but is always hyperbolic to the between. God exceeds the between as agapeic origin. All beings exist within the between and are gifted to be between beings. Being is granted, and unfortunately taken for granted on many occasions.32 If God grants beings to be, it means that God is more than being. Desmond states that “God is another dimension”33 to the between. This other dimensionality is no surprise if we remember that Desmond repeatedly suggest in part IV of God and the Between that God is over-being.34 What does Desmond mean by over in over-being? Cyril O’Regan writes, “‘Over’ is Desmond’s version of the Greek hyper, the Latin super, and the German über.35 Over-being is “the actualizing origin that is the actual possibilizing ground of all possible being.”36 Nothing has being except through the givenness which has been enabled and granted through the over-being. God is over-being, and because beings are between beings, God is over-the-between. Bonhoeffer, like Desmond, often referred to humans as between beings (primarily in Act and Being and Creation and Fall). The following excerpt from Bonhoeffer’sCreation and Fall helps explain one’s being in the between and God’s relation to it. When reading it, we need to keep in mind that for Bonhoeffer, “the beginning” has nothing to do with Euclidean or Newtonian temporality; “in the beginning” means “out of freedom and out of nothing.”37 The following was written by Bonhoeffer, though it reads as something Desmond himself could have written.
29 Ibid., 3. 30 Ibid., 288. 31 Without this distinction we risk Spinozistic monism or Hegelian pan(en)theism. 32 “We live in this manifestation and take it for granted, but then we take for granted the fact that it is granted, and that it is also a granting of itself.” Desmond, God and the Between, 12. 33 Ibid., 4. 34 See Desmond, God and the Between, Part IV. 35 Cyril O’Regan, “Naming God in God and the Between,” Louvain Studies 36 (2012): 283, doi:10.2143/LS.36.2.2979762. 36 Desmond, God and the Between, 285. 37 Bonhoeffer,Creation and Fall, DBWE 3:36. 26 MELITA THEOLOGICA
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Not that first God was and then God created, but that in the beginning God created. This beginning is the beginning in the anxiety-causing middle and at the same time beyond the anxiety- causing middle in which we have our being. We do not know of this beginning by stepping out of the middle and becoming a beginning ourselves. Because we could accomplish that only by means of a lie, we would then certainly not be in the beginning but only in the middle that is disguised by a lie. This needs to be kept clearly in mind in everything that follows. It is only in the middle that we come to learn about the beginning.38 Only by truly recognizing oneself in the middle, the real-center, does one come to learn about real-freedom. But pragmatically speaking, how does one be patient and responsible in the middle, for it does cause anxiety? No matter what, one is in the anxiety-causing middle. And Desmond and Bonhoeffer would likely agree with Kierkegaard, in the name of Vigilius Haufniensis, “whoever has learned to be anxious in the right way has learned the ultimate.”39 In order to abide and be responsible in the anxiety-causing middle, one needs to learn how to die, hence, the theology-of-the-cross. But we are not yet able to describe this death. We first turn to examining the tension between transcendence and autonomy.
Transcendence and Autonomy Transcendence and autonomy both have the ability to create core problems in both philosophy and theology. On the one hand, modern philosophy of the autonomous subject promotes the subject as a self-transcending subject able to determine its own self-law, which is not a bad thing in itself. However, the subject can forget that the ability to determine the self-law was enabled from a superior transcendence. When this amnesia occurs, the autonomous subject determinately fixes its self-law as absolute, and “superior” transcendence becomes relative.40 On the other hand, if God is held so high as to be completely transcendent, it can convey the message that a chasm exists between God and the subjective individual, leaving the subject permanently detached from an
38 Ibid., DBWE 3:30–31. 39 Søren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Anxiety: A Simple Psychologically Oriented Deliberation in View of the Dogmatic Problem of Hereditary Sin, trans. Alastair Hannay (NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation a Division of W.W. Norton & Company, 2014), 187. And adding to this, later on in the book, in the third to last sentence, he writes, “Therefore, the person who, in respect of guilt, is educated by anxiety will rest only in the Atonement.” (p. 196) Emphasis added. 40 “And so it goes: metaphysical and scientistic univocity collude in the domestication of ultimate transcendence.” Desmond, BB, 236. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 27 eternally silent God. If superior transcendence is taken as absolute, then self-law which the subjective individual makes can only be relative at best.41 If God is over-being and subjective individuals are enabled to be between beings, does this change how autonomy and transcendence are appropriated? Desmond answers this antinomy between autonomy and transcendence through the three senses of transcendence: the transcendence of the exterior, the interior, and the superior. The three senses of transcendence implicitly take their shape in Desmond’s early thoughts in Desire, Dialectic and Otherness, as an adaptation from Augustine which I alluded to earlier. Overall, we follow an itinerary reminiscent of St. Augustine’s description of the double movement of his own thought. According to him, ab exterioribus ad interiora, ab inferioribus ad superiora….This work exhibits aspects of what might be called an Augustinian odyssey, embarked on in the wake of Hegel….from exterior to interior…from interior to superior.42 This Augustinian odyssey is also a Bonhoefferian odyssey, for he wrote about this type of double movement of thought by writing, “All thinking always refers to something transcendent in two ways: retrospectively and prospectively.”43 The suspension between these two is why Bonhoeffer could refer to humans as between beings. In the previous excerpt from Desmond, neither the word “transcendence” nor “three” were mentioned, but the ideas are implicit, embedded as an external going beyond itself to grant something to the interior self, and in part the interior self then internalizes what has been granted to then go beyond itself as inferior and (re)turn to the superior.44 The double movement—from exterior to interior and from inferior to superior—evolves and takes on an explicit threefold sense of transcendence in Desmond’s following books, in which he refers to their interactions in multiple ways: exterior-interior-superior; nature-self-God; first-
41 “This is the antinomy: if autonomy is absolute, third transcendence has to be relativized; if third transcendence is absolute, autonomy must be relativized.” William Desmond, Hegel’s God: A Counterfeit Double (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2005), 4. Abbreviated title: HG. 42 Desmond, DDO, 13–14. 43 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,DBWE 02, Act and Being: Transcendental Philosophy and Ontology in Systematic Theology, ed. Wayne Whitson Floyd and Hans-Richard Reuter, trans. Martin Rumscheidt (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), DBWE 2:34. Abbreviated title: A&B. 44 “Metaxological metaphysics must think the doubleness of this tension between being in the midst and being referred by self-transcendence to the transcendence of what is other, what is over and above.” Desmond, BB, 44. 28 MELITA THEOLOGICA second-third transcendences; T1-T2-T3.45 God is not the only transcendence: transcendence has three senses, for “trans is a going beyond or across towards what is not now oneself.”46 Nature does this, the self does this, and God does this. God is the only transcendent One in the hyperbolic sense of granting being. However, God is not the only transcendent one. Transcendence is a matter of remaining true to the self as well as true to the other;47 it also helps establish the relation with God. T3 is the enabling transcendence for both T1 and T2. If T3 is the superior, T3 makes itself known through T1 and T2 in immanence, thus, though it is absolutely transcendent, it is not absolutely transcendent.48 Or as Bonhoeffer wrote, “God’s ‘beyond’ is not what is beyond our cognition! Epistemological transcendence has nothing to do with God’s transcendence. God is the beyond in the midst of our lives.”49 T3 as enabling transcendence for T1 and T2 does not “prove” the existence of T3, a proof would reduce a mindfulness of what exceeds and enables the between to a univocal affair. It is attentiveness to T1 and T2 which makes one aware that there is an excess which cannot be explained in terms of immanence alone. T3 is not proven, but rather grasped and witnessed to through mindfulness to the hyperboles of being. With modernity, T3 has been sidelined—pushed to the extreme limits of transcendence outside of immanence—primarily because of the antinomies between autonomy and transcendence. Proofs for God’s existence were used to secure the self, therefore God was shown to be a moment in securing the self ’s place in the world. God being over-the-between enables a transcendent relatedness with beings. Because of this relatedness with beings, the three senses
45 “We need to distinguish at least these three kinds of transcendence, roughly corresponding to the other-being of nature, of the human self, and of the divine. I will use the shorthand T1, T2, T3. What is important is not only their character but their interrelation.” Desmond, HG, 2. 46 Desmond, HG, 4. 47 “I now call notice to a double unfolding that causes us to move from one sense to the next, as a more adequate effort to think through the truth of the happening of being. The double unfolding has to do, first with theself-coherence of the specific mode of being and mind, and second with its truthfulness to what is other to thought.” Desmond, BB, xiv. 48 “Manifested transcendence is in immanence and hence not absolutely transcendent; and yet it is absolutely transcendent as revealed in immanence, for what is revealed is ever beyond encapsulation, even in immanence itself.” Desmond, BB, 219. 49 Bonhoeffer,LPP , DBWE 8:367. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 29 of transcendence help bring clarity to being itself through four senses.50 These four senses of being which will be discussed in section 5, are “signs in immanence of what transcends immanence and cannot be fully determined in immanent terms.” 51 For now, we turn to discuss the passio essendi.
A Hermeneutic of Passio Essendi These signs in immanence are incarnated because “transcendence comes to us as an advent; this is the patience of an original opening.”52 In waiting for the incarnated advent, patience can wear thin.53 When T3 is silent, the self seeks to make determinate that which is indeterminate. Impatient beings seek to give birth to their own autonomous selves. However, “self-transcending (T2) is first energized by the given endowment of the passio essendi, and only then by the endeavor of the conatus essendi.” 54 Theconatus essendi, the endeavor of being, is no longer mindful of its co-natus, the co-birth.55 Self-transcendence is not with- birth apart from being patient to receive the incarnated gifting and enabling from divine transcendence, from God being over-the-between. Autonomous individuals have a tendency to take for themselves rather than to receive the granted incarnation. They take the body rather than receive the body, because they forget that “the conatus points back to the passio, as well as carrying it forward.”56 Passio is both a patience and a suffering: it is a true tolerance. When there is refusal to be patient, there is refusal to suffer, thus the conatus is neglected, even though the endeavor to be was the focus in the refusal to be patient.57 When patience is refused, the self stays “true” only to the self, but this staying “true” is not true at all because it refuses to witness to the superior transcendence which grants being in the first place.
50 “Transcendence as other to us works along with human self-transcendence….I propose to give concrete articulation to the suggestion in terms of the four senses of being: the univocal, the equivocal, the dialectical and the metaxological.” Desmond, BB, 5. 51 Desmond, GB, 8. 52 Desmond, BB, 5. 53 See Desmond, GB, 19. 54 Desmond, GB, 24. 55 Desmond takes advantage of the dual meaning implied within Conatus. Namely, he takes it to mean conari (try, endeavor, strive) as well as co-natus (co-birth). 56 Desmond, GB, 34. 57 “Does our understanding of our own self-transcending rely too much on the conatus essendi and not enough on the passio essendi.” Desmond, GB, 22. 30 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Without patience, people either try to force their ideal of the ultimate into the penultimate (and thereby show hostility towards God) or they turn their ideal of penultimate into the ultimate (and thereby show hostility towards this- world). Upholding both penultimate and ultimate things, in and with patience, is a precarious and risky endeavor to be, and Bonhoeffer describes this by writing, “human beings could certainly once again attempt to move away from the middle that causes them anxiety and become a beginning themselves. They could endeavor to think of this nothing as something that in turn gives birth to creation.”58 Bonhoeffer and Desmond both see how, in the Hegelian system, one tries to find one’s own beginning and give birth to itself, by leaving themiddle . However, this is a lie to ourselves, for “we ourselves are in the middle.”59 Earlier metaxology was addressed as being a “hermeneutic of desire.”60 It is now appropriate to handle this desire in writing that metaxology is a hermeneutic of passio essendi. By using this interpretive key, one is able to properly appropriate the four senses of being and dispel misinterpretations of the univocal, equivocal, and dialectical senses of being as “bad” and the metaxological as “good.”61 Thus, the four senses of being are interpreted through the passio essendi, and this will help us, as theologians, learn how to be responsible in the between.
On Closed System and Faithful Discourse of the Between Thus far, I refrained from beginning with the fourfold senses of being, because focusing on this “system” at the beginning can detract from God as over- being.62 “There is no claim to a closed system. System is for me an after-the-fact articulation of the matter that must be allowed to take its own shape. System does not dictate to the unfolding matter what form it should take.”63 As can be seen, Desmond is not opposed to system, so long as the system is not determinately fixed and dictating the form. However, could not the repeated usage of the terms pertaining the univocal, equivocal, dialectical and metaxological, and the form they take, make one believe that it is a closed system? Christopher Ben Simpson
58 Bonhoeffer,C and F, DBWE 3:33. Emphasis added. 59 Ibid., DBWE 3:30 60 Desmond, DDO, 9. See Desmond, PU, 9, 21. 61 It is true that Desmond often writes against the univocal, the equivocal, and the dialectical; however, his words must be taken in context. 62 “There is no claim to a closed system. System is for me an after-the-fact articulation of the matter that must be allowed to take its own shape. System does not dictate to the unfolding matter what form it should take.” Desmond, PU, 10. 63 Ibid. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 31 does not write that metaxology is a closed system, but he does write that “Desmond begins his metaphysics with the “how” of metaphysics.”64 However, if Desmond begins his metaphysics with the “how,” then has not Desmond created a closed system or a “logic,”65 as Simpson labels it? In other words, beginning with “how” seems to dictate the unfolding of its form in “how” it is done, thus creating a closed system. Beginning with the “how” undoes the hermeneutic of desire and passio essendi because there is no longer a faithful discourse of the between, between self and the other, but only the univocal affair of the “how.” If the fourfold is treated as the “how,” then one could logically conclude, like Simpson, that “Desmond moves from the “how” of metaphysics [the fourfold]…to the “what” of metaphysics… its objects (the three transcendences).”66 However, the three transcendences are not an objectifiable “what.” Desmond himself stresses against “what.” “Notwhat they are, but that they are at all, is the marvel of metaphysical mindfulness.”67 In one way or another, Simpson’s systematization (“how” and “logic”) and objectification (“what”) has failed to confirm the double movement of fidelity between self and others, thus, it is no longer a discourse of the between. Rather, it absolutizes the metaxological in the same way that Hegel absolutizes the dialectical. It is arguable that metaxology is often expressed through the three transcendences and the fourfold senses of being, and that Desmond’s writings confirm this. However, the three and the four cannot be relegated to the “how” and the “what.” The four senses of being are not “how” to do metaphysics; rather they are the hyperbolic senses of being which are gifts from superior transcendence made known as signs in immanence through faithful discourse in and of the between.
Metaxological Being Being mindful to the previous disclaimers and maintaining fidelity to the givenness, the poetic system of being now emerges through the univocal, equivocal, dialectical, and metaxological senses. Vigilance is used in appropriating each sense through the hermeneutic of the passio essendi.
64 Christopher Ben Simpson, Religion, Metaphysics, and the Postmodern: William Desmond and John D. Caputo, Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2009), 28. Emphasis mine. 65 Ibid. Though Simpson does credit Desmond with not calling it a “logic.” 66 Ibid., 45. 67 Desmond, BB, 225. Emphasis mine. 32 MELITA THEOLOGICA
The Idiocy of Being The first sense of being is the univocal. The etymological definition of “univocal” means “having only one voice.” Desmond’s usage implies this etymological definition, as the following excerpt demonstrates.
The first sense, theunivocal puts the emphasis on simple sameness, hence on the unmediated unity of the self and the other. The univocal sense has its place in our efforts to make sense of being but its unmediated sense of unity cannot do proper justice to the complex differences between philosophy and its others.68 One-voice necessitates this simple sameness because there is reduction between the self and the other, where they coalesce into a type of simple sameness. There is only one voice. The univocal is thethat “ it is at all” of being. In having one voice, univocity seeks identification and intelligibility. Can the self obtain this intelligibility and know the “that it is” without fixing it to determinacy? The hermeneutic of passio essendi reveals the answer. If there is no passio essendi, then T2 (human-self ) views all of T1 (nature) and God (T3) as indeterminate and seeks to determinately fix them, because the impatience of being demands fixing determinate intelligibility and univocal sameness. In trying to determinately fix nature and God with mathematical univocity, nature and God are lost. When T3 is silent and not perceivable, we nonetheless seek determinate intelligibility, thus T1 becomes equated with T3 and we are left with an absorbing God. Nature and God, and a type of monism. If there is no passio essendi within the univocal sense of being, then the conatus essendi is entirely trivial, for the lack of patience towards T1 and T3 means there can be no co-natus, no co-birth, for all birth is only self-same birth. The “that it is at all” becomes the “all that is.” Identification and intelligibility are both wonderful things granted to the self; however, the self does not always allow these wonderful things to be full-of-wonder because it takes them for granted if patience is lacking. If, on the other hand, there is passio essendi, then the univocal sense of being sheds new light on what it means to be the “that it is” at all. Desmond refers to this as the idiotic, in the intimately personal sense of the etymology where there is actually idiot wisdom. This type of idiotic univocal sameness is made known, though it remains mysteriously indeterminate nonetheless. The knowability of the sameness is granted from T3, thus, there is a realization that there is not a complete determinate self-same unity throughout the cosmos. As Augustine
68 Desmond, PO, 4. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 33 said, “God is more intimate to me than I am to myself.”69 The idiotic sense of being is true to the self and true to the other, even in its simplicity of being the “that it is.” In being true to the self and the other, the idiotic self realizes that there is more than simple sameness, though it knows the importance of the intimately idiotic self. “To recognize that we need more than the univocal sense of being does not mean that we deny the need for the univocal sense, nor that it lacks its proper jurisdiction….”70 Univocity is a good thing, if it patiently remembers that the “that it is” was granted to be from the enabling agapeic origin. Without the idiocy of being there can be no aesthetics of happening, to which we now turn.
The Aesthetics of Happening As stated, the idiotic sense realizes that in being true to itself and to the other, that their must necessarily be other(s), this otherness brings us to the equivocal sense. “By contrast (with the univocal), the equivocal sense breaks with the ideal of univocal unity and stresses those aspects of unmediated difference between the self and the other.”71 The etymology reveals that equivocity means “of equal voice.” It would be a gross misunderstanding to equate “of equal voice” to mean “one-voice,” especially given that Desmond is stressing the “unmediated” aspect of the equivocal. Two voices can only be equal if and only if they are other to each other, if they are not other to each other, then they are simply univocally the same. Because the voices are “equal,” the equivocal is often realized through dualisms or antinomies. It is crucial to (re)cognize the unmediated otherness of the equivocal. What is the role of the passio essendi as it pertains to the equivocal? If the equivocal sense of being refuses to have patience, then the outcome is a discontinuous plurality.72 If all things are discontinuous and there is no continuity, then T3 is completely other, completely transcendent and unknowable. In an impatient oppositional Cartesian dualism, “we conquer our bodies with our minds; we conquer the aesthetic givenness of the world with the mathematical dianoetics of our science and technology.”73 In other words, though the other is perceived (aesthetics), it is not determinately understood. If the other is not
69 See Augustine, Confessions 3.6.11. “tu autem eras interior intimo meo et superior summo meo.” Interior intimo meo may be translated as “more intimate to me than I am to myself.” 70 Desmond, BB, 127. 71 Desmond, PO, 4. Emphasis mine. 72 Desmond refers to this type of discontinuous plurality as “Wittgensteinian.” See Desmond, PO, Introductory chapter, and also see Desmond, PU, 12. 73 Desmond, GB, 64. 34 MELITA THEOLOGICA determinately understood, then conquering it is a viable option. This conquering happens when there is no passio for the aesthetic. An example from the movie Equilibrium does the best to illustrate this point:74 The setting is 2072 in a post-World War III society. A totalitarian regime assumes world power and in their efforts to assume authority, they suppress all human emotions and desires through the forced usage of the drug called Prozium, the “opiate of our masses.” This drug is their salvation because it delivers them from all emotion, and thus any future wars. In the film there are law enforcers (called Clerics!) who kill any and all offenders, “sense offenders.” Thus persons caught with any form of art or expressing any emotions count as the sense offenders and are killed immediately. One of the sense offending characters in the film quotes W.B. Yeats, before he is shot and killed: “But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet. Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.” The aesthetic was not tolerated. There was nopassio for the aesthetic. As Desmond writes, “the equivocal is nowhere more evident than in human desire,”75 and human desire is nothing without the aesthetic. Mindfulness reveals that the other has laid down their dreams underneath the feet of the self, and it is the self ’s role to tread softly and patiently, for the others are poor and have only their dreams. This example has taken the equivocal to an extreme and shows how the equivocal can be a terrible thing when taken to its limits and the passio essendi is forgotten. Art, the aesthetic, has the power to (re)fuel our perception of others.76 If, however, there is passio essendi within the equivocal sense, then we discover that “equivocity is not always just our failure of univocal logic, but is rooted in the character of being itself.”77 When rooted in being itself, the equivocal is the aesthetics of happening. The coming to pass of the senses of sensing the other. If the self is true to the senses, then the other is sensed and the self is given opportunity to be true to the other. However, if you “remove the paint of Rome [then] you undo her.”78 Thepassio essendi brings out the equivocal aesthetics of happening in being able to sense the other, while also maintaining the univocal
74 Kurt Wimmer, Equilibrium, Film, 2003. 75 Desmond, BB, 110. 76 Desmond, GB, 38. 77 Desmond, BB, 88. “I want to propose that aesthetic appearing [of being] is equivocal in terms that are not merely negative.” Desmond, BB, 89. 78 Regina Maria Schwartz, Sacramental Poetics at the Dawn of Secularism. When God Left the World (Standford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008), 31. Schwartz is quoting Aston, England’s Iconoclasts, 6. In this quote there is here an intrinsic connection between the aesthetic, the religious, and the ethical. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 35 idiotic singularity of the self. It allows the self to be true to the self and the others. Now we turn to see if there is a dialectical mediation of the equivocal which brings about a higher unity of sorts while not sacrifice the idiocy of being.
The Erotics of Selving In order to discuss the erotics of selving, it is crucial to discuss the form of dialectic proposed by Hegel, where his dialectic not only contains epistemology, but also ontology, hence “the real is rational and the rational is real.”79 To clear Hegel of fraudulent charges, it is a gross misrepresentation of Hegel to say that his dialectic is the formulaic idea of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. These terms are better attributed to Fichte.80 However, Hegel’s system did have a threefold rhythmic heartbeat which continued to build upon itself, until ultimately reaching the final Absolute Spirit. If this is the case, does this not mean that his system turned into the univocal identity which he sought to avoid, the very thing which he critiqued in his contemporary Friedrich Schelling?81 Hegel often employs the analogy of the plant, where the concept is in the germ (i.e., potentiality). Hegel focused on immediacy and immanence in the first stage. From this immediacy we discover, in stage two, that the concept’s ascending movement contradicts itself. “The dialectic of concept consists not in simply producing the determination as a contrary and restriction, but in producing and seizing upon the positive content and outcome of the determination, because it is this which makes it solely a development and immanent progress.”82 In the third stage, the resolution necessarily arises.83 The fascinating feature of Hegel’s dialectic is that it necessarily arises out of itself—out of the concept—and nothing external to the thing itself.84 His system is rational in the sense that the rationality emerges from the thing, rather than coming from an outside rationality. If the Absolute truly exists and it has the structure of conceptual necessity, then we can
79 Hegel, “The Philosophy of Right,” preface. 80 Frederick Charles Copleston, “Hegel,” in A History of Philosophy, (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1962), 7; 177. 81 “If being is always being and nothingness always nothingness, there is no becoming.” Julian Marias, History of Philosophy, trans. Stanley Appelbaum and Clarence C. Strowbridge, (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1967), 322. 82 Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, sec. 31. 83 Ibid. 84 “To consider a thing rationally means not to bring reason to bear on the object from the outside and so tamper with it, but to find that the object is rational on its own account.” Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, sec. 31. 36 MELITA THEOLOGICA derive it through a purely conceptual argument, where the concept will bring about its own incoherence and indispensability. Thus, concept must necessarily be an ascending dialectic. A central theme of Hegelian philosophy is that the “Spirit comes to know himself….it must grow through struggle to self-knowledge.”85 If there is truly this ascending dialectic, then the answers are found within the things themselves, not simply in one’s own reasoning of these things. This is why one can say that Hegel’s system contains “self-thinking thought” or “thought thinking itself.” Also embedded within Hegel’s dialectic, one may also say it is “thought thinking itself and its others;”86 however, Desmond criticizes Hegel, for even though thought does think of its other, the other has been redefined relatively to the self. Namely, if the ascending dialectic converges upon the Absolute by necessity, and if this is the self-coming to know itself, then this means that the Absolute (T3) has actually been redefined in terms of the self (T2).87 Thus,all transcendence is immanent. Hegelian dialectic in all its glory encapsulates the Absolute Idea as the final synthesis of the dialectical process, thus ending the process and requiring that this whole system be grossly self-determined or self-mediated—reducing everything to a univocal unity which it originally sought to criticize. Thus, even though there is an other, the other actually turns out to be the self. We remind ourselves that Hegelian eros always emphasizes lack and therefore returns the self to the self, albeit via the other. Hegel’s Absolute is an Erotic Absolute, in the sense that Eros becomes the bastard child and forgets the Poros father. There is only lack in Hegelian dialectics.88 If Hegelian dialectic avoids asymmetry and mystery, and grants no form of an agapeic otherness,89 one must ask how does Desmond recapitulate dialectics in his philosophical method. The dialectical sense, criticizes univocal unity…and even though it too criticizes the limits of univocal unity, dialectical thinking still tries to mediate equivocal difference….But the dialectical sense of being shows an ambiguous tendency to
85 Charles Taylor, Hegel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 127. 86 Desmond, PO, 11. 87 See Desmond, HG, 4 88 “Dialectic, then, arises in response to lack of articulate identity…What presents itself to desire at this point is the possibility of an end but not the end, a possible whole but not the whole….we can think of ourselves as possible wholes without confusing ourselves with the whole; we may discover an absolute dimension to our beings without regarding ourselves as the absolute.” DDO, 125. 89 “But there is no asymmetry in Hegel.” Desmond, BB, 249. “There are no final mysteries for Hegel’s dialectical concept.” Desmond, PU, 50. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 37
interpret all mediation primarily in terms of self-mediation…this tends to happen with Hegel.90 Dialectic is a useful tool for mediating differences. However, we see with Hegel’s system that it has the tendency to become a self-mediated system where otherness is excluded and the system becomes totalizing. Desmond is not opposed to dialectic, however, he encourages that “we must rethink it in terms that do not sacrifice idiotic singularity”91 as Hegel does,92 recalling that idiotic singularity is a healthy univocity which contains within it the patience of being. And at this point, it is pertinent to realize that this is precisely how Bonhoeffer critiqued Hegel, The tragedy of all idealist philosophy was that it never ultimately broke through to personal spirit. However, its monumental perception, especially in Hegel, was that the principle of spirit is something objective, extending beyond everything individual—that there is an objective spirit, the spirit of sociality, which is distinct in itself from all individual spirit. Our task is to affirm the latter without denying the former, to retain perception without committing the error.93 Bonhoeffer, like Desmond, affirms an objective spirit of sociality, à la Hegel, while never denying the individual, personal spirit, as was tragically the case with Hegel’s absolute. Bonhoeffer essentially combined the thoughts of Hegel and Kierkegaard, so as to affirm a spirit of sociality and individuality. In other words, Hegelian dialectic does not contain any elements of the passio essendi or healthy anxiety, for it is entirely self-determining where there is no birthing-with, but rather, only self-birth. As Bonhoeffer wrote, “the I understands itself from itself within a closed system.”94 As one can see, dialectic is closely connected with T2 and can lead to an erotic absolute if the antinomy of transcendence and autonomy is ignored because of impatience. We ought to remind ourselves that neither Desmond nor Bonhoeffer are not opposed to dialectic. The hermeneutic of thepassio essendi reveals both Desmond’s and Bonhoeffer’s misgivings toward Hegelian dialectic, in that it fails to be true to the self and true to the other.
90 Desmond, PO, 4. 91 Desmond, PU, 63. 92 See Desmond, PU, 59. 93 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,DBWE 01, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church, ed. Clifford Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), DBWE 1:74. 94 Bonhoeffer, A and B, DBWE 2:76. See “Thinking is in itself a closed circle, with the ego as the center” DBW 10:424. 38 MELITA THEOLOGICA
When there is a patience of being and tolerance, we do not arrive at the erotic absolute, rather we come to experience erotic selving; that is, the counterpoint in the polyphony of life. Erotic selving does not forget the cantus firmus or that there is a hyperbolic excess which comes from the enabling milieu of being out of agapeic gifting. Therefore, greater unity does exist in the dialectical erotics of selving and it does not sacrifice the idiocy of being. It is a unitywithout separation, to borrow the phraseology from Chalcedon. In having this new unity, the discourse of the between must now progress as a way of maintaining a fidelity to the other. To this we now turn.
The Agapeics of Community Desmond described a healthy dialectic as a corrective to Hegel, but this healthy dialectic is not the end. If one can call the dialectical erotics of selving a positive unity without separation, Desmond’s metaxological agapeics of community maintains fidelity to otherness in that it cultivates a rich sense of positive difference—without confusion—to compliment this unity.95 The metaxological is not better than the univocal, equivocal, or dialectical, rather it is simply another sense of being. Desmond says it best as follows: “I suggest that as dialectic tries to redeem the promise of univocity beyond equivocity, so the metaxological tries to redeem the promise of equivocity beyond univocity and dialectic.”96 Metaxology is the promise of equivocity, the “without confusion” (to borrow more Chalcedonian terminology). The etymology of the word metaxology derives from the Greek metaxu and logos, thus it is a discourse of the between.97 We can see that the etymology is certainly hinting at this positive difference, the promise of equivocity. Etymology alone does not help us understand what Desmond is communicating by this word though. Desmond goes on to “define the metaxological sense of being in dynamic interrelation to the three other senses: namely, the univocal, the equivocal, and the dialectical senses of being.”98 If the promise of equivocity is defined in dynamic interrelation to the other three, it must mean that the other three are necessarily “good,” at least in some sense. This has been communicated with thepassio essendi preceding the conatus essendi in the form of the univocal idiocy of being,
95 See Desmond, DDO, 123. 96 Desmond, BB, 178. Emphasis mine. 97 Desmond, PO, 3. 98 Ibid., 4. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 39 the equivocal aesthetics of happening, and the dialectical erotics of selving. “It is a mindful passio essendi prior to and presupposed by every conatus essendi of the mind desiring to understand this or that.”99 In the patience of being there has been (co)birthed healthy children of idiocy, aesthetics, erotics and agapeics. These four are “signs in immanence of what transcends immanence and cannot be fully determined in immanent terms.”100 Metaxology is a celebration feast of sameness, otherness, a unity of the otherness, and a community of wholes.101 It would be a misnomer to perceive metaxology as being opposed to univocal sameness, equivocal otherness, and dialectical unity. The metaxological arises from the univocal while being true to the self and the other, proceeds to the equivocal and maintains its fidelity to the self and other because of the passio essendi, and in fidelity to the self and other, shows that a metaxological promise of equivocity as a community of wholes is needed to compliment the dialectical promise of univocity. The only way to have a metaxological community of wholes is to have an overdetermined abundance. Each of these four senses of beings is just that, a sense of being. These senses of being are granted from the overdetermined excess. As Aristotle said, “being is said in many ways”102 and the metaxological shows us that the patience of being allows for being to be spoken in many ways. This does not mean that Desmond has a cap on metaphysics, and he reminds us that the fourfold senses of being “help define the truth of the metaxological, but we risk error when they are absolutized and claimed to cover the entire milieu of being.”103 We must avoid making the metaxological absolute, learning our lesson from the way in which Hegel made the dialectical absolute.
Being Responsible in the Between Bonhoeffer’s Pragmatic Fourfold From my reading of Bonhoeffer, I view him as incredibly pragmatic, whereas Desmond appears to be more concerned with correct thinking (that being said, Desmond is also pragmatic while Bonhoeffer is also concerned with correct thinking, it is simply a matter of emphases as to how I read them both). What
99 Desmond, ISB, 264. 100 Desmond, GB, 8. 101 In other words, metaxology “tries to name the mediation between a plurality of wholes.” Desmond, DDO, 124. 102 Desmond, BB, 34. 103 Ibid., xii. 40 MELITA THEOLOGICA
I mean to infer is that when it comes to the fourfold senses of being, Desmond does an astounding job of describing all the interrelated connections; however, Bonhoeffer was able to make the connection with the concrete lived reality far more clearly than Desmond has communicated thus far. The following is from Bonhoeffer’sEthics , The commandment of God revealed in Jesus Christ is addressed to us in the church, in the family, in work, and in government. [...] None of these authorities can identify itself alone with the commandment of God. The sovereignty of the commandment of God proves itself precisely in ordering these authorities in a relationship of being [1] with each other, [2] beside each other, [3] together with each other, and [4] over against each other.104 When Bonhoeffer referred to church, family, work, and government, these are what he referred to as “orders of preservation” or “divine mandates,” as opposed to “orders of creation.” On occasion, he also labeled culture and marriage as mandates. But in other writings he could loosely identify a concept, such as “struggle,” as an order of preservation. In Bonhoefferian studies, labeling “what” the orders of preservation (or mandates) often takes precedent over the way being. This is sensed through the interrelatedness between the mandates. However, I am of the conviction that the most important aspect of the mandates was their fourfold interrelation. The following table neatly demonstrates how Desmond’s fourfold senses of being, which are interpreted through the passio essendi, are correlated with the way in which Bonhoeffer’s mandates interact with one another.
Desmond Fourfold Bonhoeffer Idiocy of Being Univocal Being with each other Aesthetics of Happening Equivocal Being beside each other Erotics of Selving Dialectical Being together with each other Agapeics of Community Metaxological Being over-against each other
I have previously affirmed that metaxology is a celebration feast of sameness (being with each other), otherness (being beside each other), a unity of the otherness (being together with each other), and a community of wholes (being over against each other). However, one must be mindful that being a responsible
104 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,DBWE 06, Ethics, ed. Clifford J. Green, trans. Charles West Reinhard Krauss and Douglas Stott (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), DBWE 6:380. Abbreviated title: E. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 41 community of wholes does not mean submission in se, rather, it actually affirms resistance, when necessary. Concretely, one could thus infer that “church” (a mandate), while it does stand dialectically together with “government” (a mandate), there are times, however, when “church” must stand metaxologically over-against the “government.” Government is not an unmovable order of creation, but merely one of preservation, and there are times when it needs to be resisted.105 This goes in both directions, and applies to all of the mandates. And only by applying it in all directions, to all the mandates, is one being responsible in the between. At this point it is noteworthy to mention that the Letters and Papers from Prison are actually entitled “Resistance and Submission” in German (Widerstand und Ergebung). And in them, Bonhoeffer often gives reference to the Spanish novel, The Ingenious Nobleman Sir Quixote of La Mancha, by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra. In this tragicomedy, Don Quixote and his submissive companion, Sancho Panza set out on a crusade together. But what is most pertinent to the story is that Don Quixote represents “resistance” (the promise of equivocity) and Sancho Panza represents “submission” (the promise of univocity), both to unhealthy degrees. And this tying together of resistance and submission is where Bonhoeffer provides pragmatic clarification over and above Desmond. For again, Bonhoeffer’s forth sense of being isbeing over against each other. In fact, “where being-over-against-one-another is no longer present, God’s mandate no longer exist.”106 An “agapeics of community” could lead one to believe that it leads to an illusory utopian existence where resistance is no longer necessary, but Bonhoeffer’s formulation dispels these falsehoods. However, even though resistance is affirmed, there is still a matter of allowing the self to die. To which we now turn. (Bonhoeffer’s literal hanging for political treason illustrates this point better than any words on the issue.)
Learning How to Die As mentioned earlier, metaxology is a hermeneutic of passio essendi, where one is resurrected to excessive astonishment in one’s dying. In patiently waiting, God as over-being reveals the overdetermined hyperbolic signs in immanence of
105 For instance, when the Nazi government forced the Aryan clause upon Jewish members in the church, Bonhoeffer rightly declared this to be a state of confession. And in the years that followed, he continued to resist his government, to the point of being hanged for political treason. 106 Bonhoeffer,E , DBWE 6:394. 42 MELITA THEOLOGICA transcendence which are often sensed to be idiotic, aesthetic, erotic, and agapeic. If astonishment is birthed by patience, then one may say that impatience kills astonishment. “A new patience of being is needed.”107 The irony is that thepassio essendi itself is a suffering death, but it gives birth to life. Patiently waiting returns one to zero, to nothing.108 Desmond refers many times throughout his writings to what he refers to as “posthumous mind.”109 He uses a thought experiment, taken in part from Dostoyevsky’s near death experience, recorded in The Idiot, before the firing squad. The thought experiment is to imagine your own death, and then to imagine coming back from the grave to live life anew. Dostoyevsky (in the name of Prince Myschkin) shows the desire to live life anew and not waste a single moment, yet at the same time, he acknowledges the tension that in reality it is impossible to carry out in practice. When facing the firing squad, we want to live anew, however, we immediately forget this feeling when granted reprieve. Desmond believes that it is exactly in dying in this way, again and again, that one is able to resurrect astonishment. The resurrected astonishment is practiced through living the fourfold senses of being with mindfulness and fidelity to the passio essendi.110 What might happen if metaxological mindfulness set at naught the dualistic opposition of self and other? Since the other would not then be radically opposed, you would have the simple pouring forth of benevolence, perhaps even the foolishness of turning the cheek....You might be either a dead man or a child, or if the latter, forgiveness and forget would quickly follow every hurt.111
Desmond’s thought experiment does not truly teach one how to die and be reborn with metaxological mindfulness, even though he does suggest the idea of turning the other cheek and offering forgiveness for every hurt. (He does not seem to leave much room for resistance.) Desmond’s metaphysics encourages one to have a tolerant and faithful discourse of the between, between self and others, sameness and otherness, inseparability and distinction, though it does
107 Desmond, GB, 33. 108 “Suppose the return to zero were a death in that sense, that is, also a promise of rebirth, beyond all will to power? Posthumous mind would then entail a second astonishment before the agape of being.” Desmond, GB, 32. 109 For instance, here are some of the instances of when Desmond speaks of posthumous mind: PO 278ff., 300, 304ff., 368-369; BB 36-37, 40, 43, 44, 192-93, 199, 200, 230, 264, 503; PU 44, 53, 111, 163, 164, etc. 110 See Desmond, ISB, 264 and GB, 33–35. 111 Desmond, PO, 310. Being Responsible in the Between - Michael Fletcher 43 not appear to equip real-people with the humility or actual death which is required to accomplish this. In one sense, and I say this cautiously, Bonhoeffer may have critiqued Desmond in the same way he did Hegel, that is, “Hegel wrote a philosophy of angels, but not of human beings...112 In a sense, Bonhoeffer turns out to be more metaxological than Desmond. For Bonhoeffer, the posthumous mind—death as a thought experiment—would not have gone far enough. For Bonhoeffer, “Every time Christ calls, one is led into death.”113 It is an actual death, not simply a thought experiment. However, when one examines Bonhoeffer’s theology-of-the-cross, one always comes face-to-face with the life, death, and glorious resurrection of Christ. This is because he always applied “the triadic dynamic of the new humanity in Christ (incarnated, judged, resurrected) to the world.”114 The follower of Christ truly participates in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, and because of this, Bonhoeffer could paradoxically conclude, “It is certain that...our life is hidden in death.”115 It is only by truly participating in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, that one may be truly resurrected to both astonishment and perplexity, and thus live responsibly in the between. There is no being responsible apart from being conformed to the form of Christ.116 Desmond’s metaphysics has shown us that there is a way to have a tolerant and faithful discourse of the between, between self and others, sameness and otherness, inseparability and distinction. Bonhoeffer’s theology-of-the-cross shows one how to be responsible in the between by fully participating in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, here and now. And more so than Desmond, Bonhoeffer helps us realize that this does not mean a utopian existence, but one of conformation with and toward Christ. In first describing the theologian-of-the-cross, Martin Luther wrote in Thesis 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation, to be a theologian-of-the-cross means to view all things “through suffering and the cross.” The metaxological philosopher and the theologian-of-the-cross help each other realize that the passio essendi always comes before the co-natus essendi, suffering before co-birth, death before resurrection glory, Good Friday before Easter Sunday. If one is able faithfully
112 Bonhoeffer,A and B, DBWE 2:42. 113 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,DBWE 04, Discipleship, ed. Geffrey B. Kelly and John D. Godsey, trans. Barbara Green and Reinhard Krauss (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), DBWE 4:87. Translation altered. 114 Jens Zimmermann, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Marting Heidegger: Two Different Visions of Humanity,” in Bonhoeffer and Continental Thought: Cruciform Philosophy, ed. Brian Gregor and Jens Zimmermann (Boomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2009), 104. 115 Bonhoeffer,LPP , DBWE 8:514. Translation altered. 116 Bonhoeffer,E , DBWE 6:76-102. 44 MELITA THEOLOGICA maintain the passio essendi by viewing all things “through suffering and the cross,” one will be responsible in the between. The challenge for theologians is to appropriate this towards contemporary matters which bring forth questions of identity and difference, such as, but certainly not limited to, ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.
Michael Fletcher 3334 NE Peerless Place Portland, OR 97232 USA [email protected] MELITA THEOLOGICA Paul Sciberras* Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 45-63
The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta
ince we do not enjoy the availability of a pulpit, I will be using the written text. SEven this adaptation forms part of the art of translation. While preaching the Word of God from the pulpit takes place from a podium that is presumably closer to the source of the Word, that we are using a written text is a way of saying that the Word is one, but now it is being preached from the place that is closer to its addressees.1 How would one have understood what the priest was mumbling during Mass at 5.00 in the morning if the only Latin that one knew was some garbled word that one had heard during the Litany at the end of the Rosary? And how would one acquaint oneself with the story of Job if one could only have heard some part of it at the catechism classes after school hours at the parish centre, since lay people could never have access to it by themselves? No one could handle the Word of God by themselves, especially with a low level of education. And how would one have access to Italian in order to read translations of the Bible in Italian, if the only Italian one could hear was that murmured by the pharmacist behind the opaque glass pane behind the counter?
* Paul Sciberras pursued his studies at the University of Malta, and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome; he obtained his Doctorate in Theology from the University of Malta with a thesis on Mgr Prof P.P. Saydon’s Maltese version of 1 Thessalonians. He is currently head of the Department of Sacred Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek at the Faculty of Theology, University of Malta; he is also active in the Malta Bible Society, and various European Biblical associations. 1 This article is an adapted version of a paper delivered during the Conference on the tradition of translations in Malta, organised by the voluntary cultural organisation Inizjamed and the Department of Maltese within the General Directorate of Translation of the European Commission, held on 16 October 2015 at the Wartime Museum in Birgu, Malta.
45 46 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Translations of Liturgical and Prayer Texts Although the small size of the Island of Malta, the low level of education among the people, and the lack of appreciation of the Maltese Language by the educated elite, never allowed a wide circulation of printed publications, popular religious translations in Maltese abounded. It seems that the translation of the Ordo Missæ or excerpts from the Missal into Maltese were most popular, even more than translations of the Divine Office. The latter was bread and butter only of priests and the random lawyer. Before Vatican Council II, permission was granted for the use of the vernacular language during parts of ritual celebrations. In 1955, with the New Order of the Liturgy for Holy Week, the Maltese language was used during parts of the Easter Vigil.2 It was the merit of foreign societies and groups, such as the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the Church Missionary Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, that liturgical literary material received a boost. Thus, in 1844, the first bishop of Gibraltar, the Very Reverend George Tomlinson, engaged the Rev. Michael Angelo Camilleri, a former Catholic priest, to translate into Maltese the Book of Common Prayer, that was published in June 1845, as Ktieb it-Talb ta’ Għalenija.3 Such an endeavour to translate a liturgical book that included the Psalms, the celebration of the rites and the ordinations of bishops, priests and deacons would have been unimaginable had it not been ascertained that a mass exodus of believers from the Catholic to the Anglican Church was envisaged. With the translation of this Book of Rites, one would have planned to translate many more books into the language of such a small island such as Malta, especially the biblical text. The Rev. Michael Angelo Camilleri, the former Catholic priest, must have been well-aware that the Maltese population would not have accepted such a book, even less read and used it for their prayers! However, Camilleri wholeheartedly believed in the importance of mass education, at least to be able to read and write in its own tongue. It might have been the case that Camilleri would have wanted to demonstrate to sceptics and adversaries alike that the Maltese language deserved respect, attention, and cultivation. It might have
2 Jesmond Manicaro, Liturgical Renewal in the Maltese Islands. A Historical Study (1840- 1963) (Rome: Pontifical Athenaeum St Anselm, 2004), 65. 3 Ktieb it-Talb ta’ Äalenia, u tal äoti tas sagramenti u tar riti u chirimonyi ohra tal knisya fuq id-drawa tal knisya mwahhda ta’ l’ingilterra u ta’ l’irlanda: flimkien mas-salteryu ew is Salmi ta’ david, ukoll il äamla u kif äandhom ikunu ordnati u ikkonsagrati l’Isqfiyiet, il-Qassisin u id-Dyakni (Malta: M. Weiss, 1845). See also Paul Sciberras, Mgr Prof. P.P. Saydon’s Version of 1 Thessalonians: An Exegetical and Translation-Critical Study (Malta: University of Malta, 2013), 56-57. The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 47 been that the offer by Bishop Tomlinson provided Camilleri with a golden opportunity to demonstrate what he so vehemently believed in. It must be said that the translation of Ktieb ta’ Għalenija (the Book of Common Prayer) into Maltese indirectly served many other Catholic translators. A thorough examination of the first Catholic liturgical books in Maltese shows that translators heavily relied on Camilleri’s translation for their works. For example, Richard Taylor, in his Offiziu tal Gimgha il Cbira, Latin u Malti (1848), The Office for the Holy Week,4 makes heavy use of Camilleri’s translation, especially in the translation of the Psalms and parts of the New Testament. A comparative grid of Taylor’s and Camilleri’s works shows only very minute changes in the Maltese orthography.5 It seems that Camilleri had been planning to develop a Maltese orthography as a tool for educating the local population.6 The Roman Missal was translated into Maltese by several translators. As an example one can mention Canon Fortunato Panzavecchia’s work, in 1849. However, though this was an excellent endeavour, it was unfortunately never published. The Rev. Ludovico Mifsud Tommasi translatedL’inni imkadsa, l’antifoni tat-tmiem tal breviariu Ruman u sequenzi tal missal,7 a collection of hymns, so that “those who know no Latin, can understand, savour and learn” them. The local population could now have a handy tool of what it had been singing already for so long. Mifsud Tommasi prepared a translation of parts of the Mass in poetical garb between 1853 and 1870.8 This collection was never published: it was made known by our National Poet, Dun Karm Psaila, who refers to it in his article “Ktieb ieħor tal-Qassis Dr Ludoviku Mifsud Tommasi,” in Il-Malti (1930): 102-106.9 It had been passed on to Dun Karm by Ġużè Gatt. Mifsud Tommasi addresses this work: “To all those who know no other language except Maltese, but who wish to love God, source of infinite wisdom. I did my best to explain the prayers that our Mother Church wants us to use. I have put these prayers in verse form so that it would be easier for the readers to remember, and with the hope that the faithful would not need to use profane songs during
4 Divine Office for Holy Week in Latin and Maltese. 5 See Manicaro, Liturgical Renewal, 65. 6 See Sciberras, Mgr Prof. P.P. Saydon’s Version of 1 Thessalonians, 56. 7 The sacred hymns, the antiphons to the Roman Breviary and Sequences to the Missal, published in Malta by F. Cumbo in 1853. 8 Il-Għana tan-Nisrani (Chants for the Christian). 9 See also “Il-poeżija Maltija fl-iskejjel aħjar minn kull waħda oħra,”Il-Malti (1930): 34. 48 MELITA THEOLOGICA their work or rest, and learn how to savour the beauty of voices that are lifted up in praise to God.”10 The Dominican Vincent Schembri translated into Maltese the liturgical texts for the Easter Triduum, for which the local population attended in great numbers.11 Schembri, however, added a detailed commentary to the prayers and the liturgical rites, with historical, theological, ceremonial, moral and liturgical backgrounds. Reading this work, one cannot miss imagining the participating crowds. Ġużè Muscat Azzopardi translated the Vespers of the feasts of the Virgin Mary.12 As expected, since it contained prayer material to the Virgin Mary, the book was soon sold out, even though it went through three editions from 1886 to 1915. Muscat Azzopardi prefaced his work in a very personal way: “Who knows how many times you were in church while priests were chanting Vespers, and you wished you could participate. Now, with this book, you have the possibility to do so. Take it up in your hands and follow the priest while he is praying. Do not hold back.”13 In 1902, Muscat Azzopardi published the Mass in the vernacular language (Il Kuddiesa bil Malti), the translation of the entire Mass according to the Ordo Missæ.14 It is interesting to note the aim he proposed for his work: “The Church teaches that we do not need to utter even one word during Mass. It suffices to look at and follow the priest with due devotion so that our Mass would be valid. But since we feel the need to pray, which prayers are best to make use of if not those used by the priest? This booklet is nothing but a translation of all that the priest says during Mass.”15
10 “Għal dawk li ma jafu bl-ebda lsien ieħor ħlief bil-Malti, imma li jixtiequ jħobbu ’l Alla, għajn ta’ għerf infinit. Għamilt li stajt biex infisser it-talbiet li tridna nużaw Ommna l-Knisja. Użajt il-vers biex dawn it-talbiet ikun ħafna iktar ħafif li wieħed jiftakarhom u bit-tama li l-fidili ma jkollhomx għalfejn jinqdew b’kant profan waqt li jaħdmu jew jistrieħu, u jitgħallmu jduqu l-ġmiel tal-ilħna merfugħa ’l fuq f ’tifħir lil Alla” (from the Preface to the book). 11 Offiziu tal Gimgha il Cbira chif jinghad fl’Ordni Domenican mil-Latin migiub fil Malti minn sacerdot ta l’istess Ordni. Fih it-tifsir fuk il misteri u in-noti fuk il Passiu tal Hatt u tal Gimgha (Malta: A. Aquilina & Co., 1883). 12 Il Għasar tal Madonna. Poeżija bil Malti - Traduzjoni mil Latin ta’ G. Muscat Azzopardi (Malta: Stamperija Dar S. Ġużepp, 31915). 13 “Min jaf kemm il-darba kont il-knisja waqt li l-qassisin kienu jkunu jkantaw l-Għasar u xtaqt tifhem u tieħu sehem. Issa tista’, b’dan il-ktejjeb. Ħudu f ’idejk u imxi mal-qassis jitlob u tibqax lura.” 14 Il Kuddiesa bil Malti mehuda minn fuk il Missal chelma b’chelma (Malta: S. Formosa, 1902). 15 “Il-Knisja tgħallem li m’għandniex għalfejn illissnu mqar kelma waħda fil-Quddiesa. Huwa biżżejjed li nħarsu u nsegwu l-qassis b’devozzjoni biex il-quddiesa tagħna tkun tgħodd. Imma The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 49
In 1918, Muscat Azzopardi translated the entire Missal of the Mass. His aim for this work focused on the principle that there should be one focus for both priest and assembly during the sacrifice of Mass: “In order for you to participate at Mass, you need to concentrate fully on what is being said. The Rosary and any other prayers should be said at some other time. Those who cannot read and write would better say nothing than mumble other prayers that have nothing to do with the Mass and distract themselves from it.”16 There were several others who, besides the words of the Mass, wished to help the faithful to better understand and savour the Word of God as proclaimed during Mass, especially on Sundays and on Feast Days. In 1927, the Rev. Peter Paul Grima published Il Vangeli tal Hdud u il Btajjel: Imfissrin fil Kasir (The Gospels for Sundays and Feast Days, briefly explained).17 He wished that the faithful take the book home, understand and enjoy the Gospel proclaimed in Latin during Mass, and meditate on the spiritual reflections added by him. Particular occasions within parish life were occasions for several translations. In 1939 the Rev. Gejtu Mifsud published a twenty-three page booklet containing the ceremony of the consecration of the Parish Church of Saint Cajetan, in Hamrun.18 Mifsud’s intention was to prepare the parishioners for the consecration of their parish church. Thus, in addition to the rite of consecration, he also included an explanatory catechesis, in which he highlighted the consecration of the living body of the parishioners themselves, of which the building of the church was a symbol. A highly practical initiative by the laity was that entitled Il Quddiesa tal-Ħdud u l-Festi tas-Sena Kollha, published in sixty-four fascicles by Ċensu Cassar and then repeated in 1940. This initiative was also lauded by Pope Pius XII.19 A very useful work by different priests and lay people appeared in the translations of the rites of the Sacraments. In 1944, the Rev. Ġużeppi Borg published two booklets with the rites of the Anointing of the Sick, the Viaticum
billi nħossu l-bżonn li nitolbu, liema talbiet jista’ jkun hemm aħjar minn dawk li jgħid il-qassis? Dan il-ktejjeb mhu xejn ħlief traduzzjoni ta’ dak kollu li jgħid il-qassis waqt il-Quddiesa,” Il Kuddiesa bil Malti, 7. 16 The translator quotes theOrate, fratres, with which the priest exhorts the assembly after the preparation of the offerings, in which the dual participation is highlighted: “Pray, brethren, that my [the priest’s] and your [the faithful’s] sacrifice…” 17 Il Vangeli tal Hdud u il Btajjel: Imfissrin fil Kasir (Malta: Andolfo & Lombardi, 1927). 18 Ic-Cerimonji tal-Consagrazzjoni tal-Cnisja miġjuba bil-Malti u stampati għall-occasjoni tal-Consagrazzjoni tal-Parroċċa ta’ S. Ghejtanu tal-Ħamrun (Malta: Empire Press, 1930). 19 The Mass on Sundays and Feastdays throughout the year (Malta: Lux Press). 50 MELITA THEOLOGICA and other prayers for the moribund.20 A year later he also published the extremely practical rite of marriage, together with the preparation of the couple for a fruitful reception of the sacrament.21 Together with systematic formation meetings concerning the sacraments, the Catholic Action movement published translations of the rites and catechetical aids for the reception of the sacraments. On the threshold of Vatican Council II, that decreed the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy, concessions were being given for official translations of the Roman Rite of the Mass and the Sacraments. One of the pioneers in this endeavour was Monsignor Professor Karm Sant, who can be acknowledged as the man behind the translation of the whole Bible from the original languages into Maltese by the Malta Bible Society. Sant was also the translator of the Byzantine Christological and Marian Hymn Akáthistos.22 He adamantly held that the Maltese language should be used in liturgical celebrations, so that a deeper sense of belonging of the faithful within the Church takes root among the Maltese. Sant was an admirably practical scholar: he was of the opinion that using the vernacular language during liturgical celebrations would also help in eradicating idle and distractive chatter during baptisms, confirmations, and marriage celebrations.23 In a letter he published on 17 October 1956 in the local weekly Leħen is- Sewwa, Sant aired his views in no unclear terms: “No one gives any consideration anymore to the dated illogical and unfounded objection, that the Maltese language is not worthy nor appropriate of the administration of sacraments and prayer contexts... In such matters... preparing and educating the people should be a priority...” If the addressees of such initiatives are still unaware of the profit, what benefit would that be to them? When Pope Pius XII promulgated the Rite for the Holy Week in vernacular languages,24 and a year after the renewal of the baptismal promises in Maltese was used during the Easter Vigil, Monsignor Joseph Lupi translated into Maltese the entire liturgy for Holy Week, from Palm Sunday through Easter Vigil.25
20 L-aħħar Sagramenti u talb għall-agunizzanti – L-ewwel taqsima (Malta: Empire Press 1943); L-aħħar Sagramenti u talb għall-agunizzanti – It-tieni taqsima (Malta: Empire Press, 1944). 21 It-tieġ w il-Quddiesa ta’ l-għarajjes (Malta: Għaqda ta’ Qari Tajjeb, 1945). 22 Akathistos. Innu liturġiku Biżantin f’ġieħ il-Verġni Marija, Omm Alla (Rome: Centro di Cultura Mariana “Madre della Chiesa”, 1990). 23 Manicaro, Liturgical Renewal, 83-84. 24 General Decree by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy See for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Maxima Redemptionis Nostræ, 16 November 1955. 25 Manicaro, Liturgical Renewal, 86. The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 51
One of the major hitches in these translations was the use of the Bible texts as had been translated by Monsignor Professor Peter Paul Saydon. The latter refused to make use of any word of Romance origin in Maltese, and construed words from already existent roots or even made use of archaic words in his translation.26 In so doing, Saydon produced a translation that did not reflect a biblical text in spoken Maltese. Maltese scholars who have critically analysed Saydon’s text have concluded that he had produced a translation for the scholar’s desk, where one would have dictionaries and grammars at hand in order to correctly understand Saydon’s translation.27 In the rest of the translation of these liturgical texts, Lupi used a more colloquial Maltese. The finished work resulted in a mixture of two forms of Maltese diction. Work on the liturgical texts continued with the translation of the Mass for the First Fridays of the month, a devotion that is widely spread on the Islands, the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei in Maltese as well as the other responses by the assembly during Mass. The Epistle and Gospel for the day were read aloud in Maltese but the celebrant priest still used to read them in a low voice in Latin.28
Catechism Textbooks In its fifth and twenty-fourth sessions, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) had decreed that every Sunday, in the morning, parish priests are to explain the Gospel to their parishioners, while in the afternoon they were expected to teach catechism to children. In its last session, the Council had ordered the publication of catechism books. Consequential upon this last resolution, in 1566, and with the approval of Pope Pius V, the Roman Catechism was published.29
26 See the prefatory introduction he himself penned for his translation of the Bible at the beginning of Ktieb il-Ġenesi maqlub mill-Lhudi u mfisser minn Dun P.P. Saydon (Malta: Empire Press, 1929), viii. 27 See Sciberras, Mgr Prof. P.P. Saydon’s Version of 1 Thessalonians, 9. In an interview on 17 September 2009 with the present author, Monsignor Karm Attard, editor and reviewer of the three-volume edition by the Society for Christian Doctrine (MUSEUM), commenting his own article: “It-tieni edizzjoni tal-Bibbja ta’ Saydon,” Kalendarju Museumin (July 1991): 208-213, confirmed this opinion. Sant had already viewed this idea in his articles “Fact and myth,”The Times of Malta (22 June 1977): 11, and “Mons. P.P. Saydon u l-ħidma Biblika f ’Malta,” Sijon 6 (1973): 7. 28 Manicaro, Liturgical Renewal, 87. 29 Catechismus romanus seu catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos PII V Pontificis Maximi Iussu Editus (Romæ: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1566). 52 MELITA THEOLOGICA
In 1570 the Vicar General of the Cathedral Chapter of Malta, the Rev. Anton Bartolo, ordered that all priests and parish priests were to teach catechism, using the Roman Catechism.30 Bishop Paolo Alpheran de Bussan acknowledged the progress made in the teaching of catechism as promoted by the Council of Trent and locally by his predecessors Thomas Gargallo, Balthasar Cagliares, Michael Hieronymus Molina, and David Coccopalmieri.31 As a result, on the 9 June 1752, Bishop Alpheran de Bussan presented the official Catechism,Compendio della Dottrina Cristiana, also known as the Migemgħa ta Tagħlim Nisrani or Id- duttrina ta’ San Pawl in Italian and Maltese, translated by the Rev. Francesco Wizzino and published in Rome in 1752.32 Forty years later, Bishop Vincenzo Labini (1735-1807), decreed the revised publication of the Roman Catechism. Further editions of this catechism were published during the nineteenth century and even state schools adopted it as their textbook.33 In 1839, the Jesuit priest Maximilian Ryllo founded the Istituto maltese d’educazione cattolica for the teaching of catechism in Valletta. In six years, with the expert help of Monsignor Salvatore Cumbo and Professor Lawrence Pullicino, a new edition of the official Catechism by Wizzino, with adaptations for younger children was published. The new edition contained explicatory notes to facilitate learning.34 Initiatives to teach the catechism to Maltese emigrants abroad were also undertaken. TheCompendio della Dottrina Cristiana (Migemgħa ta Tagħlim Nisrani) found itself being used also abroad by Maltese emigrants. Since in 1886 the Maltese Community in Egypt published an edition, tailor-made for its needs, in Taħriġ ta’ Tieba jew Tagħlim Nisrani. During the last decade of the nineteenth century, Malta was enriched by a number of catechism books. Of
30 See Arturo Bonnici, History of the Church in Malta (Malta: Veritas Press, 1968), 2:50. 31 See Tony Sciberras, Attivitajiet kateketiċi f’Malta (Malta: Segretarjat għall-Katekeżi, 2008), 17-23. 32 Ibid, 26. 33 See La Diocesi: Bollettino Ufficiale Ecclesiastico di Malta, 4 (1918): 97. 34 L’alunno provveduto del Catechismo Cattolico ossia Compendio Progressivo della Dottrina Cristiana compilato sopra i migliori catechismi approvati da Sua Eccellenza Rev.ma Monsignor F.S. Caruana, Arcivescovo di Rodi e Vescovo di Malta e prescritto ad uso degli alunni dell’Istituto Maltese di Educazione Cattolica nella Chiesa di San Giacomo nella Valletta sotto il patrocinio dell’Immacolato Cuor di Maria (Malta: P. Cumbo, 1845). See also Guido Lanfranco, “It-Tagħlim tad-Duttrina fil-Gżejjer Maltin Matul iż-Żminijiet,” inIl-Festa tal-Madonna tad-Duttrina Ħal- Tarxien (Malta, 1999), 12. The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 53 particular mention is the Compendio della Dottrina Cristiana, in Maltese and Italian, that took the form of question and answer, published in 1890.35 When writing about the history of religious translation works in Malta, we need to mention the myriad of works by Alphonse Maria Galea. His contributions were mainly translations of works already existent in Italian. His aim was always to enhance the formation of his readers, be they children or adults, Maltese in Malta or emigrants in Egypt, Algiers, Tunis, or Gibraltar, lay people or even members of the clergy.36 Immediately after the publication, in 1905, of the shorter version of the Compendio della Dottrina Cristiana, Bishop Pietro Pace sought permission from the Vatican Press to publish its translation into Maltese, and eventually even into English. The translation was made by Monsignor Salvatore Grech and published in 1906.37 A year later, Bishop Pace promulgated this Catechism with a Pastoral Letter to the diocese. It was adopted by the state schools as well. This edition did not meet the desired success, since the Miġemgħa ta’ Tagħlim Nisrani had been in use for more than a century, and was much more popular among the Maltese in Malta and abroad.38 In 1907, the edition of the Catechism by Canon Dr Paolo Pullicino, then Director of Education, was translated into English and expanded into the Duttrina jew Tagħlim Nisrani by a commission of priests and lay people experts in the educational fields.39 Two other catechisms followed in 1911: Duttrina jew Tagħlim Nisrani, a second impression of the smaller catechism of Pius X, accompanied by an English translation, and the Tagħlim Komplit tar-Reliġjon Nisranija jeu Spjegazioni u Tifsir Storicu, Dommaticu, Morali, Liturġicu, Difensiv, Filosoficu u Sociali tar-Reliġion mil Bidu tad-Dinja saż-Żmienijet Tagħna, a translation by the Rev. Xand Cortis of the widely accepted catechism by Monsignor Jean Gaumme: Catechism of Perseverance: an Historical, Doctrinal, Moral and Liturgical Exposition of the Catholic Religion (1849). In 1942, C. Diacono published the Catechismu tal Cbar ordnat minn Papa Piu X Miġiub bil Malti... Traduzzioni għat tfal tal iscola Elementari Governativa.40
35 Compendio della Dottrina Cristiana, corretto e ristampato per ordine di Sua Ecc. Revma Mons Don Pietro Pace (Malta: Giovanni Muscat), 1890 see See Sciberras, Attivitajiet kateketiċi, 43. 36 Ibid, 44-45. 37 See the introduction to the Maltese translation: Dottrina Nisranija Ordnata mill-Papa Pio X għad-Djoċesi ta’ Ruma u min Mons P. Pace, Arċisqof Isqof għad-Djoċesi Tigħu ta Malta bl-Ittra Pastorali tal 11 t’April 1907 (Malta, 1907), 3. 38 See Anthony J. Borg, The Reform of the Council of Trent in Malta and Gozo (Malta: Il-Ħajja Printing Press, 1975), 57-58. 39 See La Diocesi: Bollettino Ufficiale Ecclesiastico di Malta, 4 (1918): 98. 40 See Sciberras, Attivitajiet kateketiċi, 51. 54 MELITA THEOLOGICA
We can in no way overlook one of the very first translation editions in the world of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by Monsignor Joseph Lupi, published in French in 1992, and in Maltese only a year later in 1993. Its editio typica in Latin was published only in 1997. A revised edition was published in 2014, under the editorship of Rev. Dr John Berry and Rev. Dr Hector M. Scerri.
Translations of the Bible Undoubtedly, the most significant body of translations into Maltese in the religious area is that of Bible translation: from the Latin of the Vulgate initially, from the original languages - Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - later on.
The Situation of Bible Translations in Malta Vatican Council II, in 1965, in its encouraging translations of the Bible into the vernacular languages, was not sowing on completely new soil in Malta. The first Chair of Scriptures was established in 1915, and the Rev. Michael Gonzi was its first holder, when he, some two years before, had offered to freely teach a two-year course on the Bible at the Royal University of Malta.41 Translations of the Bible had already been appearing since 1811! The Rev. Peter Paul Saydon had commenced his translation of the entire Bible from the original languages since 1929, and brought it to termination in 1959, six years prior to the promulgation of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum. The Malta Bible Society, founded in 1958, worked tirelessly to publish a revised edition of Saydon’s translation. The Rev. George Preca had, since 1907, already officially founded the Society of Christian Doctrine (MUSEUM). This Society was well- established on Scriptures that Rev. Preca had himself translated from the Latin Vulgate, whenever he did not make use of Ġużè Muscat Azzopardi’s translation.42
Initial Attempts at Translating the Bible into Maltese There were numerous translations of the New Testament from the Latin Vulgate - thus, a translation of a translation - by pioneers who were not at all prepared for the art of translating the Bible into Maltese.
41 See Minutes of Special Council of Theology, 1898-1919, ff.101-101; University of Malta Library, Archives and Rare Books Department, Ms 157, Session Number 9, held on Monday, 6 October 1913. See also ff.131-132 of Session Number 9, held on Thursday, 18 July 1916. 42 John Formosa, personal communication (Saturday, 4th April 2009; Saturday, 18th June 2011). The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 55
Back in 1811, Cleardo Naudi, Experimental Chemistry and Natural History professor at the University of Malta, translated the Gospel of John as part of the translation of the entire Bible for the Anglican Church Missionary Society. In 1832, Naudi also published Ktieb il-qari fuq bosta ħwejjeġ maħtura minn Kotba Kattoliċi, a translation of nine psalms in Maltese.43 This means that this science professor’s preparation and formation for translation work of the Bible was hardly adequate. When he translated the New Testament, he did not have the necessary expertise in languages so as to be able to do a translation from Greek into Maltese. Likewise, he did not have the necessary experience in Hebrew and Aramaic (and other languages) for translating the Old Testament into the vernacular. Later on, Naudi enrolled with him Giuseppe Cannolo, a knife-grinder by profession. In 1822 the latter translated Il Vangelo secondo Giovanni in lingua italiana e maltese. The manuscript of Dr Giuseppe Grima of theCorrezione della traduzione maltese by Cannolo is housed in the National Archives of Gozo and is catalogued as NAG/ZM/03/149.44 A few years later, in 1829, Mikiel Anton Vassalli published the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.45 Vassalli made use of an alphabet that was somewhat alien to that spoken and written in Malta. Vassalli, much more linguistically prepared, was to elbow out Cannolo in translations made for Protestant Churches in Malta. It must be repeated that Vassalli’s translation was not made from the original Greek but from the Latin Vulgate, a translation of another translation. In 1847, the aforementioned Michael Angelo Camilleri revised the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles by Vassalli, and published them as Il-Għaqda l-Ġdida ta’ Sidna Ġesù Kristu, under the auspices of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, at the printing press of R. Weiss, where Gabrijel Vassalli, son of Mikiel Anton, was managing director. Camilleri also published Ktieb it- Talb ta’ Għalenija in 1845, a translation of the prayer book used by Protestant Churches, whose last part contains forty Psalms of David. In 1844, another pioneer, Richard Taylor, from Cospicua, published Il- Passjoni tas-Sinjur Tagħna Ġesù Kristu, miktuba minn San Mattew, S. Mark,
43 See Sciberras, Mgr Prof. P.P. Saydon’s Version of 1 Thessalonians, 51-53. 44 This manuscript was thoroughly analysed by Nadine Said, in her dissertation for the Honours Bachelor Degree in Maltese in 2010, entitled Il-vanġelu ta’ San Ġwann tradott minn Dr Giuseppe Grima (c.1822-1829). 45 Quatuor Evangelia, et Actus Apostolorum, juxta Vulgatam, Romæ A.D. MDXCII editam: necnon eorundem versio melitensis (London: R.Watts, 1829). 56 MELITA THEOLOGICA
S. Luqa, S. Ġwann. Only two years later, he published Ktieb is-Salmi tas-Sultan David u l-Kantiċi. Strictly speaking that was not a translation inasmuch as it was a paraphrase of these psalms. In 1848 he published L-Uffizzju tal-Ġimgħa l-Kbira - Latin u Malti, a slightly revised edition of the first forty psalms in the Book of Common Prayer, together with some explicatory notes.46 Between 1895 and 1924, Ġużè Muscat Azzopardi translated the Four Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, accompanied by notes taken from the Italian Bishop Antonio Martini’s translation.47 Peter Paul Saydon himself praises the Maltese translation by Muscat Azzopardi as being of very high standards.48 Yet another Dominican Friar, Ġeraldu Marija Paris, translated the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Letter to the Romans and the Letters of John. He also translated the Letter of James.49 It is the current author’s opinion that as a renowned preacher and member of the Order of Preachers, Paris must have probably translated the Letter of James so as to serve – especially its second chapter – as a tool against those who, in Protestant Churches, held that salvation is acquired only by faith in Jesus Christ. From 1926 to 1932, Alphonse Maria Galea, the Rev. Peter Paul Grima and the Rev. Peter Paul Saydon translated the entire Bible from the Latin Vulgate into our language, except for the first five books, the Pentateuch. The latter were translated by Saydon from the original Hebrew. Saydon’s translation was based on the translation principle that the Maltese language can be used for scientific work, such as the translation of the Bible from the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.50 Prior to Saydon, only two other translators had attempted to translate small parts of the Bible from Hebrew. Michael Angelo Camilleri had translated forty psalms in the Book of Common Prayer (Ktieb it-Talb ta’ Għalenija) in 1845.
46 See Sciberras, Mgr Prof. P.P. Saydon’s Version of 1 Thessalonians, 56-57. 47 L-Imqaddes Evanġelju ta’ Ġesù Kristu kif kitbu San Mattew (Malta: Menu Busuttil, 1895); L-Evanġelju Mqaddes ta’ Ġesù Kristu miktub minn San Mattew (Malta: Andolfo & Magro, 1914); L-Evanġelju Mqaddes ta’ Ġesù Kristu miktub minn San Mark (Malta: Andolfo & Magro, 1915); L-Evanġelju Mqaddes ta’ Ġesù Kristu miktub minn San Luqa (Malta: Andolfo & Magro, 1916); L-Evanġelju Mqaddes ta’ Ġesù Kristu miktub minn San Ġwann (Malta: Andolfo & Magro, 1917); Ktieb tal-Atti tal-Appostli (Malta: Empire Press, 1924). 48 Peter Paul Saydon, “History of the Maltese Bible,” Melita Theologica 10 (1957): 12-13. 49 L-Erba’ Vanġeli ta’ Sidna Ġesù Kristu (Malta: Giovanni Muscat, 1963;1968); L-Atti ta’ l-Appostli (Malta: Giovanni Muscat, 1965); L-Ittra ta’ l-Appostlu San Pawl lill-Insara ta’ Ruma (Malta: Giovanni Muscat, 1967); L-Ittri ta’ San Ġwann l-Evanġelista (Malta: Giovanni Muscat, 1967); L-Ittra ta’ San Ġakbu (Malta: Giovanni Muscat, 1969). 50 Pietru Pawl Saydon, “The Maltese translation of the Bible,”Melita Theologica 16 (1965): 12. The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 57
Saydon himself has demonstrated that Camilleri had translated the psalms from the original Hebrew, and not from English.51 In 1924, the Rev. Carlo Cortis had translated the Book of Ruth from the original Hebrew into Maltese and Italian.52 The most significant failure in Cortis’ work was that he had used Maltese words homophonic to the Hebrew equivalents, but which turn out to be extremely bad translations of the original. For instance, in the Hebrew text of Ruth 1:9 we have the word qôlàn (‘their voice’); Cortis translated this to qawlhom, since qôl is homophonic to the Maltese qawl. However, the meaning of “qawl” differs from that of “qôl.” In Ruth 2:14, Boaz exhorts his future wife, Ruth, who had been gleaning ears of grain behind Boaz’s reapers, not to hold back from drinking from his reapers’ water jars, and to eat of their parched grain. In the original Hebrew, the word for parched grain is qalì, homophonic to the Maltese word “qali,” which refers to fried food. In translating qalì for “qali” Cortis thus changed the meaning of the original parched grain to fried food. Monsignor Professor Karm Sant, student and close friend of Saydon, and who succeeded him at the Chair of Scriptures at the Royal University, in an interview by Professor Ġużè Aquilina,53 states that translating the Bible into Maltese up to the times of Saydon did not make much sense, since the literacy standards in Malta were abysmal. Up to 1822, less than 10% of the population knew how to read, and the Bible was read in Italian or in Latin by those who had had some kind of schooling. By the end of the nineteenth century, the standard rose to 23%; Saydon began his translation some time later, in 1929. Saydon’s translation had been brought to termination in 1959. It was the only translation that was complete and that had been translated from the original language. The more serious hurdle with this translation cropped up when, following the liturgical reform that Vatican II had promulgation, it was chosen to be used for public reading in the liturgy. However, Saydon had prepared a translation that was “literary and literal.”54
51 Saydon, “The Earliest Biblical Translation from Hebrew into Maltese,”The Sundial 10-12 (1937): 526-536. 52 Il Libro di Ruth trascritto e tradotto dall’Ebraico con note (Malta: Giovanni Muscat, 1924). 53 Meeting People, Part I & II, Sunday Times of Malta (10 and 17 November): 20.19. 54 Saydon’s definition of a good translation is one that is literal and literary: literal, that is, a word-for-word rendering; literary, that is, pleasing just as any other literary work; confer Qlib il- Kotba Mqaddsa bil-Malti, a lecture delivered at the University Theatre on 2 May 1943 and published in Leħen il-Malti 15/170-172 (1945): 37-44. 58 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Let us now consider what is needed to translate it [the Bible text] after one has understood it. Firstly, a translation is, or should be, a literary work, and thus should abide by the rules of literary writing. A good translation should be literal and literary. A literal translation is a word-for-word rendering; literary, means that it should be made so as to please [the readers] just like any other literary work. It is in the intermingling of these two qualities together that the merit of a translation lies, and at the same time the greatest obstacle that the translator encounters. One either sticks too strictly to the Hebrew word, become enslaved to it and thus would not be well understood, or else, in order to clothe the Maltese word in attractive garb, one distances himself too much from the Hebrew word. It is in the middle road that the art of translation lies, but to steer this course consistently, without straying even a little, is not an easy task.55 However, this meant that the audience, during the actual reading, had to tarry for a moment to work out what a substantial amount of words meant. But if one had to do so, the reader would be already singing the acclamatory Alleluia before the Gospel! It would suffice to say that Saydon himself, after translating the five books of the Pentateuch, published a short dictionary containing two hundred and twenty-two difficult words that one would come across therein.56 Furthermore, Saydon’s syntax followed the Verb-Subject-Object order of constituents (and this exclusively in his translation works57), whereas spoken Maltese follows primarily the syntactical structure of Subject-Verb-Object.58 The Society for Christian Doctrine (MUSEUM) published a three-volume edition of Saydon’s translation, know as Bibbja Saydon, revised and edited by the
55 “Issa naraw x’jaħtieġ biex wara li tkun fhimtu taqilbu għall-Malti. L-ewwelnett traduzzjoni hi, jew għandha tkun, xogħol letterarju, u għalhekk għandha toqgħod għal-liġijiet tal-kitba letterarja. Traduzzjoni tajba għandha tkun letterali u letterarja. Letterali, jiġifieri magħmula kelma b’kelma; letterarja, jiġifieri magħmula b’mod li togħġob bħalma togħġob kitba oħra letterarja. L-għaqda ta’ dawn iż-żewġ kwalitajiet hija l-akbar mertu li jista’ jkollha traduzzjoni, u fl-istess ħin l-aqwa tfixkil li jiltaqa’ miegħu kull traduttur. Għax jew toqgħod iżżejjed għall- kelma lhudija, titjassar lejha u ma tiftihemx sewwa jew biex tagħti libsa sabiħa lill-kelma Maltija titbiegħed iż-żejjed mill-kelma Lhudija. Fit-triq tan-nofs qiegħda s-sengħa, imma li timxi dejjem dritt fin-nofs bla ma tgħawweġ xi ftit mhix ħaġa ħafifa”,Qlib il-Kotba Mqaddsa, 41. 56 Tifsir il-Kliem fil-Kotba Ġenesi, Eżodu, Levîtiku, Nûmri, Dewteronomju (Malta: The Empire Press, 1931). 57 Besides the Bible, Saydon has three other translation works: ‘Is-Seba’ Reqdin’, translated by P. Cheiko (Louis Sheekho), Magâni ’l âdab, vol. II, 236-247, Il-Malti 6 (1930): 69-75; ‘It- tieni safra ta’ Sandabad il-Baħri’, from Kitāb ’alf layla wa-layla, Il-Malti 10 (1934): 134-136; ‘Is-sehwien’, Leħen il-Malti 3/28 (1933): 60, where he uses the same syntactical structures. 58 For a thorough study of this problem, see Anthony Abela’s dissertation for the Master’s Degree in linguistics, carried out at Reading University, United Kingdom, and published as “Word Order in the Clauses of the Narrative Sections in P.P. Saydon’s Bible Translation in Maltese,” Melita Theologica 53/1 (2002): 3-26; and 53/2 (2002): 107-131. The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 59
Rev. Karm Attard.59 In this edition, however, the orthography and some aspects of Saydon’s translation were altered.60 When it was evident that a substantial amount of words had to be changed - and Saydon would not have given his consent - a group of scholars, led by Monsignor Joseph Lupi, began hastily translating the biblical texts that were needed for the liturgy into more spoken Maltese.61 Once this body of texts was brought to an end, the Malta Bible Society, under the stewardship of Monsignor Professor Karm Sant, began a fresh translation of the entire Bible from the original languages into spoken Maltese, a one-volume work that was published in 1984. Up to the present day, four editions have been published: in 1984, 1996, 2004, and in 2011, with the last three having Rev. Dr Anthony Abela as editor. The latter scholar founded the Commission for the Revision of the Bible, with the aim of an ongoing process of editing and updating in mind. At the end of this article mention must be made of two other translations that have a very particular character and that are deeply treasured by the present author: the first is the Bible in Maltese in Braille in 2005, with the thorough editing work of Charles Borg, from the National Commission for Persons with Disability and the current author. The second initiative is the Research Project on Maltese Sign Language at the University of Malta, with the collaborative work by Professor Marie Alexander and Maria Galea from the Department of Linguistics, and the present author from the Department of Scriptures of the Faculty of Theology. The birth of Jesus stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were translated into Maltese Sign Language, a project that began in April 2008 and was inaugurated in DVD format in December 2009.
59 Bibbja Saydon, It-Testment il-Qadim, I, Il-Kotba Storiċi (Malta: Edizzjoni Societas Doctrinæ Christianæ [M.U.S.E.U.M.], 1982); Bibbja Saydon, It-Testment il-Qadim, II, Il-Kotba tal-Għerf u l-Kotba tal-Profeti (Malta: Edizzjoni Societas Doctrinæ Christianæ [M.U.S.E.U.M.], 1982); Bibbja Saydon, It-Testment il-Ġdid, III (Malta: Edizzjoni Societas Doctrinæ Christianæ [M.U.S.E.U.M.], 1977). 60 In the Preface (“Kelmtejn qabel”) to Bibbja Saydon, It-Testment il-Ġdid, III, the Commission that prepared the revised edition for publication states that the orthography rules by the Akkademja tal-Malti have been followed. In cases where Saydon’s version followed different views, the Commission still followed the Akkademja. “Għal dik li hi ortografija żammejna r-reguli ta’ l-Akkademja tal-Malti (Għaqda tal-Kittieba tal-Malti) li llum, nistgħu ngħidu, huma milqugħa minn kulħadd. Billi ltqajna ma’ xi kliem li dwarhom Saydon kien jaħsibha xort’oħra, u hu kellu r-raġunijiet tiegħu, aħna min-naħa tagħna rajna li jkun aħjar li nżommu l-ortografija ta’ l-Akkademja.” 61 The group was made up of Fr Joseph Agius OP, Valent Barbara, Fr Egidio Mizzi OFMConv., Monsignor Professor Karm Sant, and Fr Donat Spiteri OFMCap. 60 MELITA THEOLOGICA
To complete this overview, one must also mention the large amount of church documents that were translated into Maltese by Monsignor Joseph Lupi and published in the Bullettin tal-Arċidjoċesi, the Archdiocese of Malta’s official publication. A very substantial work of translating church documents, encyclical letters, speeches and homilies by the Pope is being carried by the Secretariat for the Laity of the Archdiocese of Malta and published online on www.laikos.org. It is the fervent wish of the present author to see research into the translations of the hymns sung by Maltese believers in churches and during religious meetingswhich were translated from other languages into Maltese. A question is here in place: would this work be a testimony that we can indeed have a theology and religious discourse in Maltese, in an established language in this area? All these translation endeavours should also be considered as a source of Maltese theology and spirituality.
Conclusion Translating religious texts into Maltese, as is the case in many other types of translation, has the aim to transform the readers - and listeners, at that - into more participative agents. The obstacle that unknown languages, such as Latin, Hebrew, Greek, and even Italian or English for some chunks of the Maltese population in different times, of the original texts present to the readers/listeners barred them from more active participation. Furthermore, translations opened up possibilities for more adaptations of the original liturgical, catechetical and biblical texts to the local milieu. Translations provided more immediacy of the original texts to the readers/listeners. As Manicaro has very aptly written: “The “monologue” character of the liturgy [and I add the catechism and the Bible] was slowly replaced by a meaningful dialogue and the altar came closer to the congregation. The books which were once the priest’s prerogative were now given to the people of God.”62 However, although “Knowledge of the Scriptures and the liturgy [together with the catechism] increased as a result... the faithful’s lack of biblical and liturgical formation was also revealed.”63 Religious translations in Malta - as abundant as this short and selective overview has revealed – have served the providential and positive aim of deepening the largely Catholic population’s religious knowledge and faith, but also its linguistic baggage.
62 Manicaro, Liturgical Renewal, 88. 63 Ibid. The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 61
In the particular area of Bible translations, the pioneers - mainly Mgr Prof. Saydon and the Malta Bible Society equipe - have contributed widely to the linguistic area as well. The single-handed monumental translation of the Bible from the original languages into a language that was still in its formative stage as a literary language served as a landmark in the history of Maltese literature and linguistic studies. This notwithstanding, this overview has shown that a formal translation such as Saydon’s was not adequate enough for contemporary Christians as regards Bible study, in its liturgical and public use, as well as its spiritual purposes. Furthermore, the translation lessons and criteria resulting from the analysis of the translation of the Bible from the original languages into Maltese have provided us with clearer principles in the ongoing process of Bible translation. Translation in general is not simply a matter of finding equivalent words in two languages. It is the complex endeavour of transporting material from one world of thought and language to another. The three main areas of religious translations that have been analysed have shown that an acceptable translation is produced only when an excellent background of the source language is mastered by the translator. At the same time, the translator must have complete control over the resources of the language into which they are translating. The art of translation consists of re-creating in a new linguistic form and context the contents expressed in the source language.64 The ideal translator is thus the one who is completely bilingual in source and receptor languages, and should translate into one’s mother tongue. The religious translations mentioned in this article reflect the two chief characteristics that distinguish a translation of merit, namely, its accuracy and faithfulness to the original, and its merits as a literary work of art. The mainly formal translations in the three different areas of religious literature explored are both literal - a true reflection of the original - and literary. They preserve the two characteristics in a balanced manner; while not adhering slavishly to the original text, thus being defective, if not unintelligible, they do not carelessly steer away from the original. The translations attempt to reproduce as faithfully as possible the original content of the Latin, Italian, English, Hebrew and Greek source texts into the mainly Maltese receptor language, and at the same time try to retain the literary artistry in a new form. Three principal aims were achieved in these religious translations: providing a translation of the religious texts for the Maltese people; giving a high standing to
64 See Sciberras, Mgr Prof. P.P. Saydon’s Version of 1 Thessalonians, 110. 62 MELITA THEOLOGICA the Maltese language by means of these translations; and making religious literature available for the service of the Maltese people within the Catholic Church along the years. The balance struck between the formal translations and the literary standard achieved by the translators makes these translations worthy of praise. The history of religious translation works in Malta can never do without giving due mention of the aims that they were set to achieve, mainly to enhance the religious, catechetical, biblical and even linguistic formation of the readers, from whatever walks of life they came, of whatever age, lay people or even members of the clergy. No translation is perfect; every translation is limited. On the other hand, translation is a must. On the strength of liturgical use, even though from Romance roots, specific meanings in the religious jargon have been created. Thus, a specific lexical legacy is built within the specific religious framework. This objective should not be abandoned by any new translation, which tries to maintain as far as possible this specific religious terminology (like “Verb” instead of “Kelma,” “Paraklitu” [Paraclete, Consoler], “Spirtu s-Santu” [Holy Spirit] instead of “Ruħ il-Qodos,” “fidil” [faithful] instead of “emin”...), correcting only where the interpretation of the words is not acceptable or the words do not carry specific theological value.65 One cannot do away with the fact that embarking on a translation project of the Bible inevitably means that one has to come to terms with the Bible translation par excellence of the Western World. This is not to make ambitious improvident dreams of comparisons, but because every translation dutifully places itself in the context of faith and culture that the Vulgate has generated. Therefore, it was not relevant to present the readers with an equal number of words as in the original, but rather to offer to them their meaningful value. It is not therefore a matter of rendering oneself independent of the original text, but on the contrary, putting oneself at its service, with the aim of favouring the maximum communicability of its meaning. In translating, one has to avoid the temptation of strict literalism because of the conviction that translating is reproducing the sense according to the forms peculiar or proper to the language that one uses. Bible translations should seek to offer a surer text as regards the original texts, more coherent in its internal dynamics, more communicative as far as the contemporary culture is concerned, and more suitable to proclamation in liturgical contexts. An effort is to be made to obtain a major adherence to the tone and style of the original languages, orienting oneself towards a more literal translation, without compromising the intelligibility of the text as from
65 See ibid., 116-117. The Tradition of Religious Translations in Malta - Paul Sciberras 63 the moment of reading and listening. Care is given to the rhythm of the phrases so as to render the text correspondent to the demands of liturgical proclamation, especially where poetic texts are to be put to music and chant. It is unthinkable to present to the people of God a psalter, for example, that cannot be sung. A Bible translation should propose itself as a suitably stable point of reference for liturgical, catechetical and spiritual use, so as to enhance the growth of the Christian religious language. The biblical text reflects a cultural world that is different from ours, that in some way should be made to transpire in translation. It is up to exegesis and preaching to know how to grasp the cultural, theological and spiritual meanings in that language that in turn should be put in confrontation with contemporary sensibility. Particular care should be shown in rendering the text in a good modern language, with modalities of expressions of immediate and communicative comprehension in relation to the contemporary cultural context, avoiding archaic and obsolete forms of lexicon and syntax. On the contrary, if one looks for “the perfect translation,” some sort of blueprint of the original, one ends up sacrificing the flow and comprehensibility of the translation and the “readability” of the text. In the efforts made to hold to this criterion, translators and revisers are always constrained to sacrifice something in translation: either faithfulness to the text or clarity of style. With regard to the literary aspect of translation, one could say that religious books are not only a receptacle of religious thoughts but a true literature in their own right, that entrusts the potentiality of their message even to the aesthetic appreciation that they can provoke in the readers/listeners. Saydon’s statement in his biographical article Kif tgħallimt il-Malti is so relevant in this case: “The author had in mind not only to teach but also to please.”66
Paul Sciberras Department of Sacred Scripture, Hebrew and Greek Faculty of Theology University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 Malta [email protected]
66 “[I]l-kittieb kellu f ’moħħu mhux biss li jgħallem imma wkoll li jogħġob”: “Kif tgħallimt il- Malti,” in Ward ta’ qari Malti, iii, ed. Peter Paul Saydon and Joseph Aquilina (Malta; 1940), 3; 255. MELITA THEOLOGICA Nicholas Joseph Doublet* Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 65-77
Benedict XV: A Historiographical Reading (Part 1)
man whose voice was greatly ignored during his own lifetime, Benedict XV A(1914-1922) seemed to be destined to suffer the same fate even after death. For decades historiography left this pope undisturbed, forgotten in that silence with which death wraps up the fate of most men. Destined to become, with the exception of John Paul I’s short pontificate, the most forgotten pontificate of the twentieth century, few attempts have been made to study this man, his action and legacy, so much so that it has become symptomatic to describe him as the unrecognized,1 indeed the unknown,2 pope. Historiography has even shied away from studying in depth the reasons for such forgetfulness.3 The fact that this relatively short pontificate, only seven years and five months long, was largely marked by the Great War and its aftermath, ending exactly when the rampant nationalistic sentiments so forcefully denounced by Benedict XV were taking over Europe, certainly hindered a positive evaluation of this personality. Just nine months after his death, in Italy, theMarcia su Roma on 28th October 1922, secured power to the Fascists. The emergence of the totalitarian systems is the
* Nicholas Joseph Doublet (1983) is a visiting lecturer in Church History at the Faculty of Theology, and also lectures in Palaeography and Diplomatics in the Department of Library information and Archive Sciences, at the University of Malta. He is the director of Diocesan Archives of the Archdiocese of Malta. He obtained a Doctorate in Church History at the Pontifical Gregorian University and a Licentiate in Sacred Theology from the University of Malta. His main research interest is in Vatican diplomacy in the contemporary period. 1 See Fernand Hayward, Un Pape Méconnu. Benoît XV (Tournai-Paris: Casterman, 1955). 2 See John F. Pollard, The Unknown Pope. Benedict X (1914-1922) and the Pursuit of Peace (London-New York: Geoffrey Chapman, 1999). 3 See Giovanni Battista Varnier, “Benedetto XV e i problemi della società contemporanea,” in Letterio Mauro ed., Benedetto XV. Profeta di Pace in un mondo in crisi (Bologna: Minerva Edizioni 2008), 327.
65 66 MELITA THEOLOGICA main reason for the total neglect in which the legacy of this pope of peace was to remain wrapped. Indeed, he had raised his voice against the very path which Europe had embarked on: a path marked by an unjust peace, which would only lead to a repetition of that “inutile strage”4 – the tragedy of another World War. Naturally, every pontificate is determined by the particular historical context in which it develops. It also, in part, depends on a combination of factors, such as the personality, the forma mentis and the background of the reigning pontiff, who seeks to set the general tone, the agenda, the priorities, the manner of action of the Holy See. Therefore, a historiographical study of the pontificate is a necessary starting point, to understand what aspects (events, particular actions, or even relationships) have captured the attention of historians. Comprehending these points of emphasis will help us discover what aspects have been ignored in the study of this pontificate as the priorities set by the historiography of the period, inadvertently betrays its neglects. It is necessary to comprehend both aspects to determine the inner-workings of ecclesiastical government at its highest echelons to reveal the ecclesial vision advanced by the pontificate of Benedict XV. The studies produced so far on this pontiff will be considered in a chronological order, developing from the limited evaluations produced by his contemporaries in the period following his death, to the first steps taken towards a rediscovery of this greatly neglected pontificate after the Second World War. A second part will consider the increase in interest showed in this pontificate, coupled with a certain diversification of themes, following the opening of the Vatican Archives in 1985. A third and final part will then consider the studies produced in the last decade, with the exception of the most recent ones currently being published to mark the first centenary from the First World War. This present work tries to highlight the revelations, contributions, emphasis, continuity, as well as dependencies exposed by the authors who have studied this pontificate. The studies considered amount to 71 works, and will be divided in the following manner:
4 Benedict XV, Peace note, 1 August 1917: see Segreteria di Stato, Sezione per i Rapporti con gli Stati, Archivio Storico (d’ora in poi S.RR.SS.), Congregazione degli Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari (d’ora in poi AA.EE.SS.), Stati Ecclesiastici III, Guerra Europea, 1914-1918, Pos. 216, fasc. 9-11, Iniziative Pontificie per la pace. Nota del 1/VIII/1917, III, fasc. 11, Inserto 2, ff. 268r. 271r., 1 Agosto 1917: Proposta di trattativa di Pace della S. Sede. Nota definitiva:Ai Capi dei popoli belligeranti; ff. 273r.-275r.: Nota in latino:‘Moderatoribus Populorum Belligerantium’. Benedict XV: A Historiographical Reading - Nicholas Joseph Doublet 67
Periodization No. of Authors Period 1 After his death 15 Period 2 Rediscovery post-Second World War 21 Period 3 After the opening of the Vatican Archives 23 Period 4 In the last decade 12 The studies considered were published in Italian, French, English, German and Dutch, and can be so divided: Language Number of publications considered Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Italian 7 7 8 8 French 5 1 1 1 German 2 1 English 1 2 Dutch 1 It is important to note that this present study in no way attempts to be exhaustive in its survey of works published and which relate in some way to this pontificate, but limits itself largely, but not exclusively, simply to works deemed significant in understanding the diplomatic relationship between the Holy See and key States on the international plane in the period.
Timid Steps towards a Rediscovery Somehow in death, as indeed during his lifetime, Giacomo della Chiesa was always to find himself on the wrong side of history. His relative obscurity before ascending to the papal throne may be due to various factors. Although, some held it to be due to the charge of modernism, this is unlikely, as shown by the esteem that Pius X himself showed towards him, not only in choosing to consecrate him bishop himself, but also in entrusting to his care what was deemed at the time, a pastorally sensitive see, such as that of Bologna.5 In all probability the move to Bologna was in itself the means to remove him from Rome, after becoming an obstacle to intransigents such as Merry del Val. In effect, this opened for him his ascension to the papacy.
5 See Danilo Veneruso, “La contrastata ascesa di Giacomo della Chiesa verso il pontificato,” in Letterio Mauro (ed.), Benedetto XV. Profeta di Pace in un mondo in crisi (Bologna: Minerva Edizioni, 2008), 349-350; Danilo Veneruso (1932- ) was a professor of contemporary history at the faculty of political sciences at the University of Genova. 68 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Some authors fully involved in the Catholic movement, such as Guglielmo Quadrotta,6 previously secretary to Don Romolo Murri, had published a documented defence of the Holy See’s actions during the war even before Benedict XV’s death. In a period when sentiments flew high, this work evolves within the wider context of the just war tradition, as the author seeks to explain the neutrality maintained by the Holy See during the war. In contrast to Pius X, he describes Benedict XV as a political pope who returns to the politics of Leo XIII, a dialectic: an assessment that would become a topos in the whole tradition. In so doing, the author holds that Benedict XV called upon the cooperation of that wing of Italian Social-Catholicism previously alienated by the anti-modernist movement within the Roman Curia. Quadrotta uses the relationship between Great Britain and the Holy See to show Italian Catholics how necessary it was for their government, in the prevailing circumstances, to resolve its relationship with the Holy See, considering the moral prestige that the latter had now acquired on the international plane similarly to what Cantalupo later does in using the French case. The essay of Roberto Cantalupo,Francia e Vaticano, published immediately after Benedict XV’s death and the election of his successor, must be regarded as polemical and imbued by a spirit of blinding nationalism. It interpreted the reconciliation between France and the Holy See as a purely diplomatic exercise, which France had pursued solely for political purposes, and to which the Vatican had bent only to increase its prestige on the international plane with no spiritual fruit to the faithful. The work serves to shed light on the reaction of Italian public opinion on seeing the arrival of Jonnart, the first French ambassador, after the
6 See Guglielmo Quadrotta, La Chiesa Cattolica nella crisi universale. Con particolare riguardo ai rapporti fra Chiesa e Stato in Italia (Roma: Casa Editrice “Bilychnis”, 1921), 74. The author describes Benedict XV as “Il papa politico, forte del consenso della massa cattolica italiana, con l’ausilio della stampa, si accingeva alla sua opera intesa a ricondurre il Papato nel concerto delle Potenze mondiali”. He publishes in appendix an important series of documents including the responses to a questionnaire carried out by the author in 1916 among eminent members of the Italian public, most importantly numerous members of parlament, as to whether or not, in the context of Legge delle Guarentigie, the roman pontiff was to be invited to participate in a future peace congress, other documents relating to the Holy See’s peace efforts during the war, and documents pertaining to the relationship between the Holy See and Italy (notably the Italian Episcopate) during the war. Guglielmo Quadrotta (1888-1975) was an italian journalist. He was also active in Catholic Action and founded the Associazione degli uomini cattolici, which would be the basis for the foundation in 1945 of Democrazia Cristiana. Benedict XV: A Historiographical Reading - Nicholas Joseph Doublet 69 reconciliation to convince the Italian nation of the inevitability of embarking on a similar road as that opened up by Benedict XV’s politics towards France.7 On the occasion of the unveiling of the monument to Benedict XV in Saint Peter’s Basilica in 1928, Francesco Vistalli published an extensive biography of Benedict XV,8 commissioned by the same cardinals responsible for the erection of the monument. Although, as La Civiltà Cattolica9 commented, it was still too early to publish a definitive biography, it serves us well to take this well- documented work as our starting point for considering the historiographical tradition surrounding him. It presents a rich collection of materials: information, documents, testimonies, as well as citations from the acts, letters, and speeches of Benedict XV, which could serve as an important treasury for future historians. In 1935, in the biographical entry on Benedict XV by E. de Moreau in the Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques,10 the author gave precedence to his ecclesial action, avoiding the political, as he rightly considered it too early to pass a definitive judgement on the pope’s action during the war. The entry most usefully concludes with a list of works published in the decade or so following Benedict XV’s death. Despite the author’s cautionary approach, the list betrays a strong preference for works on Benedict XV’s action as regards the war, witness to an apologetic battle, as authors from the victorious and the defeated sides sought to justify their respective positions. Other biographical works of a general nature were also published in different languages in this period, among which we can cite the following: in the Italian language, a biography by R. Degli Occhi, as well as memoirs published by
7 See Roberto Cantalupo, La Conciliazione Franco-Vaticana. Con una appendice sui rapporti fra l’Italia e il Vaticano (Roma: Società Editrice Politica, 1922); Roberto Cantalupo (1891- 1975) was an Italian politician and member of the Fascist National Party. He also served as the Italian ambassador to Egypt, Brasil and Spain. After the Second World War, he again served as a member of parliament on the liberal ticket. 8 See Francesco Vistalli, Benedetto XV, con la prefazione del cardinale Alfonso M. Mistrangelo Arcivescovo di Firenze (Roma: Tipografia Vaticana, 1928): Francesco Vistalli was a catholic priest and historian, provost of Chiuduno (Bergamo). 9 See “In memoria di Benedetto XV,” in La Civiltà Cattolica IV (1928) 440: In its review, praises the work of this pious priest capturing the laudative and panagerical nature that necessarily imprints such publications. Quoting Mistrangelo, it lauds Vistalli for presenting “Benedetto XV nelle sue complessa nobilissima figura storica, convinta di fare e all’età nostra, che ha ammirato, venerato ed amato, da un capo all’altro del mondo, il Papa della Giustizia e della Carità, cosa graditissima, e alle età venture, opera preziosa di luce, a rischiarare una figura del più imponenti e grandiosi, che abbiamo sfolgorato sul Soglio di Pietro”. 10 See E. de Moreau, “Benoit XV,” in Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané, 1935), 167-172. 70 MELITA THEOLOGICA
G. Semeria in which the patriotic spirit is overwhelming, as he presents the four Popes “venuti tutti dopo la tragedia del ‘70, hanno variamente spianato le vie e collaborato [per la Conciliazione]”;11 those by G. Goyau and A. Battandier in French; that of J.P. Kirsch in German and the one by J. Corver in Dutch. More specialized studies published during his lifetime are those in French by Y. de La Brière and by H. Cousin, specifically on the temporal power of the popes and the unresolved Roman Question, as well as in German by Ehrle on this same issue12. Ten years after his death, Benedict XV’s journalist and friend, Filippo Crispolti, published his personal memories of four pontiffs, a popular genre in this period, the final part of which is dedicated to Benedict XV. Although, the account contains interesting details, it is of an apologetic nature and highly lauds the pontiff. When it comes to Italian concerns, it is also imbued with the patriotic spirit of the age. At home in the curial environment, the author identifies the similarities as well as the differences between Rampolla and his secretary and disciple “nel quale ‘si preannunziava un nuovo Consalvi’”.13 Needless to say, this work was not meant to be historical in nature as it presumes to narrate nothing more than memories with a few reflections about them.14
11 Giovanni Semeria, I miei quattro papi, Milano, 1932, 9; Giovanni Semeria (1867-1931) was a barnabite priest, orator and writer, one of the most prestigious figures of Italian Catholicism in the first half of the twentieth century. 12 See Luigi Degli Occhi, Benedetto XV, (Milan, 1921); Semeria, I miei quattro papi, Milano, 1932; J. Corver, Benedict XV (Bergen-op-Zoom [1922]); J.P. Kirsch, “Benedikt XV,” in J. Kardinal Hergenröthers ed., Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte. Sonderdruck der Nachträge (Fribourg-en-Br., 1925), 75-89; A. Battandier, “Benoît XV,” in Annuaire pontifical catholique (Paris, 1923), 33-64; G. Goyau, Papauté et chrétienté sous Benoît XV, Paris, 1922; Y. de La Brière, “Le pape Benoît XV,” in Études cxl (1914) 452-471; Fr. Ehrle, “Von Pius X zu Benedikt XV,” in Stimmen der Zeit LXXXVIII (1915) 201-219; Henri Cousin, Le temporel des papes et la question romaine (Besançon: H. Daragon, 1922); Fr. Ehrle, “Benedikt XV und die Lösung der römischen Frage,” in Stimmen der Zeit XCII (1917): 505-535. 13 Filippo Crispolti, Pio IX, Leone XIII, Pio X, Benedetto XV. Ricordi personali (Milano-Roma: Edizioni fratelli Treves, 1932), 148; see F. Crispolti, “Nel decennio della morte di Benedetto XV,” Nuova Antologia CCCLIX (gennaio-febbraio 1932): 35-57; Filippo Crispolti (1857- 1942) was an Italian journalist, writer and politician. Of an aristocratic family, he came to be associated with the moderate wing of the lay catholic movement. As a journalist he collaborated in L’Osservatore Romano and later in the bolognese Catholic daily L’Avvenire. See also Giovanni Crispolti, “L’epistolario Semeria-Crispolti”, Barnabiti Studi 27 (2010): 289-310. 14 See F. Crispolti, Pio IX, Leone XIII, Pio X, Benedetto XV, 158: The author comparing the more open Benedict XV (cites the Latapie incident) to the reserved Rampolla (“ministro dei più ‘abbottonati’”) has the following somewhat revealing words to say: “Il quale [Benedetto XV], per compenso, sia pur profittando della maggior libertà di movimento che gli dava l’alto seggio, superò il maestro nella ricchezza e nella risolutezza delle iniziative pratiche, nelle Benedict XV: A Historiographical Reading - Nicholas Joseph Doublet 71
Giambattista Migliori’s biography must be included in this same genre. Although it preserves a certain originality, it is written in a popular style in keeping with the needs of the general audience to whom it was addressed, due to the author’s journalistic experience. Yet it makes no particular effort to avoid a strongly apologetic and often panagyrical style prevalent in such publications. The work gives preference to Benedict XV’s image as a pastor, contrary to those who held the pontiff as none other than a diplomat and a political pope, although the author does not ignore these aspects either. A certain patriotic tone also stands out in line with the general political climate of the time.15 Following the Second World War, a first serious step towards a rediscovery of Benedict XV was undertaken by Fernand Hayward. His biography entitled Un Pape méconnu, Benoît XV16 revisits, in broad strokes, the life of this pontiff, caught in the height of the storm of a raging war and widespread incomprehension, a situation which seemed to justify the prophecy of the oft quoted Irish monk Malachi, “Religio depopulata”. But unfortunately, Hayward’s work falls short of that scientific rigour one would expect from such a publication. Nevertheless, he is to be given due credit for signalling out the principal themes: war and peace, canon law, the emergence of the Italian Catholic political movement, Catholic Action, openness towards the East, the concern for Catholic missions, and that solicitude for all nations born out of the pontiff ’s vocation as universal pastor, as well as his humanitarian concerns, thus carving out a clear agenda to which historiography would keep returning time and again. Also worthy of note is the well-researched work by Walter Peters, The life of Benedict XV, although inevitably
quali, occorrendo, era pronto a rompere la tradizionale lentezza romana. In lui l’escogitare, il deliberare, l’eseguire erano una cosa sola, e l’uomo d’azione, ossia in certo senso l’uomo di Stato, prevalse sempre al diplomatico vero e proprio, mentre tale era rimasto Rampolla. Il quale gli fu simile invece - ossia gli fece scuola avesse avuto bisogno il Della Chiesa - nella pietà religiosa dominante la politica, nella dedizione assoluta agli interessi della Santa Sede, nel sacrifizio intero di ogni gloria propria quando ci fosse un dovere da compiere; quando a questo titolo bisognasse affrontare interpretazioni fallaci dei propri intendimenti ed avversioni almeno temporanee contro i propri atti”; 154: In a letter, dated 18 December 1913, which Benedict XV wrote to Crispolti thanking him for the condolences expressed at the death of his master, Benedict XV expresses these revealing words “forse nessuno ha avuto col compianto Cardinale una sì lunga dimestichezza come l’ha avuto io, nessuno è stato da lui prediletto come lo sono stato io”. 15 See Giambattista Migliori, Benedetto XV (Milano: La Favilla, 1932). The popularity enjoyed by this biography is evidenced by the fact that it was re-published as late as 1955. 16 See Hayward, Un Pape méconnu. Benoît XV. 72 MELITA THEOLOGICA limited by the author’s unfamiliarity with the European context, especially the complex Italian political theatre in which this pope operated.17 A true milestone is constituted by the conference held at Spoleto in 1962. Given its success it seemed that the rediscovery of Benedict XV was assured. However, it was to remain an isolated voice and the legacy of this pontificate quickly receded back into relative obscurity. Spoleto brought together historians from every historiographical current, and the wide array of contributions was published the following year in a volume entitled Benedetto XV, i Cattolici e la Prima Guerra Mondiale,18 which deserves credit not only for truly opening up the debate on themes that will remain a constant in the reflection on this pontificate, but also for the vividness of the debate which the volume transmits in its integrity. But once again, the historical context worked against Benedict XV; the timing proved unfortunate, as in the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, the world divided in two blocks. What Benedict XV stood for, his true legacy, was once again deemed contrary to the spirit of the age. At a distance of nearly half a century from the Great War, the conference represented an attempt, especially by Catholic historians to truly enter into the thick of the historiographical battle ground over sensitive matters, such as the war in itself, the misunderstood politics of peace advanced by Benedict XV, and the emergence of Catholic autonomy in Italian politics. The contributions manifest the contrast between the “Catholic universalism” of Benedict XV and widespread nationalism, between the clear denunciation of the “inutile strage” and the clerical attempts, evident in the episcopal pastoral letters of the time, to justify war. In attempting a history from below, there is an effort to widen the dialogue beyond the clear-cut assumptions of “bellicisti vs. pacifisti”, towards a true understanding of that struggle within the Catholic conscience when confronted by the war. The political, spiritual and theological originality of Benedict XV’s denunciations of the just war tradition also emerges as the pontiff steers away from widely held justifications such as that of a ‘quasi-holy war’ advancing the cause of religion, or the suggestion that war serves to bring about the purification of a morally corrupt society.19 The contributions start by considering the general context, as Mario Bendiscioli’s La Santa Sede e la guerra, in which he remarks on that
17 See Walter H. Peters, The life of Benedict XV (Milwaukee, 1959); see Pollard, The Unknown Pope, xiv. 18 See Giuseppe Rossini ed., Benedetto XV, i Cattolici e la Prima Guerra Mondiale. Atti del Convegno di Studio tenuto a Spoleto nei giorni 7-8-9 settembre 1962 (Roma: Edizioni 5 Lune, 1963). 19 See Rossini, “Prefazione,” in Benedetto XV, i Cattolici e la Prima Guerra Mondiale, v-xi. Benedict XV: A Historiographical Reading - Nicholas Joseph Doublet 73 historiographical operation in which history once again takes the role of tribunal, an exercise which brings the reserve of the Holy See in sharp contrast to the documents made available by the various nations in their attempts to impute culpability to their opponents. Pietro Scoppola returns to a consider the Italian Catholic conscience faced by war, as he explores the struggle between neutralists and interventionists, through whose pangs the Italian catholic movement fully entered the political arena;20 Heinrich Lutz confronts what was still considered an uncomfortable heritage, that is the German catholic response to the war and its consequences.21 Friedrich Engel-Janosi22 departs from the positive attitude expressed by Austrian diplomacy to the election of Benedict XV, to move to Austria’s response to the papal initiatives, concluding his entry with the pontiff ’s concerns for the dire straits Austria was reduced to after the war. The second part of this volume presents a wealth of contributions, ranging from Angelo Martini’s landmark study of La nota di Benedetto XV alle potenze belligeranti nell’agosto 1917,23 to Rodolfo Mosca’s assessment of Article 15 of the
20 See Pietro Scoppola, “Cattolici neutralisti e interventisti alla vigilia del conflitto,” in Benedetto XV, i Cattolici e la Prima Guerra Mondiale, 95-151. 21 See Heinrich Lutz, “I cattolici tedeschi di fronte alla guerra ed alle sue conseguenze,” in Benedetto XV, i Cattolici e la Prima Guerra Mondiale, 323: Having struggled in their opposition to the Kulturkampf, by the beginning of the war, German Catholics had lost sight of the universalistic vision of Catholicism, and:“I cattolici avevano incondizionatamente assunto dai loro concittadini non-cattolici questa fede nell’efficacia assoluta ed esclusiva di garanzie di politica di forza e militari. Sarebbe errato voler vedere in questa aberrazione nazionalistica e machiavellista solo un errore puntualmente verificatosi ad un oscuramento del senso di realtà, subentrato ‘ad hoc’. Si subirono, invece, le conseguenze dell’adeguamento, sviluppatosi passo a passo nel corso dei decenni, dei cattolici alla mentalità ed ai metodi della nuova politica tedesca”; Heinrich Lutz (1922-1986) was a German-Austrian historian, and professor of modern history at the University of Vienna. 22 See Friedrich Engel-Janosi, Benedetto XV e l’Austria, in Benedetto XV, i Cattolici e la Prima Guerra Mondiale, 343-358. 23 See For the contemporary Catholic reaction in defence of the Peace Note: Giuseppe Dalla Torre, “L’appello di pace del papa e la risposta di Wilson,” Nuova Antologia CXCI (settembre 1917): 188-196: Monti reports that Benedict XV mentioning this article, affirmed to him that “[è] ispirato dai concetti della Santa Sede”: Monti, Diario, 26 Settembre 1917, 89-90; count Giuseppe Dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto (1885-1967) was an italian journalist, fully involved in the Italian lay catholic movement. In 1912, Pius X nominated him as president of the ‘Unione Popolare’. Sharing Benedict XV’s vision for the resolution of the Roman Question, and the Christian restoration of society, in 1915, he was nominated president of the ‘giunta’ that was to direct Catholic Action. In 1920 he assumed the direction of ‘L’Osservatore Romano’; Filippo Crispolti, “Intorno alla nota di pace,” Nuova Antologia CXCI (settembre 1917): 197-203; An 74 MELITA THEOLOGICA
London Treaty, to lesser known aspects, such as Spain’s offer of hospitality to the pope rendering necessary the abandonment of Rome presented by Renato Mori. Other nationalistic concerns emerge in the American Catholicism’s reaction to the war studied by Bariè, that of Polish Catholics by Meysztowicz, that of the English by Musco, that of the Hungarians by Pásztor and that of Latin-American Catholicism by Scarano. After considering also the attitudes of as diverse a spectrum as that which ranges from Italian bishops (Monticone) to farmers’ attitudes to the war (Bellò), the volume concludes by Angelo Tamborra’s contribution Benedetto XV e i problemi nazionali e religiosi dell’Europa orientale,24 in which he finely presents the relationship between the political and the religious dimension in the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural environment of these Christian minorities. This issue, like most others touched upon, would, in the future, constitute a whole area of reflection in its own right. Interest in the biographical milieu persists, as shown by the detailed entry in Gabriele De Rosa’s Dizionario biografico degli italiani, outlining the principal moments of Benedict XV’s curial career and pontificate, in which this pope again emerges as a true son of Rampolla and heir of the Leonine pontificate, “proteso a restituire alla Chiesa una posizione di prestigio nei rapporti con le grandi potenze”25. The author insists on showing how the “egoismo nazionalistico”26 which the pope denounces from his very first encyclicalAd Beatissimi, proved to be the main hurdle for all the diplomatic initiatives undertaken during and after the war. This entry, which reveals a particular interest in Italian affairs, illustrates the reaction of this national Catholicism to Ad Beatissimi, as well as the various positions towards the issue of neutrality.27 Carefully illustrated with apologetic pamphlet as to Benedict XV’s action during the war, is the following: Giuseppe Quirico, Fatti e non parole. L’opera del Santo Padre Benedetto XV durante la guerra (Roma: Civiltà Cattolica, 1918). 24 See Angelo Tamborra, “Benedetto XV e i problemi nazionali e religiosi dell’Europa orientale,” in Benedetto XV, i Cattolici e la Prima Guerra Mondiale, 855-884. 25 Gabriele De Rosa, “Benedetto XV”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 8, Roma 1966, 408-417. This entry was republished inEnciclopedia dei Papi, III (Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2000), 608-617; Gabriele De Rosa (1917-2009) was a historian and Italian politician. Fully involved in the Democrazia Cristiana, his name is tied to the study of the Italian Catholic movement, especially for his publications on Alcide De Gasperi and Luigi Sturzo. 26 De Rosa, Benedetto XV, 609. 27 See Rosa, Benedetto XV, 613: “Della politica di Benedetto XV si può ripetere ciò che scrisse Giuseppe De Luca: ‘La S. Sede fu neutrale: ma la neutralità le costò, possiam dire, una doppia guerra: guerra con gli uni, guerra con gli altri. La Santa Sede non poté far nulla di bene, che subito non fosse tratto a male’”; see Giuseppe De Luca, Il Cardinale Bonaventura Cerretti (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1971), 209. Benedict XV: A Historiographical Reading - Nicholas Joseph Doublet 75 citations from a wealth of principal works published till then, the diplomatic, political, humanitarian, theological and ecclesiological action of this pontiff, De Rosa’s study constitutes a critical introduction to Benedict XV’s life and actions, enriched by an extensive concluding bibliography. Heavily conditioned by that naive optimism of the post-conciliar Church, the polemical reading presented by Carlo Falconi, in his consideration of Benedict XV, places this pope in opposition to Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII. True to the spirit of the age, the author concludes that the patrimony of the Benedictine pontificate, could only then be truly appreciated, and this in the light of the so- called “Johannine revolution”. Thus the limits of this pontificate were that: Della Chiesa nacque troppo tardi (al posto di Pio X egli avrebbe evitato alla Chiesa l’isolamento dal mondo civile e l’assurda crociata modernista) e morì troppo presto (senza poter risparmiare al cattolicesimo ed al mondo gli avvilenti compromessi coi totalitarismi del suo successore)... Doveva toccare agli orrori della seconda guerra mondiale e in particolare all’inadeguata condotta di Pio XII nei loro riguardi, di farne rivalutare l’eccezionale valore.28 As regards the publication of sources relative to the First World War, the volume edited by Wolfgang Steglich, Des Friedensappell Papst Benedikts XV vom 1. August 1917 und die Mittelmächte29 is obviously significant. This volume publishes a wide variety of diplomatic documentation produced in 1915- 1922 by the German, Bavarian, Austro-Hungarian and British foreign offices, thus not only setting the much discussed Peace Note within its wider context, but also clarifying the reasons for such a generally negative response to it. This documentation explains the use Erzberger made of the Peace Note in the Weimar National Assembly against the Imperial government, especially in the disastrous situation this institution found itself in as a result of the war. Another interesting study related to the war, is that by Roberto Morozzo della Rocca, La fede e la Guerra. Capellani militari e preti-soldati. Although, it has nothing to say specifically on Benedict XV, the manner in which it describes
28 Carlo Falconi, I Papi del ventesimo secolo (Milano, Feltrinelli editore, 1967), 166-167. Carlo Falconi (1915-1998), ordained in 1938, left the priesthood in 1949 to become a journalist, and wrote on Catholic matters. 29 Wolfgang Steglich (ed.), Des Friedensappell Papst Benedikts XV vom 1. August 1917 und die Mittelmächte. Diplomatische Aktenstücke des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes, des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums des Äussern, des Österreichisch-Ungarischen Ministeriums des Äussern und des Britischen Auswärtigen Amtes aus den Jahren 1915-1922 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag Gmbh, 1970). 76 MELITA THEOLOGICA the diversity of reactions among the Italian military chaplains to the papal Peace Note30 is noteworthy. Danilo Veneruso takes up a neglected aspect of this pontificate, through a study dedicated to L’Azione Cattolica Italiana durante i pontificati di Pio X e Benedetto XV,31 and assesses in great depth the challenges that the Italian Catholic movement went through during this pontificate. Inherited in a paralyzed state due to the anti-modernist crusade, the Italian Catholic movement fully entered the social arena during the war years, only to split in two branches in the second part of this pontificate: l’uno rappresentato dal CIL e dal Partito Popolare, realizzava il momento e la tradizione politica, economica e sociale; l’altro, rappresentato dall’Unione Popolare, dalla Società della Gioventù Cattolica Italiana, dall’Unione fra le donne cattoliche italiane con la sezione giovanile e della FUCI maschile e femminile, realizzava il momento e la tradizione formativa nel senso più lato del termine32. Whereas the first progressively evolved towards a certain independence from the hierarchy and an a-confessional position, the second, still closely tied to the Holy See, found itself to be unprepared to fully take up its formative role. Veneruso attributes such aridity to a variety of factors, not excluding Benedict XV’s insistence on the Catholic presence in the social arena, afraid that such a vacuum would quickly be taken over by anti-Catholic movements, but such an emphasis proved detrimental to Catholic Action’s ability to assume a cultural and formative aspect. True to a prevalent preoccupation at the time, a concern born out of that very spirit which imbued the post-conciliar years during which he wrote, the author cannot but lament the fact that the laity failed to achieve that mature understanding of their vocation, which would have permitted them to go beyond the purely polemical, and truly take up their proper role in the
30 See Roberto Morozzo della Rocca, La fede e la Guerra. Capellani militari e preti-soldati (1915-1919) (Roma: Edizioni Studium, 1980), 96-98; Roberto Morozzo della Rocca is the ordinary professor of contemporary history at the Università di Roma III. He has especially researched the relationship between nationalism and religion in Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia and Albania in the 18th and 19th centuries. 31 See Danilo Veneruso, L’Azione Cattolica Italiana durante i pontificati di Pio X e Benedetto XV (Roma: Editrice A.V.E., 1984). 32 Veneruso, L’Azione Cattolica Italiana durante i pontificati di Pio X e Benedetto XV, 161; For a study on the situation of the Italian Catholic Movement during the war: see also De Rosa, Storia del Movimento Cattolico in Italia. Dalla Restaurazione all’Età Giolittiana (Bari: Editori Laterza, 1966), 577-624. Benedict XV: A Historiographical Reading - Nicholas Joseph Doublet 77 apostolic and evangelization mission of the Church, something that Catholic Action would only achieve later, out of its direct confrontation with Fascism.33
Conclusion Unfortunately, in the following decades, historians did not immediately take up the revival augured by the success of the Spoleto conference in 1962. The real breakthrough only came with the opening of the Vatican Archives in 1985. Since then, there has been a constant revisiting of this figure, and even if the themes largely remain those determined in Spoleto, these are treated in greater depth, as historians have benefited from the greater amount of archival material now available for their study. The importance of the publication of particular sources, such as diaries and memories compiled by key players in this period, cannot be ignored.
Nicholas Joseph Doublet The Archbishop’s Curia Saint Calcedonius’ Square Floriana [email protected]
33 See Veneruso, L’Azione Cattolica Italiana durante i pontificati di Pio X e Benedetto XV, 161. MELITA THEOLOGICA Beate Kowalski* Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 79-104
Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew
t is nearly impossible to deal with Matthew’s attitude towards Gentiles without Ipaying attention to his view on Israel and the people of God. Therefore, it is necessary to restrict the topic to crucial texts in order to discern the theological thought progress compared to Mark. At first sight Matthew’s Gospel seems to be inconsistent: on the one hand the author emphasizes Jesus’ Jewish background (Mt 1:1-17), characterizes his exclusive mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 10:6; 15:24: οὐκ ἀπεστάλην εἰ) and explicitly forbids the Twelve going to the Gentiles (Mt 10:5 εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλθητε) but on the other hand his theology already opens a universal perspective in the childhood narrative (Mt 1-2). According to Matthew, wise men from the East are the first worshippers of the new-born Jesus (Mt 2:1 μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν). The last commissioning of the risen Lord in Mt 28:19 sends the disciples to all nations (Mt 28:16 πάντα τὰ ἔθνη). Whereas this universal theology frames the entire narrative, the Gentile-critical text passages can be located in the central narrative. Remarkable are the Matthean miracle narratives which concern the Gentiles: - Mt 8:5-13 Jesus heals a Centurion’s Servant - Mt 8:28-34 Jesus heals the Gadarene Demoniacs - Mt 15:21-28 Jesus heals a Canaanite Woman’s Daughter - Mt 15:32-39 Jesus feeds the Four Thousand (Multitude) Before getting caught up in contradictions by Matthew’s view on Israel1 and on the Gentiles, a closer inspection of all relevant texts is absolutely necessary. In
* Beate Kowalski is Chair of Exegesis and Theology of the New Testament at TU Dortmund University (since 2008). Her research interests are Biblical Intertextuality, the Gospel of John, Revelation of John and Biblical Spirituality. As a lecturer/full professor she has taught at the Universities of Bochum, Koblenz, Limerick, Munich, Paderborn, Passau and Siegen and was a Junior Fellow of the Catholic University of Louvain. 1 See M. Konradt, Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium, WUNT 215 (Tübingen: Mohr, 2007).
79 80 MELITA THEOLOGICA terms of methodology, a source-critical approach is unavoidable. Our objective is to find out whether Matthew’s various ways of looking at Israel and at the Gentiles can be explained by his sources. Furthermore, we need to examine the cause and effect of Matthew combining the different views of Mark’s Gospel, the sayings source Q and his special material with each other. As Matthew’s Gospel counts twice as many words as Mark, the three relevant terms occur more often than in Mark: Matthew uses the theologically significant λαός fourteentimes (seven times more often than Mark). The neutral terms for a mixed crowd (ὄχλος) and in particular the technical term for the Gentiles (ἔθνος) almost occurs three times more frequently than in Mark. From these statistics we can conclude that both the people of God and the Gentiles are in the centre of Matthew’s attention. We may suspect that Matthew had to redefine the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and the membership of God’s people. Historical, sociological and religious circumstances of Matthew’s place and history of origin have to be considered in order to explain these theological modifications in comparison with Mark.2 The Matthean alterations result in an apparent correction of Mark’s theology - a thesis we need to verify. In the following we present a detailed study of Matthew’s semantic changes on the assumption that the literary context can give a clue for Matthew’s modifications. We have to ask whether Matthew intended to correct or alter, supplement or replace his Vorlage or if he just emphasized certain aspects he already found in Mark.3 Methodologically, we understand Matthew’s use of Mark within the common custom of inner-biblical quotations. For this reason, we employ features of intertextuality. In particular, dissimilarities, such as omissions, expansions, rearrangements, conflations, and supplements have to be examined.
Universalism Versus Exclusivism: Some Observations on Sources, Language, Geography and Compositional Structure Before analysing expressions connected with the Matthean view on Gentiles, it is quite helpful to collect several observations on sources, language, geographical notes and compositional structure of the Gospel.
2 See A.M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark. Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity, Library of New Testament Studies 323 (London: Eisenbrauns, 2006). 3 See D.C. Sim, “Matthew’s Use of Mark. Did Matthew Intend to Supplement or to Replace His Primary Source?,” NTS 57 (2011): 176–192. Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 81
Sources of Matthew The verses of the Matthean special material and Matthew’s alterations of Mark (such as omissions,4 expansions, rearrangements, conflations, and supplements) are extremely important for our study. The Matthean special material, according to S.H. Brooks, mainly consists of discourse material (the Sermon on the Mount: Mt 5:19,21-22,23-24,27-28,33- 35,36,37; 6:1-6,7-8,16-18; 7:6; the Missionary discourse: Mt 10:5-6,23 the Rejection of Jesus: 12:36-37; the Community Discourse: Mt 18:18,19-29 the Opposition to Jesus: Mt 19:12; 23:2-3,5,8-10,15,16-22,24,33).5 Brooks applies certain criteria to the special material: firstly, the absence of parallel material in Mark and/or Q; secondly, the occurrence of non-Matthean stylistic features and vocabulary; thirdly, the content that is at odds with the immediate context or the Gospel as whole. However, this position can be questioned as well as an assumption of an oral source.6 In addition we also need to pay attention to text segments characterized by Matthean stylistic features which cannot be found in Mark or in Q (eg., Mt 1-2; 28). These also can be called special material. U. Luz argues that nearly all narratives of this special material were written down for the first time by Matthew (Mt 1:18-2:23; 17:24-27; 20:1-16; 21:28-32; 22:1-14; 25:1-11; 27:3-10; 27:62- 66; fulfilment quotations). Matthew might have had a written source containing the parables and the primary “antitheses” (Mt 5:21-24,27f.33-37) as well as the topics of almsgiving, praying and fasting (Mt 6:2-6,16-18).7 In the following we diachronically analyse the terms ἔθνος, λαός, and Ἰσραήλ. Matthew uses the term ἔθνος fifteen times (Mt 4:15; 6:32; 10:5,18; 12:18,21; 20:19,25; 21:43; 24:7,9,14; 25:32; 28:19). - According to S.H. Brooks, one reference originates from the Matthean special material (10:5).
4 Mk 1:1.23-28,35-38; 2:27; 3:19b-21; 4:21-24,26-29; 6:30; 7:3f.32-37; 8:22-26; 9:29,38- 40, 48-50; 12:40-44; 13:33-37; 14:51f. 5 S.H. Brooks, Matthew’s Community. The Evidence of His Special Sayings Material (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987). 6 See M. Ebner, “Das Matthäusevangelium,” in M. Ebner - S. Schreiber eds., Einleitung in das Neue Testament, KStTh 6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 134 who lists the following texts as belonging to the Sondergut: 4:13-16; 8:17; 12:5-7; 27:3-9,19,24f,62-66; 28:11-15; revision of Mk traditions in (13:36-43); independent blocks (2:13-23; 6:2-6,16-18), single traditions (18,23-35; 20,1-15; 21,28-32; 21,1-13; 25,1-30). 7 See U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1-7), EKK I/1 (Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger u.a. 31992), 31. 82 MELITA THEOLOGICA
- Eight times the verses belong to the Matthean special material with Matthean stylistic features (Mt 4:15; 12:18,21; 25:32; 28:19). Three of the verses are fulfilment quotations (Mt 4:15; 12:18,21) which are crucial for Matthew’s theology. - Two verses dealing with Gentiles are taken from Q (Mt 6:32; 10:18.) - Seven references of ἔθνος belong to Mark (Mt 20:19,25; 24:7[2]; 21:43; 24:9,14). Three Markan verses are changed by inserting the term ἔθνος into the pretext (Mt 21:43; 24:9,14). Hence, just four out of fifteen references of the term ἔθνος are identical with Mark. Eleven references are additional material or amendments of the oldest Jesus narrative. The term λαός is used fourteen times in Matthew (Mt 1:21; 2:4,6; 4:16,23; 13:15; 15:8; 21:23; 26:3,5,47; 27:1,25,64) in contrast to two references in Mark (Mk 7:6; Mk 14:2). - According to S.H. Brooks, no reference originates from the Matthean special material and from Q. - Seven times the verses belong to the Matthean special material) with Matthean stylistic feature (Mt 1:21; 2:4,6; 4:16; 13:15; 27:25,64). Three of the verses are Old Testament quotations (Mt 2:6; 13:15) and fulfilment quotations (Mt 4:16) which are crucial for Matthew’s theology. - Seven references of λαός belong to Mark (Mt 4:23; 15:8; 21:23; 26:3; 26:5,47; 27:1). Five Markan verses are changed by inserting the term λαός into the pretext (Mt 4:23; 21:23;8 26:3,947;10 27:111). Hence, just two out of fourteen references of the term λαός are identical with Mark. Thirteen references are additional material, or amendments of the oldest Jesus narrative. The term Ἰσραήλ is used twelve times in Matthew (2:6,20f; 8:10; 9:33; 10:6,23; 15:24,31; 19:28; 27:9,42) in contrast to two references in Mark (12:29; 15:32). - According to S.H. Brooks, two references (10:6,23) originate from the Matthean special material. - Seven times the verses belong to the Matthean special material with Matthean stylistic features (Mt 2:6,20,21; 9:33; 15:24,31; 27:9). Two of
8 Mt also changes οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι to οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. 9 Mt also changes οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι to οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. 10 Mt also changes οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι to οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. 11 Mt also changes οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι to οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 83
the verses are Old Testament quotations (2:6) and fulfilment quotations (27:9) which are crucial for Matthew’s theology. - Two of the verses dealing with Ἰσραήλ are taken from Q (8:10; 19:28). - Seven references of Ἰσραήλ belong to Mark (17:42). We can already conclude from this result that Matthew even has a greater interest in Gentiles, in the people of God and in Ἰσραήλ than Mark. In order to achieve this aim he mainly used material from his special material (including Matthean and non-Matthean stylistic features and vocabulary) and texts from Mark which he modifies for his particular purpose. Fulfilment quotations (4:14-16; 12:17-21; 27:9f ) and Old Testament quotations (Mt 2:5f; 13:15) which especially reveal Matthew’s theological emphasis also deal with the topics Gentiles and the people of God/Israel.
Observations on Universal Expressions Matthew prefers terms that express a totality rather than a part. The adjective πᾶς (used one hundred and twenty times)12 and ὅλος (twenty times)13 reveals a certain tendency to reporting all details but also to generalizing matters, in particular locations and groups. The adjective ὅλος is used by Matthew in combination with the Jewish inhabitants of the locations of Galilee (Mt 4:23), Syria (Mt 4:24) and other Jewish districts (Mt 9:26,31: ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ ἐκείνῃ) close to his city (Mt 9:1) and in Gennesaret (Mt 14:35: περίχωρος). Additionally, entire groups are mentioned within the Passion Narrative such as the supreme authority of the Jews, the council (Mt 26:59: συνέδριον), the Roman governor’s battalion (Mt 27:27: σπεῖρα), and the whole world (Mt 24:14: οἰκουμένη14) with all nations (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν) as mission area (Mt 24:14; 26:13). The continuance of the Jewish law and prophets (Mt 22:37,40) which depend on the greatest commandment of love is another topic connected to the adjective.
12 See Mt 1:17; 2:3f,16; 3:5,10,15; 4:4,8f,23f; 5:11,15,18,22,28,32; 6:29,32f; 7:8,12,17,19,21,24,26; 8:16,32ff; 9:35; 10:1,22,30,32; 11:13,27f; 12:15,23,25,31,36; 13:2,19,32,34,41,44,46f,51f,56; 14:20,35; 15:13,17,37; 17:11; 18:10,16,19,25f,31f,34; 19:3,11,20,26f,29; 21:10,12,22,26; 22:4,10,27f; 23:3,5,8,20,27,35f; 24:2,8f,14,22,30,33f,47; 25:5,7,29,31f; 26:1,27,31,33,35,52,56,70; 27:1,22,25,45; 28:1,8f. 13 Matthew is second in the statistic of the entire Bible (1st place by Ps). 14 Hapaxlegomenon in Matthew. 84 MELITA THEOLOGICA
The adjective πᾶς is linked with terms concerning Jews and Israel,15 the whole world,16 Jesus’ and the Twelve’s deeds,17 Jesus’ words18 and his ethical commandments.19 In addition it is often used in the parables and Old Testament quotations and to describe the ideal community structure (Mt 23:8: πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε). Just as the term ὅλος it is associated with the Jewish inhabitants of the locations Jerusalem (Mt 2:3; 21:10), Bethlehem (Mt 2:16), Judea and the region around the Jordan (Mt 3:5), cities and villages of Galilee (9:35) and entire groups such as the chief priests and the scribes of the people (2:4), the boys in Bethlehem (Mt 2:16), the scribes who converted to Jesus’ disciples (Mt 13:52),20 the multitude of five thousand (Mt14:20) and the multitude of four thousand (Mt 15:38), the men who are selling and buying in the temple (Mt 21:12), the disciples (Mt 26:27,31,33,35,56), the chief priests and the elders of the people (Mt 27:1)21 and the entire people (Mt 27:22,25). While the combination of πρεσβύτερος and ἀρχιερεύς is characteristic for Matthew (Mt 16:21; 21:23; 26:3,47,57; 27:1,3,12,20,41), the generalization can only be found in 27:1. Mark prefers the combination of ἀρχιερεύς and γραμματεύς which Matthew just uses in Mt 2:4; 16:21; 20:18; 21:15; 26:57; 27:41, once with the generalizing πᾶς in Mt 2:4.22 Matthew delivers negative sweeping statements about these groups. It appears that Matthew underlines the importance of Jesus’ mission to Jewish people in Jewish locations including Syria with the adjective ὅλος. Nevertheless, he develops another way of looking at prospective Christians by mentioning the whole world and all nations as mission area (Mt 24:14; 26:13). This idea is expressed to the full with the adjective πᾶς. A whole city in Gadara (Mt 8:34), mixed crowds (Mt 12:15,23; 13:2; 21:26: πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος; πᾶς ὁ ἔθνος: Mt 4:9,14; 25:32; 28:19), and all tribes of the earth (Mt 24:30: αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς) respond
15 Mt 1:17; 23:36; 24:34: γενεά; 2:3; 21:10: Ἱεροσόλυμα; 2:4: ἀρχιερεύς καί γραμματεύς; 2:16: παῖς ἐν Βηθλέεμ; 3:5: Ἰουδαία καὶ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου; 3:15: δικαιοσύνη; 9:35: κώμη, 11:13: προφήτης, νόμος; 13:52: γραμματεύς μαθητευθεὶς τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν; 13:56: αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ; 14:20: πεντακισχίλιοι; 15:38: τετρακισχίλιοι; 21:12: τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ; 26:27,31,33,35,56: μαθητής; 27:1: οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ; 27:22,25: λαός. 16 Mt 4:8,9: βασιλεία τοῦ κόσμου; 8:34: πόλις [= Gentile city]; 12:23; 13:2; 21:26: ὄχλος; 24:30: αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς; 27:45: γῆ; 24:9.14; 25:32; 28:19: ἔθνος 17 Mt 4:23: νόσος, μαλακία; 4:24; 8:16; 14:35: κακῶς; 9:35; 10:1: νόσος, μαλακία; 28:18: ἐξουσία 18 Mt 26:1: λόγος; 28:20: ἐντέλλω 19 Mt 5-7; 12:31,36; 13:19,41; 18:19,25,26,31-34; 19:3,29; 21:22; 25:29; 26:52. 20 Only in Matthew. 21 The combination of πρεσβύτερος and ἀρχιερεύς is characteristic for Matthew (16:21; 21:23; 26:3,47,57; 27:1,3,12,20,41). The generalization can only be found in Mt 27:1. 22 See M. Gielen, Der Konflikt Jesu mit den religiösen und politischen Autoritäten seines Volkes im Spiegel der matthäischen Jesusgeschichte, BBB 115 (Bodenheim: Philo, 1998). Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 85 to Jesus. It is very important to notice that the idea of universal proclamation is not mentioned for the first time in the last text Mt 28:16-20 but several chapters earlier: - πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος follow Jesus seeking healing (12:15); they cautiously profess Jesus as Messiah (Mt 12:23); they listen to Jesus’ parables (Mt 13:2,34). This positive view on mixed crowds of Jews and Gentiles is developed by Mt from the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. - The proclamation of the kingdom to the whole world can be found in Mt 24:14 with the double expression ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ and πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν and in Mt 26:13 and Mt 28:19. While there is no subject of preaching mentioned in Mt 24:14, the woman anointing Jesus (Mt 26:13) and the commissioned disciples (Mt 28:19) are explicitly named. - Matthew has knowledge of a final judgement of all nations which he mentions in Mt24:30; 25:32.
Observations on Exclusive Expressions Exclusivism does not only concern the Gentiles (εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν) and Samaritans (εἰς πόλιν Σαμαριτῶν) but also people chosen by Jesus (ἐκλεκτός) and the sons of the kingdom (οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας): The Matthean exclusivism of Gentiles and Samaritans sharply conflicts with the idea of universal mission. However, the exclusion only intends Jesus’ care for Israel. This very sharp exclusivism is repeated twice in Mt 10:5f; 15:24,26. Exclusivism is not restricted to Gentiles and Samaritans but includes a radical eschatology which is intended for provoking the repentance of Israel. The exclusivism of Gentiles and Samaritans is relativized by further aspects. But exclusivism also concerns the elected in Israel. At the end of the parable of the wedding banquet (22:1-14) Matthew concludes with a sharp exclusion of those which are not elected. The only criterion of achieving salvation is following Jesus’ invitation. Neither a national membership nor an irreproachable life is a precondition. The supposed exclusivism in Mt 22:14 is in fact a universal re- definition of people belonging to Jesus. This verse is a key to interpret the same topic in the apocalyptic speech in Mt 24:22,24,31. Finally, exclusivism also is expressed with the verb ἐκβάλλω and concerns the sons of the kingdom (8:12: οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται - εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον), the friend without a wedding garment (22:11-13: ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα γάμου - ἐκβάλετε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον) and the worthless servant (25:30: τὸν ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον γάμου - ἐκβάλετε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον). These groups receive a harsh sentence by Jesus to provoke 86 MELITA THEOLOGICA repentance. Additionally, the Matthean Jesus announces the judgement on the entire generation of the time (γενεά: 11:16; 12:39,41,42,45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; see 1L18), which is characterized as πονηρός and μοιχαλίς (12:39; 16:4; see 12:45),23 ἄπιστος and διεστραμμένη (17:17). Jewish-Christians are criticized severely throughout the whole narrative.
Observations on Geography Geographical indications allow us to gain an insight into Matthew’s attitude towards Jews and Gentiles. In particular 3:1-4:11 and the ensuing Galilean part (4:12-18:35) point the way. In addition to analysing the geography we also need to pay attention to compositional and stylistic features which are characteristic of Matthew, such as ring compositions, techniques of repetition, inclusions, transitions, bridge-passages and bridge-verses etc. and most of all quotations.24 Matthew introduces his gospel with a childhood narrative with which he expands Mark at the beginning. Various geographical notes open a universal scenario for the reader. A journey is drawn from Bethlehem (Mt 2:1) via Egypt (Mt 2:13) and back to Israel (Mt 2:21), more specific to the district of Galilee (Mt 2:22). Apart from the fact that the first worshippers of the new born Jesus are wise men from the East (Mt 2:21: μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν) this first journey leads Jesus to the pagan territory of Egypt that recalls the Exodus. Liberation and salvation are dependent on the land promised by YHWH. Matthew alludes to this Old Testament theology by beginning his Jesus story with this programmatic text. Furthermore, Matthew introduces the term χώρα which does not have the
23 The judgement on the present generation is connected with the prophet Jonah (12:39,41; 16:4). See A.K.M. Adam, “The Sign of Jonah. A Fish-Eye View,”Semeia 51 (1990): 177-191; S. Chow, The Sign of Jonah Reconsidered. A Study of its Meaning in the Gospel Traditions, ConBNT 27 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995); E. Fales, “Taming the Tehom. The Sign of Jonah in Matthew,” in R.M. Price - J.J. Lowder eds., The Empty Tomb. Jesus Beyond the Grave (Amherst N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005), 307-348. Fales analyzes the difference between the three days and nights and the third day of resurrection in Matthew’s passion narrative; D. Rudman, “The Sign of Jonah,” ET 115 (2004): 325-328; G.M. Landes, “Jonah in Luke. The Hebrew Bible Background to the Interpretation of the ‘Sign of Jonah’ Pericope in Luke 11.29-32,” in R.D. Weis - D.M. Carr eds., A Gift of God in Due Season. Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of J.A. Sanders, JSOTSup 225 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), 133-163; K. Huber, “‘Zeichen des Jona’ und ‘mehr als Jona’. Die Gestalt des Jona im Neuen Testament und ihr Beitrag zur bibeltheologischen Fragestellung,” PzB 7,2 (1998): 77-94; R.K. Soulen, “The Sign of Jonah,” ThTo 65,3 (2008): 331-343. 24 See J.L. Ska, Our Fathers have Told us. Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, Subsidia Biblica 13 (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990), 87f. Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 87 theological connotation of the land promised by God. It rather means a region or district. Interestingly, Matthew uses this term also in Mt 4:,16 and 8:28. The first proclamations of John the Baptist and Jesus are contrastive text passages in so far as the target groups differ. While only people from Jerusalem, Judea and all the region about the Jordan come to John the Baptist (Mt 3:5) Jesus’ audience is more universal: His people follow him from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, beyond the Jordan (Mt 4:25) and even from Syria (Mt 4:24). John’s audience is limited to the south -western part of Palestine while Jesus’ catchment area covers all Palestine and even pagan territory (for instance the Decapolis, beyond the Jordan). This contrast is programmatic in so far as it introduces the universal mission of Jesus. Unlike John the Baptist, whose followers are exclusively Jews (Mt 3:5), Jesus is followed by Jews and Gentiles from the very first beginning. They are the first receiving healing (Mt 4:23f ) and they are the first listeners of his programmatic Sermon on the Mount. Unspecified distant lands are mentioned where Jesus is known: The wise men (μάγοι) came from ἀνατολή to Jerusalem (Mt 2:1: ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν) because Jesus appeared to them (Mt 2:2,9). Not only the birth of the Messiah (appears as ἀστήρ) but also the coming of the Son of man (appears as ἀστραπή) can be expected from the east (Mt 24:27: ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν). The birth narrative is composed parallel to the announcement of his parousia (γεννάω/παρουσία; ἀστήρ/ἀστραπή; Βηθλέεμ/δυσμή; ὁράω - ἰδού/φαίνω). According to Matthew salvation is spread out from the East (Syria) to the West (Israel). This includes the birth of the Messiah and the coming of the Son of man. This idea cannot be found in Mark. In spite of this universal perspective Jesus’ mission seems to be restricted to the land of Israel. Of course his preaching and healing of pagans mainly take place in Israel. And yet, this would mean to make a wholesale judgement about the topic. We thus need to assess Matthew’s view on Israel in detail. Again, the beginning of Jesus’s ministry in Mt 4:12 is programmatic. Matthew does not follow the plot of Mark’s gospel. He inserts a programmatic fulfilment quotation25 - the first concerning Jesus after the childhood narrative26 - from Is 8:23-9:1 as interpretative key to Jesus’ stay in Capernaum in the territory of Zebulon and Naphtali. Matthew is the only New Testament author with this
25 See Maarten J.J. Menken, “The Textual Form of the Quotation from Isaiah 8:23-9:1 in Matthew 4:15-16,” RB 105,4 (1998); Maarten J.J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible. The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, BEThL 173 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004). 26 Mt 3:3 is a fulfilment quotation concerning John the Baptist. 88 MELITA THEOLOGICA negative view on Galilee as a region of Gentiles. He does not only take over the prophetic critic of the prophet Isaiah but also his promise of salvation to the people of God (λαός). It can be concluded that Matthew’s alteration of Mark’s gospel with one of his programmatic fulfilment quotations already points the way to his universal theology. Again we can contradict the thesis that Matthew develops the idea of universalism for the first time in Mt 28:16-20. Jesus’ care for the Gentiles already begins with the Galilean ministry in Mt 4:12-16. Just a few verses later - after the vocation of the first disciples (Mt 4:18-22) - Jesus carries out his mission in the pagan Galilee for Jews and Gentiles (Mt 4:24: Syria; 4:25: Decapolis, beyond the Jordan). Looking through all geographical indications in the Galilean part of this gospel this assumption can be supported. Almost all miracles concerning Gentiles take place in Galilee and are distant healings/exorcisms (Mt 8:5-13; 15:21-28; 15:32-39). The only exception is the exorcism in the country of the Gadarenes (Mt 8:28-9:1) which contains a number of significant changes as compared to Mark. Another argument that supports the assumption is the fulfilment quotation in Mt 12:15-21. Jesus is followed by an undefined/mixed crowd seeking and receiving healing. The quotation is taken from the first song of the suffering servant (Gottesknecht) Isa 42:1-4.27 Apart from changes in comparison with the Isaian pretext, Matthew uses the first song of the suffering servant to underline the universal mission and significance of Jesus. Again, Matthew inserts this fulfilment quotation into the Markan plot and attaches a certain importance to his interpretation of Jesus’ mission as a universal event.
Observations on Compositional Structure Matthew has changed the plot of Mark’s Jesus narrative, in other words: Matthew reorganizes the Markan arrangement of the incidents. The most obvious insertions are the infancy narrative (Mt 1-2), the five discourses (Mt 5-7; 10; 13; 18; 24-25) and the resurrection narrative (Mt 28:1-20).28 Matthew
27 See M.J.J. Menken, “The Quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4 in Matthew 12:18-21. Its Relation with the Matthean Context,” Bijdr. 59,3 (1998): 251-266 [= also in: M.J.J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible. The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, BEThL 173 (Leuven: University Press 2004), 67- 88]. 28 D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew, Sacra Pagina 1 (Collegeville/MI: Liturgical Press, 22007), 5 makes an incision between 13:58 and 14:1 (14:1-20:34 = around Galilee and toward Jerusalem) which is a bit inexact as Galilean places predominant in the entire section 4:12-18:35. Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 89 uses the discourses and his emphasis on Jewish traditions as an argument within his dialogue with the rabbinic Judaism after 70 AD. Just as Mark, the gospel of Matthew follows a geographical outline in which he integrates the five discourses and further material. These two principles of structuring the material conflict with each other and make it so difficult to discern Matthew’s composition. In contrast to Mark (Mk 8:22-26 - 8:27-10:45 - 10:46-52) he does not have a travel narrative. The first two of the three passion predictions (Mt 16:21-23; 17:22-23; 20:17-19) belong to the Galilean section of Matthew, the last is already announced in the Judea segment. Matthew favours inclusions, bridge verses and passages as well as ring compositions29 which result in a less structured outline than in Mark. The discussion of compositional changes compared to Mark is not an end in itself. Unlike Mark (Mk 5:1-20: country of the Gerasenes; 7:24-30: Tyre and Sidon; 7:31-37: region of Decapolis) there is no extensive journey to the Gentiles in Matthew. Matthew omits the healing of the deaf in the Decapolis, and significantly changes the two other healings (Mt 5:1-20; 7:24-30). Nevertheless, it would be a simple reduction to conclude that the Gentile mission begins after Easter. Jesus highly esteems the faith of the Gentiles (see Mt 8:10: παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον; Mt 15:28: ὦ γύναι, μεγάλη σου ἡ πίστις) and cares for the hungry people (Mt 15:32: σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον - Matthew and Mark use the undefined term ὄχλος in both narratives of the feeding of the multitude). The topics of universalism and exclusivism occur in all parts of Matthew. There is a strong emphasis on the Jewish heritage of Christians compared with prophetic criticism and, at the same time, on the universal mission to Gentiles. Both topics are developed in all parts of the gospel. We can find Israel-critical and Israel-friendly texts, as well as Gentile-critical and Gentile-friendly statements. It is impossible to argue that Matthew changed his position during the narrative. There is no turning point in the composition, neither in the entire narrative, nor in the resurrection narratives. Therefore, it is convincing to derive three phases of the Matthean history of salvation and to draw the conclusion that the Gentile mission begins after Easter.30 This theory only pays attention to Jesus’ mission statements in Mt 10:6; 15:24 and 28:19. Furthermore, it overlooks the different
From 19:1 onward Jesus enters the region of Judea (πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου means to the west of the Jordan). Moreover, 19:1 contains a formula with which Matthew ends all five speeches of Jesus. 29 Ebner, Matthäusevangelium, 128, lists 27,62-66/28,1-10/28,11-15; 9,18f/9,20-22/9,23-26. 30 See G. Garbe, Der Hirte Israels. Eine Untersuchung zur Israeltheologie des Matthäusevangeliums, WMANT 106 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005). 90 MELITA THEOLOGICA communication levels of the macro-text. It treats the periods of Jesus’ life (pre- and post- Easter) as equivalent with the development of the Christian mission. In other words: Matthew’s compositional outline does not reflect the history of Early Christianity with a replacement of Israel with the Gentiles.31
Matthew’s Understanding of Israel The term Ἰσραήλ is used twelve times in Matthew (Mt 2:6.20f; 8:10; 9:33; 10:6,23; 15:24,31; 19:28; 27:9,42) in contrast to two references in Mark (12:29; 15:32). Twice it is used in an absolute way, ten times in combination with a noun (οἶκος, λαός, γῆ, πόλεις, θεός, δώδεκα φυλαί, υἱός, βασιλεύς) - According to S.H. Brooks, two references originate from the Matthean special material (10:6,23). - Seven times the verses belong to the Matthean special material with Matthean stylistic features (2:6,20,21; 9:33; 15:24,31; 27:9). Two of the verses are Old Testament quotations (Mt 2:6) aand fulfilment quotations (Mt 27:9) which are crucial for Matthew’s theology. - Two of the verses dealing with Ἰσραήλ are taken from Q (Mt 8:10; 19:28). - One of the references to Ἰσραήλ originates from Mark (Mt 27:42).
Omissions of Matthew Surprisingly, Matthew omits the Old Testament quotation of the Schema Israel (Mk 12:29 // Deut 6:4).
31 Matthias Konradt states (paper Leuven 2012, 6): “Die Öffnung der Heilszuwendung auf die Völker hin erfolgt bei Matthäus erst nach und auf der Basis von Tod und Auferstehung Jesu, und damit geht einher, dass dem Thema der Zuwendung Jesu zu Israel bei Matthäus eine gegenüber Markus wesentlich größere Bedeutung zukommt.” Therefore, I cannot fully agree to the aspect of Matthias Konradt’s position that the opening up to Gentiles takes place after Easter. I fully agree with him in so far as Mt considerably pays more attention to Israel than Mk does. This position is very common, see M. Ebner,Matthäusevangelium , 139: “Dagegen greift er die Vision einer zukünftigen Heidenmission, die das MkEv proleptisch erzählt (Mk 13:10; 14:9) in der Schlussszene Mt 28,16-20 als Auftrag des zum Universalherrscher eingesetzten Jesus an seine Schüler ausdrücklich auf. Er kann damit an die Logienquelle anknüpfen, die eine prinzipielle Offenheit Heiden gegenüber zeigt, sofern die Heiden im Sinn der Völkerwallfahrt nach Israel kommen (Q 7,1-19; 13,28f. vgl. Mt 8,5-13) bzw. als fiktive Vorbildfiguren Israel als Ansporn vor Augen gehalten werden (Q 10,13-15 vgl. Mt 11:20-24).” Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 91
Alterations of Matthew The only reference taken from Mark is the crucifixion of Jesus (Mk 15:32) which is slightly altered by Matthew. Matthew intensifies the MarkVorlage in so far as he extends the group of mockers (καὶ πρεσβυτέρων) and states that Jesus is King of Israel.
Supplements of Matthew The expression οἶκος Ἰσραήλ is a Matthean supplement which belongs to his special material (Mt 10:6; 15:24). The term οἶκος Ἰσραήλ is frequently used by the exilic prophet Ezekiel.32 It is not common in the New Testament; moreover, it is not used by Mark or the other two Gospels but is only used in Acts 2:36; 7:42 and Hebr 8:8,10. On the assumption that Matthew knew the Old Testament we might conclude that he deliberately used this term of exile prophecy in order to interpret the situation of his community in a similar way. It is generally agreed among scholars that Matthew was written in Syria (Mt 4:24: ἀπῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν Συρίαν) which the author might have understood as an exile situation for Jewish followers of Jesus. His strong emphasis on Jesus’ exclusive mission might have a reason in these historical circumstances which are expressed with a term frequently used by Ezekiel. Mt 10:5f Jesus gives the advice to the Twelve to depart from the road of the Gentiles and the town of the Samaritans and to favour (δὲ μᾶλλον) the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mt 15:24 intensifies this expression by the double negation οὐκ and εἰ μή and Jesus speaking in the first person. Whereas the commissioning of the Twelve in Mark 10:6 is without parallel in Mark, the encounter with a Canaanite Woman in Mt 15:21-28 is taken from Mark 7:24-30. Matthew’s alterations are significant and demand explanations:
32 See Ez 2:3; 3:4f, 7,17; 4:4f; 5:4; 6:11; 8:10-12; 9:3,9; 10:19; 11:5,15; 12:6,9f,23,27; 13:5,9; 14:4-7,11; 17:2; 18:6,15,25,29-31; 20:1,5,13,27,30f,39f; 22:6,18; 24:21; 25:3,8; 28:24; 29:6,16,21; 33:7,10f,20; 34:30; 35:5; 36:10,17,21f,32,37; 37:11,21; 39:12,22f,25,29; 40:4; 43:7,10; 44:6,9,12,15; 45:6,8,17; 48:11. 92 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Mk 7:24-30 Mt 15:21-28 Place of encounter: house in the Place of encounter: outside in the Phoenician ports of Tyre and Sidon Phoenician district of Tyre and Sidon Minor figures: none Minor figures: disciples Woman: Greek, a Syrophoenician by Woman: Canaanite woman from birth that region Form of address: Lord Form of address: O Lord, Son of → Confession to Jesus as Lord David → Confession to Jesus as Son of David (Have mercy on me) Dialogue: Woman’s indirect speech, Dialogue: Woman speaking first, Jesus speaking first Jesus remaining silent Oppositions: Oppositions: → Jesus’ exclusive mission to the → Disciples house of Israel → Jesus remaining silent → Jesus’ exclusive mission to the house of Israel (said twice) Chorschluss: (ending?) Chorschluss: (ending?) → Jesus confirms the healing of the → Jesus confirms the woman’s great woman’s daughter faith and her daughter’s healing “For this saying you may go your “O woman, great is your faith! Be it way; the demon has left your done for you as you desire.” daughter.” Context: disputation between Jesus Context: disputation between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes about and the Pharisees and scribes about the Jewish laws of purity the Jewish laws of purity → Jesus going away (ἀπῆλθεν) → Jesus’ withdrawal (ἀνεχώρησεν)
Both Mark and Matthew know the tradition of a pagan female representative begging Jesus for the healing of her daughter who is possessed by a demon. In both cases a direct contact does not take place between Jesus and the possessed person. Matthew even underlines that Jesus does not enter a pagan house. Moreover, he alters the Markan scenario according to his theological programme. The encounter does not take place in a Gentile house. Jesus observes the Jewish Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 93 laws of purity.33 This is important within the closer context of Matthew where a disputation between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes about the Jewish laws of purity precedes the healing narrative. It is also the reason for Jesus crossing the border to the Gentile district. Although Matthew tells about a geographical crossing to the Gentiles due to a conflict concerning the Jewish law, he does not present Jesus overstepping legal boundaries. This is one example of altering the Markan Vorlage. On the assumption that Matthew regards Jewish traditions and laws more discriminately, we might conclude that this is one reason for judging Israel more favourably than Mark. The distant healing of the Canaanite’s daughter is closely connected with the distant healing of a centurion’s servant:
Mt 8:5-13 Mt 15:21-28 Place: Place: - Capernaum - district of Tyre and Sidon Petitioner on behalf Petitioner on behalf - centurion (ἑκατοντάρχης) - Canaanite women (γυνὴ Χαναναία) Sick person: servant (παῖς) Sick person - daughter (θυγάτηρ) Form of address: Lord (κύριε) Form of address: Lord, son of David (v.25: κύριε υἱὸς Δαυίδ) Disease Disease - paralysis (v.6: παραλυτικός, δεινῶς - possessed by a demon (v.22: βασανιζόμενος) κακῶς δαιμονίζεται) Willingness of Jesus – doing some Unwillingness of Jesus – doing some convincing convincing - v.7: ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω αὐτόν. - v.24: οὐκ ἀπεστάλην εἰ μὴ εἰς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ. - v.26: οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις.
33 Vgl. auch P. Fiedler, Das Matthäusevangelium, ThKNT 1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2006), 281. 94 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Mt 8:5-13 Mt 15:21-28 Argumentation Argumentation - v.8: ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ - v.27: ναὶ κύριε, καὶ γὰρ τὰ κυνάρια ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου. ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν. Healing by Jesus’ word Healing by Jesus’ word - v.18: ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι. - γενηθήτω σοι ὡς θέλεις. - καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς [αὐτοῦ] ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ - καὶ ἰάθη ἡ θυγάτηρ αὐτῆς ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκείνῃ. ὥρας ἐκείνης. Confirmation of faith Confirmation of faith - v.10: παρ᾽ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν - v.28: ὦ γύναι, μεγάλη σου ἡ πίστις· ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον Universal mission - v.11: πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν, Judgement against the sons of the kingdom - v.12: οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκβληθήσονται εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων.
Both miracles have comparable elements and are semantically linked with each other. Both petitioners ask Jesus on behalf of the sick person and profess their faith in Jesus. While the centurion just addresses Jesus as Lord, the Canaanite woman uses the title Lord, son of David. She explicitly professes her faith in Jesus, the Messiah. Jesus confirms the great faith of the two. In the case of the centurion he explicitly compares his faith with what he found in Israel. In both miracles the term “Israel” is used to express the universalism of Jesus’ salvation. This is already mentioned in the second miracle of the entire gospel. People from Israel and the Gentiles are among the witnesses (Mt 4:25). Therefore, Mt 8:11f contains programmatic statements concerning the Gentile mission (universalism) and the judgement of Israel (exclusivism). Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 95
Beside the faith of the Gentiles both miracle stories offer further arguments for the Gentile mission which relativize Jesus’ mission statement (Mt 10:6; 15:24): Mt 8:5-13 argues with God’s eschatological judgement and exclusion, Mt 15:21-28 uses a comparison to argue pagan participation in Jesus’ salvation. Matthew uses the theological term Israel to argue for the Gentile mission.
Matthew’s Understanding of God’s People Two texts (Mk 7:6; 14:2) are taken from Mark with slight changes. Matthew has an extensive usage of the term λαός compared with Mark. This indicates his certain interest in a theology of God’s people. Matthew always connects positive statements of salvation with the term λαός in the Childhood Narrative (three times: Mt 1:21; 2:4,6) and the Judean part of his Gospel (four times: Mt 4:16,23; 13:15; 21:23): σῴζω (Mt 1:21); ποιμαίνω (Mt 2:6); φῶς ὁράω (Mt 4:16); θεραπεύω (Mt 4:23). Mt 13:15 is a quotation from Isaiah which expresses the stubbornness of Israel. These positive statements on the people of Israel conflict sharply with his completely negative view in the Jerusalem part, or rather, in the Passion Narrative. Matthew shifts the emphasis to harsh criticism against two leading groups of Israel, and once even against the entire people (Mt 27:25).34 The term οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ only occurs in Matthewfour of the times in the Passion Narrative (Mt 26:3,47; 27:1,25,47), once in Mt 21:23, which already belongs to the Jerusalem part of the Gospel. Four times the double expression οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ can be found (Mt 21:23; 26:3,47; 27:1 – Matthew emphasizes the phrase with the adjective πάντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς). Within the Childhood Narrative Matthew once uses the combination πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ. Both are Matthean stock phrases which cannot be found elsewhere in the New Testament. Mt 27:25 is the only reference in the entire New Testament writings in which πᾶς ὁ λαός is used in such a negative sense. It is quite obvious that Matthew focusses on the people of God in his Passion Narrative only. All references imply a negative assessment of two groups of the people of Israel and even once of the entire people. This point of view is characteristic of Matthew interpreting Jesus passion. We have to search for the reasons that Matthew led to express another opinion.
34 See R. Kampling, Das Blut Christi und die Juden Mt 27,25 bei den lateinischsprachigen christlichen Autoren bis zu Leo dem Großen, NTA.NF 16 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1984). 96 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Matthew’s Understanding of Mixed Crowds Matthew does not omit verses from Mark with the term λαός. Rather, he expands the topic by using his special material and the sayings source Q (Mt 1:21; 2:4,6; 4:16,23; 13:15; 15:8; 21:23; 26:3,5,47; 27:1,25,64). Due to the topic and purpose of this paper we need to restrict the examination of all references to one observation. Since Jews and Gentiles follow Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry (Mt 4:24f ) we need to consider that ὄχλος is an inclusive term for both groups. The itinerant preacher Jesus is teaching (διδάσκω), proclaiming (κηρύσσω) and healing (θεραπεύω) all followers (see the programmatic verses Mt 4:23 and Mt 9:35; ὄχλος is combined with ἀκολουθέω in Mt 4:25; 8:1; 12:15; 14:13; 19:2; 20:29; 21:9).
Matthew’s Understanding of Gentiles The technical term in the New Testament used for Gentiles is ἔθνος which Matthew uses fifteen times (Mt 4:15; 6:32; 10:5,18; 12:18,21; 20:19,25; 21:43; 24:7,9,14; 25:32; 28:19). - According to S.H. Brooks, one reference originates from the Matthean special material (10:5). - Eight times the verses belong to the Matthean special material with Matthean stylistic features (4:15; 12:18,21; 25:32; 28:19). Three of the verses are fulfilment quotations (4:15; 12:18,21) which are crucial for Matthew’s theology. - Two verses dealing with Gentiles are taken from Q (6:32; 10:18). - Seven references of ἔθνος belong to Mark (20:19,25; 24:7[2]; 21:43; 24:9,14). Three Markan verses are changed by inserting the term ἔθνος into the pretext (21:43; 24:9,14). Hence, just four out of fifteen references to the term ἔθνος are identical with Mark. Eleven references are additional material or amendments of the oldest Jesus narrative. In addition, geographical indications lead the reader to Matthew’s theological idea of pagans. He mentions the Decapolis (Δεκάπολις) and the area beyond the Jordan as pagan districts different to hisVorlage Mark.
Geographical Indications In Mark’s Gospel two exorcisms take place in the Decapolis (Mk 5:1-20; 7:31-37). In both cases the response is a proclamation of faith by the person healed or rather by the crowd of witnesses. In both cases the exorcism takes place Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 97 by direct contact between Jesus and the possessed person. Matthew just once mentions the Decapolis in Mt 4:25. A mixed crowd (ὄχλοι πολλοί) of Jews from Galilee, Jerusalem and Judea, and Gentiles from the Decapolis and beyond the Jordan follows Jesus seeking his healing and preaching. This verse is singular in the Synoptics and is important in regard to Matthews’s universal ethic. Matthew leaves out the exorcism of the deaf man and significantly changes the exorcism in Gerasa: according to Matthew it takes place in the country of the Gadarenes, which is very close to the south shore of the Sea of Galilee, whilst Gadara (Mark) is located deep inside the pagan region. The location already indicates that Matthew regards the Gentiles from a distant point of view. He doubles the actors: two demoniacs are healed by Jesus. Finally the inhabitants beg Jesus to leave their neighbourhood. On the one hand, he dramatizes the story by doubling the persons in need; on the other hand, he moderates it inasmuch as it does not end with the proclamation of faith. His version works with these contrasts and ambiguities. The adverb “beyond” (the Jordan) (πέραν [τοῦ Ἰορδάνου]) occurs seven times in Matthew (Mt 4:15,25; 8:18,28; 14:22; 16:5; 19:1) and seven times in Mark (Mk 3:8; 4:35; 5:1,21; 6:45; 8:13; 10:1). Mt 4:15,25 belong to the special material. Mt 8:18 announces the transfer to the other shore of the Galilean sea but takes place west of the Jordan. 14:22 announces the return to Galilee. The expression “on the other side” in Mt 19:1 means the region of Judea and not the east of the Jordan. Four times the term refers to the region west of the Jordan (Mt 8:18; 14:22; 16:5; 19:1), three times the area east of the Jordan (Mt 4:15,25; 8:28) while Mark uses the term to describe real changes of the place (east: Mt 3:8; 4:35; 5:1; 10:1; west: 5:21; 6:45; 8:13). Matthew’s use of πέραν differs from Mark in so far as he thinks about the region west to the Jordan (see the theological maps below). Only Matthew knows about the region of Magadan (Mt15:39) where Jesus went after the feeding of the four thousand which takes place in Galilee and not in the Decapolis. Furthermore, we need to pay attention to the fact that only Matthew calls Galilee “Galilee of the Gentiles.” He seems to have a critical view, which he has taken over from Isa 8: 23, of the Jews living in Galilee.
Omissions Matthew omits entire text passages from Mark which explicitly deal with Jesus’ attitude towards Gentiles. In the following, a survey of Mark’s central text passages dealing with Jesus’ attitude towards the Gentiles is given. After the 98 MELITA THEOLOGICA stilling of a storm on the Sea of Galilee a kind of excursus to the Gentiles follows in Mark 5:1-20 which tells about an exorcism in the country of the Gerasenes. It closes with the proclamation of Jesus in the Decapolis by the man who had been cured. After this short period in a Gentile region, the topic is set forth in Mk 7:1‑8,9. This section includes the Gentiles in Jesus’ acts of salvation. - Mk 7:1-23 opens the topic with Jesus cancelling Old Testament instructions on clean and unclean foods - Mk 7:24-30 is the first (district) healing narrative of a Greek- Syrophoenician woman’s daughter - Mk 7:31-37 is the second healing narrative of a deaf man in the Decapolis - Mk 8:1-9 is the third miracle and the second feeding of the multitude (four thousand) before Jesus returns to Dalmanutha. Matthew omits two longer sections Mk 7:1-23,31-37 dealing with Mark’s view on Jesus’s attitude towards the Gentiles. Apart from this he significantly changes the Markan Vorlage of Mk 5:1-20 and 7:24-30 to the effect that he tones down/defuses the image of Jesus’ radical opening. In contrast to Mk 5:1-20, Matthew shortens and closes the exorcism the country of the Gadarenes with the rejection of all the city (πᾶσα ἡ πόλις) begging him to leave their region (ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν). He leaves out the proclamation of the healed men. The distance healing of a Greek-Syrophoenician woman’s daughter reveals considerable differences (see below). Finally, the second feeding of a multitude does not take place in a Gentile place but in Galilee - although the motifs do not refer to Israel. Normally Matthew does not omit verses from Mark which feature the term ἔθνος, but in one case (Mt 21:13) he leaves out ἔθνος. This fact can be observed in his narrative about Jesus’ temple cleansing. The amendment is quite interesting as Matthew classifies the temple in Jerusalem as a house of prayer without any further characterization. He accentuates the purpose of the temple and not its target group.
Expansions A significant expansion of the MarkanVorlage can be examined in Mt 24:14 where Matthew speaks about the future missionary work and preaching of the gospel. While Mark only speaks about the necessity of preaching the gospel to all nations, Matthew describes the character of the gospel with the indirect object τῆς βασιλείας and the direct object εἰς μαρτύριον and emphasises the global dimension. Whilst Mark contextualizes the universal mission with the topic of persecution and the right behaviour of Christians, Matthew radicalizes this idea by setting it in an eschatological order. According to him, the end will come after Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 99 that. This idea is repeated in the very last text segment of Matthew’s gospel, the commissioning of the disciples (Mt 28:16-20, V.20: πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος). The mission to the Gentiles is of utmost importance for Matthew. His re-usage of the Markan gospel is influenced by his universalism, which is expressed with the terms οἰκουμένη, ἔθνος, βασιλεία and τέλος.
Supplements Most of the ἔθνος references are not taken from Mark but belong to the special material of Matthew (Mt 4:15; 6:32; 10:5,18; 12:18,21; 21:43; 24:9; 25:32; 28:19). It becomes apparent that Matthew has a specific theological interest in the Gentiles. However, he does not achieve this modification by changing the Markan Vorlage, but by using further sources. Therefore, it can be asked whether the Matthean accentuation is a response to the historical and sociological situation of his community or whether he wants to give an accurate report of his sources. Assuming that the author of the first gospel did not see himself as a historian rather than a theologian and that his writing intends to convince his mixed Jewish-pagan community of Jesus Christ, we may deduce, from his dealing with the various sources, that he selected sources and used them properly. Compared with the oldest gospel, Matthew increases the number of individual Gentile actors (wise men) and emphasizes their faith. He just alters the positive character of one possessed proclaiming Jesus after his healing in the Decapolis (Mk 5:1-20) into two possessed people and contrasted these to citizens who refused Jesus. All the other actors have a positive character who help in understanding the Matthean idea of the Gentile mission. It can be assumed that Matthew was confronted with the topic in his environment, Syria, with a strong Jewish Christianity and a Gentile culture at the same time. He retells the Jesus story according to Mk to this mixed. He collects counterarguments against the mission statement of the historical Jesus, who was sent to gather the tribes of Israel (Mt 10:6; 15:24). In the plot of events, Matthew’s positive attitude towards the Gentiles precedes this historical mission statement. He projects the Gentile mission of his time back to the beginning of the historical Jesus and delivers to his audience important arguments for the present missionary work: - The Gentiles see the star (ἀστήρ) in the East (ὁράω), come (παραγίνομαι, ἔρχομαι) and worship (προσκυνέω, προσφέρω) Jesus, the king of the Jews (Mt 2:1,2,11)35
35 See Mt 24:27. 100 MELITA THEOLOGICA
- a light (φῶς μέγα) is seen (ὁράω) by people across the Jordan (Mt 4:15f ) - Jesus’ fame is spread throughout Syria (Mt 4:24: ἀπῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοή) - Gentiles seek healing from Jesus (Mt 4:24f; 8:5-13; 15:21-28) - Gentiles follow (ἀκολουθέω) Jesus (Mt 4:25; 8:1)36 - Gentiles (together with Jews) listen to Jesus’ proclamation (Mt 4:23f – 5:1-7,29) - Gentiles receive the proclamation of justice (κρίσις ἀπαγγέλλω) by God’s servant (Mt 12:18) - Gentiles hope (ἐλπίζω) in Jesus’ name (Mt 12:21) - Gentiles produce fruit of the kingdom of God (Mt 21:43: ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποὺς αὐτῆς) - Gentiles are gathered (συνάγω, ἀφορίζω) for the final judgement (Mt 25:32) Matthew legitimates active Gentile mission by the Matthean community by re-narrating and altering the Markan Jesus narrative. Gentiles and Jews receive Jesus’ healing, teaching, and preaching (Mt 4:23; 9:35: θεραπεύω, διδάσκω, κηρύσσω). Both have to reckon on the final judgement. Important expressions of faith and the Christian way of life are connected with Gentiles (ὁράω, προσκυνέω, ἀκολουθέω, ἐλπίζω, τοσαύτη/μεγάλη πίστις). Matthew argues that Gentiles came to faith in Jesus right from the beginning of his public ministry, even without active missionary work by the Christian community. Jesus’ charisma already has an effect on Gentiles who are positively characterized as seeking salvation. The commissioning of the disciples to all people in Mt 28:19 is just consistent. Thus, Matthew reworks the Markan Jesus narrative in some respects: In accordance with Old Testament prophecy he speaks about the judgement on Israel and the people, salvation of Israel and of the Gentiles. He strengthens the Markan sayings about Gentiles and emphasizes the meaning of Israel. His (eschatological) ideal is the community of Gentiles from East and West, sitting together at the same table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heavens (Mt 8:11) and an exclusion of the unfaithful (Mt 8:12).
36 The term ὄχλος include Jews and Gentiles in Matthew (see the programmatic verses 4:23f ). Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 101
Expressions of faith among Gentiles Gentiles → Jesus Jesus → Gentiles ὁράω (wise men: 2:1,2,10,11; Teaching & healing Gentiles: 4:16)37 παραγίνομαι, ἔρχομαι (Mt 2:1,2,11) ἀπῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν Συρίαν (Mt 4:24)38 προσφέρω (wise men Mt 2,11: θεραπεύω (Mt 4:23f; 7:29) αὐτῷ δῶρα, χρυσὸν καὶ λίβανον καὶ σμύρναν; sick: Mt 4:24f; 8:5-13; 15:21-28) προσκυνέω (wise men: Mt 2:2,8,11; διδάσκω (Jesus teaches Jews and Canaanite woman: Mt 15:25) Gentiles: Mt 4:23f – 5:1-7:29)39 ἀκολουθέω (Mt 4:25; 8:1) κηρύσσω (Jesus teaches Jews and Gentiles: Mt 4:23f – 5:1-7:29) ἐλπίζω (Mt 12:21)40 Final judgement συνάγω, ἀφορίζω κρίσις ἀπαγγέλλω (Mt 12:18) ποιέω καρπούς (Mt 21:43) συνάγω, ἀφορίζω (Mt 25:32) τοσαύτη/μεγάλη πίστις (Mt 8:10; 15:28)41 3737 3838 3939 4040 4141 It should not be neglected that Matthew also encourages prejudices42 against Gentiles. They mainly serve as negative examples for Christian ethics of the
37 ὁράω also can mean to believe (Mt 2:1,2,10,11; 4:16; 5:8; 9:8,30f; 13:17; 14:26; 16:28; 17:8; 24:30; 27:54). 38 Mk 1:28 only knows about Jesus’ fame spread throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee. 39 Ring composition. 40 Hapaxlegomenon of Matthew (Sondergut), no occurrence in Mark. 41 Very important since Mathew characterizes the little faith (ὀλιγοπιστία) of the disciples and in particular of Peter (see Mt 6:30; 8:26; 14:31; 16:8; 17:20; see also 17:20; 21:21). 42 This topic is not yet analysed in regard to Matthew. See P.A. Holloway,Coping with Prejudice. 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective, WUNT 244 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009); B.D. Schildgen, Power and Prejudice. The Reception of the Gospel of Mark (Detroit/MI: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1999). 102 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Matthean Jewish-Christian community. These statements do not seem to be well considered - which fits in with the nature of prejudices.
Prejudices against Gentiles (without parallel in Mark) Mt. 5:47 καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; → Gentiles only salute their brethren → this prejudice serves as a negative example for the Christian community (loving) Mt 6:7 Προσευχόμενοι δὲ μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, δοκοῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται. → Gentiles heap up empty phrases when they pray → this prejudice serves as a negative example for the Christian community (praying) Mt 6:32 πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν· → Gentiles worry about eating, drinking, and wearing → this prejudice serves as a negative example for the Christian community (worrying) Mt 10:5 εἰς ὁδὸν ἐθνῶν μὴ ἀπέλθητε καὶ εἰς πόλιν Σαμαριτῶν μὴ εἰσέλθητε· → Jesus advises to avoid Gentiles (see 15:24) Mt 18:17 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης. → Gentiles have the same social status as tax collectors → this prejudice serves as a negative example for the Christian community (reproving) Mt 20:19 καὶ παραδώσουσιν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν εἰς τὸ ἐμπαῖξαι καὶ μαστιγῶσαι καὶ σταυρῶσαι, → For the third time Jesus predicts his delivery to the Gentiles for mocking, scourging, and crucifying → Matthean interpretation of Jesus’ death Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew - Beate Kowalski 103
Mt 20:25 οἴδατε ὅτι οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. → Jesus reminds his disciples that rulers exercise dominion over the nations; → this comparison serves as a negative example for the Christian community (equality) Mt 24:7 ἐγερθήσεται γὰρ ἔθνος ἐπὶ ἔθνος → Jesus predicts war among the nations at the end of the time Mt 24:9 καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου → Jesus foretells that Christians will be hated by all nations for his name’s sake → Matthean interpretation of Jesus’ death → Prejudices mainly serve as negative examples for the Christian ethics of the Matthean Jewish-Christian community ←
Conclusion 1. The entire Gospel of Matthew is written from a post-Easter perspective within an intercultural and plural society with a strong Jewish tradition. The care for the Gentiles is introduced, at the latest, with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee in Mt 4:12-17,18-25, through inserting programmatic fulfilment quotations in the Markan plot. A universal perspective can even be found already in the childhood narrative.
2. Matthew projects the pre-Eastern mission to the Gentiles onto the historical Jesus and gives reasons for a Gentile mission under Jewish conditions. He legitimates a Gentile mission, but does not argue for a substitution of Israel and a replacement by Gentiles.
3. Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ care for Israel more than Mark does. But Matthew’s definition of Israel differs from the MarkanVorlage (model): it is not naïve or uncritical, as much as he regards Galilee as the place of Gentiles (see Matthew’s texts dealing with the final judgement). Furthermore, he compares Jesus’ mission with the role of the suffering servant as light to the nations (Isa 42:6) who will bring them forth justice (Isa 42:1). Both interpretations are taken from Isaiah and are incorporated in a fulfilment quotation. 104 MELITA THEOLOGICA
4. The reason for Matthew’s theological interpretation of the Markan Jesus story might be the Old Testament concept of the pilgrimage of the people to Mount Zion (Völkerwallfahrt). This could explain why even the feeding of the four thousand takes place in Israel and not at a pagan place, as in Mark. It could also clarify that Matthew accentuates, right from the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee, that people from Gentile areas follow Jesus seeking salvation (Mt 4:24f ).
5. All miracle stories which concern Gentiles take place in Galilee or are confirmed by Jesus in front of a representative. Nowhere does Jesus heal sick individuals by touching them directly. All healings concerning pagans are distant healings, observing the Jewish law of purity.
6. With the beginning of the Judean part of Matthew, and in particular in the Passion narrative, a critical view on the leaders of Israel, and once of the entire people (Mt 27:25), prevails. It seems that Matthew is, besides John, a very Jewish and anti-Jewish gospel at the same time.
7. Matthew contains Gentile-critical text passages and Gentile-friendly texts, as well as Israel-critical and Israel-friendly statements. He argues for a universal salvation (Heilsuniversalimus) right from the beginning, and an active Gentile mission at the final end. This theological concept alludes to Old Testament prophecy.
Beate Kowalski Institute of Catholic Theology Faculty 14: Human Sciences and Teology TU Dortmund University Emil - figge - Str. 50 D-44 227 Dortmund Germany
[email protected] MELITA THEOLOGICA 1Emmanuel Agius* Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 105-110
The Technocratic Paradigm and its Ethos Academic Oration delivered in the Graduation Ceremony (28 November 2016)
am very pleased and honoured to address you on such a special occasion. IWhen I was invited by the Senate to deliver today’s oration, I searched for a common thread among the variety of degrees which will be conferred at this graduation ceremony, ranging from theology to astroinformatics, from bioethics to tourism, from information and communication technology to business ethics, from creativity and innovation to Chinese Medicine. These areas of specialization reflect the type of culture in which we are living. We cannot imagine living in a world which is not digital, without the advanced biotechnology that is today improving immensely our quality of life, without technological innovation and creativity in business and economics which account for the enormous increase in today’s productivity and wealth, without astroinformatics which is extending our knowledge and control of outer space, and without today’s information and communication technology which have compressed time and space, turning the world into a global village. Indeed, technology has become an integral part of our way of life: our language (think of the common usage of metaphors derived from communication and computer technology); norms and values (think of the way we perceive human life as a commodity, the environment as an economic resource, and human nature no longer as the norm but as raw material for instrumentalisation); and identity (think of neurotechnology and the ways how identities are shaped and changed in today’s era of digital self-expression and communication).
1* Emmanuel Agius is a Professor in Moral Theology, Ethics and Bioethics. He has been Head of Department of Moral Theology, Dean of the Faculty of Theology (2007-2019) and a member of the European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies.
105 106 MELITA THEOLOGICA
I wish to consider briefly the role that theology can play in a technological society and culture. Traditionally, theology has been defined as ‘faith seeking understanding’ because reason plays an important role in its never ending process of critical self-reflection. Since the starting-point of theology is human experience, theological reflections are constantly challenged by what we meet in real-life situations, thereby undergoing constant revision, enhancement and renewal. The great human problems of the day, such as the misuse of biotechnology, environmental degradation, climate change, human rights violations, immigration, poverty, corruption and good governance, do matter a lot for theology, being a dynamic discipline of systematic reflection on all aspects of human experience in the light of reason and faith. In a pluralistic and democratic society, one would expect to find an active exchange, discussions and interaction between people. Not only individuals, but also social groups with different cultural and religious backgrounds have the right to voice their opinion on socio-economic, political and environmental issues. Active participation in the debate on matters of public importance is a sign of a healthy democracy. This is true of Churches and other religious organisations. Every religious community should enjoy and put into practice the freedom to articulate its faith perspectives on the concerns of civil society and to recommend solutions for the common good. Theology has therefore to rediscover itself continuously in order to render its service adequately in a pluralistic society in a spirit of dialogue with others independently of their political, religious and secular beliefs and convictions. Dialogue and collaboration also suppose a readiness to listen and to learn. During the past ten years of experience as a member of the European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), which is an independent, pluralistic and multidisciplinary advisory body to the European Commission, I have been constantly challenged in the group discussions to search for sound theological insights to articulate people’s concerns and fundamental questions about converging technologies, such as nanotechnology, information and communication technologies, and technology in synthetic biology. Concern about the misuse of technology is not new. In Greek mythology, Prometheus and Pandora epitomise the ambiguity of technological progress and advancement. The potential enormous benefits of science and technology for the improvement of the human condition, symbolised by Prometheus’ gift of fire to humanity, is continuously threatened by many hidden risks with far- reaching consequences. For this reason, human hubris needs to be restrained by responsibility, foresight and prudence to keep the lid of Pandora’s Box tightly closed to avoid adverse consequences for both present and future generations. The Technocratic Paradigm and its Ethos - Emmanuel Agius 107
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI referred in his encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate (Charity and Truth, CV 68) to the leading danger of the Promethean presumption, namely humanity’s belief in self-sufficiency because of the “wonders” of technology. This illusion of omnipotence secludes human reason to the immanence and precludes the horizon of its transcendence. The link between theology and technology is mediated through rationality which provides appropriate ethical standards. Faith without reason risks being cut off from everyday life. On the other hand, reason which totally shuns a role to faith loses an important dimension of our humanity. The role of theological ethics is to reinterpret and contextualise the rational normative framework within its faith narratives and the tradition of Christian social teaching which enables the Church to take a critical stance towards the tendency of technology to influence our moral consciousness, our conception of the human good and of moral responsibility. Technology becomes an area of moral enquiry for theology because it is no longer merely the extension of human efficacy but is fundamentally transforming human attitudes, perceptions, relationships, behaviour and decisions. The theological horizon offers a broader perspective to technology since it includes the whole fabric of moral and religious existence, the whole of what is entailed by the good and faithful life in relation to others, God and all creation. This built-in holism is one of the great contributions that theological patterns of reflection can offer to thinking critically about the technological zeitgeist. From a theological perspective, “science and technology are wonderful products of a God-given human creativity” (Laudato Si, On the Care of Our Common Home, LS 102) which empower humanity’s vocation to participate in God’s creative action (LS 131). These significant positive expressions of human freedom, creativity and innovation are considered as outstanding and precious human achievements when placed at the service of the human person and the common good and for integral human development (LS 112). Technology can actually improve human life only when accompanied with “a sound ethics, a culture, and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and reaching dear- minded self-restraint” (LS 105). Human responsibility, values and conscience arc needed to guide technological power since it is an illusion to claim its moral neutrality (LS 114). Guiding principles cannot be inferred from simple technical efficiency, or from the utility accruing to some at the expense of others or, even worse, from prevailing ideologies. Technology must be judged not by its ability to do something faster, cheaper or easier, but rather by the quality of its impact on people, both individually and collectively, and on the environment. 108 MELITA THEOLOGICA
The “technocratic paradigm” is questionable because it “exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external world. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation” (LS 106). This Promethean vision of mastery over the world (LS 115) reflects the excessive individualism, the domination of instrumental reason and the structures of industrial technological society, which the philosopher of culture Charles Taylor, identifies as the three malaises of modernity. Technology affects and conditions the way we think and relate with others and nature. It “creates a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are i n reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build” (LS 107). It has become the principal key that we use today to interpret the meaningfulness of human existence (LS 110). In the context of today’s ‘throwaway culture, - a phrase frequently used by Pope Francis - those who do not satisfy the perceived requirements of utility and efficiency, such as the sick and the dying, risk losing the respect that they should have (LS 123). Moreover, technology has the risk of rendering us self-centred and oblivious of the larger picture of reality. The fragmentation of knowledge proves helpful for concrete application, yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationship between things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. This makes it hard to find adequate ways of solving the more complex problems of today’s world, particularly those regarding the environment and the poor (LS 110). Furthermore, those enslaved by the ‘technocratic paradigm’ find it very difficult to imagine ways of dealing with the dilemma of human existence which do not involve exploitative technology, but even worse, too many think that it is by technology alone that such difficulties can be dealt with (LS 110). The ‘technocratic paradigm’ also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit- making, without concern for its potential short- and long-term negative impact on human beings and the environment (LS 109). The continuous change of economic, social and financial structures resulting from technological progress has a major impact on civil society’s values and attitudes towards the environment, the megaprojects of land speculators and developers, cronies and political corruption, the job market, the just distribution of social benefits, the issue of poverty line in society, the credibility of institutions set up to protect the The Technocratic Paradigm and its Ethos - Emmanuel Agius 109 environment, and good governance. Theology cannot remain indifferent when faced with civil society’s concern and questions on such important matters. Pope Francis in his encyclical letter Evangelii Gaudium (EG, The Joy of the Gospel) remarks that theology must not remain “abstract or mere generalities which challenge no one but must be concrete by drawing practical conclusions. The Church’s pastors have the right to offer opinions on all that affects people’s lives, since the task of evangelization implies and demands the integral promotion of each human being. It is no longer possible to claim that religion should be restricted to the private sphere and that it exists only to prepare souls for heaven. God wants his children to live happy and with dignity in this world too. Consequently, no one can demand that religion should be relegated to the inner sanctum of personal life, without influence on societal and national life, without concern for the soundness of civil institutions, without a right to offer an opinion on events affecting society” EG( 182-3). The challenges of the ‘technocratic paradigm’ and theethos it spawns are alive and strong among us. The commodification of the environment was at the core of the decision to ravage the natural environment at Zonqor Point and Hondoq ir-Rummiem, a decision strongly resisted by civil society. Environmental NGOs are also taking a strong stand against the new trend of constructing high-rise buildings. Theology, which starts its reflections from human experience, is bound to address civil society’s questions and doubts on the impact of these projects on the quality of life of the Maltese citizens. Inspired by the tradition of theological reflections on sustainable development and technology, particularly as articulated by Pope Francis in his environmental encyclical, the local Church, through its hierarchy and its Environment Commission, has exercised its legitimate right to pronounce its ethical perspectives on these controversial projects. The local Church’s prophetic role on environmental issues is in tune with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s remarks in Caritas in Veritate: “Development is impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are firmly attuned to the requirements of the common good” (CV 71). Moreover, in this year’s message on 1st September to mark the Church’s World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, Pope Francis states that “Economics and politics, society and culture cannot be dominated by thinking only of the short-term and immediate financial or electoral gains. Instead, they urgently need to be redirected to the common good, which includes sustainability and care for creation.” These are just few examples that illustrate the role of religious convictions in the public square. 110 MELITA THEOLOGICA
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate you, dear graduands, on your success in your post-graduate studies. We are here to celebrate your accomplishments. Congratulations for arriving at this important milestone and to your parents and loved ones who have supported you throughout your academic journey. Now that you have concluded a chapter in your lifetime, be courageous to commence a new one with enthusiasm and courage. Be innovative and creative to fulfil your ambitions. Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Keep in mind that it is harder to engage in your respective careers with honesty, integrity, transparency and responsibility than to get an academic degree! Be ambassadors of our Alma Mater by showing that our university has empowered you not only with knowledge, skills and an academic degree, but also with human values, wisdom of heart, and moral qualities to make a difference in your own life and that of others. Good luck and congratulations. Thank you.
Emmanuel Agius Department of Moral Theology Faculty of Theology University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 Malta [email protected] MELITA THEOLOGICA Joseph Gabriel Grech* Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 111-113
The Dark Night of the Ascent of Mount Carmel (Part 1) Excerpt from Melita Theologica 6/2 (1953): 98-109
od is dark night to the soul, according to the teachings of St John of the GCross, inasmuch as He communicates Himself to – unites Himself with – the soul, which journeys to union with Him. In the teaching of the Carmelite Mystic, this communication of God is communication of knowledge and love of God to the soul. This same communication of God to the soul may be received by the soul with delight and fruition – the end. Or with affliction and torment – the means, according to the the stage and period of the journey – the spiritual life. It is clear that not delight and fruition cause night, but affliction and torment. The Carmelite Mystic teaches that faith gives us and communicates to us God Himself, which means that faith makes us understand God as He is in Himself, yet, inevidently.1 The communication of God to the soul in the passive night of the spirit is the “infused contemplation”.2 Infused contemplation, is “Divine love and knowledge in one – that is, a loving knowledge, wherein the soul has not to use its natural acts and reasonings, for it can no longer enter into them as before.”3 Infused contemplation, in the doctrine of St John of the Cross, is a higher or superior exercise of theological faith. Hence, as faith is “dark night” to the soul, it follows that infused contemplation would be “dark night” to the soul as well.
* Gabriel of the Incarnation (Joseph Grech) O.C.D. (1920-2003) was various times Provincial Superior of the Discalced Carmelites and a professor of theology. He was also knowledgeable of mysticism and mathematics. 1 Spiritual Canticle (Second Redaction), Stanza XII, especially n.4. 2 Dark Night II, XXIII. 3 Living Flame of Love (Second Redaction), Stanza III, n. 32.
111 112 MELITA THEOLOGICA
“This dark night is an inflowing of God into the soul, which purges it from its ignorances and imperfections, habitual, natural, and spiritual, and which is called by contemplatives infused contemplation, or mystical theology. Herein God secretly teaches the soul and instructs it in perfection of love, without its doing anything, or understanding of what manner is this infused contemplation. Inasmuch as it is the loving wisdom of God, God produces striking effects in the soul, for, by purging and illuminating it, He prepares it for the union of love with God. Wherefore the same loving Wisdom that purges the blessed spirits and enlightens them is that which here purges the soul and illumines it.”4 Therefore, “infused contemplation,” or “mystical theology,” shows the soul its miseries and imperfections, and, at the same time, purges the soul of them; it illumines and purges. “For two reasons this Divine Wisdom is not only night and darkness for the soul, but is likewise affliction and torment. The first is because of the height of Divine Wisdom, which transcends the talent of the soul, and in this way is darkness to it; the second, because of its vileness and impurity, in which respect it is painful and afflictive to it, and is also dark.”5 In the light of this spiritual communication, or “infused contemplation,” the soul comes to know that it is not serving God so perfectly as it should do.”6 Therefore, among its afflictions and torments, the soul learns how to serve God perfectly: through “infused contemplation” of the passive night of the spirit, the soul gains knowledge of God and comes to know the standard according to which it has to serve Him to perfection. In the beginning of the passive night of the spirit, this dark knowledge, which is “infused contemplation”, causes in the soul a great and strong love of estimation (amor aestimatious) for God. This same love of estimation emboldens the soul to love and serve God in the best way possible to it.7 Finally, when the purification comes to its end, the soul enters to partake in the mystical banquet, that is, it attains to union with God; and, victorious in all its spiritual battles, it rests, lost in oblivion, reclined on the Beloved: all is cleared now, and the soul abandons itself to God completely, leaving all its cares forgotten among the lilies.8
4 Dark Night II, V, 1. 5 Ibid, II, V, 2. 6 Ibid, II, VI. 7 Ibid, II, XIII, 5-8; XVI, 14. 8 See last stanza of the poem “En una noche oscura”, Stanza 8. The Dark Night of the Ascent of Mount Carmel - Joseph Gabriel Grech 113
“Infused contemplation,” or “communication of God,” or “mystical theology,” is “dark night” for the soul, because it deprives and purges the soul of all its miseries and ignorances, which God makes it understand under the mystical light of “infused contemplation.” “Infused contemplation,” therefore, leaves the soul unoccupied and in darkness; and it leads the soul through a “dark night,” because here the soul journeys also “as it were, by night, in darkness.” In the works “Ascent of Mount Carmel” and “Dark Night,” which are but one complete work, St John of the Cross outlines the way to the high estate of perfection, which he calls union of the soul with God. St John of the Cross presents this way to union under the figure of a “dark night.” The Saint compares the journey to union with “dark night.” The mean, adopted by the Carmelite Mystic in his comparison, is privation: the “dark night” is a figure9 of the way to union inasmuch as the said dark night is privation of light. The journey of the soul to union with God may be looked upon from a double point of view: the positive point and the negative. The “dark night” presents the journey of the soul to union with God directly under the negative aspect. Therefore, the way to union may be called “night,” “for, even as night is naught but the privation of light, and consequently, of all objects that can be seen by means of light, whereby the visual faculty remains unoccupied and in darkness,”10 even so likewise the way to union with God is naught but the privation of all things contrary or less agreeable to the love of God, which is mortification of all desires of worldly things, and privation of all that is contrary or less agreeable to the “way of faith,” for which privation the soul remains, as it were, “unoccupied and in darkness.” That the soul, therefore, may attain to the summit of the Spiritual Mount of Carmel, union with God, it must journey in faith and love of God, which is the positive aspect of the way to Christian Perfection – the summit of Mount Carmel.
9 Some writers have made attempts to declare which kind of figure of speech is the “Dark Night” of St John of the Cross. 10 Ascent I, III, 1.
MELITA THEOLOGICA Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 115-117
Book Review: Kevin Schembri, Oikonomia, Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition Rome: Pontificio Instituto Orientale, 2017, 336 pp., ISBN 978-88-97789-39-0
his book is a substantial contribution to the study of Eastern Orthodox TCanon Law. Rev Kevin Schembri examines the historical and canonical background of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the Christian East, opening this tradition to the Western scholar, and producing a study that can be useful to students as well as researchers. The first chapter of the book starts with a thorough examination of the background of marriage in the Jewish, the Greek and the Roman tradition, describing the legal and the social context in which the significance of marriage developed in the early Church. Schembri proceeds with an analysis of the theology of marriage, its liturgical development and symbolism, and concludes this chapter presenting the development of the canonical tradition on marriage. Schembri draws extensively on the Greek Fathers, but, careful to his subject matter, he makes sure to take into account the way they are read by modern Orthodox theologians. Therefore, views that are expressed in the writings of Basil of Caesarea and John Chrysostom are presented in continuity with the views of theologians such as Harakas, Trembelas, or Evdokimov. Had that not been the case, the book might claim to be an examination of the Patristic roots of the spirituality of marriage, but not of the Eastern Orthodox view on the subject. One of the special virtues of Schembri’s book is that it tries to approach Eastern Orthodoxy not simply as a tradition, that is, as a historically conditioned attitude that may be traced in time, but as a different way of thought. To this
115 116 MELITA THEOLOGICA effect, the second chapter of the book, dedicated to the analysis of “Akriveia” and “Oikonomia” (that may be roughly translated as ‘Strictness and Dispensation’ in terms of the application of Canon Law) goes beyond the level of historical information, and tries to present not just the pastoral practice of the Christian East, but, as much as this is possible, the pastoral instinct that seems to guide this practice and the interpretation of the written canonical tradition. Schembri relies on the theological distinction (or complementarity) between akriveia and oikonomia as it may be appreciated beyond the pastoral practice, citing systematic attempts to explain their purpose and function, as well as historical examples. This chapter can, on its own, be a useful introduction to the concept ofakriveia and oikonomia to the Western student and researcher. In the third chapter Schembri seems to be motivated by what initially appears as a difference between Eastern and Western Christian practices, and examines the question of the indissolubility of marriage (which usually is associated with the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage) in the East. Here the author presents the spiritual foundation of marriage as it is understood in the East, and argues convincingly that the same principle of the indissolubility of marriage is found in the East. Following this, in the fourth chapter, Schembri also describes the theological foundation and the pastoral circumstances that allowed the Orthodox Church to adopt a flexible policy on the matter of divorce and successive marriages. His research also shows how marriages of lay and clergy are treated differently. The book concludes with a wider appreciation of the Eastern Christian tradition, and how its approach, including its differences from Western practices, may be taken in the context of a theological and pastoral dialogue. This is a very constructive ecumenical approach, and it could work with several areas of what may become a series of constructive differences between the two Churches. Overall, this is a book that uses solid scholarship to examine its subject as closely as possible. Although there are several studies of the spirituality of marriage, it is hard to find a similar book, in terms of the description of the spiritual and legal context of marriage, and also the way it is understood beyond the letter of the law in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. While the focus of this book is clear, and it delivers what it promises, further directions of the theology and the canonical examination of the Eastern Orthodox tradition could include an evaluation of the eschatological dimension of marriage, such as it appears in G. Patronos’s Marriage in Theology and in Life (Athens: 1981), which would have been useful even for this volume, and also an examination of the present dialogue concerning marriage and love in Book Review 117 the Orthodox tradition. Much of this may be found in the work of Christos Yannaras - especially, but not exclusively in his Variation on the Song of Songs (Athens: 1990) - but it is also part of a wider dialogue on anthropology, an area that Orthodox theology tries to examine actively. Yet, much of this dialogue is not limited to the spirituality or the Patristic background of the Orthodox tradition, but it also addresses points of Canon Law, such as Sotiris Mitralexis: “A Return to Tradition: The Marriage of Bishops in the (Greek) Orthodox Church,” in the International Journal of Orthodox Theology 7:4 (2016), 205–218. Finally, Schembri wrote his book before the Panorthodox Council of 2016, but he certainly kept an eye to the preconciliar activity. While the Council was expected to look into the question of marriage in the Orthodox tradition in a theological depth that would allow it to address urgent pastoral questions such as mixed marriages today, and second marriages of divorced or widowed priests, it failed to do so. The failure itself however, could be an indication of the need for a much more rigorous examination in the area of the Orthodox spirituality of marriage, and its reflection on Canon Law. Nevertheless, the book of Rev Kevin Schembri will certainly be a valuable asset for anyone who would like to take a good look at the past, before we venture into the future.
Andreas Andreopoulos Reader in Orthodox Christianity Department of Theology, Religion and Philosophy University of Winchester UK MELITA THEOLOGICA Journal of the Faculty of Theology University of Malta 68/1 (2018): 119-121
Book Review: CARUANA Salvino,
“Jien s’hawn nista’, ” Martinu Luteru: Riforma jew riforma? (Malta: Provinċja Agostinjana Maltija, 2018), viii + 474pp. ISBN 978-99957-1-308-9
he eirenic commemoration of the fifth centenary of the Reformation, Tlast year, continues to have positive echoes, not only on an ecumenical dimension. All over the academic world, many learned works have been published these last few years on Martin Luther and the Reformation. The recent volume “Jien s’hawn nista’,” Martinu Luteru: Riforma jew riforma? by Rev. Prof. Salvino Caruana O.S.A. is one of them. Fr. Caruana, Emeritus Professor of Patristics at the Faculty of Theology of the has gifted Maltese readers with a masterpiece wherein he presents Luther within the socio-political and religious context in which he lived and later, gave birth to a movement which spread like wildfire in many parts of Europe. As the author acknowledges in the Introduction, he commits himself to depicting the reformer in an objective manner, namely a perspective which puts events and their implications within a much wider and truer picture. He refrains from following the former black-and-white schemes of “us” and “them”, preceding the era of authentic ecumenical dialogue and relations. Fr. Caruana endeavours to illustrate 15th and 16th century Europe, and what was taking place in Germany, which was then a myriad array of autonomous principalities, dukedoms and bishoprics. The Renaissance was at its height, as was the Age of Discovery. Calls for a true reform of the Church had long been uttered in previous centuries by preachers and leaders of contrasting hues: from
119 120 MELITA THEOLOGICA
Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) to St Francis of Assisi, John Wycliffe in Britain, Jan Hus in Bohemia, and so forth. The invention of printing by Gutenberg in Germany was instrumental in the rapid spread of Luther’s thought. Moreover, Luther’s ideas found fertile ground for various reasons, in particular the innate opposition in Germany to Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the reluctance to finance the building of the new St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The whole issue of the sale of indulgences was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Luther’s publication of the 95 theses on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg, on 31st October 1517, signalled the formal genesis of the Protestant Reform, although the cauldron had long been simmering. The volume gifts its readers with a detailed account of Martin Luther’s family and social background, his personality, early studies, his joining the Augustinian Order (following a vow he made when he was nearly struck by lightning during a terrible storm), and his brilliant academic career. The various vicissitudes experienced by the Augustinian Order in Germany in the early 16th century are also described. The volume takes its name from the words attributed to Luther. After he was excommunicated, Luther sought to defend himself at the Diet of Worms (1521). As he concluded his defence, he affirmed: “I stand convicted [convinced] by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.” Caruana’s text is lavishly enriched by about 700 footnotes. These notes supply the reader with valuable biographical information on the persons mentioned, as well as references to the many sources used. Caruana also provides us with excellent information on the Council of Trent (1545-1563) which sought to control the flood waters caused by the Reform, thus leading to a much-needed Catholic Restoration in doctrine and the spiritual life with great personalities and founders, the likes of St Ignatius of Loyola, St Teresa of Avila, St Philip Neri and St Cajetan. The book also offers the precious evaluations made on the Reform by a number of thinkers and historians. This is paramount in order to reach a balanced judgement on Luther and the Reform movement. The volume by Rev. Prof. Salvino Caruana is the first of its kind in the Maltese language. Though laden with copious information, the author successfully keeps the readers riveted to its pages. The text flows magnificently as the style is Book Review 121 beautiful, the details colourful and the data arousing. I heartily recommend the book. It is indeed a rare and precious gem.
Hector Scerri Department of Fundamental & Dogmatic Theology Faculty of Theology University of Malta Msida MSD 2080 Malta