It's all Greek to them.

It is painful to read an excellent, valuable, and indeed necessary argument against an unacceptable assertion by Pope Benedict XVI presented in so flawed a manner (Peter C. Phan's "Speaking in Many Tongues," January 12, 2007). Benedict 's use of the terms "Europe" and "Greek" approaches an assault on Western scholarship. There is nothing characteristically "Greek" about the New Testament, a collection of peculiar Jewish documents written in fair to middling forms of Greek, the common language of the eastern Mediterranean. And "Europe" is a fairly meaningless term in antiquity. Like "Africa" and "Asia," "Europe" is a modern geographical term; its relevance to history is always questionable.

For example, it means little that Alexandria, Axum, and Carthage are all "African" cities. But it is important to recognize that the first (Greek-speaking) and the third (Latin-speaking) are on the Mediterranean and therefore shared in a common Greco-Roman civilization--though otherwise they had little to do with one another. The diffusion of Mediterranean culture is what matters, not the name of any continent.

If Benedict XVI believes that the fundamental theological, Christological, and soteriological doctrines of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity are "European" in origin, he can make a decent argument for that belief, even though Phan is technically correct in saying that these doctrines were developed in Africa and Asia. Benedict XVI would be right to point out that Alexandria (in Africa) and Antioch and Ephesus (in Asia) were the leading centers of Greek--or "European"--civilization. And the Cappadocian Fathers, all three good Asians, were culturally as Greek as Plato and Aristotle.

But I am not sure that that is what Benedict means. Inasmuch as he intends to discover "true" Christianity as something founded in Rome, then he is wrong; and Phan is right to remind us of the various ancient, true Christian churches that speak Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, and Ethiopic--to say nothing of Greek itself. It is a shame that many Roman Catholics have been encouraged to indulge in such mistrustful prejudices as to doubt the authenticity and value of the Greek Orthodox liturgy. It is also a shame that Phan should blunder and claim that Constantinople is in Asia.

And while Phan's reading of the Nestorian inscription of Xi'an is fascinating, in this context, it is a blunder of another kind. We do not necessarily want to hear that in China Christianity may not speak with a distinctive voice, but must accommodate itself to Chinese expressions. Buddhism introduced itself to the Chinese by speaking a Taoist language; much later, Confucianism assimilated Buddhist ideas in order to regain its ancient prominence. Must Christianity be absorbed into China by a similar kind of compromise? Perhaps. But to defend such assimilation is not quite the same as to reject the Greek heritage of orthodox Christian doctrine. Whatever terms the authors of the Xi'an inscription chose, they still were talking about Greek Mediterranean concepts: the Trinity, the doctrine of creation, the Incarnation, baptism, the Eucharist.

I think that both Pope Benedict and Peter Phan are right, each in his own way; and I think it is a sorrow of the church that they do not appreciate the rightness of one another.

MARCUS STEPHANUS

New York, N.Y.