The Library of Paradise by David A. Michelson;

Author:David A. Michelson; [Michelson, David A.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780192573285
Publisher: Oxford University Press USA
Published: 2022-09-09T00:00:00+00:00

5.4.2 The Clash of Scholastic and Contemplative Reading

The competing uses of theoria points to a larger clash of intellectual cultures. Babai frequently placed anti-scholastic sentiment in Evagrius’ mouth throughout his Abridged Commentary. For example, Babai explains Century VI.22 as follows: “Here he rejects all the vain and tired teaching of the worldly wise and their vain folly and the forlorn precepts of their false words.”216 Similarly Babai reads Century III.55 as a rejection of exegetical study divorced from ascetic perfection: “He teaches us and admonishes us, there is no gain from the knowledge of names and readings and categories and subtlety of words in books, when the readers are without the deeds of virtue [ܡܝܬܪܘܬܐ, myatrutā] which the books confess.”217 For Babai, reading was only part of the path to divine knowledge when it was accompanied by ascesis (the Syriac phrase for virtues used here implies the title of the Praktikos and thus the stage of praktike). Scholastic reading without deeds of virtue is not able to yield divine knowledge. In short, ascetic reading is not possible without ascesis!

Babai rhetorically connects ascesis and divine knowledge so closely that at times it is difficult to render his wording into concise English. Consider a passage we have already cited earlier from Century III.51: “In the knowledge of singleness [ܝܚܝܕܝܘܬܐ, iḥidāyutā], which is the essence of the Godhead (that which is divine perfection), there is nothing to learn or teach, because one perfect knowledge arises in all.”218 In the Syriac text, the meaning of the phrase “of singleness” is potentially twofold. The phrase could be translated as “the knowledge of unity, which is the essence of the Godhead” (i.e. referring to the mystery of the Trinity). But there is also an ascetic overtone: “the knowledge of singleness (i.e. belonging to the solitary), which is the essence of the Godhead”. A similar ascetic interpretation is possible for the next clause as well—does “perfect knowledge” refer to the mystical knowledge about the Godhead or the ascetic knowledge of the solitary? Since Babai claims that ascetic perfection is necessary for divine knowledge, it seems that both are intended.

Babai’s anti-scholasticism should not, of course, be seen as a rejection of contemplative reading. Endorsement of ascetic reading is prominent not only in his Evagrian commentaries but also, as we have seen in Chapter 4 (Section 4.9), in his monastic rule.219 It is clear that in Babai’s theology this Evagrian contemplative reading is not the same style of reading as found at the School of Nisibis. Babai’s objection to “knowledge of names and readings and categories and subtlety of words” was a criticism of the varied technical levels of the curriculum and faculty at Nisibis.220 Instead of these scholastic forms of reading, Babai prescribed reading which aided contemplation rather than exegesis. Such ascetic reading was practical and oriented toward an ultimate and ineffable theoria which was accessible only through ascesis. This contemplative reading was indeed the opposite of exegesis by nature of its apophatic goal. As Becker notes, “with

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.