Even though I studied Latin in high school for 6 years, and continued to read Latin texts during my philosophy and theology studies (not to mention all the liturgical texts and hymns as a priest!), I only learned Greek at the start of my philosophy studies at the age of 18.

Old-fashioned

The conditions were less than ideal. With about 100 students we were crammed into a small classroom, and we had a very competent, but old-fashioned teacher who seemed to love humiliating her students in front of the class. She would often ridicule us when we didn’t know an answer or made mistakes in our translations.

Our study book was purely grammar-based, and dated back to 1907! I hated it. I had learned many other languages thanks to great, modern methods that brought these languages to life; that first taught you to love a language and pronounce it well, and only gradually introducing grammar. This Greek method did just the opposite. Plus: the whole course was in French, and I was still struggling to improve my French at the time.

New motivation

It won’t surprise you to know that I never got a good grip on Greek. I barely survived the exams, and have always been struggling with the language. But now, I have a good reason to start over again. I am so fascinated by Chrysostom’s writings that I want to be able to read the original texts! And so, as of this week, I am reteaching myself classical Greek. Using a different, more modern textbook that consists of 58 lessons. If I can do one lesson + exercises + vocabulary each day, I will be done in two months.

It’s going to be very challenging, because the older you are, the harder it is to master a language. On the other hand, I still have some residual knowledge of Greek, and I have learned many different languages before, so I hope I’m able to do this! At least this time, there is positive motivation, no outside pressure, and no cruel teacher!

St. John Chrysostom -  (ca. 347-407), Bishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church

St. John, named Chrysostom (golden-mouthed) on account of his eloquence, came into the world of Christian parents, about the year 344, in the city of Antioch. His mother, at the age of 20, was a model of virtue. He studied rhetoric under Libanius, a pagan, the most famous orator of the age. In 374, he began to lead the life of an anchorite in the mountains near Antioch, but in 386 the poor state of his health forced him to return to Antioch, where he was ordained a priest.

In 398, he was elevated to the See of Constantinople and became one of the greatest lights of the Church. But he had enemies in high places and some were ecclesiastics, not the least being Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who repented of this before he died. His most powerful enemy, however, was the empress Eudoxia, who was offended by the apostolic freedom of his discourses. Several accusations were brought against him in a pseudo-council, and he was sent into exile.

In the midst of his sufferings, like the apostle, St. Paul, whom he so greatly admired, he found the greatest peace and happiness. He had the consolation of knowing that the Pope remained his friend, and did for him what lay in his power. His enemies were not satisfied with the sufferings he had already endured, and they banished him still further, to Pythius, at the very extremity of the Empire. He died on his way there on September 14, 407.

It is very important at this stage of the game to further develop my proposal. What is going to be my research angle? Which questions am I going to ask Chrysostom? How can I examine his legacy in an original and relevant way? How can combine my philosophical, theological and social communications studies into one multi-disciplinary approach of Chrysostom’s works?

I have an outline of the first chapter ready, and I have started bibliographical research. I hope to be able to contact a few experts as well that might be able to bring me up to speed on current research on Chrysostom.

Perhaps the Greek fathers Cyril of Alexandria and John Chrysostom?

Obviously, the Church Fathers weren’t aware of these modern communication theories, but I assume that they did have an implicit or explicit theological view on the communication between God and men, and on human communication. After all, communication is at the center of theology: communication of love in the Trinity, through revelation and in the Church.

It is going to be interesting to see how the intuitions of the Church Fathers relate to modern insights in communication sciences and if they can add to the developing theology of communication in the Catholic Church.

What were the secrets of their communication? What were the implicit models and strategies that determined the way in which they conveyed their message? What can we learn from these important communicators in our day and age, now that the Church seemingly struggles to get its message accross in an increasingly secularized world?

This completely revived my interest to continue working on a dissertation (I have been a research fellow of the Thomas Institute and did one year of research at the Pontifical Gregorian University on Hans Urs von Balthasar). I want to broaden the research to an interdisciplinary study on the communication strategies of the Church Fathers.

I am still in the preliminary phases, and I have no idea if I will be able to pull it off, but I am very motivated and will post regular updates on the progress of my research on this website.