An open letter to His Holiness, Benedict XVI

Your Holiness:

I wish Your Holiness the best of days in celebration of Your Holiness' 80th birthday. May it be the beginning of a long period of good health, fruitful studies, and productive work.

For my part, I am looking forward to Your Holiness' second year of the present Pontificate, which happened to fall on my birthday (April 19th). If it would please Your Holiness, I consider Your Holiness' election to pontificate to be the fulfillment of my wishes, and the best birthday present I have ever received.

In the most filial devotion,

Bernard Brandt

(By the bye, those who wish to send an e-mail to His Holiness, Benedict XVI, may do so here.)

Gwydion's Pascha Vid

Through the kindness of Gwydion, we have a video of some of the things that went on for Pascha at St. Andrew's, particularly of the baptism of two new members, and the chrismation of two new members of St. Andrew's, particularly Gwydion himself. Enjoy.

Liturgical Theology, Question 2

Question 2:

Discuss and evaluate the various interpretations given to the Great Entrance in liturgical commentaries and show their effect on the texts and actions of the Liturgy.

In the course of my reading for this class, I have found five interpretations of the Great Entrance, by the following people: St. Germanos, Nicolas of Andida, Nicholas Cabasilas, Symeon of Thessalonike, and Fr. Alexander Schmemann. I will discuss each in turn.

First, however, it is important to note that both Hugh Wybrew’s, The Orthodox Liturgy, (hereinafter referred to as “Wybrew”) and Chapter Six (“The Sacrament of Offering) of Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s, The Eucharist, (hereinafter referred to as “Schmemann”) indicate that the original function of the Great Entrance was to transfer the Holy Gifts of bread and wine (which had been prepared in the Service of Preparation before the Liturgy of the Catechumens) from their original place at the north of the church. This was done with a certain amount of ceremony. As will be shown below, the various interpretations of this liturgical act have had considerable different effects on the extent and nature of the ceremonies performed.

A. St. Germanos. As indicated in Wybrew at pp. 126-7, St. Germanos in his Ecclesiastical History interprets the Great Entrance and the Cherubic Hymn that is sung during before it as representing three things: the angelic host, of which the earthly worshipers are a part; the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts; and the altar as the tomb of Christ.

One can observe several liturgical effects which would result from such interpretations: 1) the increasing importance of a slow procession, with the rapidia and incense, to better make an iconological representation of the procession of the angelic host; 2) recent liturgical composers, using this interpretation as a basis, have composed choral settings of the Cherubic Hymn which have downward progressions, indicative of the descent of the Holy Spirit. The Cherubic Hymns of Lomakin (especially his No. 9), Kastalsky, Tsaikovski, and Rachmaninoff provide examples of this tendency; 3) because the holy altar was thought to represent the tomb of Christ, the original pillars and post surrounding the altar in the Nicaean period, which barrier separated the Byzantine Emperor and his family from the rest of the people in any gathering, political or religious (and which was originally established in churches to indicate the royalty of God), gradually was transformed into a covered and roofed iconostasis. It is interesting to note that Nicholas of Andida, in the commentary to be next discussed, cites this interpretation as the reason for the development of the iconostasis in its present form.

B. Nicholas of Andida. Wybrew at pp. 141-2 notes that the Protheoria of Nicholas of Andida, in a rich display of allegorism, describes the Great Entrance (or more to the point, the preparation, transfer, and deposition of the Gifts in that Entrance) as any number of things: the preparation of the upper room, the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension; the altar is Jerusalem, since the altar is set in the center of the church as Jerusalem is in the center of the world.

But in the main, the interpretation of Nicholas of Andida confirms and strengthens the earlier point made by St. Germanos: that the altar is to be separated from the people. It can be argued that the ultimate result of the interpretation of the Great Entrance in the Protheoria was to continue the process of separating the altar from the sight of the people by the iconostasis.

C. Nicholas Cabasilas. Wybrew at pp. 162-3 quotes from Nicholas Cabasilas’ Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy as regards Nicholas’ interpretation of the Great Entrance. While it is for the most part a simple description of the action of the priest and servers, it has one particular interpretive note: The Great Entrance is a symbol or type of Christ’s triumphant entrance into Jerusalem on Palm or Willow Sunday.

Cabasilas also warns the reader not to treat the Holy Gifts at the Great Entrance with the same reverence which the people of the time apparently offered to the Holy Body and Blood at the equivalent to the Great Entrance in the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. This would apparently indicate that the people of that time were in fact treating the Holy Gifts with such reverence.

The results of this interpretation would appear mainly to be to make a further emphasis on the Great Entrance as a procession of the priest and servers, with the focus being on the priest as an icon or a type of Christ.

D. Symeon of Thessalonike. Wybrew at pp. 168-9 cites Symeon’s commentaries as regards Symeon’s interpretation of the Great Entrance as follows: the Entrance is a type of the Last Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment. Further, in the liturgical praxis of the period, the epitaphios (redolent with the symbolism of the burial of Christ) was used as a covering for the Holy Gifts after they had been placed on the Altar. Finally, and most importantly for any discussion on the subject, Symeon contradicts the warning given by Nicholas Cabasilas, and states that the Holy Gifts are an anti-type of the Holy Body and Blood, and should therefore be given the same reverence.

The two consequences most likely to occur from such an interpretation is again to put the focus upon the priest as the icon of Christ, and upon the Holy Gifts as the anti-type of Christ’s Body and Blood.

E. Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Before beginning a review of Fr. Schmemann’s, it is important to note that each of the above interpretations are not to be considered to be wrong or misleading per se, but rather, that they tend to be reductionist, in that they reduce the worshiper’s understanding of the liturgical action to the interpretation provided.

Fr. Schmemann, in Chapter Six ( entitled “The Sacrament of Offering”) of his elaborate commentary on the Divine Liturgy, The Eucharist, on the other hand, provides a commentary on and a description of the Great Entrance which both incorporates the above interpretations and far transcends them. He begins in Section 1 of that chapter with the insight that all sacrifices offered by the many peoples of the past have been inspired by a thirst for God; that these sacrifices had been unavailing in quenching that thirst, and that only Christ’s sacrifice as and for man is the only one which can quench that thirst (section 2); and that the Great Entrance, in addition to the illustrative symbolism which has been attached (as cited above) to that Entrance, is in an important way connected with Christ’s sacrifice for us, and our offering to Him (section 3).

Having asked the question, ("in what way does this connection exist in the Great Entrance?"), Schmemann then indicates that through a historical examination of the actions in the Great Entrance, it was the practice of the members of the early Church to bring their own gifts of bread and wine before the Divine Liturgy, and to place them at the north of the Church. It was then the work of the deacons to select among these gifts to find those which would be used as the Holy Gifts for the Liturgy. In the mind of the early Church then (according to Schmemann), this Entrance of the gifts was the connection between the offering in love of the congregation, and the action in love of the deacons, with Christ’s loving Sacrifice for us in the Eucharist. (Section 4).

With this primitive understanding reestablished, Schmemann suggests that we can reexamine our symbolic understanding of what happens in the Great Entrance: the one Sacrifice has already been offered for us in Christ’s Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection, but the offering of the Holy Gifts before the altar is indicative of the connection between those gifts and Christ’s Sacrifice (Section 5).

More particularly, in presenting our prosphora (or offerings) before the altar, Schmemann indicates that we are thereby “offering ourselves and each other and all our life unto Christ our God”. Thus, Schmemann indicates that the essence of the Great Entrance is that it is the sacrament of Offering (Section 6).

Schmemann then says that a further and clearer understanding of this sacrament of Offering may be found through an examination of the prayers and the actions in the Great Entrance (Section 7). First, in the prayer of the priest, which begins “No one is worthy”, and which the priest says personally, Schmemann finds an indication that in the Offering and Sacrifice to come, the priest becomes the icon of Christ Sacrificing and Sacrificed; the prayer is thus a testimony to the unworthiness of all humankind, and a testimony also to supremacy of Christ as Priest and as Sacrificed (Section 8).

In the action of the censing, Schmemann sees the recognition of the Holy Gifts as in fact being holy and divine, in that these creations are being returned to their Creator (Section 9).

In examining the hymns sung by all during the Great Entrance (e.g., the Cherubic Hymn during most Sundays and Feasts, “Of Thy Mystical Supper” during Great and Holy Thursday, and “Let all mortal flesh keep silent” during Great and Holy Saturday, Schmemann finds a common element in all of these hymns is that they refer to Christ as King and to the coming of His Kingdom. In this, Schmemann sees the manifestation of God’s cosmic kingdom, and not simply symbolic referrals to Christ’s kingly entrance into Jerusalem, His Last Coming, etc. (Section 10)

Finally, Schmemann, examines the liturgical action in the Great Entrance, and suggests that it be restored, in that attention should again be paid to the community bringing their prosphora as offerings, or at the very least, that members of the church buy prosphora which the Church has made, and offer them, and themselves, in the Great Entrance, the sacrament of Offering (section 11).

Thus, we see in four of these commentaries symbolical and, unfortunately, reductionist tendencies which have affected the ceremonial actions in the Great Entrance in the ways which have been described above. Finally, in the last commentary, we see a historical, textual, and Patristic synthesis which I believe may be fairly characterized as maximalist.

ADDENDUM

While the writer believes that he has adequately answered the question and has sufficiently represented the positions taken in the five commentaries, particularly Fr. Schmemann’s, there are some additional concepts in Fr. Schmemann’s commentary (The Eucharist, Chapter 6, sections 12 through 15, which the writer has found of great value, which have inspired insights in the writer, and which the writer would like to present here.

In those last sections, Fr. Schmemann discusses the role of commemoration, or anamnesis, not only in the Divine Liturgy, but in the life and action of the Church. In essence, he says that anamnesis is a gift from God to Man, which allows the one remembering to manifest the past in the present; that the primary sin of Man is that he has forgotten God, and that by remembering Christ (or keeping Him in mind) we are in turn remembered by Christ, and kept into eternal life.

The primary insight which the writer has received from this (other, of course, than a better understanding of what is meant in the Pannychida service by “eternal memory”), is the central concept of anamnesis as the manifestation of the past into the present, and that it is that process of anamnesis which distinguishes the process of Orthodox theology from that of Roman Catholics.

The writer has noted that the polarity (or perhaps better said, the bipolarity) of Roman Catholicism has been between aggiorniamento or “contemporization” on the one hand, and resourcement or “research”, on the other. The writer has also noted that these two tendencies have been present in that Church not only since the Second Vatican Council, but long before it.

One example (out of many which could be cited) of the tendency towards aggiorniamento can be found in the action of the early Gallican church of Charlemagne to add the filioque to the Nicene Creed, ostensibly to combat a tendency towards Arianism which was then a contemporary threat to that Church. An example of resourcement may be found as well in the action of the early Roman church, after biblical and historical researches, to cease the practice of using leavened bread in favor of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.

A common theme in both aggiorniamento and resourcement is the tendency of attempting to cancel the common experience of the Church (perhaps another way of putting this is to say, to ignore or forget Holy Tradition) for the sake of either what is conceived to be a present need, or for the sake of the fruits of scholarly research (which are often made obsolete or shown to be inadequate by later researches).

An example of what I have termed anamnesis, on the other hand, can be found in the late Fr. Schmemann’s liturgical researches and writings, particularly as found in the above examination of his work, The Eucharist. In that and other works, Schmemann does not suggest that the form or structure of the Great Entrance be altered or replaced for the sake of something new, nor does he suggest that the traditional interpretations of that Entrance be replaced by present researches.

Rather, he maintains the past structure of the service, examines and honors the traditional interpretations, and seeks to harmonize and fulfill that structure and those interpretations through historical research and textual analysis of the prayers and actions. In short, he, like all Orthodox theologians and worshipers, engages in anamnesis: in the fulfillment of the past in the present.

The writer does not seek to engage in polemic in making these assertions. He has spent his youth and a third of his adult life as a Roman Catholic; he has also spent the remainder of his adulthood as an Eastern Christian. He has been pondering, for the last score of years, why the Liturgical Movement was so fruitful in and for the Orthodox Church, and why it was the cause of so much heartbreak and shipwreck of faith in the Roman Church. As a result of this course, and the question posed by its professor, the writer believes that he has finally found an answer to that question.

Liturgical Theology, Question 1

Is Baptism a “private” or an “ecclesial” event? How is Baptism connected to the Eucharist? Does the contemporary Orthodox practice to which you have been exposed make this clear?

In this instance, the question presented has three parts. This answer will address each part in turn.

A) Is Baptism a “private” or an “ecclesial” event?

All experience is in essence private, particularly the experience of baptism, or illumination, in the believer. To that extent, Baptism may be considered to be a “private” event. Unfortunately, a number of Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have considered the baptism of their children to be a “private” or “familial” event, to be performed after the Divine Liturgy, or outside of it.

It could be argued that this familial practice or point of view could be decried, according to the Church’s underlying Greek ethos: that ethos holds, with Aristotle, that Man is a social being; that any attempt to privatize humans or to separate them from society is a diminishment of both Man and society; and that the very attempt is idiotic (in this context, it should be noted that the word idiot is derived from the Greek word idiotes, meaning a private individual.)

But in addition to the above described ethos, both the early Church, and contemporary Orthodox theologians in studying that Church, believe that Baptism is primarily an ecclesial event, one which properly is preceded by catachesis by the Church; in which the baptizand receives the mysteries of illumination, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Eucharist; and finally, by which the one baptized has put on Christ and becomes a member of His mystical Body. In particular, the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann, has expressed this belief briefly in his collection of essays, For the Life of the World, and in greater detail in his work on Baptism: Of Water and the Spirit.

To further explain how Baptism is an ecclesial and not a private event, it will be necessary to indicate how Baptism is connected to the Eucharist. That will be attempted in the next section.

B) How is Baptism connected to the Eucharist?

In Orthodox theology and worship, Baptism is connected to the Eucharist in three ways: as a prerequisite, as a part of Orthodox liturgical praxis, and in terms of the Eucharist’s historical and functional development.

Baptism has first been a prerequisite, in that the Church from its inception, as indicated both in Scripture and Holy Tradition, has permitted only those baptized in the Church to receive the Eucharist.

Further, Baptism is connected to Eucharist in Orthodox praxis in that, unlike Western Christianity, (which has reserved Baptism for infancy, Eucharist for the age of seven, and Chrismation (or Confirmation) for the age of thirteen to fourteen), in Orthodox praxis, all three mysteries are imparted to the recipient at the same time.

Finally, and most importantly, Baptism is connected to the Eucharist in terms of the historical and functional development of the Eucharistic service, particularly those of the major feasts.

As Fr. Schmemann pointed out in Chapter 1 of his work, Of Water and the Spirit, in the early Church, Baptism was usually done of adult converts, after a long period of instruction and preparation, or catachesis, and originally during Pascha or Lazarus Sunday (although later this was extended to Nativity, Theophany and Pentecost). The Baptism was then performed outside of the church, and then a procession was made into the Church, where the festal Liturgy was served, the newly baptized were chrismated, and then received the Eucharist during the Eucharist of the Faithful. Survivals of this practice are found, inter alia, in the use of the hymn “As many as have been baptized into Christ” during the feasts mentioned above.

While with the development of infant baptism, there was an increasing loss of awareness of this sacramental interdependence of Baptism, Chrismation, and Eucharist, through the efforts of theologians such as the late Fr. Schmemann, churches are beginning to restore such awareness. As shall be shown below, I believe that my local church has been a part of that effort.

C) Does the contemporary Orthodox practice to which you have been exposed make this clear?

I believe that I have been fortunate to have attended my church for the past twenty years, and to have begun my attendance on the very week that its present pastor began serving the Divine Liturgy. During that time also, I have been either a singer or a choir director at that Church (I would like to note here that both the liturgical texts and music used at my church are drawn mostly from the OCA texts, with the remainder being taken from the Antiochian texts). As a result, I have had more than ample opportunity to observe my priest’s pastoral choices and actions.

In this regard, I have noted that the number of private baptisms which he served were few. I ventured to ask my priest why that was so, and he said that when people came to him to be baptized, or have their children baptized, he gave them the choice of a private or an ecclesial service. Most chose an ecclesial service.

As for the baptism of children under the age of two, my priest would perform the baptism soon after it had been requested, by a combined baptismal service and Divine Liturgy. Basically, this was accomplished by performing the rite of baptism through the chanting of the hymn “As many as have been baptized into Christ”, continuing with the prokeimenon, Epistle and Gospel of Baptism, the acts of Baptism and Chrismation, and then going on to the Litanies before the Cherubic Hymn and continuing with the remainder of the Divine Liturgy. Usually, the parents would provide a meal for the congregation afterwards.

But for adults who sought baptism, he would first make sure that they received a thorough catachesis (taking usually between one to three years, depending on the individual’s needs), and then incorporate the baptismal service into one of the following festal liturgies: The Nativity of the Lord, The Baptism of the Lord, Lazarus Sunday, Pascha, or Pentecost. In these cases, he would not cut anything from the festal liturgy in question, but would basically reduce the part of the Baptism to essential parts of the prayers of exorcism, the blessing of the waters, the baptism and chrismation, and the reception of the Eucharist at the Eucharist of the Faithful.

I have had the opportunity of helping to serve at such services, and I have found them to be both moving and illuminating. By the many times that I have stood with the congregation facing West and renouncing Satan, turning to the East and accepting Christ, by witnessing the blessing of the waters and the baptism of others (including the one who is now my wife), I believe that I have experienced thereby a connection with the praxis of the Early Church, and a confirmation of my own baptism, which was done at my infancy, and which I cannot now remember.

Church History, Question 2

Compare and contrast the theological schools of Alexandria and Antioch. Make note of their respective leaders and methodologies.

Most of the information which Walker provides regarding the School of Alexandria may be found at pages 76 through 83, In Period II, Section IX, The Alexandrian School.
Walker first points out the antecedent contribution of Alexandria to both Judaism and Christianity: an Egyptian city with a large Greek speaking population, and a large Jewish population as well, it was the home of Greek and Jewish scholarship which led to the writing of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and the biblical text of the Orthodox Church. I note also that it is quite likely that when the Holy Family fled Herod the Great into Egypt, that they sojourned in Alexandria.

Be that as it may, Alexandria was both the home of Jewish scholarship, and the ascendency of Neo-Platonism, as well as of several schools of Gnosticism. It is not surprising that by 185 A.D., a Christian school of catachesis was formed under a Stoic philosopher who had converted to Christianity, Pantaeus. While we know little about the founder of this school, we know more about his pupil and successor, Clement of Alexandria.

Clement appears to have sought a synthesis between the best of philosophy and Christianity in his surviving works, Exhortation to the Heathen, Instructor, and Stromata. Like his Jewish counterpart, Philo of Alexandria, he sought to show that the Greek logos, and the associated inquiry of reason and order, had its fulfillment in Christ, the living Word. Walker characterizes Clement as a true Christian Gnostic, who taught that in Christ is the fulfillment of all knowledge and philosophy. Clement appears to have been the first to have propounded a synthesis between Christianity and Neoplatonism.

While Clement left no systematic theology, his successor, Origen, did. Origen appears to have been a diligent student not only at the catechetical school of Alexandria, but of the Jewish and Neo-Platonist schools there, and appears as well to have studied in Greece and Palestine as well.

A principle fruit of this study was his Hexapla, a parallel text of the Hebrew Scriptures, four Greek translations, and his commentaries. Additionally, Origen made numerous commentaries upon the whole of the Old and New Testament. His Against Celsus has been considered one of the most capable apologies, or defenses, of Christianity that has ever been written. But his De Principiis was the first treatise of systematic Christian theology ever written.

While Origen’s philosophical system was largely Neo-Platonic, and sought a synthesis with this and Christianity, Origen’s method of hermaneutics, or interpretation of Scripture, appears to have been the first to have posited multiple meanings in Scripture, that is, the literal meaning, an ethical application, and a mystical or allegorical interpretation. With Origen, and after him, the School of Alexandria is noted for its allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

The School of Antioch, on the other hand, appears to have been founded around the year 275 A.D by Lucian, a priest about whom little is known. He appears to have rejected the allegorical method of interpretation of the Alexandrian school, and instead limited himself to the grammatical and historical study of Scripture. He, and his followers, also appear to have been more wary of association with Gnosticism, and largely avoided attempts to achieve a synthesis between Christianity and philosophy. Lucian’s main pupils were Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius.

The two schools of Antioch and Alexandria began entering into conflict when Arius taught (and quoted Origen to that effect) that Christ was a created being, and not God. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (312?-328), who was a follower of the school of Alexandria, condemned Arius (also quoting Origen as his authority), who was a priest under Alexander’s omophorion, for this teaching. Arius was later condemned for the same teaching by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Undoubtedly, John Chrysostom, Arius’ successor to the School of Antioch, was a far more orthodox and influential exponent of that school. Chrysostom favored the grammatical and historical interpretation of Scripture over the allegorical, and his many sermons interpreting the books of the Old and New Testament were and are a counterpoint to those of Origen. His successor, Gregory of Nazianzus, continued the School’s literalist interpretive bent, and added to it the doctrine of the council of Nicaea. Nazianzus, and his followers, also combined the study of Aristotle with that of Plato.

In short, the schools of Alexandria and Antioch appear to have maintained, both between and within themselves, a tension between Tertullian’s query (“What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?”) and Origen’s goal of making all thoughts subject to Christ, even those of Plato and Aristotle.

Church History, Question 1

Discuss Judaism in the period just prior to and during the New Testament period. Include all elements and their influence on the development of New Testament Teaching.

Walker at pages 11 through 18 indicates that the major elements of Judaism before and during the New Testament period included the following: A) the historical background of the Jewish diaspora in Babylon and Egypt and the return of the Jewish people to Palestine; B) the tension in leadership between the priestly class and the scribes; C) attempts at forced Hellenization of the Jews and the Maccabean response; D) the Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians and Zealots; E) the Messianic hope and Apocalyptic literature; and F) the influence of Judaism upon Greek gentile society and Hellenization within Jewish society. This paper will deal briefly with each element, and the influence of each upon the development of New Testament teaching.

A) The historical background of the Jewish diaspora in Babylon and Egypt, and the return of the Jewish people to Palestine. Both Walker at pp 11-12 and the later historical books of the Old Testament indicate that after the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.C., the Jewish people were scattered throughout the world, with large colonies in what are now Persia and Iraq, Egypt and Syria. Of particular note, and to be mentioned later, was the largely Greek-speaking city of Alexandria in Egypt. While Jews were later able to return to Palestine, Walker indicates that they were likely a minority of the total Jewish population. In any event, whether in Palestine or the Diaspora, after the Babylonian conquest, the Jewish people remained under foreign domination, respectively from the Babylonians, the Persians, the Ptolemies, the Selucids, and finally the Romans. The main influence of this element upon New Testament times was the great dissatisfaction of the people of Israel with foreign domination, and the desire for liberation from that oppression.

B) The tension in Jewish leadership in Palestine between the priestly class and the scribes. Upon the return of the Jewish people to Israel, the leaders there were primarily the hereditary priestly class, who under the Law (ha Torah) were responsible for offering sacrifice in the Great Temple. However, because of abuse of that priestly authority, and because of a greater concern among the people of Israel with the study of the Law, gradually the Scribes (who were the main students and exponents of that Law) achieved more of a position of political as well as religious leadership.

One main influence of the Scribes on New Testament times and teaching was the development of worship in the synagogue rather than in the Great Temple. This worship, with its marked resemblance to the Liturgy of the Catachumens with its development of chant, readings from the Scriptures, and explication of those Scriptures, had enormous influence upon both early Christian worship, and our later Divine Liturgy.

C) Attempts at forced Hellenization of the Jews and the Maccabean response. Under the Greek Selucid monarch, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, an attempt was made around 167 B.C. to eradicate Jewish worship and customs, culminating in the desecration of the Temple by the sacrifice of a boar in the Holy of Holies. This resulted in the Maccabean revolt, which led to a period of relative Jewish independence until Palestine’s conquest by the Romans in 63 B.C.

The results of this period of independence, and the consequent Roman conquest, were the development of the four major Jewish political and religious parties of the New Testament period before the destruction of Jerusalem, which will be discussed in the next section.

D) The Sadducees, Pharisees, Herodians and Zealots. The Sadducees were the descendents of the politically successful Maccabean priestly families. These, in the main, had control of the Great Temple, and the wealth resulting from tithes offered there. The Sadducees appear, however, to have succumbed to the general Greco-Roman world view including disbelief in any afterlife, or any supernatural world of angels and devils. The Pharisees were scribes who vied politically and religiously with the Sadducees, both as regards the interpretation of the Law, and in holding to a strict interpretation of Torah which included belief in the resurrection and in a supernatural world. The Herodians were those Jews who supported the reign of the line of Herod the Great, a half-Jewish puppet of the Romans, while the Zealots were those who sought to revolt against Roman rule as the Maccabees did against Greek rule. Perhaps the main influence of these parties upon New Testament times is that an intelligent reading of the New Testament is impossible without an understanding of this background.

E) The Messianic hope and Apocalyptic literature. As a result of Roman oppression and Jewish political and religious fragmentation, there was a growing hope for the arrival of ha-Meshiach, (Greek: Christos) or the anointed one, whose coming was foretold by the Prophets, and about whom a contemporary apocalyptic literature was growing. While this literature was largely unavailable at the time that Walker was writing, more examples have been made available since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran. The main influences of this hope can be found in the initial acceptance, and later rejection, by the above political and religious parties when Jesus did not fit their respective preconceptions about who and what the Messiah was. Perhaps the main influence of the apocalyptic literature of the time was upon the Apocalypse, or the Revelation, of St. John the Theologian.

F) The influence of Judaism upon Greek gentile society, and Hellenization within Jewish society. Because of the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of the Old Testament by Alexandrian Jews, many gentiles (the so-called metuentes, or God-fearers) began to adapt the ethical code of the Jews. Similarly, Greek speaking Jews (such as Philo) began to look at the Law through Greek concepts such as logos and Sophia. At least two consequences of this cultural synthesis were that it formed the basis for the population of Jews and Gentiles who later became Christians, and also the matrix of Christian theology.

Up for some air

It's been a strange week in Lake Woebegun. . . oops, sorry, wrong initial cue.

Actually, it has been a wonderful time at St. Andrew's. Great and Holy Week was particularly good: after Palm (or Willow) Sunday morning Divine Liturgy, and a practice that seemed to go on forever, we had the Bridegroom Matins for Great and Holy Monday at 7:30 p.m. that Sunday evening, sung by a male quartet of rather good singers (if you don't count me). For Monday and Tuesday we had the Bridegroom Matins of Great and Holy Tuesday and Wednesday, and on Wednesday evening we had the Service of Anointing, in the musical composition written by our choir director, Gabriel Meyer, and in which we received an anointing of the Holy Oil blessed by the Melkite Patriarch Maximos. For Great and Holy Thursday we had the vesperal Liturgy of St. Basil and the Reading of the Gospels, and on Great and Holy Friday we read the Royal Hours at noon (note that all of these services were pretty much sung by the quartet). On Great and Holy Friday evening, the whole choir sang the evening Vespers service, and on Great and Holy Saturday Morning, we did the Matins service including the Lamentations. Finally, on Pascha evening, we sang the Paschal Nocturns in the composition which I had made for my 50th birthday, almost four years ago and then the Paschal Matins and Liturgy. At the Liturgy, we had four catachumens either baptised or chrismated. It was a wonderful service, and our new singer, William Goldin, an operatic quality bass (and one of the members of the quartet) was entranced with his first real Pascha.

I was also happy to find that on Saturday evening just before Pascha, I got my final paper back from the St. Stephen's program, and it was a pass plus, with a brief note ("Bravo, Bernard!") from the professor. Since there is no way now that my posting them will make any difference, I will be posting the exam questions and answers on my website. Those who are not interested in my attempts at theology may certainly ignore them.

May you all have a happy Pascha.