The State of Patristic Studies

Dados Bibliográficos

ID20175409
AutoresShawn J Wilhite (California Baptist University Riverside California 92504 USA, autor correspondente)
Ano2024
Volume50
Fascículo4
Páginas743-752
Data de publicação2024-12-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoReligious Studies Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0319-485X • E-ISSN: 1748-0922
EditoraWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/rsr.17552
OpenAlexW4406815258
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas47

To reflect upon and narrate the “State” of Patristic Studies seems to be, nay, is a daunting and near-impossible task. The sheer volume of material (primary and secondary sources), methodological achievements, and worldwide diversity are impossible to distill in this brief essay (Van Bevel 1963; Kannengiesser 1989, 633). T. Van Bavel commented upon the impossibility of keeping up with all the dissertations, monographs, essays, and articles. And this sentiment merely describes Augustinian studies in 1963! How can one narrate and grasp the field in 2024 when the volume has only increased? This is a good reminder of the limitations and gratitude for all those scholars pursuing this discipline. The following is a humble and meager summary of Patristic Studies (with brief and minimal commentary on Early Christian Studies), limited to the English-speaking world and sensitive to North American and some European trends. As a result, I am confident that I have overlooked corners of the discipline. I seek to build from Charles Kannengesier (1991), who has provided an answer to these very concerns in the late twentieth century. I also point readers to Patristic Studies in the Twenty-First Century (Bitton-Ashkelony et al. 2015).1,2 Several years ago (2021), I assisted in recording a conversation between several Patristic scholars for the fiftieth anniversary of the North American Patristics Society (hereafter, NAPS). Elizabeth Clark, Wendy Mayer, Joseph Lienhard, Robert Sider, and Columba Stewart discussed the past trends of the field, the history of the NAPS organization, and their contributions. Later that same year, Professor Clark passed away (Sept 7, 2021). In the past ten years, Rowan Greer (Mar 17, 2014), Mary T. Clark (Sept 1, 2014), William Harmless (Oct 14, 2014), Luise Abramowski (Nov 3, 2014), Russell J. DeSimone (Dec 29, 2014), Hermann Josef Vogt (Aug 28, 2015), Fred Norris (Sept 23, 2016), Thomas Oden (Dec 8, 2016), Lionel Wickham (Dec 17, 2017), Charles Kannengiesser (Feb 10, 2018), Philip Rousseau (Sept 3, 2020), Nonna Verna Harrison (Feb 7, 2022), Benedicta Ward (May 23, 2022), Pierre Petitmengin (June 28, 2022), Kallistos Ware (Aug 24, 2022), Joseph Hallman (Jan 1, 2023), Joseph Mueller (Jan 12, 2023), Robert Gregg (Mar 20, 2023), and William Schoedel (Apr 1, 2024), simply to name a few, have passed away.3 I mention the deaths of these notable scholars to ask a generational and genealogical question: In what ways will this subfield change without these Matriarchs and Patriarchs of Early Christian and Patristic scholarship? What does “Patristic Studies” mean as a formal discipline?4 These previously mentioned scholars were not just historical theologians or social historians, but they displayed what it means to be a scholar of Patristic Studies. At some level, one is expected to be a philologist and historian; to be able to study people's statements about God; to be conversant with adjacent disciplines such as biblical studies, classical studies, spirituality, modern theology, and philosophical contributions; and to work within a variety of languages (Coptic, Syriac, Greek, Latin, several modern languages, and more). The Patristics discipline is the collective sum of the scholars studying a general period (90–750 ce), exploring Christian material, and displaying quite a diverse set of methodological commitments. In the following, I offer three distinct summaries: (1) the identity and scope of the discipline, (2) adjacent disciplines and methods, and (3) suggestions for the future of the discipline. I hope Early Christian and Patristic scholars will expand beyond my limitations to describe these fields more adequately. What is the identity, if anyone can discern it at all, of Patristic Studies? Suppose the Fathers of the Church are defined by four traits (orthodoxy, holy life, approval of the church, and antiquity; Fédou 2019, 14). Do these qualities determine the more scientific approach to Patrology or Patristics? Of course not! The terms Patrology and Patristics are not synonymous, and Patristics is generally understood to be a sub-discipline of Patrology. Students of Patrology may be guided by literary-historical methods and non-confessional concerns, whereas students of Patristics may be motivated by dogmatic and ecclesial concerns.5 That is, Patrology sought to be more “objective” and “free,” whereas Patristics sought to be involved with the “core of the Christian faith” and “ecclesiastical authority” (van Geest 2018). I do wonder about whether Patrology should be separated from (or disentangled) from Patristics. Ekkehard Mülenberg defines Patristics, “As used in the language of today, Patristics refers to all academic study of church history of the first six centuries. Theologians dedicated to the research of early Christianity are called Patristic scholars. In Roman Catholic faculties, Patrology is listed as a discipline on its own right that deals with the lives, writings and teachings of the Church Fathers” (Mülenberg 1996, 26:97; Markschies 2015, 373). Not all scholars of this field will share this definition. As Christoph Markschies comments, a “secular definition” of Patristics is quite different from “a very traditional definition” of the term (Markschies 2015, 373). This brief example raises a central question: what is, for whom, and to what end does Patristic Studies exist? Are their religious and ecclesial boundaries, or may this discipline be moved into the university for more critical evaluation? I offer four categories for consideration that correspond to the difficulties of defining Patristic Studies. (1) Time and Temporal Boundaries: When do figures and textual material fit within or fall outside the bounds of “Patristics?” To what field of study belongs the Didache, Clement of Rome, or other first-century Christian persons and textual material concurrent with what is later regarded as the New Testament? Additionally, do Augustine, Boethius, and Gregory the Great belong to scholars of Patristics or Medieval history?6 These two questions, at least, suggest that the discipline of NT Studies and Medieval history overlap and develop in tandem with Patristics. (2) Orthodoxy and “Accuracy” of Doctrine: If “Patristics” generally refers to the bishops of the early church and adherents of “orthodox” doctrine that was to be believed, I raise a few problems. During the mid-fourth century, “Arian”-affiliate emperors may install “Arian”-affiliate bishops and excommunicated “non-Arian” bishops.7 Does this imply that “Arianism” would have been considered “orthodox” sometime during the mid-fourth century? Another brief example will suffice. Whereas Augustine is generally revered in Catholic and Protestant traditions, he does not receive such acclaim in the Eastern tradition (Azkoul 1991; Rose 2007). Also, what would be rendered as “non-orthodox” literature is now incorporated into the discipline, such as NT apocryphal literature, Nag Hammadi texts, Manicheanism, “Arianism,” etc. If “orthodoxy” serves as a standard for inclusion or exclusion in the discipline (this question and answer are different per ecclesial traditions), several early Christian sources will be excluded from more critical inquiry. Elizabeth Clark has commented upon the problems of nomenclature: Patristics refers to orthodox- and male-centric categories (Clark 2008, 14). If Patristics or theologia patristica refer to the “Fathers of the Church,” to what discipline belongs orthodox female figures, such as Macrina, or virtuously depicted females, such as Perpetua and Blandina?8 Also, if Patristics or theologia patristica refers to what is “theologically orthodox,” to what discipline belongs “unorthodox” figures, and by what “theological standard” are scholars to judge? Even from these two brief lines of questioning (not to mention others), two concluding observations emerge: (3) The scholars involved shape, direct, and move the discipline. If, for example, only Eastern scholars comprised the Patristics discipline, would Augustinian studies be as large as it is today? I have yet to mention what Charles Kannengiesser calls the “social extension” of the discipline (Kannengiesser 1991, 128). Averil Cameron explains: “Perhaps the single greatest change has been the colonization of early Christianity by classicists and others from outside the tradition of theology or patristics” (Cameron 2002, 180). Do Patristic Studies exclusively or predominantly belong to theological schools, seminaries, and religious scholars that generally align with the theology of early Christian theologians and bishops (Briggman and Scully 2022, 1–24)? Kannengiesser noted the blending of Patristic Studies with other disciplines and its place in “secular universities” (Kannengiesser 1991, 128). Finally, (4) is “Patristics” or “Early Christian Studies” the proper name for the discipline (Trout 2015, 103–5)? Whereas I broadly defined the “Patristics” discipline, I have yet to define Early Christian Studies (this topic is beyond the scope of this essay). As I write this article, a version of this question is being considered at NAPS, and this decision will shape the discussion within English-speaking scholarship. Is the North American Patristics Society the most appropriate name to reflect the comprehensiveness of the discipline? Do the titles of Patristics or even Early Christian Studies reflect the vast array of scholars, methods, sub- and adjacent disciplines, and available texts? While I would answer in the negative, I (as well as others) remain at a loss to offer a more fitting name. This discussion displays that at the foundational level, there are two approaches to the field. My vantage point is from the position of “Patristic Studies” looking into Late Antiquity and desiring some mutual overlap with the Early Christianity discipline (Cameron 2020, 283–302). They are possibly antithetical, but they do overlap.9 These titles reveal a further problem that scholars in this field may explore. Whereas “Early Christianity” or “Patrology” may be broader than “Patristics,” the field still feels to be in its adolescent phase when compared with other Christian disciplines (OT, NT, Theology, etc.). If Patrology is understood to be a discipline with its accompanying methods, it must be divorced from gender and orthodoxy as boundary markers to include all sources and methods (standard and creative) within the discipline. For example, to what discipline are the studies of Marcion or Nestorius, both recognized as heretics?10 If Early Christianity is understood to be a discipline with its accompanying methods, do critical studies of the “Ascension of Isaiah” (first- or second-century ce) text-critical work on the Hexapla and Muratorian Canon, and theological studies of Maximus the Confessor (seventh century) all belong in the same discipline? In this way, I suggest keeping both titles with their respective commitments so that the lines of distinction are deeply blurred. There, then, can be (1) Scholars of Early Christianity, (2) Scholars of Patristic Studies, and (3) Scholars of Early Christian and Patristic Studies. Several scholars involved in Patristic Studies also pursue a second intellectual field (such as NT Studies, modern theology, or Early Christianity, to name a few; Trout 2015, 89–90). While this reality is less of a criticism of the field, it reflects the role of humanities in the current University. Several scholars must have multiple fields of study to remain viable in their university setting. However, this “double duty” invites a multi-disciplinary approach to the field that provides innovative studies. I will offer five general areas accompanied by select contributions.11 Micah M. Miller. Origen of Alexandria and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford University Press, 2024) H. Clifton Ward. Clement and Scriptural Exegesis: The Making of a Commentarial Theologian (Oxford Early Christian Texts; Oxford University Press, 2024) Kenneth J. Howell. John Chrysostom, Theologian of the Eucharist (Catholic University of America Press, 2024) Pui Him Ip. Origen and the Emergence of Divine Simplicity before Nicaea (University of Notre Dame Press, 2022) Coleman Ford. A Bond between Souls: Friendship in the Letters of Augustine (Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology; Lexham Press, 2022) Adam Renberg. The Son is Truly Son: The Trinitarian and Christological Theology of Eusebius of Caesarea (Studia Traditionis Theologiae; Brepols, 2021) Gabrielle Thomas. The Image of God in the Theology of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Jonathan Draper. Nancy Pardee, and Shawn J. Wilhite, eds., “The Teaching of These Words”: Intertextuality, Social Identity, and Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Clayton N. Jefford (2024) Andrew Summerson. Divine Scripture and Human Emotion in Maximus the Confessor: Exegesis of the Human Heart (2020) Adam Rasmussen. Genesis and Cosmos: Basil and Origen on Genesis 1 and Cosmology (2019) In the mid-twentieth century, the general approach to scriptural exegesis was comparative, and often critical. Modern interpretive methods were used to evaluate and offer value judgments of ancient reading strategies.13 However, a marked shift has occurred in the past 25 years (or so) that explores a figure's internal coherence (Irvine 1994; Blowers and Martens 2019). For a recent book on early Christian exegetical patterns, see Miriam de Cock's and Elizabeth Klein's Patristic Exegesis in Context (2023). Brad Inwood. Later Stoicism 155 BC to AD 200: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation (Cambridge Source Books in Post-Hellenistic Philosophy; Cambridge University Press, 2022) George Boys-Stones. Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation (Cambridge Source Books in Post-Hellenistic Philosophy; Cambridge University Press, 2018) Kendra Eshleman. The Social World of Intellectuals in the Roman Empire: Sophists, Philosophers, and Christians, Greek Culture in the Roman World (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Lloyd Gerson, ed. The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Vols. 1–2 (Cambridge University Press, 2010) Robert W. Sharples. Peripatetic Philosophy 200 BC to AD 200: An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation (Cambridge Source Books in Post-Hellenistic Philosophy; Cambridge University Press, 2010) Gretchen Reydams-Schils. The Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Affection (University of Chicago Press, 2005) Johannes Zachhuber is a recent example exploring philosophy and Patristic theology (2020).14 Relatedly, Mark Edwards and Lewis Ayres are editors for a series entitled Studies in Philosophy and Late Antiquity. Edwards has provided a thought-provoking work in Aristotle and Early Christian Thought (2019). He claims this book “is the first book in English to give a synoptic account of the slow appropriation of Aristotelian thought in the Christian world from the second to the sixth century” (Edwards 2019, i). At the 2024 NAPS annual meeting, three full sessions were devoted to exploring philosophical traditions in Early Christianity and several philosophy-related papers in other sessions. (3) Several scholars have explored ancient Christian texts by applying modern methods and interests. I only mention four: (a) Gender and Sexuality, (b) Disability, (c) Social Identity Theory, and (d) Human Flourishing (namely with Harvard University, Australian Catholic University, and Baylor University). With the rise of studies on sexuality and queer theory in social sciences by Michel Foucault, Peter Brown and others began to utilize several of these social scientific theories in early Christianity (Foucault 1978; Brown 1988; Clark 1999; Cobb 2008; Loader 2013; Lynn 2013; Dunning 2019). Within the past several years, some have explored disability in late antiquity and early Christianity (Solevåg 2018; Henning 2021; Soon 2023; Holman et al. This year, I a volume on Social Identity Theory, Theory, and second-century literature et al. the studies of Human Flourishing may be the in early Christian (4) historical of early Christian figures, texts, must the methods of late social As is well in this field, Peter Brown has and this of the field for years to Brown do not have critical of Christian and in early Scholars of the period have critical of Eusebius of of Gregory of and Augustine Brown but not to this is and The vantage point can work (1) figures, and and with the Christian church, and (2) the Christian church and with figures, and The two are often with and and theology, and ecclesial and Several in Early Christian and Patristic Studies and the in the 2024 NAPS three full sessions were devoted to Several scholars in recent years have considered the of et al. Andrew work Christian and the of the Eucharist Andrew has at (2023). on early Christian has an in but not least, Patristic scholars may align their research with concerns of The of the Sources critical series can be used to a in Patristic Studies. In a do to of the Patristics discipline is to a by early and Catholic At its very and the discipline of Patristics to and trends. Lewis Ayres comments, to the foundational theologians of is a point of for theological 2022, also see Ayres The World as noted by may as a historical for the The of Patristics in the was not scientific studies or critical methods but one of and The of “Patristics,” as a discipline, are to own How with and in the some with to one of an for (Kannengiesser 1989, In can to its Even if current about whether Patristics belong to the University or theological and scholars, the of the field sought to The future of the discipline not to be separated from its as theological and with a for However, those the World their from these religious texts, I see not to also these religious texts as being by own Scholars have into the theological and exegetical of early Christianity, but work (3) Studies on Patristic often the term and it to philosophical studies What the philosophical of early (4) Canon, and In the past years, the field has a of on these and Thomas are the figures to these studies and and 2020, and 2021). The of by will be the standard for several a volume on the of Nicaea and The Oxford Early Christian is the series in a critical with an adjacent English Scholars are still without an English of of the was not that Kannengiesser and a critical (Kannengiesser and Additionally, field will to from of Syriac, and and Late figures, of Late Antiquity is still has a book on the role of and and on in Late Antiquity As scholars more with this it will up the role of and or some scholars of Patristic Studies also a second field, applying methods from other fields may and innovative studies. The of Early Christian Studies, the with NAPS, Patristic and A of Patristics are as a discipline and will upon have What were the trends of the past 20, and What methods were or were the scholars or that the of the William and an in the history of NT research and 1988; Elizabeth Clark, in the Fathers and The Fathers to some of this 2019). that a for history and history to this discipline, I hope one would the to narrate the history of academic discipline. A modern history of Early Christian or Patristic research has yet to be I by the limited scope of what I can in this Within the or year, this may even I have to some of the and trends of Patristic Studies. even this is an of and to at some level, in 25 years or so I hope to of the field that into I a question in the The of is hope and for others to the field of Early Christian and Patristic Studies. Even in the adolescent of the discipline and the between the two disciplines, there are more scholars in this field and available research than in past

Programming language · Catholicism and Religious Studies · Computer Science · Reformation and Early Modern Christianity · Religion and Society Interactions