As I was reading Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography by John McGuckin last night I came across a very interesting statement:
The whole work [ie. Oration 30] is based upon exegetical premises rather than on logical syllogisms. He gives an extensive answer to the central Arian proof text of Proverbs 8:22, "The Lord made me (Wisdom) as the beginning of his works." Gregory raises an interesting range of exegetical questions. Should not the reader wonder about the thological value of any theological wisdom in Solomon because of his later lapse into idolatry, something which demonstrates he was not fully a man of God? Gregory decides to give him the benefit of the doubt, but by this strategic question he has moved the prooftext away from commanding any central position in Christian theological tradition. - John McGuckin, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography, (Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001), p. 298
The actual words of Saint Gregory are:
Shall we bring an accusation against Solomon, or reject his former words because of his fall later in life? Shall we say that the words are those of Wisdom herself, as it were of Knowledge and the Creator-word, in accordance with which all things were made? For Scripture often personifies many even lifeless objects; as for instance, "The Sea said" so and so; and, "The Depth saith, It is not in me;" and "The Heavens declare the glory of God;" and again a command is given to the Sword; and the Mountains and Hills are asked the reason of their skipping. We do not allege any of these, though some of our predecessors used them as powerful arguments.
This quote brings to mind a number of interesting subjects, most of which are very relevant to us in our daily lives (assuming that we are reading spiritual books, the fathers, the scriptures, etc.). First, what do we make of those who have taught, but then fallen later in life? What of the Tertullian's of the world? Some things in Tertullian (even before his fall) have been approached with caution, but should we look upon everything of his, even that which was from before his fall, with caution?
And regarding Solomon, who were these predecessors who said that solomon was to be used with caution because he failed later in life? I had often though, as I read through all of the OT wisdom literature (e.g., Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon) that discernment was needed to pick out the good from the bad. Just like with the Mosaic law, not everything that was applicable then is applicable now. There was a decidedly more earthy tone to the advice and wisdom as seen in the Wisdom Literature in the OT. Certainly the wisdom always had God in mind, and especially those written later (Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon) had a more "spiritual" tone to them (e.g., less worried about business transactions and raising children, more worried about eternal life and immortality), but all of it was written before Christ--all of it was written before the ultimate revelation of wisdom given to the Apostles. Of course, in the Greek tradition we see even those OT saints as having understood God (insofar as they could, or any human could), but nonetheless, we can't just take most of what is written in the OT and interpret it literally as we might with what we find in the epistles of Paul.
Another point is, how does this mesh with Saint Basil's teaching that Greek literature could be a stepping stone for intellectual pursuits? What should be our position in the modern age? Should we be conservative and only allow our children to read "safe" works? Or should we allow them to read whatever they happen to come across that is of literary value, explaining to them and teaching them how to seperate the good from the bad. People slam Harry Potter today, but Saint Basil commended reading Greek Myth in his own day (and the pagans certainly considered Greek myth more "real" than anyone does Harry Potter today).
So what say all of you?