So here are my projected "Big Ten", in chronological order. Would they
| be yours? Who should be out and who should be in? As always, I value
| your kindly and scholarly opinions.
|
Bill:
I like the course, though it seems to be to have a very strong
western slant. If you are going to do something on the Faith of the
fathers, it seems appropriate to do a bit of looking eastwards.
And in fact, it will help your students understand much of the Latin
boys, as well. I would suggest:
1. Origen
2. Athanasius
3. the Cappadocians
4. Jerome (whose 'originality' lies mainly in paying attention to the
East)
5. Ambrose (who drew much from the East, and again a much
undervalued source)
6. Augustine
7. Cassian and/or Cassiodorus
8. Boethius (an absolute must, in terms of theological development
-- he's overlooked way too much )
9. Benedict
10. Gregory I
I personally would delete Leo (whose press is bigger than he was),
in order to talk about either Cassian or Cassiodorus (or both!). I
don't buy the father Benard thing myself. Certainly a huge
influence in western theology (including 16th cent. reformers), but I
don't see him on par with early church thinkers (nor treated as
such by later theologians -- but perhaps I am misinformed on this
point). The same goes for Anselm: these two were part of a 'new
generation' of theologians, who helped to configure the medieval
use of patristic sources, but are not patristic sources themselves,
pace Migne. I suppose I see awarding Bernard a patristics Oscar
bears more of an idealogical mark, than a historical one -- but note
that I write this on an early Monday morning: I could just be cranky
:-).
The configuration really depends on your intentions: is it faith as
practice and expression (which seems to me require a lot of
attention paid to ascetic practice, etc). or the content of faith? If
the latter, then somebody like Benedict does not necessarily
demand pride of place. I am not demeaning the father of the
Benedictines by saying this (his religious and historical importance
is unquestionable), rather I am just pointing out that he makes no
signfiicant contribution to the development of doctrine and
theological method.
It is possible to conflate the two intentions (which provides a
wonderful way of structuring the introductory lecture, helping your
students see the distinction): I suppose I would consider in such a
short course how successfuly you can be at doing both.
Nice to see continuing ed maintaining some high standards in
York.
Cheers
Jim
=====================================================================
Dr James R Ginther
Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44.113.233.6749
Fax: +44.113.233.3654
-=*=-
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/ (Theology and Religious Studies, Leeds)
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cms/ (Centre for Medieval Studies, Leeds)
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/rg (The Electronic Grosseteste)
====================================================================
"First up ther wor nobbut God. An 'e said, "Ee, lad, turn th'bloody
light on." -Yorkshire paraphase of Gen. 1.2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
