Interpretation of the Gospel of John (newly found fragments)

“Commentary on the Gospel of John” (425-428) is considered the best exegetical work of St. Cyril of Alexandria and one of his most important theological works. The saint not only explains the secrets of the Divine Economy of salvation and the Incarnation, but also polemicizes with various heresies (Manichaeans, Eunomians and Arians). The work is divided into 12 books, of which the 7th and 8th (explanation of John 10:18-12:48) are preserved only in fragments. St. Cyril explains the consubstantiality, co-eternity and equality of the Son with the Father despite their hypostatic difference. The Father and the Son have their own hypostases, and the Son, like the Father, should be called God. The essay sets out in detail topics on anthropology, Christology and soteriology, and also touches on other dogmatic issues (the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit, the Eucharist). The saint refutes the Platonic and Origenist doctrine of the pre-existence of souls and the philosophical doctrine of predestination. Typological interpretations of the images and institutions of the Old Testament are given: manna, tabernacle, Sabbath, circumcision. In interpretations of the Gospel text, one can consider the approach of St. Cyril to the Holy Scriptures. He believes that Scripture is “not prone to error,” because. it, like the Word of God, is inspired by God. Being inspired by God, it is necessary spiritual food for every believer. *Title of the work in Greek – ῾Ερμημεία ἤτοι ὑπόμνημα εἰς τὸ κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην Εὐαγγέλιον. *The title of the work in Latin is Commentarii in Iohannem. Contents Introduction by His Holiness Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, explanation or interpretation of the Gospel of John “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (CPG 5208), the most ambitious work of St. Cyril of Alexandria and one of the most voluminous patristic commentaries on the fourth Gospel, did not escape the fate of many written monuments of Christian antiquity. Of the 12 books of this treatise, books 1–6 and 9–12 have been completely preserved, but books 7–8, which covered the interpretation of John 10:18–12, 48, have been lost, and are only partially restored from secondary sources, primarily from exegetical catenas. J. Aubert, in the 4th volume of his collection of the saint's works (1638), published fragments of these books 1 based on the manuscript of the Paris collection (Paris. Suppl. gr. 159, 14th century) 2 . They were reproduced in “Greek Patrolology” by J.-P. Minya (1864) 3 with additions from the 3rd volume of the “New Library” by A. Mai (1844), where several more scholia on manuscripts of the Vatican Library 4 were presented. F. Pusey, the author of the only complete critical edition of the Commentary on the Gospel of John (1872) 5 , for books 7–8 used the Greek catenas available to him from manuscript collections in Paris, Moscow, Athos and Oxford 6 , adding to them several Syriac fragments 7 . He also eliminated a number of scholia borrowed into catenas from other works of the saint, primarily from the “Treasure” 8. F. Pusey's edition was supplemented by several later publications. According to the observations of J. Royce, the most authoritative researcher of Greek catenas, F. Pusey used catenas for the Gospel of John only of the four types he identified (A, B, E, F2), leaving three more unaccounted for (C, D, G) 9 . The study of the manuscript tradition allowed the German scientist to discover 21 new fragments of the Interpretation. Three fragments were published by him from the Athon manuscript. Laur. B 113 (11th century) in a magazine publication in 1944 10, and in 1966 in a collection of catenary fragments on the Gospel of John, in addition to them, 18 more were reproduced from the Vallic manuscript. gr. E 40 (10th–11th century) 11. The publisher expressed the conviction that all these hitherto unknown texts, with the exception of the 21st fragment, the text of which in several manuscripts is attributed to Apollinaris of Laodicea, belong to St. Cyril of Alexandria, and with a high probability the compilers of the catenas took them precisely from the “Commentary on the Gospel of John”, and not from his other works 10. Apart from the 1st fragment, which represents an alternative ending to the 6th book, they all refer to the Gospel verses covered by books 7-8 of the Commentary. Some fragments partially coincide with previously published ones (fr. 1, 6, 15, 16) or provide an expanded version of them (fr. 2, 17). In terms of content, the issues of triadology and Christology are brought to the fore. It is pointed out that there is no difference between the glory of the Father and the Son (fr. 20) and that the “image of the nature of the Father” remains unchanged even in the incarnate Son (fr. 1). The paradoxical nature of the sacrament of the Incarnation is noted: Christ Himself, as God, gives, but as a man, He accepts those being saved and raises them to His own glory (Fr. 4). It is explained in what sense it can be understood that Christ was sanctified by the Father (fr. 6). The Savior’s words that He abided in the love of God, since He kept the commandments (John 15:10), were spoken in relation to us and for our edification, because He Himself, who invariably abided in the love of the Father, did not have a deliberate choice (προαίρεσις) regarding keeping the commandments (fr. 7). His suffering is voluntary, since His enemies could only capture Him when He Himself allowed it (fr. 8). As God, He is “life” by nature, and not “living,” because the latter would mean that He receives life from without (fr. 11). The judgment of the world (John 12:31) is the judgment of the enslaver of the world, the devil, who is deprived of his power and expelled to hell. He is not the “Prince of Peace” in the proper sense, because there is one King of all - God (fr. 17). The unbelief of the Jews is exposed: in their malice they reach such madness that they call the One possessed by a demon who expresses his readiness to lay down his life for His sheep (Fr. 2). They were not ashamed even by the signs that were happening right before their eyes (fr. 18), and moreover, the desire to kill Christ for imaginary blasphemy is actually dictated by the fact that they learn from their deeds that He is God (fr. 5). The Savior’s words that they do not belong to His sheep (John 10:26) contain a threat of their resettlement to the pagans (Fr. 3). To explain the Gospel text, passages from the Old Testament are used (fr. 13) or an interpretation is given of the prophecies given by the evangelist himself (fr. 18–20). It is indicated that the event of the resurrection of the righteous Lazarus in many details is a prototype (τύπος) of the future general resurrection (fr. 16). Two more fragments were published in 1996 by A. Alexakis in his monograph dedicated to the Paris manuscript. gr. 1115 (13th century) 13. In the patristic florilegium presented in it, after the inscription “the same (St. Cyril) from the interpretation of the Gospel,” three passages follow. The first of them is part of the famous text "Commentary on the Gospel of John", and the other two were not identified by the publisher. Since books 1–6 and 7–12 of this interpretation have been preserved in full, it is natural to conclude that we are dealing with fragments of the lost books 7–8 14. Both fragments are closely related in content, apparently representing parts of the same argument. At first glance, it also reflects the usual themes for the saint: divine dignity, perfection and inseparable unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, the special role in the sanctification of people of the Holy Spirit, which is given “from the Father through the Son.” However, the terminology used here is noticeably different from his other creations. First, it says that God the Father is a “perfect Person” (τέλειον πρόσωπον), whereby the Word and the Holy Spirit are also perfect. St. Kirill indeed often notes the perfection of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit 15. But we are talking about Their perfection “by nature” or “by divinity” 16, according to some divine properties, or perfection itself is considered as an essential property of the divine nature 17. The expression “perfect Person” in relation to the persons of the Holy Trinity can be found in other authors. For example, in the “Symbol” of Presbyter Charisius, read and condemned at the 3rd Ecumenical (Ephesian) Council: “We confess the Father perfect in person (προσώπῳ), also the Son, and likewise the Holy Spirit” 18. Or in the so-called “5th book Against Eunomius” by St. Basil the Great, the author of which is currently considered Didymus the Blind or Apollinaris: “The Word is alive and It is a perfect Person, and likewise the Holy Spirit” 19. For St. This is out of character for Kirill. In itself, the statement about the perfection of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is a fairly general place; it was proclaimed by St. Gregory the Wonderworker († after 270) in his famous “Exposition of the Faith” 20, which St. reproduced in his eulogy to this saint. Gregory of Nyssa 21. Secondly, the Holy Trinity here is given a number of definitions unusual for the saint 22: “honest” (τιμία), “venerable” (σεβάσμιος), “indivisible” (μὴ χωριζομένη), “inalienable” (μὴ ἀπαλλοτριουμένη) and “glorifying” (δοξαστική). In his famous works, although the first three adjectives are found, they are used in a completely different way, 23 and the last two are completely absent. It may be noted that the definition of “venerable” was given to the Holy Trinity by St. Athanasius the Great 24, in relation to the one Divinity of three Persons in St. Gregory of Nyssa 25, and “inalienable” - in the above-mentioned “Exposition of Faith” by St. Gregory of Neocaesarea. As for the term δοξαστικός, it is quite widely represented in another meaning (“supposed”), by Aristotle and his interpreters and by the Neoplatonists. In the meaning of “glorifying” - in St. Gregory of Nyssa in the treatise “Against the Macedonians”, and precisely in a triadological context: the presence of “glorifying power” (δοξαστικὴ δύναμις) is proof of the divine dignity of the Holy Spirit 26. Of course, it cannot be ruled out that St. Cyril of Alexandria, who knew perfectly well the patristic tradition that preceded him, could for some reason use expressions that were generally unusual for him. But it’s easier to assume that we are dealing with the work of another author. Its erroneous attribution in the florilegium of the Paris manuscript. gr. 1115 is quite likely. For example, a little higher in it, under the title of “the same (St. Cyril) from the interpretation of the 12 chapters,” text 27 is given, which is not found not only in the indicated work (CPG 5223), but generally among the works of the saint, although in content and terminology it could belong to him. Therefore, we believe it is possible to question the authorship of St. Kirill from fragments published by A. Alexakis. Finally, in a very recent 2018 paper, K. Zawadzki published another Greek fragment 28 that he found in the Athon manuscript. Pantocr. 28 (8th century), containing a catena on the 14 Epistles of the Apostle Paul (CPG C. 166) 29. This fragment overlaps with previously published Syriac fragments, two of which are presented in the edition of F. Pusey 30 , and another is a quotation as part of the treatise of Peter Callinicus “Against Damian” (CPG 7252) 31 preserved in the Syriac translation. K. Zawadzki gave a detailed philological analysis of these fragments, showing that the Syriac translators had a text identical to the published fragment, and some minor differences are explained by the peculiarities of the Syriac translation. According to his conclusion, the Greek fragment included in the catena was not subject to editorial changes by its compiler and represents the original original text 32. Comparison with the Syriac fragments made it possible to partially complete the Greek fragment, giving it the initial words, from which it became clear why a fragment of interpretation on the Gospel of John appeared in the catena on the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians. The fact is that here the interpretation is given on 2 Cor. 5:19 (ὁ Θεος ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ), the necessity of which is caused by some ambiguity of this verse. Depending on the understanding of the function of the participle “καταλλάσσων” it can be understood either: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (when he reconciled the world to Himself)”, or: “God was reconciling (= was reconciling) the world to Himself in Christ” 33 . The saint obviously accepts this passage in the latter sense, rejecting the first option. It is impossible to say that God is in Christ, since Christ Himself is God by nature, and not a “God-bearing man” (ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος), one of the prophets. Thanks to this, through Christ we are reconciled with God the Father. TO. Zawadzki believes that the concept of “God-bearing man” rejected here points to the teaching of the heresiarch Nestorius, whose supporters and he himself are precisely those “ignorant people” (ἀμαθέστεροι) against whom the Alexandrian saint takes up arms. K. Zawadzki concludes that the fragment he published “is clearly inscribed in the historical context of the Nestorian dispute” 34 . Let us beg to differ with the last statement. The passage under discussion is not the only place where the expression “God-bearing man” appears in the Commentary on the Gospel of John, 35 and it is known that the refutation of dualistic Christology occupies a prominent place in this commentary. However, dualistic Christology is refuted by the saint in other early works: in the 8th “Easter Epistle” of 420 36 and the dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (CPG 5227), where, obviously, it was not Nestorius who was meant, but his predecessors. There is no doubt that in the polemic with Nestorius, the understanding of Christ as a “God-bearing man” is one of the main and often repeated points of accusation on the part of St. Kirill. However, it is possible that Nestorius himself did not use this expression to positively disclose his doctrine, but his opponent reduced his views for polemical purposes to this false concept. The only place with this expression among those statements of the heresiarch that the saint incriminates him, apparently, is not a direct quote, but a paraphrase and interpretation of his original words 37. Moreover, the use of the expression “God-bearing man” in relation to Christology was not at all new in the Nestorian dispute. St. Gregory the Theologian in his letters to the presbyter Kledonius (382) testifies that he was put forward as false by the Apollinarians, contrasting the expression “flesh-bearing God” with the correct expression from their point of view. He himself found inappropriate sophism in this opposition, ironically noting that the expressions “God-bearing flesh” and “human-bearing God” could be contrasted with equal success 38 . Another great Cappadocian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, pointing out in his “Refutation of the Opinions of Apollinaris” (after 385) that the recognition of Christ as a perfect man does not abolish His divine dignity as the Lord, concludes: “Let him who speaks these empty words be silent, as if we are making things that are above low, that we are enslaving God-bearing angels to God-bearing man” 39. In the response of both Grigorievs, it is not clear that they are defending this term itself, but rather they are protesting against having it imposed on them. And if among the Apollinarians the use of the expression “God-bearing man” as a negative was dictated by the denial of the fullness of human nature in Christ, then it turned out to be very convenient to designate the wrong-headedness of those who separated God and man in Christ, thereby making Christ an “ordinary” person, only awarded a special closeness to God. Therefore, it is likely that St. Cyril of Alexandria, refuting dualistic Christology in his early years, even then used it at least occasionally. And when Nestorius appeared, not without reason, he connected him with him, widely using the familiar expression as a weapon against the new heresy. Consequently, its presence in the fragment published by K. Zawadzki is not an unambiguous sign of the Nestorian dispute and does not affect the dating of the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” to the time before 428/429, regarding which there is currently a scientific consensus 40 . So, our translation offers, firstly, 21 fragments published by J. Royce, indicating the books of the Commentaries of which they were part, and the verses of the Gospel of John of which they are an interpretation. Next are two fragments of the Paris manuscript. gr. 1115 and a fragment of the Athon manuscript. Pantocr. 28 (published respectively by A. Alexakis and K. Zawadzki), regarding which it is unknown which specific Gospel passages they referred to. Fragments that are questionable from the point of view of authorship (the 21st fragment according to the edition of J. Royce and both fragments from Paris. gr. 1115) are marked with an asterisk (*). The Holy Scriptures are given primarily in the Synodal translation; deviations from it are specified in the notes. Direct biblical quotations are in italics, and citations of the interpreted passages themselves are, in addition, marked in bold. We express special gratitude to the teacher of the Ekaterinburg Theological Seminary, candidate of theological sciences S.Yu. for the materials provided. Akishin and Branko Malesevic (Paris), without whom this publication would not have been possible. His Holiness Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, explanation or interpretation of the Gospel of John 41 Fragments from the edition of J. Royce 42 (10:17) Therefore the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life in order to take it again 1. (Q) Since He knew the thoughts of the Jews like God and saw them mocking the fact that He said that He would die for the sheep, 43 He shows them with these words so wicked that they even mock what God and the Father loves very much, since He already saw the image of His nature remaining pure and shining in His incarnate Son due to His immutability 44 . Hitherto the sixth book of St. Cyril 45. (10:20-21) Many of them said: He is possessed by a demon and is going mad; Why are you listening to Him? Others said: these are not the words of a demoniac; Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? 2. (Q) Others said: these are the words of someone who is not possessed and so on. Judging by the quality of the words, they made the right judgment. After all, it was characteristic of madness to say about Him who said this - that while the good shepherd would die without delay and would willingly expose himself to danger for his own sheep, 46 he would run away, petrified at the mere sight of a wolf, a mercenary, not a shepherd - that He was possessed by a demon and was going mad; Why are you listening to Him? 47 (10:26) But you do not believe, for you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 3. (Q) The beginning of willing obedience is friendly intimacy, because faith brings us closer to God, and such closeness makes us wise, but these wise men do not accept lessons that are beneficial for salvation. Calling them strangers, He indicates that His sheep were also those who were to believe from among the pagans, and He threatens them with resettlement to the pagans, so that even with the help of the threat of fear, force them to think what they should. (10:29) My Father, who gave them to Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father. 4. (Q) Giving what He had as God by nature, as man receiving and raising to his own glory, from Himself (ὑφ’ ἑαυτοῦ) heading towards this too. (10:31-32) Here again the Jews took up stones to stone Him. Jesus answered them: I have shown you many good works from My Father; For which of them do you want to stone Me? 48 5. (Q) For if these works were not confirmed by My words, with which I said about Myself that I am equal with the Father, then you could without delay be indignant at Me for calling Myself God by nature, if all My works did not show Me to be God by nature. After all, if I blasphemed, He says, by calling Myself God, then it would be natural for you to think that by the deeds that I have done, I am even more shown to be God, and it is for this that you are seeking to kill Me. (10:36) Do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world: You are blaspheming, because I said: I am the Son of God? 6. (V) The Only Begotten is the sanctifier of everything else that, through participation in sanctification, ascends to holiness. But the Holy Scriptures speak differently about the sanctification of something. So, He is sanctified, that is, destined to be sent into the world in order to save those living in it, or understand by sanctification of something a separation for sacrifice. After all, one died for all 49 according to the good pleasure of God the Father. Or (it is said that He is sanctified) because He made His church holy. After all, His flesh was not holy by its own nature, but it was sanctified by receiving the holiness of the Word united with it, so that I think He said so for this reason 50. (10:37-38) If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; and if I do, then when you do not believe Me, believe My works, so that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me and I in Him. 7. (Q) He also says this against the Arians, and that this is not similar to what was said to the disciples. After all, the Lord, having told them: If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love, 51 explains by this that he who fulfills His commandments will abide in the love of Christ. This does not lead to consubstantiality with the Son of the disciples, who could have found themselves outside (His love) if they no longer wanted to fulfill His commandments, even though the Son immutably does what is pleasing to the Father as God by nature, although he says this as a man for our benefit, so that we imitate Him as much as possible. Therefore, we see “to will” or “not to desire” not in essences or in the concept of nature, but in a deliberate choice (προαίρεσις), which was the case with the disciples, but not with the Son. After all, we see that the Son is consubstantial with the Father from those natural goods that He has, and not from what is or is absent in us. (10:39) Then they again sought to seize Him; but He escaped from their hands. 8. (Q) The Evangelist talks about the cruelty of the Jews, who in response to such good speeches did not soften, but sought to seize Him and kill Him, and about the power of the Savior. Being God by nature, He fled from the frenzied enemies, although He was right in their hands. The evangelist said this as if in surprise, showing by this that He who, being in the midst of those seeking His blood, easily escapes without any danger, could never be captured except voluntarily. (11:1) A certain Lazarus from Bethany, from the village (where lived) Mary and Martha her sister, was sick. 9. (Q) So, because of the love of these wives, their brother was worthy to be loved by Christ, since He loved him very much 52. (John 11:11–12) Having said this, he then said to them: Our friend Lazarus fell asleep; but I'm going to wake him up. His disciples said: Lord! if he falls asleep, he will recover. 10. (V) Was it not absurd for them to believe that He was coming there in order to wake him up? That's why they said: if he fell asleep, he would recover. They believed that He was not talking about sleep or death, but they thought that He was saying some kind of riddle, because if He had gone through five and ten stages 53 54, He could not have had time to wake up Lazarus 55. (John 11:25) I am the resurrection and the life. 11. (Q) Since Christ saw that she did not clearly understand what He was explaining to her, He says: I am life, instead of: “You do not need to ask anything else from Me, nor hope that the resurrection of your brother will be after a long time, because I am present, calling for it.” And life by nature is the Son, calling everything into existence and resurrecting everything with his own power, resurrecting not just, but to life, because that is why life is associated with the name of resurrection. But it should be noted that the Lord calls Himself “life” (ζωή), and not “living” (ζῷον), as some wickedly dared to say this about Him. After all, there is a difference between living things and life, namely: living things are the recipient of life, and life is the provider of living. Like “wisdom” and “sage”: he receives, and she gives. (John 11:25) He who believes in Me, even if he dies, will live. 12. (Q) After all, just as the ancient saints had not yet achieved resurrection and rewards, but were waiting for us, so believers must expect the general resurrection, so that everyone will be resurrected together with the ancient saints. Just as they waited because of us, without receiving the due rewards in order for everyone to taste them together, so we alone do not taste the resurrection, so that by resurrecting with the ancient saints we can jointly improve this blessing. (11:33) When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who came with her weeping... 13. (Q) After all, they seem to have comprehended what was said in the psalms: Command, O God, by Thy power, strengthen, O God, what Thou hast done in us 56 , understanding this “commanded” befittingly to God, even if this is said in human expressions, raising us from what is characteristic of us to a concept that surpasses us. (11:33) Jesus... was troubled in spirit and became agitated 57 . 14. (Q) The evangelist called indignation an angry threat directed against death. (11:38) Jesus, again indignant within himself 58, comes to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay on it. 15. Since when Christ goes to the tomb of Lazarus, it is written that Jesus, indignant within himself, comes to the tomb, to that extent with Him we understand by indignation as a desire together with an imperious movement 59. ( John 11:43-44 ) Having said this, He shouted 60 with a loud voice: Lazarus! get out. And the dead man came out with his arms entwined and his feet were wrapped in grave clothes, and his face was tied with a scarf. Jesus says to them: Untie him, let him go. 16. (Q) This is a fitting commandment for God and a royal command. The Savior shouts, contrary to His custom, in order to, through the type that was with Lazarus (τύπος), foreshadow the general resurrection, under what circumstances it will take place, when the trumpet will proclaim something great 61 and the dead will awaken 62. But here He neither prays nor says: “says the Lord,” so that He would not be seen among the ministers, but as authoritatively as God calls the dead from the grave. And he immediately came out, since nothing resists the commanding God, in order to show that the resurrection of everyone must happen suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, 63 as it happened with Lazarus. He comes out entwined, to certify those who see, completely preserving the appearance of a dead man, so that someone does not say that Lazarus did not die at all. ( John 12:31 ) Now is the judgment of this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out. 17. (Q) Having become incorruptible, so men infallibly seek glory for God. How should we understand what was said, that in their minds they also became alien to passions, caring only about the good? 64 But since the whole world was taken captive, took upon itself the yoke of serving the creature and was in enslavement, enduring the violence of Satan, God introduced the law through holy men, illuminating us a little with the light of the knowledge of God. And since, being disobedient, many did not obey because of the delusion that held them back, we did not ask not only for advice from the saints, but even for favor and grace from above, which easily changes us for the better. The saints believed regarding the pagans and idolaters that they had suffered harm from the devil and were, as it were, forcibly led astray from the right path. For at that time he was strong and irresistible to those who opposed him, when God judged to give freedom, because as a righteous One, He could have mercy on them as weak, and take revenge on those who mercilessly attacked the weak. So, Christ, having revealed himself as the righteousness of God and the Father, led us to the light of the knowledge of God, having justified us by faith. Therefore, the time of the coming of Christ already showed judgment and justice in relation to the pagans, because they had to be freed from devilish violence when Christ, the righteous Judge, righteously had mercy on them. And this means the word: For the world is not now being judged 65 when the time was to receive justification, because understanding this way, we will not contradict the word that says: For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him 66 . After all, He does not call the Jews who crucified the Lord the world, as some say, because the death of Christ justifies all humanity, which is why it is more appropriate to understand it as we said. Therefore, according to this understanding, judgment will be on those who caused offense to the world, but not on the world that suffered the offense. And He who came to save us did it in a more fitting manner, taking revenge on the offender and having mercy on the offended; The definition of this coming judgment is to cast out the prince of this world. He calls him the prince of peace not in the proper sense, because God is the only King of everything, but because people, out of their foolishness, appointed him their prince. Therefore, it has such a name from the adjunctive property (συμβεβηκός). After all, it is said about sin that it reigned over the wicked, 67 although it is something non-existent, due to those works by which sinners seem to enslave themselves to it. So, he is expelled either in the sense that his power is overthrown, or this “out” indicates punishment and removal to hell, because Satan was rightly expelled there, since he fought not only with people, but also with the God of all Jesus. Therefore, although before he did not know the bonds, he now demands punishment for his insolence, as having reached the extreme degree of all wickedness 68 . ( John 12:37-38 ) He did so many signs 69 before them, and they did not believe in Him, so that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled: Lord! who believed what they heard from us? and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 18. (Q) He utters many accusations against the Jews, because many signs did not put them to shame, but they were in some way adamant in their hardness of heart, although nothing was missed that led them to correction. But even if the Jews, being ashamed, believed, it would still be impossible to lie to the Holy Spirit, 70 who spoke through the prophet Isaiah about their unbelief. After all, they did not believe the prophets, and Christ, the strength and arm of the Father, did not become known to the Jews. And that no one believed is said hyperbolically, due to the fact that out of many, only a few were saved. Although exposing their immeasurable depravity, the evangelist added the words: “before them,” showing by this that they did not even believe what they saw. ( John 12:38 ) Lord! ... to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? 19. (Q) The muscle (βραχίων) of God the Father is the Son 71. (John 11:41) Isaiah said this when he saw His glory and spoke about Him. 20. (Q) From the fact that he here shows the Son to have as great a glory as Isaiah saw, it is evident that there is no difference between the Father and the Son, since neither man is able to contemplate anything higher, nor does Scripture call anything else greater than this. For the seraphim, whom Isaiah saw under the throne of God 72, are higher and more honorable than all the angels. And what is said about the throne, this denotes the nature of the Lord or the fact that He sits in a royal rank, and those standing before Him are in the servile state characteristic of creation. (John 12:44) Jesus cried out and said: He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. 21. (*) (V) 73 He says this. He who is able to know who he was who appeared through the flesh, and achieves spiritual (νοητός) and better contemplation - such one truly finds Me. In faith directed towards Me, he acquires faith in the Father. Consequently, it is the same as if He said: “He who believes in Me does not believe in man, but in the power of God, in which the Father is known and received by faith.” The same (St. Cyril) from the interpretation of the Gospel. (…) 75 (*) And again: God the Father, having a perfect face, has the Word truly begotten of Him perfect. But the Holy Spirit is also perfect, given from the Father through the Son to those who are adopted, life and life-giving, holy, sanctifying to those who receive Him. Not as breathed (ἐμπνευθεῖσαν) 76 and devoid of hypostasis, but living from God, whereby the Trinity is worthy of worship, glorifying, honorable and venerable (Trinity) 77 . (The Holy Spirit is given by the Father) from His own Son, glorified in the Spirit, as is characteristic of that which is revealed from the Father in the Holy Spirit to those who are sanctified. (*) And that the Holy Trinity is venerable and worthy of worship, not divided, not alienated, Paul teaches us this, in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, saying: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of His Holy and life-giving Spirit 78 be with you all. Amen 79. (b) Athon. Pantocr. 28 80 Cyril from (eighth book) 81 interpretation of the Gospel of John 82. 24. (For those who believe have the honor of fellowship with God through Christ, and the divine Paul fights for us when he writes thus: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself 83 84). Let none of the ignorant, who are in the habit of making attacks, confuse this reading of the inspired Scripture 85 by believing that God is in Christ, and do not think that this is said by a spirit-bearing author, since his speech is not very precise. After all, Christ was God by nature, and not a God-bearing man, like one of the prophets. And through Him we were reconciled with God and the Father, resolving the ancient enmity 86, I mean that which was the result of sin and the service of the creature instead of the Creator 87. The method (τρόπος) of reconciliation is justifying faith, accepting which in relation to Himself, Christ 88 certainly rewards it to the Father Himself. After all, in both there is one Divinity, and the dignity of the essence is indistinguishable 89. Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Commentaire sur Jean. T. 1 (Livre 1) / ed. B. Meunier. Paris: Cerf, 2018. (SC; vol. 600). Grégoire de Nazianze. Lettres théologique/éd. P. Gallay. Paris: Cerf, 1974. (SC; vol. 208). Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche / hrsg. J. Reuss. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1966. Patrum nova bibliotheca/ed. A. Mai. Romae: Typis Vaticanis, 1845. T. 3. Petri Callinicensis patriarcharchae Antiocheni tractatus contra Damianum. IV. Libri tertii capita XXXV–L/ed. R. Y. Ebied, A. van Roey, L. R. Wickham. Turnhout: Brepols, 2003. (CCSG; vol. 54). S. P. N. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi operum. T. 4 / cura et studio J. Auberti. Paris: Lutetiae Regiis typis, 1638. S. P. N. Cyrilli archepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Johannis Evangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo/ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford: Oxonii e typographeo academico, 1872 [rBruxelles: Culture et civilization, 1965]. Vol. 1–3. Zawadzki K. "Keiner soll die Lektüre der Schrift durcheinanderbringen!" Ein neues griechisches Fragment aus dem Johanneskommentar des Cyrill von Alexandrien // Biblica. Vol. 99. 2018. P. 393–413. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M.: Pilgrim, 2002. Book. 3. Creations of St. Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. STSL, 1902. Part 1. Works of St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. M., 1889. Part 4. Creations of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1861. Part 2. Creations of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1865. Part 7. Creations of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1871. Part 8. Creations of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. Pg., 1916. Creations of St. John Chrysostom. St. Petersburg, 1902. T. 8. Tkachev E.V. Catena // PE. M.: Central Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia", 2013. T. 31. Alexakis A. Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype. Washington (D.C.): Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies; vol. 34). Reuss J. Cyrill von Alexandrien und sein Kommentar zum Johannes-Evangelium // Biblica. Vol. 25. 1944. P. 208–209. S. P. N. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi operum. T. 4 / cura et studio J. Auberti. Paris, 1638, pp. 660–713. S. P. N. Cyrilli archepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Johannis Evangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo/ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1872 [rBruxelles. 1965]. Vol. 1. P. VIII. Patrum nova bibliotheca/ed. A. Mai. Romae, 1845. T. 3. P. 134–136. In the new edition in the “Christian Sources” series, only one volume has so far been released, covering the 1st book: Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Commentaire sur Jean. T. 1 (Livre 1) / ed. Meunier. Paris, 2018. (SC; vol. 600). In addition to the manuscript used by J. Aubert, this is: Paris. gr. 187 (XI century), Paris. gr. 212 (XIII century), Mosqu. 41 (X century), Mosqu. 93 (XII century), Mosqu. 119 (IX century), Athon. Dionys. 71 (IX century). Bodl. Baroc. gr. 225 (XII century) Oxon. Wak. gr. (IX century). See: Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. VIII–IX; Zawadzki K. “Keiner soll die Lektüre der Schrift durcheinanderbringen!” Ein neues griechisches Fragment aus dem Johanneskommentar des Cyrill von Alexandrien // Biblica. Vol. 99. 2018. P. 393. Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 243–334; rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2002. Book. 3. pp. 367–447. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus (CPG 5215). However, these fragments were included in the above Russian translation by Prof. MDA M. Muretova. Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche / hrsg. J. Reuss. Berlin, 1966. S. 15. J. Royce identified 7 main types of catenas, designating them in capital Latin letters from A to G. This classification is currently generally accepted (Tkachev E.V. Catenas // PE. M., 2013. T. 31. P. 726). Reuss J. Cyrill von Alexandrien und sein Kommentar zum Johannes-Evangelium // Biblica. Vol. 25. 1944. P. 208–209. Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. S. 188–195. Alexakis A. Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype. Washington, 1996. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies; vol. 34). P. 294. According to the colophon, this is a manuscript of 1276, copied from a manuscript of 774/775 (Ibid. P. 48). Includes parts of the acts of the 3rd–6th Ecumenical Councils and the Lateran Council of 649, the “Guide” of St. Anastasia Sinaita and the Christological florilegion “Doctrina Patrum”, as well as florilegies about the Holy Spirit, florilegies in defense of holy icons and heterogeneous dogmatic, historical and canonical fragments (Ibid. P. 52). Zawadzki K. “Keiner soll die Lektüre der Schrift durcheinanderbringen!” P. 394. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Joannem I, 3; II, 1; IV, 1; XI, 9 // Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 36, 42, 177, 495. Vol. 2. P. 704. Idem. Thesaurus 4, 11, 18, 34 // PG. 75. Col. 41C, 156A, 156D–157A, 425C, 581D. Idem. De adoratione et cultu in Spiritu et veritate // PG. 68. Col. 636C; Idem. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. Glaphyra in Genesim. Lib. III // PG. 69. Col. 129B; Ibid. Lib. VI // PG. 69. Col. 297C. Idem. Thesaurus 5 // PG. 75. Col. 65B; Idem. Commentarii in Joannem II, 1 // Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 175, 177. Gesta Ephesina. Actio VI // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). P. 98. Basilius Caesariensis. Aduersus Eunomium libri IV–V [Sp.] V, 4 // PG. 29. Col. 757B. Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Confessio fidei // ACO. T. 3. P. 3; rus. trans.: Works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. Petrograd, 1916. P. 57. Gregorius Nyssenus. De vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi // PG. 46. ​​Col. 912D–913A; rus. trans.: Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1871. Part 8, pp. 147–148. The saint himself very often defines the Holy Trinity as “holy” (ἁγία) and “consubstantial” (ὁμοούσιος), less often “worshipped” (προσκυνουμένη), in isolated cases “divine” (θεία) or “immaculate” (ἄχραντος). The adjective “honest” (τίμιος) very often refers to the Blood and Cross of the Savior; appears in biblical quotations; given in the abstract meaning of (something) “honest” (τὰ τίμια). The definition of “venerable” is applied to the Holy Virgin, but only in the words of the heresiarch Nestorius. Only once does the superlative σεβασμιώτατον indicate an object of special reverence among the pagans. Often the same root noun σέβασμα appears in the same meaning, usually in the plural. h. (“shrines”) The adjective “undivided” (μὴ χωριζόμενος) is given in a Christological context, indicating the inadmissibility of the separation of deity and humanity in Christ. Athanasius Alexandrinus. In illud: Omnia mihi tradita sunt 6 // PG. 25. Col. 220A; rus. trans.: Works of St. Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. STSL, 1902. Part 1. P. 275. Gregorius Nyssenus. Orationes VIII de beatudinibus. Oratio 5 // PG. 44. Col. 1249D; rus. trans.: Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1861. Part 2. P. 421. Idem. Adversus Macedonianos de Spiritu Sancto // PG. 45. Col. 1329A; rus. trans.: Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1865. Part 7. P. 53. Alexakis A. Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115. P. 293. Zawadzki K. “Keiner soll die Lektüre der Schrift durcheinanderbringen!” P. 395. Tkachev E. V. Catenas. P. 728. K. Zawadzki worked with her in preparing a critical edition of the Commentary on 2 Corinthians by St. Cyril of Alexandria. Compiler of the catalog of Athonite manuscripts Sp. Lambros dated it to the 10th century, but K. Zawadzki himself dates it to the 8th century, based on the dating proposed by the researcher and publisher of catenary fragments on the Epistles of St. Pavel K. Staab (Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 394, n. 8). Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 332–333 = Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 397, 398. The second fragment is an extract from the treatise of Sevirus of Antioch “Against the Impious Grammar” (CPG 7024). Petri Callinicensis patriarcharchae Antiocheni tractatus contra Damianum. IV. Libri tertii capita XXXV–L/ed. R. Y. Ebied, A. van Roey, L. R. Wickham. Turnhout, 2003. (CCSG; vol. 54). P. 65 = Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 398. Zawadzki K. Keiner soll die Lektüre der Schrift durcheinanderbringen!” P. 404, 408–409. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Joannem 11, 11 // Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 734; rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2002. Book. 3. P. 755. Idem. Epistulae (homiliae) paschales 1–30. Homilia 8 // PG. 77. Col. 553–577. “He (Nestorius) adds to this that Christ was not truly God, but rather a God-bearing man, which he thinks is indicated by the voice of the Angel who said to blessed Joseph: Arise, take the Child (Matthew 2:13). After all, the Angels knew, he says, although they are wiser than us, that He was a Child” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium I, 2 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1 (6). P. 18). Gregorius Nazianzenus. Epistula 102 (Ad Cledonium presbyterum) 18–20 // Grégoire de Nazianze. Lettres théologique/éd. P. Gallay. Paris, 1974. (SC; vol. 208). P. 80; rus. trans.: Works of St. Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. M., 1889. Part 4. P. 172. Gregorius Nyssenus. Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarium 42 // PG. 45. Col. 1224C; rus. trans.: Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1865. Part 7. pp. 157–158. The translation of the title is given according to the new edition in the series “Christian Sources” (Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Commentaire sur Jean. T. 1 (Livre 1) / ed. B. Meunier. Paris, 2018. (SC; vol. 600). P. 180). Compare: “Like the saints of our father Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, Explanation, or Interpretation, on the Gospel of John” (Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 1). Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. S. 188–195. Before the beginning of each fragment, we indicate the source, using the manuscript notations adopted in this edition: Q – Vallic. gr. E 40 (10/11th century), V – Athon. Laur. B 113 (11th century). The last words are similar to the ending of the sixth book published by F. Pusey. Compare: “So, always being beloved by nature, He, of course, aroused love for Himself and by the fact that with His love for us He calls His Parent to joy, since from here He could see the completely pure and truly radiant image of His nature” (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 241; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2002. Book 3. P. 363). But there is no idea expressed here that in these words one can see a denunciation of the wickedness of the Jews. Note from the compiler of the catenas (Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. In the lengthy scholium on John 10:19–21, published by F. Pusey, there is the same idea, expressed more concisely. Compare: “Others, judging by the quality of the words, recognize the words of the Lord as right, since such words were not the words of a demoniac” (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 248; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2002. Book 3. P. 371 (as amended)). In J. Royce's edition the following scholium is marked as referring only to Art. 31, but from the content it is clear that the interpretation also applies to the next verse, so we add that too. In the scholia on John published by F. Pusey. 10:19–21 there is a passage similar in content. To the three meanings of the verb “sanctify” indicated here (appointment for the accomplishment of God’s purpose, separation for sacrifice and sanctification of the flesh of Christ by virtue of union with God), sanctification is also added there as dedication to God, for example, the firstborn of Israel (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 259–260; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creation. M., 2002. Book 3. pp. 381–382). In the catena there is a scholium, inscribed in one of the manuscripts with the name of St. Photius of Constantinople, in which one can see a correction of the inaccuracy made here: “What does he say? After all, the Evangelist says that Bethany was fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem (John 11:38), and not the place where Christ spent time from Bethany” (Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. S. 391). The ending of this scholia (inscribed with the name of St. Cyril) is borrowed from the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” by St. John Chrysostom: “His disciples said: Lord! if he falls asleep, he will recover. They did not just say this, but in order to prevent Him from going there. Are you saying, they object, that he is sleeping? So, there is no particular need to go there. Meanwhile, this is why He said: our friend, to show the need to go. When they still did not decide, He said: He died (John 11:14). He used the first expression because He wanted to teach not to be vain; but since they did not understand, He adds: I died, and I rejoice for you (John 11:14–15). Why exactly for you? Because I predicted without being there” (Joannes Chrysostomus. In Joannem homiliae 62 // PG. 59. Col. 344:8–18; Russian translation: Works of St. John Chrysostom. St. Petersburg, 1902. T. 8. P. 414). Ps.67:29 Yungers (modified) Ep. Cassian. Wed: He himself was grieved in spirit and indignant (Syn.) Ep. Cassian. Wed: again grieving internally (Syn.) With the exception of the initial words, it almost literally coincides with the beginning of one of the scholia published by F. Pusey: “Here by indignation we understand a kind of desire together with an imperious movement” (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 283; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2002. Book 3. P. 403). Wed: called (Sin., Bishop Cassian). We give a literal translation, which is required to understand the interpretation. A similar passage appears in the fragments published by F. Pusey. There is a rather detailed discussion that “the use of a loud voice is very strange and unusual for the Savior” and it is also noted that the Lord “performs a miracle on Lazarus as if it were a kind of general resurrection” and that the cry of the Savior is a prototype of the trumpet blast during the Last Judgment (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 290–291; Russian translation: Kirill of Alexandria , St. Creations. M., 2002. Book 3. P. 409). J. Reuss notes the confusion and obscurity of the beginning of the scholia up to this point (Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. S. 193. Note). We give a feasible translation, although the connection between these words and the subsequent reasoning is not clear. A fragment of the interpretation of this verse published by F. Pusey appears to be an abbreviated version of the real scholium with direct textual matches. Compare: “This alarming time of the coming of the Savior showed that judgment and righteousness had already arrived among the pagans, for they were facing liberation from the violence of the devil, when the holy and righteous Judge bestowed upon them the most righteous mercy. After all, one cannot think, I believe, that it was now that the world was condemned, when there was a time of justification, but judgment will be on the world, that is, vengeance. The prince of this world will be cast out; There will be, He says, judgment on those who have offended the world, but not on the world who have suffered the offense, for Christ Himself said: God did not send the Son to judge the world, but to save the world (John 3:17). Thus, the definition of this coming judgment is to cast out the prince of this world. Where was he expelled from? Obviously, from the authorities that he forcibly acquired and the kingdom that did not belong to him. The word “out” means punishment and removal to hell” (Pusey Ph. E. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 322–323; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creation. M., 2002. Book 3. P. 434–435 (as amended)). σημεῖα. Wed: miracles (Syn.) The thought appears many times in the saint, often in almost the same expressions. Compare: “The right hand (δεξιά) and arm of God the Father is the Son” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam I, 5 // PG. 70. Col. 256A); “The muscle of God and the Father, that is, the Son” (Ibid. V, 1 // PG. 70. Col. 1161B); “That the right hand and arm of the Father is the Son” (Idem. Thesaurus 35 // PG. 75. Col. 636C). In three other manuscripts, this fragment ends a lengthy scholia, which in one case is given as anonymous (Reg. gr. 9 (X century)), and in two more (Marc. gr. 27 (X/XI century), Vat. gr. 758 (XII century)) is inscribed with the name of Apollinaria (Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. S. 36, 195). Alexakis A. Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115. P. 294. What follows first is a fragment from the “Commentary on the Gospel of John”: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Joannem II, 1 // Pusey Ph. Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 218–219. The rarest form; but that’s exactly how it is in the manuscript. The place is damaged, the publisher restores the word according to its meaning. The addition: “and His life-giving” is unique. It is not in the available editions of the Greek text, nor in the Russian translations. In angle brackets here we give additions borrowed from the Syriac translation. In the treatise of Peter Callinicus, the quotation is introduced with the words: “So, he (Cyril) again in the eighth book of the Interpretation of the Gospel of John says the following” (Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 398). Wed: God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself (Syn.); God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (Bishop Cassian). Following M. Muretov, we give a translation that both shows the problematic nature of this passage and more accurately corresponds to the interpretation of the saint. See: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2002. Book. 3. P. 446. In the Syriac translation, the form gen. pad. pl. h. “ignorant” (ἀμαθεστέρων) stands the adverb “ignorantly” ( put together) and instead of the infinitive of the verb “to attack” (ἐπελθεῖν) “listen” (ༀκούειν). In that case, this the phrase can be translated as follows: “Let none of those who are in the habit of ignorantly listening to the inspired Scripture confuse this reading.” It certainly looks clearer. However, K. Zawadzki considers this reading not a reflection of the version of the Greek text that was at the disposal of the Syrian translators, but a simplification of the initially difficult reading that was originally in the original, which is found in his Greek manuscript (Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 403). At the place of the plural participle. h. “having resolved” (λύσαντες) in the Syriac translation there is a corresponding construction with the verb form singular. h. If we accept this reading, then one could translate: “And through Him we were reconciled with God and the Father, who resolved (λύσαντι) the ancient enmity” or: “And through Him, who resolved (λύσαντος) the ancient enmity, we were reconciled with God and the Father.” K. Zawadzki admits that both options could have been in the original Greek text (Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 407). According to the Syriac text: “Son” (ऒपॐ), which K. Zawadzki finds more appropriate, as correlating with the name “Father” that follows, and therefore considers it original (Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 403). But it seems to us that it is precisely the general context of the fragment, which speaks of Christ as God by nature and reconciliation in Him with God through faith, that makes reading the Greek manuscript “Christ” preferable. The saint gives a similar understanding of 2 Corinthians 5:19 in one of the fragments of the “Commentary on 2 Corinthians,” prepared by K. Zawadzki for publication: “He does not say that in Christ there was God, as in man there is a friend, because then Christ will not differ in anything from the prophets and apostles, but if anyone is reconciled with Christ, he has made reconciliation with God. After all, the Son and Lord Himself, reconciling the world to Himself through faith, reconciles it through Himself with God and the Father” (Zawadzki K. Op. cit. P. 411).