Books by Fr. Silviu N . Bunta
Cherubim Press, 2021
(Ohio), where he teaches Scripture, koine Greek, and biblical Hebrew. After undergraduate studies... more (Ohio), where he teaches Scripture, koine Greek, and biblical Hebrew. After undergraduate studies in both classics and theology, and an M.A. degree in Scripture, he received his Ph.D. in Judaism and Christianity in antiquity from Marquette University (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), where he studied with then Archimandrite Alexander (Golitzin). He has published and lectured on ancient Jewish and Christian hermeneutics, and ascetical and mystical traditions. He serves under the omophorion of Archbishop Alexander in the Bulgarian Diocese of the Orthodox Church in America.
Cherubim Press, 2021
I. Containing the Divine Liturgy of St. John the Golden-mouth WITH ITS ACCOMPANYING OFFICE (and s... more I. Containing the Divine Liturgy of St. John the Golden-mouth WITH ITS ACCOMPANYING OFFICE (and seasonal services) published with the blessing of Archbishop Alexander (Golitzin) of the Bulgarian Diocese and of the Diocese of the South of the Orthodox Church in America second edition Cherubim Press Dayton Pr. Silviu Bunta Pr. Matthew-Peter Butrie, translators and editors Ana Bunta (some illustrations)
Papers by Fr. Silviu N . Bunta
St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 64/1-2, pp. 93-127, 2020
A clarification is due at the very beginning of this article. 1 By "the Sanctus" I do not refer t... more A clarification is due at the very beginning of this article. 1 By "the Sanctus" I do not refer to the thrice-holy hymn alone, "Holy, holy, holy, etc." I rather take the word to refer both to the hymn itself and to the introduction to it, 2 because they exist as one unit in current Orthodox practice. In other words, this is an article on what could be called "the Orthodox Sanctus," the introduction to the hymn and the hymn itself. The hymn itself is the same but the introduction varies slightly between the two common Orthodox anaphoras attributed to St. John Chrysostom and to St. Basil the Great, respectively. The preface of the hymn describes the heavenly liturgy (which the earthly liturgy joins) and ends in both variants by prefacing the hymn itself-"the hymn of victory" (ὁ ἐπινίκιος ὕµνος)-with four participles: ᾄδοντα, βοῶντα, κεκραγότα, καὶ λέγοντα ("roaring, lowing aloud, crying out, and saying"). My overall argument is that the Sanctus is a Christian merkabah text. In other words, the Sanctus inherits the ancient Jewish mystical tradition about the divine throne-chariot (merkabah) and its occupant, the Glory,
Simpozionul de Educație și Spiritualitate Ortodoxă „Polis & Paideia”, 2021
The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity, 2022
This chapter proposes that the crucial problem with Orthodox conceptualizations of “Scripture” an... more This chapter proposes that the crucial problem with Orthodox conceptualizations of “Scripture” and “Tradition” is the conceptual-dogmatist approach itself. In the wake of the neopatristic synthesis, when approaching such “doctrines” Orthodox scholarship has generally privileged concepts and definitions and has ignored the language and self-descriptions of the Scriptures themselves. This approach has generated hidden yet fundamental tensions between the Scriptures and Tradition which have kept a large part of the Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament) in subservience to Tradition, and Tradition has been defined in ways that associate it exclusively with the Church. This chapter proposes a reading of the Scriptures on their own terms. A close analysis of several scriptural texts suggests that Scriptures describe themselves as Tradition, and Tradition is nothing else but living a certain life.
Watering the Garden. Studies in Honor of Deirdre Dempsey. Edited by Andrei A. Orlov. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2023
From Scripture to Philosophy. New Essays on Contemporary Topics by Romanian Theologians, 2023
quocum mihi … fuit id in quo omnis vis est amicitiae, voluntatum studiorum sententiarum summa con... more quocum mihi … fuit id in quo omnis vis est amicitiae, voluntatum studiorum sententiarum summa consensio (Cicero, De amicitia 15) As the title suggests, the point of this paper is primarily hermeneutical: the prologue of the Gospel according to John acts as the apocalyptic conclusion of the book. I use 'apocalyptic' here not in any eschatological 1 sense, but in its original sense as the unveiling of that which is veiled. This means that the prologue is not-as it has been commonly taken-a hermeneutical key to the rest of the gospel, a sort of an epistemic 2 setting-down of a proper dialectical framework required for unlocking the ensuing text. On the contrary, the prologue serves the purpose of de-constructing any hermeneutical method and of preventing any textualizations of the gospel. This is so, I am arguing, because the gospel presents the Christ of death and resurrection not as a reality which builds up through history (including the gospel's own storyline), but rather as preceding all things and as the substance of all things, open to the cosmos for unveiling, recognition, and participation. In other words, the hermeneutical point of the prologue is fundamentally christological. There is even a third dimension to my argument: for the gospel, the trip from what is perceived (the text, the body of God, the world, and one's life) to what simply is (which is invariably divinity) is not metaphysical, chronological, or deductive, but physical, internal, and experiential. Furthermore, the most critical aspect of this progression comes down to one's relationship to one's own life-suffering and death. The method of this paper goes precisely in the opposite direction than historical criticism. On the one hand, my paper proceeds from what the text means toward what the text says. Nevertheless, I hope to show 2 I use 'Gospel' for the Christian message overall, but 'gospel' for one of the books of the gospel genre, such as the Gospel according to John. 1 In its first format this article was a presentation to the Theophaneia School of Timişoara (Romania) in June 2020, itself an outgrowth of the original Theophaneia School of Milwaukee (USA), of which I am a founding member. Here I wish to thank the convener of that online meeting, Fr. Nichifor Tănase, for the invitation to speak to his group and for his kind patience with an argument which was still very much in its nascent phase. To him I also owe my gratitude for the invitation to contribute to this volume. Therefore, it is only proper that this paper is dedicated to him. Yet, I must also express my gratitude to the two responders to this article when it was offered, in its current format, to my department at the University of Dayton-Ethan D. Smith and Zachary Spidel. Because this article was due to the press before my presentation, they kindly agreed to review it in advance of their formal responses and to share their findings with me. Their comments and suggestions have greatly improved this text. Any errors which remain are entirely mine. 1 here that the historical-critical assumption that the meaning of a text is an a posteriori gain, deduced fundamentally from historical context, is deeply anachronistic when it comes to the Gospel according to John. 3 To put it differently, my approach means to recover the gospel's own hermeneutic, it replicates the manner in which-as I will argue here-the gospel reads its own 'scriptures' and which is also the manner in which it itself wants to be read. This intriguing text is built in such a manner that what it says will make sense 4 (particularly in its peculiarities) only once the meaning of it is already 'known'. On the other hand, this paper removes both text and meaning-and their 'knowledge'-from the realm of epistemology. John builds a text whose meaning is not metaphysical, but physical. It is not acquired through proper arrangement of ideas and argumentations, in a sort of intellectual conquest or discovery, but through the existential crisis of the encounter of Christ in one's life, particularly in suffering and death. The finding of the meaning of the text is an ascetical experience. There is no indication in the gospel that one can encounter its meaning by any other means but through this transformation. On the contrary, there are many aspects of it which repudiate and are meant to prevent any other means of understanding. Such is the pressure on the audience of Christ in the gospel narrative itself and such is the pressure which the gospel places on its own hearers. 5 Where historical attention overlooks reality The questions which historical criticism sets up as the starting point of interpretation-'what is the meaning of this text?' and 'what is the method by which this meaning is acquired?'-are only a symptom (or arguably the symptom) of what turns out to be a hermeneutical impasse when the questions are asked of the Gospel according to John. The questions set up the interpretive process as the impossible task of comprehending that 6 6 Historical criticism, engendered in a particular time and place under the self-proving and anachronistic assumption that the ancient Bible reveals its meanings as a distant text (as I remarked in an earlier note), is 5 Arguably the gospel, even as a text, was meant to be received audibly. 4 I address the issue of how the scriptures themselves want to be read mostly in my recent articles 'Tradition:
Uploads
Books by Fr. Silviu N . Bunta
Papers by Fr. Silviu N . Bunta