Reply from the [glint]CTOS[/glint]

Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
To Jewish Reader

Your excellent website has always struck me as comme il faut in its presentation of materials. However, in offering critical responses to comments that you have quoted from ORTHODOX TRADITION, "Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion" (Vol. IV, No. 1), you leave the reader, however inadvertently, with a very inappropriate impression. Let me explain

Bishop Auxentios, who wrote the comments in question, referred to the issue of female menstruation by way of reference to a homily by St. John Chrysostomos, who pointed out that the woman with an issue of blood whom Christ healed, in the New Testamental account of His miracles, suffered from a sense of guilt because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue of blood was unclean. I quote His Grace


In a homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew, St. John Chrysostomos does praise the great faith of the woman who had suffered hemorrhages (an "issue of blood") for some twelve years. He points out that Christ freed her both of her illness and of her guilt, which she had developed because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue was unclean


You have posted the following critical statement from a woman married to a Greek Orthodox Christian, who describes herself as a former Hasidic Jew who is not now -fully observant
I have just read the article on Menstruation, Emissions, and Holy Communion. In the article it says, He [sic] points out that Christ freed her both of her illness and of her guilt, which she had developed because of the Jewish idea that a woman with such an issue was unclean. This is completely false information. I believe that each religion should not comment on the supposed teachings of the other. Especially as in this case I can assure you that Judaism teaches no such thing
I think that you somehow must have thought that this alleged "false information" came from ORTHODOX TRADITION (in actuality, His Grace, Bishop Auxentios), and not, as it did, from Chrysostomos himself. Thus you felt it perhaps appropriate to print such a criticism. In fact, on further reflection, you might want to clarify this entire matter. Let me first quote St. John Chrysostomos, who said the following, which is wholly and indisputably consistent with Bishop Auxentios' summary of the Saint's thinking


She [the woman with an issue of blood] was ashamed because of her affliction, considering herself to be unclean. Indeed, if the menstruating woman was judged to be unclean, how much more would she [the woman with the issue of blood] think the same, afflicted as she was with such a disease; for in fact, that complaint was considered under the [Jewish] law a great uncleanliness

Homily 31,PATROLOGIA GRAECA, Vol. LVII, col. 371
I will not enter into the question of the various and differing interpretations of "female" cleanliness or purity offered by Jews in various Talmudic schools and in various Halakhic traditions; nor will I attempt to comment on those who portray female uncleanliness or impurity as purely "spiritual" notions, even though I am quite intrigued by such interpretations. I will, however, as a student of Patristics and Church history, and as someone who has worked and translated with Bishop Auxentios, assure your readers and our Jewish critics that no "false information" was conveyed in these comments. That is a very inappropriate and ill-advised accusation, and especially since it ultimately constitutes a comment on the thinking of the Divine Chrysostomos, whom we Orthodox, whatever heterodox or non-Christian critics may wish to claim or say, would never criticize for conveying "false information." Such would be more than inappropriate

Bishop Auxentios simply referred to ideas which St. John Chrysostomos knew to be prevalent among the Jews at his time. To be sure, there are few scholars or Orthodox who would accuse him of purposely conveying "false information" on the grounds that "Judaism teaches no such thing." Such a statement is an opinion, or peculiar conviction, and little more, and it rather naively dismisses historical thinking on the subject that was, as I have said, known to St. John Chrysostomos and, I dare say, to Jewish scholars, as well. Whether one agrees with this thinking, or whether there have developed various Talmudic opinions on the matter, is, again, an entirely different issue

I would, as I intimated above, have some sympathy, in fact, with a spiritual interpretation of "bodily impurity" in ancient Jewish (and non-Jewish) thought; but that gives neither me nor anyone else the right to dismiss an actual historical school of thought as "false information" or to speak in a vulgar way, by implication, of the thinking of one of Orthodoxy's greatest Saints. Personal opinion must always be balanced against an ACTUAL knowledge of Patristic tradition and against the tendency to be crudely critical for personal reasons and on the basis of personal opinion. The latter weakness always leads those who do not check it into contentiousness and unfair accusations

If I may repeat myself, St. John Chrysostomos' comments reflect the Patristic consensus about how the Jews of New Testamental (and other) times looked at menstruation and "hemorrhages" in women. Bishop Auxentios and ORTHODOX TRADITION, for which I have been writing for some years now, drew on that consensus (a consensus which we always follow, even if those unfamiliar with the Patristic witness often accuse us of doing otherwise) in making their comments on these matters. Personally, being neither anti-Semitic nor convinced that one may not speak about other religious traditions (this would, indeed, spell the end of comparative religion as a scholarly pursuit), I have no qualms about suggesting that you clarify this matter and the absolute accuracy of Bishop Auxentios' comments on the subject at hand, by posting my comments

Thank you for your attention. Please continue your excellent work

HIEROMONK PATAPIOS
Academic Director
Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies
Etna, CA