This paper is an evaluation and critique Edward Said’s work, Orientalism[1] and will answer its principal concern of how Western Scholars should approach other cultures. Orientalism was first used to denote a section of scholarship that dealt with the examination of the geographic regions including the Middle East and India. Since its inception it was refined to the Middle East, or Arab studies, as more and more subfields were developed and broke off of from the field, dividing what was called the Orient[2] into smaller and smaller geo-cultural regions of study[3]. In 1973, the twenty-ninth International Congress of Orientalists decided to drop the name altogether[4]. Edward Said used the term to describe a relationship between the scholarship of the Orientalists and the colonial domination by the imperial powers. Said also rejects the validity of the terms Orient and Occident, but employs them because this is how the argument has been framed by the Orientalists[5].

I will examine the following claims of Orientalism. First, while Orientalism presents itself as an objective field of study, the knowledge it generated was used to justify the power behind the political domination of the East by the West[6]. Secondly, the Orientalists employed a essentialist way of viewing the Near East, this essentialist thinking was a false way of viewing people groups and their culture. Lastly, since the Orientalist scholars were the product of the system they came from they could not cannot help but to misrepresent the “Other.” Therefore, what was needed was for the subaltern to speak for itself. I will argue that while a significant portion of this theory is valuable and an useful way of viewing part of the Imperialist/Orientalist framework, it too was essentialist in nature and was more indicative of the nature of the Imperialists than the nature of the Orientalist scholars.

|inline

This paper will seek to plot out the relationship between the will, the salvific process and predestination in Augustine’s letter to Simplician, “De Diversis Quaestionibus Ad Simplicianum :”(I am using the translation by John H. S. Burleigh, Regius that was published in Augustine: Earlier Writings, Volume VI of the Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953. I have taken this translation from “Aggiornamento” on 10/5/2006. From here on out in the paper I will refer to this document as “Letter to Simplician.” )”: . ” The letter was a response to Simplician’s questions on the content of Romans 9.10-29. In Augustine’s exegesis, he wrestled with the question of why Esau was rejected and Jacob was accepted by God. There was a sense that Augustine is troubled by his conclusions; this was evident by his careful back and forth of objections and explanations. While a bit troublesome, it did lead to his final formulation of several important doctrines, or at least laid their foundations. His conclusion changed the way he and as a corollary, the Catholic Church and many of the Reformers, viewed salvation and free will. While his conclusions may have seemed in contrast to some of his earlier works:”(Augustine’s earlier work, On the Free Choice of the Will, suggests a libertarian view of free will that says that in order for there to be true love of God, there must be a choice to love or reject God. When this precept is taken to its conclusion, it excludes a pre-determining of human salvation.)”: , Augustine was committed to discovering the truth, even if it means admitting he was wrong:”(This is evidenced by the very existence of his work, Reconsiderations, where he goes through all of his previous works and makes corrections.)”:. This paper will show how Augustine came to modify his stance on libertarian free will and come to the conclusion that there was a consequence to Adam’s sin, namely that the will was unable to choose God. God selected some to have their wills amended so that they are free to choose him or not; of those enabled few, God had the foreknowledge of who will choose Him and who will not.
(more…)

It is easy to see why Augustine is quite possibly the most read Christian theologian. There are several reasons for this. The first reason is that Augustine wrote very early. He lived from 354 C.E. until 430 C.E. As such, his cone of influence is very large. I am taking Stephen Hawking’s idea of a light cone and applying to historical influence rather than limits on communication. Augustine had the opportunity, being rooted father back in time, than Calvin or Piper to affect more people and institutions with his thoughts. This is not the only reason, however, as there were many theologians that came before him. For example, Justin Martyr was born a quarter of a millennium before Augustine, yet most people know of him as a symbol and not of a “doctor and father of the Church.” This is because so much of Augustine’s work survived and that his cone was expanded due to the more solidified structure of the Church at the time of his writings. For instance, Justin Martyr combined all of the gospel accounts into one work that is lost to current scholars.

So far all of this points merely to the availability and possible influence of work. This is only one side of the coin; the other side is his content. Augustine wrote a great many works. In the Retractions, Augustine lists 93 title and 232 books, or chapters . These works had great appeal to people of all ages because some of his topics have a universal applicability. For example, people have been wrestling with lust in all ages since his writing. Some of his works are written on a level that is very accessible to the common reader, and some of his writings are writing at a very deep level. Some of his deeper writings, such as his treatise on the Trinity have led some to lament, “Augustine wrote volumes because he could not write succinctly.” It must be added that the quote in the preceding sentence is disingenuous and is only included to demonstrate that his writings were sometimes difficult for readers. In addition, Augustine wrote about specific conflicts within the Church during his time. This is of great interest to historians because it sheds light on the existence, topic, and his side of these conflicts.

In summation, Augustine wrote a lot, wrote well, wrote early, wrote on a variety of topics, and wrote for a variety of audiences. The combination of these factors contributes to his wide influence.