Apologist for the Roman Catholic canon, David Szárász, has offered some responses (Part 1; Part 2) to Steve Christie who criticized the book of 1 Clement because it erroneously asserts the existence of the merely legendary bird, the Phoenix. (For discussion of the manuscripts of 1 Clement, see this link)
The book referred to as 1 Clement does not identify its own author. The various traditions as to authorship include Clement of Rome and Clement of Philippi (mentioned in Philippians 4:3) and some take the author as serving in a secretarial capacity to a larger ecclesiastical body (see the discussion here, for example). For ease of reference I will refer to the author of the book as Clement.
Clement makes an argument based on the Phoenix, a bird that today is generally accepted to have been a myth, but in the first century was viewed as potentially real as can be seen from the works of authors such as Herodotus (484-425 BC) (Herodotus on the Phoenix) and Pliny (d. AD 79)(The Phoenix according to Pliny), each of whom had some reservations regarding whether the bird might be fable. Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), possibly writing after 1 Clement was written, thinks that the legend is dubious but the bird itself is real (The Phoenix according to Tacitus).
David Szárász says he does not think that Clement made an error (for his exact words, see this clip, and the appendix below).
David offers a translation of 1 Clement 25. David doesn't credit the source of the translation, but it appears to be the translation provided by Kenneth J. Howell in "Clement of Rome and the Didache" from the "Early Church Fathers" series (published in 2012 by the "Coming Home Network"), in the sense that the only difference is the insertion of a Greek word in parentheses. (Later in the video, David does cite Howell's work, so certainly David had some kind of access to Howell's translation.)
David then says that although Herodotus provides evidence that people had such a legend, Clement's reliance on this myth does not mean that Clement though it was real (for his exact words, see this clip, and the appendix below)
During David's response, Tony L (from "The Good Fight") raised an important counter-point (link to the place where Tony L offers the point). I want to give credit where credit is due, which is why I mention Tony, but I don't want to imply that Tony in any way endorses my response, so let me phrase the counter-point on my own terms. Incidentally, I believe that Tony is using the Roberts-Donaldson translation provided below.
First, Clement directly says ὄρνεον γάρ ἐστιν (orneon gar estin - for there is a bird). David's translation expresses it "There exists a bird," which (while slightly less literal) conveys the same point. Clement does not say "some people say there is a bird," or the like.
Second, Clement makes the claim that this bird was created by God to provide an illustration of the resurrection, which is not a claim made by Herodotus. David does not show Howell's translation of 26:1 on the screen, but Howell has: "Do we think it is a great marvel if the Creator of everything would perform a resurrection of those who have served him in holiness in the confidence of good faith when he shows us the greatness of his promise through a bird?" (emphasis added)
David's counter to Tony's argument was to say that he could talk about a legendary Hungarian bird, without intending for the listener to think that he (David) believes that the legend is real. According to David it would be natural to say that in Hungary there is a bird that does this and that, but to mean only that the bird exists in their mind. (For his exact words, see this clip.)
While that could weakly answer the portion of the argument from Clement saying "there is a bird", it does not address the problem of Clement saying that God shows us the resurrection through a bird. Clement's use of the phoenix as God showing the resurrection does not work if the phoenix is just a human myth, and consequently not part of God's creation.
As can be seen from David's slide (reproduced above), the criticized material comes from what is designated as chapter 25 (and the first line of chapter 26) in most editions of this work. As there are multiple translations of the chapter, I offer them here for comparison to one another:
Trans. by William Wake (originally published in 1693), there designated as Chapter 12:1-6 (notes omitted):
LET us consider that wonderful type of the resurrection which is seen in the Eastern countries: that is to say, in Arabia.
2 There is a certain bird called a Phœnix; of this there is never but one at a time: and that lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near, that it must die, it makes itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices into which when its time is fulfilled it enters and dies.
3 But its flesh putrifying, breeds a certain worm, which being nourished with the juice of the dead bird brings forth feathers; and when it is grown to a perfect state, it takes up the nest in which the bones of its parent lie, and carries it from Arabia into Egypt, to a city called Heliopolis:
4 And flying in open day in the sight of all men, lays it upon the altar of the sun, and so returns from whence it came.
5 The priests then search into the records of the time: and find that it returned precisely at the end of five hundred years.
6 And shall we then think it to be any very great and strange thing for the Lord of all to raise up those that religiously serve him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird he shows us the greatness of his power to fulfil his promise?
Trans. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (published in 1867), there designated as Chapter 25 (for context, I'm providing also the first sentence of what is designated as Chapter 26).
[Chapter 25] Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. [Chapter 26] Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise?
A footnote in this translation states: "This fable respecting the phœnix is mentioned by Herodotus (ii. 73), and by Pliny (Nat. Hist. x. 2), and is used as above by Tertullian (De Resurr. § 13), and by others of the fathers." The next footnote, regarding the first line of Chapter 26, states: "Literally, "the mightiness of His promise.""
Trans. by John Keith (published in 1885), there designated and divided as in the Roberts/Donaldson translation, above (notes omitted):
[Chapter 25] Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. [Chapter 26] Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise?
Trans. Charles H. Hoole (published in 1885), there designated as 1 Clement 25:1-5 and 1 Clement 26:1:
[25:1] Let us consider the wonderful sign that happeneth in the region of the east, even about Arabia. [2] There is a bird which is called the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years. And when the time of its death draweth near, it maketh for itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh and the other perfumes, into which, when its time is fulfilled, it entereth, and then dieth. [3] But as its flesh rotteth, a certain worm is produced, which being nourished by the moisture of the dead animal, putteth forth feathers. Then, when it hath become strong, it taketh the nest wherein are the bones of its ancestor, and bearing them, it flieth from the region of Arabia to that of Egypt, to the city which is called Heliopolis; [4] there, in day-time, in the sight of all, it flieth up, and placeth them upon the altar of the sun, and having done so, returneth back. [5] The priests, therefore, look into the registers of the times, and find that it has come at the completion of the five-hundredth year. [26:1] Shall we then think it great and wonderful, if the Maker of all things shall make a resurrection of those who, in the confidence of a good faith, have piously seized him, when even by means of a bird he showeth the greatness of his promises?
Trans. J. B. Lightfoot (published in 1889), there designated as in Hoole's:
[25:1] Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia. [2] There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth. [3] But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the Sun; [4] and in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to return. [5] So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed. [26:1] Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith, seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His promise?
Trans. Kirsopp Lake (published in 1912), there designated as in Hoole's and Lightfoot's:
[25:1] Let us consider the strange sign which takes place in the East, that is in the districts near Arabia. [2] There is a bird which is called the Phoenix, This is the only one of its kind, and lives 500 years; and when the time of its dissolution in death is at hand, it makes itself a sepulchre of frankincense and myrrh and other spices, and when the time is fulfilled it enters into it and dies. [3] Now, from the corruption of its flesh there springs a worm, which is nourished by the juices of the dead bird, and puts forth wings. Then, when it has become strong, it takes up that sepulchre, in which are the bones of its predecessor, and carries them from the country of Arabia as far as Egypt until it reaches the city called Heliopolis, [4] and in the daylight in the sight of all it flies to the altar of the Sun, places them there, and then starts back to its former home. [5] Then the priests inspect the registers of dates, and they find that it has come at the fulfilment of the 500th year. [26:1] Do we then consider it a great and wonderful thing that the creator of the universe will bring about the resurrection of those who served him in holiness, in the confidence of a good faith, when he shows us the greatness of his promise even through a bird?
The most recent and widely received scholarly translation of 1 Clement is found in "The Apostolic Fathers," by Michael W. Holmes. I'm reluctant to reproduce the entirety of Holmes' translation here. However, I would like to focus on the word translated "paradoxical" by Howell but as "wonderful," "marvelous," and "strange" in the older translations. Holmes offers "remarkable."
David went on to point out that many church fathers similarly viewed the phoenix as a symbol of the resurrection. This, of course, doesn't resolve the question of whether Clement thought that the phoenix was a real bird. David scoffs at the idea that the church fathers may have believed that the phoenix was a real bird, but considering the number of legendary beasts that were accepted as real before the Renaissance, it should not be shocking to him. People make mistakes.
Holmes notes (p. 79 and 81): "25:1-5 The story of the phoenix, well known in antiquity, was widely used (with varying levels of credulity) by early Christian writers; sanction for this usage was found in Ps. 92:12 (LXX 91:13), where in the Greek LXX phoinix meaning "palm tree" was confused with phoinix meaning "phoenix bird." (source) The presence of an invalid justification from a misunderstanding based on a Greek translation tends to undermine David's attempted buttressing of Clement with later writers.
David went to cite Gerhard Johann Voss, but it is not clear that David understands what he's reading there. Voss seems to be arguing not that Clement did not believe the myth of the phoenix, but that such beliefs existed at that time, and consequently the presence of such beliefs does not rule out Clementine authorship.
David also provides a quotation from Misako Himuro, "The Phoenix in the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians." Renaissance Studies 12, no. 4 (1998): 523–44. The specific quotation is this (p. 531): "It is hard to tell whether Clement himself believed the story of the phoenix or only used it as a means to persuade his Greek audience by incorporating their own fable."
David also refers to two notes by Howell: one that I've reproduced above, and the other: "Now Clement draws out the implication of the myth of the Phoenix by arguing from the lesser to the greater (a minori ad majorem). If the ancients could believe in life after death as embodied in the story of the Phoenix, why is it strange to believe that the true God could raise someone from the dead?"
However, the counter-point to both Himuro and Howell is that Clement does not merely argue that it shouldn't be hard to believe one thing if you believe the other thing: Clement suggests that the Phoenix is God's way of demonstrating the resurrection in nature, like his previous example of sowing seeds, which Clement presumably took from the canonical gospels.
Finally, David cites John W. Raad (his citation: "An Analysis of the Rhetoric of Clement of Rome, with Special Reference to the Epistle of the Corinthians. 1949, p. 61") who seems to adopt my and Mr. Christie's conclusion that Clement thought that the myth was true: "We may smile as we read the unquestioning simplicity which accepts the story of the Phoenix and uses it as an illustration, but we are apt to forget that among his most cultivated heathen contemporaries many accepted it as true and others left it an open question." This is also the rebuttal to David's appeal to the patristic era authors: it is not farfetched that their knowledge of the natural sciences was imperfect.
Ultimately, while I respect the effort that David put into providing his presentation on the question, I cannot agree with his conclusion. Clement straightforwardly says that "there is a bird," describes it with specificity including geographical details that would be irrelevant to his purpose if he did not think it real, and claims it for the Creator, not for the ingenuity of the Egyptians.
I should add that David makes other arguments, that are not addressed here, because they seem to me to be too tangential to the question. However, there is one final claim by David that highlights his defensive approach to this issue, in which he claims that we cannot prove something is an error unless we are omniscient (!)(for his exact words, see this clip, and the appendix below) That extreme standard should, of course, prevent David from claiming that either Mr. Christie or the present response is in error.
***
Appendix I: Computer-generated transcript of David Szárász's comments:
(12:09-22 from "Clement Versus the Phoenix: David's Response Pt 2"):
Well, Steve, it's because I don't believe there's an error. That's why. That's why I didn't inform the poor guy, the poor uninformed guy. That's why. Yeah.
(21:41-24:51 from "Clement Versus the Phoenix: David's Response Pt 2")
He wants to say like look if we can find an analogy of resurrection here and here and here why do you even why would you even doubt that resurrection is a true thing you know and so he he brings up the last thing which is about the phoenix and he calls it a paradoxical sign because that's what it is in Greek a paradox uh which is like strange or you know something ach it's difficult to you I I don't think like Clement says, "Oh, look at this miracle or something." No, it's just look at this strange sign. And he says, "Given in the eastern regions that is in Arabia, there exists a bird called phoenix and goes and so forth. you know the 500 years which repeats uh and how the bird resurrects and finally the priests studied the historical records a priest actually in Helopolis which is in Egypt. So he is talking here about a specific region a specific nation that believes the phoenix is a real bird. Now I don't see in the text anything that would say or indicate that Clement believes that this bird exists. Let me give you an example. I can say well among the Hungarians there is this bird called to rule which is a bird basically uh in in the in their like Hungarian myth there among the Hungarians there is this bird to rule which impregnates this woman called Emma and it will serve a child. Now I can give you this narrative. Does it mean that I believe that this tou is a real bird which exist and impregnated am? No. I'm describing what the Hungarians believed. I mean that's what they believed. So uh and by the way I I give one thing many times or given an example from real life which I'm always telling to my students of surgery. you know when I'm looking over them how they're doing the procedure and sometimes they will say okay I'll try and I say remember what master Yoda said don't try do it you know [laughter] I mean uh I mean does it mean I believe Master Yoda is a real guy who exists somewhere you know in the space I'm just giving you something you know that I've heard of and I don't have to say well but I don't actually believe it or it's a myth. So I think and that's why I didn't tell tell this Protestant about the phoenix because I don't think it can be necessarily proven that this is something what actually Clement believed
(26:06-23) from "Clement Versus the Phoenix: David's Response Pt 2"
So just because I'm going to hearken to Herodotus you know or you know to say well there are nations which believe in the resurrection in some way or there exist a resurrection analogy. Does that mean that Clement himself believe that bird is real? I don't think so. I don't think so.
(1:06:28-48) from "Clement Versus the Phoenix: David's Response Pt 2"
I mean, I'm not saying I believe in the phoenix. It's just, you know, um since we're not omniscient and we we don't know, you know, many things, it's like strictly speaking, it's not an error because we we cannot prove it didn't exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment