Monastery and High Cross: The Forgotten Eastern Roots of Irish Christianity

MJ. Smith
MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 55,588
in Book Requests

One book title per request, please.

Do you have additional comments for the Logos team? Add those here.

Amazon blurb:

From the beginning of Celtic scholarship in English, there was mention of Egyptians in ancient Ireland. However, allusion to “seven Egyptian monks in Desert Uilaidh” in the Litany of the Céile Dé from the seventh century Book of Leinster was dismissed as merely symbolic.

But evidence continues to accumulate that connections with the Mediterranean in ancient Ireland were real.

Archaeology documents frequent commerce between Ireland and the whole Mediterranean world from prehistory forward. Over the years, more and more similarities, links, and borrowings between ancient Ireland and the East have been found in art, architecture, literature, and liturgy, hymnody, and monastic custom.

From the art in the Book of Kells to some passages in the Antiphonary of Bangor to images on Irish high crosses, there are parallels too close and too frequent and accidental to be.

Monastery and High Cross is a cross-disciplinary meta-analysis of English-language research into these questions over the last one hundred and sixty years. It reviews scholarship in history, art, architecture, monastic traditions, liturgical and literary allusions, and assembles a comprehensive and thought-provoking collection of evidence.

Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

Tagged:
2
Up
2 votes

Submitted · Last Updated

Comments

  • Theophan Dort
    Theophan Dort Member Posts: 69 ✭✭✭

    I'm an Orthodox Christian, and I've been told many times by Orthodox speakers that most of Western Europe was evangelized by missionaries from Rome, so it was natural that it was under the Bishop of Rome, but that somehow Ireland was initially evangelized by monks from Northern Africa, whose "Christianity" derived not from Rome but from the Middle East, so it had roots more in the Orthodox East than the Roman West. But at the Synod of Whitby in the 7th C, there was a decision that moved the Irish Church closer to Rome, a process which continued until Ireland became staunchly Roman Catholic. I was very intrigued by all of this when I was approaching the Orthodox Church many years ago.

    I've added it to my Amazon cart to ponder whether I want to buy it in Kindle or not. I have SO MANY books in Logos waiting for me to read them, I'm just not sure this will make it to the top of the list. But thank you for drawing my attention to it!

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 55,588

    As a Catholic, I've heard a slightly different version with two sources of the introduction of Christianity - Coptic and Roman - with a very insular development. However, history, except liturgical history, is not my strong point so I can only vouch that this book makes a substantial but not conclusive argument.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Theophan Dort
    Theophan Dort Member Posts: 69 ✭✭✭

    RE: "… a slightly different version with two sources of the introduction of Christianity - Coptic and Roman - with a very insular development."

    I, too, am not a history person, so I certainly could be wrong, but I think Christianity began in the Middle East, not Rome, and spread North and South and East and West, and even in Apostolic times there were controversies and disputes. So the notion of two and only two sources of introduction to Christianity surely is an oversimplification. Some people (notably Bart Ehrman!) love to talk about "many Christianities" as a way of attacking the idea of there being ANY single Truth, but the general idea that Christianity was never monolithic seems to be accurate. There was no formal Orthodox Church until the Great Schism, but there were differences in orientation between missionaries from Rome spreading out West from Rome and missionaries from Northern Africa perhaps reaching Ireland by boat.

    You seem to have read practically everything, so I imagine you've read this book, which offers an intriguing look at a very different history of Christianity than most of us have ever known: https://www.logos.com/product/311060/the-lost-history-of-christianity-the-thousand-year-golden-age-of-the-church-in-the-middle-east-africa-and-asia-and-how-it-died

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 55,588

    Ah … I wrote an ambiguously funny sentence … I meant the introduction to the Celtic region came from Coptic/Rome not that Christianity did. 😀 I loved one priest (Eastern Rite) description of one split … The Byzantines find it impolite to get to the point immediately - you go, in share a cup of tea, ask about the family, and other pleasantries — then you ask what you came for. The Latins find it impolite to waste time - you go in, make your request, and leave … Yes, I have requested The Lost History of Christianity and some other Jenkins titles for Logos. I absolutely loved the book.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

Categories