5 comments about The Orthodox New Testament: Translated Out Of The Original Greek: The Text Of The 4 Gospels, Acts, 21 Epistles, And Revelation, Leatherette.

1. The One-Volume Edition of the Famous Orthodox New Testament by Holy Apostles Convent is exceptional. I highly endorse this English translation of the Official Greek New Testament text as published and approved by the Patriarch of Constantinople for both private study and liturgical use in The Holy Orthodox Church. The English translation is beautiful and sublime. The cadence of its sentences with the accuracy of its English in its proper translation of the Greek is a great combination. More than any other English translation this is the ONLY english translation of the New Testament that should be used by every Orthodox Christian (It gets the energy words exactly right!). It is literally the Best English translation of the New Testament on the market, and probably the best one ever since the King James Version. I highly endorse and recommend the Orthodox New Testament one-volume edition. Axios!



2. this is acompletely fresh translation from the greek and is most eccentric. it is so absolutely literal as to be of no possible use except as a crib. however the copious footnotes are a different matter and are very valuable. all the commentaries, sermons etc of the early fathers eastern and western (except st augustine for some obscure ideological reason) are used for these notes which cover practically all difficult passages.



3. Our local Orthodox church here uses the Gospel lectionary that Holy Apostles Convent publishes. While the book itself is very attractively done and laid-out, its rendering is awkward to bad English, often hard to understand, and above all more interpretation than translation. If their "Orthodox New Testament" is like this, I would not be impressed.



4. I own this one-volume version of the Orthodox New Testament. It is translated from the 1912 Byzantine Text, and uses the KJV as a starting point, but clarifying some of the more obscure wording of the KJV. The Orthodox New Testament uses Greek theological words like "Logos" and "hypostasis" in the text (see for example, John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3). The Orthodox New Testament is a wonderful translation, a joy to read, maintaining much the traditional KJV language and phraseology; but it is more accurate and understandable. I just love it. It also has icons printed on several pages. Fits in a small bible cover, very portable. Although this edition of the Orthodox New Testament is a soft cover, the cover itself is of very good quality and feels durable. The Orthodox New Testament features large print for the size of the book, making it easy to read, and is printed in an attractive single column format. I highly recommend it. It is my new first string bible.



5. If you are seeking a New Testament closes to its original written language (Greek) this is an excellent version, as a single word missed or deleted from the modern versions, readily available, can change (modify) the meaning of the original message or place it in a different perspective. Although a bit difficult to read at times,with patience and good understanding, you can extract a tremendous amount of knowledge and wisdom.

5 comments about The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge Paperback Library).

1. This excellent monograph from the most objective world leader on the subject, is without parallel. A must read for all those interested in the bad but not-that-bad fate of the Orthodox Church under the Ottoman Turks.



2. It is rare to find a work of excellent scholarship that is also very readable. Runciman has once again achieved this result.



3. I'll be honest with you.The only reason I bought this book, was because I'd already read all of Runciman's "real" history books and just wanted to complete my collection.Church history and theology aren't exactly my cup of tea.So, I thought I'd open it, start reading and fall asleep after page....ix.But I was wrong of course.I underestimated Runciman's ability to make even a debate about the role of Epiklesis in Transubstantiation appear interesting.No,really,I'm being serious.This is a well-written and interesting book that provides an answer, from a unique perspective, to the question everyone has after reading the "Fall of Constantinople": "Well,what happened next?"
   We also get a deeper insight on Runciman's own ideas about religion and theology that we only catch a glimpse of, in his most ...ermm, "secular" works.
   This book also piqued my interest on a more personal level as well, being (nominally) Orthodox.For anyone who has read his books, it's not a secret where Runciman' s sympathies lay - and he certainly tries to explain and excuse many "unfortunate" acts and decisions on behalf of the Orthodox Church.But be warned - this isn't a rose-tinted hagiography - the story of the "Great Church" in "captivity" becomes literally nauseating at times, and it doesn't lack in cynicism and petty squabling.It certainly didn't make me want to get rid of that pesky "nominally" in front of my religion....



4. Runciman is probably the ranking master of Eastern Orthodox history, and his insights shed light on all religious traditions of the world. As the Eastern churches passed under many political masters, Runciman traces how they adjusted and survived. Often they were treated as subject communities, under threat of collective punishments for any disobedience from groups or individuals in their midst. For example, under Ottoman rule Greek Orthodox Patriarch Gregory V felt constrained, both by his Turkish rulers and his own religious tradition, to condemn the rising movement for Greek national freedom. In his "Paternal Exhortation" of 1790, Gregory called Greek Christians to remember that God had placed them under the Ottoman Sultan. Therefore their cry for political freedom was "an enticement of the Devil and a murderous poison destined to push the people into disorder and destruction". Later, Patriarch Gregory threatened to excommunicate any local priests who aided or sheltered Greek freedom-fighters. No doubt the patriarch knew his own life depended on giving such orders, and on his church obeying them. The Ottoman rulers had already killed, enslaved, or exiled seven Orthodox patriarchs for failing to control their subordinates. And when Gregory failed to halt the movement for Greek independence, the Ottomans killed him too.
   
   These accounts highlight the injustice of collective punishment as we still see it in the modern world. And the whole book gives tremendously valuable background on the whole cultural life of modern East Europe.



5. Wonderful British historian Steven Runciman here renders a most valuable service to the student of history, for he elucidates the fate of Orthodoxy under the Ottoman Empire and the impact that this had on modern history. But perhaps the most significant aspect of Runciman's narrative is that which he merely suggests and does not elaborate on: the role of British imperialism, what another noted British historian, Dame Frances Yates, styles as a "British Israel mystique" on the fate of the Balkans and Asia Minor. For here we see the Orthodox Church under Turkish rule being as much usurped by the money power as by the political authority of the Turks. And behind that money power lurked, of course, the guiding influence of British and International Freemasonry.
   
   Runciman makes several essential points in this very important work. One that particularly struck this reader was the following insightful observation:
   
   "If there was no Reformation in Eastern Christendom, nor even any hertical movement as powerful as that of the Cathars of the medieval West, it was because the Church never lost touch with the people."
   
   We also must note the incredible importance of Runciman's chapter on Constantinople and Moscow. Here we see the great truth that Constantinople under the Turks, and influenced by the Protestant West, gave up her role of leadership of Orthodoxy to Holy Russia. Then, without a doubt, Moscow became the Third Rome, replacing Constantinople, the Second Rome, which had, in turn, replaced old, imperial Rome so many centuries previous. This chapter alone is worth the price of the entire excellent book.

2 comments about The Holy Fire: The Story of the Fathers of the Eastern Church.

1. "The Eastern Cross still stands on our altars, though we do not see it with our eyes" (xxi).
   
   Robert Payne's _The Holy Fire: The Story of the Fathers of the Eastern Church_ (also subtitled _The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Church in the Near East_) is a droll and quaint read on the early Fathers. Payne does an excellent job showing the human faces behind the icons of Christianity's greatest theologians and hierarchs. The book is published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, connected to the Orthodox Church in America, which prints many books by non-Orthodox authors. The preface is written by Fr. Thomas Hopko, dean of St. Vladimir's. Hopko points out the discrepancies between Payne's viewpoint and the official line of the Orthodox Church. Payne's work has a number of historical flukes and inconsistencies and his adulation of Origen and the Gnostic texts discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt is questionable by Orthodox standards. However, as Hopko notes, it is the spirit of Payne's work that makes it a worthwhile read. _The Holy Fire_ consists of brief narrative biographies of ten Fathers: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. John Chrysostom, St. Dionysius the Areopagite, St. John (Mansur) Damascene and St. Gregory Palamas. As another reviewer notes, the book should have also included a chapter on St. Maximus the Confessor to make the topic whole. However, a book like this simply cannot in depth cover such a vast historical and theological span of time (1000 years) in the space of only three hundred pages. Payne wavers back and forth in his presentation of the Fathers: they are often idealized and glamorized while at the same time Payne highlights many of the less than ideal aspects of these men. Many of them were involved in political and ecclesiastical strife. The most mysterious of them all is St. "Dionysius," a totally anonymous mystic of the fifth century who wrote texts on apophatic (defining God by what He is not) theology and celestial hierarchies of angels. His theology of "the cloud of unknowing" had a huge influence on subsequent mystics, both of the East and West. The Fathers' teachings and ways of contemplating God and Christ are described in great detail and crafty language. Payne notes well that the faith of the Eastern Fathers is not exactly the same as that of the West, although all of the fundamental doctrines and dogmas of Christianity anywhere and in whatever church were shaped by these Greek mystics of the late Roman Empire. "We shall not understand the Eastern Christians unless we see them as they saw themselves, in the light of the Apocalypse or the blaze of the Transfiguration..... And they did not dwell very much on the Crucifixion or on the youthful Christ who walked in the cornfields: the Christ who haunted their dreams neither suffered excruciating pain nor gathered the husks in His hands. For them the lightning struck and the earth trembled, and in a moment of vision they saw the image of God towering down against the golden heavens, wearing on His head the diadem of an emperor" (xiii). Payne further elaborates on a central difference of emphasis between Eastern and Western Christianity regarding the work of Christ. The West has generally looked toward the Atonement as the cornerstone of the Gospel message while the East has fixed its gaze on the uncreated Light radiating from Christ at the Transfiguration. This is an excellent overview of the Fathers even if it is not doctrinally correct on every point. The spirit in which it is written and not the specifics of its content is what make this book an enlightening and engaging read on the Eastern Fathers and the form and essence of early Christianity in general.



2. 
   "O sages standing in God's holy fire. As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
   Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre, And be the singing-masters of my soul."
   William Yeats, Sailing to Byzantium
   
   
   
   The Holy Fire:
   In the fire of the Holy Spirit, Christians were baptized, according to John the Baptist's declaration, "he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" Matt 3:11. The Holy Fire refers also to a miraculous happening, confined to Eastern Orthodox Easter evening, witnessed every year in the church of Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem. But the learned author of the Holy Fire, refers to the spiritual fire, which spread Christianity as 'a prairie fire.' Described by Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite, a Syrian mystic in the sixth century whose apophatic writings, that defined the mystical theology of the Eastern Church, in a quotation of whose 'Celestial Hyrarchy,' Payne posted.
   
   Fathers of the Church:
   Early Church Father came to be applied gradually to earlier Christian leaders who acquired basic character of holiness and orthodoxy, and gained Church recognition in East and West. They are the influential thinkers, writers, and 'theologians' in the early Christian communities (Church,) particularly those of the first five centuries of Christian history. The title 'Father' was applied to the principal teacher of early Christian communities, its bishop, but, great many of the most outstanding Christian teachers were laymen, as Clement of Alexandria, and Justin martyr, also deacons, and priests. A better definition of "Church Father" was provided by Clement of Alexandria: "Words are the progeny of the soul. Hence we call those that instructed us fathers" (Stromateis)
   
   Eastern Fathers:
   Eastern Church Fathers wrote in Greek, the philosophical language of the East Mediterranean. more famous of them are the Apostolic Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus of Lyons, Fathers of the Church of Alexandria, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, and Cyril, the Three Cappadocian Fathers, and John Chrysostom, the great Antiochene orator. The Desert Fathers, of the Church were early monastics inhabiting the Egyptian deserts; who did not write as much, but their influence was dramatically great. Among them are St. Anthony the Great St. Macarius of Egypt, and Pachomius. A great number of their oral teachings, usually as wisdom sayings, are collected in the Monastic Garden, in Greek: Apophthegmata Patrum. Those fathers of the Western Church are called the Latin (Church) Fathers, encountered by Robert Payne, six years earlier.
   
   Debated Issues:
   The historical value of Payne's editorial work is basic, while his deduction from the Gnostic writings are superceded, he intended to highlight the Holy Fire in their writings compared to the mainstream orthodoxy. He contrasted some Eastern concepts, including the salvific work of Christ, with later scholastic legalistic Atonement theologies.
   On his admiration for Origen, Payne has shown his genuine appreciation of Origen's unique influence, his book is mainly about Origen, and his disciples from Athanasius to Dionysius. Recent scholarship view on Origen reestablished him, as Jerome has declared, second only to St. Paul, in Von Balthaar words, "in the Eastern Church his mysticism of ascent to God remained immensely powerful through medieval and modern times,...; in western Church both Jerome and Ambrose unhesitatingly copied his work and thus bequeathed it to posterity. Bernard, Eckhart, and Cusanus read him in the original, and Erasmus admitted that one page of Origen meant more to him than ten pages of Augustine."
   
   Hopko on Payne's Fire:
   Payne's work was intended to bring to life the original writings of those 'shadowy fathers' and their thoughts. The republication of this classic work, by SVS, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, is an attestation to its ecumenical mission, and Payne's lasting originality, for a book written fifty years ago. Fr. Thomas Hopko, emeritus dean of St. Vladimir's, wrote as always, a compelling introductory preface clarifying Payne's perception in his introduction and first chapter.

5 comments about Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion.

1. Frank Schaeffer provides an excellent historical overview of the history of Christianity, which alone makes this book worthwhile. He's judgmental of Orthodox Christians who were born into the faith, but his fervent zeal for Christian Orthodoxy shines through. Well worth the read.



2. When Frank Schaeffer spoke at the Festival of Orthodoxy in Dallas in February 2005, he said that he was too harsh in this book, and that were he able to do it over, he would rewrite half of it. I don't know which half or which parts he would rewrite, but I agree with him about the harshness of his tone, which to me seriously degrades the value and trustworthiness of this book. It's interesting, but Schaeffer's jeremiad makes for wearisome reading after awhile.



3. Frank Schaeffer, a.k.a. Franky, was an inspiration to many evangelicals in the 80s. The opening chapter of his book "A Time for Anger", in which for several pages he documents the lunatic contradictions of advances in prenatal medicine contrasted with pro-abortion militancy is one of the most brilliant and compelling satires I have ever read. But Franky became disillusioned with the wishy-washy response of evangelicals to the issues of the day, Evangelical provincialism related to the arts and soon seemed to fade from sight.
   
   This book documents that disillusionment, as he studied the early church with others and eventually embraced Orthodoxy.
   
   He provides many insightful critiques of the shortcomings of Evangelicalism. His methodology follows in father's, in many respects, seeing roots of ideas in earlier eras which blossomed into worldviews that ran counter to essential Christianity. Why did Frank wind up in a different place than Francis?
   
   Francis was often accused (unjustly) of reductionism, condensing complex historical movements into tidy little compartments. But Francis was at least careful to hedge his conclusions and tended to connect the dots well. Frank, on the other hand, speaks in bold and sometimes condescending terms, and frustratingly makes huge leaps of logic. He builds a foundation from A to B to C, then leaps all the way to Z and pronounces his conclusion inevitable.
   
   Hence, where Francis Schaeffer lamented the rise of rationalism and its effects on secular and Christian thought, Frank instead blames rationalism on Augustine and the Reformers. It is as if all ideas which have developed in the Western world are constructions of confused Western theology and no ideas sprung from thought outside the church. He criticises virtually everything in the west, democracy included, and lays the blame for every ill from rampant abortion on demand to even theological excesses within the American Orthodox church on Protestantism. The key point, hammered mercilessly, is that rationalistic theology led to individualism, individualism led to endless division, and endless division led to pluralism and a lack of any solid moral compass. Western Christianity was not influenced, then, by secular and anti-Christian philosophies, rather Protestanism caused those philosophies by cutting theology away from "holy tradition".
   
   It is not that his logic from A to B to C is faulty or that his base points are not well taken. In fact some of the early points are rather compelling. But his leaps from C to Z is so outrageous as to make every previous point irrelevant.
   
   Daniel Clenendin's, or Kallistos Ware's books on Orthodoxy are much more worthwhile for a Protestant who wants to understand the Eastern Church. If you are just curious to know what happened to Franky Schaeffer, this is the definitive answer.



4. DANCING ALONE is a very well reasoned, no-holds-barred indictment of Roman Catholic structure, Western "Protestant" Christianity in general, and American Protestant Fundamentalism in particular. Mr. Schaeffer also dissects and flays cherished Protestant ideas which are, too often, poorly conceived, unhistorical, and downright silly. He also takes aim at nominal Christian theology, which the Church Fathers and Councils put to bed more than 1,700 years ago, yet are blindly touted as "new" or "modern."
   
   Mr. Schaeffer's overall scholarship is excellent, if not near-flawless. To see how this so, and expand one's knowledge, I suggest perusing the book's fascinating bibliography (with comments). Then delve into studying these key works. Most all the books in DANCING ALONE's bibliography are available via Amazon.
   
   The critics of Mr. Schaeffer's book mostly whine about his no-holds-barred, tell-it-like-it-is style -- as a lame substitute for real, substantive criticism of his (perfect) grasp of theological and historical facts. Others prattle on about Mr. Schaeffer's so-called "lack" of compassion because he makes very clear, scholarly theological points, which may -- all too often -- indict someone's long-held and emotionally mired belief system; Mr. Schaeffer tears apart faith which is at odds with history, facts, and logic; he unflinchingly unveils what for too many of us, nothing more than long-held falsehoods, half-truths and wishful thinking -- not reality; not Truth.



5. What strikes one about this account of one person's move from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy is that one, he is passionate about his new church body and two, he constantly quotes not usually from the Word of God(and when he does, he quickly interprets it from Holy Tradition's stance), but the Holy Tradition.
   
   Thus, the heart of Orthodoxy is just that, the Holy Tradition interprets Scripture, not Scripture interprets Scripture (the Lutheran and Reformational principle). As Luther said it so well at Worms with his very physical life on the line: Although I have great respect for the hierachy and councils and ancient church fathers) my greater respect is for the Word of God.
   
   One cannot help in reading the ancient church fathers to find there a wide variety, diversity of theological opinions. Thus, the confusion of Orthodoxy. Pick and choose to quote from your favorite, or that which supports one's opinion. Thus the suspicion of the fathers being the ultimate norm for Biblical interpretation.
   
   This then exhibits itself most glaringly in Schaeffer's move in its position on original sin. Schaeffer says Maximus was right, Augustine and subsequent West had it wrong. Sin is not that bad in its original sin concept. It is just as tarnish on silver as leading American Orthodox spokesman said recently on radio. Just needs some polishing. Contrast this with writings of Paul quoting from the apostles' and Lord's Bible from Psalsm and Isaiah in Romans 3 and one gets idea that since fall into sin it is spiritual death, not just a freewill choice to not follow God willingly. Paul writes against this repeatedly.
   
   It seems that Schaeffer is into Christianity's engagement with and influence of culture, and thus frustrated with lack of such in his view. With this most of us Christians would agree. However, he totally reduces much of Christianity in a false generalization way to the worst of Calvinistic and fundamentialist position when he needs to be the most critical.
   
   Real Lutherans don't fit his mold. Some of Calvinists don't either. He paints a real false straw man here. I agree with most of this criticism, but don't see turning to Orthodoxy as solution, since by creating a false problem (free will following) rather than original sin, they than get the solution wrong.
   
   Much that can be supported with Schaeffer's critique of American Christianity (e.g. liturgy, morals,sacraments, confession/absolution,etc.), but his solution doesn't correlate with Scripture, unless one sees the Holy Tradition as presented as the God given only choice of interpretation. I'll go with the Apostles' as inspired by Spirit of God to put down into words that this day also may read for ourselves, rather than wait for other writers' to interpret for us.

3 comments about Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church: 4th edition.

1. Mr. Constantelos has done a Major service to Christianity in general and Orthodoxy in particular in presenting this book. He clearly explains in a language that is easy to understand such sujects as 1) The divinity in history 2)The Holy Spirit 3)Life in the Church 4)The Relevance of the Church today 5)The Patristic and Monastic Aspects of the Church. The book is well ballanced and very informative.



2. I was very pleased with this book. I had previously used the third edition, but the fourth edition is even better. It is a good introduction to the history, doctrine and culture of the Orthodox Church. It also devotes suffient space to outlining the history of Orthodoxy in the United States (Chapter 5).
   
   Chapters 2 and 4 are superb chapters on some of the core beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy, and are very easy to understand. A major regret is that the author doesn't go sufficiently (in my opinion) into the Orthodox calendar, though he certainly does touch upon it. A list and subsequent explanation of Orthodox holy days, such as Lazarus Saturday or the Sunday of Orthodoxy, would be useful, since sacred time is very important to the Orthodox Church. Perhaps in future editions this will be included.
   
   The history chapter (Chapter 3) is good, but I would suggest that future editions include more information on the filioque clause, due to its importance, (it only gets one page), and might recommend explanding the conciliar history and development of Greek Orthodox theology. I would also like to see more on the development of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (including the role of St. Andrew). Ultimately, I think that the history chapter needs a major overhaul (in a fifth edition???) perhaps dividing into two chapters due to its significance. For example, one chapter on general Orthodox history, the other on the development of doctrine and relations with Western Christianity. The latter would include, among other things, a one or two-page list of the Seven Ecumencial Councils and what each did.
   
   With these rather minor exceptions, I strongly recommend this book to people interested in beginning a study of the Greek Orthodox Church.



3. Contantelos makes a clear presentation of Greek Orthodox tradition, giving basic insight into the values, rites and spiritual practices of the oldest living church. Concerning marriage for the clergy for example, he explains why most of the common priests remain married. Even the bishops were often married until the council of Trullo in 691, when the Greek Church decreed that a bishops role required undivided commitment, without the distraction of family life. For the rest of the clergy, marriage remained the standard. As Constantelos explains, "The fact that the [Greek Orthodox] Church has not made an official pronouncement placing celibacy above marriage indicates that the conscience of the Church has accepted marriage as a more courageous state of being". (p. 73.)
   
   I came away from the book with greater respect for the depth of thought behind Greek Orthodox traditions.

5 comments about Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament, The.

1. I have the 1995 edition. The context lines are usefully long. The layout and type font are not too hard on the eyes.

   The binding is not durable. The copy at the Fuller Seminary library was falling apart in the spring of 2000, so I turned it in to the circulation desk for repair.

   The entries all seem correct, except for some of the "special phrase" indices, which point to some wrong verses.




2. It would be difficult to fathom this book not on the shelf of someone who regularly works with the Greek, and works with it deeply. It is easier to use than other concordances, and more comprehensive than any I've ever used. It is exhaustive, and therefore has every single word in the Greek New Testament. It includes frequency counts, occurring phrases, and it even indexes the definite article and "a handful" of conjunctions. This is, by far, beyond necessary for the serious Greek student, or for the church library that specializes in academics. While this is definitely a book for scholars, lay-people who can at least read the Greek alphabet well can use it, but may be overwhelmed by its depth, and the fact that it is (of course) entirely in Greek (unlike others that may translate some things into English).



3. Worth every penny, I find that I use this book more and more for several areas of improving my Greek. If I find that I don't know a word that occurs say five times, often enough to want to memorize but rare enough that I don't know it, I can look up in this book all the places it occurs, and simply read these passages over and over again right from this book (without having to look them up in a Greek text) until I memorize the word's meanings. Much better than using flash cards. I also can figure out which forms of irregular verbs and adjetives actually occur in the New Testemant, and so focus on learning these instead of just reviewing the paradigms again and again. For word studies, I would much rather be able to quickly see all the uses of the word in the NT than to know how Sophocles or Josephus used the word, and for this reason this book is much more useful than say an expensive dictionary like BADG.
   Note that there is no English translations in this book so your Greek has to be fairly good to get much use out of it, but of course using it will make your Greek better!
   My only criticism is a big one and explains why I gave it four instead of five stars. The font is much too small. I really have to use a magnifying glass. This could probably have been solved by leaving out words like kai. Small print size seems to be something that Greek and Hebrew publishers don't seem to realize is very annoying.



4. This concordance is my only one. As a student of Greek, it helps the analytical work involved in exegesis. Every Greek word in the UBS4 (Greek NT) is in here. This book cross references BDAG, the most complete Greek lexicon. It also cross references strong's numbers with its own numbering system. This book aids in dealing with specific Greek (rather than English translated word)in the text giving its distribution throughout the NT.
   If you are not a Greek student; no problem. This book has the NIV translation for a word, giving all the possible Greek words to reference. Working backwards with the strong's numbers, I can locate the proper Greek word in a given text. I can then go to the aformentioned lexicon to discern meaning. I can see how often a word is used both in the UBS4 (Greek NT) and by the NIV translators. This book is a quick help for Greek word studies.
   I will wear this book out in the upcoming years.



5. Do not confuse this product with its companion -- The Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament. That one lists the greek words in Greek alphabetical order but the verse contexts are in English (NIV translation). If you do not have first year greek, or your greek is patchy, I'd recommend the aforementioned lexicon.
   
   This sizeable tome is all greek -- that is, greek words in greek alphabet order and the contexts are greek too. Based on UBS4, this is a sizeable and well-put-together concordance. The print is clear if small in the concordance proper (as concordances tend to be). The concordance contains clear information regarding the nomenclature and the symbols used in the main concordance. A nice little feature of this is that not only are the words listed, but significant phrases that use the word are listed along with their references -- e.g. under ANQRWPOS we also have listed the references to hO hUIOS TOU ANQRWPOU etc. Other features include references to related words and numeric Goodrick-Kohlenberger codes (link to various other Zondervan publications.) All the relevant frequency counts are there and at the back are the references to the conjunctions, articles etc. If you want to know all the references to hO [and how many], you can!
   
   All-in-all, a comprehensive, useful, clear aid to the student of the Greek New Testament. Recommended.

5 comments about The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford Early Christian Studies).

1. I initially bought this book as I was curious about the differences between Eastern & Western traditions, particularly with the notion of theosis --the deification of man. This book goes far deeper, and covers pre-Christian practices (like Stoic thoughts, the deifications of Kings, Roman Emperors, that of private citizens who committed symbolic acts --such as Antinous, Hadrian's obsession, who drowned to "save" mankind and other sotirologies).
   The book was initially Russell's doctoral thesis, which, as far as I can guess from the dates, had to have been completed when he was in late middle age. But he made it very readable, free of the theophilosophical jargon of similar texts. He still has quotes in the original language and it is a true piece of scholarship.



2. 
   "I say,'You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you;" Psalm 82:6
   
   "Those who partake of the divine nature do so through the promises of Christ who is God. Although the expression is different from Paul's, the content is not: participation in Christ wins incorruption and immortality." N. Russell
   
   
   
   Deification in Essense:
   Among the Eastern Church Fathers deification is expressed as filial adoption through baptism, and it is iterated that Abba Kyrillos VI (Coptic Patriarch, 1959-71) identified 'the light of baptism,' spotting any non baptized who reported for Eucharistic communion! His mystical company of the Desert Fathers taught that attaining likeness to God comes through Theo-gnosis (knowing God) and kenosis (self emptying). Catholic Mystics describe it as the ascent of the soul to God, the participation of the soul in the divine attributes of immortality. In Summa, it is the transformation of human nature by divine grace.
   Although the first mention of deification as a concept was in Irenaeus' infamous exchange formula (God became man that man might become god), it was in Alexandria that the doctrine of deification was fully elaborated and extensively utilized in the defense of its Orthodoxy. Since J. Gross wrote his most comprehensive study of deification, "La divinisation du chrétien d'apres les Peres Grecs," in 1938, discussions of deification often suffer from insufficient historical context and from an obscurity about what deification precisely means and what process does it involve. This attitude has been recently amended by the outstanding Patristic scholar who wrote books about the Desert Fathers, Theophilus and Cyril.
   
   Deification, Divinization, and Theosis:
   Why did the terms, Deification, Divinization, and Theosis, based on the biblical expression 'partakers of the divine nature' present such difficulty, for most Protestants and Catholics? Why is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis presently engaging the Coptic Orthodox Church, theologians and Clergy in a hot debate? Even when this Church, whose Alexandrine fathers Origen, Athanasius* and Cyril** respectively have initiated, developed and utilized it to defend Orthodoxy against heresies starting with Arianism, all the way to Nestorianism? While Athanasius declares, "The Word became flesh in order, both, to offer this sacrifice and that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified," Cyril made it the over-riding motif of his Christological defense against the Diophysites. The Alexandrine Church doctrine that by the incarnation, human nature is deified and become participant in the divine nature was Cyril's favorite theme, that he iterated over forty times. Why was Divinization avoided by Apophatic mystics and Diophysite Theologians?
   Russell compellingly distinguishes two of the Divinization opponents, "two kinds of writers: those who distinguished in an apophatic way between the essence of God and his operations or energies, and those who employed a Logos-anthropos Christology, which did not depend upon the concept of participation. It is noteworthy that writers of the Antiochene school do not quote '2 Peter 1:4'." Conversely, adds Russell, "the text was used by those who operated with a Logos-sarx Christology (Alexandrine Fathers) and with a doctrine (deriving ultimately from Origen) of a dynamic participation in God. Such a doctrine presupposed a theology which was personalist rather than essentialist, and an understanding of 'nature' which included the attributes of the living God."
   
   Partakers of Divine Nature:
   The above verse, quoted from 2 Peter 1:4, was altogether problematic. Used initially by Origen, whose initiatives formed the Alexandrian school, then by Athanasius few times, and later by Cyril repeatedly, but never used again until Maximus the Confessor, quoted only twice. Russell furthers his great book themes, expounding the history of Eastern Church Theology, asking himself, "Why was 2 Peter 1:4 popular with Cyril but not with Maximus (a student of Origen)?
   Once he had embarked on his controversy with Nestorius, Cyril needed an alternative way of speaking about deification. Following in the tradition of Origen and Athanasius, he had such an alternative way to hand in the expression 'partakers of the divine nature'. His Christology is one in which the participation of the assumed humanity in the divinity of the Logos, is a key concept. He compares it with the participation of the faithful in Christ; 'corporeally' through the Eucharistic communion, and spiritually through kenotic life. Maximus, with a Capadocian / Dionysian (ps-Areopagite) background, did not participate in the 'Divine Partaking' tradition. While, his Neo-Chalcedonian Christology, revised, was still based on the concept of duality of natures, but in reciprocal communion, had no real appeal for the Petrine text. On the contrary, Cyril's anthropology is analogous to his Christology. Man attains the divinely graced life, not by participation in God as much as by synergy, a mutual reactive relationship between the Lord through Christ and those of the faithful.
   
   Norman Russell on Divinization:
   Norman Russell, wrote recently, in an enlightening essay entitled, 'Partakers of the Divine Nature' in the Byzantine Tradition, explaining and defending the Alexandrine based Biblical theology from Origen's First Principles, comparing to Maximus the confessor. He explains, "Among the Greek (speaking) Fathers deification is expressed variously as filial adoption through baptism, as the attaining of likeness to God through gnosis and dispassion, as the ascent of the soul to God, as the participation of the soul in the divine attributes of immortality and incorruption, as the transformation of human nature by divine action, as the eschatological glorification of both soul and body, and as union with God through participation in the divine energies. In Byzantine writers the emphasis falls on the Pauline aspect of filial adoption and incorporation into Christ, the sacraments becoming all-important as the means by which divine life is communicated to the believer."
   
   In Appreciation:
   In my long career as a Catechist and Commentator, it is my first time to be urged to write a review of a theology book without the book being at hand. In a telecom with the Nottingham Patristic, and Cambridge 'Coptic Orthodox' theologian, I proposed this great unbiased scholarly work as a reference for both debating Coptic parties on the subject. Dr. George Bebawi, then praised the Oxford scholar, associating him with the eminent Syriac scholar Dr. Sebastian Brock, and evaluated the book as a 'Doctorate Thesis', carefully reviewed for the benefit of intellectual Christians. His colleague Dr. Andrew Louth, has rightly wrote, "Norman Russell presents his subject with the assurance of a master ... He displays not just understanding of the material, but also a clear awareness of the field of patristic studies ... this is a masterpiece of what historical discussion of Christian doctrine should be: historically acute and theologically perceptive."
   
   A Qualified Review:
   "Norman Russell has given us a rigorous account of the historical development of the doctrine of deification and its technical terminology, and at the same time he has offered us clear conceptual categories for distinguishing different approaches to deification in the Christian tradition. The stated subject of this book is "Christian deification from its birth as a metaphor to its maturity as a spiritual doctrine" Daniel Keating
   
   * On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei)
   ** The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria (Oxford Theological Monographs)



3. As far as I know, this book is the best one stop read on this central Christian doctrine. All of theology, in its relation to humanity, is really a footnote to the reality of deification. But what does that really mean? Are we absorbed into God? Are we just made like him by decree? Or do we participate in the very life of God and yet remain distinct in our nature and personhood? How this was experienced and worked out in the early church is the subject of this most detailed book.
   
   Based largely on Jules Gross' work (La Divination du chrétien d'après les Pères grecs), Russell begins by tracing the main points of Gross, adding the criticism that Gross failed to explain, and take into account, the content in which the Greek Fathers wrote and discussed theosis. He notes that although deification talk was common in many pre-Dionysian (6th century) theologians, they were not doctrinally consistent in their usage and meaning. It is finally with St Maximus the Confessor that the theology of deification is worked out systematically.
   
   I am leaving tons of content out, but rest assured that if you have an interest in the topic from the Greek perspective, this is the book to get. But it is not a book for beginners. For that, you may find uncreated energy a useful primer.
   
   Although Russell's focus is Greek theology, he does offer an appendix of Syrian and Latin Fathers on the topic, along with a brief discussion of modern authors on the subject, such as Rahner, Zizioulas and Mascall.
   
   I would strongly recommend the writings of Valdimir Lossky, especially The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church and Orthodox Theology: An Introductionon this subject. For a great East-West discussion, See A. Williams' The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas. As well, please see Deification in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: A Biblical Perspective, Being With God: Trinity, Apophaticism, And Divine-Human Communion, Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology (Princeton Theological Monograph) and Deification in Christ: Orthodox Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person (Contemporary Greek Theologians, Vol 5).
   
   My other reviews are often on this topic, and you can find some gems there to further your exploration of the implications of the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord.



4. 
   "The great Antiochene fathers never use the term 'diefication' at all. That is to say... we are gods only in a titular sense. ... Without the Alexandrian sotereological perspective, deification can only be presented as a remote eschatological event." Norman Russell, (pp. 237)
   
   "I no longer desire to be myself, but to find myself transformed in You, so that there is no 'myself' but only Yourself. That is when I will be what You have willed to make me from all eternity: not myself, but Love." Thomas Merton
   
   
   
   
   
   Deification, as participation:
   "Far from implying a heretical notion of man's absorption into God, as Western writers sometimes assume, the term encapsulates a number of widely differing approaches to the doctrine of salvation. Among the Greek Fathers deification is expressed variously as filial adoption through baptism, as the attaining of likeness to God through gnosis and dispassion, as the ascent of the soul to God, as the participation of the soul in the divine attributes of immortality and incorruption, as the transformation of human nature by divine action, as the eschatological glorification of both soul and body, and as union with God through participation in the divine energies." Norman Russell
   
   Deification, Biblical Foundation:
   The two classic biblical texts quoted in support of deification are Psalm 82:6 ('I said, you are gods and all of you sons of the Most High') and 2 Peter 1:4 ('precious and very great promises have been granted to us, that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature'). The first of these texts (also quoted in John 10:34) was never a cause of controversy. There already existed a Jewish exegesis which applied the words, 'you are gods', originally to Adam and Eve, and then to those who kept the Torah, when Justin Martyr -the first Christian Father to quote them- used them as a gloss on the Johannine 'children of God' (1 Jn 3:1). If baptism makes us sons of God and the Psalm addresses us as gods and sons of the Most High, then baptism must make us gods. Divine sonship through baptism therefore brings with it the divine qualities of immortality and freedom from passion. The text is often appealed to by later Fathers to express how baptism incorporates us into Christ, making us gods by grace in contrast to Christ, who is God by nature. N. Russell, "Partakers of the Divine Nature" in the Byzantine Tradition
   
   Russell's Masterful Thesis:
   So far, I could not but quote the eminent patristic scholar whose mother nurtured in him a love of the Fathers, and his fellowship and scholarship kept the fire inflaming. This book is unique, while exploring the diversity of the patristic approaches from Irenaeus to Maximus the Confessor, Norman Russell offers an unparalleled and compelling study of the roots and the development of the doctrine, while expounding its genuine Alexandrine texts and themes, in two chapters: The Alexandrian Tradition I & II, masterfully linking its schools led by Clement, Origen, and Didymus with the champions of its Orthodoxy Athanasius and Cyril.
   He then masterfully traces Origen's heritage of Divine transcendence and Soul ascent in his great Cappadocian students who accommodated them to Athanasius thesis of mediation of the divine Logos through deification of the logos flesh assumed from Mary.
   In the historical culmination of his extensive study, Norman Russell reveals the eminence of his patristic scholarship, in 'The Monastic Synthesis,' delving gracefully from Evagrius Ponticus, The Macarian writings, Dionysius the Aereopagite, to Maximus Confessor.
   
   Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions
   
   Gnosis, Theophany, Theosis: Studies in Clement of Alexandria's Appropriation of His Background (Patristic Studies (Peter Lang Publishing), Vol. 5.)



5. This is the best work in theosis published in recent times. A must-have for any serious scholar or student.

5 comments about Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Contemporary Greek Theologians Series, No 4).

1. Every so often a book comes along that manages to rotate and shake up your paradigm in such a way that, after the shift is over, you suddenly see things not only in a new way, but in a new way that makes far greater sense. _Being as Communion_ by Metropolitan John Zizioulas is one such book for me.
   
   It works on several levels, bringing together what are oftentimes considered disparate strands of thought - philosophical, theological and pastoral - into a thickly weaved narrative that shows why an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity as the communion of the three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is...necessary. For Zizioulas, this communion of the Trinity is the model to be embodied not only by the Church as the communion of all churches, but by the very person as well: we only are who we are when we are in communion with God and one another.
   
   The title of the book is no mistake; Zizioulas puts himself in dialogue with some of the great philosophers of the 20th century (such as Heidegger and Levinas, the latter of whom he praises, particularly his work Totality and Inifinity). The fundamental point that Zizioulas raises about Being is that in the eucharist - in the act of communion itself! - the essential and the temporal become fused into a living harmony. Such was - and is - Christ, and such also is to be the Church and the Christian, participating in the eternal life of God while in the here and now. Being is not static, but in time and in relation.
   
   For those that have found themselves turned off to Orthodox theology in the past due its oftentimes proclaimed self-sufficiency, Zizioulas may very well seem like a theologian that comes out of left field: his *criticisms* of Orthodox theology (and I have never read an Orthodox theologian that was critical of Orthodox theology before) are what many Western inquirers have long wanted to know: can Orthodoxy be constructively self-critical? Can Orthodoxy be open to the recognition of Western churches as viable, even if critiquing them at the same time? Zizioulas presents an unapologetic "yes" to both of these questions.
   
   The most heartening thing about this book, however, is the fundamentally pastoral angle the Zizioulas takes. While he can discuss the Cappadocians, for example, at great length, he also sees the essentially pastoral implications of the relational, Trinitarian God: the imitation of this *as* the relational pastor. He is especially concerned with the rise of anti-clericalism in both Greece and abroad; he sees this anti-clericalism as committing the same fallacy that it seeks to fight against: the reduction of the Church to being first and foremost an institution. Yet, he also sees how the pastoral failures of the past have contributed to this by not seeking to incarnate the fundamentally relational nature of God.
   
   The book ends with a substantive - and crucial - question. If the Church is fundamentally the communion of churches, what do we make of churches that are in ecclesiastical and/or confessional division? It is with this question that Zizioulas quite literally ends; it is an abrupt ending, too, that leaves reader in a state of suspension. Yet, I can't think of a better way to end it. From theology as the contemplation of God to the reality of a fragmented Church (especially with regard to Protestantism/s/s/s/s/s...), there is quite a tragic distance. It is in the recognition of this distance, though, that the real conversation and communication - the very word "communication" being etymologically related to both "community" and "communion" - begins.
   
   This is a book that cuts through dogmatic and ecclesiastical divisions and asks substantive questions that are birthed from the very life of the God who is in communion with himself and, in being so, opens himself to communing with all others. At this time, I know of no other book that more urgently needs to be read; and, I know of no other book that I would more highly recommend.



2. 
   Being in Communion:
   Dr. Olivier Clement, professor at the Institut de Theologie Orthodoxe St. Serge in Paris speaks about human nature, "not the philosophical idea but the revealed truth, cannot belong to a solitary being. It is distributed among persons in all their variety; it resides in the great interchange of life by which each exists for and through all the others. Christian spirituality - life in the Holy Spirit - is of its very nature something that "we" share, our self-awareness being awakened by our sense of being in communion with others."
   
   Renewal in Ecclesiology:
   John Zizioulas fresh look at ecclesiology have been with us for twenty years, and has left a dramatic impact on the mind of western neo-theologians. His integral consideration of the major theological basis of orthodox Christianity, the Trinity, Christology, sacramental theology, and eschatology but it is through the Eucharist, that the Metropolitan renews with a fresh understanding, Alexandrine Soteriology and Cyril's Eucharist centered ecclessiology of the one Person of Christ visited by Luther and Barth. He considers the local church as integrally catholic, in this sense. For Zizioulas, the Church Universal is the communion of all Churches, Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox.
   
   Trinitarian Communion:
   The author represents an ontology of the St. Cyril Orthodox expression of Trinitarian doctrine. He shows in a systematic theology how the unity of the Trinity is within the Trinitarian personshood of the Godhead. Western theology, considers the essence first in its approach to the Mystery. This book cuts through dogmas of ecclesiastical divisions and reaches for the patristic understanding, by asking questions that matter, from the very life of the Heavenly triune God, who in his self revelation, invites his believing sons and daughters to be in communion, sustained through His Holy spirit.
   How is the Trinitarian communion defined, and ecclessiastical fellowship experienced within the life of the Church, and the teaching of the Gospels? Evidently, the writings of early Church fathers, starting with the Capadocian and Cyril of Alexandria, should be reexamined in the new ecumenical approach of contemporary ontological theologians from Athanasius to Yannaras.
   
   Metropolitan Zizioulas of Pergamon:
   Zizioulas doctoral thesis, supervised by Fr Florovsky, submitted to the University of Athens, was on the Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist was published before forty years. Yves Congar has written that he considers the author to be "one of the most original and profound theologians of our epoch" and that he "presents a penetrating and coherent reading of the tradition of the Greek Fathers."



3. Let me 'fess up here: I read this book about 5 years ago. Along with many other books about theology.
   
   But it is one of the few that I still remember pretty well, years later.
   
   I'm in no position to say how well Zizioulas represents "orthodox" Orthodoxy, but I can say that in my opinion this is the best presentation I've ever read of Trinitarian theology, ecclesiology, and theological anthropology. Those are some massive areas, and it's remarkable that one book covered them so well.
   
   I'd also recommend Lars Thunberg's study of Maximus the Confessor in "Microcosm and Mediator," as another one of those books that has stuck with me for a very long time. It touches on a lot of these same issues among others, showing that at the very least, Zizioulas is not "out of line."
   
   However, both of these books are quite hard for most people (me included) to read. For a simpler introduction to modern Orthodox ecclesiology, I'd direct you to Khomiakov's essay "On the Western Confessions of Faith," available in a book edited by Schmemann, "Ultimate Questions." Of course, Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) writes very clearly about all this and more in, for instance, "The Orthodox Way." A deeper, yet still crystal clear and refreshing spring is Olivier Clement's "The Roots of Christian Mysticism."
   
   (Mea Culpa / Caveat Lector: I am not Orthodox.)



4. This is an excellent book. Well thought out, and solid theologically. It was literally a paradigm shifting book for me. While I don't agree with all of his Ecclesiology, his views on the Trinity, Personhood, and "Being" vs. "Function" are excellent.
   
   It takes some getting used to. I had to "wade" through it at the beginning. It's quite technical in language. I would recommend it for some ambitious college students and graduate and above.
   
   Worth having and re-reading.



5. This is a fine piece of systematic theology. Zizioulas builds his reflections on personhood, the church and the ministry on the basis of communion. The importance of conceiving the church as a eucharistic community is at the centre of his ecclesiology. As a Protestant, this work goes behind the the sectarian attitudes that I can see at work in my denomination, and exposes the flaw in seeking unity only through confessional means. I sense a deep sadness in his writing about divisions between Christians, an attitude that I share. I eagerly await his next work on the eschatological ontology.

1 comments about A Patristic Greek Reader.

1. This is an excellent book for theology and/or patristics students desirous of learning New Testament (Koine) Greek. In many programs, the Greek readers will focus on texts from the New Testament, which is fine, but at some point, theology students will need to master certain Greek words as used by the Early Church Fathers, such as Saint Cyril, to fully understand the context and underlying theological point of the text. This book definitely helps in this respect.

5 comments about The Complete Book of Greek Cooking.

1. I am surprised to see the overwhelmingly positive comments on this book since my opinion is very much to the contrary. By no means could this book be considered complete as it's title suggests.
   
   Many of the recipes are classic but only occasionally offer an explanation of what the dish is.
   For example there is a recipe for "Mock Magiritsa" which is a soup traditionally prepared on the eve of Greek Easter. After returning from church service celebrating the resurection of Christ, families would gather around the table and enjoy this rich soup which is made of the innards of the lamb that will be cooked on the spit the following morning.
   
   Well you may say that this information is not absolutely necessary but I think it is the writers responsibility especially when the writers are the church itself, to give a bit of backround to what one is attempting to prepare and the significance of the dish.
   
   Anyway there are better books out there, the authors in my opinion put very little into producing this book despite the vast resources of information that they had at their disposal. Personally I would avoid this one and try for something else



2. 4.9 stars:
   
   If you are one of those cookbook collectors that enjoy the glossy, amusing cookbooks written by glossy, amusing TV personalities that are either "barefoot" or "naked", then this book is NOT for you. This book has no pictures, no glossy pages, and no stories of how the chef found a rare pepper plant on a recent excursion to Machu Picchu, Peru. This book is a compilation of recipes by a "group of women from Saint Paul's Church." Some recipes may be authentic and traditional; some may be completely made up; who knows and who cares is what I say.
   
   The recipes are good. The directions are easy. And the ingredients are available to most of us that don't live beyond the reach of the Interstate (let alone the Internet!)
   
   Here are some of the 250+ recipes in this book:
   Baklava
   Skaltsounia cookies
   Phylo triangles
   Souzoukakia (10-points if you can say that ten times fast)
   Moussaka
   Mock mageritsa
   Stuffed grape leaves (yes!!)
   Whole baby lamb
   Politico-style salad
   Béchamel sauce
   Meatball avgolemono soup
   Mock manti
   Shish kebab (Mmmmmm)
   12 different breads!
   Farina cake
   Flaounes
   Sagnaki
   Kapama
   Souvlakia
   Chicken stefado
   Greek coffee (whoa, I'm awake now!)
   Iced kourabiedes (cookies)
   Bougatsa
   And my personal favorite....
   Loukoumades (if you haven't had one - or a dozen - then you are missing out!)
   
   I highly recommend this book as an addition to your cookbook collection. You will find it to be one of your favorites.



3. My ONLY souce of the best Greek cooking was Hellenic Cuisine from the 1970's. This book is excellent and is just like having your "yiayia" cooking for you and telling you how to prepare these delicacies. The ingredients are authentic and the prep time is right on the money. As everyone knows Greek cooking takes time, patience and lots of butter, olive oil, filo, feta and olives not to mention basil, oregano and garlic. Get your ingredients and have a ball. This cook book is the BEST out there for authenticity.



4. Great book just the ingredients are not things I find on my shelf so I have to purchase special items. The food tastes good and money well spent.



5. this book is very useful for a begineer to the world of greek cooking the illistrations are great and full of geniune greek recipes that are easy to do and easy to follow