Bonovox

J.N.D. Kelly Golden Mouth; The Story of John Chryosostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books, 1995 310pgs.

John Chrysostom is one of the most beloved, and influential of all the Christian Church Fathers, particularly by those in the Christian East. He was also one of the most controversial in his own day. Englishman J.N.D Kelly has written a masterful work on his life that brings you right into the triumphs and trials of this great Saint. Golden Mouth; The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher Bishop is a delightful book, that I could recommend to anyone seeking to understand the life of the early Church.

John Norman Davidson Kelly certainly knew his stuff, being on the theological faculty at Oxford as well as the principal at St. Edmund Hall. He was raised a Presbyterian but converted to the Church of England. He had written several books on the Christian Faith, particularly the early Christian faith. The book he was probably most known for was his 1958 Early Christian Doctrines, which probably sits on every seminarian’s book shelf in the English speaking world. Golden Mouth was his last book, written shortly before he died in 1995.

Kelly says in his preface, that this is the first comprehensive work on John Chrysostom produced in this country since 1880. There have been plenty of books on certain aspects of his life or teachings, but as far as comprehensive work, there has not mean much outside of the two volume biography produced by Chrysostomos Baur in German in 1930, and translated (not very well according to Kelly) in 1950. So he took on the task of writing this present book, which was published in 1995, to correct this deficiency and take advantage of recent scholarship. His goal was to make “a more realistic appraisal of his complex personality, than the conventional one.” He also wished to proffer a couple of his own interpretations. And so he does.

The era of the narrative of the book comes on the heels of the transition from Christianity as a persecuted faith to being the officially endorsed religion of the Empire. Along with this comes the rise of Constantinople, from the old outpost town of Byzantium to being the “New Rome,” and capitol of the Empire. The bishop of that city was to have more and more influence, and John Chrysostom’s time there helped to forge the leadership role the see was to don. But his time there was also marked by the growing pains of conflict with the imperial couple.

Chrysostom (which means “Golden Mouth,” as he was nicknamed due to his eloquent preaching) was born in the ancient city of Antioch in the late 340’s or early 350’s AD to Christian parents. Kelly recounts how he was baptized at the age of 19 and after serving as the bishop’s personal aide for about three years, retreated to the ascetic life, in a cave in the Syrian desert. While there, John memorized the entire Old and New Testaments. This, along with what he learned through prayer and ascetic practice, no doubt had much influence on his preaching and administration styles.

John left his harsh ascetic life due to his fragile health and returned life in Antioch. He was quickly ordained a deacon and five years later a priest. His sermons were so well beloved, that his fame spread beyond the Syrian city to the capitol itself. When the see of Constantinople became vacant, the emperor arranged to have John elected to the throne, and basically kidnapped him from Antioch, to prevent the people from rioting.

The bulk of Kelly’s biography of John covers the period of his episcopacy, as the leading churchman in the Christian East. John endeared himself to the people, through his passionate “no holds barred” preaching, but also no doubt due to his forthrightness and integrity. He does not endear himself however, to the royal couple. While they had a certain amount of respect (and fear!) for him, his criticism of them, and the trouble he caused, led them to conspire with other enemies, most notably and importantly, Theophilus , Patriarch of Alexandria. John was deposed and exiled, returned and restored only to be deposed and exiled again. He finally died in exile.

Kelly writes here neither a hagiography, nor a scandal sheet. He has a vast appreciation for St. John; yet he appreciates the human, not the legend. He is a Saint, but even Saints have flaws (thus we are not allowed to cop out on the challenge of pursuing our own deification), and Kelly does not shirk from them. In my mind this only makes St. John more real. The reader is allowed to revel in St. John’s virtues, but also to be frustrated by his stubbornness.

The book itself has its own flaws, and one of them being that a few passages lack clarity. For instance, Kelley records the downfall of the chief chamberlain Eutropios. Eutropios takes asylum in the Church of Hagia Sophia. In a very confusing passage, Kelly gives a proposed alternative reconstruction about what exactly happened. But the problem is, he continues to refer to the subject of the biography as John, and then a character known as Count John enters the story. At times it is unclear if he is referring to Count John or John Chrysostom. It would have been helpful that at least at this point and perhaps some other confusing sections, he referred to him as John Chrysostom or Bishop John or something.

One other flaw, is that the author seemed to struggle with exactly who this book was written for; the audience. While the narrative is beautiful and down to earth, and easily sucks you in to the story of this amazing life, it often gets bogged down with the minutiae of arguing the timing of a certain letter or event. If the book is written for the general public as a popular offering, he should stick to the undisputed events, and if he offers an opinion he should simply state as much. I think most readers (and this reviewer includes himself in that category) would simply like to hear the story, and perhaps refer to an appendix for the argument for why he used a certain dating or what have you.

The book has some nice features. Firstly, he has a couple of nice maps, laying out the geography of both Antioch and Constantinople, respectively. They are nice to glance at when the author is mentioning activity at the palace, or at a particular church. By the same token, it would have been wonderful if he would have included a larger map of the Eastern Empire. It was somewhat frustrating for instance, to read of St. John’s exile, without being able to see exactly where in Armenia (or where IS Armenia for that matter!) or in the Caucuses he was exiled.

Additionally, there are three nice appendices. The first is a really helpful discussion of all the sources the author used producing this biography. He discusses the merits and shortcomings of each, and analyses why he trusts or distrusts the particular source on different issues. The second is a discussion on putting together an accurate chronology of John’s early years. The third and final one is a complete list of the charges considered against him at the Council of The Oak. The book is wanting of a bibliography, which is unfortunate.

But Kelly fearlessly tackles issues, and delivers on his promise to interpret afresh some controversial questions. For instance, he jumps right on into the scholarly debate about the value of John’s biographical notes contained in his treatise, “On the Priesthood.” John had basically been speaking about how he had fooled his friend Basil into getting ordained, while avoiding it himself. Kelly says,

…the majority of Chrysostom scholars this century have been inclined to dismiss this entire section of John’s treatise, with all the rest of the seemingly autobiographical material it contains, as a ‘literary fiction’ without historical basis, a dramatic lead up to the eloquent expositions of the dignity and responsibilities of priesthood which, as they maintain, was his sole concern, and which itself, as everyone would admit, while purporting to be John’s rejoinder to Basil some twenty years back, really represents his mature views at the time of writing. In support of their skepticism they point out, first, that none of our usual authorities shows any knowledge of what must have been, if it ever took place at all, an extremely important episode in John’s life. Secondly, they argue that if a young man like Basil was so closely involved in John’s affairs, it is surprising that no other record of his existence seems to have survived, and that no mention of him can be found elsewhere in John’s writings. Thirdly, they make much of the fact that in a Platonic-style dialogue, the genre to which everyone agrees Priesthood belongs, it is quite normal for the mise-en-scene to be largely invented. (pg. 27)

Kelly dismisses those three points. The first is not persuasive as the early historians did not have much material on his youth and tended to write compresses summarized statements about his early years. The second point is overly skeptical. There is so little information that we do have about that era, and so many people and episodes, there are bound to be much which is missed. Finally, the skeptics seem to misunderstand that John is writing an apology to vindicate himself in his rejection of priestly office as a youth. The audience in Antioch knew him, and would have known if he was fabricating a story about a guy they should have known as well.

I really like Kelly’s style. He seems to take the approach that things are probably as they seem to be on the surface, unless there is good evidence to believe otherwise. Twenty years of police work have convinced this reviewer, that that usually the best way to approach a scenario. Too many historians seem to be looking for hidden agendas, or support for their own way of looking at things; Kelly has a respectful way about him, treating his subject, and all the periphery characters with great dignity.

There are other examples of this. In dealing with the question of, why did John flee the city for eremitic life in the desert, Kelly disdains the “fanciful” explanation and again, trusts the surface appearance. “There is, however, no need to hunt around for any other explanation than the obvious one, his yearning for a less distracted, richer, ever more continuous converse with God.” But the “obvious one” is not as exciting as piecing together some tale, based upon fragmentary information!

This book, despite a few flaws, remains a great choice for anyone wishing to get a better understanding and grasp of who this great Saint actually was. It is valuable both to the newbie, one who just beginning to explore the history of the early Church, and the scholar seeking to be stimulated and challenged. Kelly reaches his goal of presenting a comprehensive biography of the Golden Mouth, St. John Chrystostom.