Journal of Early Christian Studies

As the landscapes of the history of Christianity continue to expand with increasing attention devoted to non-western literatures and cultures, more unexplored pastures appear. David Michelson’s book serves as a kind of land bridge between well-wandered country to one that remains foreign and untrodden to a west-centered field of scholarship. Monasticism, reading, and contemplation in Christian traditions have been studied by scholars for generations, but their manifestations in traditions of the near and far east have been comparatively neglected. Michelson’s book is one step in the direction of rectifying that situation.

This study focuses on “contemplative ascetic reading” practices in the Church of the East (4). Michelson wishes “to reconstruct the origins of contemplative reading as a monastic discipline in the Church of the East” between the fourth and seventh centuries (13). The book is divided into two parts (Chapters One to Three; Chapters Four to Six). Chapter One addresses methods, beginning with the work of Robert Darnton regarding studying reading practices, including identifying ideals and assumptions; assessing how reading was learned and taught; information about teachers; reader-response criticism and reception history; and attention to the physical objects. These approaches break down into the “why, how, who, when, and what” of reading practices. Michelson broadly defines reading as an “encounter with a text” and seeks to develop throughout the book a definition of “Syriac contemplative ascetic reading” (7).

Chapter Two addresses the neglect of Syriac ascetic reading. Michelson turns to manuscript catalogues and argues that views of Syriac book culture in general (and of Syriac ascetic reading in particular) were conditioned by the catalogues by William Wright and William Cureton, whose work provided the foundation of Syriac studies. Michelson analyzes their descriptions of books and book culture and argues that their devaluing of Syriac literature was due to perceived “relevance to British and European readers” (31). This is evident from their disregard for Syriac service books in their surveys. We thus cannot begin with the perspectives [End Page 469] of people like Wright and Cureton but should go directly to the sources to get beyond such prejudices.

To his credit, Michelson acknowledges that they were products of their time and social location and gives credit for their huge contributions. One wonders, however, whether Wright and Cureton represent a distinctly western perspective. Eastern contemporaries, like Nikodemos, who compiled the Philokalia, complained about the poor state of books and their neglect in Greek monasteries and sought to preserve them by copying them, devoting his attention to texts on prayer and spirituality. Are the respective opinions––east and west––all that different?

Michelson turns in Chapter Three to the question of Lectio Divina (LD) in East Syrian monasticism. He demonstrates that the Western tradition of LD is distinct in many ways from the East Syriac tradition; both, however, have their roots in common sources: Evagrius and the Apophthegmata patrum. This chapter is a tour de force of scholarship, and Michelson has a clear presentation of the complex relationships. He carefully defines the Latin tradition of LD and does not assume exact parallels in the East Syrian tradition. Ultimately, he settles that LD is a distinctly western phrase and prefers “contemplative ascetic reading” (68) for the East Syriac tradition. As a slight critique, Michelson rightly claims that “scripture” and “the bible” were focal points of monastic reading practices, but he fails to carefully define these terms within Syriac reading cultures. Some East Syriac manuscripts contain texts considered “apocryphal” (e.g., the Acts of Thomas appears with the Syriac fathers). Some “biblical” collections include parabiblica (e.g., at Deir al-Surian a Book of Women includes Acts of Thekla). What was “scripture” for these communities?

In Chapter Four, Michelson narrates the development of East Syriac contemplative reading, arguing for a foundational hybrid Syro-Egyptian tradition of ascetic theology. Its roots are found in Abraham of Kashkar’s monastic reforms. Abraham’s ideas derived from both the Syrian and Egyptian milieus. He was the first in a line of abbots to list rules/canons for monasticism and to establish reading as central to ascetic practice. His curriculum included “scripture,” “books of the fathers,” “book of histories,” and “sayings of the old men” (111–12). The “book of histories” is interesting, since many apocryphal/hagiographical texts in East Syriac manuscripts are entitled “histories.” Perhaps such collections were copied for the ascetic curriculum originating with Abraham. Michelson shows female ascetic contemplative readers (albeit still in relative obscurity) as important examples of ascetic perfection, which “was not restricted by gender” (131).

Babai the Great, the main subject of Chapter Five, relied heavily on Evagrius, though not as mere reading material, but as a model of ascetic reading practices including “antirrhetical reading, psalmody, and contemplative reading” (167); Michelson addresses all three types. He notes that Babai’s religio-political controversies led to a practice of contemplative reading that was contrary to that of the School of Nisibis, a “speculative theological reading” (179–83). Chapter Six traces the development to its apex in the seventh century with ‘Enanisho‘’s Paradise, designed for contemplative use and becoming standard reading in monastic circles, alongside Dadisho‘’s commentary on it. The development from Evagrius, through Babai, to the Paradise and its commentary, creates a direct line [End Page 470] of ascetic reading practices from fourth-century Egypt to seventh-century Iraq. The Paradise’s ascetic curriculum “defined the Syriac format” of contemplative reading (212).

In the Conclusion, Michelson summarizes the narrative history of this tradition from the fourth to the seventh century and then demonstrates its importance for studying the broader history of East Syriac theology, particularly with figures like Isaac of Nineveh. Michelson again discusses LD, suggesting that the western tradition represents only one of many histories of contemplative ascetic reading. The East Syriac tradition must have a role in future discussions of Christian/ascetic reading practices.

Michelson’s book is clear, well written, and extremely learned. Anyone wishing to narrate the history of ascetic reading, or even Christian reading practices in general, must engage with it. There is no longer any excuse for ignoring or neglecting the Syriac material. We can only hope that this study is merely the first of many to follow.