Приложение II. Речь на годичном акте Санкте-Петербургской Духовной Академии 17-го Февраля 1910-го года. Извлечено из журнала «Христианское Чтение», 1910 г.
Machine translation from the original · Show original
Ancient church theological science in the Greek east during its heyday (IV-V centuries) - its main directions and characteristic features
In the history of the Universal Church, the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century represent a period of extraordinary significance. The radical change in the external position of Christianity in the Greco-Roman Empire had the most favorable consequences for the internal life of the Church, providing Its members with complete opportunity to concentrate all the strength of their spirit on resolving internal church problems. Not distracted by the external struggle for its very existence, the Church began to live a full life.
But contrary to the expectation that, with the disappearance of the nightmare of persecution, the peace and calm flow of church life would be undisturbed, it turned out that the really important and significant struggle was now just beginning, and the time that had come was rightly called the period of great controversy.
They were a natural continuation of the previous work of theological thought, and their broad and even acute development was an internal necessity, when significant and formal differences that had gradually developed in the previous period in different areas of the Christian world freely emerged, opened up and collided with each other. The struggle gave rise to an intense, extremely impetuous, lively and powerful movement of theological thought, which revealed a diverse creative activity, outstanding in its productivity and originality.
Christian genius manifests itself with extraordinary force in various branches of theological knowledge, focusing primarily on what constitutes the very essence of Christianity.
The theological works of this time remain guiding for all subsequent generations of Orthodox Christianity. Their great creators, who truly nourish the believers with their teaching, received the predominant title of “fathers of the Church.” The theological thought of the immediate period was based on the results of their theological work; She lives by them to this day, as if proceeding from the conviction that then all the essential questions that humanity can present to Christianity were posed and resolved.
No era in the history of the Church can compare with this period, which has acquired the significance of classical. It is therefore natural to strive to penetrate into the essence of the theological work of this period and, regardless of its undoubtedly important material content, to determine the path along which theological thought followed, the sources and means it used to achieve such brilliant results, as well as the favorable conditions from which it drew energy for its development. These questions have not only historical, but also deeply vital, practical significance, both due to the exceptional importance of the period, and due to the current situation in our country of the question of theological science and the requirements placed on it.
I. General characteristics of church and theological life in the 4th–5th centuries. Church Theological Science in the Pre-Nicene Age. Theological activity of the apologists of the 2nd century. Asia Minor Theology of Saint Irenaeus. The scientific and theological movement in different parts of the Christian world and the development of the need to solve internal church problems. Origen - characteristics of his theological activity and the direction of the Alexandrian school. Currents in the Alexandrian School after Origen. Asia Minor Theology at the beginning of the 4th century: Saint Methodius of Olympia. Antiochian school
When looking at the course of events and internal movements of church-historical life in the Greek East in the 4th and 5th centuries, what first strikes the eye is the fact that the great questions of Christian doctrine at that time were the work of the whole Church; Not only bishops and in general persons who, by their position and education, were called to solve them, but also all of modern society down to its lower strata showed a keen interest in them.
Not only the centers of modern culture, not only the centers of Christian education and church life, but also minor parishias equally considered their right and duty to take part in the common cause. Numerous councils with a significant number of participants, approving certain formulas of confession of faith, rejecting others, drawing up new ones, condemning one another, indignation against bishops who accepted this or that symbol, in which the subordinate clergy and laity saw a deviation from the transmitted faith, divisions in parties due to dogmatic provisions - all this provides sufficient evidence of how theological questions captured Christian society. Everything was in motion, everyone was arguing, everyone was worried... And it is not difficult to notice that in its essence it was a heated struggle between different directions of theological thought, various Theological schools with their specific church and theological-philosophical traditions and scientific methods of revealing and constructing dogmatic positions and their own special terminology.
It goes without saying that, due to the difficulty of the metaphysical problems on which inquisitive thought was concentrated, only relatively few were able to independently and completely master them, and even fewer were able to develop them literary. Therefore, different theological trends found expression in the literary works of only a few outstanding personalities - their works are the primary source for understanding the gradual development of theological thought. However, it must be remembered that the significance and success of these figures and leaders were determined by the fact that they were exponents of entire trends - behind them stood more or less numerous supporters and like-minded people, whose names emerge completely by chance and mainly at councils.
The theological science of the heyday, like the entire church life of that time, was created and developed on the basis of what was done in previous centuries. Now a rich harvest was gathered, for which abundant sowing, although under very unfavorable external conditions, had been carried out earlier.
The change in the external position of the Church did not change the essence of Her internal life - it only presented favorable conditions and the opportunity to fully, comprehensively and clearly discover, reveal and in some respects bring to completion those movements that had arisen and lived in it until that time. Therefore, both the entire internal life of the Church and the development of theological thought in the period under review in its various directions and currents can only be understood in connection with the development and results achieved by it in the previous period.
The need for theological reflection in relation to the positive content of the Christian faith is given both in the essence of Christianity itself and in the essence of the human spirit.
If Christianity is a new beginning of life, a moral-religious force that renews the world, creating new life in humanity, then this new life can actually arise only under the condition of consciousness, consistent with religious experience, of a significant change in man’s relationship with God, the consciousness of the communion with God restored by Christ, which is the focus of the new life.
With this consciousness a new light shone for redeemed humanity, the knowledge of truth, which not only expanded and enriched, but also completely transformed the entire previous way of thinking about the Divine and human. This light creates and affirms in man a new consciousness and understanding of truth to the extent that it communicates its saving content to the human spirit. But this is achieved only in such a way that a Christian enters into the content of faith with his own thought, discusses it, explains it, comprehends it. Thus, faith, containing knowledge, serves as an incentive to penetrate deeper and deeper into it, not only to confess, but also to know.
On the other hand, in the essence of the human spirit lies the need to assimilate everything that constitutes the subject of its representation, perception, experience through reflection and lead to the clarity of more or less accurate knowledge. This universal law is all the more important in relation to Christianity because here we are dealing with the highest and deepest personal interests, where a new life, a new world arises for a person. A Christian can achieve this in no other way than to enter into the content of his faith with his own thought, sort it out into its elements, understand it, harmonize xpucmian consciousness with his human consciousness, consider the relationship of religious experience to all other experiences, put the content of faith in relation to all his other knowledge - in a word, give an account of his faith.
This cannot be seen as simple curiosity, which seeks more than it has, or one’s own uncertainty and inner doubt in the perceived truth - on the contrary, it reflects a firm conviction that the Christian teaching, as truly Divine truth, can and should be justified before the knowing spirit.
Then faith rises to the level of self-awareness, personal conviction, and this requires not only religious experience, but also thought and research. And the Divine word, if not exclusively, then in any case predominantly addresses the human mind and gives constant stimulation to ever deeper penetration into it 60.
This need and motivation to bring one’s faith to knowledge, even more than for an individual Christian, was presented to the whole Church. She had to recognize herself, make the saving thought of God her property in order to truly possess it. The divine treasure entrusted to the Church could not remain a dead treasure: she was called, due to her inherent inner need, to recognize the foundations of her confession. This need was further reinforced by the mission of the Church: it was to call the nations to the foot of the Cross and educate those called to the faith. But the implementation of this mission contained for the Church the task of giving the content of its faith a definite, living expression. The Church not only had to say that She believes, but also what she believes in, what is the meaning and content of the truths of Revelation entrusted to Her, and had to say it in such a way that it would be understandable, tangible and comprehensible both for those entering Her and for Her own members - only in this way is the self-creation of the Church inward and outward possible.
Yet this could be achieved through thought, research, science.
This provides the basis why human thought has made the content of Christianity the subject of its study from its very appearance, and why the Church from the time of the Apostles has not been without Church science. Therefore, Church historical science cannot establish the moment when the beginning was laid and the essential elements of what is commonly called theological science in the proper sense were formed, and how and under what conditions “false knowledge” began to penetrate among Christians.
This alone can explain the fact that when, due to the internal necessity of the historical position of the Church, the work of theological thought had to show a significant degree of intensity, it turned out, as far as one can judge from the surviving literary monuments and news about them, that it soon discovered a sufficient versatility of interests and mobility, a variety of tendencies in which various currents in the internal development of church life and theological thought in particular found expression, meeting the practical needs of the time.
The interests of the Christian mission in Greco-Roman society and the latter’s attitude towards Christianity in the very first days of the Church’s existence gave rise to one of the important manifestations of theological thought, which boldly raised the question of the attitude towards pagan philosophy, its concepts and language, as a means of explaining Christian teaching. Christianity, originally preached on the mountains of Judea and on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, by men from the people, Jewish fishermen and artisans, was carried into a world saturated with Greek education.
In all the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, in the central points of ancient culture, Christian communities appeared, whose members were not only simpletons and slaves, but also people of every rank and education.
Thus, inevitably, the new teaching came into various contacts with the ancient elements of education, which permeated the training and education of the upper classes of society and all social life. It was necessary to find a basis on which it would be possible to establish mutual understanding between educated pagans and adherents of the new religion.
The unknown can only be explained through the known. Revelation did not create a new language; it used its existing forms in order to, through them, proclaim new truths and give new principles to moral life. It only gave individual terms and concepts a new, deeper and more complete meaning, illuminating and penetrating them with the light of a new religious worldview. And for a fruitful assimilation of the content of Christian teaching there was no other way: it was necessary to base it on the concepts in circulation and their combinations, on already firmly established terminology.
In order to create access for Christian truth into the world of ideas of educated circles, a natural and reliable means for this could only be Greek philosophy, which left its stamp on the entire structure of thoughts of the Greco-Roman society. It was to this very remedy that Christian apologists, led by Saint Justin, turned.
The apologists themselves, for the most part, received a pagan education and went through pagan philosophy. They did not find the truth here, but they studied the methods and forms of research in which modern science revolved; they did not recognize the absolute value of the results of scientific research in the ancient world, but at the same time they were able to highlight in them the results of universal truth. Most importantly, they knew the religious and philosophical needs of a modern educated society, eager to find confirmation and verification of the reality of those provisions about God as a Spiritual Being, the moral law, immortality and reward in the afterlife, which were proposed by the dominant religious philosophy.
It is these truths from the general body of Christian teaching that apologists reveal to pagan society in the concepts and forms of thinking of modern education and culture, proving that the Revealed Teaching contains everything that true philosophy is looking for 61: it alone is a reliable and useful philosophy, pure and sublime in content and Divine in origin - it alone brings religious liberation and renewal the truth.
The basis on which the theology of the apologists developed was the faithful doctrine of faith, as it was preached and preserved in the Church, of the truth of which they were absolutely convinced: they did not seek to reform Christianity, like the Gnostics, nor did they adapt its positive content to the fantastic theories of a peculiar rationalism. Thus, in the works of Christian apologists of the 2nd century, the experience of applying the principles of Hellenic religious philosophy to Christian teaching was given, and this laid the foundation for Church Theology as a science operating with the concepts of classical culture.
Apologetic literature in its original form was the product of a passing situation, a struggle that sooner or later had to be resolved, and with this struggle the literary-philosophical form itself found an end; but what was important was that the Church, despite many shortcomings in the theology of the apologists, highly valued their merits and thereby recognized the legitimacy of the principle of their theological activity. However, apologetic literature left open the question of whether Church writing should use the forms of classical literature and philosophy only when addressing the outside world, or when solving internal Church problems.
Another direction of theological thought took shape and strengthened in the Church as the struggle against Gnosticism developed, which represented a sharp Hellenization of Christianity, which distorted its essence and deprived it of its historical and soteriological character. For the first time, Gnosticism subjected Christian tradition and written sources of Christian teaching to scientific processing, eliminating from them everything that did not agree with its views and theories. The interests that found expression in the speculations of the Gnostics also fascinated many thoughtful church Christians. This increased the danger of Gnosticism and largely determined the nature of the struggle of church teachers against it.
The struggle forced the Church to reveal its heritage and theoretically substantiate it. If, in front of the deep spiritual understanding of Christianity, which Gnosticism claimed, the Church faith seemed meager and limited, then it was necessary to oppose the systems of the Gnostics with an equivalent theoretical structure.
Church theological thought had to clearly and definitely establish the material and formal principles on which Church theological science should be built. The Asia Minor School of Theologians tried to do this. The communities of Asia Minor in the 2nd century formed a spiritually living part of the Church. A number of Asia Minor theologians between 150 and 200 are known who wrote apologetic and anti-heretical works: Melito, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Rodon, Miltiades and others. It is more than likely that they represented a substantially homogeneous theology, the Asia Minor theological tradition, which has its energetic and most striking exponent in the person of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons.
On the issue of true Christian teaching, its content, sources of knowledge and criteria of truth, Saint Irenaeus reveals the concept of Church truth. Only the Church possesses the truth: the Church has the Scriptures originating from the Apostles and likewise the oral Tradition traced back to the Apostles, the preservation of which, intact, is guaranteed by the uninterrupted succession of the episcopacy.
A certain task is established for theological science: it should not change the content of Revelation, but on the basis of the unchanging rule of faith, carefully examine the thought of what is said in the parables and harmonize it with the content of faith, reveal the Economy of Man’s Salvation, explain the forms of Revelation and the purpose of the Old and New Testaments, prove the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection, establishing itself on the unshakable conviction that the whole Church has throughout the world the same faith, which She received from Apostles and kept it clean and intact 62.
In contrast to the philosophical and theological idealism of the apologists, the Theology of Saint Irenaeus is imbued with a biblical-realistic character; he does not set out to prove Christianity as a true philosophy, and, contrary to the a priori speculations of the Gnostics, is entirely based on the facts of Revelation, which is why his Theology is primarily a “Theology of Facts” and, above all, the central Biblical fact - the Salvation of mankind in Christ.
The focal point of Saint Irenaeus’s speculation is not the Logos, as the mediator of God’s relationship to the world, but Christ, the God-man, as the Mediator of Salvation. For him, Christianity is the religion of Redemption accomplished through the Incarnation of the Logos in Christ. This side of the Theological teaching of Saint Irenaeus subsequently had a strong influence on the development and direction of theological thought.
In contrast to the titanic enterprise of the Gnostics, which knows no boundaries of the humanly cognizable, Saint Irenaeus warns against their arrogant soaring, against attempts with a limited mind to penetrate the unsearchable secrets of Divine life, and proclaims the position that it is better and more useful to remain simple and ignorant and approach God through love, than, considering oneself much knowledgeable and very experienced, to turn out to be blasphemers of one’s God 63 .
But behind Saint Irenaeus there was already the activity of outstanding apologists, and the Gnostics stood against him; from both of them he learned a lot and, in accordance with the needs of the time, felt the need for rational evidence in the fight against opponents, as well as for his own identification and for the approval of the Orthodox. Therefore, even if the direct influence of philosophical systems cannot be found in his Theology, nevertheless, the influence of the philosophical traditions of the time is clearly reflected in it.
Before Saint Irenaeus, as well as before the apologists, the question arose about the application of the forms of classical literature to the consideration of intra-church problems. But his main work, although intended for Orthodox Christians, is nevertheless caused by the fight against heresy and therefore leaves the question unresolved: is this form of literature intended to be in the Christian Church only a weapon in the fight against enemies, or should it become a means of peaceful work in Her own field? The recently discovered work of St. Irenaeus, “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon,” gives reason to assume that St. Irenaeus stood for the former.
It is quite natural that contact with Hellenic culture and Gnostic systems, as well as the entry into the Church of educated pagans who sought to give themselves an account of their new beliefs, served as sufficient motivation for the emergence of positive problems.
In church circles, the need gradually developed to understand and scientifically develop the content of Church teaching, to firmly establish it historically and exegetically and to substantiate it philosophically, in order to thus satisfy the natural desire of the human spirit to study the revealed truth, to penetrate deeper into it and understand it as an integral worldview; hence the further need - to comprehend the internal connection of individual points of Church teaching, as a system, to compare with the knowledge and ideas to which the natural thought of cultural people was brought without the help of Revelation, to establish a connection with them and, if possible, to reconcile.
In this regard, they sometimes went to extremes, and it is not without reason that one can assert that Saint Irenaeus had in mind not only heretical gnosis, but at the same time a direction that simultaneously emerged and was related to it within the Church. How multifaceted were the intra-church interests of that time, this can be evidenced by the list - unfortunately not preserved - of the works of Meliton of Sardinia and a number of scientific works that were then written by churchmen 64.
Thus, already in the 2nd century, on the one hand, experiments were made in applying the concepts and forms of modern philosophy and culture in theological science for apologetic-polemical purposes, on the other hand, the sources and criteria of theological teaching were indicated in the Holy Scriptures and in the rule of faith, in the Apostolic Tradition, the bearer and guardian of which is the Apostolic Church.
At the same time, more and more traces of the scientific and theological movement are being discovered in different places in the Christian world. Schools similar to the one that Saint Justin had in Rome and which, one might think, other apologists (for example, Tatian) had, were already common at that time. They were founded in the likeness of philosophical schools. No information has been preserved about the organization and methods of teaching in these schools. But Saint Justin undoubtedly was the same philosopher in school as in his literary activity.
There was a strong impulse towards such a setting of Christian schools in the Gnostic schools of the Valentinians, Carpocrats, and Bardesans. In various places we come across entire circles of people imbued with scientific interests.
In Asia Minor, the Alogs reveal a desire for critical study of the Holy Scriptures; also, the activities of Meliton of Capdia and Theophilus of Antioch hardly remained without influence in the areas where they served their church ministry. Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem lays the foundation of the Theological Library in Jerusalem; the surviving fragments of his messages show that along with the language he also adopted the scientific spirit of the times. Next to him stands Theoctistus of Caesarea (in Palestine), as a champion of independent theological science. Origen found refuge with Firmilian of Caesarea (in Cappadocia). It was a circle of churchmen who zealously devoted themselves to scientific aspirations.
In Rome at the beginning of the 3rd century there was a scientific school - consisting mainly of people who came there from the East - in which formal exegesis, textual criticism, grammar, logic, mathematics and empirical sciences were developed; Aristotle, Theophrastus, Euclid and Galen were zealously studied here. The works of Tertullian show that even among the Christians of Carthage there was no shortage of persons who wanted to give scientific aspirations rights in the Church 65.
The gradual growth of intra-church scientific interests and needs naturally first of all and most of all should have been felt in the center of modern pagan spiritual culture - in Alexandria, and the need to satisfy them should have been especially noticeable towards the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century, when the ancient world once again gathered its spiritual forces and, in the union of religion and philosophy - which is Neoplatonism - opposed Christianity to a powerful adversary. If Christianity set itself the task of establishing itself in this new situation, then it had to arm itself with science and philosophy. From here it is completely understandable and cannot be considered unexpected the development of the catechetical school in Alexandria into the theological and philosophical one, as it already was under Panten and Clement.
Thus, gradually the work of theological thought within the Church and on internal church issues created Church Theological Science, which embraced more and more specific problems and developed on the basis of Holy Scripture and Tradition with the assistance of the modern scientific apparatus: a combination of the interests of the theological direction, of which Saint Irenaeus was a representative, and the theological techniques of apologists arose. This laid sufficient grounds for the development of a multifaceted and deep theological movement: Church Theological literature, in close connection with the past, preparing the ground for the future, sets new tasks for itself, without losing attention to the previous ones, and paves new paths for itself. The very development of theological science in various places takes on its own special character: in some it outweighs the moment of adherence to Church tradition, in others it is scientific goals, which depends mainly on the spiritual direction of the church area in which certain theologians developed their activities.
But a significant drawback of all scientific theological works of the period preceding Origen was not only the absence of a Theological system, but the seeming absence of a clear consciousness of its necessity. Only those points of Church teaching that needed to be advanced or defended were revealed; therefore, Theology has always had a partial, fragmentary character. The synthesis of Church teaching was represented only by symbols, in which believers found in a compressed form everything that they should believe in; outside of these formulas, simple and popular, there were only Gnostic systems. Even Clement, who introduced philosophical principles into the discussion of the very content of Christian teaching, does not reveal an awareness of the need to group individual elements of the teaching into a harmonious system.
Origen was the first among Christian thinkers to put forward the idea of theological synthesis and implement it, creating on the basis of Holy Scripture and Church Tradition a philosophical and theological system that embraces the entire content of the Church Faith, established the basic principles of Church scientific Theology and took a decisive step towards the “churchification” of classical science. He resolved the great problem that was persistently presented to Christian thinkers before him - and towards the solution of which significant steps were taken, preparing the ground for the work of Origen.
Clement did especially much to develop those essential foundations on which his student Origen became the father of Theological Science in the proper sense of the word and at the same time the founder of that Theology, which reached its development in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Origen, on the one hand, understood both the philosophical and biblical foundations of Christian Science more deeply than Clement; on the other hand, he reveals, to an incomparably greater degree than is observed in Clement, sensitivity to Church teaching and a desire for the church correctness of his theology; at the same time, his most sincere and sacred conviction was the internal unity of ancient idealism and the Christian religion. Therefore, he was able to perceive and process the results of Greek idealistic philosophy, as well as to assimilate, develop and combine into a system everything that had been developed by Christian Science before him. He took advantage of the experiences of previous theologians to comprehend the content of Christianity and substantiate it philosophically, and to give the development of Christian Theology an independent meaning, independent of polemical goals.
Greek religious philosophy and, in general, the forms and methods of modern science were supposed to serve not only as a means to refute paganism, Gnosticism and heretical movements within the Church itself, but at the same time as a means to create a scientific Christian religious teaching, a scientific system that would not contradict the Church’s faith, but would rely on it, clarify and elevate it to the spiritual realm.
On the unchanging basis of the rule of faith, the organic whole of Christian gnosis must be built - partly through the study of Holy Scripture, partly through logical deductions 66, and thus a system must be created that would embrace the beginnings of all existence and all the mysteries of the world and would resolve them from a Christian point of view. Thus, Origen achieved, at least in appearance, the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith, of higher culture with the Gospel on the basis of Church teaching; in his work Περὶ αρχῶν he gave the first experience of a systematic presentation of Theology as a science, where he clearly and correctly established the principles of scientific Theology, which for him are determined by three points:
a) Recognition of Holy Scripture as the source of Church Theology,
b) Inviolable observance of Church teaching and the unconditional obligation to conform to it, and
c) Free development of theological speculation on this basis.
The Holy Scriptures for Origen were the primary source of revealed truth; he revered it, studied it tirelessly and strove with all his might to penetrate its true meaning: the interpretation of Holy Scripture for him was the beginning and the end of his Theology. He believed that the task of Theology was to comprehend spiritual Christianity on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and to raise faith to the level of knowledge and contemplation; this is achieved through the allegorical method of interpretation of Holy Scripture, which makes it possible to know the highest Revelation of God and at the same time combine the data of Church teaching with the conclusions of ancient philosophy. Origen was the first to elevate the traditions of the widespread and, one might say, the rights of citizenship in Christian literature of the allegorical-mystical method of explaining the Holy Scriptures into a scientific system 67 .
Further, Origen zealously asserts that we must preserve the Church teaching, handed down from the Apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the Churches even to this day, and that only that truth must be believed that does not deviate in any way from the Church and Apostolic tradition 68 . The limits set for speculation by the Holy Scriptures and Church teaching are of absolute importance for Origen and should not be crossed. But Origen’s activity belongs to a time when the dogmas had not yet been precisely defined and formulated by the Church, and although the main points of Church teaching were quite clear, a definite decision had not yet been given in relation to others, hardly unimportant.
Origen was clearly aware of this state of affairs and represents a remarkable attempt to indicate the area of \u200b\u200bsubjects about which the holy Apostles, preaching the faith of Christ, what they recognized as necessary, very clearly revealed to everyone - even to those who seemed comparatively less active in the search for Divine knowledge; about other objects the Apostles only said that they exist, but how and why? - they remained silent - of course, in those forms so that the most zealous and loving wisdom from among their successors, that is, those of them who become worthy and capable of perceiving the truth, could have exercise and thus show the fruit of their minds 69 . In the field of subjects of Church teaching of the latter kind, where neither Holy Scripture nor the Church gives an absolutely binding definition, Origen considered it completely legitimate to follow the free process of his own thoughts, under the supreme control of the sources and authorities of Church teaching.
But for a mind so exalted and imprinted with an outstanding individuality, inspired by an ardent enthusiasm for the truth and an unwavering desire to express it in terms of modern culture, it was difficult to always maintain the established limits of research under the conditions in which it developed the theological and philosophical system of Church teaching. Origen, who correctly established the principles of theological science, himself in fact did not remain a traditionalist faithful to Scripture: his extensive philosophical education determined his theological thought to a greater extent than the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. That is why Origen’s system reveals a serious influence of philosophical elements on it, and all of his dogmatics - especially the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - represents, as it were, two orders of ideas - church-traditional and philosophical.
Revolving in areas of questions of extreme importance and difficulty, Origen came to some conclusions that could not be reconciled with the general church consciousness. Among the material shortcomings of Origen's Theological System, we consider it necessary to note here the point that is especially important in the subsequent history of theological thought, namely the uncertainty in the doctrine of the relationship of the Divine Hypostases. Origen oscillates between the doctrine of consubstantiality, to which he was attracted logically, and subordinationism, to which the problem of Creation led him: on the one hand, the doctrine of the unity of the essence of the Divine Hypostases and Their equality in Origen is often expressed in terms of the relationship of Divine Persons characteristic of Orthodox theologians, which gives his Theology a sharp subordinationist character. Undoubtedly, Origen was a direct subordinationist, 70 although his point of view absolutely excluded the Arian teaching.
Nevertheless, this duality served as the basis for dividing Origen’s followers into right and left Origenists, defenders of the traditional Church belief in the full Divinity of the Savior and its opponents, and both of them - apparently with equal right - referred to the great Alexandrian teacher.
Origen irresistibly influenced his followers with the direction of his Theology, and laid the stamp of his genius on that direction of theological thought, which is known under the name of the Alexandrian Theological School; he established in it the distinctive features of his Theology; idealistic imprint, predominance of speculation and mysticism; here the moment of the ineffable, supersensible and mysterious always outweighs - hence the preference for Platonic philosophy in the form of dominant Neoplatonism.
In the explanation of the Holy Scriptures, the allegorical-mystical method was widely used, already in Origen himself it was not alien to extremes, but among his followers it led to harmful hobbies. The influence of the great personality of Origen spread the Alexandrian trend not only in Alexandria, but, one might say, throughout the entire Greek East; Even the West did not remain free from it.
At the same time, Origen’s Theology is subject to the common fate of the systems of thinkers of the first rank: it produced a wide and deep impact, but his followers could not accommodate the greatest thing in it - the attraction to an integral religious worldview; what was combined in a living unity in Origen’s system was torn out of connection and considered separately, as independent; individual provisions were assimilated and, in new combinations, acquired an unusual meaning 71 .
This explains that Origen became such a controversial person. People of opposing dogmatic views referred to his theological teaching, rejected some parts of his teaching, holding others, and quite sincerely did not comprehend the contradictions into which they fell from the point of view of Origen’s integral system. Open recognition of the sources and authorities of Church doctrine, anti-heretical polemics, undoubted merits for Church science in the field of textual criticism, sermons and edifying works, a strong impression of a bright personality and a virtuous life, crowned with the glory of a confessor - all this paralyzed the significance of the conciliar condemnations of Origen in Alexandria during his lifetime and revealed to him and his theological views the influence on broad church circles.
But the preponderance of philosophical elements in his Theology and the accompanying material errors in the Theological teaching aroused a natural need for the “churchization” of Origen himself, and before the beginning of the 4th century, significantly important amendments were made to his system.
Origenism in the second half of the 3rd century developed in two directions. In Alexandria, Origen's students continued to lead the catechetical school in the direction that was strengthened in it by Origen himself until the end of the 3rd century: Dionysius, Theognostus and Pierius represented, as far as can be judged from the surviving news about them, the leftist trend of Origen's Theology with its characteristic feature - subordinationism in the doctrine of the mutual relationship of the Divine Hypostases, although with a significant inclination in side of harmonizing the conclusions of Theological science with Church teaching. In Palestinian Caesarea, this form of Origenism found a serious adherent in the person of Pamphilus, a student of Cherius, who in turn was the teacher of Eusebius of Caesarea.
The right movement of Origenism, based on those provisions of the Theological teaching of Origen, which made it possible to affirm the unity of the essence of the Divine Hypostases and Their equality, found its exponent in the person of Gregory the Wonderworker - Origen's most reverent disciple in Caesarea, later the Bishop of Neocaesarea - who established the influence of Origen in Cappadocia.
The disciples themselves and the more faithful followers of Origen in both directions considered themselves forced to weaken many of the provisions of his Theology. Meanwhile, a direct desire for ecclesiastical correction of Origen’s Theology was also revealed, primarily in Alexandria itself. Already Dionysius of Alexandria, who carried Origen’s subordinate positions to the extreme, encountered opposition from the “right-minded” brothers of his Church and was forced to explain the expressions he used in the spirit of Church teaching; and at the very beginning of the 4th century, Bishop Peter of Alexandria, despite his dependence on Origen in general, nevertheless resolutely rebelled against him in particulars and precisely in those positions that posed a temptation to his church consciousness.
True, Saint Peter rejected only individual points of Origen’s Theology, indicating their source in Hellenic philosophy and recognizing them as strange and alien for those who wish to live piously in Christ, and as if he did not touch the essence of Origen’s views, nevertheless here, as in all attempts to eliminate and refute Origen’s private views, the very foundations of his system were already violated, because for him the particulars were inextricably linked with the essence, which found its expression in them, the most tangible and accessible to understanding and evaluation from the point of view of general church teaching, even by people who did not stand at the height of Origen’s theological and philosophical views. There is no doubt, of course, that the influence of the anti-philosophical party of the “right-thinkers” affected the relationship of St. Peter to Origen.
Thus, in Alexandria, Origen’s Theology was brought into harmony with Church Tradition, and respect for the personality of the great teacher was preserved.
Outside Alexandria, Origen's theological direction had even less chance of being preserved in its pure form and would not encounter even more decisive opposition, because other theological traditions were strong there.
In Asia Minor, the traditions of Asia Minor Theology continued to live, and the influence of Saint Irenaeus turned out to be strong enough to prevent Origenism from establishing itself everywhere, even in its right wing. Strictly speaking, the Asia Minor theological direction, already due to the conditions of the activity of Saint Irenaeus and his significance in the life of the Church, could not be limited to one ecclesiastical area and, in fact, became most widespread in the East and West: it was most akin to the popular understanding of the general church faith and corresponded to the general spirit and level of ordinary theological thinking.
His influence in the West extended to Rome, Gaul and North Africa, and in the East to Antioch; Origen had to take him into account; his principles were felt in Alexandria and after him, prompting the church to correct his theological teaching.
But after, at the beginning of the 3rd century, a living scientific movement was discovered in all areas of the Christian world, which, among other things, prepared the way for the unusually rapid spread of the theological aspirations and ideas of Origen, and after Origen himself had a deep and powerful influence during this century, Asia Minor Theology could not remain in its previous form and had to define its attitude towards science more clearly and more favorably. It could not protect its followers from the influence of Origen.
Under the influence of these difficult conditions in Asia Minor, a theological direction was formed that did not shy away from the use of philosophy, but at the same time sought to firmly preserve the faithful truths of faith in their realistic understanding. Following in the footsteps of Irenaeus and his disciple Hippolytus, theologians of this type did not despise science, but found the highest truth in the provisions of Church Tradition and therefore did not give the right to philosophical gnosis to rework the provisions of faith, but only to substantiate, connect and clarify them. Naturally, given the nature of their aspirations in the field of Theology, they were opponents of the science of faith cultivated in Alexandria and had to rebel against its father, Origen.
The most expressive representative of this theological trend was Methodius of Olympus, who is an interesting example of a theologian who was strongly influenced by Origen and at the same time stands in sharp opposition to his spiritualism. He relies on the ancient traditions of Asia Minor, and the Theology of Irenaeus and Hippolytus for him is a church-devotional teaching. Therefore, he sharply rejects the basic principles of Origen's Theology and decisively attacks his methods and allegorical explanation of the Holy Scriptures; in relation to Church gnosis, he puts himself in almost the same position as Irenaeus – in relation to the heretical. He contrasts “the pomposity of words” with “firm and sound teaching,” “Theology of rhetoric” with “Theology of facts.” But he himself persistently studied Plato and assimilated his thoughts, so that his views were rooted in the same assumptions of Greek philosophy as the views of Origen. He even uses allegorical explanation with virtuosity, where it is convenient for him.
As a result, it turned out that Methodius, on the one hand, in a vigorous polemic against Origen, defended the popular understanding of the general Church faith and rejected all Origen’s teachings, which included a reinterpretation of the devotional teaching; but, on the other hand, he did not move away from Origen’s speculation and even tried, using its premises and methods, to achieve results favorable to faith.
And despite this, the Theology of St. Methodius does not lose the distinctive features of the Asia Minor direction, since he does not strive to merge what was borrowed from Irenaean and Alexandrian Theology, but only to scientifically substantiate the first 72 .
The anti-Origen movement - the spokesman of which was Saint Methodius of Olympus - by the beginning of the 4th century had assumed such proportions that Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea - followers and deep admirers of Origen - were forced to write an apology in defense of him from various criticisms.
From this apology it is clear that Origen was accused of unorthodoxy by many who were familiar with the content of his teaching only by hearsay; there was no shortage of those who were ready to admire some of his views until they knew the name of their author; but it was enough for them to know that these were the views of Origen, as they recognized them as heretical 73 .
Obviously, there were people for whom the opinion that Origen was a heretic was beyond doubt. But still, this was not a general conviction, and even outside the circle of students and adherents of Origen’s views, his authority as a Church teacher stood high; This is evidenced by the anonymous dialogue “On Right Faith in God” (Περὶ τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ὀρθῆς πίστεως) 74, the origin of which is believed to be between 300–310. Its author must be sought in circles close to Saint Methodius: he uses the works of the latter. He is not a student of Origen, since he does not share his basic views; his work does not reveal any influence of Alexandrian Theology on him - rather, the influence of Irenaeus and Hippolytus is felt in it; but at the same time, he does not polemicize with Origen, but presents him (in the person of Adamantius) in a dispute with heretics even as an exponent of the Church point of view. The author reveals an excellent dialectical and theological school; his work is distinguished by conciseness and precision of expression and, to a large extent, philosophy.
In him one can see a representative of Asia Minor Theology of a different shade, in comparison with Saint Methodius, alien to hostility towards Origen, so to speak, conciliatory. From Caesarea, Origen's influence spread to neighboring Syria - Antioch and Edessa: but here, too, local traditions were strong, which not only did not give the opportunity to establish pure Origenism, but also caused such an opposition to it, which introduces a new element into theological development and means not only a new direction in the previous Theology, but also a new understanding of theological science itself: we mean the definite appearance of the Antiochian school at the turn of III and the 4th century, connected with the name of the Antiochian presbyter Lucian, who had a very significant influence on the character and direction of theological science of subsequent times, both as an exegete and as a metaphysician.
Lucian was influenced by Origen not only in his biblical critical activity, but also in his dogmatic views; nevertheless, the direction in exegesis that he approved little by little revealed itself in complete opposition to the dogmatic-allegorical method of Origen and left a special imprint on the entire character of the Theology of the Antiochian School.
Like the Alexandrian school, the Antiochian school strove for a deeper knowledge of the internal connection of the truths of faith, for the presentation of the Revealed teaching with the help of science. But the entire theology of its representatives was of a completely different nature, and the means of achieving the goal were different.
The Antiochian Theologians, like those of Alexandria, stood on the basis of Holy Scripture and the Church Faith; the starting point of their difference was the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and the distinguishing feature was the historical-grammatical method of the Antiochians, as opposed to the allegorical method of the Alexandrians.
But in its essence, this opposition had the same foundations on which, during the heyday of Greek philosophy, the opposition between the directions of Plato and Aristotle was established: on the one hand, animated, mystical, allegorical idealism, and on the other, sober, rational, historical realism.
Therefore, while the Alexandrian theologians are under the influence of the philosophy of Plato and Neoplatonism, in the Antiochian school the philosophy of Aristotle gradually gains a decisive predominance and a sober, rational direction, logical reflection, and a realistic consideration of the Revealed teaching are established. Accordingly, in dogmatics, the Antiochian theologians emphasize what is in accordance with reason, anthropological, and in accordance with nature, and in Soteriology and the doctrine of grace they persistently put forward the moment of human freedom and independence. Thus, during the period of the emergence of Christian Theological Science, in accordance with the universal laws of the spiritual life of mankind, after the idealistic-allegorical direction had become established in it, the realistic-historical 75 appeared as a reaction.
Just as the direction of the Alexandrian school is directly dependent on the nature of the spiritual life of Alexandria and the prevailing religious and philosophical currents in it, so the Antiochian direction has its basis in the inner life and aspirations of the Church, in the special local and historical relations of the Syrian communities and the character of the people, in the struggle with the Syrian Jews and Gnostics, who used the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, in antagonism against the arbitrary consequences revealed allegorism of the Alexandrians. The Antiochene school reached its development in the following period, and the struggle between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools is the basis for the great dogmatic disputes in the following centuries. These were the trends in Church Theological science that developed or were emerging by the beginning of the 4th century.
Although in its movement - if the content is meant - there is no harmony and certainty, very significant results were achieved: all the essential questions of Church teaching were raised, the ground was prepared for their resolution, almost all the concepts with which theology operated in the 4th and 5th centuries were established - however, they still lacked complete certainty - passages of Holy Scripture were also outlined, which were especially used in the struggle of the 4th and 5th centuries. The results of scientific work were recognized by the Church: extensions in the sense of scientific theology were adopted into many symbols. Gregory of Nyssa reports that the symbol of Gregory the Wonderworker formed the basis of the instruction of the catechumens in Caesarea before his time, 76 and this symbol reflects the strong influence of Origen's Theology - in the understanding of Gregory the Wonderworker - and his terminology.
From the activities of the Council of Nicea and the events of the time closest to it, it is clear that other Churches then had symbols that contained the Biblical and theological formulas of Origen; This can be stated with confidence regarding the Jerusalem and Antioch Churches, and perhaps also regarding the Caesarea Church.
II. The influence of new conditions of church life on the relationship of theological trends. – New Alexandrian School: the nature of the Theology of St. Alexander, St. Athanasius, Didymus, the Cappadocian Fathers, Amphilochius, Apollinaris, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea. – Modifications in the method of Alexandrian exegesis. – Antioch School; periods in its history and characteristics of the theological activities of its representatives. – Asia Minor Theology in the 4th century. – Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. - Marcellus of Ancyra. – Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus
In the first quarter of the 4th century, we enter a new area - the heyday of ancient church theology: the strength of the external position of the Church gave it full opportunity for free and comprehensive development, and the fight against heresies provided abundant material for its work. New generations of church teachers appeared, enriched by the experience of the scientific activities of their predecessors.
A distinctive feature of this period should be recognized as councils - Ecumenical - if possible from representatives of all Churches - and local, convened very often, sometimes in several places at once; they are bodies not only of government, but also of religious doctrine, with the highest authority. Councils are also very important in the history of the development of Church Theological Science.
The theological trends of the previous time, due to the significant isolation of the internal life of local Churches, despite the lively exchange of outstanding works of literature, remained the special property of certain localities and districts in whose living conditions they had their roots.
Each school was more or less closed, valued its own traditions and appealed to them, considered its direction and methods to be the best guarantee of knowledge of Orthodox teaching and was suspicious of the theological features of other schools.
At local councils, and especially Ecumenical councils, different theological trends came into direct contact, entered into struggle with each other, mutually influenced each other, smoothed out their sharp features; In this way, the vitality and compliance with modern church needs of some directions or individual aspects in them and the unsuitability of others became clear, and all together raised energy and contributed to the development of theological science.
The mighty spirit of Origen continued to have a strong influence on the course of Theological thought: it can be said that almost all theologians of the 4th and 5th centuries worked more or less with the spiritual heritage of Origen, often directly adhering to him, partly becoming in opposition to his system and the direction of Theological science created by him, but at the same time being inspired by his scientific ideals.
Therefore, the diverse theological trends of the 4th and 5th centuries are usually determined by their particular relationship to Origen. But if even in the circle of Origen’s closest students and followers it is impossible to talk about the integral influence of his system, then this was all the more possible now, especially in view of the nature of the ensuing struggle.
In the present period, with the changed relations between the Church and the state, political and church-political factors also had a significant influence on the course of events in church-historical life; However, the essential drivers in the history of Christian teaching remain religious ideas, certain general views on Christianity and the Christian teaching about Salvation, and therefore external factors could not penetrate into the depths of Church life and influence the internal character and direction of theological thought.
The leading role in dogmatic movements until the middle of the 5th century belonged to Alexandrian Theology. But in this school there was no strict unity in direction, and it is necessary to note in it several trends, or at least shades, observed even in Alexandria itself; they are determined by the individual characteristics of theological figures and the nature of their life relationships.
Here, in the homeland and the main place of development of Origen’s speculation and exegesis, already at the end of the previous period, as indicated, there was a turn towards Biblical realism and Church Tradition. The “righteous” church Christians of the time of Dionysius the Great and Bishop Peter show traces of the gradual strengthening of that direction, which was called New Alexandria. The exponent of this trend in the Alexandrian school at the time of the Council of Nicea was the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, the first energetic denouncer of the Arian error, who immediately correctly and clearly defined its essence and the consequences arising from it. As far as can be judged based on the surviving monuments of his literary activity, he is an undoubted right-wing Origenist, who combined the best aspects of the sublime philosophical system of the Alexandrian theologian with church-traditional teaching.
The best characteristic of his theological direction is the remark of the historian Socrates that Saint Alexander (φιλοσοφῶν ἐθεολόγει (Hist, eccl., 1:5). With his forced theological explanations, written in his old age, at the very beginning of the Arian movement, he gives evidence of the theological atmosphere in which his views developed successor - Saint Athanasius, who grew up under his influence and was an active assistant during his life, but the final imprint on the New Alexandrian direction was left by Saint Athanasius.
The great father of the Church, the tireless defender of the Orthodox confession of faith, Saint Athanasius was not an original thinker, and pure speculation did not captivate him; he does not stand out for his unique scientific concepts, like Origen. Nevertheless, its immeasurable church-historical significance is based not only on the great feat of life in the fight against Arianism, but also on the decisive reform in the direction and character of scientific Theology 77 . This was achieved by a new, original combination of theological ideas and scientific concepts that had already been revealed and used in the theology of his predecessors, and agreement with the essence of the Christian religion and its significance for humanity, which he deeply comprehended.
Saint Athanasius is an Origenist of the same direction as Bishop Alexander, and his Theology included, first of all, those essential elements of right Origenism and Alexandrian church traditions, which characterize the Theological teaching of his predecessor; he also mastered the terminology of Origen's Theology.
The influence of Origen is especially noticeable in the early works of Saint Athanasius (“Against the Pagans” and “On the Incarnation of the Word”), written before the fight against Arianism and distinguished by their depth of speculation, scientificity and systematicity.
Saint Athanasius never turns a reproachful word to Origen, even praises him as “much learned” and “hardworking”, calls Theognostus “wonderful and worthy of respect” 78, in a special work he tries to justify Dionysius from accusations of subordinationism and in all the named men he sees ancient witnesses of the Nicene faith 79.
Along with the influence of Origen, the philosophy of Plato also had a noticeable impact on the Theology of St. Athanasius. But with these elements established in Alexandrian Theology, Saint Athanasius combined the soteriological teaching of the Asia Minor Theology of Saint Irenaeus: the close kinship and agreement of the soteriological theories of Saint Irenaeus and Athanasius is indisputable. True, Saint Athanasius gave the teaching of Saint Irenaeus a philosophical justification using the concepts of Platonic philosophy; however, Asia Minor Theology produced such a strong influence on the general system of the Theology of St. Athanasius that Origenism itself underwent significant changes, resulting in a real reform of Church-Scientific Theology.
He concentrated the entire Christian worldview in the idea of Salvation and established an understanding of the essence of Christianity as a religion of Salvation. This idea was persistently noted by Saint Irenaeus; Saint Athanasius developed it in his essay “On the Incarnation of the Word” and later especially advanced and deepened it in the fight against heresy.
All his aspirations are directed towards the knowledge of the Savior and Salvation and the central significance of Christ in Christianity from the point of view of Salvation. In the thought of Salvation, Saint Athanasius, with deep religious feeling, recognized the path that alone leads to the understanding and confirmation of the position of the Church Confession that in the person of Jesus Christ the full and real Divinity appeared on earth.
In the great religious principle - the Salvation of Humanity for Divine Life through the God-Man - Christian faith and thought must receive their norms, Theology - its direction.
The firmness and consistency with which Saint Athanasius reduced all the tenets of faith to this basic and central idea lies the outstanding greatness and significance of Saint Athanasius for the religious thought and life of Christianity.
Although Saint Athanasius, during the long struggle with Arianism - which so deeply captivated him - could not write systematically, with full disclosure and justification of his thoughts, nevertheless, in his polemical works, genuine Christian speculation is based, so that Saint Athanasius did not leave the scientific soil throughout his literary activity, he only to a certain extent weakened the metaphysical idealism of Origen's Theology with religious and practical principles and aspirations with a significant bias towards the latter. The Theology of Origen was also placed within this framework.
Saint Athanasius limits Origen's desire to combine Christianity and natural knowledge into a universal system of religious philosophy and excludes the purely philosophical problems of the Origenists from Christian teaching, subordinating speculative and cosmological interests to religious and practical goals.
Thus, Saint Athanasius introduced a new stream into the theological science of the Alexandrians and thereby gave Church Theology a new imprint and direction, which determined the essential character of all subsequent Church Theological science.
By the middle of the 4th century, a very definite scientific upsurge was noticed in Greek Theology, which is associated, on the one hand, with a freer attitude towards ancient education 80, and on the other hand, with a more complete and direct use of the fruits of Origen's learning. And indeed, the time has come for the revival of the true Origen.
In Alexandria itself, next to Saint Athanasius, the encyclopedically educated famous “sighted blind man” Didymus, the head of the Alexandrian Catechetical School and a representative of purer Origenistic traditions, develops his scientific and theological activities. Didymus 81 was completely dependent on Origen, although other influences on him are undeniable. The authority of Origen for him was almost equal to the authority of Holy Scripture. He not only assimilated the distinctive points of his teaching, but even defended them, while explaining his trinitarian-Christological deviations in the sense of Orthodox teaching, for which he compiled a short commentary on Περὶ αρχῶν 82. In general, he depended on Origen more than any other theologian of his time.
But, on the other hand, it is not without reason that Didymus, borrowing particulars from Origen, does not reveal the penetration of the spirit of his system - he lacks the power of his speculation and even the attraction to it. Didimus' activities and influence were not limited to the close circle of his students; This is evidenced by the well-known fact that his works were quoted not only by Cyril of Alexandria, but also by Ambrose of Milan, and also by the fact that few theologians enjoyed such favor with Nicene-minded Christians of the 4th and 5th centuries as Didymus.
The historian Socrates can hardly find enough words to praise him. The fame of Didymus’s exceptional learning even reached the hermit Anthony the Great, who stood far from the events and movements of time 83. Didymus was not a systematic thinker. Having submitted to the unconditional influence of Origen, in his dogmatic teaching he stood dependent on the views of Saint Athanasius, which he combined with the latest elements of theological thought; At present, his importance in the development of dogmatic terminology is being persistently put forward, and if it is impossible to indisputably prove his influence on such outstanding theologians as the Cappadocian fathers, then in any case in the history of theological science he stands between them and Saint Athanasius.
The new upsurge of the scientific theological spirit, which Didymus notes with his admiration for Origen, found brilliant expression in the theological activity of the great Cappadocian fathers - Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and his friend Gregory the Theologian. The theology of each of them presents individual characteristics, both in general and in detail, but these are actually only varieties of one theological type 84.
In terms of its basic principles and essential elements, it seems very complex. First of all, he was influenced by the influence of Origen, who acted on the Cappadocian fathers all the more irresistibly because the principles of Origen’s Theology were the theological traditions of their native country: a living tradition connected them with the recognized authority of the pre-Nicene era, Gregory the Wonderworker, a direct student of Origen. Memories of him by the time of the Cappadocian fathers, especially in the family of Basil the Great, were still extremely vivid; his theological views were also not yet forgotten: the Cappadocians themselves testify to the influence that the symbol of the Apostle of their country had on their religious education.
Traces of significant dependence on him in the theological thought of the Cappadocians are indisputable. But Gregory the Wonderworker led the Cappadocians to Origen himself. They studied Origen carefully, and he fascinated them.
Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian even compiled a selection of the best passages from Origen’s works - “Philocalia”. The study of Origen's exegetical works was for them a preparatory school for the fight against the Arians.
Using the writings of Origen, they gave a strong answer to the objections of the Arians, and when the latter themselves referred to Origen, they proved to them that they misunderstood his doctrine 86.
If they did not assimilate the erroneous opinions of Origen (except St. Gregory of Nyssa), then they undoubtedly penetrated into the spirit of his Theology.
However, Origen's influence affected them to varying degrees: Basil the Great - a man of a more practical direction, a stronger and more positive spirit - was less subject to Origen's influence; it was much more reflected in Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa is a real Origenist: like Origen, he freely theologizes on those issues on which the Church has not expressed a definite judgment; he poses problems about the origin of the soul, about the nature of evil, about free will, about the relationship between spirit and matter, about the properties of the resurrected body, about universal restoration, although he does not always agree with Origen in his conclusions. In any case, it is indisputable that Origen aroused in him a desire for speculation and determined the main direction of his religious philosophy.
Thus, Origenism, as interpreted by Gregory the Wonderworker and with those restrictions on his freedom that were gradually made before that time and flowed naturally from the state of Church teaching, constituted one of the essential assumptions of the theological activity of the Cappadocian fathers. But Origen actually defined the general character and spirit of their Theology, providing at the same time a whole series of concepts and necessary terms.
The content of their Theological teaching was based on the Nicene Confession; hence their dependence on the Theology of St. Athanasius naturally follows: they were disciples of St. Athanasius and thereby strengthened their connection with the New Alexandrian Theology, with the essential feature that St. Athanasius noticeably outweighs the tendencies and range of thoughts of the Asia Minor Theology of St. Irenaeus, and the Cappadocian Fathers - the Origenian direction.
This preponderance is explained not only by the increased influence of Origen on them, but also by the reinforcement that Origenism found in their broad and deep classical education. Thanks to him, they comprehended the spirit of Hellenic culture and science and stood at the level of their contemporary scientific worldview.
When the Cappadocian fathers turned to the Hellenic schools, the times of dominance of one philosophical system and direction had long passed: in the 4th century, syncretism came into its own, and everyone chose their own paths, borrowing from one or another system the necessary data for their own constructions. Therefore, among the Cappadocian fathers we see, on the one hand, the predominance of Platonic and Neoplatonic influences, which were akin to the Origen direction of their theology and reinforced and clarified it; but on the other hand, they turned out to be not alien to Aristotelian views: the fight against Arianism, mainly with Eunomius, who, with the help of Aristotelian philosophy, gave Arian dogmatics a dialectical, scientific-philosophical form, forced the Cappadocians, with all their dislike for Aristotle, to a large extent use the exact concepts of the Aristotelian school, which could not remain without influence on some aspects of their Theological teaching and his terminology
Finally, church-historical circumstances and the own aspirations of the Cappadocian fathers in the service of the Church placed them, especially Basil the Great, in close relations with prominent figures of that conservative trend in Theology, which represented the traditions of Asia Minor Theology; in connection with the influence of St. Athanasius, it undoubtedly had its share of influence on the direction and character of their Theology, restraining them from one-sided enthusiasm for metaphysical problems and encouraging them to show attention to practical-religious interests.
With such an abundance of essential elements that were organically combined in the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, they, for their part, greatly contributed to the development of Church Theological Science: what Saint Athanasius expressed, although in a deeply philosophical spirit, but without proper formal-dialectical processing, more as a Biblical-Church dogma than a strictly philosophical theory, they developed scientific-dialectical and philosophical-critical method, translated into the precise language of modern philosophical concepts 87. Therefore, the theological teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers is of great importance in the history of Church Theology. In their theological works, the Trinitarian problem received final resolution, and the understanding they established of the Church teaching about the Holy Trinity and the formulas they created became the precious property of Orthodox Theological dogmatics; but they only interpreted and revealed the Church's teaching, as it was expressed in the Nicene Confession, without changing its essence.
The mission of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa was different from that of St. Athanasius: at a critical moment in church life, they were called upon to give form and precise expression to the teaching that had been observed from the beginning in the Catholic Church and the defense of which St. Athanasius set as the goal of his life.
Saint Gregory the Theologian presented this teaching with complete clarity and gave it the most perfect expression, making the lofty secrets of the faith accessible to everyone.
Basil the Great put it into practice, and Gregory of Nyssa gave it a scientific and philosophical basis. But, having at its core the faithful teaching of faith and resting on the Theological teaching of Saint Athanasius, the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers, depending on its constituent elements and various influences, contains such features in the general spirit of the religious and moral worldview that it represents not only a further stage in the disclosure and substantiation of Church teaching, but, in comparison with Saint Athanasius, bears the peculiar stamp of a special movement in the Alexandrian school - Cappadocian Theology.
An essential aspect of it is the increased scientific interest, which is found both in the general understanding of Christianity in its relation to ancient culture, and in the breadth and depth of the formulation of theological problems. The Cappadocian Fathers, as it were, straightened out the line of scientific Church Theology, enriching it with the theological experience of Saint Athanasius, and connected devotion to the religious and practical ideals of the Church with scientific interests.
A special variety in the type of Cappadocian Theology is represented by the theological teaching of a church writer who was in close friendship with the Cappadocian fathers, Bishop Amphilochius of Iconia, whose significance in the history of Theological science has only recently received attention 88 .
He strenuously defended the theological position of the Cappadocians in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and in Christology - and not only defended, but even promoted a more accurate expression of Church teaching by introducing new terms or a combination of traditional formulas. However, it represents a significant deviation from the character of the Theology of the Cappadocian Fathers; Anfilochius's significant difference from his friends was that he remained completely untouched by the influence of Origen and did not show any understanding of him; all deep questions of a theoretical and speculative nature lie beyond the horizon of Amphilochius: his Theology rests on simple religious and biblical motives and reveals a noticeable influence of the Asia Minor traditions of St. Irenaeus in their interpretation by St. Athanasius.
An even more unique theologian of the group under consideration is Apollinaris (the younger), who was a most learned, judicious, very influential and prolific writer; he was respected by both friends and enemies.
At first, both in life and in his literary works, Apollinaris was an ardent champion of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, walked in the same direction with the great fathers and teachers, and was a friend of Saints Athanasius, Basil, Serapion and other prominent figures of that time. His learning and initial relationships gave reason to place great hopes on him and expect special services from him for the benefit of the Church. The educational influences that influenced Apollinaris and the nature of his literary activity and theological views do not allow us to establish with certainty which of the dominant directions of theological thought in the 4th century he belonged to.
On the one hand, he is considered 89 committed to the Alexandrian trend and an opponent of the Antiochian theologians, in support of which they first of all point to the Alexandrian origin of his father (Apollinaris the Elder), who undoubtedly must have been under the influence of Saint Athanasius - the name of the latter shone with glory among all those who theologized in the spirit of the Council of Nicaea, and even more so among the Alexandrian family, which did not interrupt relations with their homeland and closely followed the progress of the affairs of the Alexandrian Church; Apollinaris himself was on friendly terms with Saint Athanasius, always spoke about him with a feeling of deep respect and, in agreement with him, saw in his theological views a sure guarantee of their truth.
Further, Apollinaris’s belonging to the Alexandrian movement is proved by his connections with all the prominent figures of this movement and the basic nature of his theological views. One cannot ignore the fact that the Christological teaching of Apollinaris met with the most decisive protest from representatives of the Antiochian school. On the other hand, they find 90 that Apollinaris preserved the most brilliant traditions of the Antiochian school. He was a zealous and witty opponent of Origen and, for all his mysticism, a sound Aristotelian and exegete. His syllogistic-dialectical and exegetical method is related to the method of the later Antiochians. Indeed, Apollinaris stood in close relations with the Antiochian church leaders: Laodicea lay near Antioch; Antioch is the place where he developed his activities. The Bishop of Antioch was Eustathius, who held high the banner of the Antiochian school.
Thus, Apollinaris, due to the special conditions of his life and work, came into closer contact with the Antiochian school, and accordingly, the initial influence of the Alexandrian school on him weakened. He was an admirer and undoubted follower of Saint Athanasius, but he combined the teachings of the latter with Aristotelian philosophy and dialectics; the influence of the latter caused him to have a negative attitude towards Origen’s theological method and determined the nature of his exegesis. Apollinaris had many followers, whom he attracted not only with his numerous works, but also with his direct personal influence: inspired students gathered around him; his school was distinguished by its strong unity, reverent devotion to the teacher, its vitality and energy, as well as its persistence in striving to carry its views into the Church. It was primarily an exegetical school, a school of theological and philosophical technique in the sense of Aristotelian dialectics 91 .
When Apollinaris’s decisive attempt to cut the knot of the Christological problem with a unique theory of the union of two natures in the person of Jesus Christ aroused objections from all sides and church condemnation, the followers of Apollinaris sought by all means to preserve his works from destruction, passing off some of them of early origin as the works of Saint Athanasius, Gregory the Wonderworker, the Roman bishops Julius and Felix, and thus provided the views with terminology Apollinaris's influence on Church Theological science during the subsequent period of Christological controversy 92.
A number of the great Church Fathers of this period - who belonged to the Alexandrian school - are concluded by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. His Theology represents an undoubted expression of the tendencies that dominated the Alexandrian Church in the 5th century and which were a direct result of the mysticism that constituted one of the main characteristic features of the representatives of the Alexandrian school.
In the fight against Nestorianism, Saint Cyril is an outstanding theologian and strives to scientifically substantiate the right of the Alexandrian point of view in Christology, based on that historical-realistic teaching about Salvation, which was the life ideal of Saint Athanasius and which focused interest on the most perfect solitude of the Divine and human in Christ, ensuring the reality of our salvation. He uses the works of Didymus and the Cappadocian Fathers (mainly St. Gregory the Theologian) and concludes the Christological teaching of the Alexandrians in precise formulas.
But the recent persecution of Origen, raised by his uncle Theophilus of Alexandria, did not pass without a trace: in his works one can no longer feel the scientific upsurge that marked the second half of the 4th century, and he can be recognized as an exponent of the spirit of the Alexandrian school in a period when it was clearly inclined to decline.
Another current of Origenian Theology - of the left order, with a clearly expressed subordinationism, in the 4th century is found outside of Alexandria - in Caesarea Palestine and has its representative in the person of Eusebius of Caesarea. It originates from Alexandria through the medium of Pamphilus, a student of the Alexandrian Pierius.
Eusebius himself was a student and collaborator of Pamphilus. Together with him, he wrote an apology for Origen (against Methodius), which determines his main dogmatic position. He is completely dependent on Origen. In no point of his teaching was he original; Everywhere you can trace the threads to his teacher - Origen. He never even tried to present his system consistently and firmly; he lacked a guiding idea to connect individual thoughts 93.
Eusebius tried to maintain the teacher’s system, adapting and reconciling the contradictions encountered in it, and in this respect he is a representative of the conservative trend, strives to remain with the old and therefore resists the introduction of precise formulas. Unlike Saint Athanasius, Eusebius does not show the influence of religious-practical interests: his interest is purely scientific.
From the basic subordinationist point of view of Eusebius, his attitude to the Nicene creed and to Arianism naturally followed: he was not an Arian and, however, was suspicious of the confessors of consubstantiality, signed a symbol in Nicaea and in a letter to the flock of Caesarea explains ὁμοούσιος in the spirit of his views.
In his basic views, he, of course, stands closer to the Alexandrians than to Arius; but when it is necessary to make a decisive choice between opposite sides, he joins the one that provides more opportunity to retain Origen’s formulas and subordination in the doctrine of Logos.
Eusebius was not alone with such views: at the Council of Nicea there was a whole party of his like-minded people. After the Council, this intermediate direction, which was not developed in dogmatic terms and in church-political terms, had a strong influence in the course of the struggle against the Nicene Creed. After Eusebius, the party was headed by his disciple and successor, Acacius, one of the most influential church politicians among the bishops of the great Eastern mediating party, which under Constantius victoriously opposed the Nicene creed. He developed a wide literary activity and brought the influence of this trend to the 70s of the 4th century. The activities of this party, directed against the defenders of the Orthodox confession, undoubtedly greatly undermined the authority of Origen, on whom it relied.
Thus, the Alexandrian school, while always remaining faithful to the essential foundations of its traditions, however, did not present a single, consistently pursued theological direction, and often reflected noticeable traces of such theological and philosophical influences that brought it closer to other movements of theological science, mainly with the Antiochian school. She could not even stand it without very significant restrictions and the mystical-allegorical method that distinguishes her in the explanation of the Holy Scriptures.
The conditions for the theological activity of the representatives of the Alexandrian school were unfavorable for its consistent, steady application; on the contrary, the state of affairs forced, at least to a certain extent, to abandon allegorism in favor of rational exegesis.
The Arians, who in their scientific direction mostly belonged to the Antiochian school, and then the Nestorians, fought not only with the tenets of Aristotelian philosophy, but also with evidence from the Holy Scriptures and were able to find in the Old and New Testaments the places necessary to substantiate their views. In the fight against them it was impossible to find protection behind allegorical interpretations; it was necessary to wrest from them the supports they were looking for in the biblical text using the correct scientific method.
Already Saint Athanasius, in his dogmatic-polemical works, thoroughly establishes the literal meaning of the Sacred Texts and expresses the requirement to pay attention to the historical conditions of the origin of the Sacred Books 94. The question of the right to use allegory even prompted fundamental clarifications from the Cappadocian fathers: Gregory of Nyssa defends allegorism against attacks from the church; Gregory the Theologian, in his own words, occupies a middle position, and Basil the Great, in a harsh tone, rejects allegories in their use even for edifying sermons 95, which is why, according to the method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, he is sometimes considered a representative of the Aniochi principles 96. Even Didymus could not always remain a faithful Alexandrian in this regard.
As for Amphilochius, he limits himself to a literal explanation, while Apollinaris has already mastered the method of the Antiochian school.
Another theological direction, which during the 4th and 5th centuries had a strong influence on the course of dogmatic movements and the disclosure and justification of Church teaching, found its expression in the Antiochian school, as is known, in its basic character the opposite of the Alexandrian one; the struggle between these two directions constitutes a distinctive feature of the church-theological life of this period and continues beyond its borders.
The Antiochian direction in its basic principles was carried out more consistently than the Alexandrian one. The Antiochian school has now finally revealed those positive and negative aspects that were revealed in it, in contrast to the Alexandrian school, at its very emergence: the strictly scientific grammatical-historical method in exegesis and the reluctance to pure speculation due to the use of the Aristotelian dialectical method and, in general, the dominance of Aristotelian philosophy; The theologians of the Antiochian trend preferred clarity of understanding in dogmatics to sublimity in theology.
But in the history of the Antiochian school during the 4th and 5th centuries it is necessary to distinguish two periods: the first extends a little beyond half of the 4th century, the second falls on the last decades of the 4th century and the first half of the 5th century 97 . In the first period, the Antiochian school produced prominent figures of Arianism and semi-Arianism, whom one memory of their relationship with Lucian bound into a close union, and they gladly called themselves Solukianists (συλλουκιανισταὶ). These were: first of all, Arius himself, then Eusebius of Nicomedia, Marius of Chalcedon, Theognius of Nicaea, Eudoxius, Numerius and others. In addition to these undoubted disciples of Lucian, perhaps other Arians also belonged here, who adhered to the same exegetical direction, although their attitude towards Lucian cannot be established on reliable historical evidence. Among them we can count Leontius of Antioch, his student Aetius of Antioch, deacon Eunomius of Antioch, a student of Aetius who surpassed his teacher, Theodore of Irakli (in Thrace) and others.
The most famous in the history of exegesis of all these opponents of the Nicene creed was Eusebius of Emesa - belonging to Edessa by origin, he acquired a wide knowledge of the philosophical and exact sciences and a high formal education, first in Edessa, famous for Biblical Theology, then in Alexandria, Caesarea (with Eusebius), in Scythopolis (with Patrophilus) and in Antioch.
About Lucian’s disciples, their opponents definitely report that they stood on the basis of Aristotelian philosophy, and the surviving fragments of Aetius’s literary works show in almost every position of the Aristotelian: Aetius surpassed Arius in the application of the principles of Aristotelian philosophy, which is especially clear in his position on the knowability of God.
In their dogmatic and religious views they display straightforwardness and do not hesitate to draw decisive and bold conclusions; they are guided by purely theoretical and scientific interests and do not seem to know religious motives and do not recognize them in their opponents: for them logic is the only scale of religious knowledge. They tirelessly strive to pursue their dogmatic views through pure dialectics and often fall into the extremes of dry rationalism, a repulsive example of which is represented by the Eunomians, who revolve in the field of purely formal logic and dream of measuring the essence of the Divine with the help of simple dialectical operations.
But that the Antiochian school, with its historical-grammatical-logical explanation of the Holy Scriptures, did not arise from heretical rationalism and that the principles underlying it did not necessarily lead to alienation from Church teaching and to neglect of church-theological traditions, Orthodox figures belonging to the Antiochian school testify to this already at this stage.
According to the main features of exegesis and according to his Christological views, Eustathius of Antioch, one of the first scientific denouncers of Arianism and a literary opponent of Eusebius of Caesarea, should be ranked first of all with the Antiochian school; An adherent of the Antiochian method of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, he rebels against the allegorical method of Origen in the only indisputably authentic surviving work: “On the Prophetess (of Endorra) against Origen.”
Then follow: Meletius of Antioch, a zealous defender of Orthodoxy, who is important for the Antiochian school not only because of his education, but also as the teacher of St. John Chrysostom, whom he instructed in his home and on whose religious development he had a strong influence, and Flavian of Antioch - the faithful shepherd of the Orthodox part of the Antiochian Christians, the teacher of Diodorus, who made him an experienced fighter against Arianism and long ago he, like his other assistants in the church teaching, had a large number of proofs and texts from the Holy Scriptures, with which they could easily break the networks of heretics.
The second period in the history of the Antiochian school represents its flourishing, corresponding to the scientific revival that was found in the Alexandrian school in the second half of the 5th century. Often only the school of this period is called the Antiochian school itself. The head of the new Antiochian school was Archimandrite Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsus, and its outstanding representatives were: John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, his brother Polychronius, Nestorius, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus.
A distinctive feature of them was their comprehensive secular and philosophical education, and, in comparison with the previous period, a characteristic feature of the Antiochian school is, on the one hand, a positive attitude towards the scientific traditions of Origen, although even now in the education of its representatives the Aristotelian influence prevails over the Platonic one, on the other hand, devotion to the Nicene Confession, which it energetically defended, acting in this regard in full agreement with the great fathers of the Alexandrian school.
As for the Christology of the Antiochians, here too even those of the representatives of the Antiochian school who followed the line that led to Nestorianism indicate traces of the Christological traditions of Asia Minor Theology, in the form in which they were reflected earlier in the Christology of Eustavius of Antioch, although fragments of the dogmatic works of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, preserved by their opponents, only rarely indicate their conscious connection with Christological traditions - for the most part they are based on exegetical and rational arguments.
The general direction of the theology of the Antiochian school - which made them dogmatists and religious philosophers of a straightforward method and carried them towards the desire to pursue their dogmatic views through pure dialectics, in connection with the struggle against the Christology of the Eunomians and Apollinaris - little by little formed that opposition to the New Alexandrian Christology, which after the death of Theodore found expression in the clash of both directions in the Nestorian dispute. But here, too, the subordination of scientific aspirations to religious interests, the authority of Church tradition and the voice of Church religious consciousness led to purely Orthodox Christological views (for example, those of Blessed Theodoret), which, in harmonious combination with the Christological teaching of representatives of the Alexandrian school, gave a complete, alien to one-sidedness and free from reinterpretation and distortion expression of Church teaching in Religion of the IV Ecumenical Council.
During the same period, the Antiochian method of explaining the Holy Scriptures with certain rules for it was finally established, with a decisive refutation of the Origen method not only on one occasion or another when interpreting the Holy Scriptures, but also in individual treatises.
The difference between the Alexandrian (actually Origenian) and Antiochian methods is not that the representatives of the latter generally rejected the spiritual meaning; they recognized it, but tried to define it on the basis of its literal meaning, as typical.
While the Alexandrians often quite arbitrarily associated a spiritual meaning with passages of Holy Scripture, the Antiochians proceeded from the literal, sought to define it using all the means of sound exegesis, and then showed that this or that narrative is the shadow of things to come, a God-ordained type, which found its fulfillment through Jesus Christ.
Thus, the typically symbolic meaning (θεορία, and not αλλεγορία) lies not in words, but in the realities, persons and events designated by words 98 .
But it goes without saying that this general theoretical position could be implemented in different ways in practice. While Theodore of Mopsuestia brought the rational understanding of the Holy Scriptures to rationalistic extremes, St. John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret, remaining faithful to the principles of Antiochian exegesis, assimilated the best sides of the Alexandrian method, giving a legitimate share of meaning to allegorical explanation, and provide examples of scientific commentary, the techniques of which in their essence remain unchanged in Orthodox exegesis 99.
Thus, two opposing theological trends, which fought each other for more than a century, by the end of the period under review are reconciled in their church movements, not only in the field of exegesis, but also in dogmatic views.
The course of church-historical events of the 4th century, however, cannot be entirely deduced and correctly understood only on the basis of the clashes of the Alexandrian and Antiochian directions.
Looking closely at the course and gradual development of the dogmatic movements of this time, it is not difficult to notice that in them that large group of opponents of the Nicene creed, which was far from homogeneous in composition, was important; the elements included in it, as subsequent history showed, were connected with each other, as in opposition groups in general, only by the opposition itself.
When, around the year 356, it achieved temporary triumph over the Niceneans and internal disintegration began within it, the main tendencies of its constituent directions soon began to become definitely clear. Genuine Arianism made its final conclusions in the anomyism of Aetaeus and Eunomius. Then representatives of left Origenism emerged, remaining faithful to Origen subordinationism, previously supported by Eusebius of Caesarea; under the leadership of Akakios of Caesarea they came to the confession of Omianism (= Syts is like the Father). At the same time, at the Council of Ancyra in 358, a large party of Omiusians (= the Son is subordinate to the Father) was formed - Basil of Ancyra and Theorius of Laodicea became its leader.
This party gradually began to unite with the defenders of the Nicene Symbol and by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council finally merged with them, but first separated itself into a group that received the name pneumatomachians (Dukhobors) or Macedonians. Consequently, some of the Omiusians were not inclined to recognize, along with the consubstantiality of the Son, the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit.
If we keep in mind this fact, as well as the philosophical elements in the Omiusian documents (in the acts of the Council of Ancyra in 358), then it would be natural to conclude that among the Omiusians there were representatives of right-wing Origenism, at least some of whom could not renounce Origen’s view of the subordinate position of the Holy Spirit 100 .
Finally, the nature of the teaching of the Omiusians, in connection with some data from the previous dogmatic activity of the group that later formed the Omiusian party, gives reason to see in its composition also the exponents of that direction, defined in its essential features, which is represented by the Theology of Saints Irenaeus and Methodius; the latter testified to its vitality just before the beginning of the Arian disputes. It, of course, did not disappear, and the struggle that began forced its representatives, of whom there turned out to be a lot, to reveal their participation and influence in the cycle of the Nicene-Arian movements. This was a strictly conservative trend, which did not deny the significance of theological science, but limited its significance, did not allow the philosophical and theological development of its teachings and did not express it in philosophical and theological terms, but considered it necessary to remain with the heritage of the devotee, to profess what church antiquity taught in its symbols.
Representatives of this type of theological thought made up a significant part of the members of the first Ecumenical Council; they rejected Arianism as a heresy, but were also suspicious of the new terms and concepts that were proposed to be introduced into the presentation of the faith, considering this a dangerous innovation, a deviation from ancient opinions. They accepted the Nicene Creed, but after the Council they soon found themselves in the ranks of the anti-Niceans, finding the term ὁμοούσιος seductive and dangerous; They do not consider the Nicene Definition to be the purest expression of faith, corresponding to the true teaching of the Church.
The bishops of this theological trend constituted the majority at the Council of Antioch in 341, where, in contrast to the Nicene Creed, they put forward the authority of antiquity, what they first learned to believe; they are then included in the Omiusian party. All the time, despite the struggle against the Nicene Symbol and its defenders, they stand on the basis of a strictly ecclesiastical Council, when, through the theological works of the Cappadocian Fathers, it was clarified that “consubstantiality” does not lead to Sabellianism.
A typical representative of this theological trend in Church literature is Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. In his catechetical teachings, delivered around the year 348, he does not use the Nicene Creed and does not use the term ὁμοούσιος, but bases them on the symbol of the Jerusalem Church, warning his listeners that they are not the work of human hands, and that every word of his can be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. Concordance with the Holy Scriptures is sufficient. He sharply polemicizes against Sabellius and Marcellus, 101 suspected of Sabellianism, and also refutes the Arians, but without a clear indication of them.
For individual provisions of the doctrine, he does not refuse to provide reasonable evidence, but he does not give anything that would resemble a system of doctrine, and does not show any desire for it. In his catechetical teachings one cannot find the slightest trace of the influence of any philosophical school - everywhere and everywhere he remains a purely church writer, standing on the basis of Church Tradition.
At the council in Seleucia in 359, he found himself in the ranks of the Omiusians, and participated in the Second Ecumenical Council as a fully Orthodox member of it.
The teachings of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem are a very valuable document confirming the fact that among the opponents of the Nicene Symbol there were bishops who did not dare to use the Nicene Symbol, not considering it an accurate expression of the Right Faith, although they themselves were undoubtedly Orthodox.
In the history of theological science, Marcellus of Ancyra occupied a highly original position. He is completely unaffected by the movement of Church Theological Science that it has made since the time of Irenaeus. Marcellus is free from everything that modern theology has given; he protested against it. He not only corrected Origen, but went back, behind Origen - to Irenaeus and even to Ignatius. Marcellus is armed against all theological methods and sees their main sin in the involvement of Plato and philosophy in general. He consciously wanted to stand on the basis of one Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition and established a purely Biblical terminology. He even rebelled against indiscriminate references to the authority of the fathers 102. But Marcellus discredited his method with his own heretical teaching, from which his disciple Photinus drew extreme conclusions. The too late views of this unique theological thinker had few adherents and aroused heated objections from Eusebius and Acacius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa and Basil the Great.
At the Council of Nicaea, he zealously defended the “consubstantial” and after the Council he occupied a prominent place in the ranks of defenders of his creed; he enjoyed the respect of the Nicene people and therefore with his errors caused many difficulties to the Orthodox, confirming their opponents in the idea that the Nicene Confession inevitably leads to Sabellianism.
Until now, we have talked about theological trends that acted in the dogmatic struggle that filled the entire period under consideration, and whose representatives developed theological and literary activity mainly within the framework of issues of time. But the scientific revival of the second half of the 4th century was manifested not only in a deeper and broader formulation of problems caused by modern interests, but also in more general scientific works, in which the desire to create a science on Christian soil in the broadest sense of the word, which, with the help of data from Ancient philosophy, would illuminate all aspects of existence, is clearly visible. Such a desire is undoubtedly among Didymus, Basil the Great, Apollinaris, the Antiochians, and especially among Gregory of Nyssa. Its presence is found in a person whose participation in the modern dogmatic struggle is unknown, namely in Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa (in Phenicia), who wrote the work “On the Nature of Man” (περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρωπου) at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century.
It is remarkable not so much for its significance in the history of Christian philosophy as for its character and underlying tendency. The work of Nemesius is connected by many threads with Ancient philosophy: in it we find its terminologies, teachings and opinions processed into a coherent system imbued with the Christian spirit.
Nemesius takes material for his work from representatives of various movements: Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, Neoplatonists, Galen, giving, however, a clear preference for Plato and Neoplatonism; he borrows from them everything that is useful to him in order to form the most correct and complete view of human nature.
But at the same time, he firmly adheres to Christian teaching, strives to harmonize and unite both with each other, coming from the conviction that natural and revealed truth cannot contradict each other. He always remains within the framework of the Christian faith, never transgresses them and does not contradict Christian teaching.
Thus, despite the diversity of elements that make up the teachings of Nemesius, the Christian religion brings them into a harmonious combination and provides the basis for the entire system 103.
Less successful was the combination of pagan philosophy with Christianity by Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemand. A sincere Christian at heart, he could never bring Christian teaching into agreement with Platonic philosophy: his works are in the nature of syncretism, mixing paganism and Christianity. If we keep in mind that Synesius was not an exceptional phenomenon, then it is necessary to admit that he represents “an interesting example of that accommodation of Neoplatonism and Christianity, when Christian and Neoplatonic views were so mixed up with each other in the consciousness of a person that neither for himself nor for an outside researcher there was almost no possibility of finding the border between them” 104.
Scientific aspirations of this kind, with such techniques and with such results of their application, did not have a direct impact on the disclosure of the dogmatic teaching of the Church, nevertheless, their influence on the general Christian worldview cannot be doubted.
The long struggle with various Arian factions supported theological thought in the most intense state, and its intensified activity produced extremely important results for the clarification, disclosure and establishment of Church truth. But the continuous outbreaks of heretical movements caused alarm and forced them to look for their root. The thought somehow naturally turned to that person, whose activity from the very beginning aroused both strong love and no less hatred - to the Alexandrian teacher Origen. His name was already associated with the Arian error, especially since the Arians themselves referred to Origen to confirm their teaching; and in fact there was no shortage of points where moderate Arianism comes into contact with Origenism and seems to be a further development of it.
Against Origen, as the father of the Arian heresy and the culprit of all modern errors, towards the end of the 4th century, the learned Bishop of Cyprus Epiphanius raised his authoritative voice, being the exponent of that trend, which undoubtedly had many representatives among bishops, clergy, monks and laity for a long time and which decisively raised the question of the rights of Theological science on philosophical grounds and pursued one-sided traditionalism.
He did not belong to any theological school, but was simply an Orthodox writer who straightforwardly pursued the aspirations of the extreme right. He was not an original writer and was afraid of originality: Saint Epiphanius strives to establish his scientific thought on an unconditionally correct basis, as if on an anchor, accepts only lasting results and turns away from speculation, which poses and tries to resolve theological problems; he himself often only reproduces the views of Saint Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers.
In matters of faith, he does not know any leniency, and does not distinguish between opinion and actual error, between the unconditional followers of Origen and admirers of his science and his fruitful scientific activity. The extensive section in Panaria Epiphanius against Origen is the first polemical work of church traditionalism, opening the great struggle against theological science in the Church. In essence, here we are not talking about Origen - whom Saint Epiphanius calls a freethinker, who in vain took upon himself the name of adamantium, a pitiful and pompous man - but about Hellenic education (έλληνικὴ παιδία), about that direction of Church Theological science, the ancestor of which Origen was rightly considered. “How much harm you yourself have suffered and how many others you have harmed,” Epiphanius exclaims.
How are you, bitten by a terrible viper, that is, Hellenic education, and become poison for others!” “You, Origen, having blinded your mind with Hellenic teaching, spewed out poison on those who trusted you and became poisonous food for them, harming many in the same way, which is why you yourself suffered harm” 105.
He speaks with undisguised indignation about the audacity with which Origen dared to investigate unsearchable subjects, to seek out heavenly things and to explain the entire Holy Scripture, which led him to a deep fall 106.
Saint Epiphanius especially sharply attacks the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture. But the authority of Origen, who became a symbol of scientific Theology, was too great in the Church: despite the decisive struggle against him by such a famous man as Saint Epiphanius, and his condemnation at the councils of Rome and Alexandria (in 399), his importance in broad church circles remained almost unshaken in the first half of the 5th century, as can be seen from Socrates’ “Ecclesiastical History” 107.
Thus, by the end of the period, only the Alexandrian and Antiochian trends remained clearly expressed in Church Theological Science, both in a softened form, and, as a warning for the future, the one-sided traditional current with its opposition to Theological Science.
III. Distinctive features of theological science of the 4th–5th centuries in the use of sources and scientific means: attitude to the Holy Scriptures, Church Tradition and modern philosophy; liveliness of religious consciousness, freedom of research. Final conclusions regarding the conditions of normal development of Theological Science at the present time
If we now turn to the content of the works of the most outstanding representatives of Church Theological science itself, we will see, first of all, their amazingly complete and comprehensive use of all sources and means that were required by the essence of Church Theology and its modern needs and tasks, with such an assessment of their comparative significance and in such a harmonious combination, which in many ways constitute the exclusive property of Theological science of this particular period.
A distinctive feature of this theological science is its biblical character: theology is based primarily on the Holy Scriptures. The Bible is the inspired Divine word, the only true source of religious knowledge and the highest authority in teaching. The Holy Scripture both edifies and strengthens in faith, provides reliable material for Christian knowledge and at the same time an absolutely reliable criterion for testing any teaching: it measures every theological phenomenon, it refutes every error.
All the writers of this period exactly fulfilled Origen’s commandment - to read and re-read the Holy Scripture: just as Rebecca, he said, came daily to the well to draw water, so we must daily rush to the source of the Holy Scripture - the water of the Holy Spirit - and always draw from it and always carry a filled vessel to our homes 108. In their works they use the Holy Scriptures in the widest possible scope - both in dogmatic-polemical and moral treatises, they cite entire periods from the Holy Scriptures, as if not noticing that they are speaking in the words of the Holy Books, they build their evidence on many quotes, they cite a whole series of parallel passages, so that their erudition in the Holy primary sources causes fair surprise - they live and breathe in Holy Scripture and, most importantly, from it, as from the source of Divine wisdom and saving Revelation, the preached teaching is organically derived and developed.
And not only the defenders of the Orthodox Faith, but also heretics, and above all the Arians, cited passages of Holy Scripture as the most convincing basis for their opinions. At the First Ecumenical Council, much effort was spent on expressing in terms of Holy Scripture the doctrine of the Son of God in His relation to God the Father, and “consubstantial” was subject to objections from conservative theologians precisely because it is not literally given in Holy Scripture.
Writers of the fourth and fifth centuries sometimes express themselves as if, in their opinion, the Holy Scriptures alone are sufficient to teach what ought to be believed. Saint Athanasius says that the Scriptures are Sacred and Divinely inspired, sufficient to determine the truth 109. Eustathius of Antioch writes that only the words of God are reliable for accurate understanding and strength of faith 110. “Do not expect another teacher,” says Saint John Chrysostom; If you have the word of God, no one will teach you as it does... From ignorance of the Scriptures comes all kinds of evil... It is easy to be saved with the Scriptures, but without them it is impossible” 111. For a testimony to be reliable, it must be supported by Scripture 112 . There is nothing more reliable than Divine Scripture 113. “The most important way in which we find what our duty obliges us to do is to study the Divinely inspired Scriptures... Whatever someone recognizes himself as lacking, by studying the Scriptures, in it, as in a general doctor’s clinic, he finds a cure suitable for his ailment” 114.
Blessed Theodoret writes that for him Divine Scripture alone is convincing, 115 and indeed uses it in the widest extent.
Due to this meaning of the Holy Scriptures, Athanasius of Alexandria recognizes the creed of the Council of Nicea as a right teaching only because it is based on the Holy Scriptures: the faith that the Council confessed on the basis of the Scriptures is the faith of the Catholic Church" 116. “True and pious faith in the Lord is obvious to everyone; it is known and studied from the Divine Scriptures; the saints (the Nicene fathers) secretly guided by her became martyrs” 117. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his catechetical discourses, expounds the Christian faith on the basis of the symbol of his Church, but at the same time expresses the conviction that it represents a condensed presentation of the truths of Holy Scripture 118. “The Divine and holy mysteries of faith,” he says, “should not be taught without the Divine Scriptures and should not be carried away by mere probability and arguments of reason. Don’t even just believe me, who am telling you this, if you do not receive proof from the Divine Scriptures for what I proclaim.
For the very salvation of our faith is not based on refined words, but on evidence from the Divine Scriptures” 119.
This significance of the Holy Scriptures for Church Theology explains why so many commentaries remain from the writers of this period. The most important schools were predominantly exegetical. Methods of explanation were given great importance.
But no less decisively, church theologians put forward another source and guiding principle in the matter of revealing the truths of dogma and norms of church life - the Apostolic Tradition preserved in the Church and among the saints. In their works there are constantly references to the “Apostolic Faith”, “Church Teaching”, “the original Tradition, teaching and faith of the Universal Church”, which is identical everywhere, because it was equally betrayed by the fathers everywhere.
The discovery, clarification and approval of dogmatic teaching, the complication of liturgical and ritual practice, etc., prompted the writers of this period to insist more than they did before them on oral teaching, on the tradition that came down from the Apostles. Pointing to tradition, in their opinion, eliminates even the need to provide any other evidence. In the great dogmatic struggle they move completely imperceptibly from the evidence of Holy Scripture to the testimony of Tradition. It is considered the “canon” of understanding the Holy Scriptures, and if it does not determine its explanation in particulars, it guides its application to dogma. Such a view of the meaning of Tradition, after such energetic statements about the independent authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, may suggest a contradiction or at least ambiguity and consistently raise the question of the mutual relationship and significance of both sources and authorities in the opinion of church theologians of this period.
But for them such questions did not exist: pointing to Tradition, they appealed to the general church consciousness itself, as it was expressed in the teaching of the Church, Its institutions and organization, in religious rites and customs; they clearly understood the threads along which they brought Church Tradition to the Apostles themselves, and in the works of church writers they found confirmation of the correctness of their view. “Let us look,” says Saint Athanasius, “at the very original Tradition, at the teaching and faith of the Universal Church - the faith that the Lord betrayed, the Apostles preached, and the fathers observed. For the Church is based on it, and whoever falls away from Her cannot be or even be called a Christian” 120.
Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes: “Let no one require me to confirm what we recognize with evidence, because to prove our teaching it is enough to have the Tradition that has come to us from the Father as some inheritance, transmitted successively from the Apostles through subsequent saints” 121.
It is clear that for them both Scripture and Tradition came from one source, confirming and explaining each other. Therefore, without falling into contradiction, they asserted that “both are equally reliable” 122, that both have the same power for piety 123. They took such wide advantage of this Apostolic Tradition, observed in the Church, so richly saturated their works with it and at the same time showed such deep penetration in its spirit that the works of the holy men of this period for subsequent generations are the richest and most dominant source of the Tradition leading from the Apostles. With all this, if there is an urgent need to choose between discordant traditions and customs, then the judge should be Divinely inspired Scripture, “and whoever’s teaching turns out to be in agreement with God’s word, on his side, without a doubt, will be the voice of truth” (St. Basil the Great. Letter 181 [189]. Russian translation, part 7, p. 20).
Holy Scripture and Tradition served as the basis and provided all the necessary elements of Church teaching. But Church Theological Science, in order to promote the fulfillment of the Church's task - in a new favorable situation to complete the victory over the pagan world and make Christianity its spiritual heritage - had to use means corresponding to this great goal. There was no need to invent these means: they were at hand, and the famous Alexandrian teacher had already pointed out them and not only pointed them out, but also gave an example of their use; this is the culture of the Greco-Roman world in general and especially its philosophy. It was only necessary to free ourselves from those exaggerations in the application of these means to Christian teaching, which Origen was not alien to.
And the greatest fathers and teachers of the Church of the period under review accomplished this task in the most perfect manner. Most of them were educated in the best pagan schools of their time, studied classical literature and philosophy there, mastered all the means of modern education and, in general, all branches of ancient culture, and therefore were able to attract to the service of Christianity all the best, noblest and most useful for it. Their works, especially those of Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Blessed Theodoret, under the inexhaustible treasures of Orthodox Christian teaching, reveal everywhere traces of comprehensive ancient knowledge. From here they first of all borrowed the forms into which the content of Christian teaching was cast, methods of research, disclosure and substantiation of it, expressions and concepts that made it accessible to the understanding of modern society living in the atmosphere of Greco-Roman culture.
But for them, who equally comprehended the essence of Christianity and Greco-Roman culture, it was absolutely clear that the Christian Revelation contains or presupposes a circle of truths that are comprehensible by reason and accessible to natural knowledge and which found at least partial resolution in pagan philosophy; So many of these elements that were true and correct, and at the same time consistent with the worldview given in Christianity, were found that since the time of Clement of Alexandria, a view on the wisdom of the Hellenes was definitely expressed or silently assumed as a preparatory to perfect knowledge, fully revealed in Christ. They had all the greater dignity in the eyes of Christian teachers because the latter, without realizing it, considered them in the light of their highest Christian knowledge and thus completely assimilated them with the Christian way of thinking.
These elements of truth, common to Christianity and Hellenic philosophy, were the best means to establish a connection between classical education and the Christian religion, Greek gnosis and the Church faith. The more fully the representatives of Church Theological Science understood this task of theirs, the further the range of problems that they brought in connection with the teaching of faith extended, the greater the number of elements that they learned from Greek philosophy should have been made.
Since Greek philosophy itself continued to develop at this time, a reflection of this development can also be traced among church writers. Not everything that was borrowed from Greek philosophy became a permanent component of Church science - much found only temporary use and then disappeared by itself. The more completely a known concept could be detached from the soil on which it grew, and separated from those side thoughts that could be combined with it, the closer and firmer was its connection with Christian teaching; on the contrary, what was determined by a certain phase of the development of Greek spiritual life, although it was accepted temporarily to resolve one or another problem, was later singled out 124.
A careful study of the works of church writers - especially the Cappadocian fathers - shows that they did not limit themselves to the assimilation of elements of Hellenic culture and did not unconditionally bow to established forms. They felt and realized that ancient metaphysical and psychological schemes were too narrow for Christian ideas, and this forced them to undertake experiments in the further development of philosophical terminology in relation to the essential features of the content of Christian teaching.
The later Greeks were quite clearly aware that Christian Theology produced new formations in ancient concepts. Saint John of Damascus, in his “Source of Knowledge,” devoted the first book to clarifying philosophical concepts. He clearly shows that, in his opinion, dogmatic formulas were formed with the help of philosophy, but at the same time he puts forward the difference between theological and philosophical terminology. Where necessary, he makes the remark that the holy fathers defined terms differently than non-Christian philosophers 125. In this way it was achieved that the content of the Church's faith was expressed in a language that was accessible to all educated people.
Greek philosophy was the form in which the treasure of the faithful Church faith was preserved and expressed. If the latter was given a new formulation, then this did not introduce alien content into it. The undeniable influence of Hellenic philosophy on Church dogma should not be exaggerated. The result was “not the transformation of Christianity into Hellenism, but on the contrary: the conversion of Hellenism into Christianity. The metaphysical ideas of philosophy, transplanted into the Christian Church, were reborn here and received another higher and spiritual meaning and, as in other areas of life, so here, in the sphere of philosophy, the Christian religion extracted all the fresh juices, transformed them in accordance with its own spirit and assimilated them as its own property” 126.
If we add to what has been said that the church writers of the period under review, with all their scientific and philosophical education and direction, were able to rise above pagan philosophy and, using ancient science to refute pagan wisdom and heresies and to reveal and substantiate purely Orthodox teaching, clearly limited the limits of independent research of the mind and did not allow the possibility of comprehending or deducing by logical-dialectical techniques the very dogmas and natural activities reason was subordinated to the teachings of Divine Revelation and the Church, then it will be clear to us why they were able to create such a Christian-ecclesiastical worldview in which reason and faith were brought into living unity and harmony. They showed the truly royal path along which Church theological science should follow for the fruitful service of the Church.
Looking at the course and development of dogmatic movements in the 4th and 5th centuries and assessing the results achieved by theological science, it is not difficult to see that if Christian thought had followed the rationalistic path on which Arianism pushed it, then Christianity as a religion would have ceased to exist; but, on the other hand, if she had remained in the position in which she was held by the conservative group of theologians, the Church would have been left with the vague formulas of pre-Nicene symbols, opening wide scope for extreme diversity and confusion in concepts regarding the most fundamental questions of the Christian religion.
Another distinctive feature of theological science of the 4th and 5th centuries is the living spirit that permeates it. Its source must be sought first of all in the liveliness of the religious consciousness of church writers of that time. A strong religious feeling gave the tone to their whole life and was reflected in all its manifestations; it also permeates all their theological and literary activity: it was guided and inspired not by formally scientific, but predominantly by religious interests. For them, endless and seemingly petty discussions and disputes about terms, about one iota, had the highest religious significance.
In questions about the Divinity of the Son, about the Incarnation and the union of two natures in Christ, the matter was about the fate of the believing soul - the possibility for it of salvation, immortality, deification. This deep religious consciousness was for them both a source of energy in a difficult struggle and a true criterion in determining the means of theological and scientific activity: it kept them from expanding the area of what is cognizable by the natural human mind to infinity and gave rise to their reverence for the incomprehensible mysteries of Divine Revelation, so characteristic of them; it also forced them to listen sensitively to the voice of “simple faith” and carefully, weighing every step, move forward in clarifying it and elevated it to the level of clear, reasonable Christian knowledge.
On the other hand, a favorable and necessary condition for the development of the vital energy of theological and scientific work of this period was a living and fresh atmosphere of freedom of thought - not unlimited, of course, but completely providing legitimate scope for theological creativity.
With all their ardent zeal for the observance of the faithful faith and protecting it from perversion, representatives of Church Theological Science demanded agreement with Church teaching only in essential provisions, granting freedom in the rest, and were quite tolerant of theological opinions when they were expressed not in the form of unconditional theses of faith, but in the form of assumptions that reveal a desire to understand and clarify Church truth.
Here we can, first of all, point to Saint Athanasius, who shows respect for science and its free development; This is evidenced by his judgments about Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Theognostus, and his tolerant attitude towards others, even clearly erroneous opinions, is sufficiently evidenced by the nature of his judgment about Marcellus - already at a time when he aroused fair suspicions in many.
Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus reports: “I myself once asked Blessed Pope Athanasius what his opinion was about this Marcellus. He did not defend him, and did not treat him with hostility, but only smiled and secretly expressed that he had not gone far in error, and considered him justified” 127.
About Basil of Ancyra, who adhered to Homiusianism and did not accept the term “consubstantial,” Saint Athanasius says: “with those who accept everything else that is written in Nicaea, they only doubt the saying “consubstantial”, we must not treat them as enemies, and we do not rebel against them, as against the Arians and those opposing the fathers (of Nicaea), but we reason as brothers with brothers, having the same thought with us and doubting only the name” 128.
And at the Council of Alexandria in 362, under the chairmanship of Saint Athanasius, decrees were made full of love and condescension towards those who differ in their views. Saint Gregory the Theologian, although he himself zealously defended and proved the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, did not however demand the confession of this truth from those Christians who, reasoning sensibly about the Son and not daring to relegate the Holy Spirit directly to the category of creatures, nevertheless refused to recognize Him as God. He considers them worthy of complete leniency and tries to present their opinion in the most favorable light.
Saint Gregory the Theologian says that they must be gradually led forward and brought closer to the highest; He addresses them with the following words: “Let us come together spiritually, let us be better brotherly lovers than self-loving ones. Recognize the power of the Divine, and we will grant you indulgence in speech. Confess the nature under other names, which you respect most, and we will heal you as if you were weak, even if we hide otherwise to your satisfaction.” And further: “I will say even more clearly and briefly: neither you blame us for a more sublime speech, nor will we condemn us for that speech that is within your power for the time being, until it reaches, albeit in a different way, the same refuge with us. We do not seek victory, but the return of the brothers, separation from whom torments us. These things we say to you, in which we find several lives that you reason soundly about the Son” 129.
All the conciliatory activities of Basil the Great, carried out by him with the assistance of Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, reveal the most cautious attitude towards the beliefs and opinions of others. The basis of this respect for freedom of thought and research is the conviction of the church fathers and writers that Christianity should not be imagined as if its theoretical side is doomed at all points to immobility, excluding the need for further disclosure and deepening of its understanding; they allowed for the possibility of disagreements and disputes due to the unclearness of some issues of Christian Theology and show examples of differences in the construction of even an integral Christian worldview. They believed in the progress of Theological Science and desired it, because they considered it absolutely necessary. Saint Gregory the Theologian, in his word on the Holy Spirit, explaining why the teaching about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not immediately expressed clearly and definitely, says: “It is necessary that the Trinity light illuminate those who are enlightened by gradual additions...
ascents, receipts from glory to glory and successes... You see the insights gradually shining upon us and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to observe, not suddenly expressing everything and not completely hiding everything” 130.
The entire course of dogmatic movements during the period under review shows such progress. In the first half of the 4th century, theological figures led by Saint Athanasius defined ideas and developed doctrine; in the second half - the Cappadocian fathers, Didymus, Amphilochius - finally established terminology and concluded discussions on triadological issues: the trinitarian teaching of Saint Athanasius, representing imperfections both in terminology and in the theory of the Divine Persons and Their Relationships, was revealed, fulfilled and more precisely defined by the Cappadocian Fathers. At the same time, the theologians of the end of the 4th century, who so energetically rebelled against the teachings of Apollinapius, relying on the faithful Church teaching and their Catholic faith, however, did not present a final and absolutely satisfactory solution to the Christological problem, which was gradually accomplished by theologians of the 5th and 6th centuries.
Inaccuracies and even erroneous opinions of some writers caused clarifications by others, and thus the truths of faith passed in the church consciousness from less clarity and certainty to greater ones and received such a formulation that gave the most accurate expression to their content and protected them from distortion and reinterpretation in the future.
Finally, the vitality of theological thought, its intensity and vigorous activity were also determined by the fact that the writers of this time have the opportunity to speak and do appear before us with a pronounced individuality, to the extent of the spiritual gifts of each of them. The main trends in theological science that we have noted show that the theologians of this period, energetically working for the benefit of the Church in word and writing, thought in the forms and views of their time in different directions, and at least the most gifted among them, from their own special point of view, assessed and applied the results of the activities of their predecessors and the theological traditions of different schools and established their own understanding of the religious and moral needs and problems of contemporary church life. And this difference in the forms of Christian thought not only did not harm the comprehension of the one truth, but certainly contributed to it.
All the literary and theological activity of church writers of this period - with its various directions and shades, with its diversity of views - was brought with all zeal to the service of the Church; personal interests merged with church interests, and representatives of theological science not only fought the enemies of truth through literary means, but were ready to endure all sorts of hardships for the cause of the Church: it was their own cause, the work of their lives. But the Church did not fence itself off from theological science, did not consider it alien to itself, having nominated a number of brilliant representatives and even its leaders from among the archpastors, and did not artificially and forcibly limit the scope of its activity: all church issues were also questions of theological science; each of its representatives felt their right to participate in resolving them and therefore realized the importance of the responsibility assumed by every action.
Therefore, the problems of theological science immediately received ecclesiastical significance, and theological science continuously and directly influenced the Church teaching established as generally binding. Under such conditions, as a result of the intensive work of theological thought, not only numerous works of individual writers in various fields of theological knowledge appeared, full of deep content, but also the ground was prepared for those majestic in their brevity definitions of faith of the Ecumenical Councils, which approved the Ecumenical Church understanding of Christianity: in them, every concept, every term was preliminarily weighed and assessed in its suitability for the exact expression of Church teaching precisely by Theological Science.
Church theological science does not know of another period that, in terms of the breadth and loftiness of thought, the depth of its content, the ideological richness and diversity of views and the energy of theological creativity, could be compared with what it experienced in the 4th and 5th centuries. In its history, this time constitutes an era that has left indelible traces, and its theological writing is rightly the ideal of true Church Theological science.
All generations of church theologians following this period stop before him in reverent amazement, consider it a sacred duty to carefully study the works of the great fathers and teachers of the Church, and from their rich treasury they draw edification in the Right Faith and genuine Christian life.
But theological science at the present time, as always in general, cannot limit itself to only this: it must strive to realize the ideal of theological science, which was so clearly manifested in the golden age of its history, in modern reality, not only through simple imitation and reproduction, but through living creative activity.
If the Church always faces the task of self-affirmation in the spiritual life of peoples, and if in the cultural world she can carry it out first and foremost through theological science, then the latter must always progress. The highest goal towards which it is directed is the possible full intellectual expression of truth.
But if the dogmas of the Church and Her moral teaching are unchanging, always identical, because in their essence they are Divine, then their assimilation and understanding must gradually develop and improve both in the consciousness of each individual member and of the entire Church. Here one involuntarily comes to mind interesting discussions about progress in Theology, belonging to Vikenty Lirinsky. “Perhaps someone will say,” he writes: “This means that there should be no prosperity of religion in the Church of Christ? Of course, it must be very great... But, however, so that the success is really the success of faith, and not a change... Let the understanding, knowledge, and wisdom of each individual, as well as everyone, grow and succeed to the highest degree over the years and centuries, one person, like the whole Church, only in its own kind, precisely in one and the same concept.
Pointing to the course of the organic development of the human body, Vincent continues: “the teaching of the Christian religion should follow the same laws of prosperity, namely, let it strengthen over the years, expand over time, and rise with age; however, let it remain undamaged and uncorrupted” 131. The depths of Divine Revelation are inexhaustible, and humanity, at every stage of its development, comprehends its truths from a new angle and in a new light. The expression of this understanding must naturally vary, must correspond to the times, the general state of knowledge, spiritual and moral experience, individual circumstances and needs.
Compliance with the needs of each new age can be considered as an indicator of the healthy state of Theological Science, and if this sign is absent, then one can suspect morbidity, a stop or even a decline in its organic growth. To stand at the height of its task, theological science must constantly update and improve its points of view and its arguments in order to better prove, better explain Church teaching, and lead to a better understanding of it. These are the requirements arising from the very essence of theological science and its goals. But with what means and under what conditions can it accomplish this task? The fathers and teachers of the Church, not theoretically, but by their very creations and the nature of their theology, showed what the principles of theological science should be, on which the continuous progress of theological knowledge in the spirit of the Orthodox Church is established.
In the knowledge and revelation of Christian truth, theological thought must proceed from Revelation itself and build Biblical-Church science. The Holy Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition preserved by the Church and the Church's conscience in their integral unity and mutual penetration must serve as the basis, source and constant criterion of Christian knowledge and provide theological science with such progress that would be the success of faith, and not a change in it. Revitalized and warmed by faith, she spiritualizes her scientific aspirations with the highest religious interests.
In the name of serving these interests and for the sake of its best implementation, it must penetrate into the spirit of modern culture, take from it all the best elements, adapt them to the spirit and character of Church teaching, use all cultural and scientific means in order to enter deeper into the understanding of the revealed truths, more clearly comprehend their internal connection, find the most solid evidence for them and build an integral church worldview, accessible to the understanding and assimilation of humanity located in a certain stage of spiritual development.
But this requires creativity; Without creativity, theological science cannot be vital and fruitful. And creativity is unthinkable without providing theological science with freedom of discussion and research within the boundaries determined by its sources.
If the path to truth becomes so narrow that even experienced people can only follow it with the constant fear of involuntarily deviating from it, then it is impossible to think about the vitality of theological science and expect creativity from it: the fear of research naturally subsequently gives rise to an indifferent attitude towards the truth, even under the condition of reverence for the provisions of faith preached to the Church.
This is clearly confirmed by the rapid decline of Ancient Church Theological science, as soon as a one-sided traditional direction prevailed in Church society, associated with respectable reverence for the faithful heritage and authorities of antiquity and a distrustful attitude towards everything that showed the stamp of originality and liveliness of thought.
The Church has every reason to demand from Theological Science that it devote itself entirely to serving Her and that it does not for a single moment lose sight of its character as Church Science.
But for the successful manifestation of the activity of Theological Science, the latter, in turn, must have solid ground in the conviction, unshakable by factual relations to it, that its existence and normal comprehensive development, precisely as a science, is recognized as essentially arising from the tasks of the Church and absolutely necessary for illuminating all aspects of its life and the issues arising in it. Then for theological science, along with church responsibilities, its right in the Church will arise, in the consciousness of which it will always feel its share of responsibility for the Church’s implementation of its mission in modern society.
Second Department – Second Department
prof. Alexander Ivanovich Sagarda. Antioch Theological School 132
Antioch and the Antiochian school
Antioch on the Orontes, under Daphne, the brilliant capital of the East, founded by Seleucus Nicator and over time combining in itself all the advantages of the great centers of the ancient world, was as numerous in its population as it was famous for its sciences and arts. Antioch became one of the prominent centers of paganism during the lifetime of the Apostles and, due to the diversity of its inhabitants, became a convenient point for the spread of a new religion, so that it can be considered the mother of pagan churches 133.
Stained with the blood of the holy martyrs, it shone with the names of its bishops and teachers, who glowed with the unwavering light of not only the holiness of life, but also of outstanding learning. Here the disciple of the Apostle John Ignatius, inspired by love for Christ and the believers, lived and acted, whose lips spoke from the abundance of his rich mind and noble heart. Here Theophilus, a bishop and philosopher, spoke out against the Hellenes and Gnostics. Here, in the second half of the 3rd century, the Antiochian school received a definite direction and a strong existence, headed by the famous Lucian, “this,” in the apt expression of Gardal, “a recognized saint and an unrecognized teacher” 134.
The Antiochian school is a member in a chain of Christian schools, which, like links, adjoin each other and, by a common purpose and similar organization, form one great whole.
In the history of Christian enlightenment, it is famous for the comprehensive education of its teachers, zealous defense of Orthodox teaching, and enormous productivity in the field of study of the Holy Scriptures.
General characteristics of the direction of the Antiochian school
During the entire period of its existence, the theological thought of the Antiochian school went in a direction completely different from the direction that was dominant at that time in Alexandria. Like the Alexandrians, the Antiochians strove for a deeper knowledge of the internal connection of the truths of faith, for the presentation of revealed teaching with the help of science. But their entire Theology was of a completely different nature, and the means of achieving the goal were different.
The Antiochian Theologians, like those of Alexandria, stood on the basis of the word of God and church faith; the starting point of their difference was the understanding of the Holy Scriptures, and the distinguishing feature was the historical-grammatical method of the Antiochians, as opposed to the allegorical method of the Alexandrians. The latter almost everywhere sought to find mysterious meaning in Scripture. Encountering in it a description of everyday aspects of human life and not considering them worthy of the honor of taking a place in the word of God, they were inclined to think that under the letter of the Bible some other, deeper meaning was hidden here and tried to find it, sacrificing the general connection of the whole (context). The result was a series of fragmentary explanations, which were often impossible to connect into the unity of their main idea.
The Antiochians held completely opposite views. From the point of view of one of them, the allegorical method was an empty fantasy, devoid of any philosophical justification. Everything ἀλλεγορηταί, - in his opinion, - is essentially nothing more than οἱ μύθοις χαίροντες or even ἀνοητῶς νενοηκότες, and their reasoning is “the fables of the foolish,” “the ravings of drunken old women,” “the dream-like inventions of vain talkers,” “the products of great simplicity” 135.
Representatives of the Antiochian school argued that in Scripture, first of all, one should look for the meaning that the inspired writers connected with their words. To find such a meaning, they used the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. When explaining the Holy Scripture, they paid attention to the occasion, circumstances and purpose that determined the divinely inspired author to write a book, eliminated dubious and ambiguous meanings of words through consideration of their etymology, noticed the syntactic relationship of sentences, the logical sequence of thoughts and parallel passages - in a word, they determined the meaning of Scripture from didactic, grammatical, lexical, rhetorical and logical elements.
But the Antiochians found more than just a literal meaning in Scripture. They recognized that there was also a higher mysterious meaning in it, namely a prophetic-messianic one. The search for this meaning, in their opinion, should be done not through arbitrary interpretation of the text of Scripture, as allegorists did, but through a careful study of the text, logical connections and parallel passages. In its essence, this opposition in methods of interpretation had the same foundations on which the opposition between the directions of Plato and Aristotle was affirmed during the heyday of Greek philosophy; on the other, sober and rational historical realism. The Alexandrians were adherents of Platonic philosophy. They tried to apply the principles of this philosophy to the disclosure of Christian doctrine and thought in a speculative-philosophical way to give a solid scientific basis to the truths of faith.
Clement of Alexandria said about himself that the dialectical movement of his speculation goes from the particular to the general and not from the sensory to the supersensible, but quite the opposite - from the simple and generic to the specific and particular, and that in this case he imitates Plato. Origen also lived in the world of ideas and, as Dobroklonsky put it, 136 too despised not only physicality, but also reality. The theology of the other Alexandrians was distinguished by the same speculative character: the direction of their thinking was predominantly idealistic.
In contrast to the Alexandrians, the Antiochians, from the time of Paul of Samosata and Arius, turned with special love to the study of Aristotelian philosophy and, brought up on it, sought to know the truths of faith through strictly rational thinking. Their minds focused mainly on the historical course of development of the Kingdom of God in the Old and New Testaments. They viewed Divine Revelation in the light of history as something positively given. The direction of their thinking can therefore be called realistic - in contrast to the idealism of the Alexandrians. The difference in methods of interpretation of Holy Scripture and philosophical premises caused a difference between the Alexandrians and Antiochians in their very dogmatic views. This difference was especially clear in their disclosure of the two most important Christian dogmas: the Holy Trinity and the Person of the God-Man. The Alexandrians, revealing the dogma of the Holy Trinity, tried mainly to expose the idea of the consubstantiality of the three Divine Persons.
So, for example, Athanasius the Great says: “The Trinity is inseparable and is one by Itself. When the Father is called, His Word and the Spirit are inherent in Him. And if the Son is called, then the Father is in the Son and the Spirit is not outside the Word” 137.
On the contrary, the Antiochians, when revealing the same dogma, turned their main attention to the Hypostatic difference of the Divine Persons. For example, in the Antiochian Symbol of 341 (known with the name of Lucian) it says about the Holy Trinity: “we confess the Father, the truly existing Father, the Son, the truly existing Son, the Holy Spirit, the truly existing Holy Spirit, so that these Names are not simply and not in vain relied on, but mean exactly the own of each of the Named Hypostases, His rank and glory; why according to Hypostasis there are three, but according to agreement One” (that is, God).
Fyodor of Mopsuestia, in his writings, also tries with particular persistence to affirm the idea of the Hypostasis of the Divine Persons. Thus, in his interpretation of Haggai 2:1-5, he says: “The Lord commanded the apostles: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Me 28:19). From here we learn about the own Person (Πρόσωπον ἴδιον) of the Father and the own Person of the Son, and the own Person of the Holy Spirit, believing at the same time that each of them is equally Divine and eternal being.
Or in the second letter to the presbyter of Alexandria Artemius, he writes: “we worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and confess that They constitute the Divine, eternal and uncreated Trinity; Each of These (Persons) is of the same essence, that is, They are eternal, and truly Divine causes of all creatures. And the Father is worthy of worship not for anything else, but by His essence. Likewise, the Son does not receive this (worship) for any other reason than because He has such an essence for which this worship is appropriate. Likewise, knowing that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence, we worship Him for the sake of His essence. Thus we recognize three Persons, thinking that each is perfect, each has the same eternal and Divine essence, and each is the cause of creation, and we worship the three Persons, believing that they have one truly Divine essence.”
In revealing the dogma about the Person of the God-Man, the Alexandrians focused their attention primarily on the Divine nature of the God-Man and insisted on the closest communion of natures in Him. For example, Athanasius the Great taught that “the union of the flesh with the Divinity of the Word took place in the mother’s womb,” that “in Christ the visible body was not the body of man, but of God,” that “the Word bore the infirmities of the flesh on Himself as if it were His own, because this flesh was His,” and the like.
On the contrary, the Antiochians primarily paid attention to the human nature of Jesus Christ and especially tried to confirm the idea of the difference in natures in Jesus Christ, proving their integrity and completeness. Thus, for example, Ephstaphius, Bishop of Antioch, said: “It is not the Word of God, which God begot from Himself, through whom the angels and the Heavens were created, but the man of Christ (ἄνθροπος τοῦ Χριστοῦ), raised from the dead, is exalted and glorified.”
We can find similar thoughts in the writings of other adherents of the Antiochian school, such as Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa, and Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, not to mention the later representatives of this school, especially Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, in whose writings even purely Nestorian ideas are visible.
A comparison of the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools according to their direction clearly highlights the characteristic features of the Antiochian direction. The desire to know the truths of faith through strictly rational thinking, governed by the laws of logic, the use of the historical-grammatical method when interpreting the Holy Scriptures, and the tendency to a certain kind of dogmatic views, especially noticeably revealed in the disclosure of thoughts about the difference in the Persons of the Holy Trinity and the difference in natures in Jesus Christ - these are the features 138.
Opinions of Western scholars on the question of the time and conditions of origin of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures
Researchers are unanimous in recognizing the features of the Antiochian school that we have noted. But regarding the time and conditions of their emergence, more honestly regarding the time and conditions of origin of the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, there is a great difference of opinions, because the circumstances that surround the cradle of the Antiochian school, in general, although known, are specifically very dark.
Ernesti begins the historical-grammatical direction of the Antiochian school from the time of the semi-Arian Eusebius of Emesa. This view of his, with very minor changes, was adopted by a number of Protestant and Catholic writers. Ernesti's statement is truly this: Eusebius Emisenus instituti primus, quantum guidem scimus,... in interpredando sequi illud modo genus, quod historiam teneret, et ea modo vaticinia ad Chrstum refferre, us solis uti in disputando, in quibus proprie de eo et uno sermo esset...; sicut et totum allegoricum genus, quod historiam ad res intelligibiles thahit, in dicendo scribendoque repudiabat.
We could not object to anything against the recognition of Eusebius as the head of the Antiochian school, if it were only asserted that with Eusebius, who was distinguished by his comprehensive education, 139 the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures achieved a certain major development.
But if it is claimed that Eusebius of Emesa was the first to pave a completely new path in the field of interpretation of the Word of God, on which subsequent Antiochians, starting with Diodorus of Tarsus, achieved their enormous glory, then no external evidence can be given in favor of this position, which could be confirmed by internal data. The fragments attributed to Eusebius are mostly not authentic. Jerome 140 only says that Eusebius in his writings followed the historical method and compiled homilies and interpretations of individual books of the New Testament.
That Eusebius had a decisive influence on the exegesis of the Antiochians is apparently also affirmed by Jerome 141 when he designates the interpretations of Diodorus of Tarsus on the Epistles of the Apostle Paul as “ad Eusebie magis emiseni characterem pertinentia, cums cum sensum secutus sit, eloquentiam imitari non potuit propter ignorantiam saecularium sitterarum." However, this evidence is refuted by what Theodoret reports about the learned Bishop of Tarsus Diodorus 142, and in the light of other data appears as undoubtedly false. In any case, not much can be built on the words of Jerome, although the merit of Eusebius of Emesa in the history of the development of historical and grammatical interpretation of Holy Scripture is beyond any doubt.
Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa, originally from Edessa, studied the Holy Scriptures in his hometown and Caesarea. According to Socrates 143, in the biography of Eusebius, compiled by George of Laodia, among other things it was reported: ἱερὰ μαθὼν Γράμματα εἶτα τὰ Ἐλλήνων παιδευθεὶς παρὰ τῷ ? Πατροφίλου καὶ Εὐσεβίον (τοῦ μεν ἐν καισαερεία) τὰ ἱερὰ ἡρμηνεύθη βιβλία.
Therefore, Eusebius of Emesa drew his knowledge and methods of interpretation from church sources and precisely from those famous schools, in one of which the excellent critic and exegete Lucian received his education long before him.
Thus, this common heritage of exegetical knowledge - especially Eusebius of Emesa - became the property of the Antiochians, thanks to the learned merits of Lucian. Ernesti's statement falls, Langerke comes closer to the truth when he says: Syri jam fere inde a Paulo Sanosateno, Dorotheo et Luciana, Anthichiae presbiteris, singularem quandam Scripturae Sacrae exponendae rationem, quam historico-grammaticam appellant, tanquam theologiae dogmaticae fundamentum eacolere corperunt. Thus, Langerke admits the existence of a preparatory stage in the history of the famous exegetical school, and this assumption, as we will see below, has its full justification. But then Langerke, following the example of others, falls into the same mistakes, namely: he believes that the Antiochian school achieved its major development during the period of men who accepted only the literal meaning of the Holy Scriptures (nisi unum sensum ex linguae indole et orationis nexu eruendum biblis sacrius praeclare statuerum); The beginning of this kind of interpretation, in his opinion, was laid by the Arian Theodore, Bishop of Heraclea, a contemporary of Eusebius of Emesa.
However, these and similar theories, which attribute the emergence of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation of the glorious Antiochian school to exegetes inclined towards Arianism, and its heyday is attributed to the time of the activity of teachers of the Nestorian school, are devoid of historical basis; they rest on a preconception about the retarding influence of the Church and Councils on the development of sound methods of interpreting the word of God, on prejudices regarding ecclesiastical exegesis, and, finally, on the deliberate exaltation of those teachers who, consciously or unconsciously, deviated from church teaching and unity. In fact, the historical-grammatical method of interpretation of the Antiochian school went back to church writers who either acted in Antioch and in the related schools of Edessa and Nizabia, or received their education there.
The exegetes themselves, who had fallen under ecclesiastical condemnation, sought to remain in communion with the Church, expounded their teaching on behalf of and as representatives of their bishops, and, only due to a fierce struggle with allegorists and the desire to subject everything in the Holy Scriptures to dialectical analysis, more or less unconsciously fell into a one-sided rationalistic direction.
Accordingly, Kihn, on the question of the conditions for the origin of the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, puts forward the following position: “The Antiochian school, which primarily used the historical-grammatical method of interpretation of Holy Scripture and with rare success achieved a scientific approach in the field of Biblical exegesis, arose on the basis of the conditions of the internal life and aspirations of the Church, from the special local and temporary conditions of the Antiochian and Syrian communities, from a special direction of the spirit and the character of this people, from the happy application of the results of the work of the Alexandrian school in the exegetical field, from the special suitability of the historical-grammatical method for refuting the Syrian Jews and Gnostics, and from counteracting the excesses of the allegorical method of Origen” 144.
Highlights in the history of the School of Antioch
The word “school” can be understood in two ways. This concept, taken in a broad sense, means a number of writers who are spiritually dependent on each other and have one common chapter. In a narrow sense, this term means an institution that exists in a certain place and whose purpose is the mental education and moral education of a certain generation of individuals. The Antiochian school must initially be understood as a school in the broad sense of the word. As such, its beginning can be traced back to Saint Theophilus, around whom a number of disciples had already grouped 145.
The Antiochian school appeared with a clearly defined character only during the time of Lucian and his contemporary Dorotheus. The special method of interpreting Holy Scripture, characteristic of all Lucian’s disciples, follows the specific method of their teacher. From the time of Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsus, the Antiochian school took on the formal character of an educational institution with a specific educational charter and reached its highest development. Nestorianism, which grew in the depths of the Antiochian school, separates it from the living organism of the Church, and it quickly goes into decline. According to these most important moments in the development of the Antiochian school, Kihn divides its history into
1) Preparatory stage (from Theophilus to Lucian) and
2) Three periods: the first - from Lucian to Diodorus, the second - from Diodorus to Nestorius and the third - from Nestorius to the transfer of the school to Edessa.
Preparatory stage in the history of the Aniokh school. General characteristics of it
If we trace the Antiochian school back to Theophilus, then here we will already be able to observe some features characteristic of the Antiochian school and its exegetical direction. Theophilus, known for his thorough scholarship and literary activity, reveals a number of comprehensively educated teachers of the Church, so that there should be no doubt about the fact that already in his time a number of disciples were grouped around the bishop. Likewise, the literary works of Theophilus give us reason to begin the exegetical school in Antioch with him. He wrote not only against Marcian and Hermogenes - of whom the first followed the grammatical method - but also composed ἕτερα τινα κατηχητικὰ βιβλία, which, as Jerome defines, are: allii breves elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem Ecclesiae pertinentes. “Thus,” writes A. Neander, “we already see here the germ of the exegetical direction of the Antiochian school” 146.
Likewise, Serapion, who assumed the See of Antioch in 190–191, showed exegetical-critical talent. A further reason for supposing the existence of a school at this time is that the learned presbyter Malchio, who was the first to expose Paul of Samosata, was the leader of a sophistic school in Antioch. There is nothing incredible in the fact that he continued to lead this school, being already a presbyter, and that in Antioch, just as it was in Alexandria, Christian teachers taught a course in the humanities, and their ministers were not only members of the Church, but also Gnostics; not only Christians, but also pagans.
Figures of the preparatory stage in the history of the Antiochian school
Saint Theophilus of Antioch
A pagan by origin, an educated and well-read man, well acquainted with Greek literature and science, Saint Theophilus came to Christianity through an independent reasonable conviction of its superiority over all other religions: the conviction that he gained from reading the Holy Books of the Old Testament, mainly the prophetic books (“To Autolycus,” 1:14).
Theophilus' broad scientific education and his sincere devotion to Christianity served for the Antiochian Christians mainly to make him deputy of the Antiochian see, when this latter, after the death of Bishop Eros, became free (compare: Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History” 4:20; Jeronim, “On Famous Men,” 25).
As a bishop, Saint Theophilus strengthened his flock with “instructions and admonitions,” while he fought against heretics “either through oral contests and refutations, or through writings, denouncing their opinions with the most precise arguments” (Eusebius, “Church History,” 4:24).
According to the testimony of Eusebius 147 and Jerome 148, Saint Theophilus wrote a book against Marcion (κατὰ Mαρκίωνος), an essay against the heresy of Hermogenes (Πρὸς τὴν αἵρεσιν Ἐρμογένους), several “catechetical works” - “short but beautiful treatises related to the edification of the Church.” According to Theophilus himself, he wrote a work, the first book of which had the inscription Περὶ ἱστωριῶν spoke about the early history of mankind (“To Autolycus”, 2:30). Jerome mentions Theophilus' interpretations of the Gospel and Proverbs of Solomon, but he himself doubts their authenticity 149.
The interpretation attributed to Theophilus on the four Gospels in the Latin translation, the authenticity of which Zahn tried to substantiate, is a compilation from the works of Origen, Jerome, Augustine and others, compiled in the second half of the 5th century. In two manuscripts that remained unknown to Zahn᾽y, the interpretation is preceded by a prologue in which the unknown compiler himself designates his work as a florilegium from the works of early interpreters (traktatoribus defloratis opusculum spiritale composui).
Of all the works of Theophilus, the number of which testifies to his rather extensive activity, only one of his works has survived to this day under the title: “Epistle to Autolycus on the Xpucmian Faith,” consisting of three separate books. By the unity of its content and internal connection with each other, they form one harmonious whole. In the first book, Theophilus speaks about monotheism, the knowledge of God and the resurrection of the dead, and is almost exclusively concerned with the defense of Christian teaching; in the other two, he mainly refutes paganism from religious, moral and philosophical points of view and at the same time, in contrast with them, points to Christianity as the one true religion 150 (More detailed information about the life and literary activity of St. Theophilus is presented in lectures on the first department of Patrology 151).
Serapion, the eighth bishop of Antioch, entered the see of Antioch during the reign of the Emperor Comodos 152 and also survived the persecution of Septimius Severus 153. His episcopal activity falls on the years 190/191–211/212 154 . As a writer, Serapion was distinguished by great productivity, but of his works Eusebius of Caesarea knew only a few, “not all of them, namely: the letter “To a certain Domninus, who during the persecution fell away from the faith of Christ and turned to the superstitious opinions of the Jews,” the letter “to the clergy - Pontius, Cyricus,” dedicated to polemics with Montanism (Hist, eccl., 4:19), other letters to various men, and “The Book of the So-Called Gospel of Peter.”
From the latter, Eusebius cited a rather significant excerpt, which ends with the following words: “we managed to get this very Gospel... We read it and found that, although much in it is in agreement with the true teaching, there is something that does not agree, which we point out to you” 155.
The message of Blessed Jerome 156 about the literary activity of Serapion rests on the data of Eusebius. On the contrary, the remarks of Socrates 157: “Serapion in his writings taught that Jesus Christ possessed not only a body, but also a human soul (ἔµψυχον), goes to another source unknown to us.
Malchio, presbyter of Antioch, was distinguished by his extensive education and led the sophistic school in Antioch. Tremendous oratorical talent, rare moral purity and dialectical abilities - these are the features that made his name historical. Malchio guarded the purity of the faith and did not keep it falsely. As a representative of the orthodox way of thinking, he spoke brilliantly at the Third Council in Antioch against Paul of Samosata. No bishop surpassed epeçapxa in dialectic during the first two Councils. Malchio exposed his errors 158. The dispute between Paul of Samosata and Malchion was recorded by tachographers. The Fathers of the Council of Antioch, who condemned Paul of Samosata, sent a message to the entire Catholic Church in which “they exposed their zeal to everyone and announced Paul’s ugly heterodoxy, the accusations and questions put to him, as well as his entire life and behavior” 159.
Jerome's report that this letter was composed by Malchio deserves every credibility. From the shorthand record of the debate, as well as from the district message, only insignificant fragments 160 have survived to this day, which show that in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures Malchion adhered to the historical-grammatical method.
The first period in the development of the Antiochian school. General characteristics of it
During the first period under review in the history of the development of the Antiochian school, its dogmatic and exegetical direction received a more vivid, stable and definite expression. This period opens with the names of the presbyters Lucian and Dorotheus, who are inclined to be considered “the founders of the Antiochian school 161. Lucian and his contemporary Dorotheus are men of broad learning, comprehensive education and deep understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Both of them undoubtedly wrote interpretations on the books of the Old and New Testaments, although nothing has survived from these commentaries to our time. In the history of criticism of the Holy Scriptures, Lucian is famous for his review of the Bible. Everything that we know about the method of the writers who are considered direct or indirect disciples of Lucian, and what we can conclude on the basis of fragments of their works, undoubtedly speaks for the fact that these writers made extensive use of the historical-grammatical method of interpreting Holy Scripture.
Identical consequences provide grounds for concluding an identical cause, and we see it in the features and properties of Lucian’s exegesis, which, in the words of Kihn᾽a 162, combined all the best that Syria, Alexandria and Palestine could offer to the interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. The learned bishops Eusebius and Meletius, who, having come from Pamphylia and Armenia, acted at this period in Antioch, protected, as far as possible for them, the local school from the one-sided rationalistic direction of the Lucianist circle, which produced prominent figures of Arianism from its midst, and prepared a flourishing period in its development.
The chronological and biographical data we have regarding Lucian are very limited. The life of this outstanding Christian teacher falls on one of the darkest periods in the history of the ancient Church 163. According to Evidence 164, which in this case relies on a good source - the martyrdom of Lucian - the latter came from Samosata from noble parents and received his education in the neighboring city of Edessa, where, during his studies, a certain Macarius 165, famous for his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, acted.
Whether Lucian continued his education in Caesarea 166 remains an open question. Lucian began his pedagogical activity in Antioch, there is reason to think, around 260 167. If so, then with a certain probability we can assume that he was born before 235. In Antioch, Lucian was to become close to the famous bishop, Paul of Samosata. According to Alexander of Alexandria, he was a “successor” in the teachings of Paul, and when this Antiochian bishop was condemned at the Council of 268, Lucian broke off church communion with his successor Domnus and remained outside the Church for three episcopates 168.
Thus, under Domna, Timaeus and Cyril (they ruled the Church of Antioch from 268 to 303), Lucian and his disciples were schismatics. It is very likely, notes Harnac 169, that Lucian remained in the schism under Cyril for one to two years; It is natural to think that, having exerted a tremendous influence on believers as a teacher (the outstanding leaders of Arianism are his students), he was already in communion with the Church. According to the chronicle of Eusebius, Cyril occupied the See of Antioch in 279–280. It is possible that Lucian, who did not share all the errors of Paul of Samosata, restored peace with the Church in the eighties and nineties of the 3rd century. Until 311 - the year of his martyrdom - Lucian stood at the head of the Antiochian school, studying the Holy Scriptures and gathering crowds of students around him, many of whom later reached episcopal sees.
Lucian's strict ascetic life and extraordinary knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, evidenced by his review of the LXX translation, ensured wide fame in Eastern Christendom. In the year 311, when Maximin opened a persecution against the Christians of Syria and Egypt under his control, Lucian was captured and brought to Nicodemus, where Caesar was then temporarily located. Here, in the presence of Maximin, he made an excellent defensive speech about Christianity, which made a strong impression on the judges, and then died in prison under torture.
The martyrdom of Lucian is a firmly established fact, which is based on a whole series of ancient testimonies. Eusebius mentions him twice in his history of the Church and both times with the purpose of marking his martyrdom (compare: Hist, eccl., 8:13,2; 9:6,3).
Also in the more ancient calendar - the Nicomedia calendar, which formed the basis of later church calendars, the name of Lucian appears as the name of a martyr. The Arian historian Philostorgius, in his Historia Ecclesiastica, dwells with a sense of reverence before the martyrdom of Lucian. pseudo-Athanasius calls him holy and great, ascetic and martyr. The laudatory conversation of Saint John Chrysostom, delivered by him on January 7, 367, reveals through what torture Caesar hoped to persuade Lucian to apostatize.
As for Lucian’s literary activity, Eusebius does not name a single work of his. Socrates is silent about Lucian, Sozomen 170 is limited to general expressions: εἰς ἄκρον ἠκριβωκότος. Jerome speaks somewhat more definitely about Lucian’s literary activity, followed by Svida and Metaphrastus. Jerome calls (De vir. ill., 77):
1) His review of Bible manuscripts (Svida and Metaphrast as well);
3) Several letters (from Svida as well).
In addition, Rufinus 171 betrays the text of Lucian's defensive speech. From Lucian's letters, a small excerpt from the Epistle has been preserved in Chroniken paschale 172, which reports the martyrdom of Bishop Anenm. About letters in general, Svida says: φωράσαι τις ἄν εῦ μάλα ῥᾳδίως, ἥν ὁ ἀνὴρ περὶ τῶν θείων ἔσωζε γνώμην. Lucian's defensive speech allows us to notice his Christological point of view (compare: Deus unus est, per Chistum nobis adnunciatus et per Sanctum Spiritum nostrus cordibus inspiratus... Deus sapientiam suam misit in hunc mundem carne vestitam, quae nos doceret et...
The significance of Christ is limited only by His teaching and the giving of the new Law. The suffering of the Lord and His death on the cross, according to Lucian, have the meaning only of an example of patience for us. Gillemont and Batiffol do not recognize the authenticity of the speech, the text of which is reported by Rufinus. “However,” notes Harnack 173, “in its main features, it seems to me, cannot be rejected. Like Apollonius's defensive speech, it goes back to some original recording, which was then corrected. Rufinus borrowed it from the enormous work of Eusebius “on the martyrs.”
In the Acts of Lucian, which are a reworking of the ancient Arian Acts, it is reported that Lucian left in the Nicomedia Church a manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, which he himself rewrote, but this news is unlikely. As for the book “On Faith,” the words of Epiphanius can be attributed to this work of Lucian: “Lucian and the Lucianists deny that the Son of God took on a human soul, and want to recognize in him only the human body, and they do this with the aim of attributing to the Logos human passions, such as, for example, sadness, joy, and so on. And recognize Him Himself as a being lower than God, a creation” 174. The book “On Faith” undoubtedly existed in the middle of the 4th century.
Gathered at the Council of 341 in Antioch, the Eastern bishops issued a confession of faith (the second Antiochian formula), regarding which, according to Sozomen, they claimed that its author was the martyr Lucian. “They spoke the truth, or elevated their own work with the authority of a martyr, I cannot say,” Sozomene notes about this message of his 175. He also reports 176 that the Council of the Semi-Arians in Caria in 367 recognized the Symbol of the Council of Antioch as Lucian’s. This Symbol was also recognized as Lucian’s at the Semi-Arian Council in Seleucia (359). In the near future, the Lucian origin of this Symbol will be recognized by Cave, Basnage, Baranius, Bull, Hahn, Dorner and others. But:
1) Sozomen himself doubts the Lucian origin of the Symbol;
2) The publisher of Hilary’s works rightly notes that Athanasius recognizes some phrases from the Symbol as belonging to Akakios and that Akakios himself attributed quite a lot of the Symbol to Asterius. Also, Hilarius allows us to think that the bishops gathered at the Council were the founders of the Symbol.
3) Some parts of the Symbol, such as the beginning and conclusion, speak for themselves that they belong to Lucian. Therefore, a number of scientists, for example, Routh, Hefele, Keivor and others, doubt the Lucian origin of the Symbol. However, Caspari, followed by Harnack, Gwatkin and others, argue that in the Symbol it is necessary to distinguish between Lucianian provisions and Antiochene interpolations. Kattenbuseh is inclined to assume that not only the 2nd, but perhaps also the 4th Antiochian formula rests on the confession of Lucian, his review of the Bible. Reports regarding her are very fragmentary. Jerome mentions it, in addition to the corresponding place in “De υiris Illustibius” (77), several more times 177. He says that the review of Lucian's LXX prevailed in all the churches from Antioch to Constantinople, while the churches of Alexandria and all Egypt adhered to the review of Hesychius, and the churches of Palestine read this translation in the review of Origen. Jerome reports that Lucian's text LXX differed from the text known as κοινή, and thus makes it clear that many overlooked this difference.
Regarding Lucian's review of the New Testament text, Jerome speaks less favorably than about the LXX review: praetermitto eos codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio nunkupatos paucorum hominum asserit perυersa contentio, quibus dog in toto V. G. post LXX interpretes emendare quid licuit dog in Noυo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis Scriptura antea translata doceat falsa esse, quae addita sunt.
Jerome's censure so strongly influenced the attitude of subsequent generations towards Lucian that the so-called Decreto Gelasiano lists "the apocryphal Gospels which Lucian composed, and the apocryphal Gospels which Hesychius compiled." Regarding the source that Lucian used for his review of the New Testament, we do not know anything reliable. Hug tried to prove that Lucian adhered to the Syriac Peshitta of the New Testament.
Harnack 178 objects that such an attempt has no rational basis, since the Peshitta of the New Testament is younger than Lucian. But Harnack's obviously tendentious view of the time of the origin of the Peshitta is decisively at odds with the opinions of experts in Syriac literature 179 and the history of the New Testament canon 180. Regarding Lucian's review of LXX, besides Jerome, pseudo-Athanasius, Metaphrastus, and after him Svida speak.
Based on the latter's message, it is generally accepted that Lucian's LXX review was based on the Hebrew text, although, on the other hand, there are voices that strongly deny Lucian's knowledge of the Hebrew language 181 . Nothing has survived from Lucian’s exegetical works to our time. However, it is possible that he wrote commentaries on individual books of the Holy Scriptures. Sixtus Senensis first called attention to the fact that in the Latin translation of the Expositio libri Jobi of Julian of Halicarnasus there is an interpretation of Lucian for some verses of the second chapter. Regarding this interpretation, Julian says that he received it from holy men; these same latter informed (dicebant illi) him that this interpretation belongs to the martyr Lucian, cui Christus carus fuit. This passage cannot serve as evidence in favor of Lucian’s literary exegetical activity: we do not know through what medium the tradition reached Julian.
Having mentioned Cyril, Bishop of Antioch (about 280–303/306), Eusebius continues: “under Cyril we knew Dorotheus, a most learned man in his time, who was awarded the presbytery in Antioch. He was extremely fond of studying Divine subjects and studied the language of the Jews, so that he read Jewish books with understanding, was familiar with the liberal sciences and was not alien to Greek education, only, on the other hand, he was an eunuch by nature, from birth: therefore, the king brought him closer to himself, as if some kind of rarity, and honored him with the position of overseer of the purple factory” (Hist, eccl., 7:32). In two places in the VIII book of his “Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius mentions Dorotheus, who occupied a high place at the court of Diocletian and died a martyr.
Compare: 8:1: “Such was that Dorotheus, for his deepest devotion and fidelity he was distinguished preferentially among persons who occupied the highest government positions”; 8:6: “Let us only mention that Dorotheus and Gorgonius, together with many others of the royal courtiers, after many different exploits, ended their lives on the gallows and thus achieved the reward for the Divine victory.” Whether this Dorotheos is identical with the one previously named (Hist, eccl., 7:32), or whether they should be distinguished, we do not have data to answer this question. Based on the message of Eusebius, researchers of pathological literature classify Dorotheus of Antioch as a teacher of the Antiochian school and believe that he worked in it together with Lucian.
Eusebius says nothing about Dorotheus’ literary activity. The catalog of writers of Blessed Jerome does not know any Dorotheus.
Only at a much later time did writings appear regarding the prophets, apostles and 70 disciples under the name of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tire, who was to die a martyr under Julian the Apostate. These works were also attributed to Hippolytus and Epiphanius. Dorotheus, Bishop of Tire, is, as Gelser᾽a notes (Litz. 1892, col. 449), an invention of the Byzantines, who turned the “superintendent of the Tire purple factory” into the Bishop of Tire, and the time of his life was postponed by a whole half century.
If the name of Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, is a historical name, in other words, if there really was a Dorotheus who wrote treatises regarding the prophets, apostles and 70 disciples, then this Dorotheus is in any case many centuries younger than Dorotheus of Antioch 182.
Antioch and the Antiochian School - the center of the Arian movement
Professor Lebedev in his study: “Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries” 183 notes in one place: “after a brief enumeration of the places where the defenders of the Nicene confession established themselves and where the champions of the anti-Nicene doctrines settled, it is revealed that in the Eastern Church the Northern dioceses stood for Arianism, and the Southern ones for Orthodoxy. The South was under the predominant influence of Alexandria, and the North under the same influence of Antioch. As a result, the Nicene direction of theological thought can be called Alexandrian, and the Anti-Nicene direction – Antiochian.”
Indeed, Syrian Antioch became the central point of the Arian movement after the Council of Nicaea, just as Alexandria was the main point from which the Nicene trend spread. Antioch, in the words of Sozomen (Hist, eccl., 6:21), was the true nest where Arianism lived widely. From here, from Antiachia, according to the testimony of the Arianists themselves, most of the dogmatic Arian definitions - Symbols - came out; Arian dogmas arose here and spread from here 184. Here, at numerous Councils, the rejection of the Nicene Symbol was proclaimed with all decisiveness. Here a regular succession of Arian bishops was formed 185. Here, in Antioch, conspiracies were created against the luminaries of Orthodoxy. Here the condemnation of Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, champion of Orthodoxy at the First Ecumenical Council, took place, due to “attachment to the Nicene Symbol; 186 Here the enmity against Athanasius the Great found its outcome; 187 slander was spread from Antioch against the great teacher of the Church, Basil.
In general, Antioxia, even from the point of view of moderate Arians, by the spread of heresy prepared the danger of collapse for the entire universe 188. One of the pillars of Arianism in Antioch was the local school. From it came many Arian teachers who considered themselves disciples of Lucian.
Lucian and his attitude towards Arianism
Professor Adolf Harnack, in his “History of Dogmas” 189, puts almost the entire Arian system into the mouth of Lucian, but evidence a retro, that is, borrowed from later data regarding the Arian teaching, cannot be considered valid from a strictly scientific point of view.
In essence, all the material that science has to characterize Lucian’s dogmatic views comes down to the following two points: 1st, there is no doubt that this is the concept of God, which occupies a central place in the dogmatic system of Arianism and determines all its further conclusions.
The same with the concept that Paul of Samosat once defended; It is natural and to some extent necessary to assume that this heritage passed from Paul to the Arians through the mediation of Lucian, for otherwise it would be impossible to explain the assimilation of this concept on the part of the Arians; secondly, according to the news of Epiphanius, Lucian rejected the human soul in Christ and taught that God the Word accepted only human flesh, that is, he connected the concepts of Paul of Samosata about Christ as an “adopted God” with the church-philosophical concept of the pre-existing Logos-Dimurgus, the second God, that is, he transferred the features of adoptionist Christology to the logological Theology thus warned Arianism, although there is no reason to assert that Lucian had already come to all the extreme conclusions that were expressed by Arius. Lucian did not need these conclusions at all, and it is possible to think that in the age of Arius he would have abandoned them in the same way as he refused the defense of Paul of Samosata - therefore it is impossible to call him Arius before Arius.
Nevertheless, all the data that has been preserved about Lucian and his relations with the Arians leads us to believe that in the field of dogmatics he also outlined the path at the extreme point of which lay the Arian system 190 .
The Solukianist circle and its characteristics
During the time that passed from the death of Lucian to the beginning of the Arian disputes, which apparently grouped around Eusebius of Nicomedia, it continued to develop in the direction indicated by Lucian, and gradually formed a closed school, bound by a unity of beliefs and speaking with its own special ideas in the field of faith and dogmatics. It was primarily a school of learned theologians; to be a Lucianist in the language of the Eastern Church meant nothing more than to be a person of good education, a man of science. The members of the Lucian circle diligently studied the philosophy of Aristotle, practiced its critical methods and were famous for their skill in dialectics. Contemporary writers note about all the outstanding figures of Arianism that they loved and knew how to argue, that they revealed their teaching with the help of Aristotle’s categories and in the form of syllogisms.
It is absolutely clear that, having become accustomed to critical research when solving philosophical problems, Lucianists consciously began to use the same techniques when studying the highest subjects of religious knowledge. They did not separate faith from knowledge and in the religious sphere they wanted to achieve the same logical clarity and separation of concepts that is achievable in the circle of everyday objects of human knowledge. They openly proclaimed themselves “testers and researchers of the faith” and denied any difficulties, any incomprehensibility in the teaching of the Church.
As a group of young theologians, confident in their learning and dialectical superiority, the Lucianists did not highly value church traditions, did not bow to them, allowed themselves to mock people who were too attached to these traditions, and wanted to re-examine what was considered generally accepted and untouchable by virtue of the authority of antiquity. They argued that the most ancient opinions in the field of faith should not be followed without checking them.
The ancient Fathers of the Church had no significance in their eyes. “Is it surprising,” writes Alexander of Alexandria, “is it surprising the lies and slander of heretics against me and our most pious people? Those who are armed against the Divinity of the Son of God, of course, will not refuse to ungratefully slander us. “They,” continues Alexander of Alexandria, “even the ancients do not deserve comparison with themselves and cannot tolerate being compared with those persons who were mentors in our adolescence.
In their opinion, not a single one of our contemporary co-servants has reached the level of learning. They only consider themselves wise, those who have achieved perfection in knowledge, and those who understand the dogmas of faith” 191. To their opponents, the Arians seemed to be daring debaters who were not stopped by anything sacred. And indeed, the contrast between Arian circles and church theologians is nowhere more clearly outlined than in their diametrically different attitude towards questions of faith.
Alexander of Alexandria, discussing the second Person of the Holy Trinity, writes: “The image of the existence of the Son of God exceeds the concepts not only of the Evangelists, but also of the angels themselves; if the human mind cannot know many of these kinds of objects, which are incomparably lower than this sacrament, then is it only madness, devoid of human meaning, that will decide to subject the Hypostatic existence of the Word of God to research” 192. The Arians did not know such caution in explaining objects of faith; in their eyes, such caution was only proof of limited thought, blindness of mind, for which they reproached the Orthodox.
The height and mystery of the question did not weaken their confidence in the ability to comprehend it. With an audacity unparalleled since the days of the Gnostics, Aetius, one of Lucian’s indirect disciples, ascribed to himself such an adequate knowledge of the essence of God as God Himself has 193. The rationalistic tendencies of the Lucianist circle found clear expression in the teachings of Arius.
Individual representatives of the Lucianist circle
Arius, a native of Libya 194, a disciple of St. Lucian 195, a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, in whose behavior even his enemies could not find anything bad 196. In 318 he entered into a dispute with his bishop Alexander; in 321 he was deposed at the Council of Alexandria.
The First Ecumenical Council (325) condemned him. Ancient historians portray Arius as an outstanding dialectician, 197 more a practical figure than a writer. Of the works of Arius, two letters have survived to this day - one to Eusebius of Nicomedia 198 and the other to Alexander of Alexandria 199, a statement of faith signed by Arius and addressed to τῷ εὐλαβεστάτῳ καὶ θεοφιλεστάτῳ δεσπότῃ ἡμῶν βασιλεῖ Κωνσταντίνῳ, 200 fragments of Thalia (in the works of Athanasius the Great), the main work of Arius, which was written by him during his stay with Eusebius of Nicomedia and represented a defense of his teachings in an entertaining popular form, half-poetic, half-prosaic.
Based on these writings of Arius, his original teaching can be presented in this form. Two points are constant in the views of Arius:
1) the emphasis on non-fertility (ᾀγέννητον εἶναι), which came under strong Aristotelian influence, as an essential sign of the Divine, and
2) what distinguished him not only from Tertulian, but even from Origen was his rejection of all emanistic thoughts.
From these two provisions it is clear that, in his opinion, the premium Υἱὸς Θεοῦ, which, as such, is not ἀγέννητος, goes over to the side of the creatures (κτισμάτων). He did not come from God, but was called into existence by the will of God - out of nothing - of course, before all time. “By the will of God He existed before time and ages, so that God through Him would create us 201. Although the first of creations, the Logos is still a creation - κτίσμα.
“The Word is one of the creatures” (ὁ Λόγος… τῶν κτισμάτων εἶς) 202 The word to give birth, γεννᾶν, when they talk about the relationship of God to the Logos, means nothing more than to create, create, ποιεῖν: “Desiring to create us, God created one and called Him Word, Wisdom, Son. Everything came from nothing, and it was when there was no Word. It did not exist until it happened, and It had the beginning of creation 203 . Naturally, there can be no talk of any commonality between the essence of the Logos and God: “everyone is alien, not similar to God in essence, and the Word is alien to the Father’s properties, and in everything not like the Father’s essence” 204. The trinity according to Arius is impossible: for his monotheistic interest, as Loofs᾽a puts it, one unborn God (Θεὸς ἀγέννητος) is sufficient, and this is not contradicted by the fact that Arius in the concept of Τριάς unites: two semi-divine beings, whom he recognizes as essentially different from God. “Thus there is a Trinity, but the glories are not similar, and the Hypostases are incompatible with each other, one Hypostasis is infinitely more glorious than the other in glory.
The Father is essentially alien to the Son, because he is without beginning” 205. But Arius does not want to break traditions and calls Christ God. In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, he designates Him as the perfect God.
Only-begotten (πλήρης Θεὸς μονογενὴς), unchangeable (ἀναλλοίωτος). Only by cunning does he make such a name possible: “If it is said by God, it is not truly, but by the participation of grace; like all others, so it is only said by name by God. The Word itself is essentially changeable, but by its own freedom, as long as it wants, it remains perfect 206. This is what the dynamic monarchians once said about the historical Christ; but Arius wanted to attribute this to the premium Christ-Logos. “God, foreknowing that the Word would be perfect, previously bestowed upon Him this glory, which man subsequently began to have for virtue: therefore, for His works, which God foreknew, He created that He has now become such” 207 .
Just as Arius’s Logos-creation cannot be Logos or Wisdom in the philosophical sense of this concept, Arius directly says that the created Logos differs from the internal - Divine Logos: “there are two Wisdoms - one proper and co-inherent in God; The Son was born of this Wisdom, and, as a partaker of It, is called only Wisdom and Word” 208. If Arius adds that the Word cannot completely and accurately see and know His Father” 209, then this concession, notes Loofs, means the bankruptcy of the doctrine of the Logos 210.
We know little about the youth of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Even his parents are not known. It is only firmly established that he came from a noble family and was even distantly related to the Imperial House. The year and place of his birth are unknown. He received his theological education at the school of Lucian the Martyr 211. Then we find him a bishop - the time of consecration is unknown - in Barita, and then Nicomedia, which since the time of Diocletian has become the Imperial residence and, in terms of population, the fifth city of the Empire. During his travels in Syria, Arius turned to him, as a school friend, with a letter in which he asked for his help. This happened in 318–319.
Eusebius immediately intervened in the dispute and became the center of the opposition. He invited Arius to Nicomedia and arranged the court in his favor, and sent letters to all the most important bishops of the East, the purpose of which was to prepare the Church to accept the teachings of Arius. During the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, according to Eustathius of Antioch, acted as the first referent 212.
As far as the few data preserved about this by ancient writers allow us to explain the activities of Eusebius of Nicomedia at the Council, it happened like this: Eusebius introduced his Symbol (πίστεως διδασκαλία) to the Council, in which the views of strict Arians were set out, and for which he sought Council approval. The Symbol itself has not survived to this day; but there is every reason to assert that it contained the very essence of the Arian doctrine. It included all the characteristic features that constituted the distinctive feature of radical Arianism, namely: “The Son of God is a work, a creature”; “there was a time when the Son was not”; “Son we change essentially”). As soon as the reading of this Symbol was completed, the fathers of the Council, without any hesitation, decisively rejected it. The fathers recognized him as full of lies and ugly 213. After the Council of Nicea, at the beginning of the reaction against ὁμοούσιος, Eusebius of Nicomedia assembled a small but closely united - mobile, so to speak, Council of Bishops.
Activated by the skillful hand of its chairman, this Council was a powerful weapon against the Niceans. The victims of this Council were: Eusebius of Antioch, Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, Asclepius of Gaza, Ephration of Balanea, Cymation of Palta, Carterius of Antorad, Eutropius of Andrianople and his successor Lucius. The Anti-Nicene coalition, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, achieved its goal. All adherents of Niceism were deprived of their pulpits and were in exile.
The Eusebians were in power and enjoyed the favor of Constantine until his death (22 days 337 May). Their head, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was the one who baptized the great Emperor and guided him into the bosom of the Heavenly Father. Under Constantius, Eusebius of Nicomedia enjoyed the boundless confidence of the young Emperor and already in 338 he occupied the see of Constantinople. He died in the first months of 341.
Of the works of Eusebius of Nicomedia, only two of his letters are known: to Arius and to Paulinus of Tire. The first is mentioned by Athanasius 214 whose text is reported by Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus 215 .
Disciple of Lucian 216 Asterius, this is the Capodokian rhetorician 217 who renounced Christianity during the persecution of Diocletian, then again turned to the Church. After the Council of Nicaea, of which Asterius was one of the participants, he triumphantly read his συνταγμάτιον 218 in which he often boldly, sometimes aptly, attacked the exegetical techniques of the defenders of the Nicene faith. With particular effect, Asterius apparently explained to his listeners the weak side - the supposed lack of biblical basis - of the idea of the Son as the Hypostatic power of the Father.
From Rom 1:20: ἣ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ (τοῦ Θεοῦ) δύναμις καὶ θειότης, he concluded that if the Son is the Hypostatic power of the Father, then He is also the Hypostasis Divinity of the Father. However, this conclusion is far from absurd from the point of view of ancient theology, according to which the Son is the Hypostatic essence of the Father, the living and personal implementation of His Divine definitions, so that for us it is in the Son that the Divinity of the Father is revealed.
Asterius made only a strained and truly absurd conclusion that, from the point of view of the Orthodox, the Son is the cause of the Divinity of the Father, the cause (causa quo) of the fact that the Father is God 219. In addition to συνταγμάτιον, which served as the closest reason 220 for the appearance of the voluminous work of Marcellus of Ancyra. Περὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ ὑποσταγῆς, Asterius, according to the testimony of Blessed Jerome 221 wrote an interpretation of the Psalms, Gospels and the Epistle to the Romans, which were very widespread even in the time of Socrates 222, but not have reached us, except (?) the interpretation on the 4th Psalm, published by Montfaucon in Greek and Latin in Novacollectio patrum. Parisinus, 1706, t.I, pp. 28–30.
Eudoxius of Germanicia († 370), according to Philostorgius 223, came from Arabissa in Cappadocia. When he was born is unknown; however, there is reason to doubt the reliability of Philostorgius 224 that he was a disciple of the martyr Lucian. In 311, when Lucian suffered, Eudoxius was hardly more than 10 years old.
But it is quite likely that Eudoxius moved among the Lucian traditions and received his theological education in Antioch. According to Athanasius 225 (Hist. Ar.; Adv. monach., 4. M.P.G., 25:700), Eudoxius belonged to those like-minded people of Arius in Antioch whom Eustathius of Antioch refused to accept into the clergy. “After the overthrow of Eustavius” he was - the time is unknown - elevated to the rank of Bishop of Germanicia. As a follower of the Eusebian party, Eudoxius took part in the Council of Antioch in 341 226, and also together with the Easterners in Sardis (343–344. Hilarius, Fragm. 3:29~M.S.L.10:676~p.).
Until 343 he did not play any prominent role: the anathema of the orthodox participants in the Council of Sardis ignores him. Only in the year 344 did he act as an envoy of the Antioch Council of 344, going with three other Eastern bishops to the West to present the formula of this Council to the bishops there (the so-called ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος) 227 .
In the next decade, Eudoxius gained an increasingly prominent position among the Eusebians and among them already belonged to ἐπισημότατοι 228. That he participated in the Council of Sirmium in 351 is possible, although not proven, for the source cited in this case 229 (Hilar. Fragm. 6:7, M.S.h.10, 692 A.) indicates the later presence of Eudoxius in Sirmium.
His significant role in the history of Arian disputes is revealed from the moment his joint activity with Acacius of Caesarea begins; he was one of the few Eastern bishops who took part in the Council of Milan in 355; it fell to his lot to receive the commission of this Council - to deliver the Council Epistle to Eusebius of Vercel 230.
In 357, Leontius of Antioch died. At the beginning of the next year, Eudoxius returned to the East as Bishop of Antioch and, as such, took part in the Council of Selevicia (359). Here Hilary 231 heard his cynically rude speech against the sonship of Christ by nature (si filius, necesse est, ut et femina sit etc.). Soon after the Council of Seleucia, Eudoxius received the See of Constantinople. On January 27, 360, he was enthroned in the presence of many bishops (72), and a little later, on February 15, he took part in the consecration of the St. Sophia Church. Socrates 232 and Sozomen 233 report that Eudoxius made a speech, which opened with the words: οὐδένα σέβει… εὐσεβὴς, ὅτι σέβει τὸν Πατέρα).
We have no immediate information about the activities of Eudoxius as Bishop of Constantinople; but we can say with all certainty that he gave the direction to the entire religious policy of Valens. Arians and Eudokians were synonymous for the fathers of the Council of Constantinople.
It would be all the more interesting to present the Theology of Eudoxius, but for this there is not enough solid data. Eudoxius wrote Λόγος περὶ σαρκώσεως, but this work has been lost. Confession of Evdokai 234 in Caspari is a quotation from this work. Several other fragments from this work are offered by codex Vindobonensis 77. This work, or any others, are indicated by quotations from Eusebius in the catenas on the Psalms, which are given by codex Vindobonensis 15 - it is not known. Noteworthy is the connection between the dogma of Eusebius, as expressed in his confession, and the views of Apollinapius: ἀλλὰ σάρξ ἐγένετο… οὐ δύο φύσεις… μία τὸ ὅλον κατὰ σύνθεσιν φύσις.
Aetius, the first founder and leader of Anomaeanism, came from Coele-Syria 235, and perhaps from Antioch itself 236. After an amazing youth, when he had to wander around Western Asia, earning his living as either a jeweler or a doctor, he devoted himself to philosophical and theological studies. His teachers in the field of theological knowledge and especially in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures were learned Lucianists, who occupied either episcopal sees or positions in the clergy of Western Asia, with Leontius, a presbyter, and from 344 the bishop of Antioxia at their head 237. After a short stay in Alexandria, during the second exile of Athanasius, he returned to Antioch and was ordained by his friends to the rank of deacon. However, he did not serve as a deacon. He taught and this is his strength - he debated. Aetius developed a particularly successful activity in Alexandria, where he moved during the third flight of Athanasius. He received the most cordial welcome at George Alexandriysky's.
Here, apparently, even before the year 358, Eunomius joined him as a student and friend, who became next to him the head of the renewed Arianism. The teaching of these new Arians does not require extensive exposition: they were consistent Arians.
Like Arius, they recognized the position: Jesus came from a non-existent: ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων (hence the exumonteans), and Himself is not like the Father in essence: ἀνόμοιος ὁ υἱὸς τῇ οὐσίᾳ τῷ πατρὶ (hence anomea). The deviation from the genuine teachings of Apiya was very minimal. Aetius spoke in favor of these thoughts mainly with the weapon of formal dialectical art. A shallow thinker, but a subtle sophist, he looked at Christianity as ordinary philosophical material for dialectical exercises, did not associate any religious feeling with it and wanted to achieve only clarity and certainty in dogma. He managed to present the doctrine of God with the help of geometric figures. “From morning to evening,” writes Epiphanius, 238, “Aetius sat at his studies, trying to draw up a definition about God through geometry and figures.”
Συνταγμάτιον Aetia, which Epiphanius preserved for us 239 and which, according to the remark of Batiffol 240 is very important for the history of theological thought, trying in 47 theses (κεφάλαια) to prove the essential difference between μόνος ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς and γεννητὴ ὑπόστασις of the Son on the basis of unbornness belonging to the being of God - ἀγέννητον εἶναι. Nothing has survived to us from other monuments of Aetius’s literary activity, which was not at all productive. Socrates 241 mentions only his letters to the Emperor Constantius and to other persons - letters in which he amazed his opponents with sophistical intricacies.
Eunomius is the son of an educated farmer from Cappadocia 242. In Alexandria, Eunomius became a student of Aetius and became the same consistent Arian 243 as his teacher was. Eudoxius, Bishop of Antioch, made him a deacon of his church, and then helped him obtain the episcopal see at Cyzicus.
When Constantius, who generally had a favorable attitude toward the Arians, deposed Eunomius for his extreme, openly preached Arianism, Eunomius, not bound by official duties, became the generally recognized head of the Anomeans, therefore receiving the name “Eunomian.” Under Julian, he lived quietly in Constantinople, but under Valens, as a follower of the rebel Procopius, he was sentenced to exile to Mauritania, but the Arians achieved his return. At the beginning of the reign of Theodotius, Eunomius lived in Chalcedon, but his influence was very strong in Constantinople. Even in the Emperor's court there were many of his followers. The discovery of the latter was the reason for the new exile of Eunomius at the end of 383 to Galmiris near the Danube in Moesia.
Galmyris was conquered by the barbarians, Eunomius was transported to Caesarea in Cappadocia, but the general antipathy of the Cappadocians towards him, as an opponent of Basil the Great, forced him to move to his ancestral estate - Dakora, where he died between 392-395. Philostorgius 244 wrote a biography of Eunomius, of which nothing has survived; but the few surviving passages from his “ecclesiastical history” sufficiently show with what enthusiastic respect the Arian historian discussed this figure.
Alien to any self-interest and personal calculations, he presented his theory with complete conviction of its truth and, despite the indignation and denunciation of the Orthodox, he deduced all its consequences with inimitable logical directness. He was the first of the opponents of the Council of Nicea to sharply criticize the doctrine of consubstantiality, and the influence of his writings was such that the best people of his time had to fight against him: Didymus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Sophronius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and others. But only the works of Eunomius’s opponents have survived, and of the numerous works of Eunomius himself, we know only five:
1) Interpretation (lost) on the Epistle to the Romans,
2) Collection of (lost) letters,
3) βίβλιδάριον or ἀπολογετικός, published by Min (S.P.G., 30:835–868),
4) Ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ ἀπολογίας - against Basil the Great, known only from passages cited by Gregory of Nyssa, and finally,
5) Ἔκθσις πίστεως, published by Mansi (collectio conciliorum, 3:645–649).
Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa in Phenicia - branch of a noble family from Edessa. Having received initial information in sacred and secular literature in his home city from teachers who labored there, Eusebius attended various Christian schools and set out to assimilate, if possible, everything that his time could give him in the field of religious knowledge.
In Palestine, his teachers were: Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. The historical and grammatical method of the Antiochian school had a strong influence on Eusebius’s worldview, thanks to which his disparate religious concepts merged into a theological system of strict certainty.
In order to develop philosophical prerequisites for his religious worldview and understanding of life, Eusebius went to Alexandria, from where he returned to Antioch in 343. Already at this time, he declared himself such an outstanding orator and exegete that the Antioch Council of 341 designated him as the successor of Patriarch Athanasius, expelled from Alexandria.
However, Eusebius, who knew from direct experience the people’s affection for Athanasius, rejected this flattering offer and received a small Emesian see. But big troubles awaited him there too. The Emesians, frightened by his mathematical and astronomical knowledge, resolutely opposed his arrival to them, and Eusebius had to flee to Laodicea.
Over time, the Emsians, under the influence of the Patriarch of Antioch, calmed down, and Eusebius entered his see without hindrance. The sources do not provide any definite data to suggest that Eusebius spent the evening part of his life in Antioch, although they say that he was buried there 245. Eusebius's friend, George of Laodicea, compiled his biography, but from it, except for small fragments 246, nothing has survived to this day.
Jerome 247 speaks of many of the works of Eucebius of Emesa and characterizes the latter as a rhetorician who is well aware of the tastes of the crowd. Eusebius's outstanding works were works against the Jews, pagans and Novatians, ten books of interpretation of the Epistle to the Galatians, and short but numerous homilies on texts from the Gospels.
Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus mentions his writings against the Marcionites and Manichaeans 248. Philokson Mabbogsky notes his work on faith and homily 249; Ebed-Yeshu (Abd-yisho) - speech about the martyr Stephen 250.
From all these works of Eusebius of Emesa, the following have survived to our time: two passages of dogmatic content, perhaps from the book de fide, in the Eranist 251 of Blessed Theodoret; exegetical fragments in catenas on the books: Genesis, the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans, 1st Corinthians and 2nd Peter 252, and a short excerpt of his sermon on fasting 253. Tilo, and after him Panilus, consider it very probable that the two homilies in Latin, published by Sirmond under the name of Eusebius of Caesarea and directed against Marcellus of Ancyra, belong to Eusebius of Emesa. The reasons are as follows.
1) The beautiful, light style and lively language of these two sermons came closer to the style of Emesa than Eusebius of Caesarea;
2) They are alien to speculative forms of dogma, to which Eusebius of Caesarea was inclined, but which Eusebius of Emesa was alien to;
3) These words perfectly reflected the peaceful mood that characterizes the personality of Eucebius of Emesa. Tilo thinks that these speeches were delivered by Eusebius of Emesa, and precisely at the Council of Antioch in 341, at which, according to historians, he shone with his eloquence. Dräseke believes that the two works attributed to Athanasius, namely: “Against the Hellenes” and “On the Incarnation of the Logos,” have him as their author. A characteristic feature of the works of Eucebius, as far as they can be judged from the surviving remains, is the animated course of his speech, woven from concise provisions, oppositions and questions, strong dialectics, clarity and vitality of reasoning.
Orthodox writers of the Antiochian school during the first period of its development
The Arians and Polarians on the Orthodox side are opposed by a number of writers who also belong to the Antiochian direction. For the first period of the Antiochian school we will name Eustathius, Meletius and Flavian.
We know little about the life of the Great 254 Eustathius. Apparently, he came from the Pamphalia city of Side. This message of Blessed Jerome 255 constitutes, according to the remark of Loofs᾽a (R.E., B.5., S.626), the only thing that we (more or less) probably know regarding the pre-episcopal life of “Eustathius of Antioch”. The year of his birth is unknown, and the social status of his parents is unknown. There is no definite information about when, where and what kind of education he received. But what has been preserved from the writings of Saint Eustathius is fully justified by the words of Blessed Jerome; all of them (that is, the church writers mentioned in the letter to Magnus (LXX), including Eustathius) fill their writings with so many philosophical doctrines and opinions that you don’t know what to be more surprised about in them - secular education or knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.
The Holy Father is well acquainted with Plato and other Greek philosophers (cf.: F.Cavallera. S.Eustathii homilia christologica, Paris, 1905. Fr. 46-48, (pp. 87-88), 51-52 (pp. 89-90), refers to Homer and Hesiod, the style of his works is characterized by ancient importance of expression and grace of words (cf.: Sozomen. “Ecclesiastical History”, 2:19: δικαίως θαυμαζόμενος, ὡς ἐκ τῶν φερομένων αῦτοῦ λόγων συνιδεῖν ἐστὶν, ἀρχαιότητι φράσεως καὶ σωφροσύνῃ νοημάτων, καὶ ὀνομάτων κάλλει, καὶ χάριτι ἀπαγγελίας, εὐδοκιμούντων) - all this gives us reason to assume that Eustathius received an excellent secular school education.
Ancient writers, as well as manuscripts, agree to assign Eustathius the name of “confessor” and “martyr,” but only Athanasius and John Chrysostom report on the reason for which this writer received such a name, and their reports differ significantly. In Historia Arianorum (4), Athanasius the Great, presenting the deposition of the Bishop of Antioch as the work of the machinations of the Arians, begins his speech about him with the following words: “there was a certain Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, a confessor (ὁμολογητής) and a pious man in the faith” 256.
In his apology, Saint Athanasius exclaims: “what church does not shed tears now (that is, in the era of the anti-Nicene reaction) because of their (that is, Arian) malice against the bishops. Antioxia mourns the confessor and steadfast in Orthodoxy, Eustathius” 257.
In his laudatory speech, Eustathius John Chrysostom says: “So, this martyr - and our word showed him as a martyr - was ready for countless deaths, and he endured all of them with good will and jealousy, he endured many dangers that befell him through his experience. And they expelled him from the Fatherland, and sent him to a foreign land, and they erected many other things then (during the anti-Nicene reaction) against the blessed brother” 258.
Most scholars, based on the messages of Athanasius, believe that Eustathius received the name of confessor because he suffered for Christ back in the era of persecution of Christians by pagan Emperors. The very context of his speech speaks in favor of this understanding of Athanasius’s words. For the fidelity of Athanasius’ message, a sufficient guarantee is the consideration that Athanasius, as a fighter for Orthodoxy, naturally had to know all his comrades-in-arms very well, and even more so Eustathius of Antioch: Athanasius was a member of the clergy of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, a man to whom Eustathius was closely known, who exchanged messages with Eustathius.
The context of Chrysostom’s speech speaks precisely in favor of the opposite understanding of the term “confessor”. Eustathius confessor for the name of Christ, as a man
2) Truly a victim of the Arians.
Thus, there is a complete contradiction between the messages of Chrysostom and Athanasius. It is impossible to cross out the testimony of just one father as false. We should never forget that Chrysostom - as a cleric of the Antiochian Church and a person close to Saint Meletius - should also have been well aware of the biography of Eustathius 259. Blessed Jerome claims that Eustathius, before receiving the episcopal see in Antioch, ruled the church of the Syrian city of Berria.
When was he elected to the Berry Chair? who succeeded here? How did he manage the flock entrusted to him? – Church historical knowledge does not have the data to answer all these questions.
Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus 260 reports that during his stay in Berria, Saint Athanasius received from Alexander of Alexandria the famous message about Arius. The last event can be dated to 318–319. When Eustathius occupied the See of Antioch is not known for certain. According to Theodoret 261, this happened sometime before the First Ecumenical Council. Sozomen 262 represents the movement entirely as the work of the fathers gathered in Nicaea. The opinion given by Theophanes Chronograph 263 and Nikita Choniates 264 is intermediate. From their point of view, Eustathius was actually elected to the See of Antioch earlier than the First Council. But, according to Choniates, Eustathius, although poulo ante, nevertheless communi corum qui convenerant calculo dignus apostolica sede habitus fuerat atque idcirco e finitima Berroca Antiochiam evocutus.
According to Theophan, this election was approved at the Council of Nicaea. Who succeeded Saint Eustathius at the See of Antioch is a dark question. Theodoret (Hist, eccl., 1:8) makes him the immediate successor of Antioch, according to Arius and Athanasius, Philogonius, who died on December 20, at the earliest in 322. On the contrary, Jerome places Peacock between them (Chron. Ad dir. Abr. 2345). According to Philostorgius (Hist, eccl., 3:15) Peacock of Tire was the successor of Eustathius. Gidulyanov (Eastern nampiapxu during the period of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Yaroslavl, 1908, p. 176) is inclined to favor the testimony of Jerome and indicates as reasons for this:
1) Sozomen. Hist. eccl., 3:2, where Peacock is named before Eustathius;
2) The absence of Paulinus of Tire in the catalog of bishops of the Council of Nicaea, which could not have happened if the latter’s transition had taken place after Eustathius;
3) Canon 15 of the Council of Nicaea, which, as can be seen from the letters of Emperor Constantine to the Antiochian community (Eusebius. V.C., 3:60) and Eusebius of Caesarea (ibid., 61), had full force, why the bishops of the East, as can be seen from the practice of the episcopal election of Eusebius of Caesarea, could not ignore it;
4) Eusebius. V.C., 59, where the election of Eusebius of Caesarea follows as an event taking place immediately after the deposition of Eustathius;
5) Epistle of Constantine to the Council of Antioch (Eusebius. V.C., 3:62), among whose members Peacock is not listed, and the candidate in first place is “a resident of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Presbyter Ephronius.”
Eustathius took over the administration of the Antiochian Church at a time when, in the figurative expression of John Chrysostom, “this disease (Arianism), like some strong infection, rose from the countries of Egypt; then, passing through intermediate cities, she soon invaded Antioch.” The Bishop of Antioch, in view of the imminent danger, strengthened his flock in Orthodoxy, inspired his fellow pastors for the upcoming struggle and convinced them to be vigilant in relation to the approaching heresy; himself visiting all places for these purposes. Eustathius's range of activities in this direction was not limited to Antioch: he sent people everywhere who had the goal of protecting believers from being infected by Arianism.
One of the episodes of Eustathius’ struggle with Arianism should be considered his participation in the First Ecumenical Council, the number of bishops present at which he determines to be approximately 270, and not the traditional 318 (Theodoret. Hist, eccl., 1:8.)
This fact in itself, noted by the ancients, is not disputed by any of the writers of modern times. Disagreement in this case exists on the following issues:
1) About the presidency of Eustathius at the Council, and
2) Delivering a welcoming speech to Constantine the Great.
The question of whether Eustathius was or was not chairman at the Council of Nicea would not have been raised, and, given the conditions of its occurrence, it would not have presented any difficulty in resolving it if we had the acts of the First Council. But they - if they had ever existed at all - were not preserved.
It should be noted that Eustathius is called the Chairman of the Council of Nicaea for the first time only in the 5th century, not counting Blessed Theodoret, who spoke in this case not clearly enough, John of Antioch, Bishop Proclus of Constantinople, Facundus of Hermian, Pope Felix.
Of the ancient writers, Nicephorus Callistus holds the same opinion. Shared by many who have written about Eustathius in modern times, this view is, to say the least, controversial. If Eustathius belonged to those, in the words of Eusebius τοῖς τῆς συνόδου πρόεδροι - to whom Constantine, after delivering his speech at the opening of the Council, παρεδίδου τὸν Λόγου - either as a metropolitan, or in the matter that Friedrich Wolffs and Bernoulli give to the controversial term of Eusebius. According to Friedrich᾽y, πρόεδροι, representatives or bishops of the 3 so-called Sees of Peter. Wolffs holds the view that the term πρόεδροι refers to the 2 bishops who occupied the first places at the Council on the right and left sides of Constantine, and these, in his opinion, were Eustathius of Antioch and Alexander of Alexandria. According to Bernoulli's explanation, in all likelihood, the most prominent participants in the Council, united by Constantine into a close college, with which he was in intimate relations, so that in this way, despite all the appearance of the autonomy of the fathers, he could keep the occasion exclusively in his own hands.
Πρόεδροι, as Selzer found out, did not have the right to chair, but the right of first vote when discussing each issue 265 .
On the issue of Eustathius delivering greetings to the Emperor at the Council, the overwhelming majority of writers and scientists in resolving this issue followed “Theodoret, who categorically states in his history that Eustathius... crowned the head of the king with flowers of praise and thanked his vigilant care for Divine objects” 266.
But along with the testimony of Theodoret, even in ancient times Sozomen 267 named Eusebius Pamphilus as the person who greeted Constantine at the First Council.
The same understanding is conveyed to the corresponding passage from Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine” by the author of the title to this last work, who is believed to have been Eusebius himself 268 .
The person who greeted the Tsar in the Life of Constantine is called “taking first place on the right side.” Most scientists - obviously under pressure from Theodoret - saw Eustathius here. Attempts were even made—although not very successful—to explain precisely this modus of Eusebius’s expression.
However, Valesius already speaks out in favor of the greater veracity of Sozomen's testimony. And most recently, Cavallera made a decisive judgment on this issue. According to Cavallera 269, the acceptance of Theodoret's statement is possible only due to a false interpretation of V.S. 3:2, when the author of the titles himself attributes this speech to Eusebius of Caesarea.
Soon after the Council of Nicaea, Eustathius convened a Council in Antioch. The subject of the 25 Eastern bishops gathered here, subordinate to the Patriarch of Antioch, was the restoration of the unity of the Church in Antioch itself. This unity, it was believed, was broken by the departure or deposition of Eustathius' predecessor, Peacock.
Three years have passed since the end of the First Ecumenical Council, and ominous signs of an anti-Nicene reaction have already begun to appear, the first and decisive blow of which was experienced by Eustathius of Antioch. It was impossible to openly oppose the Nicene Symbol and condemn the consubstantiality established by it while Emperor Constantine remained alive, who saw in this Council the best work of his reign. Therefore, the policy of the anti-Niceans, naturally, had to be directed against the most zealous defenders of “consistency” with the expectation of liberating the Church from these suspicious persons, “then in a free field to build new formulas, in place of the Nicene one.” By his position in the most important department of the East, by his learning, literary talent and energy, Eustathius was one of the most dangerous opponents of reaction. As soon as Eustathius noticed the anti-Nicene movement that had begun in the East, he began to fight it in literature and life.
The Preface to the interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, which Eustathius had published by this time, in which he attacked the Arians, according to Cavallera 270, is a real manifesto declaring a campaign against the Arians and calling under the banner of “consistency” over the adherents of this teaching.
From the sphere of literary polemics, the struggle soon moved into life. According to Athanasius 271, Eustathius refused to accept into the clergy such celebrities of the future as Leontius, later Bishop of Antioch, Theodosius of Tripoli, Eudoxius of Germanicia, Eustathius of Sebaste, George of Laodicea and Stephen of Antioch 272, and severely accused those bishops who, without completely abandoning the Nicene creed, distorted its meaning was interpreted in relation to their traditional views.
The matter did not stop there. A controversy soon broke out between Eustathius and Eusebius of Caesarea. Eustathius accused Eusebius, in the words of Socrates and Sozomen, of distorting the Nicene faith. The latter, in turn, brought charges of Sabellianism against Eustathius.
There is a twofold explanation for the reasons for accusing Eustathius, namely, of Sabellianism. Professor Spassky 273 writes: Eustathius revealed the dogma of the Son of God from the Christological side, showing that only in the doctrine of consubstantiality does faith in Christ as the Redeemer find its justification, that any belittlement of the nature of the Son of God leads to an incorrect and derogatory view of the Face of Christ. In this respect, he stood on the same line with Athanasius of Alexandria, but when Eustathius moved from polemics to a positive understanding of the Nicene dogma, his speeches became suspicious for the East. Like all the elder Niceneans, Eustathius did not distinguish between the terms essence and hypostasis and therefore could not accurately establish the difference between the first and second person in the Holy Trinity. To the East, accustomed to strictly dividing the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, it seemed that it was merging the Son and the Father into one Hypostasis and one essence.”
Likewise, according to Professor Godulyanov 274, “Eustathius, being an ardent opponent of the Arians, in his polemic against the Arian position about the lifeless body (σῶμα ἄψυχον) of Christ and the associated exaltation of the human in the life of Christ, with the aim of proving the dissimilarity of Christ with the Father (ἀνόμοιον εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν τῷ πατρὶ), went too far.
Like the later Antiochians, he sharply distinguished the man Jesus Christ from the Son of God (Υἱὸς Θεοῦ), who was in unity with God and unchangeable in his position above the world (also above His church, that is, His humanity), which did not at all correspond to the simple comparison “begotten of the Father” (έκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθείς) “with the sufferer” (παθών) in the Nicene Creed. This teaching of Eustathius about the Son of God should have appeared to his opponents as Sabellianism, and this is all the more so since using, together with the Niceans, as a synonym for the terms: essence and Hypostasis (οὐσία and ὑπόστασις), he spoke of one essence or Hypostasis (οὐσία and ὑπόστασις) in the Trinity (Τριάς), and rejecting the Arian, also Origenian terminology about the three Hypostases (τρεῖς ὑπὸστάσεις).
Cavallera 275 spoke differently about Eustathius’ accusation of Sabellianism: “I do not see that what remains of Eustathius’s works provides any basis for such an accusation. The fullness of the Divinity of the Word appears clearly, but His difference from the Father also appears clearly.” In defense of this view of Cavalleri, Kudryavtsev 276 also cites the following considerations: “in addition to the creations of Eustathius themselves, two facts speak for Cavallero. First of all, Eustathius - as a defender of consubstantiality, who one way or another had to be overthrown by the anti-Nicene reaction - from this point of view, it was easiest to accuse him of Sabellianism. Then the simple acceptance of one word “consubstantial” was enough, as others already “believed that those who accepted it were introducing the heresy of Sabellius and Montanus, and therefore called them blasphemers, as if rejecting the Personal existence of the Son of God.” The general tactic of the Eusebians was: “to accuse those who believed that there was less of a difference between the Father and the Son than they themselves did that these latter, strictly speaking, just like Sabellius, did not want to distinguish between the Father and the Son.”
And then, that this accusation was not an entirely pure matter, one can guess from the albeit brief and dark hints of Socrates: “both of them (that is, Eusebius and Eustathius) argued that the Son of God is a Person and has a personal existence, both confessed one God in three Persons, and yet, I don’t know somehow, could not agree with each other” 277.
The Eastern bishops listened sensitively to the polemics of Eusebius and Eustathius, in their hearts or openly took the side of Eusebius, and the condemnation of Eustathius was inevitable. It took place at the Council of 330 in Antioch. Under the pretext of visiting the basilica erected by Constantine in Palestine, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea, with the consent of the Emperor, went to the Holy Land. There they met with their like-minded people, unfolded their plans 278 before them, and from Palestine they arrived together in Antioch in the year 330. Here for the first time the leading figures of the anti-Nicene reaction gathered together: Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Peacock of Tire. The last two bishops had all the more reason to seek the deposition of Eustathius, since the Antiochian shepherd openly reproached them for Arianism and stubbornly refused church communion 279 . The main accuser of Eustathius at the Council was his immediate successor in the Berry see, Bishop Cyrus.
All writers of antiquity generally agree on the recognition that the true reason for the trial of Eustathius was his courageous defense of the Nicene faith. But on the question of how the accusation was motivated at the Council, there is complete disagreement among them. While Jerome 281, Theodoret 282 and, perhaps, Sozomen 283 claim that Eustathius was accused of an immoral act, others 284 very definitely speak out in the sense that the accusation was directed against his teaching. Afanasy stands apart from everyone else. While others convey the Council's motivation for the deposition of Eustathius, Athanasius makes the central point of his speech an explanation of the reasons why Eustathius was exiled by Constantine. “He, writes Athanasius, was slandered before Tsar Constantine; the pretext was invented that Eustathius had insulted the Tsar’s mother” 285.
On the occasion of the deposition of Eustathius and the election of Eusebius of Caesarea in his place, Antioch was divided into two opposing parties; the mob was indignant, so that it almost came to swords. The complete destruction of the city was prevented only by the prudence of Eusebius, who, knowing that Emperor Constantine was unsympathetic to the proposed transfer from the See of Caesarea to Antioch, he himself refused the candidacy and the entry of a detachment of troops into Antioch.
“This very thing,” notes Sozomen 286, “harmed Eustathius a lot in the eyes of the king; for Constantine was very angry and suspected that he was the culprit of the outrage, Eustathius was deposed. Treppner 287 notes that, according to the testimony of Nikephoros Μηχαὴλ καὶ Θεομίλου) this happened after 18 years of ruling the Antiochian Church. “He calmly endured this insult” 288 and, according to the Imperial decree, in 331 he went into exile along with many presbyters and deacons 289, having previously given everyone, in the words of Chrysostom, a covenant “not to leave, not to yield to the wolves, that is, to the Arians, and not to betray their flock, but to remain inside, stopping their mouths and denouncing them, and affirming the simplest of brothers" 290. Sources give rather contradictory information about the place of exile of Eustathius: some of them point to Thrace 291, others to Illyricum 292, Jerome 293 even names the city that served as the place of exile - Traianople in Thrace. The year of Eustathius’s death is dated differently: Tillemont, Boschius, Cavallera, Kihn, Calier, Kudryavtsev consider the year 337 to be the deadline for Eustathius’ death.
Schrök, Fabricius, Hergenröther, Fessler-Jungmanü, Bardenhevier, Blondel - date the death of the Antiochian shepherd to the year 360. Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) 294 and Professor Barsov 295 believe that Eustathius died around 345. The message of Socrates 296 and Sozomen 297 that the famous confessor lived back in the year 370 and was exiled for the second time by Valens to Visia of Thracia or Cyzicus, trustingly accepted by Treppner 298 represents an obvious incongruity: according to the testimony of Blessed Theodoret 299, Eustathius died before Meletius entered Antioch department, that is, before 361 300.
Literary activity of Saint Eustace of Antioch
Blessed Jerome 301, calling Eustathius a self-vocalized trumpet and the first who wrote against Arius, is amazed at his learning and says that he was very educated in spiritual and secular sciences, especially in philosophy. Saint Athanasius, Chrysostom, Athanasius of Sinaiti also speak of his high education.
According to Sozomen, the eloquence of Eustathius was a matter of surprise for his contemporaries: “You can also see it in his books, which are still intact,” adds Sozomen 302. Unfortunately, not everything that came from the pen of the Antiochian shepherd has survived to this day. Of all his works, only two works have been preserved in their entirety: “De engastrimytho contra Origenem” and “Homilia in Lazarum, Mariam et Martham”; to judge the rest, we have only fragments.
"D eengastrimytho contra Origenem" (Diagnostician) 303. This work is polemical in nature and is directed against Origen. The latter, explaining 1 Samuel 28, believed that the sorceress of Endor really summoned the soul of Samuel, and Samuel prophesied to Saul. This point of view of the famous catechist of the Alexandrian school was not the only one in his time. “We know,” writes Origen, “that some of our brothers say: “I don’t believe the ventriloquist, she lies when she says that she saw Samuel. Samuel was not visible, Samuel did not speak.
But just as some false prophets say, “This is the Lord speaking,” but the Lord did not speak, so this evil spirit lies when he proclaims that he will bring the one whom Saul commanded to bring. “Whom should you bring out?” he asks, “Samuel, bring me out.” This is expressed by those 304 who say that this narrative is not true: “Is Samuel in hell? Samuel, chosen from the prophets, dedicated to God from birth, destined before birth for sacred service, this Samuel is called by the ventriloquist? Samuel in hell? Samuel in the underworld?! that Samuel, who replaced the high priest Elijah, condemned by Providence for the sins of his children and their crimes? Samuel in hell? whom God heard during the wheat harvest and caused rain to fall from heaven?
In the “Diagnostics,” Eustathius shares the opinion of “some of the brethren,” regarding the sorceress of Endor, he proves, contrary to Origen, that she could not and did not summon the soul of Samuel, that “to Saul, who questioned the oracle, it seemed only what the ventriloquist was doing or was doing 305, while Saul himself saw nothing at all” 306.
The essay “On the Ventriloquist” is of enormous importance for characterizing the exegetical direction of its author. The polemical nature of the work in relation to the Alexandrian created a state of affairs due to which in the Diagnostics the features characteristic of the Antiochian school are revealed more sharply than anywhere else. Thus, Eustathius rebels here with particular force against the allegorical method in exegesis and makes strict but fair comments to Origen for his desire to allegorize all of Holy Scripture. “Doesn’t he explain allegorically,” writes Saint Eustathius, “the wells dug by Abraham and other things related to that, in a long speech giving the whole matter a different meaning, while they can hitherto be seen in that country with ordinary eyes” 307.
At the same time, he provides an example of what he understands to be a normal interpretation. “Talking about the long-suffering Job, Origen,” notes the Antioch shepherd, “instead of expressing surprise at his patience, praising the suffering, glorifying the feat, giving praise to faith, presenting in the person of Job the firmness of the spirit, thereby inducing beginners to virtue, with complacency and stability of mood to arm the ascetics to steadfastly endure suffering for the sake of piety, leaving that Job, frivolously referring to the names of his daughters, passing the time like an old woman.
And regarding Lazarus, when, he writes, instead of glorifying the greatness of the work of Christ and through this clearly showing that God is the one who autocratically called the stinking dead man to Himself from the grave and by uttering the word animated his swollen body, he says nothing regarding this; Lazarus, the friend of the Lord, whom He justly loved for his virtue, elevated him to be sick and dead in sins, speaking allegorically. No one – and rightly so – said or wrote this” 308.
When interpreting Scripture, for Eustathius, the starting point and fulcrum on which he relies almost all the time is the letter of the sacred text. The expression: “let us consider the very letter of the narrative” 309 is deeply characteristic of the exegetical direction of Eustathius. The Antiochian shepherd constantly makes a careful analysis of the text of Scripture.
To prove this position would amount to a correspondence of almost the entire Diagnostics. Let's limit ourselves to the most typical ones. This includes, for example, the place in the Diagnostics where Eustathius proves that the speech of the one who appeared in Endor, spoken in a prophetic spirit, was essentially composed of earlier (1 Samuel 15) prophecies about Saul Samuel 310. Likewise, Eustathius’s proof of the falsity of the Endor prophecy 311 is based on textual analysis. Further, Eustathius’s understanding of all the concepts included in the text of the passage of Holy Scripture that he interprets should also be attributed to this account: the description of Saul’s mental state at the moment of his arrival to the ventriloquist 312, the determination of the significance of this latter and her craft from the point of view of the possibility of deducing the souls of the righteous and the relationship of the Bible to the mantle 313, the concept of the devil 314, the Godhead 315, Samuel as a prophet 316 and so on.
Homilia in Lazarum, Mariam et Martham 317
Taking John 12 as our starting point; 1–2, Saint Eustathius used these words of “the son of thunder, who drew ineffable secrets from the field of the heart of the Lord, all fruitful with wisdom, 318 to reveal the teaching about the Divinity of Christ, which was especially clearly reflected in the greatest of the works of the Lord - “the resurrection of Lazarus, who died and turned into corruption” 319. About Lazarus and his sisters, as those who confessed “the one indivisible Lord, in visible splendor perceiving the invisible glory and in tangible flesh cognizing the intangible and intouchable God of the Word” 320, Saint Eustathius says: “with what words did he decorate the unanimity of these relatives? Yes, their deeds surpass all praise. For you, Marfo, the confession of Christ is enough for your crown of glory. For you, Lazarus, to gain glory it is enough to be called a friend of Christ. For you, Mary, the sentence from God is enough, for “Mary,” it is said, “has chosen the good part, which will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:42).
Mary, a lover of tranquility, a kind of bee flying through the meadows of Divine contemplation, who became a foreigner and a migrant from a tainted life and reached the serene and peaceful objects of the Divine life: here is “the necessary breeze and there is the Lord” (1 Kings 19:12), according to the revelation of Elijah.
From it (Divine life) flows the knowledge of Divine and human affairs, as it is written: “Learn and know that I am God” (Ps. 15:11). A pure dove that quietly took its wings and arrived in a quiet, blissful haven of tranquility, through which it received initiation into what the prophets and righteous people desired. Jacob, having fled from the formidable spear, successfully met God and anointed the monument pillar, as was often said. Mary, very far from the influx of confused and random reasoning, as if exciting such a repository of thoughts and mind, clearly heard from God the blessings, and was honored to embrace with her flesh (hair) the Incomprehensible” 321. Homilia in Lazarum, Mariam et Martham provides rich material for characterizing the Christology of St. Eustathius of Antioch.
Commentarius in Hexaemeron
Allacy, in his edition, a detailed description of which is given by Iahn 322, first published interpretations on this subject under the name of Eustathius of Antioch and made a vain attempt to substantiate its authenticity. But Tillemont 323 firmly established by a series of arguments that Eustathius cannot be called the author of the interpretation in Hexaemeron, which is known by his name. However, there is reason to think that Eustathius wrote on this issue. Anastasius Sinaite in his work, which has the inscription: Anagogicarum contemplationum in Hexameron ad Theophilum 324 refers to authority in theologia celeberrim; Eustahhü, summi doctoris synodi Nicaenae and gives a fragment that can be thought to be a part of Eustathius’s interpretation of Genesis 1–2 “De Melchisedeck”. Jerome mentions the treatise “On Melchizedek” in a letter to the presbyter Evangel 325.
In its entirety, it represents one of the “great many epistles” of Saint Eustathius, which, in the words of Blessed Jerome, “would take a long time to list,” 326 and was addressed to Alexander of Alexandria. Only three small fragments of this work have survived to this day. One of them is published in the Greek Cavallera 327, the other in the Latin Leppoman᾽, and the third in the Syriac and Latin Martin᾽.
Standing on the basis of fragments from this treatise on Melchizedek that have survived to this day, one can think that the main idea of this work was this: in the Holy Scriptures there is no genealogy of Melchizedek because Melchizedek was a Canaanite, and “it was not necessary to compile a Genealogy and elevate to the race of Canaan one who is at the heights of righteousness, for it was not at all appropriate for someone who had achieved the highest righteousness to be intertwined with a race that had reached the extreme wickedness."
If it is true that the treatise on Melchizedek was a letter to Alexander of Alexandria, then it is possible to determine the terminus ad quem of its writing. This is the year 326, the year of the addressee's death. Regarding the reason for writing the Epistle, it has been suggested that the heresy of the Hieraxites, which was especially widespread among Egyptian monks, should be considered as such.
Three fragments of this speech are preserved in the catenas on the Pentateuch 328. Based on the reports of various writers, we know that Saint Eustathius commented on the Psalms, but only small fragments of this work by the Antiochian shepherd have survived.
Only two fragments have survived from the interpretation of Psalm 15. The first, which is found in Leontius of Byzantium 329, speaks of two natures in Christ and one person (μοναδικὸν τὸ πρόσωπον, the second, which is reported by Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus 330, of His soul as consubstantial (τᾶις ψυχαῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων).
Several more fragments have survived from the interpretation of Psalm 92. One of them, in which the term ὑπόστασις, according to ancient usage, does not mean πρόσωπον, but φύσιν, was often cited by Severus of Antioch in disputes about Monophysitism, as reported by Peter the Younger, Jacobite Patriarch in Antioch (578–591) 331, in a work against Damian, Patriarch of Alexandria (578–605) 332.
Other fragments are reported by Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus 333. In addition, Saint Eustathius composed two treatises or speeches on the writings of the Psalms: the first of these treatises was entitled: Εἰς τὰς ἐπιγραφὰς τῆς στηλογραφίας, the second - εις τ. επ. τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν. In both of them, the conversation was primarily about the Divine dignity of Christ and the union in Him of the Divine and human nature 334.
In various places in his works, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus quotes excerpts from the speech on Proverbs 8:22, which Eustathius wrote against the Arians, especially the Eusebians. In it, the Antiochian shepherd, having outlined the acts of the Council of Nicea and the intrigues through which the Eusebians, after condemning the teachings of Arius, tried to introduce his errors into the Symbol, moves on to the very text of Proverbs 8:22 ~ and defends the Orthodox interpretation of it from the attacks of the Arians.
This book, on the basis of which, if it had survived to our time, it would have been possible to give a complete presentation of the Christology of Eustathius, was written, apparently, around 329, when Eusebius of Nicomedia returned from exile and sowed enmity among Eastern theologians.
About the reason for which Eustathius wrote it, he himself speaks in that part, apparently, of the prologue, which Eusebius cites in his Historia Ecclesiastica (1:8) with the following inscription: Ἔλεγχος ἀρειανι ζόντων ἐξ Εὐσταθίου καὶ Ἀθαναίου σγγραμματων. This fragment has high scientific value as one of the sources of the history of the Council of Nicaea.
While Eusebius of Caesarea, wanting to justify himself in accepting the Nicene Symbol, conveys the moment of the Council’s activity when the Symbol itself was compiled, and Athanasius, meaning to show the jealousy of the fathers and the legality of the terms ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας, and ὁμοούσιος depicts cautious and thorough research of the fathers in finding terms to denote the relationship of the Son of God to the Father, Eustathius in this fragment mainly monitors the position and activities of the Arians at the Council, accurately notes the moments of their speech, determines the nature and goals of their actions and thus fills the gap that is noticed in the information of Eusebius and Athanasius, and at the same time explains the message of the latter and indicates their specific place in the history of the Council. In particular, a fragment from the speech of Eustathius on Proverbs 8:22 ~gives us the following data for the history of the Council, in addition to the approximate designation of the number of bishops who were at the Council (270), which number comes close to the truth.
1) From the narrative of Eustathius we learn that the party of strict Arians, led by Eusebius of Nikimidia, was the first to speak at the Council. This party submitted a written statement of its doctrine. The dogmatic activity of the Council began with the consideration of this Symbol of the extreme Arian party.
2) From the narrative of Eustathius we learn about something different from the first speech of the Arians or, rather, “some of the accomplices of the Arians” (τινὲς ἐκ συσκεβῆς).
3) Finally, Eustathius notes the 3rd performance of the Arians, which occurred after the final approval of the Symbol by the Council. For the third time, the Arians spoke out in order to declare their agreement with the Council decision. “The adherents of Arius,” writes Eustathius, “rose up and anathematized the teaching condemned by the Council, and signed the Symbol, set out by unanimous consent,” 335. Other fragments preserved from Eustathius's speech on Proverbs 8:22, much smaller in volume, are devoted to the question of the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ.
In some of them, Saint Eustathius, discussing the thought expressed by the Apostle Paul in Gal 4:4, solves the question of why man, and not the Logos, was born of the Virgin 336, in what sense Christ became under the law 337; in others, defending against the Arians what was said by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:29, shows that the likeness of people with Christ should not be attributed to the Logos, but to Christ as a man 338; thirdly, he asserts that it was not the Logos, but man who rose from the dead, that this man became the church of the Divinity, that the Divinity, being impassive and incorruptible, could not suffer 339.
It is difficult to say with certainty, based on a few fragments, whether Saint Eustathius wrote an interpretation of the entire book of Proverbs of Solomon, omitting 8:22, since he had already devoted an entire homily to this text. Manuscript codices provide his interpretation of a wide variety of passages in this book; Thus, Pitra Peltan and Cavallera 340 are cited in their editions based on manuscripts of the 16th and 18th centuries. A fragment of the interpretation of the Antioch Shepherd, on Proverbs 3:13–15; 4:3; 16:32; 23:33. Περὶ Εὐραϊσμοῦ. A.Mai 341 was the first to publish an excerpt from the work of Eustathius of Antioch Περὶ Εὐραïσμοῦ, which discussed the meaning of Jewish law.
From this work, Anastafius Sinaite 342 preserved one fragment, on the basis of which it is impossible to say whether Saint Eusebius gave a commentary on the entire Gospel, or limited himself to only certain passages from it. In addition to the homily “For the supper of Lazarus, and for Mary and Martha his sisters,” the Gospel of John also includes two fragments that have survived only in Syriac.
As for the work, each of the three witnesses about it calls it differently: Theodoret of Cyrus (Περὶ ψυχῆς), Eustratius, presbyter of Constantinople (περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ κατὰ Ἆρεικνῶν), John of Damascus - sometimes περὶ ψυχῆς, sometimes περὶ ψυχῆς κατὰ φιλοσόφων.
From this we can conclude that the works of Eustathius περὶ ψυχῆς consisted of two books: the first was directed against philosophers, the second against Arians.
It is difficult to say which book each of the surviving fragments belongs to. Some of them talk about the soul and refute the opinions of the Pythagoreans and Platonists; others expound the doctrine of the divine and human natures in Christ. Two fragments from the work De anima, preserved by Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus and Eustratius, refute the psychological error of the Arians, who claim that the Word did not accept the human soul, but only accepted τὸ ἄψυχον σῶμα.
Of the enormous treatise of Eustathius contra arianos, which seems to have consisted of eight books, very few fragments have survived in Greek and somewhat more in Latin. The German Fakund, having taken upon himself the defense of Theodore of Mopsuestia from accusations of Nestorianism and Manichaeism - which are the accusations brought against the Mopsuestian shepherd by Justinian's edict against three chapters - with great care looked for in the works of ancient church writers, whose orthodoxy was beyond any doubt, passages that, by similarity in expression, could be brought closer to the corresponding passages from the works of Theodore Mopsuestsky.
Theodore's accusers said in the edict that he taught that Christ received something through perfection. But this relates, says Fakund, to the human nature of Christ and cannot be the basis for an accusation of heresy. Otherwise, we would have to blame Eustathius of Antioch, who in the 6th book against the Arians writes about Christ: “the highest honors were received by a person adorned with justice and virtue and who virtuously and fairly receives the high royal throne,” and also: “He receives the greatest power from outside, moving forward to the best according to his dignity.”
Defending Theodore from the accusation that he taught about the union of God the Word with a pre-existing man, Fakund refers to Eustathius of Antioch, who in the 6th book against the Arians writes: “for the sake of the salvation of people (God) united man with the Word and God” - “as if (Fakund notes) there was a pre-existing man who was united with the Word and God" 343.
From the treatise Contra arianos, several fragments are also found in Gelasius in his De duabus naturis in Christo 344. In all these fragments the words homo, templum are used so often when speaking of the human nature of Christ that there can be no doubt about their authenticity. Fragments in Greek from the work are reported by Photius, Doctrina latrum de Verbi incarnatione and John of Damascus 345.
Tractatus adversus Photinum
Three fragments of this work have been preserved in Syriac. Their main idea is this: face and nature are not the same thing. The term "God" does not refer to persons - otherwise we would necessarily have to talk about three gods - but to nature. The publishers of these fragments, Gowper und Pitra, considered it beyond doubt that Eustathius wrote an essay against Photinus.
Based on this, Gwatkin built his hypothesis about the year of death of the Antioch shepherd. But Cavallera decisively rejects Eustathius’s treatise against Photinus and refutes it on the following grounds.
Photinus, otherwise Morinus, Bishop of Sirmium, a disciple of Marcellus of Ancyra, came out with his false teaching, as Gwatkin himself admits, around 343, that is, at a time when Eustathius, one might think, had already died. If at this time he was still alive and subsequently even wrote a book against Photinus, then it would be incomprehensible why the Council of Sardica writes about him as a person either dead or completely forgotten 346.
Only one fragment has survived from that word, published for the first time by Schermann 347.
Sabr-isho, Chrysostom, Bar-Ebray have preserved fragments of dogmatic and canonical content, but it is not noted which of the works of Saint Eustathius they relate to. A number of works that were previously attributed to Eustathius, namely: the Liturgy, the speech to Emperor Constantine at the first Ecumenical Council, the explanation of Gen. 1:26, given in the history of Gelasius of Cysis, according to the general opinion of researchers of patristic literature, do not belong to him.
Christology of Saint Eustace of Antioch
The Christological views of Saint Eustathius developed in the spirit and direction of the Antiochian school. If the Alexandrians, revealing the dogma of the Holy Trinity, tried mainly to highlight the idea of the consubstantiality of the three Divine persons, then the representative of the Antiochian direction Eustathius emphasizes the Hypostatic difference of the Divine persons.
Logos is Θεὸς 348 . Taken separately, this expression does not say anything about the Divine origin and dignity of the Word. The term Θεὸς in the mouths of ancient writers did not always have the unconditional meaning with which it is found in our country. The Holy Scripture calls Moses God in relation to Aaron: he ordered the slave, who refused to exercise his right to gain freedom in the Sabbath year, to be brought “before the gods,” that is, to the assembly of judges, to conclude a well-known legal act.
This word was used in a similar meaning in the literature and life of classical peoples, and public opinion did not find anything offensive to the senses, or unusual in the fact that, for example, the decrees of Domitian were issued with the loud inscription Dominus ac Deus noster sic fieri jubef. Patristic literature retained the same usage for a long time.
In Irenaeus we read: “God became man, man became God. The Son of God became the Son of Man, so that the sons of men might become the sons of God.” Athanasius the Great says: “Just as the Lord, clothed in flesh, became man, so we, people, perceived by the word, are adored for the sake of His flesh.”
Gregory the Theologian writes: “What is most Divine in man is that he can do good. You can become God without sacrificing anything from your property, but only by showing mercy and forgiveness; do not miss the opportunity to deify.” According to the same father, the high calling of a shepherd is to be God and to create others as Gods.
Thus, becoming a god for that time did not mean growing to absolute greatness or ascending to the infinity of its perfection. In the concept of God, only immortality, bliss, superhuman fullness and intensity of life were necessarily thought of 349. But those individual expressions that we encounter on the pages of the work of Eustathius of Antioch give us the right to conclude that Eustathius of Antioch saw in the Word a being of the same nature with God, equal to Him in His power and glory. Christ is consubstantial 350 with the Father and is the invisible God 351, self-sufficient, infinite in relation to both time and space, incomprehensible 352, omniscient, omnipotent, fulfilling everything 353. But He is a separate person from God, although He abides with Him and is “One of the Uncreated and Consubstantial Trinity” 354.
When defining the relationship between the Divine nature of the Logos and God the Father, the Antiochian shepherd uses the term “sonship.” Christ is not a simple “Christ the man,” “not a deified man,” not one “of the invisible and ministering powers created by God,” but “by His nature, the One Divine Son of the living God, born from the uncreated essence of the Father, the only begotten and one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, worshiped from every creation” 355.
As the Son of God, the Logos is the image of the Father, “because, being born like from like, those born are true images of their parents” 356. As the Son of God, the Logos is equivalent to the Father 357 and is the creative principle through which everything was created: “Angels, Heaven, Earth, and the sea and the depths, and the luminaries running across the sky” 358. But this does not exhaust the entire circle of the Logos’s relationship to the world.
“The Word became flesh for our sake,” 359 and “God invariably became man.” He became human in order to “throw fire onto the Earth, which He formed with His hands and sanctified with the Divine breath,” “and again kindle its (that is, man’s) free will, which it has been honored for centuries, but which was taken away from it and enslaved in the passions of dishonor by the inventor of evil and deception.” “Fire came to bring the Savior to Earth, this enlightening, life-giving fire, the fire of the knowledge of God, the destroyer of thorns of wickedness, the grower of the seeds of piety, the destroyer and eradicator of everything unnatural, but the planter and cultivator of the corresponding natures of the blessings of pious seeds, so that just as a person was voluntarily carried away by deception and arbitrarily brought upon himself by disobedience the death previously foretold to him by God, so again, Having freed himself from the intoxication of delusions, he learned what is due and joined God through confession and aspiration to Him 360. In the teaching of Saint Eustathius about the incarnate Logos, attention is drawn to:
1) The Antiochian pastor’s primary focus on human nature in Christ and
2) His view of the union of the Divine and human natures in Him.
1) The Alexandrians, revealing the dogma about the person of the God-man, focused their attention on His Divine nature and insisted on the closest communion of natures in Him. On the contrary, the Antiochians primarily paid attention to the human nature of Jesus Christ and especially tried to confirm the idea of the difference in natures in Him, proving their integrity and completeness.
In the spirit of the Antiochian school, Eustathius, in the incarnate Logos, turns his main attention to human nature and calls Him simply “man,” “the man of Christ,” 361 “the man Christ.” Christ, by his bodily nature, teaches Saint Eustathius, is a real man 362. He has flesh and bones 363 . Born in Bethlehem, he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was nursed, because of the plans of the cruel Herod, spent several years in Egypt, spoke like a child, grew in body, the days of His life multiplied, and in Nazareth He reached adulthood. Traces of scourges on the body of Christ from blows, perforated ribs, signs of nails, the outpouring of blood, the resurrection itself serve, according to Eustathius, as reliable evidence of the invisible flesh of the Savior 364. Contrary to the teaching of some branches of Arianism, that Christ took on a body without a soul (τὸ ἄψυχον σῶμα) and in the place of a human soul He had a Divinity, Eustathius more than once conveys the idea of Christ as a complete man, about His human soul.
“The rational soul of Jesus,” writes the Bishop of Antioch, “is completely consubstantial with the souls of people, just as the flesh that came from Mary is consubstantial with the flesh of people” 365. According to his humanity, born of the Virgin Mary 366, being in Her virgin womb, formed by the Holy Spirit 367, Christ experiences all the sufferings inherent in human nature. He hungers, thirsts, has a need to sleep, grieves, gets tired, sheds tears.
The “man of Christ” is not alien to passions other than sin: Eustathius calls the “man of Christ” pure, unsullied, undefiled. According to human nature, Christ accepted dishonor from his enemies, suffered and died, rose again and ascended to Heaven; “the man Christ”, risen from the dead, is exalted and glorified 368, glorified precisely for His voluntary suffering. “A man who bears God,” writes Eustathius in one place, “who voluntarily decided to endure mortal suffering,... 369 accepted honor and power. And (only) then is glory acquired, which He never had before. “Eustathius extracts a similar thought from Acts 2:36, which he understands in the sense that God made the suffering Jesus Lord, and not Wisdom and not the Word” 370. Hence the words of the 103rd Psalm: “The Lord has prepared his Throne in Heaven,” according to the interpretation of Eustathius, refers to the man Christ and should in no way be attributed either to the Almighty, who already has his own scepter, or to the Word, who already owns the kingdom itself.”371
2) As for the teaching of Saint Eustathius about the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ, this teaching at first glance does not represent anything special.
At the conclusion of the homily Εἰς τὸ δεῖπνον Λαγάρον... The Antiochian shepherd speaks “about the worship of the Lord, before the ages, coeternally and without beginning, unspeakably and ineffably from the Father, that is, from the uncreated essence, born in the last times from the Immaculate Virgin 372 invariably and inextricably above reason and the word of the incarnate,” σαρκωθέντι 373. This teaching is expressed in terms of the well-known creed of the IV Ecumenical Council. The peculiarities of Saint Eustathius’s views on this issue appear only with a more detailed disclosure of his Christology. “The Man of Christ,” according to Eustathius, is not the Son Himself, but the image of the Son. He is the church of the Divine Wisdom of “God the Word.” The Bishop of Antioch calls this church a church in the proper sense, pure, unsullied, chosen, animated, built by the Virgin Mary, holy, life-giving, worshiped, God-created church of the uncreated and eternal God.
To express the same thought, Eustathius also uses other terms, calling Christ sometimes the “human habitation” of God the Word, sometimes His “human organ,” sometimes the “tabernacle of the Word.” Logos, after the death of the “man Christ” or, to use the terminology, after the church was destroyed, majestically restored it. God, in relation to the “man Christ,” appears, although continuously, only as dwelling in Him; Christ, according to His human soul, dwells with God and the Word. By virtue of this latter, God the Word, having bore the human image of Christ, did not deify Him with His Divinity, but only anointed His voluntary incarnation with His Divinity.
The term “church”, with corresponding variants, to designate the bodily nature in relation to the Divine and the verb “to dwell”, as well as the expression “communion”, used to define the image of the relationship of this last nature of Christ to His humanity, allow us to consider Saint Eustathius as one of the intermediate links in that long chain of Christologists, at one end of which stands Paul of Samosata, and at the other, Diodorus Tarsky, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and others 374.
Saint Meletius of Antioch
A native of Melitene in Armenia 375 for some time (about 358), the bishop of Sebastia, Meletius, “dissatisfied with the unbridledness of his subordinates,” retired to Beria of Syria, where he lived in solitude 376. In the year 360, he was, according to some 377, by the Arians, according to others, together with the Orthodox, put on the see of Antioch, which remained idle, after Eudoxius moved to Constantinople. When he arrived in this city, the entire population, even Jews and pagans, came out to meet him 378. However, the joy of the Antiochians this time was short-lived. A month had barely passed 379 when Meletius lost his see. Reports from sources about the reason for which this happened differ, Theodoret of Cyrus says that the “Tsar” ordered him and other more eloquent bishops to reveal to the people the words: “The Lord has made me the beginning of His ways for His works” (Prov. 8:22), and the cursive writers were ordered to write down their speeches, suggesting that through this the teaching of everyone would be revealed more accurately...
The great Meletius rose up and expressed the direct meaning of the dogmatic teaching about God: guided by the truth as a plumb line, he avoided both exaggeration and deficiency. The people accompanied him with exclamations of approval for a long time. People who carried the disease of Arianism in their souls, raised rumors, wove slander that Saint Meletius followed the teachings of Sabellius, and arranged the matter in such a way that Meletius was expelled to his fatherland” 380. Loofs 381, without questioning the fact of the preaching competition, nevertheless recognizes the connection between the removal of Meletius and his first homily in Antioch as fiction.
The very fact that Chrysostom is completely silent about this glorious sermon is an argument in favor of Loofs’s opinion. Then it is noteworthy that Socrates, reporting on the first sermons of Meletius, directly says that in them he “offers his listeners only moral teaching” 382. “The decisive factor,” writes Loofs, “is the power of the sermon,” which has come down to our time 383.
“With its opening appeal to peace,” with its concluding exhortation to stop all disputes, with its twofold use of the simple ὅμοιος and its threefold explanation that the data of the Christological formula are sufficient,” this sermon could not harm Meletius. There is news that explains the deposition of Meletius for other reasons. Leaving aside the message of the “Easter Chronicle,” which claims that Meletius was deposed “for the sake of his atheism and for the sake of other atrocities,” one cannot pay attention to the fact that Chrysostom 384 as a reason for the removal, along with zeal for Orthodoxy, indicates several of his excommunications, unpleasant to the enemies of the truth, and Philostorgius 385 – perjury.
According to Epiphanius, some (τινες) argued that Meletius was deposed not for his Orthodoxy, but because he accepted into church communion persons whom he himself had previously anathematized.
Jerome reports that Meletius was deposed cum presbyteros, qui ab Eudario antecessore suo depositi fuerant, suscepisset. All this “forces, according to Loofs᾽a, to assume that dogmatic grounds did not play any role in the first displacement of Meletius, which, in relation to the circumstances accompanying it, is confused with subsequent expulsions.”
Meletius's successor was Euzoos, who, together with Arius, was once anathematized by Alexander of Alexandria 386. Many of the Antiochians, not wanting to enter into church communion with Euzoius, took the side of Meletius and remained faithful to him throughout his exile. In 362, by decree of Julian, Meletius returned to Antioch, but under Valens he was again expelled from there twice: 1st time in 365, 2nd at the end of 371 or beginning of 372. After the death (378) of Valens in the battle of Adrianople, Meletius, according to the law of Gratian, returned to Antioch and was the chairman of the Antioch Council of 379, at which the East stated their dogmatic unity with the West.
Theodosius the Great, at his first meeting with Meletius, which took place at the beginning of the Second Ecumenical Council, honored the Antioch shepherd in a special way. The fact is that even before his election to the kingdom, Theodosius “had a dream that the primate of the Antiochian Church, Divine Meletius, placed royal purple on him and adorned his head with a royal crown” 387. As a result, “when 150 bishops gathered in Constantinople, Theodosius declared that they should not tell him who Meletius was among them: he himself wanted, by recalling the dream, to recognize this man.
And indeed, as soon as the entire host of bishops entered the royal chambers, Theodosius, leaving everyone else, went straight up to the Great Meletius and, like a son loving his father, first enjoyed seeing him for a long time, then he hugged and began to kiss his eyes, lips, chest, head and right hand that crowned him. At the same time, the king told him his dream” 388. The Second Ecumenical Council opened under the chairmanship of Meletius. “He was entirely in God, his bright gaze inspired respect” 389, and while he was alive, the affairs of the Council went calmly.
Shortly after the opening of the Council, Meletius died. His body was transported to Antioch and buried in one of the churches there. The turbulent circumstances of the time with which the life of Saint Meletius coincided, his threefold imprisonment, did not give him the opportunity, in all likelihood, to make of his teaching abilities all that use for the edification of his flock through preaching, which he could have done, and the only monument to the activity of Meletius as a teacher is his speech, delivered upon his arrival in Antioch, in the presence of Constantius, and preserved by Epiphanius 390.
Saint Flavian of Antioch
Flavian, Bishop of Antioch since the Second Ecumenical Council, already in the year 386, when he ordained John Chrysostom as presbyter, was an “elder” 391. In the spring of 387, Chrysostom speaks of his ἡλικία εις ἔσχατον ἐλάσασα γήρος.
Flavian, although he lived for 17 years even after 387 and traveled to Constantinople in 394, one might think he was about 60–70 years old when he assumed the See of Antioch in 381.
We know very little about this entire sixty-year period of his life. Chrysostom, who very often mentions his bishop in his Antioch sermons, says that Flavian is the son of rich and noble parents and that, despite his wealth and nobility, he chose an ascetic ideal. The message of John Chrysostom that Flavian listened to the last conversation of Saint Eustathius gives reason to assume that already in the time of Eustathius, Flavian stood on the side of the Nicene Confession of Faith.
Flavian stood on the side of the Niceans even when he first appeared as a church leader. According to Theodoret, while still a layman, together with his friend Diodorus, he denounced Leontius of Antioch, who elevated Leontius Aetius to the rank of deacon, and “incited the Orthodox to zeal and piety.”
Both “friends” for the first time began to divide the singers into two choirs and taught them to sing David’s psalms alternately – first with one choir, then with the other. They gathered people who loved to engage in Divine affairs to the tombs of the martyrs and spent the whole night vigil with them, praising God” 392.
During the exile of Meletius, Flavian and Diodorus led the Orthodox Antiochian community. In the year 381, at the Second Ecumenical Council, Saint Flavian, after the sudden death of Meletius, was elected to his place - Bishop of Antioch. Church historical knowledge has a very limited range of information about his activities as a bishop. It is known that he elevated John Chrysostom and his condisci pulum to the rank of presbyter, as well as his amantissimum disci pulum Theodore of Mopsuestia; that in the spring of 387 he begged Theodosius I to have mercy on the Antiochians, who were facing severe punishment for the destruction of the Imperial statues.
It is also known that Flavian drew up a Council against the Meccalians, which condemned and excommunicated Adelphius, one of the fathers of this extravagant sect, 393 together with his followers, and that regarding this sect he wrote three letters: one to the bishops of the Church of Orchoi (Edessa) and two to the bishops of Armenia. Flavian died in June 404, remaining a faithful friend of Chrysostom until the last days of his life - not betraying him even when this famous teacher of the Church was subjected to severe persecution.
Three ancient church writers testify to the literary activity of Saint Flavian. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus and Leontius of Byzantium mention the following homilies: on John the Baptist, on the Gospel of Luke and John, on the words “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,” on the Feast of Easter, on the Epiphany, and on Judas the Traitor. Photius in his library 394 mentions three letters from Flavian regarding the Messalian sect.
Not a trace of the letters of the Antiochian saint has survived; from the homilies, insignificant fragments 395 have reached our time, all of a dogmatic and polemical nature. In them, Saint Flavian teaches: Christ was born of God and Mary and received anointing from the Holy Spirit not according to His Divine, but according to His human nature. “You do not understand what you are reading,” says the Lord, “I come to you anointed with the Spirit, and the Spirit is anointed with the invisible nature, which is similar to yours” 396.
Speaking about the suffering of the Lord, Saint Flavian notes: “we freely preach the cross and confess the death of the Lord, since the Divinity did not suffer anything, for the Divinity is impassive, but the body fulfilled the dispensation” 397. “Therefore, when you hear that the Lord is surrendering, do not allow yourself to humiliate His Divine dignity and do not attribute bodily suffering to the Divine power. Although, out of love for mankind, the Divinity accepted the sign of a slave, It did not change Its nature, but remaining what it was, it only allowed the body to undergo death” 398.
From here it clearly follows that, according to the teachings of Flavian, when the Divine nature was united with the human in Christ, each of them fully retained its own characteristics. “It cannot be said that the Word changed or that It ceased to be God; on the contrary, It was God from eternity and dwelt in the body only as in a church” 399.
Apart from these passages, the only complete work of Flavian remains his speech to Emperor Theodosius in defense of Antioch, which Chrysostom conveys on his behalf in one of his conversations (21) regarding the overthrow of the statues 400. But there is an assumption that it was composed by Chrysostom 401 before it was pronounced.
To characterize Flavian - this high and holy personality - the words of Chrysostom, spoken by him in honor of his bishop, are important. When Flavian went to Constantinople with the goal of asking the Emperor for forgiveness for Antioch, Chrysostom began his third conversation about statues with these words: “When I look at this throne, idle and abandoned by our teacher, I both rejoice and cry at the same time. I cry because I don’t see my father here; I rejoice because he set out on a journey for our salvation and went to deliver such a multitude of people from the king’s wrath. This is both a decoration for you and a crown for him. It is an adornment for you to have such a father; It is a crowning achievement for him that he is so loving towards his children and has justified by his deeds what Christ said. Hearing that “the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:2), he went willingly to lay down his life for us all, although many things prevented him from going on the road and forced him to stay here.
This is, first of all, his old age, then physical weakness and the time of year, and the approach of the holy holiday; finally, his sister, who is his only one and is on her last legs. But he despised kinship, and old age, and infirmity, and the difficulty of time, and the burden of travel; and preferring you and your salvation to everything, he broke all these bonds, and, like a young man, the old man now flies, inspired by jealousy. If Christ, he said, gave himself up for us, then what kind of apology and forgiveness will we be worthy of, who have been entrusted with the government of such a numerous people, if we do not decide to do and endure everything for the safety of those entrusted to us?
Then Chrysostom tries to inspire his listeners with hope: “I know that as soon as he appears and sees the pious king, then by his very appearance he will be able to immediately tame his anger, because among saints not only their words, but also their very faces are filled with grace. And he is filled with great wisdom and, being versed in Divine laws, will tell him the same thing that Moses said to God: “If you forgive them their sins, forgive them, and if not, kill me with them” (Exodus 22:32). Such is the heart of the saints that it is more pleasant for them to die with their children than to live without them” 402.
Monuments of ancient Christian writing in the spirit of the Antiochian school during the first period of its development also include 403 works by Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, which remained in obscurity for a long time, then known only fragmentarily and only in relatively recent times published in the form in which they were preserved, we mean Ἀποκριτικοι Λόγοι or Ἀποκριτικὸς, that is, the answer, or Μονογενής, that is, the Only Begotten.
The last name was given to the work because it all has the goal of protecting the glory of the Only Begotten Son of God. In the works of ancient church writers, until the very end of the eighth century, there is no mention of Macarius as a writer. Only since the Seventh Ecumenical Council and Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, has the Apocritic become known to a larger circle of readers.
This work attracted attention because iconoclasts referred to it in support of their thoughts about icons. From it they extracted what they thought was suitable evidence against the veneration of images of saints and presented this selection of fragmentary thoughts and expressions to Nikephoros - under the name of “Saint Macarius from the fourth book of Answers.” For the latter, both the name of the writer and the work were news, a complete list of which he managed to find only after a long search. Nikephoros says the following about his find: “The inscription on it is as follows: 4 books of Macarius and epapha.” The latter dignity is indicated not only by the inscription, but also by the elegant image of this Macarius on the inner leaves of this ancient book, because he is depicted in sacred vestments. Then the same image is often found in subsequent scrolls. And this man, apparently, flourished long before this time, more than three hundred years after the apostolic inspired preaching.
We cannot indicate what city the bishop was and among whom he presided, until we find out more precisely: whether the word Μάγνης is a proper name or a common noun, because it is used in both senses. We know, for example, that one of the ancient poets was called that way; ancient history also mentions another, the founder of a certain settlement.
After his name, his settlement in Thessaly was called Magnesia, and the inhabitants there were called Magnets. From there, perhaps, to other places, but undoubtedly others also moved to the Asian regions, and from them some cities were called Magnesia.
Our writer dedicates his book to a certain Theosthenes, his sincere friend - both for corrections and for evaluation. And the purpose of the work is a refutation of the Hellenes, and of them especially a certain philosopher from the school of Aristotle, who adhered to the opinion of those who preferred unity of command (μοναρχίαν), however, he was very knowledgeable in external wisdom and arrogantly despised our dogmas, skillfully attacking the simplicity of our faith with his sophisms and cunning arguments.
Having at first expressed himself undecided whether the word Μάγνης was a proper name or a common noun, since it was also a personal name and meant origin from Magnesia, Nikephoros later in his Antierheticis directly calls the writer Macarius and, therefore, assigns the word Μάγνης a common meaning. Determining the place and time of the appearance of the Apocritic, as well as identifying its author Macarius of Magnesia with a certain historical figure, is possible only to a certain degree of probability and rests on the data contained in this very monument of ancient church literature.
In the 18th century, Tilmon, and after him in the 19th century, Duchesne, moved the residence of the author of the Apocritics to Edessa. On the contrary, Möller, Zahn, Archimandrite Arseny 405 (later bishop) and others believe that he lived and acted within Asia Minor and in defense of this assertion they put forward the following. When Macarius wants to present an example of someone being called by the country in which he lives, even if he was born in another, he speaks of a native of Galatia who constantly lived in Asia Minor and is therefore called an Asiatic. Then he points to the area where Montanus initially acted, with such petty precision that in the mouth of a stranger might seem strange. Macarius writes: “Montanus, who infected almost the entire world with the poison of his heresy, appeared in Phrygia and deceived with his delusion the entire country of Mys, neighboring Phrygia, to the borders of Asia.”
Macarius lists the Asia Minor regions in which the heretics Encratites, Apotactites and Eremites were located in more detail, something we find in Epiphanius. He speaks of Pisidia, Isauria, Cilicia, Lycaonia and all of Galatia.
If, speaking about the ascetic life, Macarius remarks: “you can go around the cities of the East and all the dioceses of Syria and more accurately find out the justice of my speech,” then, without a doubt, this, on the one hand, shows that he did not live in Egypt or near it (the image of the seasons is not in harmony with this assumption, especially winter with its severe frosts and all-covering snow drifts) - on the other hand, it confirms the idea that he was not in Syria either lived, and to the West of it.
The fleeting remark that the bleeding woman healed by the Savior was from Edessa, in itself proves that the writer had some vague historical information about her and does not say anything in favor of the fact that Macarius was from Edessa, but rather provides grounds for the opposite statement. The only thing that, apparently, could serve as proof of the writer’s residence and activity in the countries of the Ephratas, more particularly in Edessa, is the expression that appears once: “one hundred parasangs,” to measure the duration of the journey. But, firstly, it is used not for geographical designation, but in a parable; secondly, secular Greek writers sometimes use this Persian measure to denote space or distance. So, for example, Athenaeus in his “Feast of the Sophists” expressed that someone, with his bad deeds, was many parasangs ahead of Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse.”
In addition, it is known that long after the fall of the Persian monarchy and the death of Alexander the Great in the former regions of the Persian kingdom, parasangas were used by the people to denote travel distances, and in general even later Greek writers did not shy away from this word as more suitable for measuring long distances, because one parasanga was equal to thirty Greek stages. Therefore, from Niketas Choniates, a writer of the 12th century, in the official news of the Emperor about the campaign against the Bulgarians, we read: “I had barely walked four parasangs along the road,” or “I had not yet passed four parasangs when another messenger appeared” 406.
As for the time when Macarius lived, the general conclusion of Patriarch Nicephorus about him is confirmed primarily by two chronological indications in the work itself. Namely, in the second chapter of the fourth book of the Apocriticia, the pagan philosopher objects: “There is obvious injustice in the words of Paul: “we who live” (1 Sol 4:14), because three hundred years have passed since that time, and no one anywhere, not Paul himself with others, has been raptured.” And in the fifth chapter of the same book: “Christ says: Beware that no one deceives you, for many will come in My name and say: I am Christ, and many will deceive (Matthew 24:4-5). Meanwhile, three hundred or more years have passed and no one like him has appeared, unless he points to Apollonius of Tyana 407 - a man adorned with all kinds of wisdom, he will not find another. But the expression “they will come” speaks not of one, but of many.”
The natural conclusion from this would be that objections were made three hundred years or more after the Apostle Paul, even more often, after he wrote his first Epistle to Thessalonians (about 52-53 AD), that is, in the second half of the 4th century.
Other signs in the work also point to the second half of the 4th century. Or even at the end of it, like the time of the appearance of Apocritics. In no case does the thought slip that the profession of the Christian religion is contrary to the laws of the Roman Empire, and it is directly stated that Christians build magnificent churches for themselves. Consequently, the enemy’s objections took place at a time when Christianity, along with paganism, became a full-fledged religion in the state.
Noting about the time of the Apostle Paul that then the majority of market traders were pagans, the author thereby gives the right to think that in his time the attitude was the opposite. Ascetic and monastic life at the time of writing the Apocriticism were in full development, if the writer, when explaining Me 10:34,38, having spoken about past persecutions and self-sacrifice of the disciples, continues that even now through the Gospel teaching, as if by means of a sword, fathers are separated from children, daughters from mothers... “Others, out of love for virginity, abandoned the marriage life, accepting, like a sword, the dividing word teaching (Heb 4:12); and the sons of noble men and respectable inhabitants of glorious cities, having abandoned their ancestral customs, switched to an ascetic way of life, through the labors of abstinence ascending to the heights of heavenly virtues, according to the Gospel teaching, lovingly saying goodbye to the responsibilities of the fatherland - and neither the fathers, seeing this, are angry, nor the mothers grieve, nor the brothers murmur. You can go around the cities of the East, all the dioceses of Syria and more accurately find out the truth of what I am saying.
For example, those living in the royal metropolis of Antioch are divided by countless rules of behavior, because some gladly accept the marriage yoke, while others do not allow themselves to communicate with their wife; some lead a luxurious life, while others live a meager and laborious life with little food; some continuously save money; others love non-covetousness as a good deed; some are attached to buying and selling, others rejoice when they suffer failures; some try to be in women’s company, while others want to be in solitude.”
Two objections are raised against such a late dating of the time of writing of the Apocritics, which seem to be based on the data of the book itself:
1) “Our writer,” says Crusius, “occupies a place among the writers of the ancient Church, who, even before its pacification, wrote apologies in defense of the Christian faith against slander and pagan attacks. This is sufficiently indicated by the table of contents of the book (in some lists Αποκριτικοὶ πρὸς ήΕλληνας) and the custom of apologists and their similar impulse to speak against the pagans about God's sovereignty, as well as the special goal of the entire creation, directed against something known at one time among the Greeks a philosopher who defended polytheism and ridiculed from high the simplicity of the Christian faith; and this is a sign that the author lived at a time when persecution of the Church of Christ still caused apologies. For since the time when paganism was defeated by Constantine the Great and the Christian Church was given complete freedom, we do not meet either philosophers or apologists who would discuss this subject with such diligence, since it was then impossible to strongly attack and slander the Christian faith.
And there was no need for such an abundance of evidence to resist and defend, especially when from the works of pagans of the 4th and 5th centuries, unfamiliar with Christianity, it is quite clear that the most intelligent philosophers of that time, following the example of the teacher Ammonius, took on the role of mediators between pagans and Christians and made attempts in some way to unite the beliefs of both. Even when a philosopher, wanting to clarify the image of God’s autocracy in the form of human autocracy, cites Hadrian as an example, this makes it clear that he was not too far from the age of Hadrian.”
Regarding these words of Crusius, it can be noted, firstly, that Macarius in the 32nd chapter of the third book refers to the work of Porphyry the philosopher as already deceased, and he died in the year 304, therefore, the Apocritic appeared later than this year; secondly, the Apocriticism of Macarius differs from the apology that appeared in centuries of persecution in that it was intended primarily for Christians, written at the request of a Christian and against the book, and not in defense of the civil government; that in its content and tone it does not at all allow one to attribute oneself to the times of the predominance of paganism and the oppression of Christians, but to the time when the champions of paganism found themselves among the downtrodden, compared with the previous citizens, they found themselves in the minority both in number and in moral strength; when, instead of sword and torture, they collected and selected sophisms to justify their beliefs, and being well acquainted with the books of Holy Scripture, following the example or footsteps of Celsus, Porphyry and Hierocles, they tried to find shortcomings and deviations from the truth in Scripture itself.
But was there a need after Constantine the Great to write apologies in defense of the Christian religion? Obviously there was. That is why Athanasius the Great wrote his “Tale against the Hellenes” in 362 - that is why Cyril of Alexandria spoke his speeches in refutation of Julian’s attacks. And Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus wrote “Healing Against Pagan Errors” even later.
The pagans in the Empire at the end of the 5th century numbered slightly less than half of the total population; in society and in the hands of literate people, writings and pamphlets circulated in defense of ancient beliefs and in undermining the new religion, which had become full-fledged in the state. As for the reference to Hadrian, it does not at all prove the early appearance of the Apocriticia of Macarius and does not serve as a basis for accepting either the 150s or the 270s and 280s during its compilation.
2) They also pointed to another sign, namely, that the writer mentions only the heretics of the second and third centuries, and did not say a single word about the Arians, for example. But this does not say anything against the assumption that the Apocritics was written in the second half of the 4th century or even at the end of it.
That Macarius of Magnesia wrote after the era of the Arian disputes is clear from the fact that, speaking about the Divinity of Christ and His eternal birth from the Father, he uses expressions generally accepted after the Council of Nicaea, and makes a complete distinction between the concepts of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, which we also do not see in the works of Athanasius of Alexandria. And so all the grounds speak for the fact that the Apocriticism of Saint Macarius should be attributed to the second half and even to the end of the 4th century.
From the two chronological references of the enemy, if we take the five-day competition as reality rather than fiction, it would turn out that it was written around 353–354. But the competition is clearly a rhetorical device of the author.
Duchesne writes: “The speech of the pagan is smooth and easy, not without a salt of wit; and Macarius’s speech is amazing how pretentious and drawn-out it is, with an abundance of repetition.” Such a difference in syllable and, so to speak, a different way of fighting, apparently indicate that the oral state is fictitious, that Macarius did not argue with an inherent enemy and not in front of a meeting of listeners, but at his leisure, and raised objections and wrote answers. If only we had here a valid recording of the oral competition by the cursive writers (tachygraphers) present at it, even if it was later corrected or slightly embellished by the author himself; then, in any case, the work would have had a different appearance: in the speech of Macarius himself there would have remained traces of military difficulties and efforts, we would not have encountered smooth prose speech in one place, and pompous speech in another, selective and refined eloquence.
If we again take into account with what force and with what wit the pagan displays his perplexities, so that nothing is taken away from their weight and bitterness, then it is easy to conclude that his words were copied directly from the book and presented by Macarius, perhaps in a slightly altered form. Based on these remarks by Duchesn᾽a, we can conclude that the objections to Christianity were borrowed from the book of a pagan scientist who wrote around the beginning of the second half of the 4th century, and the refutation was compiled several years later, perhaps at the request of Theosthenes 408.
Who was Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, author of the Apocritic? Historically known is Macarius of Magnesia, who, according to Photius 409, occupied the See of Magnesia and at the Council of 403 under Oak acted as an accuser against Heraclid, Bishop of Ephesus. Nothing is said against the identification of the author of the Apocritic with this Macarius either by the fact that in the codices containing parts or passages from the Apocritic one Μακαρίος is never used, nor by the fact that Μάγνης always appears without a member: in inscriptions the member before designating the place of activity of the author is usually omitted.
Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia, lived around 400 AD. But when he was born and died, when he assumed the episcopal see, we do not have data to answer these and many other questions. Who the objector or author of the book was and what kind of book it was from which Macarius took the objections cannot be determined with certainty due to lack of data. That especially from the end of the third century pamphlets and more or less learned refutations of Christianity often appeared is known from the written objections and responses of Methodius of Olympus, Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea, and even in the second half of the 4th century, the example of Emperor Julian, who wrote his great work against Christianity (Adversus Christianos), was probably not isolated.
Unfortunately, the preface and the entire first book (except for excerpts of the sixth chapter) of the Apocriticism of Macarius have not been preserved, where there was probably an indication of the author of the objections or his book. It remains to be assumed that some philosopher, a champion of paganism, partly found it himself, partly selected or altered already known objections and brought them together into one book, in the form of separate provisions, which finally reached Macarius.
The borrowing of some objections from the works of more ancient writers is indicated by the following facts. When the opponent of Macarius says that the witnesses of the resurrection of Christ should not have been women or unknown people from the mob, but the rulers: Pilate, Herod and the bishops, then he repeats what Celsus had already said. The concept of the unity of God, developed by him, had long been accepted in the schools of Neoplatonists, and was repeated by Julian. Borrowings from Porphyry are clearly evident where the clash between Peter and Paul in Antioch, the death of Ananias and Sapphira are spoken of, and the reproach is given that the Evangelists call Lake Gennesaret a sea. Much is taken from Hierocles, whose two “True Words” testified to the close acquaintance of their author with the Christian teaching, so that Lactantius put it: “exposes something so secret that it is as if he once belonged to our faith and became a traitor to the accepted secrets, unless the Divine Scriptures accidentally reached him.”
The censure of the Apostle Peter and Paul, the praise of Apollonius of Lansky, the recognition of many gods and their subordination to one - shows a close resemblance to what was said by Hierocles. But since many of Julian’s objections are not found in our author, it is rightly assumed that the opponent of Macarius compiled his collection before the appearance of Julian’s work directed against Christianity 410.
The attacks on Christianity by the opponents of Macarius of Magnesia in his Apocriticism, written in dialectical form and consisting of five books 411, are contrasted with a statement of the teachings of the Church. The question arises why Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, suspected him of Origenism, Manichaeism and Arianism. The reasons were twofold:
1) The iconoclasts’ reference to Macarius was a reason for suspicion for Nicephorus;
2) A quick reading of the newly discovered writer strengthened it. Nikephoros’s accusations against Macarius are formulated verbatim as follows: “The iconoclasts, presenting this Macarius as a defender and promoter of their error and understanding and containing his words in their thoughts, are undoubtedly imbued with his other bad beliefs. Because they are convicted, first of all, of completely agreeing and accepting what he said, perhaps out of old habit and personal disposition, in opposition to the sacred dogmas of the Church, and not only lovingly accepting the opinions of the godless Manichaeans and hated Arians, but also the perverted wisdom of the wicked and insane Origen, and like him they teach that the punishment that God threatens in the future and which He has prepared for wicked people, will have an end."
The opinion about the eternity of torment, according to Nicephorus, was at the end of Book IV, that is, that part of it that has not survived to our time. To what extent Nikifor conveys this correctly, we have no reason to judge. But Nicephorus's accusation of Manichaeism was based on a misunderstanding and oversight.
Explaining the words of the Apostle Paul: “some will fall away, scorched by their conscience (1 Timothy 4:12), Macarius writes: “He calls those burned who have not been watered with the dew of the Holy Spirit and have not been washed from the filth of sin by the grace of Baptism... they chatter nonsense and philosophize empty things, mocking creation and slandering the creatures of God, created for food and use, not for vanity, whim and intemperance, so that the faithful, using them, thank the Creator. Such are the Manichaeans; The Persian and Isaurian countries contain similar heresies. “Here is given the best possible refutation of the teachings of the Manichaeans, namely that matter is evil and that it comes from an evil principle.
Elsewhere Macarius of Magnesia classifies Mines and his followers among the Antichrists and adversaries as the Marcionites and others.
As for Nicephorus's third accusation of Arianism, it is also based on a misunderstanding. Although Macarius does not mention Ari and the Arians in a single word, he gives an accurate and clear confession of faith in the One Trinity God in persons. Speaking, for example, about Baptism in relation to the apostolic words: “but they were washed, but they were sanctified” (1 Cor 6:11), Macarius writes: “he does not say: first they were sanctified, then they were washed, because first someone is washed, then he is cleansed, that is, he is sanctified. For just as saltpeter mixed into water cleanses away dirt, so the name of Christ, combined with water, cleanses those who descend into it from sin, and then, after sanctification, makes them righteous. And this, says the apostle, cannot be saved except in the name of the Lord and the Spirit of God. By Divine inspiration, he taught that grace is given to the faithful from the Trinity, he taught, saying: “in the name of the Lord and the Spirit, and not just the Spirit, but God the Spirit, calling the Divinity Triune, when he speaks not by names, but by name.
For one name God belongs to the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and God alone in three Persons exists and is called, and it is not the Father without the Son who accepts the believer, nor the Son without the Spirit who brings anyone to the Father. And this is how he said in a mysterious sense: “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified.”
Whom Christ washes, the Spirit sanctifies, and whom the Spirit sanctifies, the Father justifies, not because Christ, in washing, cannot sanctify, or the Spirit, in sanctifying, has no power to justify, or the Father, in justifying, cannot wash and sanctify (for both the Father, the Son, and the Spirit have the same power to wash, sanctify, and justify all things), but because it is fitting To the Son, as the Son to adopt, to the Holy Spirit, as to the Spirit to sanctify, and to the Father to justify the sanctified, so that the name of the three Hypostases is recognized in one essence. That is why the apostle, taking this thought from the end of the Gospel of Matthew, where it says: “He went and taught all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” applies the name of the Trinity at Baptism, saying: “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Other dogmatic opinions of Macarius of Magnesia also testify to his Orthodoxy 412.
Homilies of Macarius of Magnesia on the book of Genesis
A handwritten tradition testifies that Macarius of Magnesia wrote, in addition to the Apocriticism, a number of homilies on the book of Genesis. Nothing was known about these homilies until the end of the 17th century. Both writers, Nikephoros of Constantinople and Francis of Tours, who knew the Apocritic in its entirety, do not give any indications regarding the second work of Macarius of Magnesia. The first person to mention his homilies in a printed publication is Tilmon in volume IV of his enormous work: “Historie des empereurs” he gives a small report about the “church writer Macarius of Magnesia” 413.
But everything that we read from Tilmon regarding Macarius of Magnesia, and especially regarding his homily on the book of Genesis, is based not on independent study of the material, but on the messages of Bowin᾽a, a famous scientist and curator of manuscripts of the royal library in Paris in his time, who found fragments from the homily of Macarius of Magnesia on the book of Genesis in one of the Ottebian manuscripts in Rome. On the basis of this manuscript, Crusius reported in his second dissertation 414 on Macarius of Magnesia several (7) fragments from his homily on the Book of Genesis as dicta probantia.
The French Benedictine Pitra followed in the footsteps of Browin᾽a and Crusi᾽a. During his scientific trips, Pitra, as Duchesn notes, paid special attention to finding fragments of our author's homilies - more than Crusius gave them. He was actually lucky enough to discover five new fragments of the work of Macarius. Of these, the first three are small remarks about which it is impossible to say with certainty which work of Macarius they refer to.
The other two fragments are quite extensive excerpts, of which the first is on the Apocritic, the other on the homily. All five fragments were simultaneously printed by Pitr in his Spicilegium Soles mense, but all the efforts of Pitr and his assistant to find the codex, which was supposed to contain fragments from the homily on the book of Genesis, remained in vain.
It is not surprising that Duchesne, in his 1877 work on the life and writings of Macarius, expresses regret that so little has survived from the second creation of our author, and that not only the Codex Ottobinianus itself, but even the copies made for it have been lost. Also, Sauer, in his study on the homilies of Macarius of Magnesia, published in 1897, but already prepared many years earlier, is of the opinion that the Codex Ottobinianus no longer exists and that for the homilies of Macarius of Magnesia, which are found in Crusi᾽a und Duchehn᾽a, those three new fragments that are in Sauer᾽a’s work are neutral.
Several years before Sauer published his study, it was in 1893 that a new catalog of the Greek Ottobinian manuscripts of the Vatican Library was published. From the new catalog it is clear that among the Ottobinian manuscripts there are two that contain fragments from the works of Macarius of Magnesia. What exactly the first of them gives, the catalog does not talk about this in detail. There is reason to think that it contains a fragment from the Apocriticism, namely, regarding the Eucharist. The literary opponent of Macarius, referring to the words of the Savior: “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you” (John 6:33), accuses xpucmian of an excess of atrocities that exceed all measure.
“Even if we understand this allegorically and mysteriously,” he says, “the letter of speech still offends the ear, harms the soul, and arouses disgust.” Therefore neither Mark nor Luke nor Matthew wrote it.”
Macarius gives a lengthy answer to this expression. This place subsequently became one of the favorite places in the Apocritique of Macarius, which is found in many codices. By the way, it can also be read in one of the manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, which, unfortunately, has not been published. This is exactly the place that can be read in the first of two Ottobinian manuscripts, in which fragments from the works of Macarius of Magnesia are found.
The second manuscript is codex No. 268. The previous number of this codex is not noted in the catalogue. However, there is no reason to doubt that this is the codex from which the list for Bowin᾽a was made. In it, in two different places, between which there are passages from other Church Fathers, some of the writings of Macarius of Magnesia are reported. Here is a fragment from the homilies on the book of Genesis, which Pitra discovered in 1858 in a much more ancient codex, namely Vatican No. 2022 and which was already published by Pitr, Duchesn and Sauer.
The second passage begins with the words: Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ δυμιουργίας. and ends like this: τῆς ζωῆς. This particular fragment, quite long, was considered by Crusius to undoubtedly belong to the homilies of Macarius of Magnesia. If this were so, then we would have all the data to characterize the latter. But unfortunately we have to say the exact opposite. Schalkhauser in his recent study Zu den Schriften des Makarios von Magnesia..., published in Texte urtes Suchungen, came to the conclusion that the passage transmitted by the Ottobinian Codex No. 268, as a fragment of the homilies of Macarius of Magnesia on the book of Genesis, is nothing more than the middle part of the so-called “History of Creation”, as it is read in the Byzantine Chronicle Theodosius of Melitene and Julia Polidevka, partly also by Leo Grammar, and Macarius of Magnesia do not belong.
Schalkhauser᾽a 415 reasons for this statement are as follows.
1) Reading the Crusi᾽a dissertation, we notice that nowhere is it noted in what form and under what name in the Ottobinian Codex this fragment is attributed to Macarius of Magnesia. In the Codex Brixensis, which is a copy of Ottobinian's, the name Macarius is not found in the Greek inscription: it is read only in Latin. How this happened is clear from the description of codex No. 268, which is given by the new catalog of Ottobinian manuscripts. This latter indicates that in the Ottobinian Codex No. 268 this fragment, without any further designations, adjoins a passage from the works of John Chrysostom by Fr. Only in the margins, and precisely in the second hand, in the place where this fragment begins, is written Μαγνήτου. They also pay attention to the fact that the Ottobinian Codex No. 268, the only manuscript in which the word Μαγνήτου is added to a fragment from the homily on the book of Genesis, contains manuscripts of relatively late origin. The code dates back to the 16th century.
Conclusion: The claim that Macarius of Magnesia, the author of this passage, rests on shaky ground.
They object that if the copyist on the manuscript attributed the work to one or another author “from the wind of his head,” then he would attribute it to one of the luminaries in the history of patristic literature: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and others. In this case, we observe a completely opposite fact: the passage, which in the manuscript follows the passage of Chrysostom and, therefore, could be considered as the literary property of the famous father of the Church, is appropriated by the copyist to an ecclesiastical author, who in no case can be counted among the major figures of patristic literature. But these expressions do not save the correctness of the remarks in the margins, since other and more important data speak against the authorship of Macarius of Magnesia. And first of all the following fact.
2) Significant fragments of the original work of Macarius of Magnesia, fragments of the Apocritic, have been preserved, which, as well as the comparison of the History of Creation with the Apocritic, directly speak against the origin of the Ottobinian fragment from Macarius of Magnesia. The style of "Apocriticism" deviates significantly from the style of Κοίρυποία. The presentation of the Apocritic is distinguished by its rhetorical character and verbosity. There is no shortage of repetition. Her sentences are often very long.
Macarius of Magnesia cannot be denied, to a certain extent, the ability to skillfully construct his works. He lovingly uses sentences that begin with the same words. In particular, he is a friend of figurative speech. The number of comparisons and comparisons with which he enlivens his presentation of the Apocritic is very large. On the contrary, the presentation of the "History of Creation" is much simpler. Sentences are short. There is a lack of rhetorical figures and beauty of presentation of the Apocritic. Well-known expressions that Macarius lovingly uses on the pages of the "Apocriticism", such as κατόρθωμα, οἰκονουμία in application to the work of Christ, βίος in the sense of worldly or human life, ἀχήρατος in the sense of imperishable - what is the meaning of the word we searched in vain would be in the lexicons οἰκουμένη, οὑσία especially in the sense of being, essence, are completely absent in the “History of Creation”.
If we move from the forms of presentation, that is, the external side of the works, to the content itself, we will involuntarily pay attention to the fact that despite the insignificant volume of fragments of the homily on the book of Genesis and with a complete difference in subjects, there are frequent contacts in thoughts between one and the other work. Given the agreement in resolving dogmatic issues that was observed in the second half of the 4th century between orthodox writers, the same interpretation of similar subjects could even be expected from two different authors. And indeed, the solution to the issues in the Apocritic and the second fragment of the Ottobinian Codex No. 268, parts coincide. However, sharp differences can often be observed. So Macarius of Magnesia in the Apocritic speaks in detail that from πλευρὰ condemnation came to people and that from πλευρὰ salvation should also come.
In the “History of Creation”, although it is mentioned that God created a wife from πλευρὰ Adam, the author does not talk about this in more detail. Nowhere is the wife’s guilt emphasized. Where the Fall is discussed, the plural is used everywhere, and thus Adam and Eve are equally condemned.
Next, they compare how Macarius in the Apocritics and the “History of Creation” speaks about the ξύλου of sin. Macarius says: there was a twofold reason that man fell, namely τὸ ξύλου and τὸ βρῶμα. That part of the reason to which βρῶμα τοῦ ξύλου corresponds, Christ conquered by His fasting. Now it remains to eliminate the part that was caused by the tree.
Macarius says about this tree that through it man is ἡττηθεὶς καταβέβλητω, that ἀπάτη comes from it, that it is ξύλου προπετὲς, ξύλου τοῦ θανάτου and τῆς παρακοῆς.
We find nothing like this in the History of Creation. It just says here that τὸ ξύλου τοῦ γιγνώσκειν was not by its very nature supposed to serve people for the knowledge of good and evil, that human freedom was only tested on it, and that there was nothing harmful in Paradise.
Macarius lovingly uses the expression δημιουργὸς to designate the Creator of the Universe. In the “History of Creation” this expression does not appear even once: only ἐδημιούργησε and δημιούργημα appear once each. Macarius readily speaks of the δημιουργὸς Θεὸς Λόγος of Christ, to whom the name Θεὸς is acquired several times. He calls Him the Creator of everything: Earth and man, says about Him that He planted Paradise, “The History of Creation,” on the contrary, never speaks of δημιουργὸς Θεὸς Λόγος. He calls not the Logos, but God the Creator of the World, things, man, the planter of Paradise. The Λόγος, about whom Macarius of Magnesia speaks so often in the Apocritic, appears only once in the “History of Creation,” namely, at the creation of man. Λόγος is designated here as - σύμβουλος - an expression that never appears in the Apocritic.
Apocriticism does not pursue exegetical goals; it is exclusively an apologetic work. Macarius refutes in it the arguments of the pagan, who made certain expressions of the Holy Scriptures the subject of his ridicule and objections. Since the pagan was guided by the literal meaning of the Holy Scriptures, Macarius of Magnesia, in turn, had to base his defense on the literal meaning of the Holy Books.
Although the fragments of the Apocritic that have survived to this day deal exclusively with passages from the New Testament, nevertheless the allegorical interpretation of Scripture occupies such a prominent place that it can be considered an undoubted fact that in the interpretation of the Holy Scripture Macarius follows in the footsteps of Origen. A natural question arises: how did Macarius of Magnesia’s inclination towards the allegorical method of interpretation in apologetic work completely abandon him in exegetical work? The fact is that “The Story of Creation” is completely alien to allegorization. Both the Apocritique and the only authentic passage that has survived from Macarius's homilies on the book of Genesis testify against the fact that the Ottobinian fragment is a fragment of these homilies.
The fact that Macarius of Magnesia compiled homilies on the book of Genesis is beyond doubt. One of the codes of the Vatican Library speaks in favor of this. A fragment has been preserved to this day, which has the inscription: Γένεσιν. From this fragment it is clear that the work that Macarius of Magnesia wrote on the book of Genesis was entitled: Λόγον εἰς τὴν Γένεσιν, and that this work consisted of at least 17 words. No matter how brief the Vatican fragment is, however, based on it we can conclude that this type of literary activity was not alien to Macarius of Magnesia. The style and form of presentation is the style and form of presentation of the author of the Apocritics. “Ὁ τλήμων Ἰώβ”, to limit ourselves to one example, is found both in the Vatican fragment and the Apocritic.
The author of the Apocritic punctuates the second word spoken by the Lord on the Cross in such a way that σήμερον is associated with λέγω. Such punctuation also occurs in the Vatican fragment. The tendency towards allegorical interpretation, which is constantly evident in the Apocritic, clearly appears in the Vatican fragment. Macarius of Magnesia comes into play when the Vatican fragment addresses the question of what is to be understood by the leather garments that God gave to the first people after the Fall. This is a question that in the first centuries of our era many teachers of the Church pondered and in solving which the most diverse points of view came forward.
Macarius first of all says that it is not smart to understand the passage about χιτῶνες δερμάτινοι in the literal sense and declares that he thought about this question for a very long time and found the correct solution only in the book of Job. There we read that Job, when he once spoke about the formation of his body, turned to God with the following words: με ἔνειρας. With these words, Job, according to Macarius of Magnesia, explained what should be understood by the leather clothes that God gave to Adam and Eve: this is precisely our fleshly body with which we are now surrounded. In what Macarius of Magnesia says here on the issue of δερμάτινοι χιτῶνες, he completely agrees with Origen in the method of interpreting Holy Scripture, showing his ideological kinship with this teacher of the Church 416.
The second Ottobinian fragment also speaks of δερμάτινοι χιτῶνες, precisely in the place where we talk about the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. But what we find here is nothing more than a verbatim quotation from the work of Methodius of Olympus on the resurrection, and precisely from the place where Methodius puts the view, expressed by Origen and later adopted by Macarius, that skin clothing signifies the human body, into the mouth of his opponent, the physician Agathon, and contrasts this view with his own understanding, according to which δερμάτινοι χιτῶνες generally means mortality.
3) If you carefully examine the “History of Creation”, then there is no doubt that its author could have been Macarius of Magnesia. It is entirely woven from borrowings from a whole and long series of Christian writers, some of whom, for example Theodoret of Cyrus, lived after Macarius of Magnesia. Moreover: it does not represent the work of an individual person at all. This is one of those florilegies with which Greek culture has been rich since the Alexandrian era. From the homilies of Macarius of Magnesia on the book of Genesis we have only a small fragment, which is preserved in the Vatican Codex No. 2,022 and a copy of which is given in the first fragment of the Ottobinian Codex No. 268.
The Antiochian direction, as the dominant direction within the Eastern Church by the time of the Second Ecumenical Council
The Antiochian direction, which at the beginning of the first period in the development of the Antiochian school and prominent leaders of Arianism, by the end of this period emerges as the Orthodox direction, dominant within the Eastern Church.
During the time from the First to the Second Ecumenical Council, Arianism gradually lost its influence; Arian formulas have lost their credit. The Nicene Creed, despite all the trials and cruel attacks endured, remained an unshakable sign of faith. Laodicea, Antioch, Cappadocia - these centers of the anti-Nicene opposition - as well as Mesopotamia and Philadelphia overthrew the old fear of Sabellianism and included Nicene terminology in their beliefs 417.
But the best aspects of Arianism survived Arianism itself. What remained from him was religious impressionability or a sense of receptivity to matters of faith, an uncontrollable thirst for truth, a healthy intellectual interest in religious knowledge, a willingness to seek the truth, affirm it, and fight for the truth if necessary 418. Arianism lost credit, but the trend on the basis of which it grew not only continued to exist, but also entered into the general flow of church life.
At the Second Ecumenical Council it declared itself as the dominant movement within the Eastern Church. This subsequent statement, for all its apparent paradox, is fully justified by facts from the history of the Council of Constantinople in 381. The drafting of the Symbol at the Second Ecumenical Council undoubtedly occurred under the influence of the Antiochian direction 419. Let us pay attention to how the dogma of the Incarnation of the Son of God is presented in it. The Nicene Creed read: “for us men and for our salvation, he came down and became incarnate, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into Heaven and came to judge the living and the dead.” In the Symbol of Constantinople we read: “for the sake of us men, and for the sake of our salvation, who rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and again has to come in glory – to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom is without end.”
All the differences between the Symbol of Constantinople and the Nicene Symbol in the presentation of the doctrine of the God-Man boil down to the fact that the former aims to depict as clearly as possible the carnal nature of the God-Man. The sayings are sent here: “from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary” - an indication of the supernatural, but human birth of Christ; “crucified for us under Pontius Pilate” 420, “buried” - signs of the true human suffering of Christ; “who sits at the right hand of the Father” - “he will come with glory” - an indication that the God-Man remains with His human nature even after the end of the earthly Coming, in it He will come to judge the world and will abide with Him forever. The symbol intends to eliminate any suspicions regarding the illusory, transient nature of human nature in Christ.
There is every reason to assume that the fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council directed their definitions against the teachings of Marcellus and Apollinaris, who were considered genuine heretics, dangerous to Orthodox teaching precisely in the circles of the Antiochians; in societies friendly with Alexandrian theology, they were not looked at very strictly 421. That the Symbol had in mind the overthrow of the teachings of Marcellus is evident from the force with which it affirms the idea that the God-man always remains a person distinct from the Father (“sitting at the right hand of the Father,” “To the Kingdom of Whose there is no end”) 422.
That the fathers meant to refute the teachings of Apollinaris is clear from the words of the Council of Constantinople in 382, which was, as it were, a continuation of the recent Ecumenical Council. The Fathers of this Council in their Letter to Pope Damasus, pointing out what was done at the Second Ecumenical Council, among other things wrote: “concerning the Incarnation of the Lord, we preserve the teaching not perverted: we accept the economy of the flesh and not without a soul, and not without mind, and not imperfect, but we admit it as a whole, that is, the Word of God, perfect before the age, in the last days for our salvation became perfect man” 423.
When presenting the doctrine of the Son of God as the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, the fathers of the Council of Constantinople made some abbreviations of the Nicene Symbol.
Thus, in the Symbol of Constantinople there are no words: “God from God,” “Heaven and Earth.” But the abbreviation concerns words - “from the essence of the Father” - words that are not transferred from the Nicene Symbol to the Constantinople. Only theologians of the Antiochian trend could do this. Only among them did these words of the Nicene Symbol arouse endless and heated debate; Only among them did they arouse constant protest. The Alexandrians could not abandon these words without abandoning most of the writings of St. Athanasius, where this term was defended with amazing energy.
Even the expression “according to the Scriptures,” which is found in the Symbol of Constantinople, according to Caspari, is a feature that distinguishes the Symbols that came out of the churches of the Antiochian district, in comparison with the Symbols of other churches. The rules of the Second Ecumenical Council also indicate that the leaders of this Council were the Antiochians. Some of the rules, judging by the content, could owe their origin to representatives of the Antiochian theological movement, and not to representatives of the Church of Rome or Alexandria. This is the 2nd Rule, according to which “regional bishops should not extend their power to other churches outside their regions, and mix churches,” and which is directed primarily against the Roman and Alexandrian churches. Both of them allowed themselves to invade churches alien to them: the latter, by arbitrarily installing in the person of Maxim, a bishop for the capital; the first, dedicating, through Lucifer of Cagliari, the Peacock for Antioch.
The 3rd rule of the Council, in which we read: “Let the Bishop of Constantinople have the privilege of honor after the Bishop of Rome, since Constantinople is the second Rome,” could only arise in the sphere of the Church of Constantinople and was supported in the churches of Antioch, since these churches always went hand in hand. The Churches of Rome and Alexandria looked with displeasure at the hierarchical rise of Constantinople, which is why the rules of the Second Ecumenical Council were not accepted by them for a long time.
The election of Flavian as Bishop of Antioch, which took place at the Second Ecumenical Council, is also a clear indicator of the predominant influence of the Antiochians at the Council of 381.
In Antioch in the early sixties, two bishops appeared simultaneously, who shared control over the Orthodox flock of the local church. Peacock had close relations with representatives of the Alexandrian trend; he was installed as a bishop by an alien from the West, Lucifer of Calaria, and found constant support among the Western bishops: Peacock’s adherents brought from the West some letters in which the bishopric in Antioch was granted exclusively to Peacock. On the contrary, Meletius enjoyed respect and fame within the Syrian and Asia Minor churches, while in the Roman and Alexandrian churches he was considered a heretic, a follower of Arius ἀραιομανίτης.
When, after the death of Meletius, the question of electing a successor to him arose before the Council of Constantinople, Gregory the Theologian made a whole speech proving the need to leave Peacock. While Meletius was still alive, said Gregory, it remained unknown whether the Western bishops would ever accept him; It was excusable to do a few more things and offend the faith of these, as they say, defenders of the laws. Now there is no storm and God has granted silence to His Church: let the See of Antioch go to the one who now owns it. And most importantly, we gain for ourselves, but now the West is alien to us. The decisive moment has come: either our dogma will be preserved for the future or will fall irrevocably from discord. “Let them defeat us in small things, so that we ourselves can win the most important victory.” The proposal of Gregory the Theologian caused a whole storm: “like a flock of jackdaws attacked Gregory,” and “the sedate assembly of elders, instead of trying to discipline the young, followed them” 424.
There is no doubt that affairs at the Council were in the hands of the Antiochians. Representatives of the Antiochian trend jealously guarded the rights of the Eastern Church and understood how dangerous it was to yield to the West even in small things - to that West, which at that time had already begun to show its predatory claws (Pope Julius). Therefore, the candidacy of Paulinus, who was and was considered a friend of Rome, and with Rome and all those who stood with Rome, did not pass at the Council: Flavian, presbyter of Antioch, was elected to replace Meletius 425.
The second period in the history of the development of the Antiochian school. General characteristics of it
The second period in the history of the development of the Antiochian school represents its heyday, corresponding to the scientific revival that was found in the Alexandrian school in the second half of the 4th century.
The head of the Antiochian school during the second period of its development was Diodorus of Taras, and its outstanding representatives were: John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, his brother Polychronius, Nestorius, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. Their distinctive feature was their comprehensive secular and philosophical education, and, in comparison with the previous period, a characteristic feature of the Antiochian school is a positive attitude towards the scientific traditions of the Alexandrian Origen.
As for the Christology of the Antiochians, here too even those of the representatives of the Antiochian school who followed the line that led to Nestorianism indicate traces of the Christological traditions of Asia Minor Theology, in the form in which they were reflected earlier in the Christology of Eustathius of Antioch, although fragments of the dogmatic works of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, preserved by their opponents, only occasionally indicate their conscious connection with Christological traditions - for the most part they rely on exegetical and rational arguments.
The general direction of theology of the Antiochian school, which made them dogmatists and religious philosophers of a straightforward method and carried them towards the desire to pursue dogmatic views through pure dialectics, in connection with the struggle against Christology, Eunomians and Apollinaris, little by little formed that opposition to the New Alexandrian Christology, which after the death of Theodore found its expression in the clash of both directions in the Nestorian dispute. But even here, the subordination of scientific aspirations to religious interests, the authority of church tradition and the voice of church creed led to purely Orthodox Christological views (for example, those of Blessed Theodoret), which, in harmonious combination with the Christological teaching of the representatives of the Alexandrian school, gave a complete, alien to one-sidedness and free from reinterpretation and distortion expression of church teaching in the creed of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
During this same period, the Antiochian method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures with certain rules for it was finally established, with a decisive refutation of the Origen method not only on one occasion or another when interpreting the Holy Scriptures, but also in individual treatises.
The difference between the Alexandrian (actually Origenian) and Antiochian methods of interpretation is not that the representatives of the latter generally rejected the spiritual meaning; they recognized it, but tried to define it on the basis of its literal meaning, as typical.
While the Alexandrians in many places quite arbitrarily connected a spiritual meaning with passages of Holy Scripture, the Antiochians proceeded from the literal, sought to define it using all the means of sound exegesis, and then showed that this or that narrative is the shadow of the future, a God-established type that found its fulfillment through Jesus Christ. Thus, the typically symbolic meaning (Θεωρία, and not ἀλληγορία) lies not in words, but in the realities, persons and events designated by words.
But it goes without saying that this general theoretical position could be implemented in different ways in practice. While Theodore of Mopsuestia brought the real understanding of the Holy Scriptures to rationalistic extremes, Saint John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, remaining faithful to the principles of Antiochian exegesis, assimilate the best sides of the Alexandrian method, giving a legitimate share of meaning to allegorical explanation, and provide examples of scientific commentaries, examples of which in their essence remain unchanged in the Orthodox Church. exegesis.
Thus, two opposing theological trends, which fought among themselves for more than a century, by the end of the period under review are reconciled in their church movements: and not only in the field of exegesis, but also in dogmatic views 426.
Representatives of the Antiochian School during the second period of its development
Diodorus, presbyter of Antioch, and from 378 bishop of Taras, who died before 394, came from a wealthy house in Antioch. Having studied classical literature at Athens, the system of Christian knowledge and methods of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, he acquired under the guidance of Eusebius of Emesa (De vir. ill. 119). The purpose of his life was twofold: the realization of the ascetic ideal and the defense of the Orthodox faith.
The reports of Socrates 427 and Sozomen 428 give reason to assume that Diodorus of Taras was the abbot of one of the monasteries near Antioch. He strove for the ideal of ascetic life that was presented to his eyes with such jealousy that, representing a walking skeleton, he looked more like a shadow than a man: this is how the heavenly gods punished him - the expression of Julian the Apostate about Diodorus of Tarsus (Facund. Defensio trium. Cap. tal. 2:2).
With equal zeal, he devoted himself to public church activities from the time the favorable position of the Church in Antioch sharpened in him the consciousness of his duties as a member of the clergy. In this metropolis of the Roman East, Julian, having stopped here during the campaign against the Persians for winter quarters, luxuriously restored the church of Daphnian Apollo and set everything in motion to again turn the Christian population to the service of the gods.
Most sects found a favorable reception here; here Arianism occupied a prominent position, and the Emperor Valens, showering Jews and heretics with his favors and favors, persistently persecuted the adherents of the Nicene Confession of Faith. Diodorus was a pillar of Orthodoxy in Antioch. The Syrian East owes mainly to him the defense of the Nicene Confession of Faith.
This state of affairs easily explains the fact that Diodorus’s social activity took on an undeniable polemical character and that his writings, of which the later Syrian Church knew over sixty, belonged in most cases to polemical ones. They were directed against all the enemies of the Church: pagans, Jews and heretics, and their subject was the more fundamental dogmatic issues taken in their entirety (Compare titles: - Περὶ τοῦ εἷς Θεὸς ἐν τριάδι - Περὶ οἰκονομίας), then individual provisions (Compare: titles: Περὶ ζῴων καὶ θυσιῶν – Περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ ὕλης ἑλληνικῆς πεπλασμένης).
Diodorus Tarsky had works of this kind, in which he fights, naming the names of his opponents, especially against philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Porphyry, from among the heretics: against the Manichaeans, Eunomians, Apollinarians (Πρὸς τοῦς συνουσιαστὰς), Sabellius, Marcella, Fotina. He refuted the teaching of heretics about the soul in the treatise “Περὶ ψυχῆς”.
Diodorus also fought against the enemies of Orthodox teaching through church-practical activities. The successes he achieved in this field made his name one of the glorious names of the Eastern Church and earned him great hatred among his enemies. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus writes: “Flavian and Diodorus rose like two rocks in the middle of the sea, against which the raging waves crashed... Diodorus, wise and strong, was pure, like a fast spring that offers drink to his own flock and at the same time absorbs the slander of his opponents. He considered the brilliance of his own origin to be worthless and joyfully endured oppression for his faith.”429
Due to his personal convictions, Diodorus from the very beginning adhered to the Nicene Confession. While still a layman, together with his friend Flavian, during the reign of Constantius - when the Arian Leontius occupied the Antiochian episcopal see - he gathered believers for night services at the tombs of the holy martyrs. According to Theodoret (Hist, eccl., 2:19), he should have introduced antiphonal singing during Divine services at this time. When Saint Meletius ascended the Antiochian episcopal throne in 360, Diodorus joined him, since the new bishop was forced to avoid clashes with clearly hostile Arians, and he again began to take care of the persecuted community of the Antiochian Orthodox.
Driven out of the churches, he called the remaining faithful into the darkness of the stone cliffs that covered the banks of the Orontes River, or to another secluded corner. And when military detachments opened these services, he migrated from house to house in order to preserve the believers in their devotion to Orthodoxy (Theodoret. Hist, eccl., 4:22).
Diodorus lived without a reliable shelter at this time - alone, supported by the love of believers. In the year 372 we find him in flight from Meletius, who was exiled to Armenia, where he began his relations with Basil the Great. For the victorious history of ὁμοούσιος, this was of the highest importance: the Cappadocians and Antiochian believers, in the person of their most prominent representatives, extended their hands to each other; the future belonged to them.
Six years later, Diodorus was consecrated Bishop of Tara. As such, he participated in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381, and together with others approved the election of Nektarios to the Patriarch of Constantinople 430. This Council extended his power as metropolitan to Cilicia. The imperial edict of July 30, 381 names him among those bishops whose authoritative voice resolved the issue of Nicene Orthodoxy and belonging to the Catholic Church.
Thus, among his contemporaries, Diodorus Tarsky was revered as a pillar of Orthodoxy; but barely 40 years had passed before suspicion of heresy fell on him. The reason for this was the Nestorian dispute.
Acting in accordance with the general tendency of the Antiochian school and wanting to highlight the human element in Christ, as opposed to the excessive idealism of the Alexandrian school, in his dispute with Apollinaris, developing a theory about the relationship between the two natures in Christ, he divided the God-man into two persons - the Son of God, who dwelt in the son of David, as in a house or a cloak. The two main works related here are: Πρὸς τοὺς συνουσιαστὰς, and Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, (Photius. Bibl. p. 102). Judging by the passages of the first work by Marius Mercator (Ed. Bauxe. p. 349→) and Leontius of Byzantium (c. Hestor et Eutych, 1:3,43; cf. Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca 1858, 91-100), Diodorus distinguishes two Sons of God: the Son of God and the Son of David. Sonship belongs to the first by nature, to the second by grace. Mary did not give birth to the Logos, but to a man born through the Holy Spirit.
The birth of the Divine Logos took place only once, and it happened before the ages - only a mortal can give birth to a mortal. Since the Divine Logos is absolutely perfect in His essence, then, consequently, all expressions of Holy Scripture that speak of the development of the Redeemer must be attributed only to His human nature.
Through growth in wisdom Christ became great. The secret of the Incarnation lies in the perception of the perfect man by the Logos. The relationship of both natures is nothing other than the abiding of the Logos in the man Jesus, as in His church or building. If, with such a union, it is possible to call the Son of David the Son of God, then only in a figurative sense; In the same sense, veneration can be given to the humanity of Christ, but let no one lose sight of the differences of natures.
The Spirit of God also dwelt in the prophets, but only in isolated moments and quantitatively to the most insignificant degree. In Christ he dwelt constantly and in undivided fullness. If Holy Scripture points to the sins of man as the basis for the Incarnation of God the Word, then it follows that the Incarnation rested not only on the internal necessity lying in the absolute nature of God, but also on the infinitely free act of Divine compassion.
The theology of Greco-Roman Christians did not stop at this ethical-dynamic point of development, which in its origin can be traced back to Paul of Samosata and Lucian and which did not rise above the external subposition of the two natures in the persons of the Redeemer. After Nestorianism was condemned as a heresy, it easily happened that the Christology of the more ancient Antiochians suffered the same fate.
Already the Alexandrian Patriarch Cyril in many treatises demanded the condemnation of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the condemnation of their writings actually took place in 499. But in the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) regarding Diodorus, contrary to the message of Photius (p. 18), there is nothing of the kind. In the general church consciousness, to this day, the Christology of Diodorus is under the sign of heresy, but the Nestorians preserve the memory of him as a saint and great writer.
The importance of Diodorus as an exegete is very great. His interpretations, which embraced almost the entire Bible, proceeded, according to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation of the Antiochian school (Socrates, Hist, eccl., 6:3; Sozomen, Hist, eccl., 8:2), from the literal meaning. But this principle of interpretation, since it is far from crude literalism, necessarily requires such an understanding of the Word of God, which, based on historical relations and the understanding of the Bible as a whole, gives room at the same time to the ideal element.
From this point of view, Diodorus wrote a study: Τὶς διαφορὰ θεωρίας καὶ ἀλληγορία, directed against the Alexandrians.
Diodorus's interpretations of the Holy Scriptures are characterized by: philological analysis of the text, clarity and simplicity of presentation. Only small fragments have survived from them, namely in the catenas of Nikephoros on the Pentateuch and the book of Kings.
The 23 fragments on Exodus published by Peter are of negligible significance, and their authenticity is not beyond doubt. From the interpretation of the Psalms, passages are given in Mai (Nova patrum bibliotheca, t. VI, 240→, and in Corderi᾽ya (Cat. in Psalm). Much material relating to Diodorus is collected in Mign᾽a (33), but it still needs investigation.
From the dogmatic activity of Diodorus, it is necessary to note two more points: 1) He was the founder of the cosmological proof of the existence of God (compare: Κατὰ εἰμαρμενης in Photius - Bibliotheca cod. 223, and in Svida: Κατὰ ἀστρονόμων καὶ ἀστρολόγων καὶ εἷν) and the starting point of his reasoning was the concept of the changeability of the world; 2) He disputed the eternity of hellish torment (Περί οἱκονομίας in Assemanius in Bibl. Orient. 3:1, p. 324), based on the grounds that it is in conflict with the Divine determination of people to eternal bliss.
Four Pseudo-Justinian Works and Diodorus Tarsky
The four pseudo-Justinian works are:
1) ζητημάτων (usually: Quaestiones et Responsiones ad orthodoxos).
2) ἀσωμάτου καὶ περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀναστασεως τῶν νεκρῶν (usually: Quaestiones Gentilium ad Christianos);
3) Ἐρωτήσεις χριστιανικαὶ πρὸς τοὺς Ἐλληνας (usually: Quaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles);
4) Ἀνατροπὴ δογμάτων τωῶν Ἀριστοτελικῶν (usually: Confuratio dogmatum Aristotelis).
The largest of these works is Quaestiones et Responsiones ad orthodoxos. Until 1894, the following was known in relation to this work:
1) It is preserved in the Paris Graec codex, no. 450.
2) It is very likely that Photius already knew it as Justin’s, because in his library (p. 125) he notes that in the volume that contains the works of Justin, he found Ἀποριῶν κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας καιφαιώδεις επιλύσεις, and this work followed another one directed against Aristotle. Therefore, it would be very plausible to assume that Photius already had before his eyes that code of pseudo-Justinian writings, which was preserved in the Paris Graec 450 codex.
3) From the time before Photius, not a single quotation from the Quaestiones et Responsiones is known. The assumption that Procopius of Gaza, in his interpretation of the book of Genesis, had in mind Quaestiones et Responsiones 49 when he attributed to Truth a certain view of Genesis 3:21, in the opinion of Harnack᾽a, is completely implausible...
4) From the time between Photius and the appearance of Cod. Paris 450 (1364) there is one quotation that proves that during this period Quaestiones et Responsiones was considered a truly Justinian creation. Otto remarks to 20 Responisio: citatur haec responsio etiam in Catena amplissima in evangelium Luca, quae exstat in Cod. Vindob.
5) The presentation of the work in the Codex de Paris, like the tradition of almost all the works contained in this code, is unusually bad. In addition, it should be noted that the 146 individual questions and answers are arranged in such a way that it is necessary to assume that their order was mixed up in the manuscript. In 1895, Papadopoulo-Keramevs gave a new edition of Quaestiones et Responsiones based on the codex of the 10th century. The features of the new manuscript, which is four centuries older than the Paris one, are as follows:
1) It contains 15 questions more than the Paris manuscript;
2) It gives a slightly different order of questions and answers;
3) She has a formal conclusion;
4) It not only does not contain those significant omissions that occur in the Paris manuscript, but it offers a much better text in many places;
5) She attributes the composition to Theodoret.
The question of who owns the copyright in Quaestones et Responsiones has been resolved differently by different authors. Sixtus of Siena, Silburg, Du Pin: maybe Theodoret Dodwell, maybe Justin Siculus. Grabe – compiler unknown: perhaps Theodoret or Justin of Sicily. Maranus: the work appeared in Syria at the beginning of the fifth century, belongs to one of the students from the school of Diodorus, but not to Theodoret. Mosheim: the work was written later than Isidore Pelusiot; that means not earlier than 450. Diodorus Tarsky shortly after the death of Julian the Apostate, Manscher is probably a student of Theodoret. Meller: the work was written in Syria, before the start of the Nestorian disputes and after the advent of Arianism; thus, somewhat earlier than Theodoret’s time and therefore not Theodoret. Gass, and after him Otto: the work was compiled in the Syrian Church, but not by Diodorus, nor by Theodoret. Papadopoulo-Keramevs: Theodorite.
The fact that before the manuscript which ascribes the Quaestiones... to Theodoret was discovered, many scholars had recognized their authorship to him, is of great importance. But that the Bishop of Cyrus could not have been the compiler was already proved by Maranus 431. Not only is Theodorit's style and literary manner different, but there are also many substantive differences between the authentic works of Theodorit and the Quaestiones. The most convincing argument against the authorship of Theodoret in relation to the Quaestiones is that the Quaestiones ... could not have been composed later than 400.
But there is no doubt that they reflect the way of thinking of the Antiochian school. Under such conditions, La Croz᾽a's hypothesis that Diodorus is the author of this work receives high significance. An insightful patrolologist of the 17th-18th centuries published a solution to this problem in the form of a letter addressed to Mosheim. The main position of this letter is expressed as follows: “Scriptorem Quaestionum ad Orthodoxos, quae inter opera Iustini Martyris edi solent Diodorum esse Tarsensem episcopum quem sub finem IV sacculi decessisse erudeti norunt.” Currently, the La Croz᾽a hypothesis is supported by Harnack, who owns a whole study on this issue 432 . Harnack approaches its solution by determining the time and place of the compiler of the Quaestiones et Responsiones ad Ortodoxos.
Time to compile the book. The direct and indirect data that the book gives regarding the time of its composition are fortunately so precise that it can be dated within a fairly limited period. Mention of the Manichaeans as a long-known phenomenon (Q. 149) and of the monks (Q. 29) - ὁ βιωτικὸς ἄνθρωπος - ὁ ἀσκητὴς. Q. 31: οἱ μόναχοι. Q. 121: οἱ ἀναχωρήσαντες, and even more the fact that Q. 31 resolves the issue of sinful dreams among monks, are quite solid grounds for the assumption that our work was compiled, in any case, not earlier than the middle of the 4th century.
Noteworthy is the 121st Q., where we read: “Why do rich men and wives, leaving their possessions, look for those who live in the deserts for the sake of Christ and make up for their deprivations, which we learned from the history of the ancient saints (ἀρχαίων, and not ἀρχομένων) men”? The fact that for the compiler the Constantinople era lies significantly behind us also leads to this date: Christianity has won. Evidence for this can be found in many issues.
3) But not only the time of Constantine, but also the time of Emperor Julian lies behind. The latter statement is supported by the use of the word ἆΕλληνες. The compiler uses this word to denote paganism in its full extent 433 and only occasionally uses expressions such as οἱ ἔξωθεν 434, οἱ ἐκτός 435. In the words of the 38th question one can hear a direct polemic against Emperor Julian. Thus, our work was compiled no earlier than 365. This is the ultimate terminus a quo.
The dogmatic point of view and word usage of the author leads to the same terminus a quo. The Trinitarian "answers" in our work could not have been written before the Council of Alexandria (362), and they undoubtedly belong to a person close to the Cappadoccan orthodoxy. Comp. Q. I: “God is one in the existence of three Divine Hypostases, which differ from each other not in essence, but in the way of being. But the diversity of ways of being does not divide the unity of essence.” Until 365, patristic literature does not know these similar expressions.
As regards the terminus ad quem of the time of compilation of the Quaestiones et Responsiones, the following three facts are relevant for determining it.
1) The author of Quaestiones et Responsiones writes at a time when paganism has already been defeated by Christianity, and still continues to reveal quite significant vitality. The victory took place only in the center of the state, while paganism still continued to dominate on its periphery. Numerically, pagans and heretics significantly outnumbered the Orthodox.
2) The author of Quaestiones et Responsiones writes at a time when heretics constituted the dominant group, when a significant part of Orthodox churches was in their hands. Compare: Q. 16,32,20.
From 143 Q. it is clear that at the time the book was compiled, heretics stood at the helm of power. How does God, Who subordinated the Jews to Christians, allow heretics not only to dominate Jews, but also to true Christians and cause them countless troubles, while dominion should belong only to true Christians? The answer is very instructive: only in the future will true Christians reign. In the conditions of this life, external domination must belong alternately to the Orthodox, heretics, and pagans. Thus, the compiler writes at a time when the idea of the world domination of Orthodoxy did not receive data for itself in the surrounding reality and when the heretic Emperor was at the head of the state.
Of the two heretical Emperors: Constantius and Valens, the time of compilation of the Quaestiones et Responsiones can only be attributed to the time of the latter, for the fact that most of the Orthodox churches were in the hands of the Arians is more applicable to the reign of Valens. We thus acquire, with precision, the terminus ad quet until the death of the Emperor Valens (378), and at the same time new reinforcements in favor of the terminus a quo. The work Quaestiones et Responsiones was compiled after the edict of 365, which ordered the expulsion of all Orthodox bishops who again occupied their sees under Julian, and before 378.
3) The dogmatic point of view of the author also leans towards this date. In particular, the author’s teaching about the Holy Spirit speaks for it. He teaches about three Hypostases and three persons and at the same time firmly holds the view that the Holy Spirit does not stand as close to the Father and the Son as the Father and Son themselves in relation to each other. Comp. Q. 3, where only the Father and the Son are characterized by the predicate ὁμοούσιος, but the author speaks of the Spirit with an indefinite formula.
Place of compilation of Quaestiones et Responsiones. That this work belongs to the Greco-Syrian Church is recognized by all scholars who have had reason to speak about it. The newly discovered manuscript also points to Syria as the place where this work was composed. The whole scientific method, the love of definitions and syllogisms, the attachment to Aristotelian philosophy, the indirect denial of Platonism, the rejection of the allegorical method of interpretation and the partly historical, partly typical explanation of the Holy Scriptures - all this allows us to see in the compiler a follower of the Antiochian school. A number of other observations are added here.
1) The Virgin Mary is never called the Mother of God, but simply the Blessed Virgin. Comp. Q.15: "The origin of Christ according to the flesh is revealed in the narrative of the Holy Scriptures, namely, He came forth from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary." Q.100: “Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.”
2) The compiler constantly emphasizes that during the Incarnation we can only talk about the second Person, but not about the entire Trinity, and uses the term ἐνοίκησις - a term undoubtedly of Antiochene origin.
3) The compiler teaches that Jesus Christ has two completely different natures, of which each belongs διηρημένως ἁρμόττοντα (compare Q.7.), and distinguishes in the Redeemer ὑιὸν ἄθετον and ὑιὸν Θέτον, that is, ἀλθῶς καὶ κυρίως καὶ ὄντως ὄντα ὑιὸν and μὴ ἀληθῶς μηδὲ κυρίως ὄντως ὄντα ὑιὸν.
Thus, the author affirms in the Lord two ἑτεροούσια πρόσωπα, of which the second “is also called the Son.” “One Lord Jesus Christ, according to one of His natures, appears as ὑιὸς ἄθετος, and according to another, ὑιὸς Θετος - this is truly the Antiochian teaching.
What is noteworthy is the insistence with which the author emphasizes that the Redeemer assumed the full and actual human nature with all its characteristics (Q.16).
4) The expression: ὁ δεσπότης Χριστὸς is very often found in the author (compare: Q.30,32,52,15,90,97,113,116,121,127,128,14,153,141,143). La Crose rightly considers it a purely Antiochian expression.
5) The term ἡ κατάστασις, so characteristic of Antiochian theology, is found in a number of questions and answers in our work (compare: Q.86,87,95,105,123,139,143,147).
6) When explaining the Hebrew words, that is, terminorum technicorum, the compiler refers to the lost work of Origen: Ἑρμηνεία τῶν ἑβραϊκῶν ὁνομάτων (cf. Q.94,98), but in relation to the Syriac Bible he discovers independent knowledge. Frequent references to this translation of the Holy Scriptures indicate that the author was writing within the Syrian Church and for Greco-Syriac Christians.
7) The Greek Biblical text used by the author gives a number of striking coincidences with the text widespread in Syria.
a) Q. 61 says: The Lord said to “Mother Mary”: “Touch Me not.” Only in the Diatessaron of Tatian, as far as we know the history of the Biblical text, with the word Mary in John 20 there is a lack of ὴ Μαγδαληνή, and therefore Ephraim the Syrian attributes the entire narrative of the Evangelist John about Mary, who saw Jesus after the resurrection, to the Ever-Virgin Mary.
8) To Luke 5:10 ~our author adds the words: εἰς ζωήν. Not a single Greek codex can be invoked to justify this increase, but a whole series can be found among the Syriac manuscripts. These two examples are enough to state with all certainty: Quaestiones et Responsiones appeared within the Greco-Syrian Church.
But we can take one more step and more accurately determine in what place in Greek Syria our author wrote. In 144 Q. we read: “If God initially set the sandy shore as the limit of the sea, then how does the sea pass this limit in different limits? For in this area the sea has receded in some places, while others are submerged.”
The compiler undoubtedly writes in an area located near the seashore and often suffered from floods. In the 34th Q. it is asked: “If God is the Creator and Ruler of creation, then how are the miracles of Apollonius (of Tyana) possible within the limits of creation? For they stop the turbulence of the sea, and the blowing of the winds, and the attacks of mice and other animals, as we see. And if the miracles that came from the Lord in most cases (even now) are confirmed by the events themselves.” In response to this, the author of “Questions” writes: “The Lord did not destroy the miracles of Apollogius (of Tyana) because they occurred on the basis of knowledge of the natural forces of nature for the bodily benefit of people. The demon, who settled in the statue of Apollonius and, with the sayings of the oracle, misled people so that they would honor Apollonius as God, was silenced (ἐφίμωσε), and with him the entire race of other demons, who were revered by the Hellenes under the name of gods, was destroyed, as reality testifies to this.”
This passage shows that our essay was written in the place where I could constantly see with my own eyes those miracles that the author calls τὰ Ἀπολλωνίου τελέσματα.
Thus, the desired Syrian city must lie near the sea.
Malala says that Apollonius in Antioch directed one θαῦμα against the North Wind, and another against the scorpions. The conclusion from here is: it is very likely that Antioch, the city that several centuries earlier became famous for the miracles of Apollonius, is the place in which the author of our work lived. He did not doubt the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana, for at any given moment he can verify them with his own eyes, but only explains them with the scientific knowledge of Apollonius, which gave him the opportunity to reveal the secrets of nature. Whether it can be concluded from the Ἐφίμωσε that in the city where the compiler lived, the statue of Apollonius was destroyed by Christians is debatable, although not incredible.
Compiler of the book. 1) The work was written between 365 and 378; 2) The compiler wrote in Greek Syria, very likely Antioch, and read the Syriac Bible.
3) Nothing suggests that he was a monk, for such delicate questions as were proposed to him could only be resolved by someone who was a monk himself.
Q.146 shows that the author had a highly developed ascetic mood.
4) He was of an orthodox direction and in the doctrine of the Trinity joined the great Cappadocians.
5) He knew Julian’s polemics against Christians and criticized some parts of the Emperor’s writings in his book.
6) He was a comprehensively educated man and a highly learned man for his time:
a) He was a philosopher who not only studied the philosophy of Aristotle, but was to a certain extent influenced by it. His main interest was directed towards the doctrine of God in connection with cosmology.
b) He was one of the most educated patrists. He quotes not only Josephus, the Second Epistle of Clement, Irenaeus and Origen, but also in many places in his book he refers to older exegetes, although he does not name them.
c) He was primarily an exegete. The problems posed by the Bible were in the foreground for him, and all his knowledge, in a certain sense, like the knowledge of Origen, was knowledge of the Holy Scriptures.
7) He was an enthusiastic admirer of church music and repeatedly praised it.
8) He was widely respected and was surrounded by numerous students.
9) The author of our work was discredited between the 5th and 9th centuries, for his book, which was widely distributed, was taken from him and attributed to Justin.
All these data, which obviously follow from the work, can be applied to only one person, namely, that Theologos, whom La Crose formerly, and at present Harnack call the compiler of our book, namely Diodorus Tarsky. That the data 1,2,6,8, with all decisiveness can be attributed specifically to him, this does not require any arguments. But in relation to other data, brief and few evidence is sufficient.
The fact that the episcopal dignity of the compiler of the “Questions” does not appear at all in the work does not say anything against the authorship of Diodorus Tarsky, for the latter, as we know, only became Bishop of Tarsky in the year 378. Until this time, he was first only a monk, then a monk and a presbyter. The severity of the monastic judgments that appear in Q. 146 is in perfect agreement with what we know about the ascetic zeal of Diodorus. The fact that “Questions and Answers” is permeated with an orthodox direction does not say anything against the authorship of Diodorus, for from the Church History of Theodoret of Cyrus (4:19) we know that Diodorus was a pillar of Orthodoxy in Syria, especially in Antioch during the times of Constantius and Valens, stood on the side of neo-orthodoxy and was in close relations with Meletius - so close that after his death did not recognize Peacock, but considered the election of Flavian to be completely legitimate.
At the same time, he was friendly with Basil the Great, lived with him for a long time together with Meletius, and then received letters from him. In one of them, Basil the Great writes: “I first accepted Diodorus, as a pupil of blessed Silouan, and now I love and respect him for the grace felt in his word, by which he makes many who benefit from his conversation better” 436 .
If Diodorus is the compiler of our work, then in this case it is perfectly explained that in the doctrine of the trinity of Persons in God he joins the Cappadocians and is influenced by their worldview: In the “Questions and Answers to the Orthodox” certain passages from the book of the Emperor Julian to Photinus are refuted, which was preserved for us by Facundus of Hermian in his famous work written in defense of three chapters. This passage shows that Julian had a strong hatred for Diodorus, as his greatest Christian enemy. It follows that Diodorus, like the compiler of Questions and Answers, fought strongly against Hellenism, precisely in the form in which Julian defended it.
The author of Quaestiones et Responsiones is an ardent admirer of church music and writes eulogies for it. With this we must compare the message of Theodoret of Cyrus that Flavian and Diodorus introduced antiphonal singing in Antioch, and this latter, with their light hand, spread throughout the entire universe. There is absolutely no reason to consider this coincidence random.
As for the fact that in the period of time between the 5th and 9th centuries the name of Diodorus Tarsky, as the author of Questions and Answers, was forgotten, this can easily be explained by the historical fate that befell Diodorus after his death. From the time Cyril of Alexandria wrote against Diodorus, his Theology was discredited. At the Council of Constantinople in 499 he was condemned.
Photius is undoubtedly mistaken when he reports that the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned him too. But on the other hand, it is also undeniable that the condemnation of the three chapters implicitly contained the condemnation of the creations of the Tara shepherd. The best evidence in favor of this is the long list of his works, which is given in Svida 437. The titles have been preserved, but the works themselves have disappeared, or, if the Quaestiones belong to him, they have been preserved under someone else's name. That is, history repeats itself with the works of Apollinaris, some of which were lost, others were attributed to various church writers.
It should be noted that none of the above arguments, taken in isolation, can point exclusively to Diodorus. But taken together, they postulate the authorship of Diodorus with logical compulsion. If we admit for a moment that the Quaestiones do not belong to Diodorus, we must suppose that during the period from 365 to 378 there existed in the Greco-Syrian Church a double of Diodorus, whose mental and moral physiognomy was characterized by features borrowed from the Shepherd of Tara. But nothing is known about such a miracle of nature.
Thus, it is safe to assume that the author of the “Questions” is Diodorus of Tarsus. If the compiler of our work is identical with Diodorus, then the conclusion suggests itself that it was written after the meeting of the future Tara shepherd with Basil, that is, not earlier than the Autumn of 372, since it reproduces the teaching of Basil. But isn’t our work directly one of the two that Diodorus sent to Basil, and, precisely, the second, about which Basil, in contrast to the first, spoke with great praise. La Crose and Harnack argue this and provide a number of arguments in support of this position. Basil the Great characterizes the second work of Diodorus as follows: “I read the books sent by your honor. And I really liked the latter, not only for its brevity (which was natural for a person who was already lazy and weak in everything), but also because it is rich in thoughts, that it clearly sets out the opponents’ objections and answers to them, as well as the simplicity and unartificial style of the style, which is written not so much for show as for the general benefit.”
This characteristic applies in its entirety to our essay. However, there is no hard data for identification. Diodorus could have written many similar works. It is only very likely that our work was compiled shortly after Diodorus’s meeting with Basil.
But there is one more observation that needs to be noted. In the long list of (lost) works of Diodorus and Theodore the Reader 438 there is also a work entitled: ἀπόκρισιν.
Fabricius believes that this work is identical to that sent to Basil. However, it can also be identified with our Quaestiones et Responsiones, the essay and book sent to Basil ἀπόκρισιν consisted of questions and answers and can be understood both as one and the same composition and as three different works. There is no data to resolve this issue. It is enough that the Quaestiones undoubtedly belong to Diodorus. This confidence will be further strengthened if we pay attention to the fact that the Quaestiones in their content are close to the works of Diodorus, which undoubtedly belong to him and from which only the titles have come down to us, and then only thanks to Swede. The range of questions that worried Diodorus found its full expression in Quaestiones, and “Questions” are, as it were, the result of all of Diodorus’s literary activity.
Quaestiones gentilium ad Christianos and Quaestiones Christianorum ad gentiles
Maran and Otto, two scholars who have carefully examined both works, completely agree that they come from the same author who wrote the Quaestiones et Responsiones, but they have not given evidence in favor of this. Meanwhile, already in footnotes Otto has collected significant material to substantiate such a statement. This material leads Harnack to the following conclusions.
1) “All three works have the same handwritten tradition, that is, we know them as pseudo-Justinian works, and in the Paris Code No. 450 of 1364 they stand together.”
2) “Concerning both of these works, as well as regarding the Quaestiones ... the question arises whether we own their original title or not.” Already Photius, between Justinian works, notes Ἀποριῶν κατὰ τῆς Εύσεβείας κεφαλαιώδεις ἐπιλύσεις. It is likely that by this general designation he means “Questions and Answers,” “Questions of Pagans to Christians,” and “Questions of Christians to Pagans.”
Thus, Photius already knew the collection of pseudo-Justinian works - the collection that is presented to us in the Codex de Paris, in other words: the four works not only turned out to be connected in the 14th century, but already in the 9th century they were united under one common and false name. A suspicion arises that a common fate also has a common origin.
3) The similarity of literary style, as well as philosophical and theological points of view, is very great. The compiler of “Questions for Christians” and “Questions for Pagans” is Orthodox.
In the way of his thoughts and the manner of justifying them, this orthodox Christian is under the strong influence of Aristotle, whose works he knows very well and with whom at the same time he stubbornly fights. For him, Aristotelianism contains all of philosophy: with the rejection of Aristotelianism through Christianity, philosophy in general falls. But the same point of view is also characteristic of the author of Questions and Answers.
4) A number of stylistic and lexical similarities between Q are striking. et Resp., Q.g. and Q.Ch.
a) In Q.g. and Q.Ch., same use of Ἑλληνες as Q.R.
b) In Q.Ch. the compiler speaks of the Menichaeans. Compare: Q. et R.
c) In Q.Ch. the same use of the expression οἱ ὁρθοδοξοι is observed as in Q. et R.
d) In Q.g. stand apocryphal quotation Διενοήδης, φισὶ, καὶ πάρεστιν. “In all patristic literature, as far as we know,” writes Harnack, “this quote occurs only once more, and that is in Q. et R. These and a number of other stylistic lexical matches give us the opportunity to consider Q.g. and Q. Ch., as the property of the same author who wrote Q. et R., that is, Diodorus Tarski.
Confutatio dogmatum Aristotelis
This work, dedicated to the presbyter Paul, consists of a number of objections to Aristotelianism. That the 19 theses of Πρός τοὺς Ἑλληνας adjacent to this work belong here is not entirely probable; however, it is possible that the compiler of Q.g. and Q.Ch. identical with the author of Confutatio, this was already noted by Maran, Otto Gass, as well as Harnack in their study “Überlieferung der Griesch. Apologeten" 439. Indeed, the circle of ideas that dominates these three works is the same.
Reader, moving from Q.Ch. and Q.g. Comfutatio feels that he remains within the creative thought of the same author, and this internal evidence is confirmed by external data. Comp. used in Q. et R., Q.Ch., Q.g. and Confutatio of terms Ἑλληνες ἀνούσιος, συναγένητος, γεναρχὴς, as well as constructions: εἰ-ἀλλὰ, εἰ-πῶς οὖν and so on.
Thus, Comfutatio dogmatum Aristotelis belongs to the author of three other works - Quaestiones, that is, Diodorus Tarsky.
In the list of works of Diodorus, given by Theodore the Reader 440, one work is indicated - it follows immediately after ἀπόκρισιν, which has the following inscription: Κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλους περὶ σώματος οὐρανίου. Πῶς θερμὸς ἡ ἥλιος. Κατὰ τῶν λεγόντων ζώον τὸν οὐρανίου. Apparently here we are talking about a whole series of treatises directed against Aristotle, a resp of his philosophy.
The first of them can be identified with Confutatio. In any case, it is important for us to note that Diodorus spoke in the literary field against the philosophy of Aristotle, and this fact can serve as one of the arguments in favor of the Confutatio belonging to the Shepherd of Tara.
There are teachers of the Church whose names can easily be used to designate individual eras in the development of the Church. Among these people is the great disciple of Diodorus of Taras - we mean St. John Chrysostom, Fr. His time marks a transition point from one major period in the development of church life to another.
Until the advent of the era that we can call after John Chrysostom, that is, until the last decades of the fourth century, the dogmatic movement absorbed all other interests of the believers of the Eastern Church. Arius's speech opened a long series of disputes about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and these disputes at this time limited all the activities of the teachers of the Church. Under the influence of such a strong and intense excitement of minds, a number of theological trends arose, and this constituted a sharp feature of the Eastern Church, in comparison with the Western Church. Dogmatic disputes attracted the general attention of the large cities of the East, and practical knowledge receded into the background. With the development and precise formulation of Orthodox teaching, a period of calm began in the dispute-ridden Church...
In the disputes related to questions about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the seed was undoubtedly planted for those provisions that subsequently, in the conditions of struggle, were to develop into long and fierce disputes about the relationship between the Divine and human natures in Christ.
But a number of years passed before the second stage of dogmatic movements of the era of the Ecumenical Councils (Christological) began. The period of calm falls between these two periods, which can be designated as the time of St. John Chrysostom.
Chrysostom is a representative of the predominantly practical direction of Christianity, which until that time had been lacking and which, had it been brought to life before the dogmatic movements of the era of the Ecumenical Councils, could have been extremely useful for the development of the Church. Had it developed further in the right way, the subsequent disturbances of spiritual life could have taken on a different character.
If the life of the great writers of the East, especially fighters for dogmatic truths, can be studied only in connection with the solution of major dogmatic issues, then the life of John Chrysostom, his exploits, on the contrary, in the context of the struggle for practical Christianity. If other great teachers of the Church acted as witnesses for the truths of Christian doctrine, fighters for the true essence of the Christian faith, then Chrysostom is primarily a witness and fighter for the essence of Christian love. Here a dispute breaks out between Christianity, which consists only of dead faith and a barren, extra-worldly Christianity for life, and genuine Christianity, which is spirit and life, from which emanates the active power of love. In the major political and intellectual center of the East, Chrysostom appears as a defender and fighter for genuine practical Christianity. Here the contrast clearly appears between the small flock of those who form the true salt of the world, and the huge mass of those who add the overwhelming salt to world Christianity.
This struggle with the worldly spirit of his time is deeply interesting. At the same time, he is a great exponent and embodiment of the spirit of the Eastern Church, in which Its historical direction has come, as it were, to self-knowledge. There are two great church teachers, close to each other in time, in which the characteristics of the churches - Eastern and Western - received their most accurate expression: Chrysostom and Augustine. The task of the Western Church, as it passed from Tertullian to Augustine, was to define as accurately as possible the opposition between nature and grace, the Divine and the human in the act of Redemption of each individual person. This contrast could be roughly and sharply understood in the following sense:
1) That there is no family connection between natural human and new Divine life;
2) That this Divine life can be defined in contrast to what man formerly was;
3) That there is no need to look for a point for the Divine in the elements of human nature.
The peculiarity of the Greek understanding of Christianity is reflected, on the contrary, in the desire to indicate the place of human nature and its free activity in the act of Redemption of each individual member of the Church. From this side, Saint John Chrysostom is the spokesman for the Eastern Church, just as Augustine is the spokesman for the Western Church.
If we compare both great teachers of the Church with each other, then the many-sided richness of Christianity will clearly appear before us. A healthy theological education, striving to become as far as possible from painful one-sidedness, must delve into the study of both men in order to perceive their spirit.
The difference in the worldview of Augustine and John Chrysostom also corresponds to the special course of their development. Augustine, who received the first seeds of Christianity in childhood, was then thrown far aside by a strong wave of internal and external life, and returned to Christianity only after a deep spiritual crisis, had a lot of data in order to resolve the question of the relationship between nature and grace in the sense of the exceptional significance of the latter and the complete unsuitability of natural human life for the Divine life in Christ.
Chrysostom; whose entire gradual mental and moral growth came from what his Christian upbringing gave him during childhood and youth, for which the development of Christian life was not interrupted by any strong shocks, he saw in Christianity the principle of explanation for everything purely human in history. Having moved from the study of ancient writers to the Bible, he not only did not see the complete contrast between the ancient world and the Christian world, but strove for the latter to find a starting point in pre-Christianity...
In his understanding of Christianity, he did not come from any one sacred writer, whose point of view he subordinated everything: he was influenced by the entire totality of the books of Holy Scripture and especially the New Testament. The teaching of the latter, in connection with his practical interest, gave John Chrysostom a holistic understanding of Christian truth, on the scale of which he hoped to resolve all difficulties and roughness.
Augustine is a man of a predominantly dialectical direction, who did not stop at any conclusion, as long as it was logically justified. Chrysostom is a man of a predominantly practical direction, for whom practical-ethical interest is always dominant, and who could not recognize anything as true that went against and stood in opposition to this interest.
In each individual case, practical interest was more important to him than the consistency of the system. The outstanding dogmatist Augustine and the outstanding moralist Chrysostom! John Chrysostom was a man not of school, but of life, he raised himself in conditions of strict asceticism and then entered the difficult field of a priest and healer of souls. On this path, he was inspired by zeal for active Christianity, the desire to eradicate from people’s consciousness the idea of their irresponsibility for a moral and immoral way of life, the desire to promote the importance for man of his will, through which everything passes, without which nothing Divine can act on man.
What a difference there is between him and the champion of all-perfecting grace!
Childhood, youth and asceticism of John Chrysostom
John, who later received the name Chrysostom for his eloquence, was born in Antioch, probably in the year 347 441. His father 442 Seconds, held an important position in the army (Magister militum orientis) and belonged to a rich and noble family. The native city of Chrysostom was considered the fourth after ancient and New Rome and Alexandria - among the great cities of the Roman state - τῆς οἰκουμένης - and was the head and mother of all the cities of Roman Asia, as Chrysostom himself calls Antioch in one of his conversations about statues.
People from all over the world flocked here: some in order to exchange their small domestic cities for a large cultural center, others were driven by trade interests; some came here to show their skills, others to learn; some flocked here because of the wonderful surroundings, others for the sake of luxury, and thus in the Antioch market it was possible to study representatives of all countries of the Roman state.
Together with the masses of the people, who were attracted to Antioch by heterogeneous interests, the capital of Roman Asia became a den of vices of all countries, and against this background of moral disorder, social inequality blatantly declared itself - a sharp difference between the countless wealth of some and the poverty of others. In one of his discourses on the Gospel of St. Matthew 443, Chrysostom divides the entire population of Antioch into three classes: the very rich, the very poor, and those who occupied a middle position or at least had a means of subsistence. In his opinion, both rich and poor, each separately, constitute about one-tenth of the inhabitants - the remaining eight-tenths have almost satisfactory means.
In another conversation on the same Gospel, Chrysostom depicts the luxury of the rich Antiochians in this way: “you will point to many acres of land, ten, twenty or, perhaps, more houses, the same number of baths, a thousand or twice as many servants, silver-plated and gilded chariots” 444.
In the 21-1 discourse on 1 Corinthians we read: “I am extremely ashamed when I see how many rich people ride on horses adorned with golden bridles, are accompanied by servants dressed in golden clothes, rest on silver beds and allow themselves many other excesses; but as soon as it is necessary to give to the poor, they seem poorer than the poor themselves” 445.
When Chrysostom compares large cities with bodies in which diseases find rich material for their development, 446 he first of all has in mind Antichium - the center of moral confusion, where youth was easily in danger of falling. In the large centers of antiquity, women were also not free from the love of luxury and various types of pleasures; nevertheless, active Christianity found a response among them much more than among men. “Amid the deep demoralization, the woman in Antioch represented a bright exception in favor of moral order” 447.
The pagans of this time are the best witnesses of this contrast between the men and women of Antioch, which was observed in their attitude towards religious life. Immersed in the interests of the land, husbands only by force of habit and the great influence of women remained faithful to Christianity; the latter were devoted with all their souls to religious interests, and the importance of the teachings of the Savior of the world in families came precisely from them.
Emperor Julian, who directed all his efforts to revive paganism, was convinced that it would have been easy for him to co-own Antioch with his husbands, if not for the influence of pious women who opposed him. In his satire written about the poor reception in Antioch, the Emperor wrote that the inhabitants of this city allow their wives to take everything from home and distribute everything to the poor, while they do not want to donate the slightest amount to the cult of the gods.
The ruler of the city, Alexander, who was hostile against Christians, found in the piety of women a force that counteracted all his intentions. The rhetorician Livanius explained the hesitation of husbands between neo-paganism and Christianity by the influence of women. He wrote to Emperor Julian: being outside the house, they (husbands) follow you, who advises them the best, and approach the altars; returning home, they, thanks to their wives, tears and night, begin to hold a different opinion and turn away from the altars.”
These pagan complaints give us a glimpse into the home life of the wealthy Antiochians. It is clear that all religious education came from women, and some of the great teachers of the Church who lived in this period would not have been such, writes Neander 448, if pious mothers had not planted in their children's souls the first seeds of holiness, which then continued to develop throughout their lives. The influence of such glorious mothers as the mother of Theodoret, Augustine, and Gregory the Theologian on the religious development of their sons is a deeply interesting feature in the education of the great men of the Church of that time. This position applies in its entirety to John Chrysostom.
The fact that already in childhood his thoughts were directed towards God, he owes to his mother Anfisa. Soon after the birth of Chrysostom, she lost her husband and, driven by love for the deceased and maternal concern for raising her son, with whom she lived alone, Anfisa, in the full bloom of beauty, decided to remain forever in her widowhood. The famous pagan teacher of eloquence and literature, Livanius, who was generally not inclined to give credit to Christian virtue, said about it: “Ah! What kind of women do Christians have?” 449.
Anfisa did not follow the example of mothers who destined their sons from the day of their birth to the monastic rank. She sought to give her son a broad literary education and at the same time make him capable of determining the direction of his life.
Chrysostom visited the famous Livanius and early stood out among his students for his oratorical talents. The explanation of the ancient classical authors gave the fanatical sophist an opportunity - which he willingly used - to present to the youth a rhetorically embellished paganism and to direct a series of sophisms against Christianity. But the influence that such training could have on the heart of a student was undoubtedly counteracted in Chrysostom by the seeds of Christian religious knowledge sown in his soul by his mother, and by the early developed habit of turning to the Bible.
As for the latter, Chrysostom, on the basis of personal experience, spoke about the beneficial influence of early acquaintance with sacred authors on the whole Christian education, for from here his entire inner life developed, hence the main features of his character: ardent animation and high moral strength, strict seriousness of thought, word and deed, aversion from the ostentatious side that dominated everywhere at that time, a zealous stand for truth and righteousness, animated by a fiery, solid, like steel, faith. The Bible was for him the book of life, from which he took the basis for the truths that he proclaimed to others. Already in his first writings and sermons we find the same ideals of a heroically minded and all-conquering faith, the same great moral instructions that he joyfully proclaimed in his last letters and to which he remained faithful throughout his life.
After the Holy Scriptures, Chrysostom was widely influenced by his study of ancient literature. This influence is reflected not only in the form, completeness and richness of his eloquence. It is also reflected in the art with which Chrysostom considered the seed of good in human nature in connection with the highest, which the Gospel taught him. After Chrysostom completed his literary education, he joined the class of lawyers 450. But Saint John soon left the class of lawyers and the title of rhetorician, since he was attracted to his solitary studies of the Word of God. This was also added by the fact that the universally respected bishop of Antioch, Meletius, called him to himself, since he soon noticed what rich benefits John could bring to the Church.
“From what we know about the life of Meletius,” writes Neander 451, we can conclude that in his spiritual mood Meletius had many similarities with Chrysostom and therefore widely influenced his religious development: the same heart driven by love, the same predominantly practical direction of thought, which ran counter to the polemical dogmatism of that time.” Under the leadership of Meletius, John received instruction in Christian teaching for three years and then received Baptism from him.
By this time, John Chrysostom had matured with a firm determination to devote himself entirely to religion. Where such a decision was firmly in place, there still remained a choice between two different directions of life that led to the implementation of this intention: the choice between the state in the clergy and the monastic state, between βίος πρακτικὸς and βίος θεωρικὸς.
Some of the youths in Antioch who were thus disposed decided to join those monks who, busy with prayer and singing, religious contemplation, the study of the Holy Scriptures and some physical work, lived in their cells in the mountains in the vicinity of Antioch. The young men elected leaders from among these venerable men.
Observing the storga and simple life of hermits should have evoked a greater sense of amazement, the more clearly the contrast to this life was the moral debauchery of the big city, and it often happened that worldly people who went to the mountains with a frivolous feeling returned back, having experienced a sharp turning point in their souls.
An enormous impression on their consciousness should have been made by the extraordinary appearance of such people, free from the endless thirst for profit, passions and various needs of the great world, independent of external things, who found the source of a blissful life in communion with God.
Chrysostom shared the feeling of lively surprise at the way of life of these people and would have considered himself happy if he could freely follow his impulse to join them, but something held him back. Saint Meletius, who wished to acquire him for active service to the Church, ordained him to the title of reader, a position usually assigned to young people preparing to take a place in the clergy.
Chrysostom's mother could not imagine greater grief than living in separation from her son. She strove to keep him at home and take care of all his vital needs. She proved to her son that he was the only consolation of her life, that she sacrificed everything for him, 452, and these instructions could not help but act on the heart of young John. Under such conditions, he continued to zealously study the Holy Scriptures.
His spiritual father Meletius could no longer be his teacher and leader. In 370, Emperor Valens, who persecuted opponents of Arianism, expelled Meletius, and the latter spent many years separated from his flock. After the expulsion of Meletius, Carterius and especially Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsa, remained the teachers of the believers of the Antiochian Church, who enjoyed enormous respect for his strictly ascetic life, his constant zeal in defending Divine truth against pagans and heretics. At the school of this theologian, two friends stood out sharply among other students: Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia...
It is worthy of note how differently the influence emanating from Diodorus affected two different young men. Theodore's scientific interest predominates, while Chrysostom's is practical; for Theodore it is mental, for Chrysostom it is heartfelt. Theodore, as it were, was called upon to clearly emphasize Diodorus’s ideas regarding hermeneutics - the interpretation of the Bible and his dogmatics - and present them in a system. Chrysostom, in accordance with his character, had to soften the harshness of Diodorus, modify his direction under the influence of a deep ethical mood. In this school, Chrysostom learned that simple, healthy grammatical and historical method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, thanks to which his worldview was determined by the spirit and content of the Bible, while others, due to arbitrary allegorization, put into it a meaning alien to it.
If Theodore, through his activities, more sharply emphasized the features of the Antiochian school, in contrast to other theological trends, then John softened these harshness and became an intermediary member between the Church and the Antiochian school. Already in the first period of their life together, a certain difference in the mood of both husbands became clear.
The rumor about Chrysostom's pious zeal and ability spread further and further. Among the community of believers there was a desire to acquire him and his friend Vasily 453 for a higher spiritual position. Popular rumor, always running ahead of the matter itself, touched their ears and disturbed their peace of mind.
This is how Chrysostom himself talks about it. “The sudden rumor that arose outraged both of us; a rumor spread that they intended to elevate both of us to the rank of bishopric. As soon as I heard this news, fear and bewilderment overwhelmed me: the fear that they would take me against my will; bewilderment because, often thinking about where people got such an assumption about me and delving deeper into myself, I did not find anything in myself worthy of such an honor. And my noble (friend), having come to me and privately conveyed this news to me, as if I had not heard it, asked me in this case, as before, to act and think the same way, assuring that he, for his part, was ready to follow me, no matter what path I chose, whether to run away or be chosen.
Then I saw his readiness and thinking that I would harm the entire church community if, through my weakness, I deprived the flock of Christ of a beautiful young man capable of presiding over the people, I did not reveal to him my opinion about this, although I had not previously hidden a single thought from him; but having said that the meeting about this should be postponed until another time, since now there is no need to rush, he soon convinced him not to worry about it and to firmly rely on me, as consubstantial with him, if something like this really happens to us” 454.
Chrysostom judged his friend completely differently than the latter judged himself. While Chrysostom saw only the bad in himself, in his friend he noticed only those features that made him worthy of episcopacy among many of his other contemporaries and compatriots, and he decided that it was permissible to use deception, if only Vasily was elevated to the rank of bishop.
The end, which was to achieve what was best for the Church and the friend, had to justify the means. Vasily was chosen as a bishop and accepted the consecration, believing that his friend, according to the agreement, would also accept him. But his friend evaded and, in his own defense, expressed thoughts about the dignity and duties of the episcopal position, which later formed the basis of one of his most important works. Chrysostom finally brought his early desire to join the Antiochian monks into fulfillment - it is quite possible that his mother was no longer alive at that time.
In his Antioch speeches, Chrysostom speaks in detail about the way of life of the monks. In the 18th homily on the Gospel of Matthew, he says: “These lamps of the world, as soon as the Sun begins to rise, or even before dawn, rise from their beds healthy, vigorous and fresh (because they are not disturbed by any sadness, nor care, nor headache, nor work, nor a lot of work, nor anything else like that - but they live like angels in Heaven). So, hastily rising from the bed, cheerful and cheerful, they all, together with a bright face and conscience, form one face and, as if with one mouth, sing hymns to the God of all, glorifying and thanking Him for all his blessings, both private and general. Therefore, if you wish, leaving Adam behind, I will ask you how this face of those singing and exclaiming on Earth differs from the angels: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14)? And their clothes correspond to their courage.
They are not clothed in long clothes, like pampered or relaxed people, but their clothes are prepared, like those of those blessed angels: Elijah, Elisha, John and the other apostles - some from goats, others from camel’s hair, and for some, even one skin, even a worn one, is enough. Then, having sung their songs with kneeling, they call on the glorified God for help in such matters that others would not quickly think of. They don’t ask for anything real, they don’t have a word about it; but they ask that they boldly stand before the Dread Throne, when the Only Begotten Son of God comes to judge the living and the dead, so that none of them hear that terrible voice: “We know you not” (Matthew 25:12), and so that in purity of conscience and an abundance of good deeds they can accomplish this difficult life and safely cross this stormy sea. The Father Superior begins their prayers. Then, when they get up and finish these sacred and unceasing prayers, with the rising of the sun everyone goes to his own business and through his labors he gains many things for the poor” 455.
In the 14th conversation on the first letter to Timothy, Chrysostom says: “Truly monasteries are houses of mourning, there is hair shirt and ashes, there is solitude, there is neither laughter nor the swarm of everyday worries, there is fasting, there is reclining on the ground, there everything is removed from the smell of blood, from noise, confusion and human vanity... And they (monks), having finished their morning prayers and chants, refer to the reading of Scripture. Among them there are also those who have learned to copy books. Each of them, having occupied a separate dwelling, constantly practices silence, no one says anything. Then they perform the third, sixth, ninth hours and evening prayers and, dividing the day into four parts, at the end each of them glorifies God with psalmody and hymns.
Freed from labor, they finally sit down to a meal and do not raise a crowd of servants, do not run around the house, do not make noise, do not offer many dishes that spread the smell of meat, but serve only bread and salt, while others also add oil; Others, more infirm, also rely on herbs and vegetables... No screams or sobs are heard there: under this roof there are no such grief, such exclamations. Of course, they die too, because in body they are not immortal, but they do not consider death to be death. And those who have departed are seen off with hymns, calling it a companionship, not a removal.
As soon as it becomes known that someone has died, great joy, great pleasure immediately follows. Or rather, no one dares to say that so-and-so has died, but they say: “so-and-so has achieved perfection.”
Then there is thanksgiving, great speech and joy, and everyone prays that he too will have the same death, in the same way come out of this struggle, rest from labors and exploits and see Christ. If someone gets sick, then there are no tears, no lamentations, but again prayers; and often it is not the hands of doctors, but faith alone that restores the sick. But if a doctor is needed, then here too great wisdom and great patience appear... If illnesses occur, they do not occur from gluttony or drunkenness, but the very causes of illnesses are worthy of praise and not condemnation, just like the illnesses themselves: illnesses occur either from vigil, or from intense fasting, or from other similar causes” 456 .
These two excerpts from the works of John Chrysostom shed light on the monasticism of that time. The Teacher of the Church insistently notes that the monks not only indulged in a contemplative life, but also engaged in physical labor. The latter had as its task, on the one hand, to give employment to the lower forces of nature, and on the other, to provide monastics with the means to perform numerous acts of love.
John Cassian says that the monasteries of Egypt were not only supported by the work of the monks, but also fed the hungry of the surrounding Libyan countries and provided assistance to the prisoners held there. St. Augustine reports that the monks of Syria and Egypt, thanks to their labors, were able to send entire ships loaded with necessary supplies to neighboring countries in need. The monks of the East were famous for their hospitality, although their cells and monasteries were much poorer than later Western ones...
But there was a class of monastic dreamers who emerged from the depths of Syrian monasticism, and who, in spiritual pride, in a non-Christian desire to distance themselves from people, considered only contemplation and prayer as deeds worthy of the monastic title, but rejected all other types. Chrysostom often spoke out against these Euchites (Messalians) in his Antioch sermons. He warned believers against those who distort the meaning of certain passages of Holy Scripture, understanding them as directed against concerns about earthly nutrition, against concerns about tomorrow.
“But since some of the people who want to live idlely, abuse these words (do not the cruelty that perishes, but the cruelty that abides in the eternal life, which the Son of Man gives you: for this God the Father of the banner” - John 6:27), says Chrysostom, - as if Christ rejected hard work in them, now he has answered them in a timely manner. They denigrate the whole, so to speak, Christianity and subject it to ridicule for idleness.
But first we must turn to the saying of Paul. What is he saying? “Remember the Lord, who said: It is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). But what would there be to give to someone who has nothing himself? As Jesus said to Martha: “Be anxious and pray for many things, but there is only one thing you need; Mary has chosen the good part” (Luke 10:14), and also: “do not worry about the morning” (Me 6:3)? It is now necessary to resolve all this not only in order to turn away idle people, if they so choose, but also in order to show that the Words of God do not contradict each other. So in another place the apostle says: “We pray that you be more generous and kindly diligent, keep silent, and walk gracefully in outward appearances” (Thessalonians 6:10); and again: “Whoever steals, let him not steal, but rather let him labor, working with his own hands, so that he may give to him who asks” (Eph 4:28). Here Paul commanded not just to engage in work, but to work in such a way that there would be something to give to others.”
Having cited a number of other places, John Chrysostom, in order to resolve the apparent contradiction, continues: “What should we answer? That not worrying does not mean not working 457, but not being attached to the things of life, that is, not worrying about rest in the morning, but considering this concern completely unnecessary. You can work and not collect anything for the morning, you can work and not worry about anything, care and work are not the same thing. Others work not in order to rely on labor, but in order to give to those in need.
In the same way, the words spoken to Martha do not refer to work and being busy with work, but to the fact that one must know the time (for work), and not assign the time determined for listening to carnal works” 458. Chrysostom always emphasized and praised the monks’ love for work that served the purpose of charity.
The saint says about the Egyptian monks: “they, carefully preserving their teaching, especially try to justify it with their lives. Having renounced all acquisitions and crucified the whole world, they move on, using their bodily strength for the benefit of the poor. Despite fasting and vigil, they do not want to be idle even during the day, but, spending their nights in sacred songs and vigils, they spend their days in prayer and together in handicrafts, imitating the apostolic zeal” 459.
In the community of the Antioch hermits, which had a profound influence on his entire inner life, John Chrysostom was zealously engaged in the study of the Holy Scriptures, prayer and contemplation. The experience of inner life that he acquired here gave him a rich treasure for all subsequent time. Here he learned to see the true source of life in prayer, the study of the Holy Scriptures and himself. Here he acquired that deep knowledge of man, which one who did not find it in his inner home would try in vain to acquire in the world, and which gave him the opportunity to always and everywhere determine the root of moral wanderings. From asceticism he developed that predominantly ascetic direction of thought, which made him the greatest, immortal moralist - an ethical direction that always noted the dominant significance of the will, which always emphasized that nothing external can harm a person or benefit him without his will.
For Chrysostom, the act of free choice and the act of beneficial influence were always equivalent in relation to their significance for the development of human activity.
John spent four years in a monastic monastery near Antioch (375–378), and the harsh life only further intensified his zeal for asceticism. True, for him, who was brought up in contentment, under the loving care of his mother, in a rich house, where all his needs were satisfied by servants, it was more difficult than for anyone to endure all the hardships of a hermit’s life in this harsh monastery of ascetics. And, indeed, he himself was afraid of the work ahead of him, especially since by his very physical nature he might not be able to withstand it. But weak in body, he was powerful in spirit, and not only overcame all the difficulties of monastic life, but, not satisfied with the exploits of the cenobitic monastery, finally withdrew from it in order to, alone, in the Cave, subject his flesh to an even more severe test. He felt within himself the power of Elijah and John the Baptist, and like them, he strove into the desert, there, far from the world, to prepare himself for the upcoming great service.
Due to his zeal for asceticism, he was ready to settle forever in the desert; but God's Providence judged him differently. Such a great lamp should not have been hidden in the desert and in the cave, but it was necessary to shine brightly for everyone in the church candlestick.
Severe asceticism upset John's health, and he, of necessity, had to leave the desert and return to Antioch. There he was met by Blessed Meletios and ordained to the rank of deacon. Having previously declined the high rank of priesthood to which he and Basil were called, John now humbly accepted the rank of deacon (in the year 380) and from that time a new period of his life began. In addition to the letters to Theodoret the Fallen, two other works belong to the passed stage of his life’s path: “To those who are hostile against those who attract to monastic life” and “Comparison of the power of wealth and royal advantages with the true and Christian wisdom of monastic life.”
The works of John Chrysostom, dating from the period from 369 to 380. Two letters to Theodore the fallen
Letters to Theodore the Fallen are the early works of John Chrysostom, which have survived to this day. They were written for the following reason. John Chrysostom's friend Theodore, later Bishop of Mopsuest, wishing to lead a spiritually contemplative life, retired to one of the monasteries located on the mountains near Antyukhsh, and with all his youthful zeal devoted himself to a new way of life.
According to the testimony of John Chrysostom, he spent whole days reading the word of God, whole nights in prayer; forgetting about his noble origin and his wealth: touching his knees and falling at the feet of the brethren - he considered this above all nobility. In response to requests from many people to go to school, he, according to Chrysostom, often said: “What if I end my life soon? When I come to Him who said: “Do not hesitate to turn to the Lord and do not put it off day by day” (Sir 5:8).
But a change very soon occurs in Theodore’s way of thinking, and he, to the great chagrin of the brethren, leaves his solitude and goes to Antioch. Here he immediately takes care of his father’s affairs and begins to think about marriage with a certain Hermioka. He was ready to carry out his intention, as he was kept from doing so by his friend John Chrysostom. The latter, having heard about his fall, writes to him two letters full of anxiety and ardent love, in which he convinces him to repent and return to his former path 460.
Both letters have reached us in full. That both of them belong to John Chrysostom, hardly anyone will doubt this. But were both of them really addressed by Chrysostom to Theodore, later Bishop of Mopsuestia, regarding his fall? This question can only be answered in the affirmative, in view of the clear evidence of ancient writers that Chrysostom sent letters to Theodore of Mopsuestia on this occasion. Thus, the church historian Hesychius says that “John, Bishop of Constantinople, wrote a letter to Theodore the fallen, which is still read in scrolls, and was able to lead him from worse to better, to repentance” 461.
Another church historian, Sozomen, says that “John wrote a letter to Theodore, which in its presentation and thoughts surpassed the powers of the human mind, and sent it” 462.
From these words of Sozomen it is clear that he, like Hesychius, knew only one message and, apparently, the first, as richer in content and in the power of persuasiveness, compared only with the second. Then, Emperor Justinian speaks about the Epistle alone in his “confession of faith against the three chapters”, precisely in the following words: “John of Constantinople, although he wrote a letter to Theodore of Mopsuestia, this letter is not filled with praise, but with complaints and reproaches for the fact that he fell away from piety” 463.
Finally, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Theodore, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, mentions only one letter, saying that “John wrote (to Theodore of Mopsuestia) a multi-line and very useful letter,” and he, as can be seen from his last words, meant the first letter rather than the second 464.
In addition to the evidence given, which clearly says that one of Chrysostom’s letters to Theodore the fallen was undoubtedly addressed to Theodore of Mopsuestia and, as it seems, was addressed - namely, the first one - we have several other testimonies that already directly speak of two letters from Chrysostom to Theodore of Mopsuestia. Thus, Leonity of Byzantium reports that “The Great John, who had fallen away from his intention and violated his vow, tried to extract Theodore with two messages, as if with two strong and long ropes, from the abyss of intemperance” 465.
Another writer of the same time, Isidore of Seville, says that John Chrysostom wrote two books about the fallen, full of lamentations and exhortations, to a certain Theodore. Finally, Nicephorus Callistus also mentions two letters from Chrysostom to Theodore 467.
So, from the last series of evidence we learn that two letters were written to Theodore of Mopsuest by Chrysostom. We do not have any compelling reasons not to trust this evidence. On the contrary, considering the contents of both letters that have reached us, we find in them features that indicate that both letters are talking about the same person.
So, in both letters, the fallen man was presented as a very young man: according to the second letter, he is not even 20 years old, and according to the first, he can still expect to live 50 years, because only then will he reach extreme old age; then in both letters he is portrayed as a rich man who had full opportunity to enjoy worldly pleasures; further, in both letters, he is credited with the moral purity of life before the fall that surprised everyone, as well as the desire to get married after leaving the monastery; finally, from both letters it is clear that his removal from the monastery caused deep sorrow to the brethren.
It is difficult to admit that these features, by some strange accident, were similar to each other in two different persons. Meanwhile, it can be explained very simply and naturally if we, according to the testimony of Leontius, Hesychius and Nicephorus Callistus, assume that both letters were addressed by Chrysostom to the same person, namely, Theodore of Mopsuestia.
There are a number of objections to this assumption raised by Tilman and Neander. Both of these scientists are of the opinion that only the second letter that has reached us was addressed by Chrysostom to Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the first was addressed by him to another person.
Of course, in support of their opinion, they refer to the testimony of Hesychius and Sozomen, and do not attach any importance to the testimony of persons who mention two letters of Chrysostom to Theodore. But besides this, they think they will find confirmation of their opinion in the very contents of these letters. So, first of all, they point to the fact that neither the first contains any mention of the second, nor the second about the first - even where Chrysostom uses the same arguments and examples. But this argument cannot be considered consistent with the actual data.
At the very end of Chrysostom’s second letter, we read that he, forced by love and sorrow, forcibly forced himself to write this letter, while many restrained him by saying: “stop working in vain and sowing on stones.”
In these words one can see an indication precisely that Chrysostom had previously written to Theodore, but did not have time to influence him. That is why, when writing his second letter, his friends advised him to stop working in vain.
However, he did not listen to such advice and, motivated by love for Theodore, forcibly forced himself to write him this letter as well.
Then, in Tilmon, we find more such arguments given by him in favor of his opinion. In the second letter, he says, the name of Theodore is mentioned several times, but not in the first; therefore, the letters were written to two different persons. But Montfaucoli very rightly objects to this: why is her name mentioned in some letters to the Olympias, but not in others? Further, Tilmon, in support of his opinion, points out that in the first letter it is said that Theodore will reach extreme old age in 50 years - and, therefore, he was then 40 years old - and in the second his age is determined by 20 years. But to refute this, we can refer to the fact that Chrysostom considers 70 years to be a time of extreme old age.
Finally, Tilmon also points out that if Theodore had all those vices that are attributed to him in the first letter, he would never have become a bishop according to church canons; This means that he was not Theodore of Mopsuestia. But this objection cannot be considered fair because in the second letter to Theodore the same shortcomings are attributed to them as in the first; and besides, these shortcomings are not at all of such a nature that the person who had them could not, through repentance, become a bishop.
Of the arguments given in defense of the same opinion by Neander, also none can be considered strong enough. Thus, Neander says that it is highly improbable that Chrysostom, through his second, softer letter, could hope to achieve what he did not achieve with his first, much more convincing past letter. From here Neander concludes that only one second letter was written by Chrysostom to Theodore of Mopsuestia.
But against this, it should be noted that Chrysostom himself, as can be seen from his words quoted above from the end of the second letter, had little hope of achieving success through his second letter, and only his ardent love for Theodore forced him to write a letter...
As for Neander’s remark that in both letters, it seems, we are talking about two different persons, then, in view of the similarities we have indicated between the persons depicted in both letters, it cannot be considered correct.
So, we have the right to conclude that the two letters of Chrysostom that have reached us to Theodore the fallen were written by him specifically to Theodore of Mopsuestia 468.
Chrysostom begins his first letter with the words of Jeremiah’s vice: “Who will give my head water and my hair a source of tears,” and then proceeds to depict the state of the fallen soul; further says that the sinner should not lose hope of pardon; that by repentance all kinds of crimes are destroyed; that God never turns away from those who sincerely repent; that repentance does not depend on time, but on the state of the soul of the repentant and that there is no sin for which a cure could not be found; after this, he points out to Theodore the severity of future torment that awaits him in the event of his unrepentance, and the greatness of future bliss in the event of his conversion; convinces him not to be carried away by Hermione's beauty, while proving to him that spiritual beauty is incomparably higher than physical beauty and that all care should be taken about it; then again exhorts him not to despair, but to repent, and gives him examples of a deep fall followed by a quick conversion.
Finally, having shown what true repentance should consist of, he once again urges him not to despair and not lose heart, and with this he ends his first letter.
In the second letter, Chrysostom first expresses his grief over the fall of Theodore; then he advises him not to despair and not to be embarrassed by the fact that he fell at the very beginning; further points out to him the variability of human nature, which quickly falls, but also quickly rises; Having recalled the future Judgment, he then says that he should not be carried away by the quickly passing blessings of this world and that he should not enter into marriage, because he was married to the heavenly Bridegroom.
After this, he describes the grief that Theodore caused by his fall to the monastic brethren, and depicts the worries and worries that the living creatures in the world are subjected to. Finally, having advised Theodore not to despair, he expresses his desire to have the desired effect on him with his letter, and at the end asks to honor him with his written response.
It is not known whether Theodore fulfilled Chrysostom’s request to give him a written response to the second letter. Judging by Theodore's sincere repentance, we can, of course, with a significant degree of probability, believe that he fulfilled this request of his friend. But his reply letter has not survived to us. True, between the works of John Chrysostom there is one response letter under the following title: “Theodore the fallen answer to the Ecumenical Teacher John Chrysostom.”
The most superficial acquaintance with the contents of this letter is enough to see its inauthenticity. First of all, it is clearly revealed from the fact that at the end of the letter the author calls John father and Chrysostom. Theodore could not call Chrysostom his father, because they were both very young and almost the same age as each other. Even less could he call his friend “Chrysostom,” because this epithet began to be attached to him only in later times. Then, it cannot help but seem strange that in the entire letter, with the exception of the last lines, the author does not make any appeal to Chrysostom, but instead turns to some respected fathers, so that the letter is written to these latter, and not to John Chrysostom.
Further, the author of the letter constantly uses figurative expressions, for example, comparing his fall to a shipwreck, or comparing his consolation by his brethren with the consolation of a sick person by doctors. But reading even the earliest genuine works of Theodore, anyone will easily see that a figurative way of expression is completely unusual for him. Finally, the author of the letter deliberately tries to match the tone of John Chrysostom’s letter to Theodore, by which he obviously tries to disguise his forgery and pass off his letter as Theodore’s letter to Chrysostom.
The letter was undoubtedly written by some Greek monk, with the purpose of instructing the brethren that everyone, in the event of his fall, must bring true repentance.
“To those who are at enmity with those who attract to monastic life”
Monasticism belongs to the most fruitful phenomena of the Eastern Church, although here it did not have such a strong influence on the spread and development of Christian life and the form of human relations as it later did in the West.
The monks formed communities in which they practiced various crafts and where common work was sanctified by religion. Monasteries also served partly for the purpose of raising children - and not only those who later became monks: a significant part of them went out into the world and engaged in various activities there. The children here received an education, although one-sided in some respects, nevertheless one that, in comparison with the rhetorical one, was beneficial.
Outstanding hermits brought enormous benefit to believers through their influence on individuals and families. A word expressed at a convenient moment by the lips of a person whose life confirms his word, for whom there are no worldly interests, can do a lot under other conditions.
Let us present one example from the history of Antioch for the year 387. The very people who at one time, by virtue of the law of Valens in 365, were persecuted in 387, gave a wonderful spectacle. When Antioch was deserted, and everyone who could fled far from the general danger, these hermits, on the contrary, came down from their mountains; Every day new crowds of monks came, living in monasteries or complete solitude.
Saint John was not alone in raising the spirit of his flock at that time: he had many unknown helpers, about whom he himself speaks with pious animation in one of his conversations. The name of one of the hermits has been preserved to us, namely Macedonia, who boldly grabbed the bridle of the horse of Ellevich, one of the two government officials who arrived from the capital in Antioch to investigate the case of the overthrow of the royal statues, and spoke to him in a prophetic tone the words that the next day became known to the whole city and revived faint hope in the hearts: “The overthrown statues were again erected and accepted their look, and the matter was corrected very quickly; and if you kill the image of God, how can you correct what has been done, how can you resurrect the dead and return souls to bodies” 469.
This message from John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret reveals all the features of the strictest authenticity. And what is most surprising here is not so much the brave courage of the monk, but the patience of the commander, who, having full power in a clan under martial law, humbly listens to the admonition of the hermit and bows before this admonition, as before the words expressed by God. This is a fact characteristic of that time.
The revered monks were visited by people of all states and positions, from Emperors to the lowest strata of society, who sought their blessings, healing of illnesses, consolation in accidents, and spiritual advice. So, for example, the mother of Theodoret of Cyrus in her youth, suffering from an eye disease, against which the help of doctors was powerless, turned to the revered Syrian monk Peter. She appeared to him, “wearing earrings and necklaces and so on, all made of gold, and various clothes woven from silk threads; she was at a blossoming age and flaunted her youth, but had not yet achieved perfection in virtue.” The godly husband did not ignore this passion for ostentation. Pointing out how absurd it would be if some ignoramus, an amateur in art, began to correct the painting of a first-class master, the ascetic continued: “believe that the Creator of all things, the Creator and Artist of our nature, is offended by the fact that you seem to accuse His ineffable wisdom of imperfection; otherwise they wouldn’t cover themselves with red or black or white paint.”
The suggestions of Saint Peter did not go unheeded and Mother Theodorit, along with the healing of her eyes, received a higher concept of the task and meaning of life. Returning home, writes Saint Theodoret, she washed off the medicine, threw off all unnecessary decoration, and from that time began to live according to the rules that the doctor (that is, Saint Peter) inspired, did not dress in multi-colored clothes and did not adorn herself with gold. She sought healing for the body, and gained health of the soul.” Now Mother Theodorite began to be more in tune with the laws of the Christian religion and even led an “ascetic life,” and her frequent relations with the Antioch ascetics supported her desire for lofty ideals.
The revered monks, through their mothers, had a profound influence on the upbringing of children, who were often sent from the city to them. This is how Theodoret of Cyrus talks about the monk Peter: “My mother sent me every week to ask for his blessing. He sat me on his lap and fed me grapes and bread.”
Blessed Theodoret also talks about another monk: “I often received blessings and instructions from him, often he told me with many admonitions: “My son, many nights I prayed to God before your birth so that your parents would receive you. Before you were born, you were dedicated to God, but what is dedicated to God must avoid all contact with the unclean.”
Monasticism, as one of the forms of religious life, had animated admirers and friends, but also had enemies. Among the opponents of monasticism we must distinguish several classes different from each other. Zealous followers of the gradually dying paganism, such as Julian and Livanius, hated the monks especially for their zeal and their activities in favor of Christianity, for their often fanatical attacks on paganism. These individuals were able to take advantage of the negative aspects that were observed in the life of the monks to polemicize against this institution of life.
The opponents of the monks were also worldly-minded people among Christians, whose frivolity and thirst for pleasure found condemnation in the religious animation and religious and moral seriousness of the respected monks.
When pious monks aroused a strong religious movement in the family, when they began to exert a deep influence on the young men destined by their relatives to occupy brilliant positions in the world, and when these young men were inclined to leave the world and go into the desert - then in this combination of facts there was already a lot of combustible material for the emergence of persecution of the monks.
But there were opponents of monasticism and a more serious movement - opponents who believed that those high moral forces that went into monasticism and thus became in opposition to the world should have remained in the world and constituted the salt of the Earth.
On the political point of view, which rejected monasticism for the fact that it distracts a lot of energy from serving the state, there is a law of Emperor Valens from 365, according to which idle lovers who are not subject to paying taxes and therefore went into the desert should be forced to fulfill state duties. Although Valens was a sworn enemy of monasticism, mainly because the latter from its midst provided the most zealous and influential fighters against Arianism, it can nevertheless be considered firmly established that the law of 365 had its basis in the political considerations of the Emperor.
In order to justify monasticism from the accusations leveled against it, Saint John Chrysostom wrote “To those who are hostile against those who attract to monastic life,” an essay consisting of three words 470.
Since it happened that the sons of noble parents, under the guidance of pious mothers and under the influence of revered monks, contrary to the will of their fathers, went into the desert, John Chrysostom shows the pagans greedy for worldly glory that they have nothing to be ashamed of the fact that their sons became monks, since respected monks, emerging from their solitude into the world, can have the deepest influence on the most powerful persons in the state. “I’ll talk about your son himself. We will find that he has now not only become more famous... but more respected and therefore himself, for which you call him dishonest and humiliated. We will convince him, if you want, to come down from the mountain and turn to him, and everyone will begin to point at him, marvel at him and be amazed, as if some angel had now descended from Heaven.
What else do you consider to be the diligence of fame? Truly, he will be more famous not only than the courtiers, but also the one who puts on the diadem, for the sake of his simple and worn-out clothes; because he would not have amazed everyone so much - if he had worn gold and even purple clothes, even put a crown on his head, sat on silk carpets, rode mules and was accompanied by gold-bearing squires - as now, having a dirty and unkempt appearance, walking without any companions and without any shoes. For royal accessories are established by laws and have become common, and therefore, if someone began to speak with surprise about the king, that he is dressed in golden clothes, then we will not only not be surprised, but will also laugh at these words, as not containing anything unusual; but if someone comes and says about your son that he despised his father’s wealth, rejected worldly splendor and became higher than worldly hopes, retired into the desert and dressed in thin, old clothes, everyone will immediately come running and begin to be surprised and praise him for the greatness of his soul.
Moreover, if the kings are subject to many criticisms, golden clothes will not protect them at all, much less arouse surprise towards them, and he gives many reasons for surprise with his clothes.
Thus, the very clothes make him more prominent and famous, if for this no one has ever been surprised at the king, but for that everyone will be surprised at the one clothed with it” 471.
Christianity, from the moment of its inception, recognized the historically established classes of society, however, it equalized them on the basis of a higher principle, from the point of view of which slaves and masters, inferior and superior, constitute one Divine life, and through this Divine life was able to make the latter first.
Therefore, Chrysostom says that those who have renounced the great world splendor, as well as peasants and artisans who have established themselves in a monastic way of life, have equal dignity and equal influence. “Truly, if some low and low-born sons of villagers and artisans, having embarked on this philosophy, became so respectable for everyone that none of the very noble were ashamed to enter their home and share conversation and meals with them, on the contrary, they felt as if they had received some great benefits, which actually happens, all the more will they do so when they see that a man of a famous family, a brilliant one, has entered into this virtuous life state, which had so much hope.
Thus, what you complain about most of all, that is, that he passed from this life to that (monastic), this most of all makes him famous and encourages everyone to look at him not as a person, but as some kind of angel” 472. Chrysostom further poses the question: “Do you think that this happens only under pious sovereigns?” and answers: “Our affairs are not the same as those of the pagans; Likewise, a warrior, although he is respected in times of peace, will, however, be more glorious when war comes.
Thus, even under pagan rulers you will have the same and even more honor. For those who previously respected your son will do so much more when they see him entering the fight, acting with greater courage and presenting many reasons for glorification” 473.
Praising monasticism, endowing it with the highest definitions, Chrysostom at the same time and in the same word to the unbelieving father notes that such a negative attitude towards the world, which is cultivated by monasticism, is not rooted in the very essence of Christianity, but is brought to life by the contradiction of reality to the Christian ideal, that the entire Christian society should strive for the ideal of such a pure social life, which is given by monasticism, in contrast to other masses of Christians.
He views monasticism as a refuge from the moral corruption of big cities.” “God desires,” says Chrysostom, “that cities be built in such a way that fugitives can again return from places of solitude.”
In the word “To the believing father,” Chrysostom considers monasticism as a means of education, and with “all the power of his eloquence” calls on the “believing father” to take care of fulfilling this duty in relation to his son.
“God has great plans for raising children. For this purpose, He put such an attraction into the nature of parents, in order to place them in the inevitable need to take care of their children. And subsequently, in His sayings, He taught us laws regarding the care of them, and, establishing holidays, He commanded that the reason for (establishing) them be explained to children... He not only punishes evil children in relation to their parents, but favors them towards good ones, but does the same with parents, severely punishing those who neglect their children, and rewarding those who care for them with honors and praise. So He punished Elder Elijah, famous in other respects, for nothing but negligence about his children; and he rewarded Patriarch Abraham for his guardianship no less than for others (virtues). The fact that the father took his son into his care at a tender age, and the fact that he was the first and only one given power over him, and the fact that he constantly had him with him, makes raising (his son) easy and very convenient for him.
Thus, the corruption of children does not come from anything other than the insane attachment of parents to everyday things: paying attention only to this one thing and not wanting to consider anything higher than this, it is necessary not to care about children with their souls. About such fathers I would say (and let no one attribute these words to anger) that they are worse than even child killers...
It is not so cruel to sharpen a sword, take it in your right hand and plunge it into the very throat of your son, as to destroy and corrupt a soul - because you have no equal to it... When fathers convince their children to study science, then nothing else is heard in their conversation except these words: “such and such a man is low and from a low state, having improved in eloquence, received a very profitable position, acquired great wealth, took a rich wife, built a magnificent house, becoming for everyone terrible and famous." Another says: “So-and-so, having studied the Italian language, shines at court and manages everything there.” Another again points to another, and all to those who have become famous on earth: but no one ever remembers the heavenly; if someone else tries to remind, then he becomes angry like a person who upsets everything.
So, when you sing this to your children from the very beginning, you teach them nothing other than the basis of all vices, instilling in them the two most powerful passions, that is: greed and an even more vicious passion - vain vanity. Each of them, individually, can corrupt everything, and when it invades the desired soul of a young man, then, like united stormy streams, they pervert everything that is good and bring in so many thorns, so much sand, so much rubbish that they make the soul barren and incapable of anything good... So that a wondrous statue stands on the house, and the roof is golden, you are ready to endure everything; but for the most precious of any statue—the soul—to be golden, you don’t even want to think about it” 474.
Chrysostom considers education in monasteries, where children were far from the moral corruption of the world and were early acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, as the foundation of a genuine Christian education of the spirit, the fruits of which will be felt throughout life. As an argument for this thought, Chrysostom cites a fact that is deeply interesting for characterizing that time. A young man of noble birth. His father, stern and cruel, was devoted to everyday affairs, and his mother, well-behaved, sensible and modest, strived only for Heaven.
The father, who had rendered many services in the wars, wanted to place his son in his rank, but the mother did not want this, disagreeing, and even strongly resisted: she prayed and wanted to see her son shining in monastic life. But she was afraid to tell her father, so she came up with another remedy.
Calling to her a respected monk, she took the boy’s right hand and placed it in the hands of the monk, and asked the latter to go with his son to Antioch and there, in a foreign land, without encountering opposition from either his father or anyone else, educate him with complete freedom and set him up to live in the world as if in a monastery.
The remedy invented by the mother was not in vain. The noble educator in a short time psyched up the youth and aroused in him such a fire of jealousy for his exploits that he suddenly abandoned everything and fled into the desert, and “another measure was needed to move him from intense asceticism to moderate, because there was a danger that he, having such jealousy ahead of time, having discovered the invented business, would not incite a cruel war against his mother and educator, and all the monks” 475.
The most dangerous factor for the implementation of the teachings of the Savior of the world during Chrysostom was the idea that was completely contrary to the teachings of the Gospel and its general direction - the idea that dealing with religious issues belongs only to spiritual monks, the division between the worldly and the spiritual.
Chrysostom early realized that this kind of division, contrary to the spirit of Christianity, constitutes one of the obstacles to the action of Christian truth on life, and had to fight against it with all his might; “through all his further activities there is a desire to bring believers to the consciousness that everyone must ascend to the same height.”
“But, someone will say,” writes Chrysostom, “it is not the same thing whether a layman sins or someone who has dedicated himself to God forever; since both of them do not fall from the same height, their wounds are not the same.” You are very mistaken and deceived if you think that one thing is required from a layman, and another from a monk; the difference between them is that one gets married and the other does not, but in all other respects they are subject to the same responsibility. Christ, when he gave the command and law regarding the oath, did not make such a distinction and did not say: “if the one who swears is a monk, then his oath is from the evil one; and if not a monk, then no; but simply and generally said: “I tell you, do not swear in any way” (Matthew 5:34).
This distinction, that is, the distinction between a monk and a layman, is brought about by the human mind. The Scriptures do not know him, but they want everyone to live the life of monks, even if they have wives” 476.
“Comparison of the power, wealth and advantage of royalty with the true wisdom of monastic life”
Another of his works dates back to the time of Chrysostom’s passion for monasticism: “Comparison of power, wealth and royal advantages with the true wisdom of monastic life.” The main idea of the work: monasticism is something higher than the possession of royal dignity. “The king rules over cities, regions and many nations, guided by his instructions and military leaders and city governors, and he who has devoted himself to God and chosen the monastic life rules over anger and envy and love of money, voluptuousness and other vices, constantly bearing in mind and caring how to prevent the soul from falling under the power of the vile and not betraying the mind into the kinship of this heavy tyranny, but always keep the mind above all else, placing the fear of God above the passions.”
The monk “fights with demons because of piety and service to God,” while the king fights with the barbarians, for seized areas or borders, or property - in the best case; at worst, “selfishness and unjust lust for power draws him to battle, and many kings, wanting more, lost their present.”
At night, we will see “a monk, distinguished by his service to God and prayers,” “conversing with God, enjoying heavenly blessings, and the commander of many cities, regions and armies - stretched out on his bed, fast asleep, because the former eats such dishes that do not require deep sleep from him, and the latter is lulled by luxury.”
Over time, Chrysostom saw that in hermitage, as in all human endeavors, extremes and dangers are possible. His teacher under whose guidance he was brought up, Saint Bishop Meletius, a man distinguished by his breadth of thought, could open his eyes. Bishop Meletios, in accordance with the true Gospel spirit, accustomed to always appreciating the depth of hearts and sincerity of thoughts, and not placing a high value on external manifestations, once said to a monk who wore chains the following words: “iron has no great price: the mind must restrain the flesh in spiritual bonds.” Like him, Saint John, apparently, always, even in his youth, thought that it was less important to run away into the desert than to be able to come to true spiritual solitude.
One might think that Chrysostom left his cave, in which he lived as an anchorite, and joined the ranks of the church hierarchy, not only because his broken health prompted him to do so, but also because, having exhausted the joys of the desert and recognizing himself as sufficiently hardened by six years of strict solitude, he sometimes felt the impulses of his active nature and ardent character. Already in his three books on “Those who are hostile against those who attract to monastic life,” where he speaks most of all about the feat of hermit life, there are some pages on which he not so much defends the hermit life in itself, but rather brings in its defense mitigating circumstances.
His desire was such a state of society that, without retiring into the desert, it would be possible in the world itself to fulfill the commandments of the Gospel in all severity - and this thought, expressed here, he later pursues with great force and without the uncertainty with which he expressed it at first. But the corruption of the cities, in which it was no longer possible for a perfect Christian to live, made the harsh medicine of asceticism necessary.
Chrysostom's expressions become even clearer in the treatise on the priesthood and the conversation about the blessed Philogony, when he compares a monk with a bishop. He gives preference to the latter, since he must have the same perfect personal virtues as the monk, and, moreover, he is entrusted with the great duty of active love, from which the monk is free. Thus, as Saint John Chrysostom grows older and his experience increases, his thought is more accurately defined and expressed more openly.
There were no crises, shocks, or revolutions in his moral life; he developed correctly in beautiful harmony and with wonderful unity, only his true personality, at first somewhat hidden by the inevitable influence of his age, was constantly freed from all admixture, with the goal of approaching more and more to the purest Gospel ideal. Some ideas, the beginnings of which we see in the first works, little by little emerged in all their meaning and in full; some spiritual feelings, at first somewhat suppressed by others, random and extraneous, eventually achieved complete dominance in him.
From the time Chrysostom left Antioch to pursue the life of the hermits, his ideal underwent change and expansion.
Then he thought that perfect Christian virtue could not find a place in cities, and for the sake of saving one chosen one, he sacrificed the fate of many. But he soon realized the one-sidedness and incompleteness of this apparently highest rule. He understood the historical meaning of the Gospel, did not obscure it with allegorical subtleties, and could easily notice that the Divine Teacher Himself, Jesus Christ Himself, retired into the desert only for a short time. It is known that He lived among His compatriots, was in communication with them, had communication with the most humiliated people, knew even publicans and sinners: “this man is a poisoner and a wine drinker, a friend of the publican and a sinner.” Saint John Chrysostom knew that the duty of His disciples of all times, the duty so perfectly understood by the Apostles, was to accurately imitate His lessons and examples.
From now on, his ideal was no longer the cave where he lived as a hermit, or even the monastery where he lived in a hostel, but the original Jerusalem society and the city from which he sought to escape in his youth, that is, Antioch or Constantinople. However, in his mind it was already a Christian city, inhabited by believers who completely obeyed the strictness of the New Law, fulfilling the Gospel commands without excuses - in a word, true monks in the world, similar in everything to the most watchful hermits, with the exception of marriage 477.
The duties of a deacon, to whose rank he was ordained, in the ancient Church were very complex. “In addition to fulfilling the bishop’s instructions and serving in the church, he was responsible for caring for the poor and comforting the dying.”
In the desert, generally concerned about the salvation of his soul and not seeing all the infirmities and disasters depressing suffering humanity, John Chrysostom could weaken in his love for mankind. His current service again placed him in the midst of real life and opened before his eyes this whole world, full of tears and suffering.
Thus, John accepted a double upbringing: upbringing in the desert, which strengthened his spirit and purified his heart to the ability to contemplate the Divine, and upbringing in public life, which shows people in their weaknesses, misfortunes, untruths and vices. The picture is sad, but familiarity with it was necessary for him in the service ahead of him, and it was she who made him into the true shepherd and benefactor of the suffering that he later became. The first silver that he gave to the poor was his own, and from that time until his death he called nothing his own, and considered everything that he had to belong to the poor!
The works of John Chrysostom relating to the time of his service to the rank of deacon
"To Stagirius the Ascetic Possessed by a Demon"
During the service of St. John Chrysostom with the rank of deacon (381–386), a whole series of his creations fell, the crown of which was his treatise “On the Priesthood.” Chrysostom was still suffering from an illness that forced him to return to Antioch, when the sad news reached him about the suffering of the young man with whom he had previously lived among the monks. This young man was Stagirius. Coming from a noble family and brought up in good conditions, he, without the knowledge and against the will of his father, but to the joy of his mother, who wanted to hide this from his father, joined the ranks of the monks. But the young man was of poor health, of little balanced mind, and partly, it seems, a victim of hereditary influences.
And then one day in the desert, where he sought to find peace, he was crushed by a violent attack. While he was standing in prayer with other monks, a seizure threw him to the ground, tormented by writhing in his hands, with wandering eyes, with a mouth full of foam, spewing out incoherent words and trembling all over his body - apparently, all signs of epilepsy. Then a prolonged fainting spell and a terrible loss of strength exhausted him to such an extent that the seizure resumed at night. The patient was seized by hallucinations, and it seemed to him that he was being pursued by a mad boar, all sprinkled with blood and ready to tear him to pieces. From that time on, Stagirius was no longer cured: he constantly remained a victim of gloomy melancholy, interrupted by the return of the same attacks, and he was constantly haunted by a tyrannical desire for suicide.
In vain did he resort to ordinary healing and turn to the holy man, “who in relation to many others showed the power of his virtue.” The holy man could do nothing for him.
But he was happier near the tombs of the holy martyrs, although he visited them often, choosing the most famous ones, in whom, as they were assured, the most terrible of all demoniacs calmed down, “those whose furies drove them to devouring human flesh.” It seems that even after the death of Saint Chrysostom, Stagirius - if only Saint Nile speaks of him - still lived without the slightest relief from his misfortune.
A significant part of the treatise addressed by Chrysostom to his friend after he learned of his misfortune - almost entirely the second and third books - are filled with examples of misfortunes even more terrible than his own: some examples - and the majority of them - are borrowed from the Holy Scriptures, others - from modern facts. Namely, Saint John points out the case of a certain Demophilus and Aristoxenus, who were stricken with incurable diseases. The rest is full of interesting features. Neither the sacred remains, nor the pious intercession of the hermits could free Stagirius from the possession of the demon, and Saint John Chrysostom wants to fight only with the melancholy into which Stagirius fell - with those thoughts of indignation and even suicide that so often visit him. The patient looks at himself as a victim of cruel injustice.
While he lived in the world, no misfortune struck him, and it was only after he devoted himself to religious life that he was possessed by a demon. From lazy and careless, as he was at the beginning of his monastic life, he now became an exemplary monk. He takes the severity of fasting to the extreme, taking only a little bread and water for two whole days and, being content to work courageously all day, spend the whole night without sleep. And yet, he cannot achieve any relief from his suffering.
Инстинкт, худо понятый, но тем не менее действовавший, внушил некоторые из тех жалоб. Stagirius was surprised that, while he remained incurable, others afflicted with the same suffering recovered quite quickly. These were people who indulged in all the pleasures of the flesh, and integrity of feelings and sound mind returned to them so much that they could marry, have numerous children and enjoy all the pleasures of life, for the evil spirit never took possession of them again.
Stagyrius does not realize that healing is hampered precisely by those harsh feats that are too difficult for a degenerate and nervous temperament, that prosperity and the usual way of social life little by little alleviated the misfortune of others. Dejected by his illness, he did not want to see consolation in anything other than death, even if it was arbitrary.
Saint John Chrysostom doubted true healing no less than he. If he did not find healing, then at least he went far in improving his soul. What is most remarkable in this work and how Chrysostom rises above his time is that he tries to give the evil spirit its place. Stagirius himself is responsible for sadness and melancholy: he himself is the culprit of them, and he himself could heal them. “The demon is not the culprit of this dark sadness, but sadness comes with the help of the devil and inspires you with all these bad thoughts.” “Let Stagirius continue his ascetic deeds, let him work and try to convince himself that he is not an exception and is not the only one exposed to temptation. For this purpose, let him go and look at the prisoners and visit the hospital for the incurable.”478
Shortly after the death of Valens and the assumption of the reign of Emperor Theodosius, Chrysostom composed a short work, consisting of two words, to console a young widow who, in the prime of her life, had lost her husband, Thirasius. Chrysostom consoles the widow with an indication of what her husband is now honored with: “This death is not death, but some transmigration and movement from a worse (state) to a better one, from Earth to Heaven, from people to angels and archangels, to the Lord of angels and archangels. Therefore, as much as you grieve that God took such a useful and virtuous man to himself, you should just as much rejoice that he moved from here with great safety and glory, and, having been delivered from the turmoil of this fickle life, is in perfect peace and tranquility.” He consoles her by pointing out the variability of earthly things and the transient nature of everything that a person can be proud of here.
Among the works of a practical nature that Chrysostom wrote while still a deacon, and which are aimed at creating, consoling and calming both his individual friends and all Christians in general, also belong two words “On contrition.”
Research regarding the time when Chrysostom composed both of these works is fraught with great difficulties, as is generally any chronological dating of the works of St. John based on internal features; for Chrysostom does not belong to those for whom a certain period of time is separated from another by a major change in the whole way of thinking or in the understanding of individual phenomena, for example, in Augustine. With a calm, consistent course of development of the author, all his works from the first to the last contain and reveal the same dominant ideas. The subject of both treatises “On Contrition” is the same as the place: σκήνας τῶν μοναχῶν ἐλθεῖν, give reason to assume that the treatises were written while their author was among the monks.
But the place where Chrysostom speaks about those who admit the unworthy to Baptism and the sacrament of the Eucharist - he speaks using the expression “we” - cannot be applied, according to the then method of expression, to a monk who has the lowest degree of cleric-reader. Montfaucon is trying to eliminate this difficulty. He refers to the anakoinosis used in Chrysostom’s oratorical speech.
But the examples he gives are not very convincing. If Saint John, as a bishop, could allow anakoinosis in relation to the laity, as a monk, in relation to lay people, then this is completely different from if a humble reader allows anakoinosis with the presbyter and bishop. Therefore, it is much more plausible to assume that the always relative Πρώην speaks in this case about a somewhat distant time.
As a deacon, Chrysostom could use anakoinosis, for deacons take some part in the performance of the sacraments. At least, Chrysostom himself in the 82nd homily on the Gospel of Matthew says that it is the duty of deacons not to allow those unworthy to participate in the Eucharist, and since Chrysostom wrote most of his moral and practical works when he was ordained deacon, it can most likely be assumed that the two treatises “On Contrition” (Περὶ) also belong to this time. κατανύξεως ). But he could also write them in the rank of presbyter.
The two words “On Contrition” poured out from the depths of the author’s Christian mood and contain a number of high, beneficial truths that could not easily reach the ears of his contemporaries. Due to the fact that in many cases self-confidence and complacency stood on the road to true moral development, St. John Chrysostom, in his first word on the issue of contrition and written at the request of his friend Demetrius, tries to lead his contemporaries to the awareness of their sinfulness and alienation from God, as a necessary prerequisite for any true improvement.
One of the main reasons for every evil, in his opinion, is that many believers are satisfied only by moving away from certain gross vices and maintaining external observance of the individual duties of a Christian, without even having an idea of the essence of true holiness, which is required by the Divine law. Therefore, Chrysostom complains that when they are confronted with the harsh demands of Holy Scripture, they are consoled by the thought that these high demands are given only to intimidate people, but in practice they are achievable.
Chrysostom refutes the last thought with all his energy and persistence: “in order to destroy the fear of future punishment in people imbued with contrition for the love of God and make them less careful in obedience to the commandment, (the devil) offered reassurance in the thought of exaggeration, which in this life is capable of deceiving careless souls, but will be exposed on the day of Judgment, when there will be no benefit from it” (1:132).
Subsequently, Chrysostom, in order to call believers to self-examination as required by the Divine Law, proceeds to analyze the Sermon on the Mount, especially Matthew 5:22: “Whoever is angry with his brother in vain is guilty of judgment.” “Consider a brother,” says Chrysostom, “not only one of equal honor to you, not only a free one, but also a servant: for in Christ Jesus, according to the Apostle, there is neither slave nor freedom” (Gal. 3:28).
Thus, we will be subject to the same punishment if we are in vain angry with slaves, because the slave is a brother and has been awarded true freedom, having the same spirit (with us).
As proof that a believer should have brotherly feelings for everyone, Chrysostom cites the words of the Savior: “If you bring your gift to the altar, you will remember that one, as if your brother had something for you: leave your gift before the altar, and go first and reconcile yourself with your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matthew 5:23-24). These words of the Lord were always presented to the consciousness of the believers, for according to ancient Eastern custom, during the Liturgy, at the time when they began the sacrament of the Eucharist, the deacon exclaimed in a loud voice: μὴ τις κατὰ τινος - and everyone had to give each other a brotherly kiss.
But Chrysostom complains that this kissing among contemporary believers has turned into an empty form without content, that for the sake of the external, as often happens in religious matters, they have forgotten internally. “By holding back external signs, we have distanced ourselves from the truth itself; before the offering of a gift we greet each other, but we do this mostly with our tongues and lips. However, the Lord does not want this, but that we give our neighbor a kiss from the soul and a greeting from the heart. This is a true greeting, otherwise it is a lie and a pretense: and whoever kisses (his neighbor) like this will rather anger than appease God. He demands from us sincere and strong friendship, and not the kind that often has the appearance and sign (of friendship) among us, but has completely lost its strength, which serves as proof of the iniquities that prevail among us (1:134). Saint John Chrysostom draws attention to how vanity in itself is destructive, how fasting, prayer and alms, being used to serve vanity, lose significance.
“One does not give alms at all,” says Chrysostom, “and the other, although he gives to the needy from his property, does it with vanity, and therefore turns out to be no better than the one who did not give. So the devil completely entangled everyone with his nets. If someone can avoid this shortcoming, then through foolishness he again falls into the same or much greater sin; and will remain not only without benefit for himself from what he did, but also with causing himself some harm. I know many who help those in need not only for these reasons, but also out of friendship, and out of pleasure, and for many other similar motives, and not out of the fear of God and not according to the commandment.”
John Chrysostom especially rebels against the widespread form of hypocrisy at that time: with a light and calm soul they condemned their neighbors, and did not notice their sins. ““Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matthew 7:1). - Here I thought to find relief for my shame, but I see its increase no less than from the previous one. If we had not even committed any other sin, then this one can already lead us to the underworld of Gehenna: just as we strictly condemn the sins of others, but do not see the beams in our own eyes; so we spend our whole lives investigating and condemning other people’s deeds. And not soon You will find among the laity, and among the monks, and among the clergy, one who would be free from this sin” (1:138).
Subsequently, Chrysostom proceeds to the saying of the Lord: “Thou shalt not give the holy thing to a dog, nor cast thy pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). Saint John turns these words of the Lord against those bishops who, out of vanity and unreasonable friendliness, allowed into communion in the sacraments, simply and without investigation, people who were depraved, unbelievers and filled with many vices, who, before examining exactly their character, revealed to them the entire teaching of dogmas and introduced into the sanctuary those who could not yet see even the vestibule.
Vividly and colorfully, as is accessible only to a heart that has personally experienced the power of sublime love, Chrysostom depicts the actions that love produces in the soul of a Christian: “If human love has often prompted the decision to die, then what will not the love of Christ do? Likewise, everything was easy for the Apostle Paul, because he looked only at his beloved (Christ), and for Him he considered enduring everything above any pleasure and enjoyment that is on earth, in this life and deals with people, but as if he already had a heavenly lot, dwelt with the angels, received the Kingdom and enjoyed (the contemplation of God) face to face, therefore he despised both the joys and sorrows of this life and did not care at all about the peace that we seek constantly, but he exclaimed like this: “Even to this day we endure hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and beatings, and we wander, and we labor, working with our own hands. They slander us, we bless us, they persecute us, we endure; they blaspheme us, we pray; We are like rubbish for the world, like dust trampled upon by everyone to this day.
Having turned the eyes of his soul to Heaven and clinging to the beauty there, he did not want to return to Earth again; but just as a poor man and a beggar, all the time hiding in a dark and low hut, seeing the King, shining with gold and rays of stones, will no longer want to even think about his poor home, but will try in every possible way to move to another home, if possible, so the blessed one (Paul), having seen heavenly blessings, looked with disdain at the local poverty and, of necessity, physically treating people, not to anything here did not cleave, but completely moved to that Heavenly City.
And what am I saying about the sorrows of real life? The love of Christ inspired him so much that if he had to endure eternal punishment for Christ, he would never have refused this, because he served Christ differently than we, mercenaries, serve, fearing Gehenna and desiring the reign. Having been embraced by another, incomparably better and most blissful love, he endured and did everything for nothing other than to satisfy the love that he had for Christ, and which so took possession of his mind that he would willingly part with what was dearer to him than anything else, for which he neglected both Gehenna and the Kingdom of Heaven, deciding for Christ to meet and with great readiness to accept as one of the most desirable blessings, even this unspeakable separation from Christ for the Israelites” (Rom. 9:3) (1:142).
The teaching about love is worthy and deserves deep attention - not only alien to the thought of reward, but ready to undergo punishment, the loss of the most dear for a loved one - a teaching that we find not only in John Chrysostom, but also in many Fathers of the Church. The highest love for one's neighbor, and renunciation of Christ for it, is, of course, a contradiction, for with love, alien to any selfish elements, is associated bliss and the most perfect communion with God.
Consistently implemented such a teaching would mean self-destruction, a renunciation of personal existence, which is not in harmony with the true essence of Christianity and is unacceptable from the point of view of Christian hope.
But for Chrysostom this teaching is not a sum of concepts constructed by cold thought, but the language of an inner feeling that cannot find its expression in any word, a hyperbole of love with which his heart is filled.
When Chrysostom's contemporaries were pointed out high examples of Christian holiness, they answered: how is it possible for one of us to rise to such a height? If anyone asked about the reason, then they immediately presented him with the following justification: it was Paul, then it was Peter, then it was John (1:143).
Chrysostom sought to take away from man the possibility of excuses of this kind and to show, on the basis of these prototypes of moral perfection, what human nature is generally capable of. “Tell me, didn’t they also have the same nature? Didn't they take the same path into life as we do? Didn't they eat the same food? Wasn't that the same air they breathed? Weren't they using the same things? Didn’t some of them have wives and children, others even worldly crafts, and others didn’t even fall into the very abyss of evil? But they, someone will say, used the grace of God. So, if we were commanded to raise the dead, or open the eyes of the blind, or cleanse lepers, or correct the lame, or cast out demons, and heal other similar diseases, then such our justification would be appropriate. But if strictness of life and expression of obedience (to the law of Christ) are now required, then how does such justification come about?
And at Baptism you received the grace of God and became a partaker of the Spirit - if not so much to work miracles, then exactly as much as you need to have for a correct and well-ordered life - thus our corruption occurs solely from our carelessness. And Christ on that day (of Judgment) will give rewards not only to those who performed miracles, but also to those who fulfilled His commandments. And in the teaching about the beatitudes, He nowhere mentions those who do miracles, but only those who lead a righteous life.
So, although grace has now diminished, however, this cannot harm us in the least, although it will not serve to justify us when we give an account of our deeds. And we are surprised at those blessed (apostles) not for their miracles - because miracles depended entirely on the power of God - but because they showed an angelic, higher life, which is the work of their own zeal. It is not I who now say this, but the imitator of Christ himself (Paul). When in his Epistle to his disciples he refuted the false apostles and wanted to show the difference between pure and unclean ministry, he pointed not to miracles, but to his exploits (2 Cor 11:23-29). This is why the Apostles surprise me - and without this, those who received the power of miracles through God’s economy would not only not deserve surprise, but would even become outcasts.
As Christ also shows, a righteous life without miracles receives crowns and then will not lose anything; and a lawless life with miracles cannot escape punishment. So, the justification we have said is inappropriate, and not only inappropriate, but even dangerous and serves as a feat for many heretics. If the apostles became so wondrous not by their own will, but only by the grace of Christ, then what prevents everyone from becoming the same? Grace, if it did not first demand what is dependent on us, would suddenly be poured out into the souls of all - because with God there is no partiality - and since it also demands what is dependent on us, it follows some and remains in them, moves away from others, and does not come to others at all” (1:147).
Chrysostom also speaks out against those of his contemporaries who believed repentance and contrition in certain external actions, thanks to which nothing changed in the inner man, and which could only have meaning if they were an expression of inner sorrow. “Crying for the soul means not only putting on sackcloth, locking yourself in a cell and sitting and tormenting your conscience with these thoughts, but constantly measuring the space of the path by which we are separated from the Kingdom of Heaven” (1:147).
Chrysostom posits a strict distinction between sorrow for sins, which stems from love for Christ, and that sorrow that rests on the fear of the torment of hell: “Even if that fire had not threatened us, and eternal punishments had not awaited us, then only separation from the meek and philanthropic Christ, who gave Himself to death for us and endured everything,” in order to deliver us from that torment and reconcile us with the Father. This alone, even if we were not deprived of the present and ineffable eternal blessings, is greater than any punishment and is able to awaken souls and dispose us to constant vigilance” (1:147).
The second word, which is written to Stelechius, contains similar thoughts. Also in this work, Chrysostom colorfully speaks of the powerful power of true love for God and Christ, as that which animated the Apostles; in the same way here he speaks vividly and vividly about the pure and free love of a true Christian and contrasts it with the searches and expectations of rewards of slavishly minded people: “What are you saying, cowardly and pitiful person? You must do something pleasing to God, and you stand there worrying about the reward? If you were to fall into Gehenna for such a deed, would you even then have to shy away, and not with great readiness take up the task of doing good? Are you pleasing God and looking for another reward? Truly, you do not know what a great good it is to please God, because if you knew this, you would not compare any reward with this good. Don’t you know that your reward will be greater when you do what is right without hoping for rewards?” (1:159).
The second essay, “On Contrition,” contains a number of new thoughts unique to him. “We forget about good deeds because we take advantage of prosperity immoderately, and when we often call ourselves sinners, we say this insincerely. This can be seen from the fact that when we hear such a name from others, we become angry and irritated, and call it resentment. So in everything we have hypocrisy” (1:159).
How far Chrysostom was already at that time from considering monasticism as something external, and attributing significance to it for its appearance alone, is indicated by the following words: “So, we must seek desert dwelling not only in some places, but also in the will itself and, first of all, to bring our souls into the most uninhabited (desert). With this arrangement, blessed David, who lived in the city, ruled the kingdom and was burdened with countless worries, was embraced by the love of Christ stronger than those who lived in the deserts. Such tears, sighs and sobs day and night, hardly anyone will see from any of those now crucified (for the world), if only such a person really exists” (1:152).
Before Chrysostom was involved in the activities of a church teacher, he compiled his major work, on the basis of which we learn his personal views regarding this calling, its merits and difficulties in its practical implementation, we also learn the prevailing errors and abuses of that time of the high rank of the priesthood. Let us consider the work of St. John “On the Priesthood.”
St. John Chrysostom's reflections on shepherding, as they are presented in this treatise, are distinguished by their lyrical character, which is why they are least suitable for the type of cold, dry and calm study about the duties of a priest. The ardent conviction that sounds in every word of his reasoning on this issue, the charming fascination of his presentation, the vividness of images and paintings - these distinctive features of his reasoning show that all its content was experienced, felt by the author, endured with illnesses in his soul and then poured out on paper. This explains the deeply irresistible impression that the work of St. John Chrysostom “On the Priesthood” makes in the reader’s soul (Gladky. The Teaching of St. John Chrysostom on Pastoral Ministry. Kazan, 1898, pp. 3–4).
The ministry of the shepherd, according to Chrysostom, is so high that he does not find the opportunity to put it in parallel with anything happening on Earth, and refers it to the institutions of the heavenly order. “The priestly service,” he says, “is performed on Earth, but according to the Heavenly order” 479.
И по своему предмету и назначению священство столько выше всякой власти, сколько дух превосходнее плоти» 480 .
The Christian priesthood is higher than the Old Testament priesthood: “The Jewish priests had the power to cleanse the body from leprosy, or, better, not to cleanse, but only to testify to those who were cleansed; (New Testament) priests received the power not only to testify to cleansing, but to completely cleanse - not bodily leprosy, but spiritual uncleanness” 481.
Spiritual fathers are higher than even the people closest to us - fathers according to the flesh. Those “gave birth to us from blood and carnal lust” (John 1:13), and these are the originators of our birth from God, the blessed “pack of being,” true freedom and grace-filled adoption.” Therefore, the difference between one and the other is the same as between the present and the future life” 482.
According to the exclusivity of his ministry on Earth, the shepherd also has exclusive powers. Spiritual (grace-filled) rebirth and communion with Christ through the partaking of His flesh and blood, necessary for eternal life, remission of sins and in general all the sacraments - “all this is performed by no one other than with sacred hands, that is, the hands of a priest” 483.
“People living on Earth and still circulating on it were put in charge of Heavenly things and received power that God did not give to either angels or archangels. For it was not said to them: “And if he is bound on Earth, he will be bound in Heaven; and even if you permit it on Earth, it will be permitted in Heaven” 484. Ordinary educators, when dealing with children, have the right to act upon them by coercion and, if necessary, subject them to penalties. And the shepherd of the Church, educating the people for the Kingdom of God, is deprived of the opportunity to act on his flock with coercive measures: only moral measures of exhortation and persuasion are available to him. “The sinner must be corrected not by violence, but by persuasion. And the laws do not give us such power to restrain sinners (by violence); and even if it were given, we could not use this power, since God rewards those who abstain from vices of their own free will, and not under compulsion.
Посему требуется много искусства для того, чтобы страждующие убедились добровольно подвергнуться врачеванию от священников, и даже чтобы благодарили их за врачевание» 485 .
Due to the corruption of human nature, which the shepherd of the Church is called upon to correct, in his post, in relation to his flock, he is not only an educator, but also a doctor. Saint John Chrysostom, speaking about pastoral ministry, with particular force brings out the fact that the shepherd of the Church is obliged to treat the spiritual illnesses of his flock.
Pointing to this duty of shepherds, he compares the treatment of spiritual illnesses with the treatment of bodily illnesses and finds that the first is incomparably more difficult than the second. The particular difficulty of healing mental illness depends on many reasons.
The first reason is that the soul that requires healing is hidden from us and is not accessible to the eye. The body is an object directly visible to our eyes, and its diseases and injuries are more or less obvious: they are revealed by signs that are more or less tangible and visible to everyone. «Болезни человеческие не легко видеть человеку, ибо никто «от человека не весть, яже в человеце, точию дух человека, живущий в нем» ( 1Кор 2:11 ). How can one use medicine against a disease without knowing its properties, and often without knowing whether someone is sick or not? 486
A new difficulty is created for the spiritual doctor by the variety of sinful diseases and the lack of certain medicines at hand against one or another disease.
Medicine indicates proven remedies against bodily illnesses, and an ordinary doctor should use these proven remedies in each given case, applying them to the circumstances that open before him, among which the patient is located.
In relation to the healing of sinful diseases of the soul, there are no such reliable, proven remedies - and the spiritual doctor himself has to look for medicines every time that can have a beneficial effect on someone who is suffering from sin: “A shepherd needs to have a lot of prudence and many eyes in order to observe the states of the soul from all sides. How many become bitter and give in to despair of their salvation because they cannot endure cruel healing; so, on the contrary, there are those who, having not received punishment corresponding to their sins, indulge in carelessness, become much worse and decide to sin even more. So, the priest’s duty is not to leave anything like this without testing, but, after a strict examination of everything, to take appropriate measures on his part so that his diligence does not remain in vain” 487.
The difficulty of pastoral service is further complicated by opposition to the shepherd and his work from the common enemy of the human race - not visible, but evil, who, according to the words of the Apostle, “like a roaring lion walks, seeking whom he may devour” 488 . And this enemy is not alone, with him are countless spirits of evil in the heavenly places, and all of them are waging a fierce war against the Church of Christ.... “If you could,” writes Chrysostom, “ever see with your own eyes the darkest militia and the fierce attack of the devil, then you would see a terrible battle... If it were possible... purely and without fear with your own eyes to see all the militia of the devil and his battle with us, then you saw not streams of blood and dead bodies, but such an abundance of souls and such severe wounds that you would consider the entire image of war that I have just presented to be a Danish game and more fun than war: so many are killed every day. And these wounds do not cause death like bodily wounds; but as much as the soul differs from the body, so much does one and the other death differ” 489 (Gladky, pp. 5–12).
The well-known gospel truth says: “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48). And the higher the talents that the Lord bestows on a person, the higher the power that is associated with his rank and position, the greater, the heavier the responsibility of the one to whom they are entrusted. From this point of view, the highest of human virtues—priestly—is the most responsible. The shepherd will answer before God to the fullest extent, corresponding to the exceptionally high position of the shepherd on Earth and the powers granted to him for the salvation of human souls, on the one hand, and the dignity of these latter, on the other hand.
In the case when the sins of the flock arise not only from the shepherd’s negligence about saving them, but also from the temptation produced by his own behavior, the responsibility of the shepherd will be even more bitter and difficult. “If he who tempts only one, and even the smallest one, does not eat, let the millstone of the village fall upon his neck and drown in the abyss of the sea” (Matthew 18:6); and if all those who wound the conscience of the brothers sin against Christ Himself, then what will they ever suffer and what punishment will they be subjected to who have destroyed not one, two or three, but such a multitude” 490 .
Making constant appeals to himself regarding one or another general reasoning, Saint John Chrysostom also in the present case turns to himself and makes the following deeply instructive remark: “I am sure that now the punishment awaits me, which is required by the severity of my sins, and upon accepting power - not double or triple, but multiple for the temptation of many and for insulting God, who has honored me with great honor.
Wanting to show that the sins of the priests are subject to much greater punishment than the common people, he commands that the same sacrifice be made for the priest as was made for the whole people.”491 Therefore, no matter how difficult it is to fulfill the duties of a priest, negligence in performing them will not find the slightest justification at the Court of the Divine Shepherd. “Here you cannot justify yourself by inexperience, resort to ignorance, apologize by necessity and coercion; such a defense, if allowed, would sooner be resorted to by one of the subordinates to justify himself in his own sins, than by the leaders - to justify himself in the sins of other people. Why? Because he who was appointed to correct the ignorance of others and anticipate the coming struggle with the devil cannot justify himself by ignorance: I did not hear the trumpet, I did not foresee the war. He, as Ezekiel says, was planted for this purpose, to sound a trumpet for others and to herald threatening disasters; why his punishment would inevitably befall him, even if only one person died.
“If the watchman,” he says, “if he sees the sword of those who are coming, and does not sound the trumpet among the people, and does not preach, and having found the sword, he takes away the soul, for it will take iniquity for its own sake, and I will require its blood at the hand of the guard” (Eze 33:6) 492 (Smooth, pp. 12-15).
In the matter of ordinary human education, actual success is undoubtedly determined mainly by the moral character of the educator. So, even more so, in the matter of pastoral leadership, the success of spiritual birth is determined, first of all, by the richness of spiritual life, by the inner mood with which the shepherd begins his work.
What does Saint John Chrysostom believe to be the essence of that ideal pastoral mood, which determines the success of pastoral work, and to the edification and maintenance of which every shepherd should strive?
A shepherd must first of all love his flock with ardent maternal love. But the maternal mood rather only approaches the ideal pastoral mood, but does not yet determine the entire essence of this sublime mood. “No one loved Christ more than Paul, no one showed more zeal than he, no one was awarded greater grace; but even with such advantages, he still fears and trembles both for his own power and for those under his control (compare: 1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 11:3: “I prayed,” he says, “I myself was separated from Christ according to my brethren, my relatives in the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). Whoever can utter such words, whose soul has risen to such a desire, he can rightly be we condemn when he runs away from the priesthood; and whoever is as alien to this virtue as I am deserves blame not when he runs away, but when he accepts it” 493.
Saint John Chrysostom himself declined to accept the priesthood at a time when, by his own admission, he was still bound by “youthful dreams, worldly aspirations and was not alien to feelings of anger”; and only then did he decide to accept high service, when he was freed from the storm of life.
An elevated mood, full of love for people, is necessary for a shepherd, but it alone is not enough for shepherding, just as a mother does not have enough love for her child - even the deepest one - in order to give him a proper upbringing. By the power of his love, a shepherd can win over his flock; but to reveal to them the ideal of a truly Christian life, to show them the ways and means to best achieve this ideal, he can do this only with the help of his education.
The education of a pastor, according to the thought of St. John Chrysostom, serves as an important basis for pastoral work. The main means in the education of a pastor is the study of the Holy Scriptures, as the basis of all theological knowledge. “In what way did this blessed one (Apostle Paul) excel the other apostles? Why is his name the most popular on everyone's lips throughout the entire universe? Why is he glorified not only among us, but also among Jews and pagans? Is it not for the dignity of his Epistles, with which he brought benefit not only to the then faithful, but also to those who lived from that time until now, will he bring benefit to those who exist until the last Coming of Christ and will not stop doing this as long as the Human Race continues? His writings protect churches throughout the universe like a wall built of adamant. Even now He stands in the midst, like a courageous warrior, captivating every mind to the obedience of Christ, and casting down thoughts and every exaltation charged to the mind of God (2 Cor 10:4-5).
He does all this through his messages left to us, amazing and filled with Divine wisdom. His writings are useful to us not only for overthrowing false teachings and defending the true, but they also serve very much for success in a pious life. Representatives of the Church, using them, even now arrange, perfect and bring to spiritual beauty the pure virgin whom he betrothed to Christ (2 Cor 11:2). With them they reflect the illnesses that befall her and protect her inherent health. This ignoramus left us such medicines, which have such power that those who actually use them often know well” 494.
Along with the Holy Scriptures, the pastor, according to the thought of St. John Chrysostom, should become familiar with the main currents of human thought. “Some, out of curiosity, vainly and in vain want to explore objects that would be useless and impossible to know; others demand from God an account of his fate, and strive to measure this great abyss; for Your destiny, says the Scripture, is a great deep (Ps 35:7). There are few who care about faith and life; and much more are those who explore and seek for that which is impossible to find, and the seeking of which offends God. When we strive to know something that God did not want to reveal to us, then we do not recognize it (for how can we find out if it does not please God?) and for our curiosity we only expose ourselves to danger. Meanwhile, in this state of affairs, whoever with authority begins to stop the mouths of those exploring inaccessible objects will incur the reproach of pride and ignorance.
Therefore, here too, the primate needs to act with great prudence in order to deflect others from absurd questions and to avoid the accusations himself.”495
Of course, to convince people of the truths of the Christian religion who are guided primarily by the principles of “false knowledge,” much less to overcome unbelief, false faith, to show all their inconsistency is hardly possible for a pastor if his mind is not properly developed, and if he does not have an extensive store of information not only in the field of positive Christian doctrine, but also in many other subjects that make up the circle of the so-called humanitarian, universal education.
“Whoever intends to wage war with everyone must know the methods of action of all of them, be both an archer and a slinger, the leader of a regiment and the commander of a detachment, a warrior and a military leader, foot and horseman, fighting at sea and under walls. In military battles, whatever task is assigned to whom, he repels the advancing enemies; but here it is not; if the one who intends to win is not versed in all parts of this art, then the devil, even through one part, if it remains neglected, will be able to deceive robbers and plunder the sheep; but he will not be so bold when he sees the shepherd entering with full knowledge and well versed in all his machinations. So, you need to be well protected in all parts” 496.
Rich in spiritual life, strong in mental and moral authority, called to actively guide his flock on the path to moral perfection, the shepherd must be familiar with the life of society as a whole, in all its manifestations. There is no corner in the life of the flock that does not require vigilant observation on the part of the shepherd of the Church; for him there are no two delimited areas of the moral life of the flock - the secular and spiritual areas.
“The priest must be pure, as one worthy of such great service; but also very prudent and experienced in many ways, to know everything everyday no less than those who convert in the world, and to be free from everything more than the monks living in the mountains. Since he needs to deal with husbands who have wives, raise children, own servants, are surrounded by great wealth, perform public affairs and are invested with power, he must be multifaceted but not crafty, not a flatterer, but filled with great freedom and courage and, however, able to yield usefully when the state of affairs requires it; be meek and at the same time strict. It is impossible to treat all those under your control in the same way, just as doctors cannot treat all patients in one way, and a helmsman cannot know only one way to fight the winds. And the ship of the Church is troubled by constant storms; these storms not only invade from the outside, but originate within, and require great attentiveness from the priest” 497 (Gladky, pp. 16–25).
But getting to know and studying the surrounding life is important for a pastor not in itself, but as a means to achieving the highest goal of shepherding: to raise existing life to the ideal of a true Christian life.
Saint John Chrysostom points out an example of a truly pastoral way of activity in the life and work of the holy Apostles. Quoting the words of the Apostle Paul: “Whoever faints, with whom would I not faint? Who is tempted, with whom would I not be inflamed?” - St. John Chrysostom concludes: “this is how a priest should be” 498.
In all the paths of his activity, the shepherd must be alien to the thought of any violent measures. “If a person strays from the path of the right faith, then the shepherd will have a lot of work, effort and patience. A person cannot be drawn either by force or forced by fear, but must be led by conviction again to the truth from which he previously fell away. Therefore, a courageous soul is needed, so as not to weaken, so as not to despair of the salvation of those who are in error, so as to constantly think and say: whenever God gives them repentance into the mind of truth, and to emerge from the devil’s snare” (2 Tim 2:25–26) 499.
The means that, according to Chrysostom, a shepherd can and should have in the matter of moral guidance of his flock is a pastoral word, warmed by love for his flock.
Deeply convinced of the duty of the shepherd to preach, Saint John Chrysostom utters enthusiastic praises of the power of the shepherd's word. Having said that the shepherd of the Church must show by his example of true Christian life, Saint John Chrysostom says further: “After the example of deeds, one method and type of healing is provided - teaching by word. Here is a weapon, here is food, here is an excellent dissolution of air.
This is instead of medicine, this is instead of fire, this is instead of iron; whether it is necessary to cauterize or cut off - it is necessary to use the word; If it doesn’t have any effect, then everything else is in vain. With it we restore the fallen and steal the worrying soul, cut off what is unnecessary, fill what is missing and do everything else that serves us for the health of the soul. The life of another can contribute to the best arrangement of life, conducive to competition; but when the soul suffers from a disease consisting of wrong dogmas, then the word is very useful: not only to protect one’s own, but also to fight strangers. If someone had a spiritual sword and a shield of faith such that he could perform miracles and through miracles stop the mouths of the shameless, he would not need the help of the word; or better, by its nature even then it would not be useless, but even quite necessary.
So blessed Paul acted with his word, although he was famous everywhere for his signs. And another from the face of the apostle exhorts to take care of the power of the word: “Be prepared,” he says, “to give an answer to everyone who asks you a word about the hope that is in you (1 Peter 3:15). And all of them then, not for any other reason, provided Stephen and his employees with the care of widows, but so that they themselves could freely engage in the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4). If we also had the power of signs, we would not care so much about the word, but if not a trace of that power remains - and meanwhile enemies are constantly attacking from all sides - then it is already necessary for us to protect ourselves with the word, so that we are not hit by the arrows of our enemies, and so that we can better defeat them" 500.
Concerned entirely about the spiritual growth of his flock, without having in mind any extraneous goals other than planting the word of God in the hearts of his flock, the preacher pastor must see the fruits of his pastoral and preaching activity only in the spiritual growth of his spiritual flock.
The shepherd should treat these praises, if not negatively, then in any case as something extraneous that does not have significant significance in his pastoral work: “He who has taken upon himself the feat of teaching must not listen to the praises of strangers, and not weaken his soul without them; but composing the teaching in such a way as to please God (for this should be his rule and the only goal of the most careful compilation of teachings, and not applause and praise), if he is praised by people, let him not reject praise; if he does not receive them from his listeners, let him not seek or complain; because for him, sufficient and best consolation in his labors is that - if he can realize in himself - that he composed and directed his teachings to please God.
Truly, whoever indulges in a passion for unreasonable praise will not receive any benefit either from his many labors or from the power of words - because the soul, which does not know how to endure the unreasonable condemnations of the people, weakens and loses the desire to exercise the word. Therefore, most of all, you need to learn to despise praise, because without this, the ability to speak alone is not enough to retain this power in oneself” 501.
“The only true fruit that a shepherd should expect from his preaching activity is a moral revival from the strength of his flock, the establishment in the souls of their peace and joy in the Holy Spirit - the Kingdom of God - yet the rest does not relate to his ministry in essence” (Gladky, p. 39).
Preaching is an important means of the pastor's moral influence on his flock. But the effect of preaching in the fight against vices is quite limited, and the love of a shepherd cannot be satisfied with sermons alone. For more or less successful healing of spiritual illnesses, it is necessary for the pastor to have a direct, personal appeal to those suffering from sin, just as a doctor usually does when treating physical illnesses.
For people who require spiritual healing, it is not so much general admonitions directed to everyone that can have a beneficial effect, but rather private admonitions, and here they are even more necessary than the first. Just as in medical practice, the success of treating a disease depends on how correctly the diagnosis is made, how the causes of the appearance and conditions for the development of the disease are correctly determined, so in the matter of spiritual healing - for the success of the latter, the pastor needs to delve into the essence and nature of those everyday conditions that were important in the formation of the character of a famous person, had one or another influence on his mental makeup and behavior.
Further, just as a doctor, having identified a disease, prescribes remedies and at the same time takes into account the patient’s organization, so a doctor of spiritual diseases, when prescribing remedies, must pay attention to the person’s inner mood.
While for one a simple admonition and instruction is sufficient, for the moral correction of another, strict reproof and punishment are required.
But in the matter of reproof and strict admonition by word, the shepherd needs strict prudence and caution. They are especially necessary when using church punishment. “Determining the punishment according to the extent of sins should not be easy, but taking into account the disposition of the sinners, so that, while sewing up the gap, you do not make a bigger hole, and trying to raise the fallen, you do not cause an even greater fall.
Those who are weak and weakened and most devoted to the pleasures of this world, and, moreover, exalted by their origin and power, if they are diverted from sins gradually and little by little, can, although not completely, at least partially free themselves from the vices that possess them; and if someone suddenly offers them admonition, he will deprive them of the slightest correction.
The soul, if forced to be brought to shame even once, falls into insensibility, and after that it no longer listens to meek words, does not bow down with threats, is not touched by good deeds, but it becomes much worse than that city, which, in reproaching, the prophet said: “The face of a harlot’s wife was for you, you did not want to be ashamed of everyone” (Jer 2:3) 502.
The ministry of John Chrysostom as a presbyter in Antioch
John Chrysostom served in the rank of deacon for five years. In 386, Bishop Flavian of Antioch elevated him to the rank of presbyter. John at this time was about 39 years old and in the prime of his life, with full awareness of the importance of service, he entered a new field of service to the Church.
Serving as a shepherd in Antioch required an enormous amount of effort from John.
Composition of the inhabitants of Antioch in religious terms:
Christians, pagans and Jews. Heresies, moral and social sentiments. A special reason for the delivery of many conversations for Chrysostom was the popular indignation in Antioch in the year 387, in the second year of his presbytery, a few days before Great Lent.
Conversations of John Chrysostom about statues
At the request of military circumstances, Theodosius the Great imposed an emergency tax on Antioch, which seemed burdensome to the residents of this city. The discontent with which the Antiochians accepted the tax decree was further increased by the cruel measures of the tax collectors 503.
From simple grumbling they soon turned to open rebellion. The mob, incited by some aliens, rushed with threats to the mayor's house, from there rushed to the city square, overthrew the statues of the Tsar and his deceased wife Flokilla, dragged them through the streets, and finally smashed them.
The crowd had already decided to set fire to the house of one of the prominent members of the city council, when soldiers sent by the mayor appeared and soon managed to stop the rebellion, capturing its main culprits and scattering the rest. Those caught were imprisoned, and some of them were then condemned to death and executed. The local authorities, frightened by the audacity of the rebellion and fearing the royal wrath, decided not to give mercy to the rebels: “Some died from the sword, others from fire, others from animals, which were given over to be torn to pieces; and not only adults died, but also children. Neither the immaturity of age, nor the strength of the people, nor the fact that the collection seemed intolerable; nor poverty; neither the fact that everyone participated in the sin, nor the promise to never again dare to do anything like that, and nothing else saved the dead: without any mercy they were taken to the place of detention, armed soldiers surrounded them from everywhere and watched so that no one would kidnap the condemned. Mothers followed from afar, looking at the children being separated from them, but not daring to mourn the misfortune; fear conquered love, fear conquered nature.”
But the matter could not stop there: special messengers were sent to the capital to report to the Emperor about everything that had happened.
While waiting for a decision to be made regarding the guilty city, its inhabitants indulged in lamentation, fear and despair. Many of the noble citizens were in a hurry to leave Antioch and sought salvation in flight; the rich tried to hide their treasures somewhere; young people studying in the Antioch schools fled.
Those who remained in the city locked themselves in their houses, were afraid to show themselves on the streets, because they caught the guilty and the innocent, and indiscriminately brought them to court. “Wherever anyone looks: at the ground, at the walls, at the pillars of the city, or at his neighbors - everywhere he seems to see night and deep darkness. How full of sadness everything is! Everywhere there is terrible silence and emptiness; the pleasant noise of crowds disappeared; the city is so silent, as if all its inhabitants had disappeared underground; everyone became like stones; the lips, bound by misfortune like shackles, maintain such deep silence, as if enemies had attacked and immediately destroyed everyone with fire and sword.
A city so great, the head of the Eastern cities, is in danger of being wiped out from the face of the universe; who had many children, now suddenly became childless” 504.
For seven days after the indignation, John Chrysostom did not speak a single conversation. Sorrow did not allow the word to flow freely from the heart; despondency, like an impenetrable cloud, relieved the souls of the Antiochians and did not give free access to the word of the teacher.
At this time, Saint John showed himself to be a wise and experienced shepherd. In the first conversation, delivered on the occasion of the overthrow of the royal statues, he first of all expresses his grief about the general misfortune of the Antiochian citizens, about the crime committed by them: “What should I say and what should I talk about? Now is the time for tears, not words; sobs, not speeches; prayers, not sermons. So grave is the crime, so incurable is the wound, so great is the ulcer...
For seven days I was silent, like Job’s friends, let me now open my lips and mourn this common disaster. Who wished harm on us, beloved? Who envied us? Where does this change come from? There was nothing more glorious than our city; now nothing has become more pity for him... I cry and sob now - not about the greatness of the threatened punishment, but about the extreme recklessness of what was done. If the king is not offended and angry, does not punish us and does not give us over to torture, then tell me, how will we bear the shame of our deeds? 505
It is remarkable that a few days before the indignation, Chrysostom demanded that the inhabitants of Antioch punish and curb the people in the city who insulted God and indulged in excesses, and who later became the main culprits of the indignation: “A great disaster will befall the city,” he said, “if we leave this unattended.”
When the crime was committed, Saint John reminded the Antiochians of this warning - but not with reproach for inattention to his word, but trying only to arouse a sincere feeling of repentance for his carelessness: “Not thinking that I said this on my own then; but God Himself, foreseeing the future, put such words into my soul. And if we had punished those who acted so impudently, then now what happened would not have happened. If it was necessary to be exposed to danger, then wouldn’t it be better to suffer something, admonishing and curbing these people (which would bring us the crown of martyrdom) - rather than now fear, tremble and expect death because of their outrages.
This crime was not committed by many, but the guilt fell on everyone. Although we did not take part in the crime of the daring people, we are no less struck by fear and trembling, lest the wrath of the king should overtake us all. And we cannot say as an apology: “I wasn’t there, I didn’t know, I didn’t participate.” “For this very thing,” they say, “you must be punished and condemned to the fullest extent, because you were not present, did not prevent, did not restrain the outrageous, did not expose yourself to danger for the honor of the Tsar” 506.
Fearing the royal wrath, the embarrassed residents of Antioch feared losing everything: their estates, their honor, and their lives. Taking advantage of this, Chrysostom reveals to them all the insignificance of the blessings of the Earth, to which man so often cleaves with all his heart. From these benefits, almost already lost for the Antiochians, Chrysostom raises their thoughts to eternal benefits: “Now such a danger has befallen us; let them help us at home, let them save us from the impending danger: but they cannot do this... Let money help now - but it means nothing. If money is powerless against humanity, then even more so at the Divine and incorruptible Court... Do you want to build magnificent, spacious houses? I do not forbid: just build not on Earth, build abodes in Heaven, in which you could receive others - abodes that will never be destroyed.
Why do you chase with such fury after something that runs away and remains here? There is nothing more deceptive than wealth; it is with you today, and against you tomorrow; it arms envious eyes against you from all sides; this is an enemy living under the same roof as you; This is a domestic enemy.
Witnesses of this are you, who own it and bury and hide it in every possible way: and now, precisely, wealth increases the severity of the disaster for us. You see how easy the poor are, how unconstrained they are and how ready they are to do anything; and how, on the contrary, the rich experience many difficulties, go here and there, and look for where to hide their gold, looking for someone to put it with. Why are you looking, man, for slaves like you? Here Christ is ready to accept and preserve whatever you entrust to Him - and not only preserve, but also multiply and return it with greater profit. You are a stranger and a stranger here; your Fatherland is there, in Heaven: transfer everything there, so that even before there is pleasure there, you will receive a reward here. Do you want to be rich? Find yourself a friend in God and you will be richer than everyone else" 507.
Encouraging the Antiochians to repentance and correction, Chrysostom at the same time encourages them and convinces them to endure all troubles with Christian courage, since a Christian must differ from the infidels in that he must endure everything courageously, inspired by the hope of the future, to be above the enemy of human disasters. The faithful one stands on a stone, therefore he is inaccessible to the attacks of the waves. No matter how the waves of temptation rise, they will not reach his feet; he stands above any such slander.
A few days after the news of the indignation was sent to Constantinople, before it reached there, the Bishop of Antioch, Flavian, went to Constantinople in order to free the Antiochians from the royal wrath with his personal intercession. Neither old age, nor physical infirmities, nor the season, nor the approaching holiday, nor love for his only sister, who was then at her last breath - nothing held back Flavian. His fatherly love for his flock prompted him to go: it gave him the strength to break all bonds; overcome all obstacles, and the old man, inspired by zeal, flew like a young man.”
In this feat of his bishop, Chrysostom saw good reasons for the citizens of Antioch to hope for pardon, and in his first word, after Flavian’s departure to Constantinople, he said: “Hopeful that our hopes will not be in vain - because God will not despise such zeal and care, and will not allow His servant to return without success - I know that as soon as he appears and sees the pious king, then with just his appearance he will be able to immediately tame anger; because among saints, not only their words, but also their very faces are filled with grace” 508.
Then, to encourage his listeners, Chrysostom sets out what Flavian will say in their apology and to appease the King: “He is filled with great wisdom, and being versed in the Divine Laws, he will tell him the same thing that Moses said to God: “If you forgive them their sin, forgive it; Otherwise, kill me also with them” (Exodus 32:32). Such is the heart of the saints that it is more pleasant for them to die with their children than to live without them.
He will find protection for us in time itself, point to Holy Pascha, remind us of the time in which Christ forgave the sins of the entire universe; convince (the King) to imitate the Lord; He will bring to his memory a parable about thousands of talents and a hundred denarii... he will explain that the crime was not committed by the whole city, but by several people - strangers and aliens, who do everything not with reasoning, but with insolence and all sorts of outrage; that it would be unfair for the recklessness of a few people to destroy such a large city and execute those who had not committed any guilt. Even if everyone has sinned, they have already been punished enough, being tormented by fear for so many days, expecting death every day, being pursued, indulging in flight, leading a more miserable life than those condemned to execution, feeling that blood flows in their veins and - not having confidence in their lives. Be satisfied with such punishment, do not extend further in anger, appease the Supreme Judge for yourself by showing humanity to your fellow servants.
Think about the greatness of the city and the fact that we are now dealing not with one soul, not with two, not with three, not with ten, but with countless thousands, with the head of the entire universe. This is the city in which for the first time believers began to be called Christians; almost Christ, respect the city that was the first to proclaim this longed-for and sweet name for everyone” 509.
But, encouraging the Antiochians in the successful intercession of the bishop before the Tsar on their behalf, Chrysostom convinces them to contribute to the success of the bishop by correcting their lives: “Let us call on God and pray to Him - and He will undoubtedly tame the wrath of the Tsar and deliver us from all the sorrows that threaten us. The Father intercedes there (before the King of the earth), and here we will intercede before the King of Heaven and help Him with prayers. The whole Church can do a lot if we offer prayers with a grieving soul and a contrite heart.
There is no need to cross seas, no need to embark on a long journey; each and every one: both those who come to the Church and those who remain at home, let us call on God with all diligence, and He, of course, will bow to our prayers... Let real fasting be our companion and assistant in this good intercession... Tame the waves of disordered passions, calm the storm of evil thoughts, keep the boat intact, show great experience... For all this, let fasting be our field and teacher - fasting, I mean, not the one that many maintain, but the true one - abstinence not only from food, but also from sins...
Are you fasting? Prove it to me with your deeds. What kind of things do you say? If you see a beggar, give alms; if you see your enemy, reconcile; If you see your friend happy, don’t be jealous; if you see a beautiful woman, pass by” 510.
The general fear in which the inhabitants of Antioch were, gave Chrysostom a reason to talk about the reverent fear in which a Christian should always be before God, and the image of God's love, which long endures the sins of people, will encourage listeners to confess their sins. Here is a person who has been insulted, and we all fear and tremble - both those who caused the insult and those who do not feel any guilt. And God is insulted every day; What am I saying: every day? - every hour they insult: the rich, the poor, those enjoying peace, those enduring sorrow, those who offend, those who are offended - and no one will think about it. Therefore, He allowed his fellow servant (that is, the Emperor) to suffer an insult, so that from the danger that followed this insult, you would know the Lord’s love for mankind.
This insult was now the first and only; but despite this, we hope to receive forgiveness and an apology. We anger God every day and do not repent at all, and He endures everything with all patience. Do you see how great the Lord’s love for mankind is? And although the perpetrators of the real crime have been captured, imprisoned and punished, we are still afraid.
The offended one has not yet heard about what happened, and has not pronounced judgment - but we tremble. Every day God hears the insults inflicted on Him, and no one pays attention to it - and this when God is so meek and philanthropic! Before Him it is enough just to confess the sin, and the guilt is resolved” 511.
The severe disasters that befell Antioch and those still threatening it, with the onset of Lent, brought about a beneficial change in the way of life of the Antiochian citizens. Noisy public entertainment stopped, people gathered every day for church, the drunk was nowhere to be seen, foul language and songs were not heard; everyone became more modest. Chrysostom welcomes this change among the Antiochians with joy. Blessed be God, who has consoled your grieving souls and calmed your troubled thoughts!...
I thank God with you that misfortune did not overcome your wisdom, fear did not weaken your vigor, sorrow did not extinguish your zeal, danger did not cool your zeal, fear from people did not defeat your love for God, difficult times did not crush your zeal - and not only did not extinguish it, but inflamed it even more” 512.
Chrysostom also rejoiced that fasting and general sorrow revived and strengthened the spiritual communication of the Antiochians with each other and with the Church: “The squares were empty, but the Church was filled; This one excites sadness, This one gives joy and spiritual joy. And then, beloved, when you go out into the square and sigh, seeing it empty, run to the Mother, and she will immediately comfort you with the multitude of Her children, show you the full face of the brothers and drive away great sadness from you.” “We spent how many words exhorting many of the careless and persuading them to leave the spectacles and the lewdness that comes from them. And they didn't leave. But now, when we are silent and don’t say anything about it, they themselves closed the dancing places, and the horse lists was empty. Before this, many of our people went to them, but now everyone from there has rushed to the Church, and everyone is praising our God. You see what benefit came from fear. Fear not only drives away evil passions from us, but also introduces every virtue with great convenience.
Where there is fear, there is concern for alms, and zeal for prayer, and warm and continuous tears, and lamentations expressing great contrition.
Our city is being cleansed every day, and the alleys, and crossroads and squares have become free from prodigal and seductive songs, and wherever anyone looks, everywhere instead of disorderly laughter there are prayers and praises, and tears instead of profanity, wise speeches, and the whole city has become our Church, because the workshops have closed, and everyone spends the whole day in prayer, and with great zeal unanimously calls God. What word, what exhortation, what advice, what length of time could ever do this! 513
In view of this, Chrysostom teaches us to look not at sorrow or suffering, but at the benefit gained from them. “For if we are sober, the time of trouble will bring us abundant fruit. Therefore, let us tear our hearts apart (John Chrysostom, 2:13), he says, so that if there is any evil past or evil thought in us, we can uproot it, and now cleanse it for the seeds of piety. For if now we do not renew, now we will not sow, now we will not cry, when we have both sorrow and fasting; then at what other time will we come to contrition? Then how do we have peace and entertainment? But this cannot be, because peace and amusement usually lead to negligence, and sorrow leads to diligence, and the wandering and distracted mind returns to itself.
If you have sins, they will easily be caught and destroyed by sorrow. Even if you have virtue, sorrow will clarify and devote it.” Chrysostom knew that the inhabitants of Antioch, when their social disasters befell them, although they learned from them, but not always useful lessons for themselves, however, they soon forgot about them. Therefore, rejoicing at the good change in the morals of the Antiochians, at the same time he was afraid of their frivolity and carelessness, and therefore urged them to always preserve the good beginnings of virtue in themselves, otherwise he threatened that God would punish them with even greater misfortune. “God grant,” he said, “that some kind and happy change occurs. I, however, predict and declare that even if this cloud passes, we remain in our previous carelessness, then disasters even more severe than those we now expect will befall us.
And even now I am somewhat afraid of the king’s wrath, as much as of your carelessness. For our justification, two-day or three-day prayers are not enough, but we must make a change in our entire life, and, leaving behind vice, constantly adhere to virtue. Let us not act now as we have always done. It often happened that when earthquakes, famine, and drought befell us, for three or four years, becoming more modest and chaste, then returning to their former self. That's why this happened to us. But, if not before, then at least let us at least remain in the same reverence, observe the same modesty, so that in future there will be no need for another execution.”
The people, in anticipation of the strict royal sentence, did not cease to worry; they tried to quickly find out the solution to their fate, scouted and asked each other who had arrived from the king, what news he brought: had the news reached the king; Isn't he angry, and what sentence did he give? And, as always happens in such cases, the general anxiety of the people was supported and intensified by various rumors and rumors.
They began to say that the angry king had decided to completely destroy the city along with its inhabitants, that many soldiers had already been sent to carry out the formidable royal sentence, first plundering the property of the citizens. This rumor created a terrible excitement among the people; those who had previously, sparing money, did not want to pay a certain tax, now, overwhelmed by the horror of death, said: “let the king take our property, we will willingly give up the fields and estates - if only they promised us to save our naked body.”
Many spent their nights without sleep out of fear; the flight of residents into the desert intensified to the point that the city was almost completely deserted. The mayor, who was a pagan, seeing this, used his measures, and with his admonitions calmed the people and stopped fleeing.
It deeply offended the soul of Chrysostom that after repeated admonitions and instructions from him and other elders, the admonitions of the pagan became necessary for the Christians of Antioch. After this, he did not want to address his words to the people and only, at the urgent requests of his fellow ministers, he ascended to the pulpit and there he passionately poured out the painful feeling of his heart.
“I was ashamed and blushed for you. I wanted the earth to open up beneath me and swallow me up as I listened to him speak to you and either reassure or condemn this untimely and unreasonable fear. It would not be for you to learn from him, but it would be for you to be teachers for all the infidels.
Paul did not allow the unbelievers to go to court; and after such instruction from the fathers, you needed external teachers and several fugitives and scoundrels inspired and put such a city to flight.
With what eyes will we look at the infidels when we are so fearful and timid? In what language will we speak to them and convince them not to be afraid of the coming disasters, when due to this anxiety we have become more fearful than any hare?
“What can we do,” they say, “we are people.” That’s why you shouldn’t be embarrassed that we are people and not dumb creatures. These are afraid of any noise and knocking, because they have no meaning that can drive away fear; and you are honored by reason and sense, how can you fall to their low state?
Someone came here, bringing news of the approach of warriors. Do not be embarrassed, but leave him, bow the knee, call upon Your Lord, groan bitterly and He will avert the misfortune” 514.
Some of the Christians of Antioch said that they were not embarrassed by the fear of death, but by the thought that they would die violently, unjustly, innocently.
Chrysostom asks: “What are you saying? You are afraid to die unfairly: would you like to die justly? If one must fear death, then death that befalls the just; and through this, the innocent dying person enters into communion with all the saints. What good is it for sinners if they die a natural death, at home and on their bed? But the righteous will not suffer harm if he ends his real life violently, because he will move to where there are immortal blessings.”
Emperor Theodosius, having learned about the Antiochian disturbance, sent the governor Ellevakh and the head of the royal palace Caesarea to Antioch to accurately investigate this matter. Flavian, having met him on the road, had little hope for the success of his petition before the king, “he resorted to God with the most fervent prayer and spent nights without sleep, begging the Lord to help the suffering city and soften the heart of Tsaryovo.”
Ellevah and Caesarea, upon arrival in Antioch, began a strict investigation. Many of Antioch's leading citizens were taken and put on trial. To force them to reveal in detail the participation of themselves and others in the outrage, various tortures were used. A large crowd gathered every day in front of the doors of the court, wives and mothers, fathers and children, friends and acquaintances of the defendants - everyone observed deep silence, no one dared to ask a question to another or hear anything from him; everyone suspected his neighbor.
The judges, after listening to those being interrogated, put them in chains and sent them to prison; then they imposed a ban on their property, sealed their homes, leaving their wives, children and household members to seek refuge at the mercy of their fellow citizens.
During the investigation, Chrysostom was in the courtroom, of course, not for idle curiosity, but to soften the judges and encourage the defendants; he went to the dungeon and consoled the prisoners there and convinced them to generously endure their imprisonment.
At that time, the monks who labored in the mountains, not far from Antioch, provided enormous benefit to the distressed city. Although no one called them, nevertheless, as soon as they learned about the cloud that had gathered over the city, they left their caves, flocked from everywhere to Antioch and consoled the mourners with their very appearance.
Not content with this, the monks came to the judges, boldly asked them for the guilty, with the determination of people ready to sacrifice their lives for their neighbors, saying that they would not leave until the judges agreed either to spare the people of Antioch or to send them themselves to the Tsar along with the defendants. “The crime is great; “We know this,” they said, “however, the guilt of the case does not exceed the Tsar’s love for mankind.
The overthrown statues were again erected and took their form, and the matter was very quickly corrected; and if you kill the image of God, how can you correct what you have done, resurrect the dead and return souls to bodies?
Chrysostom, in a conversation said some time after this, praising the monks, their courage, contempt for all dangers, contrasts this with the cowardice of pagan philosophers and rich people and says: “Where are now those who dress in cloaks and show off a long beard and carry a stick in their right hand - pagan philosophers - these despicable students who are worse than table dogs, and do everything only for womb.
They all then left the city, they all ran away, they all hid in caves: only those who prove their chastity by their very deeds, as if no disaster had befallen the city, appeared fearlessly in the square!”
Having heeded the representations and requests of the monks, the judges agreed not to pronounce a final verdict on the guilty, but to leave the decision of their fate to the will of the king. Nevertheless, they had to carry out the royal instructions previously given to them regarding the punishment of the guilty city.
Those sitting on the city council were taken into custody and kept in custody until a new royal decree; Antioch was deprived of the advantages of the main city of the Syrian regions, spectacles and public baths were locked in it.
It could be expected that such punishments, which did not contain anything particularly painful for the city, after the inhabitants were preparing to endure all the horrors of complete ruin and extermination, would be accepted by them, if not with joy, then at least without displeasure and grumbling. But the Antiochians, who were previously ready to sacrifice everything to tame the royal anger and save their lives, after the terrible danger had passed, were upset by these orders, grumbled and complained about their fate and cried out: “Woe to you, Antioch! What happened to you? How are you dishonored?"
Chrysostom considered it necessary to explain to the people that the punishments imposed by the Tsar on the city were both fair and reasonable, and not only did not humiliate the inhabitants, but would also bring them enormous benefit: “Tell me, what is painful in what the Tsar did? Was it that he closed the spectacles, that he made the lists inaccessible, that he blocked and imprisoned the sources of vice? Oh, if only they had never been open! And does this offend you, beloved? But we should rejoice at this and express gratitude to the king for the fact that the punishment he imposed serves as a correction for us, his anger as a lesson.
But are our bathhouses locked? And this cannot be called unbearable when those living in bliss, luxury and distraction are involuntarily led to philosophy.
But is it insulting that Antioch's advantage is taken away, that the city is not allowed to be called the first in the region? What should be done? Praise and thank for the indignation? Find out what the dignity of the city is, and then you will clearly see that if those living in the city themselves do not lose its dignity, no one else will be able to take it away.
The main thing is not to be a city, to be distinguished by the enormity and beauty of the buildings, to have many pillars, wide passages and a walkway, to be first on the list of cities, but the virtue, beauty and safety of the city lie in the virtue and piety of the inhabitants. Therefore, not now, but when you see that the inhabitants are dancing, getting drunk, singing disorderly, blaspheming, swearing, breaking oaths, lying, then you must say: “Woe to you city!” What happened to you!
Saint John especially rebelled against those who, having forgotten the past danger, their repentance, their tears, again fell into carelessness and allowed themselves to riot, expressing indignation at the closure of public baths.
But finally Flavian arrived in Constantinople. Upon entering the royal palace, he stood away from the Tsar, crying and bowing his head, Theodosius himself approached the bishop. Having counted the benefits he showed to the Antiochians during the continuation of his reign, Theodosius especially pointed out that during the rebellion the Antiochians also abused the dead, were not content with insulting the living, but did not spare the dead either. Moved by the words of Theodosius, Flavian could not remain silent any longer.
In his speech to the King, having recognized the full gravity of the crime of the Antiochians, he depicted their heartfelt repentance, imagining that they were already suffering a severe punishment, being in fear, feeling all the shame, all the ignominy of their insolence; then he continued that the Tsar, having forgiven their guilt, with such mercy would prove his high wisdom and thereby forever acquire the most heartfelt love not only of the inhabitants of Antioch, but also of all his subjects.
To this Flavian added: “In blessed Constantinople they say that when one day his image was stoned, and many excited him to bring the guilty to trial and execution, saying that those throwing stones had wounded his whole face, He, feeling his face with his hand and smiling meekly, said: “I don’t see any wound on his face, on the contrary, the head is intact, the whole face is intact; and these people abandoned such bad advice with shame and disgrace” 515.
In addition, Flavian said that now it is not about one city, but about the glory of the King himself, or rather about the whole of Christianity. “Now Jews and pagans, the whole Universe, and barbarians turn their eyes to You and wait to see what sentence You will pronounce. If he is humane and meek, everyone will praise your decree, glorify God and say to each other: this is the power of Christianity! The Christian God is truly great, He makes angels out of men” 516.
Finally, as a priest obliged to proclaim to people the laws and judgments of God, Flavian concluded: “I did not come to you only from the Antiochians, but was sent by the common Lord of the angels, to say to your meekness: “If a man forgives his debts, your heavenly Father will forgive you your sins” (Matthew 6:14). Therefore, bring to your mind the day when we will all give an account of our deeds.”
The pious Tsar, deeply touched by the words of the bishop in the presence of all those who were with Him, uttered words, in the words of Chrysostom, “that adorned Him much more than a diadem: “What is surprising and important,” he said, “if I put aside my anger at those who have offended people, being myself a man; when the Lord of the Universe, having come to Earth, was a slave for our sake; crucified by those who were blessed by Him, begs the Father for those who crucified Him: “let them go, for they do not know what they are doing.” What is surprising if I also forgive slaves like me?
Flavian in Antioch. Meeting with the flock. Speech of John Chrysostom. “Confirmation in the faith of those who, as a result of the disaster, came to their senses and left their pagan delusion.” Characteristics of the Antioch sermons of John Chrysostom according to their techniques, subjects and goals
For John Chrysostom, preaching was the first and most important function of his pastoral ministry. Only the illnesses that befell him from time to time forced him to interrupt his preaching work to rest and improve his physical strength. But after such cases, sometimes even not fully recovering from the illness, he resumed his feat with increased zeal.
His addresses to listeners in the first conversations after illness are very typical. Thus, in a conversation on the fifth week after Easter of the year 387, delivered after a series of feast days and commemorations of saints, when Chrysostom was kept at home by illness, he, recalling to the listeners the celebrations of these days, at which they were without him, says: “However, even if I did not take part in the celebration, I was still a participant in the joy; even if I did not have the pleasure of being at the festival, I was still a participant in your joy.
Such is the power of love: it makes those who do not experience pleasure rejoice on an equal basis with those who do, encouraging us to consider the benefits of our neighbors as common (to all of us). That is why, even when I was at home, I rejoiced with you, (and today), although I had not yet fully recovered from my illness, I got up and ran to you to see your kind faces and take part in the real celebration. And this day, I believe, represents the greatest triumph, due to the presence of our brothers, who today gave splendor to our city and adorned our assembly.
These people, although different from us in language, agree with us in faith, live in quiet tranquility and lead a temperate and honorable life” 517.
In one of the following years, Chrysostom became so ill that he had to retire from the city to the village to recuperate in the fresh air and remained in this absence for quite a long time.
Finally, he began to receive letters, either praising his feat in preaching, or reproaching him for extending his rest. Touched by this, he does not wait for recovery, he hurriedly returns, opens a series of words of repentance, and the first of them begins like this: “Did you remember about us when we were separated from you during this time? Well, I could never forget you, but even after leaving the city, I did not leave a memory of you.
Just as lovers of beautiful bodies, wherever they go, carry their favorite image with them, so we, having loved the beauty of your soul, have always carried with us a beautiful image of your spirit.
And just as painters, changing different colors, make the image of bodies, so we, mixing your zeal for meetings, zeal for listening, favor towards the preacher and all other good deeds - like different colors of virtue, painted the image of your soul, and, placing it before the eyes of the mind, from contemplating it we received no small consolation in separation from you. And we did this all the time - when we sat at home and got up, and when we walked and rested, and when we came in and out, we always imagined your love. And we enjoyed this contemplation not only during the day, but also at night... Without seeing you with carnal eyes, I saw you with the eyes of love, and without being with you physically, I was with you in soul” 518.
It is remarkable that the words of Chrysostom, spoken after a break from illness, belong to the most extensive. The previously silent soul of the preacher pours out with an uncontrollable stream of conversation, inspired by love. Chrysostom's love for preaching, his zeal for the fulfillment of this feat, was love for his listeners, zeal for their enlightenment, correction, spiritual success and salvation. This property of his sermon is the secret of its inner strength and persuasiveness. The usual addresses to listeners - “your love”, “beloved”, “beloved” - were not simple figures of speech in his mouth, but living echoes of a loving soul. You can feel this directly when reading his sermons.
There are many similar appeals coming from the heart in his conversations and words, imbued with the same spirit of love and jealousy, and in their entire content. They vividly reflect another quality of him as a preacher: this is the spirit of fatherly meekness.
With what humility and meekness he stepped out into his preaching ministry in the first word spoken after his ordination as a presbyter! The spirit of this humility and meekness did not leave him even later, when his word manifested itself with greater authority. He often speaks of the spiritual meal he offers his listeners, that is, the sermon, as pale and meager, asking for indulgence and patience; instructing and denouncing, he most often speaks in a tone of request, entreaty, consoles, encourages, ready, as he puts it, to cry for the erring, the vicious, the uncorrected.
He often thanks his listeners for their reproaches and comments. Exhorting and healing those who fall into sin, he places himself among them.
In the 23rd conversation on the first letter to the Corinthians, Chrysostom says: “Let us arise, beloved, let us arise even now, and we will stand firm. How long will we lie down? How long will we revel and indulge in the many desires of life? And now is it time to say: to whom will I speak and testify (Jer 6:10)? Thus, everyone became deaf to the teaching of virtue, and therefore filled with many vices. If it were possible to expose souls, then how between soldiers and after defeat the dead and the wounded are visible, we would see such a (spectacle) in the Church. Therefore, I exhort and ask: let us give each other hands and rise; after all, I am also one of the wounded and in need of treatment” 519.
Chrysostom condescends to the complaints of his listeners, thanks for the reproaches to him; ready to endure insults without disturbing the peace with the listeners. In conversation 32 on the Gospel of Matthew, he says: “Although you will slander me in every possible way, I give you peace from a pure heart: I have a fatherly heart, and although sometimes I condemn you, I do this out of concern for you. And if you secretly insult me and do not accept me into the House of the Lord, then I am afraid that you have not yet increased my sorrow - not by insulting me, nor by driving me out, but by rejecting the world and bringing upon yourself such a cruel punishment. Although I will not shake off the ashes, although I will not walk away from you, the threat remains in all its force. I greet you with peace often, and I will never cease to greet you. Although you will receive me with contempt, I still will not shake off the dust - not because I do not want to obey the Lord, but because I love you very ardently” 520.
There are strong and formidable denunciations in Chrysostom’s preaching words, but they are also dissolved by love and meekness. The spirit of love and meekness in the preaching word of Chrysostom gives his word a special power of persuasiveness, rooted in the deepest heartfelt conviction and penetration of himself by the truths of faith and morality that he preaches.
Deeply sincere are those often repeated expressions in his sermons that he trusts not in his own strength, but in the grace of God, for he expounds not his own teaching, but the teaching of God, the teaching of Christ, Paul, John and others.
There are no prayers in Chrysostom’s sermons, but the spirit of prayer is often heard in his sermons, expressed in expressions that invariably end each of his words, such as the following: “Grant to us, God, through the prayers of the primates and saints, having corrected these and other shortcomings, to receive the Kingdom of Heaven, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, honor and worship now and always and unto the ages of ages.”
Given the extraordinary abundance and frequency of sermons, which often followed day after day, or even twice a day - and extensive ones at that - John could not write them in their entirety in advance; Other church scribes and listeners wrote them down.
In connection with this circumstance, the character of his preaching developed as a living conversation, moving freely and creatively at the moment of preaching itself.
Of course, Chrysostom thought about the subject of the sermon in advance and often even planned a whole series of sermons on the same subject. These are, in addition to interpretative conversations on this or that book of Scripture, his conversations on the occasion of the overthrow of statues, conversations about Anna, David and Saul, Lazarus, about repentance, about an oath, about changing names and others.
But not all of these conversations follow in a continuous series, and are often interrupted by conversations about other subjects, caused by present demands and cases from living reality, after answering which, the preacher returns to the interrupted series of conversations.
On the other hand, in the same conversation one can observe a greater variety of subjects, especially in moral application, which makes one feel the living productivity of the preacher’s creative thought during the conversation itself, excited by the influx of new memories, images, thoughts, impressions from the upcoming crowd of listeners, which disposes the preacher to either lengthen or shorten the word, move from one subject to another, sometimes leave the topic at hand for a long time for additional and supplementary instructions, after which he returns again to topics
The following reservations are also common in Chrysostom’s conversations: “we are, as it were, carried away by a strong wave”; “I don’t know how we were transported here by the swiftness of the word and left order,” or: “I don’t know how I, having decided to myself not to say anything like that, became so carried away by this teaching. Forgive me for this verbosity. I am afraid and very afraid that your present zeal will not weaken. But diligence can make everything easier for you. It is time, however, to begin the reading now proposed.” Or “we forgot about what we started, we are returning to it.”
Finally, there are Chrysostom’s conversations, which were in the full sense impromptu, inspired, so to speak, by the impressions and needs of the given moment. Such, for example, is his most extensive and excellent conversation about alms and mercy, spoken on the occasion when, going to the church of God in winter, he saw the poor and crippled in the square, left without care.
The character of Chrysostom’s sermon as a lively conversation in which he wants to remain in constant direct communication with the listeners, arousing their attention, arousing responsiveness in their hearts and thoughts to the voice of his thought and soul, revealed in the preaching word - this character is reflected in certain turns and techniques of his speech. Very often he reminds listeners and invites them to remember what he said last time, and he himself briefly repeats what was said before.
Chrysostom's conversations are filled with appeals to the listener, in the form of calls for attention, for patience, for listening, in the form of very, very specific questions that provoke reflection and answers, in the form of answers to expected and heard objections, bewilderments, and the like. These are his well-known appeals: “I will ask your love”, “I have spoken a lot to your love”, “tell me, beloved?”, “What are you saying, beloved?”, “don’t tell me”, “have you heard?”, “do you understand?”, “do you see God’s love for mankind?”, “be careful: an important question is being born”, “I see your embarrassment”, “I want to comfort you”, “I hear your applause”, “what do I need in your applause."
These and similar almost continuous appeals to listeners are not just simple rhetorical techniques. They express that the preacher does not forget the listeners for a single minute, does not separate from them, does not allow them to separate from him, to dull the feeling of a live conversation, a live interview with the listeners.
In connection with this feature of Chrysostom’s preaching word there is another distinctive feature - its simplicity and clarity. The form of questions and answers so beloved by Chrysostom is aimed at the goals of possible simplification and clarification of the truths, thoughts and instructions presented, through which he wants to raise the listener to a clear perception and understanding of the proclaimed truth.
Finally, he seeks to stop any excessive inquisitiveness of the mind with a call to humility before what is incomprehensible to us, arguing that for our edification even the little that is given to us to know is enough. This thought dominates his words about the incomprehensible against the Anomeans. But he often liked to repeat it in other conversations.
In general, the properties of simplicity and clarity of preaching, in harmony with the properties of Zatousty’s own thought, always clear and definite, which were the fruit not so much of skill as of natural gift, were also determined by the significance of his preaching teaching, as it was, in the full sense of the people, manifested in large church meetings of people of all ranks and conditions and all degrees of development, up to and including the lowest classes. That is why the words and conversations of Chrysostom, more than any other of the ancient church teachers, are understandable and intelligible to ordinary people of all times. Photius also found in Chrysostom’s preaching words a characteristic feature, an abundance of examples set forth for edification. Indeed, it is unlikely that in any of the ancient preachers we will find the manifestation of this technique in such breadth and, so to speak, commonality, as in Chrysostom.
Apparently, he was convinced that living examples and images are capable of clarifying thoughts and edifying hearts over reasoning and evidence.
No less remarkable and characteristic in Chrysostom is another method of explanation, edification and persuasion that dominates everywhere in his words and conversations; This is a technique of comparison in its many different applications.
We can hardly find one of his sermons in which he would do without comparisons. The technique is that by using phenomena from visible nature, human life, everyday everyday relationships, he wants to understand the requirements and phenomena of spiritual life and activity, from the images of visible nature and human life to evoke spiritual and eternal relationships in the world, and the comparison of these and other phenomena is done either by their similarity, or by their opposite.
Thanks to this, in the words and conversations of Chrysostom, the life of his contemporary society and environment is reflected as vividly as in the parables of the Lord the life of modern Galilee and all of Palestine.
In the third conversation about Lazarus, responding to the objection that reading the Holy Scriptures is the work of those who have renounced the world, such as monks and hermits, and not those who are constantly busy with everyday affairs, the preacher compares worldly life with a military formation, in which help is needed in the full armor of Scripture: “monks do not so much need the help of Divine Scripture as what is being circulated among many things. For the monk, having withdrawn from the marketplace and the turmoil of the marketplace, and having set up booths in the desert and not having any communication with anyone, but philosophizing unhindered in this peaceful silence, as if sitting in a pier, enjoy great security: but we, who are worried, as if in the middle of the sea, and have occasions for countless sins, at all times need constant and unceasing consolation from Scripture. Those sit away from the battle, which is why they receive few wounds: but you are constantly in battle formation and receive continuous blows; That is why you are in great need of medicine.
For your wife annoys you, and your son upsets you, and your servant makes you angry, and your enemy slanderes, and your friend is jealous, and your neighbor harms you, and your colleague trips you up, often a judge threatens you, and poverty saddens you, and the negligence of the household makes you cry, and happiness makes you proud, and misfortune plunges you into despondency, and many occasions and reasons surround us on all sides, sometimes to anger, sometimes to worries, sometimes to sadness and despondency, then to vanity and pride, and countless arrows rush from everywhere.”
A deeply edifying feature in the character of a presbyter-preacher is the absence in him of any conceit, of any exaltation of his glory as a preacher and the preservation until the very end of his service of always a respectful and filial attitude towards his archpastor Flavian and also towards bishops, the highest teachers of the Church.
He begins his 8th discourse on the book of Genesis, which is inscribed on a rainy day and on the occasion of a meeting of bishops: “the accumulation of clouds darkened our day, and the presence of the teacher (Archbishop Flavian) made it bright. Indeed, the Sun does not illuminate bodies in the same way, emitting rays from the heights of heaven, as the gaze of fatherly love illuminates our souls, emitting rays from the (archbishop's) throne.
Knowing this, he not only came to us himself, but also brought with him a choir of luminaries (bishops) so that there would be more light. Therefore, our Church rejoices, and the flock gallops, and we take up the word with great zeal. For where there is a gathering of shepherds, there is safety for the sheep. Likewise, shipbuilders rejoice when there are many helmsmen with them; because these, in times of silence and calm, make it easier for them - through rudders - the work of rowing, and when the sea is rough, with their art and many hands they pacify the struggle of the water. Therefore, we, having entrusted everything to the prayers of them (the bishops), boldly extend the word of teaching.”
In conversation 1 about the change of names, concluding this conversation with the thought of Divine Scripture as an inexhaustible source of teaching, the preacher says: “just as on wet ground, wherever you dig, springs run out everywhere: so in the land of Divine Scripture, wherever you dig, many rivers will flow out everywhere; That’s why it’s very scary to suddenly let all these rivers flow today. Therefore, having blocked our stream, I will send your love to the sacred source of these primates and teachers (the bishops of Syria gathered in Antioch) - to this pure, intoxicating and sweet source that comes out of the spiritual stone itself (that is, Christ).”
Chrysostom ends his 5th conversation on repentance like this: “I must stop speaking, because I want to listen to the voice of my father (that is, Bishop Flavian). We, like little shepherd’s children, play a light pipe, sitting in the shadow of this sanctuary, as if under a log house or poplar tree, and he, like some excellent musician, having tuned a golden harp, delights all listeners with his harmony - so he brings us great benefit not by the harmony of sounds, but by the harmony of words and deeds. Christ is looking for such teachers: “Whoever does this, He said, and teaches, he will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:19). Such is this one (that is, Bishop Flavian): that is why he is great in the Kingdom of Heaven. May we, through the prayers of him and all his co-servants, be worthy to receive the Kingdom of Heaven, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Subjects of the sermon. Scripture. Facts from the lives of saints. Moral truth. Heresies. Events of the present day
As an interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, Chrysostom possessed the inimitable art in his very conversations of keeping the thoughts and hearts of his listeners in live communication with his own thoughts and hearts, calling them to this with his appeals, questions and various techniques of interview speech characteristic of him alone. But the greatest help to John in explaining the Holy Scriptures was his holy mood, reverence and pure understanding of Christian teaching, and hence his ability to perceive the words of God with his mind and heart, to perceive the highest illumination of grace, which opens his mind to understand the Scriptures and bring others into understanding.
That is why the interpretations of Chrysostom and, precisely, in his conversations, were and are considered models of interpretation. Even in ancient times, many expressed that in the interpretations of Chrysostom one can hear the voice and spirit of the most sacred writers, the influx of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ. “If,” says Saint Isidore Pelusiot, “the divine Paul had wanted to explain himself in Attic language, then he would have interpreted him no differently than Chrysostom interpreted him.”
“Remember John,” wrote the Monk John Cassian the Roman, “that John who, just like John the Evangelist, the Apostle of Jesus, always reclined on the Lord’s breasts and listened to His words.”
Saint Demetrius of Rostov, in his homily for the day of St. John Chrysostom, cites words about him found in one old printed Menaion: “Chrysostom’s mouth is Paul’s mouth, Paul’s mouth is Christ’s mouth, for Chrysostom’s mouth is Christ’s mouth!”
As for the moral part of interpretative conversations, in the form in which it appears in Chrysostom, it constitutes his peculiarity. Moral applications are not only its peculiarity. Moral changes are not only part of his interpretative conversations, but often surpass the actual interpretative part of them in the abundance of content and sheer volume. This came not only from his general view of moral progress as the crown of all spiritual development, but also from the conviction that Holy Scripture itself is simple and understandable, which, therefore, requires most of all to perceive its teaching and apply it to life.
As for the tasks of Chrysostom’s preaching activities in Antioch, they can be reduced to two main ones.
The first was to sharpen the conscience of the flock, cleanse their moral consciousness, make them feel the sinfulness of ordinary forms of life, the harm and baseness of vice. Turning to conscience, he acted on it with the power of conviction and advice: “We do not command, beloved,” he says, “your love, we do not command you despotically. We have been appointed to teach you by word, and not to rule and rule over you; Our job is to advise and exhort you. The adviser says what he should, but does not force him to listen, giving him complete freedom to accept or not accept the advice. He will be guilty only if he does not say what he is entrusted with.”
But it would be completely inconsistent with the real character of the preacher if we began to imagine him always meekly teaching. Instinctive love and moral pathos are not lukewarm water that lulls you to sleep with its measured murmur.
Sacred indignation often gripped the Ecumenical Teacher at the sight of hard-heartedness and cruelty. It is not for nothing that the historian Socrates says that, according to one of the people close to Chrysostom, this latter “from early youth revealed in his character more severity than affection. His voice, like a conscience reproaching a criminal, often sounded angry. For a preacher, imbued with an indestructible faith in the power of conscience and the power of the moral principle in man, as Chrysostom was, to expose to the consciousness of someone suffering from a moral illness the hidden motives of his actions and to expose before him the sophistry of passion meant doing the main thing. And this is precisely what the saint paid the main attention to.
A great connoisseur of the human soul, he was convinced that even in those cases when a sermon in appearance remains fruitless, in reality it will not be in vain. Once a disturbed conscience is not calmed down. Let a person continue to lead a vicious life out of weakness, but once the sinfulness of such a life is recognized, it remains an internal sting and the hope of revival. Internally, the vice is already broken.
But Chrysostom did not limit himself to denunciations. As a leader of conscience, his second task was to indicate the practical way of implementing moral principles in life.
The breadth of spiritual experience and powers of observation that the preacher uses for such a purpose is amazing.
Modern psychology has scientifically established a connection between a feeling and the body movements that express it, due to which, just as a feeling tends to manifest itself in life, so, on the contrary, a gesture or body movement evokes a corresponding feeling.
But this phenomenon was well known to Chrysostom empirically, and he uses this to show his listeners an easy way to deal with anger. “Cry, this is a horse with anger as its rider. Humble the horse and defeat the rider. Let the women listen to this with special attention, because they especially love to shout and make noise in any matter. If you want to test our words in practice, then always refrain from shouting, and you will never become angry. This is the way to tame anger! And just as it is impossible for someone who refrains from shouting to become angry, so it is impossible for someone who does not shout to become angry... Just as it is impossible to engage in a fist fight without raising your hands, so it is impossible to indulge in anger without raising a shout. Screaming arouses anger even when there is none.”
Service of John Chrysostom as Bishop of Constantinople
The glory of John's twelve-year service to the rank of presbyter-preacher reached the capital of the Empire, and in the year 397, after the death of the elderly Nektarios, he was elevated to the primary see of the Eastern Church.
With the elevation to the rank of bishop, a new field of activity opened up before John Chrysostom. This was, first of all, the activity of the archpastor, a ruling and organizing activity, animated by zeal for the education and correction of the clergy, for the moral elevation of the diocesan hierarchy, for the creation of better ways to inculcate Christian education, for the improvement of public morals, the eradication of public abuses and untruths, for the development of new and varied means of charity and charity, for the fight against heresies and strong defenders. them.
This is an activity for the better organization and elevation of the blessings of public worship, marked by a prayerful celebration and having an eternal monument to itself in the liturgy of Chrysostom; this is a missionary activity aimed at foreigners within the Empire and its outskirts; This is the activity of a preacher, in which Chrysostom, with his first sermons, attracted the general attention of the inhabitants of the capital.
One of the most striking phenomena of the 4th century, which also amazed Chrysostom, seems to be the sudden and amazing enrichment of the Church. Church wealth did not consist only of money, but included numerous real estate estates, fields, houses, carts, mules and their drivers.
This state of affairs necessarily created a number of negative features in the life of the clergy. Saint Gregory the Theologian paints with vivid colors the conditions under which a bishop could have success in the capital.
He tells how church property, considered the property of the poor, began to be used for expensive horses, fashionable carriages, silk clothes, and the luxury of a table.
The bishop had to be able to behave in secular society, attend public meetings and baths, be an interesting conversationalist, know with whom and how to exchange a word. This was precisely the predecessor of Chrysostom and the successor of Gregory of Nazianzus - Nektarios.
A man belonging to the senatorial class, a former praetor, Nectarius did not think of giving up the lifestyle to which he was accustomed due to his position. He loved to live and willingly let others live. Examples of luxury are observed not only in the life of the metropolitan bishops of the ruling Church - who, in their justification, could refer to the need to maintain connections with the Court - but also in the behavior of sectarian bishops. The best bishops, however, could not come to terms with the new order and went against the general trend. For them, the success of Christianity was associated not with external splendor, but with the purity of life of the representatives of the Church. “I live according to the old days,” said Gregory the Theologian. But not everyone liked it. He was blamed for the fact that he had neither a rich table, nor clothes appropriate to his rank, nor ceremonial appearances, nor majesty in his manner.
“I don’t know,” the saint continues with bitterness, “that I need to enter into competition with consuls, regional governors and high military commanders, who do not know where to squander their wealth, that I, luxuriously from the wealth of the poor, need to burden my belly, use what is necessary for excess, vomit on the altars. I didn’t know that I, too, would have to ride excellent horses, stand brilliantly in a chariot, that I, too, should have meetings and receptions with servility, and that everyone should give way to me and make way for me.”
Saint John Chrysostom followed in the footsteps of Gregory the Theologian, whose writings were known to him and influenced his pastoral ideal. Small in stature, emaciated by illness and constant mental pursuits, nondescript in appearance, with a bare skull, his appearance was no longer suitable for magnificent representation.
Immediately upon his accession to the throne of Constantinople, he sharply changed the order introduced by Nektarios, who loved luxury. Having demanded the housekeeper's receipts and expenditure books, he crossed out from them all unnecessary expenses for the maintenance of the bishop's house.
All grants for unnecessary buildings, gardens, fountains, and room decorations were prohibited. In order to further limit expenses from church funds and in order to save time for business activities, the saint refused all receptions and trips, rejected invitations to dinners, and confined himself to his episcopal home for the labors of pastoral service and voluntary poverty. In society, this circumstance gave rise to a lot of rumors and gossip.
In his personal life, Chrysostom limited himself to the bare necessities. Despite his poor health, absorbed in his studies, he sometimes forgot about food until the evening. For dinner he was served some digestible meat. He usually did not drink wine, but in the summer, in hot weather, diluting it with water, he used this drink to cool down. Due to health reasons, he often took a bath. He did not deviate from the established order of life even when one of the bishops, who flocked in large numbers to the capital, stayed with him, although, generally speaking, he did not consider himself obliged to show them hospitality, because the pious and wealthy residents of the capital willingly received them.
Bishop Akakios of Beria, who visited the saint, offered the latter what was usually served to him at the table, but this offended the guest to such an extent that, leaving the bishop’s house, he threateningly said to the deacon: “I’ll still cook him some stew!”
И действительно, впоследствии мы видим Акакия в числе врагов Златоустого. But Saint John went even further in the spirit of the best representatives of the Church of his time.
All church property in general was then considered by the best bishops to be the property of the poor, and representatives of the Church in moments of acute need did not hesitate to sell church vessels.
Socrates and Sozomen give a touching account of the action of Acacius, bishop of Amida. After a successful war with the Persians, the Roman soldiers found themselves in the grip of 7,000 Persian prisoners, whom the Persians could not ransom, and the soldiers did not want to release for free. Meanwhile, the unfortunate people died from hunger and poor conditions.
Seeing this, Akaki gathered the clergy to himself and said: “Our God has no need for either dishes or cups..., and since the Church, from the zeal of the parishioners, acquired many gold and silver vessels, then at a decent price to redeem the captive Persians from the soldiers and provide them with food. The Clear agreed, the vessels were melted, and the precious metal was sold. For the money raised (“Gospel stories about the poor woman who poured oil on the head of the Savior and the disciples of Christ”), the captives received freedom and, supplied with everything they needed, were sent home.
Chrysostom placed donations in favor of the poor much higher than offerings for the decoration of the church. He expressed his opinion regarding the Gospel story about the wife who poured valuable ointment on the head of the Savior (Matthew 36:6–7). In his opinion, the disciples' murmur was completely justified and fully consistent with the teaching of the Lord. But Christ accepted the woman under His protection only out of His love for mankind, appreciating her zeal, and in order to show his disciples “that there is no need to demand high deeds from weak people from the very beginning.”
“Just as before this act He would not have expressed His opinion if anyone had asked Him, so after the wife committed it. He only means that she should not be embarrassed by the censure of the disciples, since after the libation such censure was no longer appropriate. So you too,” the preacher concludes from here, “if you see that someone has made and is bringing sacred vessels or is taking care of some other church decoration touching the walls and floor, do not allow what has been made to be sold or destroyed, so as not to weaken his zeal; but if someone, before doing it, tells you about his intention, then order it to be distributed to the poor.”
According to this rule, the saint acted in his life.
He sold church vessels, magnificent marbles that were prepared by his predecessor Nectarius for the church of Anastasia, and property once left by Thekla in her spiritual will for the benefit of the poor.
Since the donors died, Saint John, no longer afraid to weaken their zeal, considered it possible to give their offerings another purpose, more consistent with the spirit of the Gospel. But all this was subsequently presented by the bishop’s enemies as an accusation against him.
Chrysostom used the funds obtained by reducing the costs of maintaining the episcopal house and selling church property for those most important duties that, due to the negligence of too indifferent believers, the Church bore on Herself, and which obligated Her to have a correct budget.
Saint John Chrysostom lists them almost in full in the 24th discourse on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. First of all, it was alms given to the poor. But the Church was not limited to just distributing food or clothing to them. In all large Christian cities, almshouses were erected vyingly, following the example of Caesarea, and this is what St. John Chrysostom meant when he advised Stagorius to visit the “shelter of the poor.”
Here they kept the sick and weak, lepers, suffering from cancer - all those incurable patients whom St. John pointed out to Stagiria as people more unfortunate than him. Bishop Palladius in his dialogue tells us that St. John Chrysostom built in Constantinople many new institutions for the poor, in addition to those already existing, and provided them with a very complete staff of overseers and ministers.
Finally, the Church was passionate about visiting and helping prisoners. This latter form of almsgiving seemed much more important in the Fourth Century than it does now, because at that time the lot of prisoners was infinitely harsher.
Saint John Chrysostom, who was very strict about all civil legislation, who saw in judges for the most part only “robbers and murderers,” speaks even worse about jailers.
However, the details he offers are completely confirmed by other authors, in particular Levonius, and we see a striking example in the person of the unfortunate Antiochian senators, imprisoned for the disturbances of 387, and subjected to terrible suffering there. In particular, St. John describes in one detailed comparison the miserable plight of criminals condemned to dig for ore. These latter sufferings were all the more terrible because the Church could not always bring relief, since the mines in most cases were located at a great distance from the cities.
It must also be remembered that administrative and fiscal strictures, as well as the injustices of unbridled despotism, could fill these so terrible prisons with innocent people, or, although guilty, deserving of reproach only for minor offenses.
After this, the Church must show special care towards widows and virgins, and give special help to the former.
The number of widows who appeared on Her relief lists increased, according to Chrysostom, to three thousand in the city of Antioch, which, as we know, numbered no more than one hundred thousand Christians.
For some, this number seemed too high. They tried, as always, to find plausible excuses to justify their hardness of heart, since, although the Church supported these widows, when there were insufficient sources of income, it sometimes made an appeal for private charity. The rich referred to the words of the Apostle Paul about the qualities of widows in order to recall the rather strict conditions prescribed by St. Paul for the election of widows.
On this occasion, Saint John Chrysostom gave one discourse. He was forced to prove to his objectors - whose ignorance, perhaps, was feigned - the need to remember that widowhood in the time of the apostle was both a rank of the church hierarchy and a right to public charity. Therefore, when the apostle demands so many virtues from widows, he is talking about the dignity, and not about the rights to charity.
These poor widows were not all equally respectable: among them there were also those who were famous for their intrigues, ingratiating themselves with rich families, showing cunning cunning here, quarreling some, reconciling others, trying to find their own benefit in everything. Their poverty, age and position gave extreme freedom to their tongue, and they delighted in gossip and slander. For the sake of this chatter, he often compiled those tasks that Saint John Chrysostom recommended to them, namely, raising children and hospitality, which he looked upon as their main duties.
But often he also expresses the highest praise to many of them, extolling their resignation and peace of mind, which they are able to maintain even when they completely refuse alms. They show their zeal for the Church, which, however, as can be seen, was not always voluntary, but rather was a condition of the assistance provided to them. “You come when you want,” he told the rest of the believers, “and they must pray and sing psalmody both day and night.” And anticipating the objection we have just noted, he adds: “and they are in this position not for the sake of the alms that are given to them, since they could beg for alms in the square and at crossroads from people, and, if they were not honest, they could even indulge in those petty shameful activities that serve so many old women as a means of subsistence.”
Chrysostom's activities as Bishop of Constantinople were not limited to the borders of Constantinople. “Having accepted the helm of the Church, the great John boldly exposed the untruths committed by some, boldly instilled useful things in the Tsar and Queen and encouraged the priests to obey the established laws, and whoever dared to violate them, forbade them to enter the altar, saying that it was not proper for him to enjoy the honor of a priest who was not zealous for the truly priestly life. And he had such care not only for his city, but also for the whole of Thrace, which was divided into six dioceses - even for the whole of Asia, ruled by eleven leaders - and he adorned the entire Pontic region with the same laws, although there were as many dioceses in it as in Asia 521.
Chrysostom's activities in Asia and Pontus were fraught with consequences. The Ephesian Church of the 5th century was far in its mood from the Ephesian Church depicted in the Apocalypse. Everything was bought and sold there: bishoprics, presbyteries, deacons; the gifts of the Holy Spirit were subject to a tax, the amount of which varied depending on what they brought.
A candidate for the episcopal see bought votes, and this encouraged the elected bishop to sell his spiritual positions for fear of ruining himself, his wife and children.
Council of Constantinople 399
The petition of Eusebius of Valentinople addressed to Chrysostom, in which six Asian bishops were accused of simony, and Antonin of Ephesus of a number of crimes. A commission sent by Chrysostom to Asia to the city of Ipep to investigate the data of Eusebius’ petition. Death of Antonin.
The struggle in Ephesus over the episcopal see. Chrysostom in Ephesus. Deacon Heraclius, who arrived with Chrysostom, Bishop of Ephesus. Deposition of six Asian bishops accused of simony. Chrysostom in Byzantium. Deposition of Gerontius of Nicomedia. Philosopher Pansophius. The activities of Chrysostom in Phenicia, Syria, the fight against Marcianism. Relying on the Emperor, Chrysostom extended his power to Egypt. Long brothers. Destruction of the Nitrian monasteries near Oak by Theophilus of Alexandria. Intervention of John Chrysostom Fr. Council and condemnation of Chrysostom. Council of Ἐπὶ δρῦν and condemnation of Chrysostom. His return to Constantinople and exile to Kukuz, and from there to Patiunt. The unfortunate sufferer could not bear the difficulties of the journey of 522 and on September 14, 407 he rested peacefully near the city of Koman with the words on his lips: “δοξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων.”
Saint John Chrysostom was the conscience of the Church of his time, and in the person of his enemies, all passions rebelled against him, as against the voice of his conscience. He triumphed. Violence silenced his indignant words. But conscience cannot be silenced for long. In 407, Chrysostom died in exile, his name was included in diptychs by Atticus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and in 419 by Cyril of Alexandria.
In the year 428, his memory was honored for the first time with a celebration at court, and ten years later his relics were transferred to Constantinople and buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. The son of Empress Eudoxia, Theodosius II bowed before them, asking the saint for forgiveness of his parents.
Letters of John Chrysostom 523
In his exile, Chrysostom - a martyr and sufferer - found his greatest consolation in sending letters to friends and in receiving letters from them. “No matter how many waves,” he says, “surround us everywhere: the desolation of the place and the state of siege, and the invasion of non-Aurians, and the daily threat of death (we constantly live hand in hand with death, imprisoned in this fortress as in a prison, and suffering from a serious bodily illness); with all this, despite all the misfortune, we will draw no small consolation among these disasters from your love. Don’t ever forget us, no matter how much distance separates us, and don’t make it a point to write to us constantly, as soon as possible, delighting us with news about your health.”524 In almost every letter he asks his friends to write to him 525, and if possible, to visit him personally 526. Sometimes, however, he rejects the desire to come to him, pointing out possible dangers. He complains that he cannot find people who could provide him with the service of delivering letters 527.
Letters were generally difficult to deliver, since all the roads leading to Kukuza were blocked more than once everywhere 528. Letters from friends, people devoted to the cause of faith and the Church, deeply delight the saint. “You kissed,” he writes to the military commander Theodosius, “my letter. And I kissed you, the author of the letter, hugged you with both arms, wrapped around your neck, and, kissing your head, which was so dear to me, I felt great reinforcement.
It seemed to me that not only your letter had arrived, but as if you yourself had arrived and were with us. Your letter made such an impression on me. However, this is always the nature of sincere love: even if its rays penetrated only through letters, they make visible the very source of these letters, which is what we happened to experience” 529.
“No matter how far I live from you,” St. John Chrysostom writes to Chalcidia, “what obstacles the distance between us presents, and how I am not depressed by various kinds of sorrows.... nothing can prevent me from unforgettably remembering your dignity; in spite of everything, I still keep in full force the love that I had for you and your home from the very beginning, not allowing it to weaken either under the influence of time or distance” 530.
“I hope,” writes John Chrysostom to the Antioch presbyters, “you will not think that we have grown cold or have ever become indifferent in our disposition towards you. “Love no longer falls away” (1 Cor 13:3), and no matter how much time passes, no matter how much the difficult situation of circumstances increases, no matter how the distance separating you and me increases, it will not be stopped by anything and will never weaken, but will intensify and increase from this” 531.
“Wherever we have to be, even if we are sent to the very ends of the world, to a country even more desolate than this, we will go everywhere with the thought of you, imprinting you in our minds and enclosing you in our hearts” 532.
The great saint, as his image is depicted in letters, is an example of Christian courage and patience. What he writes to the bishops, presbyters and deacons imprisoned in Chalcedon completely applies to himself. “Blessed are you both in your bonds and in the feelings with which you endure the bonds, showing Apostolic courage among them. So the Apostles, being scourged, persecuted, and imprisoned, endured all this with great joy. But they not only endured this with great joy, but at the same time did their job among the bonds - caring for the universe” 533. And Saint Chrysostom the prisoner remained the same great teacher of the universe as he was before his imprisonment, continuing to work for the benefit of the Church, encouraging, comforting everyone, and attracting all the best to himself. No wonder his enemy Porphyry of Antioch angrily said, “You are Antioch in Cucusa.”
Chrysostom’s favorite subject of letters is the revelation of thoughts about the benefit and meaning for a Christian of the suffering that befalls him: “There is only one thing,” he says, “there is true grief: it is sin; and everything else: expulsion, deprivation of property, imprisonment, slander and the like - shadow, smoke, cobwebs or something even more insignificant” 534. “Whoever endures for the sake of God, the more severe his suffering, the higher the reward.” “Do not be embarrassed,” writes the saint of Chalcidia, “by any attacks that befall you; but the higher the waves, the more terrible the storm, the more you expect to gain, the higher, the more, the more brilliant you expect to be rewarded for your exploits.
“For the passions of this present time are not worthy for the glory that desires to be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). Everything in this life, joyful and sad, is only a path; both alike pass away; there is nothing solid and permanent in it, but, like everything in nature, both its joys and sorrows appear and disappear. Like wanderers or travelers, walking through a meadow glade or dens, they neither secure joy there for a lifetime, nor endure sadness from here for the rest of their lives - because they are wanderers, and not locals - they only pass through one and the other and strive for their Fatherland; So I ask you too: do not get carried away by the bright side of real life, nor plunge headlong into its sorrows, but always look only at how to appear with complete boldness in the Fatherland common to all of us. This is a constant, lasting and immortal good, and everything else is the color of grass, smoke or something even more insignificant than that” 535.
“What happens to gold that has passed through fire many times, the same thing usually happens to golden souls under the influence of trials.” Chrysostom reveals his view of suffering in particular detail in his letters to Deaconess Olympias. He convinces her not to rely on human help in her suffering, but to call on Jesus. “Call Jesus whom you serve without ceasing; one wave from Him, and in an instant everything will change” 536.
In suffering, you should never lose heart: “Do not be embarrassed and do not worry yourself, but always and for everything thank God, glorify, call, pray, prostrate yourself before Him; Don’t worry, I say, even if thousands of anxieties, thousands of confusions arise before you, even if your gaze meets only terrible storms. In troubled circumstances, we cannot warn the Lord, even if everything comes to extreme destruction. He alone can raise up those who have fallen, and convert those who are lost, and correct those who have been tempted, and change sinners who have committed thousands of crimes and make them righteous and revive the dead.”
Saint John Chrysostom constantly instills the idea that our suffering increases our reward, that the temporary does not matter in comparison with the eternal. “What does it mean,” says the saint, “to be thrown out of the Fatherland, to be transferred from place to place as a captive, to be persecuted everywhere, to live in exile, to drag through trials, to endure violence and insults from soldiers, to receive evil from people who have received thousands of benefits, to be tortured by both slaves and freemen, what does all this mean when for all this the reward is the whole Heaven, those imperishable blessings that cannot be to express in words, which have no boundaries and which give us immortality and eternal pleasure.”
The love of friends prompted them to sometimes send Chrysostom material assistance, but he returned it with gratitude, saying that he did not need it, and if need came, he would willingly use it. “If need ever comes,” Chrysostom writes to the Criterion, “then you will see how boldly and trustingly we will write to you to send it to us. Thus we justify your own words. At the end of the letter you say: “show that you honor us with your trust and use ours as your property.” So, if you want, as you really want it, that we rely on you and use yours as property, then send it to me when I write. By expressing the desire that this be sent to me when I want, and not when I don’t need it, I am thus giving you the most obvious proof that I look at all this precisely as my property.”
If Chrysostom had been in need, he would have said, like his great teacher Paul: “I have received everything and have plenty; I am pleased, I received from Epiphroditus what you sent, like fragrant incense, an acceptable sacrifice, acceptable to God (Philippians 6:18). But Saint John Chrysostom, according to him, does not feel the need, and he does not need anything superfluous. There was nothing he armed himself against more than luxury.
In exile, he asked his friends only for bold prayers, “for this kind of help does not weaken with time and is not delayed by distance, but wherever a person lives who has boldness before God ... he can thus bring the greatest benefit to those living far from him.”
The state of the Church, for the dignity and significance of which Chrysostom fought all his life, is depicted in gloomy colors to him: “What troubles your soul? - he asks Olympias. – Why are you grieving and tormented? That a cruel and gloomy storm enveloped the Church and everything turned into a moonless night? That the waves rise high day by day, tormented by the birth of cruel shipwrecks? What is growing more and more and the destruction of the universe is multiplying? I myself know all this, and no one argues against it. Even, if you want, I myself will draw a picture of the real events in order to more clearly present to you the sad spectacle.
Now we all see the sea, opened up to the very abyss; swimmers - some are floating dead at the top of the waves, others have already sank to the bottom; the ships are destroyed, the sails are torn, the masts break, the oars fall out of the hands of the rowers, the helmsmen without rudders sit on the stern, with folded hands and not knowing what to do - they just cry, emit piercing screams, lament and sob, neither the sky nor the sea is visible; everywhere there is only darkness, deep, thick, impenetrable, which does not even allow you to see who is standing next to you; swimmers are met only by sea animals and the extraordinary sound of waves.
But then, as if elusive - no matter what image I find for real disasters - still my word recedes back, disasters are higher than it.” In the midst of this church storm and bad weather, Saint John Chrysostom places all his hope in “the Ruler of all incidents, who does not conquer bad weather with art, but with a single wave tames the storm.”
For his part, he is awake, like a good helmsman, and tries to do everything to save the church ship, overwhelmed by the waves. He is trying in every possible way to restore the broken peace of the Church; he often reminds us that church life should be directed in accordance with church laws, which are now desecrated. “Let an incorruptible court be formed,” he writes, “then we are ready to sue, defend ourselves and prove that we are innocent of what is being accused of us, as we are truly innocent; now what they have done is completely inconsistent with either the laws or church canons.”
St. John Chrysostom in every possible way inspires struggling fighters in the midst of storms and bad weather, often completely exhausted and encountering only sea animals and the extraordinary sound of waves, to Christian courage, patience and the worthy performance of their pastoral ministry. “The more terrible the storm,” the saint writes to Presbyter Gregory, “the more evil, the stronger the obstacles, the more numerous the slanderers—the more decisively you rise up yourself, and convince others to take up this good guard with you.”
“When the shepherds see that their sheep are in great danger from everywhere, they become especially vigilant and active, take up the sling and resort to various other means to drive away all danger from here. If Jacob, to whom the dumb sheep were entrusted, worked for fourteen whole years, without sleep, languishing in the cold and heat, and worked for the very last wages of a hired hand, then think: what must those who are entrusted with the verbal sheep have to do and endure, so that not one of them perishes?
Saint Chrysostom writes to Bishop John of Jerusalem: “We zealously ask your reverence to preserve even now the courage that you showed from the very beginning, turning away from those people who filled the Church with so much turmoil; and end it with a worthy beginning, or an even more brilliant end. No small reward will be reserved for you if, as you should, you interrupt all relations with people who created such a storm, filling almost the entire universe with so many temptations and have nothing in common with them. The safety of churches depends on this; this is their fence; in this are your crowns and victorious honors” 537.
Saint Chrysostom inspired bishops and presbyters in prison to Christian courage and patience with these words: “You are kept in prison, chained, you are imprisoned, together with rude and dirty people. But therefore, is there anyone even more blessed than you? What is a golden crown placed on the head in comparison with this chain that fits around the right hand for God's sake?
What magnificent spacious palaces can compete with this dirty and gloomy, disgusting and wretched prison in which a person is imprisoned for such a reason? So, rejoice, rejoice, rejoice and rejoice in full confidence that the calamities that have befallen you will bring you the greatest benefits. This is sowing, foreshadowing an indescribably bountiful harvest; it is a struggle leading to victory and rewards; This is a voyage that brings enormous benefits.
With all this in mind, rejoice and be glad, my most honorable and blessed gentlemen, and continually thank God for everything, thereby dealing a fatal blow to the devil and preparing for yourself a great reward in Heaven. “For the passions of this present time are not worthy of those who desire glory to be revealed” (Rom. 8:18) in you.” Nothing pleases the saint more than the exploits of Christians for the cause of faith and the Church.
To Deaconess Pentadia, who suffered a lot from her enemies, he writes: “We rejoice, have fun, triumph and, despite our life in the desert, we feel the greatest consolation, seeing your courage, your steadfastness, inflexibility, extraordinary prudence, freedom of speech, high boldness with which you put your opponents to shame, dealt a fatal blow to the devil and at the same time inspired those who strive for truth, acquired for herself, like a valiant hero in battle, a magnificent trophy, having won a brilliant victory, and delighted us to such an extent that we forgot about exile, about the foreign side, about the desert in which we live, we imagine that we are now there among you and enjoy your spiritual valor. Rejoice and be merry... rejoice and be merry (I will not cease to constantly repeat these words: take courage and be strong and look with ridicule at all the slander they lay against you)” 538.
Despite personal suffering, Chrysostom, even in exile, takes care of preaching the Gospel in Phenicia: “I am sure,” Chrysostom writes to Presbyter Nicholas, “that you will do everything and use every effort to fill Phenicia with valiant workers, strengthening those who are there even more, so that they do not return from there, abandoning their affairs there, and meanwhile, looking for new people close to you and sending them there with full diligence" 539.
Presbyter Constantius gives instructions: “do not stop caring for Phenicia, Arabia, the churches, or the East. Write to us how many holy men were escorted to Phenicia and whether there was any success” 540. He strongly urges the presbyters and monks preaching in Phenicia to continue their apostolic work so that “the beautiful building does not collapse, so that so much work does not go to waste, and the cultivated soil does not go to waste” 541.
“Stand strong,” he writes, “hold on. You will not lack anything now, and I ordered that clothes, shoes and everything necessary for the maintenance of the brethren be delivered to you; in the same abundance and with the same generosity as before. And if we, being in such a bitter and disastrous situation and living in deserted Kukuza, are so concerned about your affairs; then all the more so, with the complete abundance of everything - in relation, of course, to necessary needs - you must fulfill on your part everything that is due” 542.
Chrysostom reproaches elders who forget about their duty in every possible way for their negligence. In letters to Presbyter Sallust, Chrysostom writes: “I was very sad to hear that you and Presbyter Theophilus, both of you, are doing nothing. I found out that one of you said only five conversations before the month of October, and the other didn’t say a single one, and this seemed to me heavier than the local desert. Please, if this is not true, notify me, but if it is true, correct it; encourage each other. This makes me very sad. But what is even worse is that by indulging in such inactivity and laziness, and not fulfilling your duty, you will thus bring upon yourself great condemnation from God. How will you justify yourself in the fact that when others are persecuted, exiled, you do not even want to show your participation in the misfortunes of your flock by your appearance or your instructions” 543.
“How much I feel consolation and encouragement when I hear that you are protecting all our poor flock with complete zeal, so, on the contrary, when I find out that one of you is careless, I grieve heavily for those who are careless. In fact, as for the flock itself, the grace of God constantly watches over it, as you see in practice; the bailiffs, who, through negligence, fail to fulfill their duty, bring upon themselves great condemnation through their negligence” 544.
In his imprisonment, Saint Chrysostom does not abandon concern for poor widows and orphans. He writes to Marcian: “Three times blessed, a thousand times blessed are you, because in the midst of such terrible adversity, in the midst of such a terrible shock of affairs, you show such magnanimous generosity to those in need. We are not unaware of the greatness of your love for humanity, according to which, having become a common refuge for everyone, you protect the orphans, comfort widows, help their poverty, eliminate poverty - not letting them feel their cramped situation and replacing everyone and everything with it - according to which you feed the whole society, supplying it with bread, wine, oil and everything else. God reward you both in this life and in the next century for your generosity, zeal, love of poverty, for such generosity, readiness and sincerity in love” 545.
About Christian charity, St. John Chrysostom writes to Valentine: “I know your generosity, your ardent love for helping the poor and the lively zeal with which you are always ready to sacrifice for this good deed, and for which you not only show no compassion, but do it with pleasure, thus preparing for yourself the most brilliant double crown of philanthropy - both with the generosity of alms and with the disorder of thoughts, from from which this generosity occurs.
Having now received notification from the most venerable presbyter Dometian, who is entrusted with the care of the widows and virgins there, that they are suffering almost from hunger, we therefore resort to your arms as to a pier, in the hope that you will put an end to the wreck on this sea of hunger. So, I beg you and pray earnestly: please call the mentioned elder to you and help them as much as possible. The alms that you will show now are all the more deserving of reward in comparison with alms given under other circumstances, the more severe the storm and adversity to which those who need it are currently exposed, without using the usual source of help” 546.
And in exile, Chrysostom does not forget about the slandered and offended. “It has come to our attention,” he writes to Theodora, “that for insulting your honor, Eustathius was expelled from your house and removed from your sight. How it happened and why he actually fell under such anger, I can’t say, because I don’t know anything. But this is what I must tell you, out of ardent concern for your salvation. If he is expelled unjustly due to someone’s slander, then out of respect for justice, correct the matter. And if it’s fair, then do the same again out of respect for human laws, and from this you yourself will benefit more than he does... He who forgives the sins of his neighbor, through this he himself softens the severity of the account that he himself will have to give in the next century” 547.
Prof. N.I. Sagarda. Teachings of St. John Chrysostom on the Church 548
The Church called St. John Chrysostom “the great universal teacher,” and the greatness of his integral, morally exalted, pure and holy personality, tirelessly zealous and fruitful teaching, outstanding church and social pastoral activity and extraordinary life feat, crowned with the glorious crown of a great fighter and sufferer for the truth, for the vital significance of Christian truth, is recognized by those who is inclined to consider it a binding authority of ecclesiastical judgment. His name is written in indelibly bright lines on the tablets of Christian history; his image invariably stands before the Christian consciousness of all centuries, shining with the inexpressible beauty of spiritual life, as a living sermon and testimony of true Christianity, which is spirit and life.
A distinctive feature and advantage of great people is that their life bears the stamp of a certain idea, which more or less deeply and consistently penetrates and illuminates all aspects and various manifestations of it, uniting them in one final goal, all their best forces are directed towards it and all their thoughts and aspirations are concentrated on it; it constitutes, as it were, the soul of their activity, and faith in it raises energy, inspires them to great feats, gives strength to endure failures and not lose heart in the struggle. To define this idea, to understand its essence, means to understand the personality and find the key that opens access to the recesses of its activities.
What idea is imbued with the life of St. John Chrysostom? What did he so steadily strive for and for what did he suffer? Where did his zeal and holy enthusiasm in fulfilling the ministry he assumed come from? We know more or less accurately the most important facts of his life and work; together with his numerous creations, in which he so sincerely expressed his thoughts, feelings and aspirations, they show that all the varied activities of John Chrysostom flowed directly from the soul of the great Christian shepherd and only from this point of view can it be comprehended in its essential features and immeasurable value for the Christian world. He brought all his varied and rich talents to serve the pastorate; the fulfillment of his pastoral duty, success and failure in it filled his entire life, brought him both the greatest joys and inexpressible mental anguish, which his works speak so eloquently about; it also led him to the suffering of the last years of his life and to death in exile, far from his flock.
But shepherding is not a self-sufficient ideal; it itself is rooted in another ideal and is determined by it in its essence. John Chrysostom himself says that all the various actions of the shepherd are directed towards one goal - the glory of God, the building of the Church (On the priesthood, 6:5:1:472).
This creation of the Church is the vital nerve of all the activities of John Chrysostom and the goal of all his aspirations and exploits. This or that understanding of the Church, its essence, tasks and its permeating spirit always and everywhere has the deepest significance, since it reflects the understanding of all Christianity, a clear confirmation of which can be the difference in the teaching about the Church among the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants. Therefore, it is natural to seek clarification regarding the pastoral ministry of St. John Chrysostom in the idea of the Church that was presented to its great Saint.
Saint John Chrysostom did not leave a special treatise on the Church, but the thought of it never leaves him: he speaks about it often - both when interpreting the Apostolic and Old Testament writings, and when making judgments about the events of the surrounding life; sometimes he switches to talking about the Church completely unexpectedly and always pronounces her name with great reverence and animation. It is as if he cannot find words to sufficiently express the power of enthusiastic surprise at Her greatness. “The Church is the pillar of the universe” (Conversation on First Epistle to Timothy 1:11:692). “The Sun and the light that comes from it are not as brilliant as the deeds of the Church.” “The power of the Church touches the very heavens” (Text, on the prophet Isaiah 2:2–3; 6:27). “She is higher than the sky, wider than the earth” (Conversation when Eutropius was captured, 6:3:415). "She is stronger than the sky." “For God, the Church is more desirable than heaven. He did not receive a heavenly body, but He accepted the flesh of the Church. Heaven is for the Church, and not the Church for heaven” (Conversation before departure into exile, 2:3:445). “The Lord raised her up to a great height and seated her on the same throne, because where the Head is, there is the body” (Discourse on Eph. 3:2:11:26).
With inimitable features, John Chrysostom depicts the greatness of the Church, as it was historically revealed in its triumph over peoples, laws, morals, cults, altars, temples, idols and over all the secrets of pagan superstition. She forced the Romans, the Greeks and all peoples even outside the known universe to come under her yoke. Without any external support, the Church defeats all religions and legislations, destroys all obstacles, boldly repels the blows of all persecutors, and she carries out this majestic struggle through the poor fishermen, with whom she transformed the world and established dominion to the ends of the Earth. “The twelve disciples were the companions of the Lord; Even the name of the Church did not yet come to anyone’s mind, because the synagogue was still in a flourishing state. When almost the entire universe was given over to wickedness, what did the Lord say and foretell? – “On this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against It... (Matthew 16:18).
Brief saying: “I will build My Church” - but do not ignore it, and delve into it with your mind and imagine how great a thing it is to fill the entire sunflower Earth with churches, convert so many tribes, convince nations, destroy fatherly customs... altars, churches, idols and their services, disorderly celebrations and unclean sacrifices, dispel like smoke and erect altars to the true God everywhere... And through whom did he convince? Through eleven people, unlearned, simple, who did not know languages, not noble, poor, who had neither fatherland, nor wealth, nor bodily strength, nor glory, nor the celebrity of ancestors, nor the power of speech, nor the art of eloquence, nor the advantages of learning, but fishermen and monasteries... and through them Christ built His Church, stretching from the ends of the universe! It would be a great thing, or, better to say, a proof of extreme greatness and divine power, to accomplish this without any obstacle, in a time of peace, with the assistance of many and without any enemies.
But these simple, poor, humble, few people did this not during peace, but during countless attacks launched against them from everywhere. “In every nation and city - what do I say: in the people and city? – in every house they faced a struggle. The doctrine they preached often separated son from father, daughter-in-law from mother-in-law, brother from brother, slave from master, subordinate from boss, husband from wife, wife from husband, father from children, because not everyone suddenly accepted it; this exposed them to daily hostility, continuous struggle, a thousand deaths, and disposed people to treat them as common enemies and enemies. Everyone persecuted them: kings, rulers, common people, freemen, slaves, peoples and cities, and not only them, but also those who accepted their teaching... There was a general war against both students and teachers... And yet... they convinced and established the Church. How and in what way? By the power of Him who commanded it; He Himself was their leader; He made everything difficult easy. If divine power had not cooperated, then this matter would have received neither entry nor beginning.
And how could it be done? But the One who said: “Let there be heaven,” and did it in practice, Who said: “Let the Earth be created,” and gave it existence, Who commanded: “Let the Sun shine,” and revealed the luminary, Who created everything with His word, He planted these churches, and His word: “I will build My Church,” - accomplished all this. These are the words of God: they do wondrous and wondrous deeds” (Prot. Jude and Gentiles 12–13:1:634–638).
Consequently, the Church is not an ordinary human institution: its foundation, spread and establishment clearly speak of the action of divine power. John Chrysostom often stops the thoughts of his listeners on the fact that from the very planting of the Church, great and varied wars arose against it from all sides, but nothing defeated it: the enemies were crushed, and the Church flourished (Conversation on Psalm 129:5:402). “Let the Greeks hear, let the Jews hear,” exclaims John Chrysostom, “about our deeds and the superiority of the Church” (Conversation on the words of the prophet Isaiah 4:2:6:406). The initial history of the spread of Christianity serves, according to the thoughts of John Chrysostom, as the best refutation of the view, obviously widespread in his time, “that the Church stands firm as a result of peace with the kings: “God allowed her to endure persecution when she was smaller and seemed weaker, so that you would be convinced from this that her current firmness does not depend on peace with the kings, but on the power of God” (Prot. Jude 5:2:1:695).
This fact of the miraculous establishment of the Church under the most unfavorable conditions seems to be such a clear evidence for everyone of the “truth of the great deed” that John Chrysostom sees in it proof of the divine and invincible power of Himself who predicted and accomplished it (Prot. Jude. and Gentiles 15:1:640), certifying that Christ is God (ibid., 1:1:617; cf. Prot. Jude. 5:2:1:694–695; Conversation on Psalm 147, 4:5:542; Second Conversation on Acts 1:3:63–64).
The church is founded first upon Christ, who is the chief cornerstone; on this first foundation was laid the second - the foundation of the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New Testament. This is the teaching of the Apostle Paul (Eph 2:20); but John Chrysostom reveals it in a complete and vivid picture and the strength of the foundation. “Let’s see,” he says, “how did the Apostles lay the foundations, how deep did they dig the ditch so that the building would be unshakable?” They had no need to dig deep, because they found the previous ancient foundation laid by the prophets. “Just as a person intending to build a large house, having found an old foundation, strong and unshakable, does not dismantle this foundation, does not touch the stones, but leaving it motionless, erects a new and later building on it, so the apostles, intending to build this great building - the Church founded throughout the entire universe - did not dig into the depths, and having found the ancient foundation laid by the prophets, did not dismantle it, did not touch them building, but leaving it motionless, they erected their teaching on it, this new faith of the Church.”
Revealing the meaning of the words of the Apostle Paul: “on a foundation was created an apostle and a prophet” (Eph. 2:19–20), John Chrysostom says: “Do you see one foundation and one foundation - from the prophet, another from the apostle, laid on top” (Second Discourse on the above book of Acts Apostle 2:3:64-65). “Apostles and prophets serve as the foundation of the building. He puts the apostles first, although they were after the prophets, in order to show by this that both equally serve as the foundation, that everything constitutes one building and has one root... Then the apostle adds “being the cornerstone of Jesus Christ,” showing that Christ contains everything, since the cornerstone is what supports both the walls and the foundations... Thus, “the economy of our salvation began even before the coming of Christ” (Conversation on the last book). Eph. 6:11:49–50). Continuing to develop the same image of the construction of a building, Saint John Chrysostom solves the question: why did the Apostles come not immediately after the prophets, but after a long time?
“Because,” he answers, “that is what the most excellent of builders do: when they lay the foundation, they do not immediately erect a building on it, so that the unhardened and recently built foundation does not turn out to be unable to bear the weight of the walls. Therefore, they give the stones a lot of time to strengthen, and only then, when they see that the stones are well held together, they erect heavy walls on them. Christ did the same: He allowed the prophetic foundation to strengthen in the souls of the listeners and their teaching to become established, and when he saw that the building was unshakable and the sacred teaching was introduced so that it could withstand new wisdom, then he sent the Apostles to erect the walls of the Church on the foundation of the prophets. Therefore, the apostle did not say: built on the foundation of the prophet, but “buildings built on top” (Conversation on the epi. book of Acts Apostle 2: 2: 3: 65). Such is the majestic building of the Church of Christ, the foundation of which penetrates into the depths of the Old Testament, reaching the cornerstone - Christ, on Whom both the foundations and the walls are established.
But the Church is a purely spiritual institution. “The Church is not a wall and a roof, but faith and life” (Conversation when Eutropius was captured, 1: 3: 409). It is “not within walls, but in the multitude of believers” (Conversation before departure into exile, 2:3:445). Her power is not in a multitude of servants, and not in laws written in ink, and not in external affairs, but in righteousness (Interpretation of the book of the prophet Isaiah 45:13:6:267); her praise is if there is piety in her (Conversation on the book of Acts Apostle 20: 3: 9: 267). Depicting the internal, spiritual activity of the Church, Saint John Chrysostom calls it a physician and school of wisdom, an educator and school of the soul, where it experimentally learns to ascend to heaven. The Church is a spiritual bath, using many different methods of repentance to wash away not the uncleanness of the body, but the filthiness of the soul (Interpretation on the First Epistle, Cor. 15:5:10:613–614). “The Church is the restorer of the fallen” (O repentance 8:1:2:378). The Church is our common mother (Prot. Jude 1:8:1:661). “Do not move away from the Church,” the Saint exhorts, “because there is nothing stronger than the Church: your hope is the Church, your salvation is the Church, your refuge is the Church” (Conversation when Eutropius was captured, 6:3:415).
In its salvific significance for humanity drowning in sins, the Church is similar to Noah’s ark, but at the same time it is incomparably superior to it... - “As the ark saved those within it in the midst of the sea, so the Church saves all those who wander; but the ark only saved, and the Church does something more: for example, the ark accepted the dumb and saved them dumb; The Church has accepted foolish people and not only saves them, but also transforms them. The ark received the raven and released the raven; The Church receives a raven, but releases it as a dove, receives a wolf, and releases it as a sheep: when a predatory, selfish man comes here and listens to the broadcasts of the Divine teaching, he changes his way of thinking and from a wolf becomes a sheep” (About Lazarus. 6:7::860). “Therefore, the one who would call the Church better than the ark would not sin, because the ark received animals and kept them the same, and the Church accepts animals and changes them” (O repentance 8: 1: 2: 378-379; cf. Conversation about the holy martyr Phocas, 2: 2: 749).
Accordingly, with such a purely spiritual purpose, the Church must also use spiritual means in its care for souls. “The Church is a spiritual hospital and those who come here should receive appropriate healing,” and it offers spiritual healing (Conversation on the book of Genesis 1:1:4:23).
The Church is not made up of righteous people alone: not only modest, meek and kind people can enter into it, but also fierce and inhuman people, whose morals are similar to wolves and lions (Prot. Jud. and Gentiles 6:1:625), and this is clear proof that it is saved by great love for mankind, by the ineffable grace of God (Discourse on the Psalms, 4:5:43). The Church, with all generosity revealing its bowels, daily welcomes all the peoples of the universe with open arms (Interpretation of the prophet Isaiah 2:2:4:28). Therefore, the universal Church is a body made up of all private churches, which are obliged to be in peace with the universal Church if they want to be members of the whole body (Conversation on the first Epistle, Cor. 32: 1: 10: 315). The Church embraces all believers in Christ throughout all time. The body of the Church is made up of “the faithful in all places of the universe, who live, who have lived, and who have to live; those who pleased God before the coming of Christ also constitute one body,” “because they also knew Christ” (Discourse on Eph. 10:1:11:90).
The Holy Scripture calls the Church by many names: bride, daughter, virgin, servant, queen, barren, fruitful, mountain, lily, spring and others. “Just hearing this,” warns John Chrysostom, “do not imagine, I admonish you, anything sensual, but elevate your mind; remember that it cannot be sensual” (Conversation when Eutrop. was captured, 9: 3: 417). All names of the Church are intended to describe its various properties and relationships, in order to thus give a more or less clear idea of it: like the Lord, the Church has many names, so that we know at least a little about God, “so the Church is called by many names” (ibid., 6:3:415).
The very name “Church” is a union, an assembly (Conversation on Psalm 149, 1:5:553); this is the name not of division, but of unity and harmony (Conversation on the first Epistle to Cor. 1: 1: 10: 8). A visual and extremely deep and meaningful disclosure of what kind of connection John Chrysostom means here is given by his teaching about the Church as the body of Christ, which is based on the teaching of the apostle. Pavel. “The whole Church is one body” (Conversation on the prophet Isaiah 9:20:6:120). This body has as its head Christ, who is with it in the same closest, inextricable unity as the body with the head: “The Church is the body of Christ. Just as the body and head make up one person, so the Church and Christ are one” (Conversation on the first epistle to Cor. 30:1:10:297). “The Lord raised the Church to a great height and seated it on the same throne, because where the head is, there is the body; there is no break between the head and the body, and if (the connection between them) were interrupted, then there would be neither body nor head” (Conversation on the epistle to Eph. 3:2:11:26).
Saint John Chrysostom likens the closeness and kinship of the Church to Christ to the close union of a wife and her husband by its very origin: “As Eve came from the side of Adam, so we came from the side of Christ... The Church came from the side of Christ... When Christ was lifted up on the cross, nailed and died, then “one of the soldiers came and pierced His side, and out came blood and water” (John 19:34), and the whole Church was formed from this blood and water... Just as during Adam’s sleep the woman was created, so during the death of Christ the Church was formed from His side” (Praise to Maximus, 3:3:227–228). Christ is the actual head of the Church, not the boss. The relationship of mutual closeness and kinship is clearly expressed in the fact that the Church completes Christ, and for Him not only the Church in general, but all its members are not needed. “So that you, having heard the word “head,” do not take it in the sense of only power, but in its own sense, do not consider Him only a leader, but see in Him as if a bodily (actual head), (the apostle) adds: “the fulfillment of all things in all.”
He considers it as if (the title of the chapter) is insufficient to show the kinship and closeness (of the Church to Christ) and what can I say? The Church is the fulfillment of Christ, just as the head is complemented by the body and the body is complemented by the head... You see how (the apostle) represents that (for Christ, as the head) all members are needed, because if many of us were not - one with a hand, another with a leg, a third with some other member, then His body would not be complete. So, His body is made up of all (members). And that means only then will the head be fulfilled, then the perfect body will be built, when we will all be united together in the most durable way” (Conversation on the epistle to Eph. 3:2:11:26–27).
The name of the Church as the body of Christ not only serves as the basis for determining its relationship to the Head, but it also contains the necessary prerequisites for understanding the true apostolic structure of the Church and the mutual relationship of the members. An ordinary organic body is not an indifferent unity, but unity in plurality or unity in diversity, one and the same is one and many - a single body is many, and many of its members make up a single body, its unity does not destroy the differences of individual members, and their differences do not prevent their union into one whole. Not one of the members can form a body, since each is equally insufficient for this, but their union is necessary: when many become one, then one body is formed. But all the parts and members of the body must remain separate and freely perform their duties, each in its own area, under the fear of otherwise causing injury and suffering to the whole body.
“The members of our body each have their own private activity and a common one; Equally, their beauty is general and particular, and when they are apparently separated from each other, they are in fact closely connected, so that with damage to one, the other is also damaged.” “If the body is destroyed, then there will be no benefit from the integrity of each of them separately: whether the eye remains intact, or the nose remains intact, after the union is dissolved, there will be no benefit from this, and if the union is preserved, then, even if they are damaged, they hold on and soon recover” (Conversation on the first epil. to Cor. 30: 1: 10: 297; 3: 10: 301–302; 31:2:11:309). Only in union with the body does each member receive the spirit of life: “if it happened to the hand to be separated from the body, the spirit (flowing) from the brain, seeking continuation and not finding it there, does not break away from the body and does not transfer to the taken away hand, but if it does not find it there, then it is not communicated to it” (Conversation on the last to Eph. 11: 3: 11: 101).
Not all members of the body have the same importance - there are higher and lower among them - but they are still necessary, since all serve the life of the whole: “The body, although it consists of different members, important and unimportant, however, neither the best of them is armed against the insignificant member, nor is the first subject to the envy of the last; and although not all members have the same function, and each is subject to a certain requirement of necessity, however, for this very reason - that everything is done by them according to necessity or according to the requirements of various needs - they are all equally worthy of respect” (Conversation on the Epistle to Eph. 10: 1: 11:90).
With such a relationship of the members to the whole and to each other, the body should not be located just somehow, but very skillfully, so that if something in it is out of place, then it is already located wrong; Thus, the member must not only be connected to the body, but also take its place in it, otherwise, if the order is disturbed, the member will be out of connection with the body and will not receive the spirit. If any part of the body (for example, a bone) turns out to be unsuitable for holding it in the body, then it is cut out and its place is left empty. Likewise, the elements of the body, when they, having lost their proportionality, become abundant to the point of excess, harm the whole (Conversation on the last to Eph. 11: 3: 11: 101). Saint John Chrysostom very often, persistently and in a wide variety of expressions points to the structure of the physical organism, the relationship of its members, their dignity and necessity for the whole, in order to more clearly and powerfully impress in the minds of his listeners the true idea of the body of the Church of Christ, the mutual relationship of its members and the responsibilities of each of them.
And the body of the Church of Christ represents unity in diversity. “Just as our body is one, although it consists of many members, so in the Church we all make up something one; although it consists of many members, these many are one body” (Conversation on the first epilogue to Cor. 30: 1: 10: 207–298). This unity is based primarily on the fact that, having one Head, the body of the Church is imbued with the same Spirit, imparting to everyone the same grace-filled gifts to unite everyone into one body. “One Spirit made us one body and regenerated us, because one was not baptized with another spirit, but another with another. And not only is He who baptized us (the Spirit) one, but also that into which He baptized, that is, for which He baptized, is one, since we were not baptized in order to constitute different bodies, but so that we all exactly constitute one body in relation to each other, that is, we were baptized in order that we might all be one body” (Conversation on the first epistle to Cor. 30:1:10:298). Further, “we all come to the same sacrament, we partake of the same meal” (ibid., 2:10:298). Explaining the words of the ap.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17: “For bread, let us break it, is not this the fellowship of the body of Christ? for there is one bread, one body, we are many: for we all partake of one bread,” John Chrysostom says: “Why didn’t he say: communion? Because I wanted to express something more, to show great unity. By communing, we not only become participants and accomplices, but we unite with Christ. Just as the body (of Christ) is united with Christ, so through this bread we are united with Him... We constitute His very body. What is this bread? Body of Christ. What do those who receive communion do? The Body of Christ - not many bodies, but one body. Just as bread, being composed of many grains, becomes one, so that, although there are grains in it, they are not visible, and the difference is imperceptible because of their union, so we are united with each other and with Christ. We feed not one on one thing, another on another, but all on one and the same body” (Conversation on the first epilogue to Cor. 35: 2: 10: 236–237).
This dogmatic position about the unity of the body of the Church of Christ and its foundations is for John Chrysostom an inexhaustible source, from which he, with his characteristic directness, expressiveness and power of conviction, draws extremely important practical conclusions.
If all Christians constitute one body, then all of them are equal in relation to their rights to belong to this body; even the apostle himself is no more than other Christians: “and I, the apostle, have no advantage,” he says, “over you in this regard: you are a body just like me, and I am like you, and we all have the same head, and were born by the same birth and make up the same body... If one Spirit composed us and united us all into one body... and granted one meal and imparted the same irrigation to everyone... and so He united distant ones together, and many only form a body when they become one, then what difference do you insist on? “God called us all to the same thing, did not grant anyone anything more against the other: he granted immortality to all, eternal life to all, unfading glory to all, brotherhood to all, inheritance to all, for all he became the common head, he raised us all together and made us sit down... So, are we all, being equal in heaven, will we be exalted before each other by our earthly differences?..
What is most important is common to all” (Conversation on the last to Eph. 11:1:11:96). True, according to their talents, the members of the Church differ from each other: just as in an ordinary body, so in the Church there are many and different members, and some of them are more important, others are less important (Conversation on the First Epistle to Cor. 30:3:10:302); and in the Church there are many who have reached the same height as the head, who contemplate heavenly things like eyes in the head, who are very removed from the Earth and have nothing in common with it; others take the place of legs, trampling the ground - legs, however, healthy ones (Conversation on the last to Eph. 10: 1: 11:90). But this difference in talents does not give the higher the right to disdain the lower: in the body of the Church everyone is equally necessary. “Do not say that such and such a member is not important, but remember that he is a member of the same body, which contains everything” (Conversation on the first epistle to Cor. 31: 3: 10: 310). “What is more humiliating than those begging for alms? However, they also bring great benefit to the Church... so that without them the fullness of the Church would not be complete” (ibid., 31:4:10:302).
Consequently, all members of the Church are equally members of it, imbued and animated by one spirit, one life, despite the external diversity and inequality of talents. Therefore, in comparing the Church with the body, Saint John Chrysostom sees great power and significance, sufficient to relieve the disease of arrogance (Conversation on the Epistle to Rom. 21: 1: 9: 757).
The “example of the body,” as an expression of the idea of a living and vital union, is important in another respect: it shows that we, by will, must have the same agreement that the members of the body have by nature. “If there should be no discord in our body, then much more so in the body of Christ, and all the more so since grace is stronger than nature (Conversation on 1 Cor. 32:1:10:314-315). The head naturally connects all the members, accurately directs them to each other and binds them together (Prot. Jude 1:3:1:650). This connection cannot be established except through love (Discourse on Eph. 11:3:11:101). Love recreates, unites, brings us closer and mates us with each other, and if we want to receive the Spirit from the Head, then we must be in union with each other” (ibid., 4:11:102). “Just as a body that is not properly bound by the covering of nerves makes life impossible to live, so the Church, not bound by strong and indissoluble bonds of love, experiences many wars, increases the wrath of God and gives rise to many temptations” (2nd Sermon on Aquil. and Priv. 6:3:202).
Therefore, he who confesses that Christ is the head of the Church does not dare to say that he has nothing in common with other members of the Church. “If in fact you have nothing in common with other members, then you have nothing in common with your brother and Christ is not your head” (Prot. Jude 1:3:1:650). And in this union, where each member should have love for all other members of the body of the Church, and in the manifestation of love should not distinguish small parts from large ones. “If everyone must take care of the salvation of their neighbor, then do not tell me about the lower and the higher - there is no higher and lower here... If with damage to unimportant members, important ones are also damaged, then the latter should take care of the unimportant ones as much as about themselves, since the preservation of the important ones depends on their preservation” (Conversation on 1 Cor., 31: 3: 10: 309-310). Thus, the concept of the Church as the body of Christ requires from all those who belong to it such love that would bind everyone together, making them inseparable from each other, and such perfect unity, as if we were members of one body (compare Conversation on Eph. 11:1:11:96).
The Church must represent a spiritually related union of brotherhood, equalizing everyone with the power of brotherly love, despite the differences existing between them, which not only should not interfere with the unity and inseparability of the union, but should even more contribute to its consolidation and strengthening through the creative power of love.
There are various organs in the human body: heart, liver, spleen and others, but they all depend on the brain. “God acted in accordance with this, honoring man with special honor; not wanting to leave him, He Himself became the (ultimate) fault of everything, at the same time establishing employees for Himself, and entrusted one thing to some of them, and another to others.” At the head of these divinely established ministries is the apostolate: the apostle is a vessel of the body of the Church of Christ, receiving everything from God and, as if through the forces and arteries of the word, promoting the communication of eternal life to everyone (Conversation on Eph., 11: 4: 11: 101-102). The apostleship is not only the beginning of other powers in the Church, but also the foundation and root (Conversation on Acts 3:3:3:79). Among the spiritual authorities, Saint John Chrysostom, following the Apostle Paul, names the power of prophecy, evangelist, shepherd, teacher, the power of granting healings, interpretation of tongues. “All these are names of gifts, but in reality they are degrees of leadership and power” (ibid., p. 78).
Power in the Church is absolutely necessary: “Anarchy is evil everywhere, the cause of many disasters, the beginning of disorder and confusion; especially in the Church, it is all the more dangerous, the greater and higher its power” (Explanatory on Heb., 34: 1: 12: 275). But church power differs significantly from civil power. Just as the soul differs from the body, so does the spiritual authorities differ from the civil authorities. Earthly rulers have the power to bind, but only the body, but these (priests) bind the very soul and penetrate into Heaven. Without this power it is impossible to receive salvation and the promised blessings; through this power we put on Christ and are buried together with the Son of God and become members of this blessed Head (O Sacred 3:5–6:1:426). But if the only goal of all members of the Church should be creation, and whoever receives more in it receives it not for his own dignity, but for others (Commentary on 2 Cor. 15: 4: 10: 610-611), then this general principle should be applied to spiritual power to an even greater extent. In the Church there is no external power or domination, but only service.
“The one appointed to this (spiritual) leadership is not for human glory, not for his own peace of mind, but for labor and sweat and for the benefit of many; therefore he receives great help from above from the Spirit.” The civil authorities limit themselves only to ordering what needs to be done, while the spiritual authorities themselves assist with prayers and grace (ibid., 5:10:612-613). Civil power extends to those who do not want it, while church power must pay attention to the will and freedom of judgment: “there everything is done out of fear and necessity, but here according to free will and reasoning.” “The spiritual authorities are not just authorities, but also paternal, one might say, authority, because they also have paternal meekness and act more with convictions.” “Christ established the Church in such a way that it showed its power not in a multitude of ministers and not in laws written in ink and not in external affairs, but in what way? В правде, так как нет ничего подобного правде.
Therefore, those who submit to His authority, He restrains not by force, but by their desire” (Comment on Isa., 45:13:6:267). John Chrysostom himself addresses his listeners with the following words: “We do not command, beloved, your faith, we do not despotically order it to you. We have been appointed to teach you by word, and not to rule and rule over you; our job is to advise and exhort you” (Conversation on Eph. 11:5:11:104).
Alien to the spirit of dominion, church authority must direct all its actions to one goal - to the glory of God, to the building of the Church and with great attentiveness and thoroughness to monitor the ship of the Church, which is constantly threatened by storms, not only invading from the outside, but also arising within (On the Priesthood 6:4:1:472). But this is possible only for figures of high moral purity, corresponding to the properties of the service entrusted to them. If all members of the Church must remember what kind of head we are as a body, honor the closeness of kinship, and fear lest they appear unworthy of the Head (Discourse on Eph. 3:3:11:27–28), then what moral requirements should be presented to those who are vested with authority in the Church? “The Church of Christ... is the body of Christ, and the one to whom it is entrusted must maintain it in great prosperity and excellent beauty, and everywhere see that any filth or blemish, or anything from such stains, does not damage its goodness and blessing (Eph 5:27). Shouldn't He present this body as worthy of its incorruptible and blessed Head, to the best of human ability?
If those who care about the well-being of warriors have a need for doctors, and leaders, and a strict lifestyle, and constant exercise and many other precautions (for even some little thing left unattended by them destroys and overthrows everything), then those who have taken upon themselves the care of this body, which is fighting not with bodies, but with invisible forces, how can they keep it unharmed and healthy? unless they have virtue much more than human, and know every medicine that is beneficial for the soul” (On the priesthood, 4: 2: 3: 1: 453)? Saint John Chrysostom energetically rebels against unworthy bishops who saw only power in the episcopate, and on this then topical issue he goes into great detail (see, for example, Commentary on Titus 1:3:4:11:842–846; On the Priesthood 3:15:1:437–439; Conversation on Acts 3:4–5: 9:37–41), and in In his famous work, “Six Words on the Priesthood,” he outlines the ideal of the pastor, depicting the importance, duties and temptations of the pastoral ministry and the mental and moral qualities necessary to fulfill it.
In connection with the teaching about the Church as the body of Christ, which must be bound by love into the strongest living union, the harsh sentence of John Chrysostom on those who create divisions in the Church is understandable. “There are two kinds of separation from the Church,” he says, “one when we grow cold in love, and the other when we dare to do something unworthy in relation to this body (the Church). In both cases we are separated from the whole. If we are also entrusted with creating others, and we do not create, but we ourselves are the first to create divisions, then why will we not have to suffer for this?.. Nothing offends God more than divisions in the Church. Even if we have performed a thousand good deeds, we will be condemned no less than those who tormented His body if we dissolve the integrity of the Church... What I have said applies not only to those in authority, but also to subordinates. One holy man said... that even the blood of martyrdom cannot atone for such a sin... Being ready to lay down your soul for Christ, how do you decide to ruin the Church for which Christ laid down his soul...
The harm (from divisions) is no less than that caused by enemies, but much more. There the Church gains even greater splendor, while here she degrades herself in the eyes of her enemies when her own children fight against her. And this is because they (the enemies) consider it a strong proof of deception when those who were born in the Church, raised in it, have learned its secrets well, suddenly, having changed, rebel against it as enemies” (Conversation on Eph. 11:4:11:102-103). “To cause divisions in the Church is no less evil than to fall into heresies” (ibid., 5:11:104). If something that separates from the Church contains dogmas that are contrary to us, then for that very reason it should not have communion with them; but if they think the same as us, then even more should avoid them. Why? Because this is the spirit of covetousness. Nothing can cause so much division in the Church as covetousness (ibid., 5:11:103).
Not only the schism in the Antiochian Church, the temptation it produced, ridicule and reproaches about its pagans, but also a fundamental view of the essence of the church union prompted John Chrysostom to rebel against the indifferent attitude towards those who create divisions and call for firmness; he energetically points out the phenomenon “worthy of ridicule and serving to our shame”: “If among us someone is convicted of the most shameful deeds and they want to impose some kind of penance on him, then everyone is very worried and afraid, lest,” they say, “he separates himself from us and sticks to others. Let him separate himself at least a thousand times and let him pester them; I’m not talking only about those who have sinned, but even if someone was completely sinless, if he wants to put aside, let him put off. Although I grieve and suffer, I am grieved and tormented internally, losing in this way, as it were, my own member, I am not so upset that the fear of all this could force me to do something wrong” (ibid., 5:11:104).
And this is because it is not number that makes up strength, but faith, and one true believer is stronger than the fire directed against the Church (Conversation before departure into exile, 2: 3: 445). But, despite this decisive tone, he no less energetically emphasizes the other side of the struggle against heretics and the erring, it should be aimed not at “throwing down those who stand, but to restore those who lie”: “it does not make the living dead, but prepares the living from the dead, abounding in meekness and great humility.” The further words of the Saint are extremely instructive and touching: “I persecute not by deed, but by word, not a heretic, but a heresy; I do not turn away a person, but I hate error and want to attract the erring one to myself; I am not waging war with a creature, because the creature is the work of God, but I want to correct the mind, which is corrupted by the devil. Just as a doctor, when treating a sick person, does not fight against the body, but destroys the damage to the body, so if I fight with heretics, I do not fight with the people themselves, but I want to destroy error and cleanse rottenness” (Conversation on the Holy Martyr Phocas, 2:2:747).
Saint John did not close his eyes to the surrounding reality. “The affairs of the Church,” he says, “are in a very bad state, although we think that she is at peace.” Even more than that: “The hard thing is,” he exclaims, “that, being among many evils, we do not even know that we are in evil” (Conversation on Acts, 29: 3: 9: 267).
Turning his gaze with love to the original - apostolic - Church, he compares it with his contemporary one and comes to a very sad conclusion: “The Church was then heaven; the spirit arranged everything among the people, guided and inspired each of the representatives; and now we have only signs of the talents of that time. Nowadays the Church is like a woman who has lost her former wealth, retaining in many places only signs of initial prosperity and showing chests and chests of gold (treasures), but not having the wealth itself; The Church has now become like such a woman. I say this not with talent in mind—it wouldn’t be too regrettable if only that were the case—but life is not a virtue either” (Conversation on 1 Cor. 36:4–5:10:372–373).
But this sad state of the Church did not lead the Saint into despondency and doubt. He firmly believes that “having let the Church rush through the universe like a ship on the sea, He (Christ) did not destroy the commotion, but delivered it in the midst of the commotion, did not calm the sea, but secured the ship” (Conversation on Acts 2:1:3:63). The historical fact, obvious to everyone, that incessant persecution not only did not drown the Church, but itself crushed the Church, provides clear proof of the immutability of the promise of the Divine Founder of the Church: “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against It” (Me 16:18). “The Church never ceases to be attacked and overcome, tricked and overcome. The more others attack it, the more it multiplies, the waves dissipate, and the stone stands motionless” (Conversation about the women of Hanan., 1: 3: 462; see also Commentary on the prophet Isaiah, 2: 2: 6: 26). “After this, believe,” says John Chrysostom, “that in the future no one will defeat her.
If then, when it consisted of a few, when it seemed like an innovation, when the teaching was just taught, when there were so many obstacles and so many attacks from all sides, the enemies could not and did not overcome it, then all the more so when it spread throughout the entire universe and in every place” (Prot. Judas and Gentiles 15: 1: 639-640). Hence the conviction that “it is easier for the Sun to go out than for the Church to be destroyed” (Conversation on the words of the prophet Isaiah, 4:2:14:407). “The Church will not only be firm, unyielding and immovable, but will also spread abundant peace throughout the world; after many kingdoms and powers fall, a single kingdom will rise above all, in which, unlike in the past, abundant peace will reign” (Prot. Jude and Gentiles 7:1:627).
This is, in essential terms, the teaching of St. John Chrysostom on the Church, scattered piecemeal and fragmentarily throughout his numerous works. It represents the actual revelation of the apostolic teaching and depicts the ideal of the apostolic Church. But what is important in it is this understanding of the spirit of the apostolic teaching, its development in images that captivate the listener and its fruitful application to the contemporary needs of Christian society; it is important that he gave proper meaning to the concept of the Church as a guiding principle in pastoral activity. He is not talking about the external organization of the Church, but about the spirit that permeates it. “Church” for him is not an abstract concept, not a separate point of Christian teaching, but a life fact that requires reverent and complete devotion and constant not only conformity with it in life, but also complete embodiment in it. He deeply and with all his soul believes that this ideal can be realized and devotes everything he has, all his strength and especially a heart full of love and a powerful gift of eloquence, to serving it.
The glory of the Church always delighted him; the glory of the Church and its creation guided him and inspired him in the difficult field of pastoral activity in both eastern capitals; and the deepest in its content concept of the Church and its tasks served as an inexhaustible source both for the lofty ideal of the pastor he outlined, and for the constant heartfelt preaching about mutual love and mercy for the unimportant and humiliated members of the church body, for whom his heart always ached, and for solving the long-painful question of the relationship between wealth and poverty. With faith in this ideal, he goes into exile and, amid the suffering of exile, shows apostolic zeal for expanding its borders: the news of the salvation of the souls of the pagans is able to make him forget with pleasure even that he lives in the desert (To Presbyt. Gerontius, 3:672); and from Kukuz we hear the convinced word of the deposed Saint: “all these unrest and intrigues directed against the Church are like waves that, hitting a rock, break themselves, turning into foam” (To the presbyt. and monk.
sermon in Phenicia, 3:723).
Saint John Chrysostom, in a conversation about the holy martyr Phocas, says: “Just as he who looks at the Sun does not make this luminary brighter, but illuminates his own eyes, so in the same way he who venerates a martyr does not make him more glorious, but he himself acquires an enlightening blessing from him” (1: 2: 747). These deeply instructive words of the Saint are quite applicable to himself on a solemn day dedicated to the reverent veneration and glorification of his name: for St. John Chrysostom “there will be no glory from the presence of many,” but for us “the blessing will be profit” from the zeal that gathered here and “made the day of the holiday brilliant.” Where exactly should we look for the “enlightening blessing” of the great Hierarch of the Church of Christ? In what is most essential for the true children of the Church and what now most painfully worries their minds and hearts.
From the presentation of the teachings of St. John Chrysostom on the Church, the thought involuntarily turns to the present state of church affairs. Everyone knows it. The ship of the Church is troubled by storms; these storms not only invade from without, but also originate from within. The intensified activity of the external enemies of the Orthodox Church, the falling away of one’s own children, the sad signs of division and the temptation from them, the impoverishment of faith and piety - all this makes one anxiously look for support and ways to salvation, and in many it even causes uncertainty whether the ship of the Church is really heading towards its goal - whether it is rushing across the sea without a helmsman, abandoned to the mercy of the elements... How far is it from here to doubts about the steadfastness of the Church? If there is no collapse of faith, then in any case there is confusion...
And in this difficult time of testing for the devoted sons of the Church, the days of the current anniversary celebrations providentially rivet our spiritual gaze to the image of the great shepherd, who with his life and creations teaches what the true service of the Church consists of and with what reverence and undivided devotion it should be performed - teaches that the banner of all members of the Church and church leaders should primarily be inscribed: the glory of God and the building of the Church! He leads us to a truly apostolic life understanding of the Church and its high saving mission and calls us to unswervingly move towards the implementation of the ideal of church life bequeathed to him, and against all doubts to be confirmed in faith in the eternal, according to the divine promise, the steadfastness of the Church amid all trials and tribulations and not only with our lips, but also with deep heartfelt conviction to repeat after him: “There are many waves and a strong storm, but we are not afraid of drowning, because we stand on a stone. Let the sea rage, it cannot destroy the stone.
Let the waves rise, he cannot sink the ship of Jesus” (Conversation before sending into exile, 1: 3: 444).
Professor Alexander Ivanovich Sagarda. Ancient Syriac ecclesiastical literature
General Note Concerning the Character of Ancient Syriac Ecclesiastical Literature 549
Syriac literature, as we know it today, appeared and developed under the influence of Christianity 550.
About this literature, which is generally very rich, it is customary to repeat the words of Renan that the distinctive feature of the Syrians is mediocrity. They did not shine either in military affairs, or in science, or in art. The Syrian Church never produced people who rose to the level of Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. There was neither al-Farabiy, nor ibn-Sina, nor ibn-Rushd in the monasteries of Edessa, Ken-Neshre or Nizibia. But church-historical knowledge should be highly grateful to the tireless diligence of the figures of Syrian literature, who have preserved for us in excellent translations many valuable works of the fathers of the Greek Church, which otherwise would have been lost completely. And even the humble Syrian chroniclers, like John of Ephesus, Dionysius of Tel-Mahr and Bar-Ebrai, deserve a certain degree of praise, since they preserved much data from the history of the Eastern Church and a number of interesting information regarding the political events of those periods with which their chronicles deal 551 .
Ancient Syriac translations of the Old and New Testaments 552. Translation of the Old Testament known as the Peshita
The most ancient monument of Syrian literature is undoubtedly the translation of the Old Testament, known as the Peshita - a translation that, in terms of its origin, dates back to the early times of Christianity in Mesopotamia. Abbot Martin, in his “Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” cites passages from the “Six Days” of Moses bar-Kefa, who died - according to some sources in 903, according to others - in 913, which κατὰ λέξω reads as follows: “You need to know that in our Syriac language there are two versions of the Old Testament: one - which is called The Peshitaya, which we are reading, is a translation from Hebrew into Syriac; the other is the translation of the Seventy, that is, the translation from the Greek. The Peshitah is a translation from the Hebrew made in the time of Abgar, as related by Jacob of Edessa. Mar-Jacob says that the Apostle Addai and the faithful Abgar called men from Jerusalem and Palestine who translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into Syriac.
The Syriac version of the Seventy was made from the Greek by Paul, Bishop of Telus.” Although this legend is based on the legend regarding Abgar, nevertheless it is undoubtedly not without some historical features. From the message of Moses bar-Kefa it is clear that this translation, written in the Middle Aramaic (Edessa) dialect, was made for the Christians of Mesopotamia. It can be argued that the Christian community in Edessa already existed around 150 AD. The first mention of Christian communities in Osroin is in Eusebius (Hist, eccl., 5:23) regarding the Easter disputes that worried the Church at the end of the 2nd century. A witness to the antiquity of the Peshita is Melito, Bishop of Sardis about 170, who, in the scholium on Genesis 12:13, said of the ram sacrificed in Jacob's place: Σύρος καὶ ὁ Ἑβρᾶιος κρεμάμεκός φαδικ.
In those codices of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament that our time has, the Syriac and Hebrew texts do not give options and present the same reading as the LXX translation offers: “held by horns” and not “hanging on horns,” as Melito of Sardis notes. Eichhorn, de Wette, Field, Renan and others believe that with the words ὁ Ἑβρᾶιος and ὁ Σύρος, Melito does not designate the Hebrew text and the Peshita, but some Greek translations, of which the first was made by a Hellenistic Jew, and the second by a Syrian. But this question necessarily touches on another problem. Origen's hexaples and ancient patristic works are given under the headings ὁ Ἑβρᾶιος, ὁ Σύρος, τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν Greek variants, which are either consistent with the Hebrew text or the Peshita, or Samaritan editors, then move away from them. There is a whole sea of hypotheses on this issue.
Field, in his preface to Origen's hexaples, suggests that ὁ Ἑβρᾶιος refers to the Greek version of the famous books of the Bible, made by a Jew; ὁ Σύρος – to another Greek version made by the Syrian; finally, τὸ Σαμαρειτικόν denotes the Greek version of the Samaritan Pentateuch. But, Loisy notes, it is doubtful that all these translations exist. Why give the name "Hebrew" or "Syriac" to such translations, which were in exactly the same conditions as other Greek translations? Do the versions of the Hebrew Bible owe their origin to some targum: Syriac - Peshita, Samaritan - Samaritan books? These options could not be given otherwise than in Greek, but Origen could have used them without having a complete translation of the places from which they were taken. Known quotations from the Syriac do not agree with the traditional text of the Peshita. But in order to assert that the Syriac versions of Origen stand independently of the Peshita, one must be sure that the Peshita was not revised after Origen.
Indeed, at the beginning of the 4th century a new edition was made in order to bring the Syriac text closer to the LXX translation. This explanation is quite sufficient to understand why the Syriac text of the Peshita does not contain the options that Melito reports. Another argument in favor of the antiquity of the Peshita of the Old Testament is provided by biblical quotations in the Peshita of the New Testament. A huge number of these quotations, as Bergh's research shows, are consistent with the text of the Peshita of the Old Testament and deviate from the Greek and Hebrew texts. In view of the enormous number of these cases, it is difficult to explain this fact by later revision. A more acceptable assumption is that the Peshita of the Old Testament preceded the Peshita of the New Testament. Merx, in his study: “Bardesan of Eden,” notes that Bardesan, the author of the late 2nd century, already knew the Peshita of the Old Testament, and this remark of his seems not without foundation. Let us note some legends that are found among Syrian writers regarding the origin of the Peshita.
Jezudad, bishop of Haditha, reports that the Old Testament was translated into Syriac under Solomon at the request of King Hiram, all of it was translated, with the exception of Parallipomenon and the prophets, the translation of which was made only under King Abgar of Edessa. Bar-Ebray is of the opinion that the author of the Peshita was the priest Aza, who was sent to Samard by the king of Assyria for this purpose. Theodore of Mopsuetsky states that it is completely unknown who was the author of the Peshita.
The name “Petita” (mapakta Petita, i.e. simple, unartificial translation) is not one of the ancient ones. It is found only in the 9th or 10th century, but not earlier. Several explanations are offered for this name. We will focus on one of them as the most likely. The word "Peshita" is formed by analogy with the Greek τὰ ἁπλᾶ, which denoted manuscripts containing only the text of the LXX, as opposed to τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ the name of the great Bible - the critical work of Origen, which, in addition to the Hebrew text, also gave various Greek versions.
By analogy, the ancient Syriac version was called the Peshita to distinguish it from the LXX Syriac version, which was based on the LXX text in Origen's hexaplaques. These two versions, indeed, are opposed to each other by the ancient Syrian authors, just as it is observed in Moses Bar-Kefa, from whom we have already quoted. All modern critics agree—this seems to be the only point on which there is complete unanimity among matters connected with the Peshita—that many persons worked on the Peshita of the Old Testament. The Syrian exegetes also seemed to be aware of this. Saint Ephraim and James of Edessa in their commentaries on the Peshitah speak of translators, i.e. They put the plural whenever they talk about the authors of the Peshita. But as soon as the question of the nationality and religion of the translators is raised, unanimity disappears. Hirze, Kirsch, Gesenius consider them Christians from the Greeks; others, such as Perles and Prager, are from the Jews; Dathe, Nöeldeke and Renan for the Judeo-Christians. This last opinion is most likely if we accept the expression: Judeo-Christians in its best sense, i.e.
in the sense that it denotes a Jew converted to Christianity, and not an Ebionite. The Judeo-Christians, as the authors of the Peshita of the Old Testament, are supported by the fact that the translation of the Peshita was undoubtedly made from the Hebrew, and not from the LXX. Like the Jewish canon, the Peshita did not originally have the non-canonical books that are contained in the LXX. The influence of the Targums on the Syriac translation is attested by Perles for the Pentateuch, Cornill᾽em for the book of the prophet Ezekiel, Fraenkel᾽em for Chronicles.
If the hypothesis of Christian Greeks as translators is to be eliminated, then the various passages which are undoubtedly of a Christian character seem to be sufficient grounds for the assumption, leading to the certainty, that the authors of the Peshita were converted Jews. In the book of the prophet Isaiah 7:14 ~ The Syriac translation reads: “Behold, the virgin will conceive.” The term Virgo conveys a Hebrew word that a Jew would translate as “young woman.” This change is all the more striking because in other cases the Syriac text retains the same word (in translation, of course) that the Hebrew text offers. To confirm this idea, other places of Holy Scripture are cited - verses from the prophets and psalms. Like the LXX translation, the Peshita is not a work of one time. The books of which it consists were translated in different eras, starting with those in which the need was especially acute, i.e. from the Pentateuch, prophets and psalms. The books: Chronicles, 1 Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther were not originally part of the canon of the Syrian Church.
In ancient manuscripts, these books are distinguished from other canonical books. In the 4th century, the composition of the Bible books was replenished. Since the Peshita was based on the Hebrew text and the tradition of the Targums, the influence of the LXX text, to a greater or lesser extent, was felt only later. This influence is sensitive in the Pentateuch and in the book of Joshua, more sensitive in the psalms and books of the prophets. Books that were less influenced by the LXX text were Job, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, which were translated later. The book of Solomon's Proverbs should also be included in this category.
How can we explain the influence of the LXX text on the Peshitah? Well-known critics have suggested two things, without leaning one way or the other: either the authors of the Peshita, having converted to Christianity with a knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, used the translation of the Targums and the Seventy for their work, or they suggest a revision of the Peshita, made subsequently on the basis of the text of the LXX. This last hypothesis is the only possible one. The Aramaic Jews of Mesopotamia did not know Greek, but even if they knew it, they would not have used it when working on the Peshita, because the Jewish scholars of Palestine and Babylon considered it a bad translation. The revision of the Peshita in the sense of bringing it closer to the text of the LXX was made later by Origen and those church writers who quote from the Syriac translation - quotes that we would look in vain for in the current text of the Peshita.
This revision must have been made at the beginning of the 4th century, for Aphraates and Ephraim the Syrian had before their eyes a Syriac translation very close to that offered by the manuscripts known to us. At this time, the review (editorial? - Ed.) of Lucian of Antioch was distributed in Syria. The Syriac translation of non-canonical books dates back to the same time, quotations from which by Aphraates and Ephraim the Syrian give reason to assume their existence in the Syriac language at the beginning of the 4th century. These books are translated directly from the Greek, with the exception of the book of the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, which is translated directly from the Hebrew. The Syriac translation of the Book of Wisdom contains many important errors, which can be explained either by the special intention of the translator, or by the poor state of the code used by this translator. The poor condition of the manuscript led to a lot of errors in the translation: the translation is not always of a literary nature, sometimes it turns into a simple paraphrase.
That it was indeed made from the Hebrew original, and is not a secondary translation, is now - especially after the discovery of a new text - the general opinion of scientists.
Evidence in favor of this opinion is provided by those discrepancies between the Syriac and Greek translations, which are inexplicable without the underlying assumption of the Syriac translation of the Hebrew original. Thus, the different translation of some words is explained by the fact that the Greek and Syriac translators understood the same Hebrew word differently, and neither the Syriac understanding could be obtained from the Greek, nor vice versa. Moreover, sometimes the difference in translations comes from different readings of the same similar Hebrew consonants. In addition, in the Syriac translation there are whole verses and hemistiches that are not in the Greek, and sometimes in the Hebrew. But in the Syriac translation, it is not so much these later additions that attract attention, but, on the contrary, significant omissions in comparison with the Hebrew and Greek text, and equally significant deviations from both. These omissions sometimes arouse an involuntary suspicion of the translator’s deliberate evasion from conveying certain passages.
Thus, 17:24~is skipped, perhaps because the idea that in hell no one glorifies the Lord is recognized as incorrect; 20:28~–because it is recommended to please the nobles; 33:27~contains harsh advice to punish slaves, etc.
But besides these omissions, there are many others that, apparently, cannot be explained by any similar motives. These omissions, not to mention accidental reasons, such as oversight, etc., can be explained, it seems, by one assumption, namely, that the Hebrew original of the Syriac translation was very defective: it either did not contain these verses at all, or the text in them was so damaged that the translator had to abandon the idea of translating them satisfactorily. As for the book of Tobit, the Syriac translation of it, which we currently have, consists of two different parts: the first to the 11th verse of the 7th chapter rests on Origen's hexaplaques; the source of the second (7:12–14:15) is unknown. Towards the end of the 5th century, when the eastern Syrians, having become Nestorians, separated from the western ones, the text of the Peshita of the Old Testament was finally established.
Ancient Syriac translations of the New Testament 553
The Gospels in Syriac existed in three different translations: 1) Diatessaron Tatiana or Evangelion da-mehallte - “Gospel of the mixed”; 2) Evangelion de-mefarr᾽she, “separate Gospels” and 3) Peshitah of the New Testament.
There is a lot of debate regarding the time of appearance of these three translations and their mutual relationship, and until recently they have not yet achieved any definite result. We will limit ourselves to summarizing here the hypotheses recently expressed by Burkitt in his book entitled Evangelion da Mepharesche (Cambridg, 1904). Evangelion da-mefarrshe is preserved in two codices, each of which was believed to contain a different translation: the first codex was published by Cureton, the second was discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the palimpsest of the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Burkitt - one of the publishers of the latest version - thinks that both codes give different reviews (editions? - Ed.) of the same translation. He published this translation with a preface in English in the first volume of his work: Evangelion da-Mepharesche, taking as a basis Cureton's text and adding as notes variants from the Sinaiticus palimpsest.
The second volume of Evangelion da-Mepharesche presents Burkitt᾽a's researches on the ancient translations of the New Testament and the results he achieved, which he formulates as follows:
1) The Peshitah of the New Testament appeared as a result of the revision of the Evangelion da-meffarr᾽she, undertaken by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, friend and contemporary of Cyril of Alexandria, who was engaged in translating the New Testament from Greek into Syriac, in view of its deviations, with all accuracy";
2) Diatessaron, the most ancient translation of the Gospel into Syriac. The Diatessaron of Tatian, a disciple of Justin the Martyr, originally appeared in Greek in Rome and was translated into Syriac during the life of Tatian around 170 AD;
3) Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she appeared around 200. It was the first Syriac translation of the Gospel separately. The translator was well acquainted with Tatian's Diatessaron and mastered its phraseology;
4) The text of the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she reproduces the text that was in use in Antioch towards the end of the 2nd century, a text of enormous historical value, very modestly represented in the existing Greek manuscripts.
The original Diatessaron is lost forever. The commentary that St. wrote on it. Ephraim the Syrian, survives only in an Armenian translation, reproduced in Latin by Moesinger in 1876. Using the works of Moesinger᾽a and quotations from Aphraates and Ephraim the Syrian, Zahn made an attempt in 1881 to recreate the Diatessaron. An Arabic translation of the Diatessaron, belonging to Abul-Faraj Ibn al-Taib, has been published and translated into Chiasca Latin. The passages of the Diatessaron, quoted in the commentaries of St. Ephraim, collected and published by Hell and Robinson. Harris and Goussen published extracts they made from the commentaries of Yezudad and other authors. The Diatessaron enjoyed wide distribution in the Syrian Church until Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (t 435), who issued an order that “priests and deacons should see that in each church there was a list of individual Gospels and that the latter was read,” and Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus destroyed more than two hundred copies of it in the churches of his diocese and introduced the Four Gospels in its place.
The result of these and similar measures, taken with a good purpose, was that not a single list of the Diatessaron has survived to this day.
The text of the Peshita of the New Testament, like the text of the Peshita of the Old Testament, was finally established towards the end of the 5th century, at the time of the division between the western and eastern Syrians.
Ancient Syriac Apocrypha, relating to the Old and New Testaments 554
Among the ancient Syriac apocrypha, some are translations from Greek and Hebrew, while others are the fruit of the original creativity of Syrian Christians.
Apocrypha relating to the Old Testament
Wright published four apocryphal psalms based on the Cambridge and Vatican manuscripts. The first is Hezekiah’s prayer, with which he turned to God when he was surrounded by enemies on all sides. The second is the song of the Israelites when, under Cyrus, they received the right to return to their home. The third and fourth psalms of David: the third - during the fight with the lion and wolf that attacked his flock; the fourth - after his victory over the lion and the wolf.
In 1871, Ceriani, based on the Codex Ambrosianus, published the Syriac text of the Apocalypse of Baruch. This is an ancient, quite extensive and scientifically very valuable apocrypha. The content of the Apocalypse of Baruch is the story of the events that accompanied the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, and, mainly, a prophetic vision of the coming times of the Messiah and the last days of the world. According to the prevailing opinion among scientists, the Apocalypse of Baruch, as shown by the unity of its content, eschatological aspirations, form of presentation, etc., should be considered the work of one author, and not a collection of writings from different times. Judging by the views, this apocrypha is a purely Jewish work, written in Palestine, probably in Hebrew, although the Syriac translation that has survived to us was made from Greek. Most researchers place the time of writing the Apocrypha of Baruch in the immediate years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
There is not the slightest hint in the book of the author’s acquaintance with Christianity; Therefore, Prof. Baldensperger’s opinion that the author of the “Apocalypse of Baruch” set out to denounce his compatriots for their passion for Christian teaching, and portraying these renegades as the nine tribes of Israel, should be considered only a bold hypothesis, justified by the content of the apocrypha.
Fourth Book of Maccabees
The same Ceriani, and on the basis of the same code, published the Syriac translation of the 4th book of Maccabees or the book “On the Dominion of Reason.” In terms of its content, this book is a purely philosophical treatise of the Stoic direction; its main idea is that a godly life can be easily achieved if only one follows the instructions of a godly mind, which is an unlimited ruler over the passions. To prove this idea, the author cites the historical story of the martyrdom of Eleazar and the pious mother with seven sons (under Antiochus IV Epiphanes), using as a source the Second Book of Maccabees or, perhaps, the work of Jason of Cyrene. The apocrypha in question, intended for Jewish readers, was undoubtedly of Jewish origin. There is no reason to consider Josephus as its actual author. The compilation of the IV book of Maccabees is attributed to the 1st century, either before or after AD.
"Book of Jubilees" or "Little Genesis"
Only part of this apocrypha has been preserved in Syriac. Its full text is given in the Ethiopian translation. This contains a story conveyed to Moses on behalf of an Angel about biblical events, starting from the creation of the world. Moreover, the biblical narrative is supplemented by later legendary fictions. The author of the “Book of Jubilees” tries to establish the exact chronology of all biblical events, but he counts time not by years from the creation of the World, but by anniversaries and weeks. For example, he defines the time of Adam’s death as follows: “at the end of the 19th anniversary, in the seventh week in the sixth year, Adam died.” The “Book of Jubilees” received its name from the calculation of time by anniversaries, and it is called “Little Genesis”, probably because it has acquired a lower meaning compared to the canonical book of Genesis, although it exceeds the latter in volume. The Book of Jubilees must be considered a purely Jewish work of a strictly Orthodox and even partly Pharisaic direction. Its original language was Hebrew. The apocrypha dates back to the 1st century AD.
Renan and Wrigtt published a number of fragments from the apocryphal "Testament of Adam", representing a translation from the Greek. The surviving fragments of the “Testament of Adam” contain some of Adam’s instructions to Seth and his revelation about the mysterious service of the Angels and all of nature to God at every hour of the day and night, and the appearance of Christ on Earth, the destruction of the world through the flood, about the nine ranks of Angels and their service, etc. The Testament itself indicates that it was written down from the words of Adam by Seth: “I, Seth, wrote this Testament.”
The full title of this book is: “The Cave of Treasures Compiled by Saint Ephraim.” The assimilation of this apocrypha of St. Ephraim, of course, was done in order to exalt the apocrypha. It appeared no earlier than the 6th century and was written in Mesopotamia. Berold, the publisher of this apocrypha, notes that in the monument itself the Syriac language is called the queen of all languages, it is said that it is the original language spoken by all peoples before the Babylonian pandemonium. The Syrians did not take any part in the crucifixion of the Lord. The content of this apocrypha is as follows. Expelled from Paradise, Adam retires to a nearby mountain and then descends into a cave, where he leaves behind the gold, incense and myrrh, which he took from his previous location. Adam and subsequent patriarchs consecrated this cave with their sacrifices to God, and it served as their burial place until the flood. During this last one, Noah transferred Adam's treasures to the ark: gold, frankincense and myrrh. After the flood and death of Noah, Shem and Melchizedek, led by an Angel, hid these treasures in the center of the Earth, where the four parts of the Universe connect, at Golgotha.
At this Golgotha, Adam was baptized through blood and water, which flowed from the wound made by the warrior on the body of Christ.
Close in content to the “Cave of Treasures,” “The Book of the Bee,” a collection of extracts partly theological, partly historical, compiled by Shelemon or Solomon from Khilat or Ahlat on the shores of Lake Van, Metropolitan of Perat de Mayshan or Basra. Shelemon dedicated this collection to his friend Narsai, bishop of Khoni-Shabor, or Bet-Wazik, called by the Arabs Bawasig or Bawasij, on the little Zab. This work was recently published by Bege, curator of the British Museum. Approaching the “Cave of Treasures” in its content, “The Book of the Bee” is at the same time much richer than it. The Cave of Treasures dwells on the suffering of Christ; Shelemon traces the story much further. He adds a list of Nestorian patriarchs, Ptolemaic kings, Roman Emperors, a story about Gog and Magog, another story about the coming of the Antichrist, and finally, several chapters of theological content that have nothing to do with history.
"Moses' Conversation with God on Mount Sinai"
The Syriac text was discovered and published by Hall.
"The Story of Joseph and Asenath"
Translated from Greek into Syriac by Moses of Aggel, one of those who, after Rabbula, undertook the translation into Syriac of the works of Cyril of Alexandria. The translation of Moses agrees with the Greek text published by Batifoll᾽em, but it is not complete; The Greek text helps to restore the gaps in the Syriac.
The story of Joseph and Asenath is one of the oldest original novels, telling about the marriage of Joseph to Asenath, daughter of Popiphar, and is filled with various legendary fictions. This apocrypha was obviously widely known in the Middle Ages. In Persian literature there is a legendary story about Yusuf and Zaliha, which undoubtedly borrowed its content from the apocrypha about Joseph and Asenath. In the form that has survived to us, the apocrypha bears clear traces of Christian origin, but it is undoubtedly based on a purely Jewish work. Its Christian interpretation dates back to the 5th century by some scholars.
In the Gnostic work Πίστις Σοφία, which has survived to this day in the Coptic language, five odes of Solomon are given. These odes do not contain anything specifically Jewish and were considered by the general opinion of researchers, like the entire book of Πίστις Σοφία, to be a work of Christian heresy, written in the second half of the 3rd century in Greek. Disagreement arose only from the time of the discovery of these odes in the Syriac translation. Currently, A. Harnack thinks that in the Odes of Solomon we have a book of Jewish psalms from the beginning of our era, and the Greek adaptation appeared only a little later. Prof. also shares this opinion. Spitta, while others (Harris, Haussleiter) consider the odes to be Christian in origin and, precisely, Gnostic (according to Gunkel).
The Lives of the Prophets exist in many Syriac and Greek editions. It is believed that the Syriac text is the original, and the Greek is a translation from the Syriac.
Under the name of the Prophet Daniel and Ezra, there are a number of apocrypha in Syrian literature. One Apocalypse is entitled: “Young Daniel Contemplating Our Lord and the End of the World.” Another is inscribed as follows: “The question that Ezra the scribe proposed when he was in the wilderness with his disciple.” The author of the last apocrypha, who lived during the era of the conquest of Syria by the Arabs, used the third book of Ezra and borrowed his images from the book of the prophet Daniel and the Apocalypse of John. Iselin, in the study he devotes to this apocrypha, comes to the conclusion that the Apocalypse of Ezra was composed by a Christian on the basis of one or many Jewish apocalypses. But this conclusion, inspired by the latest theories regarding the origin of the Apocalypse of John, is rejected by Chabot and, apparently, for sufficient reasons. Chabot believes that the Apocalypse of Ezra is an amalgam of biblical stories, poorly combined, a compilation made by a Christian from Syria solely on the basis of the Bible and without the help of any documents that are now lost.
Under the name of Ezra, the apocrypha about the birth of our Lord also appears in Syriac literature.
The “History of the resettlement of Israel to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar during the time of Jeremiah” has been preserved in Arabic. This story, according to Zottenberg᾽a of Jewish origin, passed to the Arabs through the Syrians.
“The History of Sennacherib, his vizier Ahikor or Hikar and the disciple of the last Nadan” was written by a Jew earlier than our era, but some features of this apocrypha are also found in the monuments of ancient Christian Syrian literature. The original is lost, but many translations have survived - Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian, Armenian and others.
Apocrypha relating to the New Testament
The apocryphal literature of the New Testament is represented quite richly in Syriac literature. In addition to the “Testament of Our Lord,” the following are also known: “The Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ given to the Apostles,” then a number of Gospels, and, above all, “The Gospel of the 12 Apostles.” The latter received its name due to the fact that it begins with a narrative about the calling of the Apostles, to whom Christ then addresses with a speech, pointing out to them their calling and purpose. At the same time, the speech turns directly to Matthew. This Gospel shows clear traces of a compilative work: it is compiled mainly on the basis of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, from which the author drew material in his entirety. The monument is of Ebionite character. Here, for example, it is emphasized that John the Baptist already avoided meat food. Christ, in response to the disciples’ offer to prepare Easter for Him, in clear contradiction with Luke’s narrative, replies: “I do not want to eat meat with you this Easter.”
The purpose of the message of Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel, is mainly to cancel the sacrifices and proclaim the wrath of God for their continuation, expressed in the destruction of the church. About a man named Jesus, God testifies that He gained the Father’s favor and only after that, through the descent of the Holy Spirit on Him, He became the Son.
The Gospel of the 12 Apostles was written in Greek, but only fragments of the Syriac translation survive.
"The Gospel of Thomas the Israelite, or the Childhood of Our Lord." This Gospel probably arose in a Gnostic environment with a docetic outlook. This explains the abundance of stories in it about miracles from the childhood of Jesus Christ. The Syriac version of this Gospel differs from the Greek. The Arabic translation is similar in nature to the Syriac.
Bej published in Syriac: 1) “The History of the Ever-Virgin Mary and the Life of Our Lord on Earth,” an apocrypha that is a fairly complete résumé of the “Gospel of St. James", "Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew", "Gospel of Thomas the Israelite" and "Gospel of the Nativity of the Virgin"; 2) “The history of the image of Christ, which was made by the Jews of Tiberias for the sake of ridicule.”
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles
The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles represent a very significant, but still poorly developed, department of Christian literature. Only numerous new discoveries in the field of ancient manuscripts have made it possible to form a more accurate picture of these monuments. In their content, they are not so much a reflection of historically reliable events, but rather a fantastic, often tendentious reworking of ancient legends. Their origin is due to the same reasons that contributed to the emergence of the apocryphal Gospels; only in this case the desire of heretics to justify their false teachings with apostolic authority is even more noticeable. The acts of the apostles are of very significant importance not only for understanding the history of dogmas and heresies, but also in the sense that they contain rich material for the history of the forms of the liturgical cult of the ancient Church. Syriac manuscripts provide rich material for the study of this branch of ancient Christian literature.
Wright, who examined part of these manuscripts, issued the following acts on the basis of them (1871):
1) “The History of St. John in Ephesus,” which was originally composed in Greek and then translated into Syriac (the Syriac text successfully reproduces the Greek, which is now lost; 2) “The Death of St. John" 3) "Περίοσοι Philip"; 4) “Acts of St. Matthew and Andrew"; 5) “The History of St. Thekla, disciple of the Apostle Peter"; 6) “Acts of St. Thomas."
As Wright himself notes, “The Acts of St. Thomas" form the main part of his collection. At the time when this collection was published, they did not yet know the Greek edition of these acts, which was preserved completely intact and was published in 1883 by Bonnet (Acta... Leipzig). The Bonnet edition coincides with the Syrian edition. But the Gnostic character, which characterizes the apocryphal acts of the Apostles to a greater extent than other works of this kind, is less noticeable in the Syriac text.
From the Syriac apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, in addition to those published by Wright, the following are also known: “The History of St. Peter", "History of St. Paul", "Conversation of St. Peter's with Emperor Nero", "The Finding of the Head of St. Paul", "Martyrdom of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Luke", "Speech of Simon Cephas in the city of Rome", "Speech of St. Peter", "Martyrdom of St. James", "The Teachings of Addai" and "The Acts of Mary". The last two monuments of ancient Syriac apocryphal literature are of enormous importance for the history of Christianity in Syria.
Monuments of ancient Syriac church literature, speaking about the initial period of the Church of Edessa 555
Political situation of Edessa. The beginning of Christianity. The Legend of King Abgar. "The Teachings of Addai." Acts of martyrdom. War with the Persians. Serapion of Antioch. List of bishops. Conclusion.
The Syriac Church, whose history we intend to study in these lectures, itself believed in its apostolic origin, and the great Church within the Greco-Roman Empire recognized its rights to this.
She was in close communication with all the main centers of Christianity. The saints of the Syrian Church were recognized as saints of the Universal Church if their fame reached the West. Despite this, there is a real difference between the Church of Edessa and the Churches of Antioch and Rome. They were separated by one of the greatest obstacles to communication between people - differences in language. In the era that we will mainly consider, this obstacle is a complete barrier to communication, a dividing line. It could not quite separate the Syriac-speaking Christians from their Greek or Latin brethren across the border, but it did ensure that the development of the Church of which they were members was influenced entirely differently from that of the Church of the Greco-Roman Empire.
This is the meaning of ancient Syriac Christianity for us. The closest we can achieve is an experience of the history of the Church as it might have been if its environment had been different.
The ancient history of the Syrian Church is to a certain extent based on assumptions and inferences. Historical sources are scarce, and most of the stories that have come down to us about its ancient period are compilations in which at least two contradictory historical legends are intertwined. But in order to become familiar with Syriac Christianity of the fourth and fifth centuries, we must have some idea of the early development of the Church at Edessa, the first center of Christianity in the Syriac-speaking country.
Edessa was the capital of a small kingdom east of the Euphrates. The city was restored by the Greeks and from them received the name of Edessa, but the Aramaic-speaking inhabitants of the city continued to call it Urkha, a word of unknown meaning - from this word the Greeks formed Osroin or Orroin for the name of the district, from which the modern name of the city of Urfa comes. It lies on one of the main trade routes in the East, namely, the one that runs between the great Syrian desert in the South and the mountains of Armenia in the North. Residents of the city and district speak an Aramaic dialect, akin to, but not identical to, the one spoken by our Lord and His Apostles in Palestine. The city, there is reason to think, was the center of literary culture long before the advent of Christianity in it, and the oldest works that have come down to us are distinguished by their lightness and fluidity of style, which apparently reflect traces of Greek influence.
Arab blood flowed in the veins of the Osroine kings, as did most of the rulers of small states on the eastern borders of the Roman Empire. The closest evidence of the latter is Arethas of Damascus, mentioned by the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 11:32), whose name is spelled Haritha by his countrymen. Likewise, among the kings of Edessa we find names that are almost certainly of Arabic origin, for example Maz᾽ur and Wa᾽el; the same can probably be said about the names Abgar and Ma᾽nu. These were the favorite names of the Edessa princes: of all thirty princes, eleven bore the name Abgar and nine Ma᾽nu. The meaning of these names is not entirely clear.
The external history of Edessa represents the usual fate of a border state. The kingdom belonging to the house of the Seleucids was divided between the Romans and the Parsians, and Osroina lay on the border. Until the end of the 2nd century AD, Edessa was not part of the Roman Empire and, as a result, was under the supreme authority of the Parsians. During the wars under Trajan, it suffered greatly: the Roman commander Lusius Quiet took it by storm and ruined it 556.
This was in August 116. For some time the state maintained its independence, but its end was inevitable. “The weak rulers of Osroina,” we quote the words of Gibbon, 557, “located on the dangerous border of two hostile states, by their location took the side of the Parsians, but the stronger power of Rome forced them, against their wishes, to obey, as evidenced by their coins. After the end of the Parsian War, under Marcus Aurelius, it was considered best to ensure by some significant measures the dubious loyalty of the Edessians; Fortresses were built in various parts of the country, and a Roman garrison was stationed in the strong city of Nisibia. During the unrest that followed the death of Commodus, the Osroine princes tried to overthrow the Roman yoke, but the firm policy of the North strengthened their dependence, and the treachery of Caracalla ended the easy conquest of Osroine. Abgar (i.e. Abgar IX), the last king of Edessa, was sent in chains to Rome, his possessions were turned into a Roman province, and the capital was awarded the degree of colony 558.
So, 10 years before the fall of the Parsian monarchy, the Romans firmly and firmly established themselves beyond the Euphrates.”
The Romans took possession of Edessa in 216 A.D., just 100 years after the city was destroyed and burned by Lusius Quietus. During these hundred years Christianity was planted in Edessa, and if I have dwelled a little on the facts of secular history, it is only because I think that for the study of the ancient history of Syrian Christianity it is essential to have a clear idea of the general course of events during this period. I want to give an opportunity to appreciate the true historical significance of the stories about the founding of the Church in Edessa and at the same time help to understand some of the features that distinguish Christianity in the Euphrates Valley from the Christianity of the cities of the Mediterranean.
The founding of the Christian community in Edessa is an event of real importance in the history of the Church. Edessa served as the only center of ancient Christian life where the language of Christians was non-Greek. Christianity, having originated in Palestine, was fed to the Greek civilization of the Roman Empire, since the original Semitic Christianity of Palestine came to its end with the great catastrophe of the Jewish War. Christianity continued to live among the Greek-speaking populations of the great cities of the East, along the Aegean Sea and in cosmopolitan Rome. The Antiochian Church in Syria, one of the oldest communities, was, as far as we know, completely Greek. Provincial areas where the population spoke a Semitic language seemed to be left without the preaching of the Gospel. A new teaching was established among the Jews, but the village population remained pagan.
When Christianity took root in Edessa, a city where Syriac was spoken, a city with a native dynasty and culture, it entered into a completely different atmosphere. Instead of Greek, Syriac was used here, and the Church took on a national character. Edessa soon laid claim to the special protection of our Lord. It was believed that the city was converted by Addai, one of the 72 disciples, the latter allegedly being sent there from Palestine in response to letters from King Abgar to our Lord. Even more than that: they believed that our Lord Himself answered Abgar with a promise that Edessa would be blessed and no enemy would ever take possession of it.
The story of Addai and King Abgar, accepted by Eusebius as part of his Ecclesiastical History (1:13) and contained in the book called “The Teachings of Addai,” is a truly valuable source for the historian. [It is closely connected with various legends about the discovery of the true Cross and the true image of Christ]. Without a doubt, it was compiled in Edessa itself, reaching its present form towards the end of the 4th century or slightly earlier than the reforms of Rabbula 559. The author's chronology is erroneous, and his knowledge of history, secular and ecclesiastical, is weak, but he knows the area he describes. The memory of the rule of native princes was still fresh when he wrote, and the names of his characters are genuine relics of ancient pagan nomenclature. Moreover, it is comparatively so close to the events that its narrative contains undistorted fragments of an older and more historical account of the beginning of Christianity in Edessa. These passages do not fit well with the main story, but for this very reason we can be quite sure that they are not fabricated by the author.
Let me outline this ancient tale before you. Abgar Ukkama, i.e. Abgar the Black, who died in 50 A.D. after a long reign [30–50], he sent an embassy to Sabinus, the viceroy of Emperor Tiberius, to Eleutheropolis in Palestine. We can, by the way, note that Eleutheropolis was named so for the first time by Septimius Severus in the year 200 AD. and that its significance as a control center dates back precisely from this time. The noble Marihab and Shamshagram, of whom Abgar's embassy consisted of an interpreter named Hannan, passed near Jerusalem on their way back and heard from travelers about the glory of Jesus the Messiah. They decided to go to Jerusalem themselves and “when they entered Jerusalem, they saw the Messiah and rejoiced along with the multitude who were with Him; They also saw the Jews standing in groups and discussing what to do with Him, because they were troubled to see many of their people believing in Him. And they remained in Jerusalem ten days, and Hannan the interpreter wrote down everything that he saw that the Messiah did.”560
So they returned to King Abgar, and when Abgar heard about this from them, he wanted to go to Palestine himself, but was afraid to go through Roman possessions. He therefore sent a letter to Jesus through Hannan the interpreter. Hannan found Jesus in the house of Gamaliel, the leader of the Jews. The letter beginning with the words: “Abgar the Black to Jesus the Good Physician” 561 shows that Abgar came to the conclusion that Jesus is either God, who descended to Earth from Heaven, or the Son of God. Abgar asks Christ to come to Edessa, live there and heal him from the illness from which he, Abgar, suffers.
When Jesus received this letter, he answered Hannan the interpreter: “Go and tell the lord who sent you to Me: “Blessed are you that, without seeing Me, you believed in Me, for it is written about Me that those who see Me will not believe in Me, but those who do not see Me will believe in Me. And regarding what you wrote to Me, asking Me to come to you, then know that what I was sent here for is now coming to an end, and I will ascend to the Father who sent Me. Having ascended to Him, I will send one of My disciples to you, he will calm and heal any illness of yours and will turn all those who are with you to eternal life, and your city will be blessed and no enemy will ever take possession of it."
This is the famous letter of Christ to Abgar. It has an interesting subsequent history. This narrative seems to have been translated into Greek a very long time ago, and the whole letter, with the express exception of the last words, was included by Eusebius in his great Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius knew the actual course of events too well to accept the promise of the invincibility of Edessa in his book. Such a learned historian could not forget the devastation of Edessa by Lusius Quietus under Trajan and the annexation of the province of Osroina to the empire a hundred years later. In the 5th century, by decree of Pope Gelasius, all correspondence was rightly declared to be forged. But this legend was and still is liked, enjoying enormous popularity. The Bodleian Library is in possession of several fragments of Greek papyrus from the 4th or 5th century which contain this story. And several years [three years] ago, a lintel was found in Ephesus with letters from Abgar to Christ and Christ to Abgar, written on it in Greek letters, almost contemporary with Eusebius himself 562.
Christ's letter was looked upon as a talisman, and pious people copied it and wore it as a means of protection “from lightning and hail, from danger on sea and land, day and night and in dark places” 563.
Let us return to the Teachings of Addai. Having received the message to King Abgar, Hannan, the interpreter, painted the image of our Lord “with the best colors” and brought it to Edessa, where Abgar placed it in a place of honor 564. [In a later period, this image became the subject of amazing legends: they believed that it was miraculously made without the participation of human hands, and this legend closely merges with the well-known legend about Veronica]. The teaching of Addai further tells how, after the ascension, the Apostle Judas Thomas sent Addai, one of the 72, to King Abgar. We may not touch upon much of Addai's sermon, but some details are worthy of attention. When Addai came to Edessa, he settled in the house of Tobius, the son of Tobius, a Palestinian Jew, who introduced Addai to Abgar 565. Of course, Abgar was immediately healed and converted to Christianity along with many of his subjects, among whom was the Jewish merchant community 566.
The Palestinian Jews, who crucified our Lord on the cross, were naturally subjected to severe condemnation, but it is remarkable that the Jews of Edessa are depicted as sympathizers with the new teaching.
The religion of Edessa, according to the Teachings of Addai, was the worship of heavenly bodies 567. References to Bel (Vila - ed.) and Nebo come, I assume, from the Old Testament [Isa 46:1], and not from historical memories; but we can say that the population of Mabbog-Hierapolis worshiped Tar᾽afa, and the population of Harran worshiped an idol called Baf Nikal. Dr. Harris has recently collected some definitive evidence to the effect that pagan Edessa was dedicated to the celestial Twins, and that in their honor this star appears on the Edessa coin. Addai's teaching does not speak, at least not directly, about Gemini, but generally mentions the worship of the Moon, Sun and Venus and the influence exerted by the signs of the Zodiac in general. It is also remarkable that the Teaching does not mention the two large columns on the citadel, which to this day are so striking in Urfa.
We intend to consider the passages of Addai's Teachings that spoke about the ancient Syriac canon of the Old and New Testaments and the way of life that those converted to Christ led in subsequent lectures. But for the main question now being examined about the general course of the history of the Edessa Church, the most important part is the conclusion of the Teaching. We find in it a remarkable message that Addai died in peace and honor during the life of the believing king Abgar, and that Addai’s successor was his disciple Haggai 568. Some of the very later accounts ascribe the crown of martyrdom to Addai, but the peaceful death which is here attributed to him is one indication that there is indeed a historical element in our chief document. But Haggai was martyred. Ma᾽nu, one of the sons of Abgar, was an unbeliever, and when Haggai refused to make him a pagan diadem such as in earlier days he had made for Abgar, his father, Ma᾽nu sent to crush Haggai’s legs while the latter was in the church. Haggai died and was buried in the church between the places for women and men.
He died unexpectedly and did not have time to consecrate his successor Palutus, so the latter had to go to Antioch for consecration, and there he was ordained by Serapion, Bishop of Antioch.
There is an obvious anachronism here, an anachronism so striking that there can be no talk of a simple mistake here. Serapion of Antioch is known to us from the Church History [Hist, eccl., 6:12] of Eusebius, as an Orthodox writer and a strict champion of the four canonical Gospels, as was his contemporary St. Irenaeus. Serapion was elected Bishop of Antioch in the year 190 and ruled the diocese around the year 21. If, after all, Serapion ordained Palut, then neither Palut could have been converted to Christianity by one of the 72 disciples, nor King Abgar, during whose reign he lived, could not have been a contemporary of our Lord.
So, in the Teachings of Addai we are faced with two theories of the appearance of Christianity in Edessa. According to one theory underlying the work, Christianity appeared in Edessa in the first century AD; according to another, stated at the conclusion of the narrative, the third representative of the Christian community in Edessa was not ordained bishop until 200 A.D., and Christianity itself could not reach this area much earlier than half of the Second Century.
The narrative of Addai's Teachings is actually continued in two documents called the Acts of Sharbel and the Martyrdom of Bar-Samya 569. Bar-Samya is mentioned in the Teachings of Addai 570, and we know that he became bishop of Edessa after Abshelama, the successor of Palut 571. Bar-Samya, a Christian bishop, converted Sharbel, the chief priest of Bel and Nebo. Sharbel and Bar-Samya were captured, and the first, after severe torture, was killed. Bar-Samya prepared to suffer the same fate when the edict of toleration came from the Emperor (sic), and Bar-Samya was released in peace. In the Martyrdom of Bar-Samya we again find the story that Palut was dedicated by Serapion and, according to this, we learn that Bar-Samya lived in the days of Pope Fabian I, who was martyred in 250 A.D. in the persecution of Decius 572. But elsewhere in these same documents the Emperor is called Trajan, and the persecuting judge, who was probably the supreme ruler of Edessa, is called Lizania or Lucianus, although the pagan king Abgarus is also mentioned 573. The opinion that this happened under Trajan, the persecuting Emperor, prevailed in later times.
The chronicler Michael the Syrian, a Jacobite patriarch in Antioch in the 12th century, dates the martyrdom of Sharbel and Bar-Samya to his reign 574.
But Michael himself introduces an inaccuracy, adding that at the same time Euphemia of Chalcedon suffered martyrdom - an event that took place in the year 307 during the persecution of Diocletian. [This striking anachronism must be taken into account when we come to Michael's account of Vardesan].
The details of the story about Sharbel and Bar-Samya turn out to be ahistorical upon more accurate research. Charbel, a converted pagan priest, not only reviles the pagan gods, like the Christian apologists, but also quotes the psalms and prophets, as if he had long been familiar with the Holy Scriptures. The torment to which he was subjected was unbearably severe, but nevertheless, it did not at all prevent him from addressing the judge with rather verbose speeches. The conclusion says that the persecution ended because an earthquake occurred in Rome, when the exiled Christians took with them the relics of the apostles Peter and Paul. The Romans, seeing the earthquake, begged the Christians to stay. The earthquake stopped, and everyone: both Jews and pagans, believed in Christ 575. It is clear that a document containing such a distortion of facts cannot be trusted.
Let us skip a few years, and we finally enter the light of real history. In the ancient Syrian calendar, published by Wright 576, according to the manuscript of the year 411, we find under November 15 the memory of Shamuna and Guria, and under September 2 - the memory of Aviv (Habbib) the deacon. This ancient calendar or martyrology knows nothing about Charbel and Bar-Samya, as well as about Haggai, a circumstance indicating that the veneration of these first Edessa martyrs does not belong to strong historical traditions. The situation is different with Shamuna, Khabbib and Gury. The memory of them never disappeared in the Syrian Church. Shamuna and Gury were beheaded at the beginning of Diocletian's persecution in 297, and Habbib was burned alive at Licinia in 309, several years before the Edict of Toleration 577. At this time Kona was the bishop of Edessa. He died in 313, after the end of the persecution of Christians. The only work attributed to him by the chroniclers is the founding of the great Church, completed by his successor Sa᾽ad᾽, who died in 324. How Kona escaped death during the persecution is unknown.
Maybe he was hiding, or maybe the judges were afraid to imprison such important people among Christians, fearing an uprising. In any case, it is significant that the compiler of the martyrology, himself a contemporary of Cohn, neither praises nor blames him.
From the time of Kona, the names of bishops were carefully recorded in a document called the Chronicle of Edessa 578. Between Kona and Rabbula, the See of Edessa was occupied by nine bishops. Of these, Aitala, Sa᾽ad's successor, took part in the great Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. 579 One of the subsequent bishops was Barses, expelled by the Arians. The activities of Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa from 412 to 435, will be considered in the following readings. His bishopric is a deep milestone in the history of the Syrian Church. In his time, the old heretical teachings disappeared and new parties of Monophysites and Nestorians were formed. In ritual and church discipline, his stewardship signifies the end of the old and the beginning of the new.
Here it is necessary to at least briefly note one significant event from the general history of the 4th century. The invasion of the Huns into Mesopotamia from the north in 395 was a national disaster, mention of which is found even in some Christian hymns. But it had no influence on the general development of the Church and was reflected with equal force on all classes of society. The Great Persian War belongs to events of a completely different category. She had an undoubted influence on theology and history of the Syrian Church. It continued intermittently from 337 to 363, and after the defeat and death of Julian, it ended tragically for the Romans. The Empire gave Nizibia with all the provinces on the other side of Osroina. To this day, in the teachings of Saint Ephraim one can hear echoes of the horror with which the Christian population of the East received the shameful news. “Grief forces me to speak,” he writes, “the order commands me to remain silent.”
I must say that Saint Ephraim always took the opportunity to exhort his listeners in Edessa, threatening them with the fate of Nisibia, which, in his opinion, perished as a result of the carelessness, luxury and indecent dancing of its inhabitants.
[But we would receive a far from imperfect idea of the history of the Church if we recreated it using only sermons]. For the Christian subjects of the Sassanid monarchy, the Persian War, with its sad outcome for the Romans, was more than an opportunity that could be exploited well from the pulpit. For many of them, it was literally a matter of life and death. The Persian War of the 4th century was the first major political event in which the Church itself took part. The Sassanid Empire was strictly national, Persian, Zoroastrian - hostile to Christianity. From the time the Roman Empire became Christian, being a Christian in the eyes of the “king of kings” and his government was little different from being a traitor to the Persian state. [Remaining a Persian Christian under Sapor was as difficult as being a Catholic under Elizabeth or a member of the Church of England under Cromwell].
It is not my intention to describe the rise and fall of Christianity in the Sassanid Empire. I will limit myself only to mentioning the fact of the great war and its significance for the Theology of the Syrian Church, and then again return to the sketch of an earlier period in the development of the latter. The names of bishops are only the bones of church history, and by reconstructing the chain of succession of bishops, we are, at best, constructing a skeleton. But it is necessary to restore this skeleton if we want to imagine dry bones as a body with nerves and soul. At least, let's say, leaving the metaphor, there is no truer way to discovering breaks in the course of the history of the Church than a break in the succession of its main servants. And I must now once again draw your attention to the large gap in the succession of the bishops of Edessa.
What is the real meaning, we ask, of the story that Palut was dedicated not by Haggai, but by Serapion of Antioch? Documents reporting this, i.e. The Teachings of Addai and the Martyrdom of Bar-Samya continue and tell us that Serapion himself was ordained by Zephyrinus of Rome, dedicated by his predecessor, etc. to St. Peter. Of course, the general trend of the Churches is clear. They want to prove that Palut had authority from the great Church of the Roman Empire 580. Palut – son of Peter; This is not said about Adda and Haggai, his predecessors at the See of Edessa.
But the form of the narrative we are considering is ridiculously unhistorical. Serapion was Bishop of Antioch from 189 or 192 to 209; Zephyrinus occupied the Roman throne from 202 to 218 and, of course, could not ordain Serapion. There must, therefore, be a special reason for the mention of Zephyrinus, the comparatively inconspicuous deputy of the see of the Apostle Peter. I venture to suggest that this special reason is to be found in the fact that Zephyrinus was bishop at the time of the famous visit to Rome by Abgarus IX. All indications point to the fact that King Abgar, who converted to Christianity or at least was friendly to the new religion, was Abgar IX. This is the only ruler of Edessa who had the opportunity to send an embassy to Eleutheropolis in Palestine, as is related in the teachings of Addai. About Abgar IX it is known that Vardesan was his friend; therefore, he was influenced by Christianity. He was one of the last of the Abgars and reigned long enough for legends to form around his personality.
We do not need to strain our imagination to invent a meeting between the Pope and the Asian king. If Abgar himself was only half a Christian, then his retinue undoubtedly included members of the Edessa Church, who, having returned to their homeland, brought to the East the name of the powerful epapxa in the capital of the world. That there really was a Church in Edessa at that time, we learn about this from the description of the great flood in 201 AD, located in the Edessa Chronicle, when the flood of the Daisan River destroyed, along with other buildings, the Christian church.
It is possible, of course, that the intercourse between Abgarus and Septimius Severus drew the attention of the clergy of Rome and Antioch to the Christian community in Edessa, but it is more likely that the impetus came from the other side, and that Palutus owed his election to a movement among the Syrian Christians towards closer communion with the Western Church. We do not know, and our sources are not such as to tell us, to what extent Palut with his Antiochian initiation represented the main current among the Edessa community. It is difficult to suppress the suspicion that at first there were few Catholics, as the adherents of Palutus may be called. We learn from James of Edessa [7th century] that St. Ephraim [Sirin, † 373, June] in one of his controversial conversations, now lost or poorly published, complained that the Orthodox called themselves palupans. “The Church,” he said, “should not be called by a human name, but only by Christ.”
St. Ephraim's argument that only schismatic sects are named after their founders is historically accurate, but the straightforward conclusion drawn from the name "Palutians" is that the Catholic Church at Edessa was originally a schismatic sect founded by Palutus.
The same can be concluded from the list of bishops who occupied the chair of Catholicos or High Hierarch of the East, head of the Church in the Persian dominions. This list can be found in the Book of Bees 581, compiled by Solomon of Basra, and in one or two similar collections of a historical nature. It begins with Addai, then comes his disciple Mari, Ambrose and Abraham, the next in order are noted in the list as bishops of the “Antiochian consecration”. Here again the foundation of the Church is attributed to Addai, but the chain coming from Addai is soon broken, and the succession of bishops passes to Antioch.
It remains to consider one more important fact, and then we can sum up our historical research. Chronicle 582 of Michael the Syrian, Patriarch of the Monophysites, who died in the year 1,199, is a compilation from various sources. The value of such a work, when it contains a description of events that took place 1000 years before the time of its composition, depends, of course, on the merits of the author's sources, and not only on his critical sense. For the main part of his work on the first three centuries of Christianity he depends on Eusebius, but for the history of Edessa he has different material. Much of the latter is already familiar to us. He takes information about Addai and Haggai from the Teachings of Addai, and about Bar-Samya and Sharbel from the Syrian acts of martyrdom 583. It is quite curious that Michael the Syrian completely omits Habbib, Shamuna and Guria - the Edessa folk heroes. But instead he gives us the most complete biography of Vardesan that has survived, which, at least in some of its parts, must flow from a source much more ancient than Michael himself.
He tells us that Bardesan was born in the year 154 584 in Edessa, where his parents found shelter (hiding, probably, from the Parthians), and that he was educated in Hierapolis - Mabbog under the guidance of a pagan priest. Twenty-five-year-old boys, i.e. in the year 179, Bardesan went on business to Edessa and, passing near the church built by Addai, he heard the voice of Histaspes explaining the Holy Scriptures to the people. This Histasp was the successor of Izani. Vardesan liked his speech and wished to be initiated into the Christian sacraments. The bishop, hearing this, instructed him in Christian teaching, baptized him and made him a deacon. What follows is a series of remarks concerning the astronomical and astrological heresy of Bardesan, and at the end we learn that Akai, the successor of Histaspes, who failed to turn Bardesan from his errors, finally anathematized him, and that Bardesan died in the year 222 A.D., 68 years of age. “Cursed be his memory. Amen". Our chronicler concludes his story.
It should be noted here that the narrative of Michael the Syrian about Bardesan gives us three new names of the bishops of Edessa who followed Addai. Other sources do not tell us about Izani, Histasp and Akai, and we must now discuss whether these names can be accepted as historical, and if so, where to place them in our list. However, perhaps it would be better to first consider where our chronicler Michael himself got these names from.
The last question must be answered with information as to whether the list of Edessa bishops given by Michael has independent value, or whether it is only a compilation from various sources used by the chronicler. Mikhail gives us very definite information, and if we accept it, it can significantly enrich our knowledge. He places Addai, Haggai, and Palutus in the time of the Apostles, followed by Abshelama, Bar-Samya in the days of Trajan, then Taridat, Bozni, Shalula, “another slave,” Gury, “another slave,” and then Izani, Histaspes and Akai 585 . I don’t know who Mikhail means by “another slave”. The whole list is very confused, and not a single name is given between Acai, a former bishop until A.D. 222, and Cona, who lived under Diocletian in A.D. 297. Such gaps and inaccuracies make it unlikely that our chronicler Michael himself compiled a list of Edessa bishops, but they confirm that this list is a serious historical document.
It is remarkable that the names of the bishops are not preceded by years, as is done in the list of bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem, and I venture to suggest that the three names mentioned in connection with Bardesan might have been placed before Palutus.
The ordination of Palut by Serapion of Antioch - this central event in the history of the Bishopric of Edessa - is left without attention by Michael. If we take it into account, we will see that the three bishops, contemporaries of Bardesan, were placed too late. Michael's account mentions Addai, but the name Paluta does not appear. Therefore, I think the best thing to do is to completely reject the order of Michael.
It may seem that there is some reason to suppose that Palut, initiated at Antioch, at Edessa, was, from the point of view of the great majority of local Christians, a renegade. Later legends make him the direct successor of Haggai, and the more ancient one makes him a disciple of Haggai, but ordained bishop by Serapion; in fact, he may have been a rival to the direct successor of Addai and Haggai. Bishop Histasp, who converted Bardesan to Christianity, was, one might think, several years older than Palut, but Akai, who anathematized the great astrologer, apparently was either a contemporary of Palut or, at most, a little older than him. Meanwhile, none of our sources speaks of rivalry between the bishops of Edessa before the era of the Arian disputes, and I am more inclined to think that the story given in the Teachings of Addai is essentially correct, namely, that the series of bishops of Edessa was interrupted, mainly due to persecution by the pagans.
The ancient history of the Church of Edessa can only be reconstructed from sources that, for the most part, have been poorly researched. Much of our material dates back to a later time, and much is mixed with non-historical legend and fable. Attempting to reconstruct history without first checking the sources before you would be pointless, since simply quoting conflicting reports would lead to confusion. Therefore, I have given you the main dates of the documents and attached to them a number of critical remarks, with the help of which one could get an idea of the value of these dates. Now I must, by briefly repeating the results obtained by research, determine what, in my opinion, was the main outline of the history as evidenced by our fragmentary sources.
Christianity in Edessa initially appeared among the Jews 586. At first Addai, a Palestinian Jew, preached there - probably earlier than half of the 2nd century - and there was a large Jewish element in the first Christian community in Edessa. At the same time, the new religion was willingly accepted by some of the educated and noble Edessa pagans, but nevertheless, it did not become the state religion until the end of the 2nd century. Addai died in peace at Edessa, and his successor Haggai was martyred. Nevertheless, after his death the Christian community continued to grow under the leadership of Histaspes. I suspect that the "Izani" of the Syriac Chronicle is a misspelling of "Haggai." Be that as it may, in any case, during the time of Histaspes, Vardesan was turned to the Church - a fact showing the ever-increasing attractive power of Christianity for the pagan world.
Bardesan came from a noble family and was an outstanding writer, and the Church of Edessa can only be blamed for the fact that under Acai, the successor of Histaspes, it did not have enough authority and attractive power to keep this main representative of Syrian philosophy in its midst.
Around 200 A.D. the old order in Edessa, both in the Church and in the state, came to its end: the state fell under the rule of the Romans, and the Church became dependent on the Bishop of Antioch. Palut, the new bishop, was installed. Serapion of Antioch and, although at first his followers were called Palutians, as if they were a new sect, nevertheless he or his successors soon became the undisputed representatives of the Catholic Church in Edessa, so that Palutus was subsequently looked upon as a disciple of Haggai himself. The followers of Vardesan remained outside the Church and existed until the end of the 5th century. It is unknown when the Marcionites appeared in Edessa; but they were there even in the time of Rabbula, despite the enmity towards them of both the members of the Catholic Church and the school of Bardesan. The works of this deeply interesting society, to our regret, are completely lost in both Syrian and Greek Christian literature.
After the successor of Palut Abshelama comes Bar-Samya, another martyr who suffered, we assume, either under Decius or under Valerian (250-260 AD). Almost thirty years after this, Cona became Bishop of Edessa, who lived to the end of the persecution by the pagans, without disgracing himself by idolatry, but also without acquiring the glory of public confession for the faith. But during his bishopric, Edessa produced at least three martyrs who suffered under Diocletian and Licinius. The memory of their suffering and martyrdom was still fresh when the Church triumphed and could openly honor its heroes. The stories of Addai and the martyrdom of Bar-Samya are undoubtedly not taken from folk traditions; in other words, they were artificially compiled and written, like any scientific historical work. The author of the martyrdoms of Shamuna, Guria and Habbib (Guria, Samona and Aviva - Ed.) speaks, at least in part, from personal knowledge and memories. The blazing fire, the rough sea and the hard work in the mines were all too clearly imprinted on his memory.
I think it is not improbable to suppose that the writer was one of the soldiers of the guard who accompanied Shamuna and Guria from Edessa to the place of execution, 587 and that their courage made him from that moment a secret Christian.
I do not need to continue the history of the Church of Edessa in the age of the Arian heresy. We will hear more about the theological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries later. The names of bishops and the order of their succession are facts that have meaning for us only if they can help us understand the ideas defended by people, and if the order of names makes it possible to clearly imagine the development or struggle of ideas.
The first bishops of Edessa remain in the shadows for us. About most of them we know only their names and what they put into their mouths, the Teachings of Addai and the Acts of Bar-Samya, which express the thoughts and beliefs of a later era. We can only repeat that the names Addai and Haggai represent the original Christianity in Edessa, a Christianity independent in spirit from the Greek-speaking Christians of the Roman Empire, and that, on the other hand, with the name Paluta is connected the idea of an uninterrupted succession of episcopal power and of sympathy for the unity of the Church, which is symbolized by the primacy of the Apostle Peter.
However, throughout the history of the Syrian Church this double current is noticeable. Sometimes a Western researcher is struck by its national, independent character; in other areas or at other times the effort to go hand in hand with the Greeks in both theology and ritual is clearly visible. Finally, there comes a complete break between these two popular movements. National elements crystallize into Nestorianism, forming within the Persian dominions a religious union hostile to Constantinople. For some time, an amazing revival was noticeable in it; it sent its missions to Samarkand and Tibet and even China and South India. But even elements more sympathetic to later Greek Theology soon rejected the decision of the Council of Chalcedon and were therefore recognized as heretics. [When, during the Migration of Nations, the wild followers of the new prophet overran Syria and Mesopotamia, the Christian population found little sympathy for Greek rule. The Monophysites preferred the tolerance of the Mohammedan caliphs to persecution in the Orthodox state].
Bible in Syriac. Peshita. Peshita Syriac and Aramaic. Antioch as a Greek city. Ancient Syriac translations of the Holy Scriptures. Rabbula and the New Testament. Biblical quotations in early Syriac literature. Quotes from St. Ephraim. Rabbula and Diatessaron. Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she. Date of the Syriac Diatessaron. Peshita of the Old Testament. Conclusion
The various translations of the Bible into the Syriac language are of the greatest interest and value to the student of Christian antiquities. First of all, the earlier Syriac translations are of great value as critical "authorities", as documents with the help of which modern scholars can reconstruct the original text of the Old and New Testaments if it is incorrectly transmitted, or defend it if it turns out to be intact. The oldest Syriac translation of the 4 Gospels in particular is one of our best authorities. But the various images of the Bible in the Syriac language are of historical interest in themselves, in addition to their critical merit. They constitute a kind of commentary on the history and development of the Syrian Church. Church history helps us understand and appreciate the nature of biblical translations; on the other hand, where direct historical information is scanty, the nature of biblical translations allows us to some extent to illuminate history.
What we know under the name Peshita is the Syriac translation of the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, accepted by the Syriac Church. Peshita is the same - the Bible of the Nestorians, Jacobites, Melkites and Maronites. This position indicates that it is older than the second half of the 5th century - the period when the Syrian Church began to fragment into separate and hostile societies. The name Peshita is not that old. The word p᾽shittâ means "simple" and was first applied to the generally accepted Syriac translation between the 7th and 9th centuries, as opposed to the revised translation made by the Monophysite scholars Thomas of Harkel [of Heracles] and Paul of Telus. This revised translation was written in a pedantic half-Greek jargon and provided with a complex apparatus of critical signs introduced into the text. Compared to such a learned work, the ancient translation seemed “simple” to the Syrians. But the name "Peshita" for the Syriac Vulgate is so suitable and definite a term that we will do well to retain it.
The first thing I must point out to you about the Peshita is the certainty of its text. The number of deviations found in existing manuscript codices is small, much less than the number of variants in Latin Vulgate manuscripts. Mostly the most unimportant typos, spelling errors, etc. are distinguished. This circumstance is all the more worthy of attention since our manuscripts of the Peshita go back to the 5th century. The complete Bible - the Old and New Testaments with non-canonical books (apocrypha) - is in the Syriac manuscripts as early as the 6th century - a fact for which no correspondence can be found in any other language except Greek, and our Greek manuscripts of this time are full of striking deviations from the later text.
At the same time, several interesting tasks are emerging. In Peshit we have a monument of supreme authority; What is the significance of this monument? What does it tell us about the history of the Bible in the Church? What books were included in the ancient Syriac canon? And what was the state of the text in the manuscripts from which the translation was made?
When the Peshit translation of the New Testament was first published in 1555, the publisher, Chancellor I.A. Widmanstadt, declared that the Syriac language of the Peshita was the language of Palestine, the native tongue of our Lord and His Apostles. This is incorrect: the Syriac language of Peshita is similar to the Aramaic of Palestine, but is far from identical with it. Syriac is the name given to the dialect of the Aramaic language, the one spoken in the Euphrates Valley and surrounding areas. The dialects that were once spoken in Palestine and in the neighborhood, north to Palmyra, were also dialects of the Aramaic language, but different from Syriac. These Western Aramaic dialects differ from Syriac in the use of what may be called members, conjugation and formation of verbs and vocabulary. The "Aramaic language of Palestine" is known to us from the Aramaic parts of the Old Testament, from the Targums and other Jewish literature, from the Samaritan lituries and targum, from the Nabataean and Palmyran inscriptions, but it is not the language of the Peshita.
It is necessary to insist on this, because the previously widespread erroneous view of the connection between Syrian Christianity and the original Christianity of Palestine has not yet been completely abandoned. Even, for example, the well-known book of the late Dr. Westcott on the canonical books of the New Testament gives a completely erroneous idea of \u200b\u200bthe Peshita. It is true that this work was first published in 1855, but in its seventh edition, published in 1896, we still read: “The dialect of the Peshita, as it is now known, represents, at least in part, that form of Aramaic which was widespread in Palestine” 588 and “The Peshita is the most ancient monument of Catholic Christianity” 589. It is true that Dr. Westcott admits that the text of the New Testament of the Peshita was subjected to "drastic revision in the fourth century" 590 . But he insists on the supposed Palestinian origin of the Peshita and asserts that the present canon of the Peshita is of the earliest date. Neither of these claims can stand in the light of the evidence we currently have.
Let me remind you once again before going further that “Antioch in Syria” was the center not of Syrian, but of Greek culture. After Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, monasteries of Syriac-speaking communities appeared within Antioch or near its walls, but in essence they were the Greek people. The significance of the emergence of Christianity in Edessa is that it was a Syrian city. Until Christianity in the Syriac language was planted in Edessa, the influence of the Church in Syria did not spread much further than the Greek cities along the Mediterranean coast.
Let us return to the history of the Syriac Bible. I have always called your attention to the remarkable fact that our many ancient manuscript codices of the Peshita have the same text. Mr. Gwilliam has recently published the Peshit translation of the Gospels. He collected about 40 manuscripts, some of which date back to the second half of the 5th century, and despite this, the deviations of the manuscripts from each other are limited only by differences in spelling. Consequently, a text approved by ecclesiastical authority was very carefully guarded in former times; but is this, we ask, the original text?
It is necessary to raise this question because the Syriac Bible translations are not limited only to the beautiful series of Peshita manuscripts. In 1858 Dr. Cureton, then Keeper of Oriental Manuscripts in the British Museum, published fragments of another Syriac translation of the Gospels from a manuscript at least as ancient as the Peshita manuscript. This translation was long called by the name of the one who discovered it and published it as the “Cureton Syriac Translation.” One is undoubtedly related to Peshita, although it differs from it in some important details. The question arose: which of the two translations is the original Syriac translation. Cureton's manuscript was very incomplete, but in 1893 it was found in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai another manuscript with the same Syriac translation. This last one is a palimpsest, i.e. the first essay was more or less washed away, and another book was written on the same paper, but most of the original text can still be made out.
This Sinaitic palimpsest is of very ancient origin, it is older than even Cureton’s manuscript and is very different from it both in language and in the reading of the Greek text on which the translation is based. But both manuscripts often agree strikingly against the Peshita. Both manuscripts call themselves Evangelion da Mefarrshe, a name whose meaning will be discussed below.
Over the past 50 years there has been controversy over the rights of the Cureton Gospels and the Peshita. In the meantime, a number of proofs have clearly established that neither was the form in which the Gospel was read in the early days among the Syriac-speaking Christians. In the original Syriac works before the fifth century, unlike the translations, the individual Gospels are never named, and the text of the quotations usually consists of phrases taken from the various Gospels. The reason for this is that the ancient Syrian Church did not use our Four Gospels, but the Diatessaron of Tatiana. This Diatessaron was a harmony of our 4 Gospels, combining into one narrative by combining the words of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unfortunately, it came under church censorship and not a single manuscript containing the Diatessaron in its original form has survived to this day.
No Syriac manuscript has yet been found with a translation of the Acts or epistles older than the official Peshita. There are, indeed, indications that a more ancient form of translation once existed, but its representatives, apparently, all died. Our information regarding the ancient Syriac New Testament, at least regarding the Gospels, we draw from quotations from Aphraates and the commentary of St. Ephraim on the Epistles of St. Pavel. This commentary exists only in the Armenian translation.
No doubt the time will come when we will be able to write the history of the Syriac Bible in the form of a coherent narrative arranged in chronological order. But for now there are large gaps in our knowledge, and we are forced to begin from some specific point where we have clear and reliable evidence regarding the texts used at that time in the Syrian Church. There can be, I think, no doubt as to what should be taken as the starting point. Our oldest manuscripts of the Peshita go back almost to the middle of the 5th century, but the earliest example of a biography that we have from that time is the life of Rabbula.
So, it is necessary to start from the episcopate of Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa from 411 to 435 A.D. We will see at once that this period in particular must be regarded as a period of crisis in the history of the Syriac Bible. In other respects it also marks a border point. This is the last moment when the Church in the East was at least nominally united. The Arians and more ancient heretics were defeated, but Nestorius had not yet been condemned.
So, from 411 to 435, Rabbula was a bishop. This great church figure has not found the recognition he deserves from modern scientists. He was born in Qinnesrin (Eagle's Nest), a city perhaps better known to us as Chalcis in Syria. His father was a pagan priest who once offered sacrifice in the presence of Julian the Apostate, but his mother was a Christian. Rabbula was converted to Christianity by Eusebius, bishop of Kinneshrin, and Akakios, bishop of Aleppo. After his conversion, Rabbula came to Jerusalem and was baptized in the Jordan, where Jesus received baptism from John. Tradition tells that when the future bishop emerged from the water, the people saw that his white baptismal robe was covered with a blood-red glow. Returning to his homeland, Rabbula distributed his property to the poor, freed his slaves, left his wife and placed his young sons and daughters in monastic schools. He himself moved from one kind of abstinence to another, living at times like a hermit in the desert in the hope that the wild Arabs would kill him.
Then he went with his friend Eusebius to Waalbek to earn the crown of martyrdom, causing disorder in the great church 591. But the crown of martyrdom was not intended for Rabbula, and both enthusiasts achieved only that they were thrown from the steps of the church.
These exploits established Rabbula in the eyes of his contemporaries, and he was soon elected bishop of Edessa, a position he held for 24 years until his death in 435. Undoubtedly, he was an extremely skillful ruler and organizer, strict with regard to (church) discipline. At the beginning, Rabbula seemed to side with the Nestorians, but he soon joined the opposing party and became a friend and correspondent of Cyril of Alexandria, whose views he supported at the Council of Edessa in 431. He even burned the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and earned the name “tyrant of Edessa” from the Nestorians.
In reality, he was generous to the poor, kind to the sick, and inexorably strict in personal abstinence. But the significance of his personality for us lies in the fact that he was a great organizer of church order. He streamlined the ritual of Christian worship, the life of monks, and the customs observed by monastic communities. And if his attitude towards teachings about which the Church had not yet expressed a final judgment was ambivalent, then he never stopped fighting against heretics and pagans. Attacking the Marcionites and Manichaeans with some success, Rabbula actually convinced the last Vardesanites to return to the fold of the Orthodox Church.
Shortly after Rabbula's death in 435, his exploits were recorded by one of his enthusiastic students. The manuscript of this work is preserved in the British Museum and was published by Overbeck in the well-known collection of Syriac works - pp. 159-210. Throughout his narrative, Rabbula's biographer quotes the New Testament several times, and each time his quotes are surprisingly consistent with the text of the Peshita. [I’ll take as an example the expression lahme δ՛ suuqвn hфn – “their daily bread” (Overbeck 168–2) 592. Based on it, it is clear that the text of the Lord's Prayer, familiar to the writer, coincided with the text of the Peshita, which says: “our daily bread,” and not with the old Syriac translation, which stated: “permanent bread,” as the translation τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον.
Thus, from the time of Rabbula, especially among admirers of his memory and administration, the New Testament in the Peshit translation was completely established. Texts from it are cited by Syrian writers of all directions, and it is read at divine services by every Syrian sect. The Monophysites, however, were not entirely satisfied with the Peshitata, and Thomas of Heracles, a Monophysite scholar, made a meticulously literal translation of the Holy Scriptures, which was considered a critical authority and was sometimes used in Divine services.
But even the Monophysites did not completely abandon the Peshita; The Nestoreans were unshakable in their affection for her. In addition, we have, as I noted above, evidence of this from a long series of existing Peshita manuscripts from the last half of the 5th century to the time of the invention of printing. They all offer essentially the same type of text.
I know of very few examples of original Syriac writings after 430 A.D. Gospel quotations were quoted from translations older than the Peshita. One of them is two references to the Gospel in the novel about Julian the Apostate. If we compare these quotations with others, it becomes probable that the slight difference from the Peshita found in these references is rather a recollection of the Diatessaron than an accident or error of memory.
The other is from Jacob of Serug in his hitherto unpublished conversation on the Lord’s Prayer, in which he conveys the request for daily bread like this: “And give us this day constant bread,” according to the old Syriac translation and - I might add - in a form familiar to St. Ephraim 593. Of course, in the text of the Lord's Prayer we can expect to find traces of older translations: in this very place the Roman Church in the Liturgy has retained the panem cotidianum of the ancient Latin translation, although the Vulgate translates Matthew 6:11 panem supersubstantialem.
Considering the period of time before the episcopate of Rabbula, we find a completely different state of affairs. We have no direct manuscript evidence here, since it is doubtful whether any of the surviving biblical codices can be attributed to the 4th century. I am inclined to think that the Sinai palimpsest of the Gospels is from the 4th century, but the manuscript is not dated, and the evidence is therefore purely paleographic in nature and therefore gives rise to some doubt. On the other hand, there is a significant amount of patristic evidence in Syriac dating back to 400 AD. We have the Acts of Judas Thomas, the Teachings of Addai, the Canons of Edessa published by Cureton, the homilies of Aphraates, the homilies of Cyrillon, and last, but by no means least, the original works of St. Ephraim. All this produces a very significant number of works, which contain many quotations from the Old and New Testaments. But while quotations from the Old Testament are very similar to the text of the Peshita of the Old Testament, quotations from the New Testament in most cases do not agree with the text of the Peshita of the New Testament.
But this difference is not the result of carelessness, for most of the quotations show marked similarities with the text of the Cureton manuscript and the Sinaitic palimpsest, the two surviving manuscripts of the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she, and also the surviving passages of the Diatessaron. I hardly need to bother you with examples: the fact is obvious to anyone who would like to compare the very references, and would have long since become indisputable if the testimony of St. Ephraim was not distorted. Let me hasten to add that the authenticity of the works attributed to the ancient father is not here denied merely on any a priori grounds. Works of St. Ephraim is very well preserved in ancient manuscripts located in London and Rome. About 400 metrical hymns and discourses and about 250 pages of prose are contained in volumes that predate the Mohammedan invasion in the 7th century. All this can be accepted as undoubtedly genuine, and, of course, is sufficient to determine the nature of the biblical text used by St. Ephraim. But the Roman edition of St.
Ephraim from the middle of the 18th century contains several passages taken from later manuscripts and catenas, some of which undoubtedly represent the work of authors who lived after the days of St. Ephraim. Indeed, some of them in older manuscripts are definitely adopted by other Syrian writers. These later works, citing quotations from Holy Scripture, do not use the same text that St. used. Ephraim, but by the common translation (i.e. Peshita), and therefore it seems as if St. Ephraim himself took quotes from the Peshita. Now that the counterfeit works were taken from St. Ephraim and attributed to their rightful owners, there is not a single example left where St. Ephraim undoubtedly used the Peshita at that time, but on the other hand, in his quotations there are many points similar to the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she and the Diatessaron. This is, indeed, what could be expected, for St. Ephraim wrote a commentary on the Diatessaron, but there is no indication that he ever composed a commentary on the Four Gospels.
Let's return to Rabbula. Before Bishop Rabbula, the quotations of the Syriac writers do not agree with the New Testament of the Peshita and are very broadly consistent with the Diatessaron and the surviving manuscripts of the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she. After the episcopate of Rabbula, they agree with the Peshita and do not coincide with the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she and the Diatessaron. The direct conclusion from this is that Rabbula himself took a major part in the promulgation of the Peshita. This conclusion, in my opinion, turns almost into certainty when we read that at the beginning of his bishopric “he (Rabbula) translated the New Testament from the Greek language into Syriac, in view of its apostasies, with all accuracy by the wisdom of God that was in him” (Overbeck, 172). As we have seen, Rabbula was precisely the person disposed to such a revision and capable of successfully bringing it to completion. His sympathy for ecclesiastical uniformity resented the differences between the codes and the fact that the Cureton codes and the Sinaiticus palimpsest differed from the Greek text as he, Rabbula, knew it.
But, besides everything else, the use of the Diatessaron was intolerable for those who wanted to make the structure of the Syriac-speaking Church identical with the structure of the Universal Church. The Diatessaron was the work of a heretic; except practice, nothing spoke in its favor, and with the exception of Syriac-speaking Christians, such practice was not in the churches of the Lord. And who else could carry out this reform as well as Rabbula. He had no official rivals or organized opposition to contend with. The Vardesanites, who more than any other represented native Syrian Christianity, under the influence of Rabbula, joined the main Christian society.
Ithaca, for these reasons I identify the "translation" of which Rabbula's biographer speaks with Peshita herself. I look at it as a revision made by Rabbula or on his direct instructions, and I believe that its use was forced throughout the entire time Rabbula occupied the See of Edessa.
We must now consider several objections to this theory - objections, I think, not immutable, but which, of course, must be eliminated before the theory can be considered firmly established. Firstly, it seems to me that the incompleteness of the Peshita canon can serve as an argument against dating the translation as late as the time of Rabbula. As is well known, the Apocalypse and the 4 lesser epistles are not included in it. But these are the very books that are omitted in the quotes from St. John Chrysostom and Theodoret. Moreover, the canon of the Peshita, which contains the epistles of James, 1 Peter, 1 John, is indeed closer to the complete Greek canon than anything previously found in the Syriac language. Neither in Aphraates, nor in the original works of St. Ephraim there is not a single explicit reference to any of the conciliar epistles, and the "Teaching of Addai" clearly says: "The Law and the Prophets and the Gospel... and the Epistles of Paul... and the Acts of the Twelve Apostles... Read these books in the church of God and do not read others with them." Here is the ancient canon of the Syrian Church.
The Canon of the Peshita, far from having the unfortunate meaning assigned to it by the late Bishop Westcott as "the earliest monument of Catholic Christianity," is only an intermediate step, representing the practice at Antioch at the beginning of the fifth century, both in what it contains and in what it does not.
Another objection to the Peshita as the work of Rabbula is its acceptance by the Nestorians. How could the Nestorians accept the revision made by the “tyrant of Edessa?” Such an objection would indeed be very serious if, at the time of Rabbula, the Nestorians were what they later became, namely, a certain sect of Syriac-speaking Christians. But in the era we are now considering, the Greek Nestorians were as influential as those who spoke Syriac, and it was not until 449, 15 years after the death of Rabbula, that the dogmas of the Nestorians were formally condemned. The most ancient Nestorian school, together with its opponents, relied on Greek theologians in their teaching and, like any other party, wanted to have a translation of the Bible that coincided with the Greek. Indeed, only very few discrepancies support the Nestorians against their opponents or vice versa; the main exception is Hebrews 2:9, and in this verse the difference between κωρὶς Θεοῦ and χάριτι Θεοῦ is indeed reflected in the Peshita manuscripts.
The Nestorian manuscripts support κωρὶς Θεοῦ, in agreement with Theodore of Mopsuestia, while the Jacobite manuscripts have “God in His Grace,” a strange translation that perhaps conveys χάριτι Θεοῦ.
As to the most characteristic difference between the Peshita and the ancient practice of the Syriac-speaking Christians, the leaders of the Nestorian party were in league with Rabbula in their desire to replace the Diatessaron with the Four Gospels. Rabbula ordered that each church should have a copy of the individual Gospels, and Theodoret, an adherent of Nestorius (the person, but not the doctrine), himself tells how he removed from circulation over 200 copies of the Diatessaron in his diocese and replaced them with the Gospels of the four Evangelists. Indeed, Rabbula's change of mind in the doctrine of the nature of our Lord may have contributed to the spread of the translation which he recommended, for if the Nestorian party had been persuaded to abandon the Diatessaron before Rabbula had gone over to their opponents, they could not return to the use of it after Rabbula had abandoned them. The Christian community of the 5th century, which abandoned the Diatessaron in favor of the Four Gospels, would hardly have returned to its heretical harmony.
Meanwhile, Rabbula's transition to the camp of the anti-Nestorian party (as we can call the Orthodox and future Monophysites) helped him introduce his biblical system among them. Clear traces of the Peshita appear in the biblical quotations and references of Isaac of Antioch, who died around 460 AD. after a long literary activity. In any case, it is worthy of remark that the Monophysite scholars, apparently, were less satisfied with the Peshitah than the scholars of the other party. All later attempts to revise the Peshita, such as the Heraclean translation, were the work of the Monophysites. From this it may perhaps be concluded that they did not accept the Peshits as early as other circles of Syriac-speaking Christians.
[The injunction of Rabbula mentioned above, which commands the reading of the individual Gospels, requires some attention. It reads as follows: “Let priests and deacons take care that in all churches there is a list of the individual Gospels and that the last one is read.” The Syriac expression translated here: “list of individual Gospels” is Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she, i.e. The gospel is individual (or by individual). What exactly is meant by Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she?
It would probably be clearer, if not more logical, to tell me your conclusions first. I think that the expression Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she designates the four Gospels as the opposite of the Diatessaron, but not the four Gospels in Cureton's translation as opposed to the Peshita. In fact, I do not know the Syriac term used to distinguish the Cureton translation list from the Peshita list. All the places where the term Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she is used can be traced back to a time when there was a conscious rivalry between two classes of Syriac Gospel manuscripts, namely those in which the Gospel was collected in one continuous narrative, and those which contained the Gospel in four separate books. The term applies equally to both the Peshita and the Cureton Gospels, as opposed to the Diatessaron; but except for the injunction of Rabbula, given above, it is never attached to the Peshita, because the Peshita immediately supplanted the Diatessaron.
The Cureton Gospels and the Diatessaron existed as rivals next to each other, but for the generation following Rabbula, the Diatessaron became only a literary attraction; There was no more reason to talk about individual Gospels than to talk about individual letters of St. ap. Pavel.
There is, however, one place that seems to speak of Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she as a review of the text as opposed to Peshita. Bar-Salibia, interpreting Matthew 27:16-17, says regarding Barabbas: “Jesus was His name, for so it is written in the Evangelion da-mefarreshe.” Cureton's Codex is defective at this point, but Bar-Salibius' report is confirmed by the discovery of the Sinai palimpsest. The Sinaitic palimpsest has Jesus Bar-Abba (Barabbas), while the Peshita, in accordance with the usual text, has only Bar-Abba. But Bar-Salibius did not acquire his information from comparing manuscripts. He was only a compiler of more ancient scholars, and this very message is found verbatim in the Bar-Bahlul dictionary. The common source of Bar-Salibia and Bar-Bahlul is now unknown. Apparently this was not a commentary on the Diatessaron of St. Ephraim, but very possibly some other work that came from the time when the Diatessaron was in use.
The Diatessaron contains many of the same textual features that make the Codex Cureton and the Sinaiticus Palimpsest such interesting documents, but the interesting fact is that there is no trace of the reading of Jesus Bar-Abba in our evidence for the Diatessaron. I therefore assume that the passage repeated by Bar-Salibius and Bar-Bahlul was taken by them from some interpretation of the Diatessaron or from some conversation about Barabbas, in which the Diatessaron was used as the basis for the presentation. In this case, the message compiler compared Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she not with Peshita, but with Diatessaron.
It remains to note one more point. If my assumption is correct that Rabbula, in prescribing the use of Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she, actually had in mind the replacement of the Diatessaron by the Peshita, then it follows that the Diatessaron was the only serious opponent of the Peshita that existed at the time of its publication. That the "ancient Syriac translation" of the New Testament (if I may use that term) had a long and complex literary history is shown by the enormous difference between the texts of the two surviving manuscripts of the Gospels in this translation. The Sinaiticus palimpsest and the Codex Cureton are undoubtedly representatives of the same translation, but in some places they deviate very far from each other, almost as far as the manuscripts of the old Latin translation of the Gospels. From patristic evidence it cannot be assumed that the translation to which the Sinaiticus palimpsest and Cureton's code belong was in great circulation in the Church in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Whatever may be the state of things concerning the Acts and the Epistles, of which we know little or nothing, it is at all events certain that when Rabbula became Bishop of Edessa, the Gospels were actually known to the Syriac-speaking Christians in the form of Tatian's harmony. This explains the success of Rabbula's efforts and the absence of Gospel manuscripts containing the text of the Peshita mixed with readings from the "old Syriac translation." Latin manuscripts with mixed texts come from less-than-thoroughly corrected older Latin manuscripts, rather than from the official Vulgate. But you cannot transfer a copy of the Diatessaron to a copy of the Four Gospels. The question was not about changing the translation, but about replacing one book with another. Everywhere, therefore, where such a replacement was made - and we learn from Theodoret that a whole book was replaced - confusion of texts did not take place. The Diatessaron Codex was removed and a copy of the Peshita was put in its place.
At the same time, copies of the unrevised Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she remained where they were. The two surviving copies do not contain liturgical notes in the margins, which usually happens with books intended for liturgical use. They are, so to speak, library volumes. For us they have incomparable value, as relics of a previous era, as remnants of a time when the Syrian Church had not yet become a slavish imitator of Greek Christianity. But for Rabbula’s contemporaries, who left them untouched on the shelves, they were works not recommended for use, but also not condemned by the church authorities for destruction; these copies turned out to be simply old-fashioned books to be left and forgotten. Thanks to this, it happened that two manuscripts of the ancient Syriac Gospels were preserved, while not a single copy of the once popular Syriac Diatessaron fell into the hands of modern scholars.
We can now leave Peshita aside. We have seen that the establishment of the Peshita of the New Testament marks the beginning of a new order of things almost as definitely as the adoption of the English Bible marks the English Reformation. Let us now look into the dark years of an earlier period and see whether the early history of the Syriac Bible can tell us anything about the development of the ancient Syriac Church. The three documents that we must consider are the following: the Old Testament of the Peshita, the Diatessaron and the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she. To what time do these documents date, and with what stage of development of the Syrian Church are they related?
We have two copies of the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she, the ancient Saoirse Four Gospels, namely the Sinai palimpsest and the Cureton codex. The Old Testament of the Peshita is preserved in many manuscripts, all of which have essentially the same text. The Diatessaron in its original form has not been preserved in any manuscript, but one can get a completely clear idea of the nature of the Gospel text from which Tatian’s harmony was compiled by collecting quotations from the interpretation of St. Ephraim (the latter was preserved only in the Armenian translation) and supplementing them with quotations in other authentic works of St. Ephraim and the homilies of Aphraates.
There is only one thing we know about Diatessaron. We know quite accurately the time of its composition: it could have been no later than 172 or 173 AD. Tatian, who compiled this harmony of the four Gospels, returned to his native Mesopotamia from Rome around this time, i.e. a few years before Histaspes, a Christian bishop, converted Bardesan. A few years later, according to Syrian church tradition, Palut was consecrated Bishop of Edessa by Serapion of Antioch. Serapion was not only the support of Orthodoxy; his activity, we learn from Eusebius (Hist, eccl., 4:12), was aimed mainly at eradicating the reading of opponents of the canonical Gospels. It is incredible that he approved of the Diatessaron, which replaced the Four Gospels and was the work of a man who held heretical opinions. From this we first of all conclude that combining the mission of Palut with the use of the Diatessaron would be a contradiction. It is conceivable that Palut or his successors could bless the use of the Diatessaron; but it is inconceivable that Palut, Serapion's envoy, himself introduced it.
But anyone can say whether the missionary work of Tatian and the subsequent use of the Diatessaron in the Syrian Church is not explained by the rapid spread of Christianity in the valleys of the Euphrates. We have already shown you, and this can be confirmed, that the legendary accounts of the evangelization of Edessa are full of contradictions. Could not Tatian himself and his comrades be the first preachers of the Gospel? By undertaking this work, Tatian could compose the Syriac Harmony of the Gospels. It was then the form in which the Gospel originally reached Edessa. Palut may have brought with him the Evangelion da-mefarr᾽she, an ancient Syriac translation of four separate Gospels. But the Diatessaron was already dear to the Syriac-speaking Christians, and the Orthodox bishops achieved the obedience of their flock by allowing heretical harmony to be read in the church.
I believe that part of this assumption is true. I have come to believe that the Diatessaron was the forerunner of the ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels at Edessa. The Teachings of Addai tells that Addai’s sermon gathered the people every day for the daytime service and reading of the Old Testament and the New from the Diatessaron 594. And on general grounds it is very difficult to imagine that harmony could have supplanted the four canonical Gospels anywhere in the last quarter of the 2nd century. The air was full of theories, which found precise expression in St. Irenea.
Before we now go further in this matter, let us move on to a third document, the origin of which we must also explain if we wish to write a literary history of the beginning of Christianity in Edessa. The Peshita translation of the Old Testament was not corrected by Rabbula. We have proven that the Peshita of the New Testament first appeared during the time of Rabbula, because the quotations in the Syriac works before Rabbula do not coincide with its text. The same argument proves that the Peshita of the Old Testament existed long before the 5th century. Quotes from St. Ephraim and Aphraath, references in the Acts of St. Thomas: all of them are essentially similar to the text preserved in our ancient manuscripts. I'm not saying there aren't deviations, but there are surprisingly few of them. We have reached the end of the second century as the last date to which the existence of the Syriac translation of the Old Testament can be dated. Thus it dates back almost to the time of Palutus and Tatian. Let us ask now, in what relation did they stand to each other?
Here again part of the answer is clear. The Old Testament in Syriac could not be the work of Tatian: his views, life or writings, do not give reason to believe that he knew the Hebrew language. But the Syriac Old Testament was translated mainly directly from the Hebrew. This is one of the main facts that must be taken into account when compiling our history of the appearance of Christianity in Edessa. Throughout the Old Testament, and especially in the Pentateuch, it is revealed that the Peshita is the work of a man who had an excellent knowledge of the original language and had an even deeper acquaintance with certain branches of Jewish tradition. I do not forget that the influence of the Greek Bible, especially in Isaiah, is often felt: this element I will turn my attention to later. But the main point is clear. Whatever revision this translation may subsequently undergo, it is almost impossible to imagine that the elements of the Peshita indicating knowledge of the Hebrew language were the work of Christian Syrians. The Peshitha of the Old Testament was originally supposed to be the work of Jews. Let's take just one example out of many.
What, if not knowledge of Jewish nomenclature, could have brought into the Syriac Bible the name of the land of Bashan (which the Greeks call Batanea) with the name Mathnin? It is incredible that the good people of Edessa had special names for the small areas east of Jordan.
You remember that when Addai came from Palestine to Edessa, he found there, according to legend, a community of Jewish merchants. He himself settled with a certain Tobius, the son of Tobius, a Palestinian Jew. The legend also says that Addai's preaching was successful among the Jews. Is it possible to conclude from this that Edessa was the center of Jewish life before it became the center of Christianity, and that when Christianity appeared there, among the converts, as in Corinth in the time of St. Paul, were there many members of the Jewish community? From this we can conclude that the Syriac Old Testament was originally a local translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, made by Jews for Jews living in Edessa and speaking the local language.
Some indications seem to me to support this theory. Since the decline of national life in Palestine, it has become increasingly necessary to give the Scriptures in the language of the local community. It is also possible that the favor for some time of the reigning house of Adiabene towards the Jewish religion, about which Josephus tells us, could serve as an impetus for the translation of the Law and the Prophets into the native language of the Euphrates valley. Additionally, the Peshitah appears to have provided the basis for the existing Hebrew Aramaic Targum on the book of Proverbs.
But while we regard the Peshita as the work of the Jews, we must at the same time confess that we have no right to claim that we have the translation in its original form. In the department of the prophets the Syriac translation was apparently revised in places to bring it into conformity with the Greek, i.e. church Bible. And here, again, it seems to me, the hand of Palutus is noticeable or - perhaps it would be more scientific here than elsewhere to say - the mission from Antioch, which is connected with the names of Palutus and Serapion.
Regarding the ancient Syriac translation of the Gospels, I think it is younger than the Peshita of the Old Testament. This is clear from the way names are spelled correctly in the Old Testament. There is no need to go further than Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To rewrite the Greek words Ἀβραάμ, Ἰσαάκ, Ἰακώβ in Semitic letters requires some archaeological knowledge. Each of these names in Hebrew is composed of different guttural letters, and their outline is exactly preserved in the Peshata of the Old Testament, as is natural in the translation from the original. But the Syriac Gospels are, of course, a translation from Greek, and there are no Semitic gutturals in them. The fact that the ancient Syriac Gospels correctly convey the names of the Patriarchs is in itself a strong evidence that the translator of the ancient Syriac Gospels was familiar with the Old Testament in Syriac.
This same argument points to the priority of the Peshita of the Old Testament over the Diatessaron, although the Diatessaron does not so carefully equate proper names with Hebrew ones. The mutual relations of the ancient Syrian Gospels and the Diatessaron - I have used this expression deliberately, for the texts of these works have been modified by one under the influence of the other during their long history - their mutual relations may also be discussed in detail, but the details of the text are highly unsuited to lectures such as these. But the main distinguishing features of Diatessaron and Evangelion de-mefarr᾽she, i.e. ancient Syriac translation of the 4 Gospels can be defined in the most general way. The two works are often similar in language in a very curious and intimate way. Time and again we find that the Diatessaron, in the form of expressions or remarkable translations, coincides with the Sinaiticus palimpsest or the Codex of Cureton. But in cases of actual discrepancies in the underlying Greek text itself, the similarity is not so pronounced.
The text of the Diatessaron agrees much more than the ancient Syriac translation with the Codex Bezae and with the ancient Latin translation. In a word, it came from the West, from Rome, and is consistent with the Western and Roman text. I have a strong suspicion that much of what is considered specifically "Western" in the ancient Syriac Gospels comes through the Diatessaron from a text that was in circulation in Rome in the half of the 2nd century.
As I have said, the very process of proving this textual affinity is generally tedious and unconvincing, except to those accustomed to weighing large quantities of technical evidence and elaborating minor problems on their own merits.
I do not intend here to give an experience of such proof. Instead, I will show you a picture of the conclusions I came to. Such a picture cannot be more than a coherent explanation of the historical data; the proof of their general correctness, if you like, must be an attempt to find in them a correspondence with the actual course of history.
First, we must assume that there was a Jewish colony in Edessa that made for itself a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, including some non-canonical books, such as the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach. A Christian missionary named Addai came to this colony. The mission, just like in Corinth, was successful. Most of the Jews joined the new movement, along with a number of pagan natives. One can only guess when this movement took place. Without a doubt, it was after the devastation of Edessa in the Trojan War. At the same time, I assume, the Bar Kokhba revolt occurred, around 135. This period was a time of retreat for many Jews; those who disapproved of Agiba's system of political rebellion and theology were then more likely than at a later date to accept Christianity's proposed solution to religious questions.
The first Christian community in Edessa probably did not have a New Testament. The Law and the Prophets, interpreted in a new light, were sufficient for them. But a generation later, after Christianity had appeared in Edessa, Tatiana, the philosopher, returning to spend the rest of his days in his native Mesopotamia, met the need by publishing a Syriac translation of his harmony of the Gospels. The fact that there were no other translations in Syria gave the Syrian Diatessaron a quick and sure success. Anywhere else it would have been considered a literary landmark, but among Syriac-speaking Christians it became a gospel book. Finally, around 200 A.D., after persecution had disorganized the Church of Edessa, it was again restored on the basis of close union with the Catholic Church within the Roman Empire under Palutus the bishop, who brought the translation of the New Testament, that is.
4 Gospels, Acts and 14 Epistles of the Apostle Paul, together with an edition of the Old Testament, slightly modified according to the Greek text, especially in the book of Isaiah and the Psalms, and expanded by apocryphal books of the Old Testament translated from Greek.
At first Palutus was looked upon by some as the head of a sect, but he and his immediate successor reconciled the vast majority of Christians in Edessa and the Euphrates valley to the Catholic organization. One point, however, was conceded to custom. The Four Gospels were accepted and studied by scholars, but the Diatessaron continued to be read in the church, and it remained the form in which the Gospel was well known to Syriac-speaking Christians until the episcopate of Rabbula in the early 5th century. Rabbula banned the Diatessaron and introduced in its place a revised ancient Syriac translation of the 4 Gospels, in which both the readings and translations were brought into much greater agreement with the Greek text as it was read in Antioch in the 5th century. At the same time, also according to Antiochian practice at the beginning of the 5th century, Rabbula introduced a translation of the first letter of St. Peter, the first letter of St. John and the Epistles of St. James, together with the revised text of Acts and the epistles of the Apostle Paul.
The Gospel text which formed the basis of the Syriac Diatessaron represents the Greek text as read in Rome around 170 A.D. The text of the Gospels in the ancient Syriac translation, where it differs from the Diatessaron, is the Greek text as read at Antioch about 200 AD. Finally, the text of the Peshita Gospels, where it differs from the ancient Syriac translation and the Diatessaron, represents the Greek text read at Antioch around 400 AD.
This summary of conclusions is, of course, somewhat hypothetical. But I believe that it is made in accordance with what both textual and historical evidence does hint at, and I hope that the more important parts of it will be established more precisely in the future.]
"The Acts of Thomas the Apostle" and "Hymn of the Soul". Contents of the Acts of the Apostle Thomas. Conversion of King Gundafar to Christ. Syriac origin of “Acts of St. Thomas." "Anthem of the Soul" Its character and content. Commentary by Niketas of Thessalonica
The art of telling tales is perhaps the most amazing of human inventions, and the East has always been famous for its ability to tell them. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the most amazing and original work of Syriac church literature is a short story. This short story contains an independent poem, the most beautiful work not only of Syrian, but of all the literature of the first Church. This short story is “The Acts of Judas Thomas,” the Apostle of India, and the poem is known to modern scholars under the name “Hymn of the Soul.” The origin of both the short story and the poem dates back to the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd century.
The work called The Acts of Judas Thomas has been known in one form or another for a long time. But only later was it found in approximately its original form, and only recently was it recognized as a story of Syrian origin. Even now this work is known only to professional scientists; The English translation of Wright᾽a is completely out of print 595 and the outside world knows very little about this amazing tale. Its content is as follows.
I. In the beginning we learned how the 12 Apostles divided the countries of the earth among themselves by lot, and that the lot that fell to Judas Thomas - Judas the Twin - was India. But Judas Thomas did not want to preach to the Indians. Then the Lord appeared to an Indian merchant named Habban, a servant of King Gundaphay, and sold him Thomas into slavery. Thomas and Habban set off by sea and landed in the city of Sandaruk. Here they learned that the local king was throwing a big feast on the occasion of the wedding of his only daughter, and they went with the others to the folk festival. At the feast, Thomas sings an interesting hymn and predicts the violent death of one of the guests who treated him rudely. The prediction comes true that same night. The king finds out about this and orders Thomas to pray over the bride. The Apostle fulfills his order and leaves. But when the bride and groom were left alone, the Lord appeared to them in the image of Thomas and convinced both of them to live in virginity. The king also turned to Christ.
II. At this time, Thomas and Habban arrived in India to visit King Gudrafar, and Thomas began to build a palace for the king. We will return to this story, which constitutes an entire episode in itself, later.
III. After the construction of the palace, Judas Thomas brings back to life a young man who was killed by the devil in the form of a black snake. In this story, as in some others, the prayers and exhortations of Thomas are given, so the descriptions of actions in no way exhaust the interest of the story.
IV. Next, the colt comes to the apostle, speaks to him and directs him to a certain city. At the city gates, the colt falls and dies, having fulfilled its purpose.
V. In the city, Thomas casts out a demon from a beautiful woman. The woman is baptized and given communion.
VI. During the ceremony, one young man's hand withers and he confesses that he killed a woman who did not want to lead a virginal life with him. Repentant, he brings Thomas to the woman’s corpse, and, through the apostle’s prayer, she returns to life and talks about the torment of the unchaste, which she saw in hell.
VII. Thomas preaches in India. The commander of King Mazdai, named Sifur, comes to ask the apostle to free his wife and daughter from evil and from demons of voluptuousness. Judas Thomas leaves his converts in the care of the deacon Xanthippus and goes with the commander. On the way, the horses pulling their chariot fall, but four wild donkeys appear and take the place of the horses; Thomas casts out demons and heals the women.
VIII. Soon, a noble woman named Mygdonia, the wife of Karish, a relative of King Mazdai, was converted by Judas Thomas to a life of virginity. Karish falls into despair, and when he fails to touch Mygdonia with his personal influence, he goes and complains to the king, who orders the apostle to be seized in the house of Sifur the general. The Apostle is taken and imprisoned, where he sings the hymn that we will talk about later. Mygdonia remains firm and secretly visits Thomas with his nurse Narcia, in prison he baptizes them and celebrates the Eucharist. At this time, King Mazdai and Karish, who thought that the change in Mygdonia came from magic or sorcery, agree to let Thomas go if he tells Mygdonia to live as before. The Apostle warns them that neither requests nor torment will change her new mood. Thomas's words come true. Mygdonia refuses to listen to the apostle when he advises her to return to her husband. Then Thomas goes to the house of Sifur, the commander, baptizes him and his family and gives them communion. At the same time, Mygdonia converts Tertia, Mazdai's wife.
The king is now very angry and again throws Thomas into prison, but on the way there the apostle converts Byzan, the king's son. In prison, the apostle makes his last prayer, starting with the Lord's Prayer, which is given in full. Manashar, the wife of Byzan (who had just been healed of a long illness by the Lord Himself, who appeared to her in the form of a youth), joined them in prison, and the apostle baptized Byzan, Manashar and Tertia. In the morning, Thomas was taken out of prison and the king sentenced him to death. The apostle was taken out of the city and after a short prayer, he was pierced by four soldiers. Before his death he ordained Sephur and Bysanus as presbyters, and under their leadership the converts continued their lives of faith, encouraged by the vision of the ascending Judas Thomas.
The relics of the apostle were secretly taken to the West by one of the brothers. Long later, the relics of Apostle Thomas cast out a demon from one of the sons of King Mazdai, after which the king also believed and asked Sifur and the brothers for forgiveness.
One of the most interesting parts of “Acts of St. Thomas" is a story about how St. Thomas was building a palace for King Gundafar, and about the latter’s conversion to Christ.
“And when Judah arrived in the Indian kingdom with the merchants Habban, Habban went to bow to Gundafar, the king of India, and told him about the artisan whom he had brought with him. The king was very happy and ordered Judas to come to him. Gundafar asked Thomas: “What craft do you do?” Judas replied: “I am a carpenter, a carpenter’s assistant and an architect.” The king asked: “What can you do?” Judas replied: “I can make yokes, plows, oars for barges, ferries, masts for ships from wood, and tombstones, monuments and palaces for kings from hewn stone.” - “Will you build me a palace?” Judas said: “I will build and finish it, for I came for construction and carpentry work.”
The king took Judah, went outside the city gates and spoke with him about the structure of the palace and how the foundation should be laid. And having reached the place where he wanted to build a palace for himself, the king said to Judah: “I want you to build me a palace here.” Judas agreed: “Yes, for this is a suitable place for a palace.” And indeed there was a meadow, and a lot of water nearby. The king said to Thomas: “Start building.” The king asked him: “What time can you build?” Judas said, “I want to begin in the fall and end in the spring.” The king objected to him: “Everyone builds in the summer, but you build in the winter.” Judas said: “This is the only way to build a palace.” The king answered: “Okay, then draw for me so that I can see, for a lot of time will pass before I come here.” Judas took the reed and began to measure; he left doors to the east for light and windows to the west for air, a kitchen to the south and water pipes for household needs - to the square. The king said to him: “It is true, you are a good craftsman and worthy to serve the king.”
He left Thomas a large sum of money and left; from time to time he sent him more gold and silver.
But Judas went around the cities and villages, helping the poor and comforting the unfortunate, saying: “What is king’s property should be given to kings, and the rest should be for many.”
And after a long time, the king sent messengers to Judah to tell him: “Tell me what you have done and what else I should send you.” Judas sent him to say: “The palace is built, but there is no roof on it.” Then the king sent gold and silver to Judas and ordered him to say: “Let the palace be covered with a roof.” The Apostle praised the Lord and said: “I thank You, Lord, that You gave me life and sold me so that I could be a liberator of many.” He did not cease to teach and console the sorrowful, saying: “May your Lord give you peace, glory to Him, for He is the provider of the orphans, cares for widows and helps all those who are in trouble.”
And when the king came into the city, he asked each of his friends about the palace that Judah had built for him; but they answered him: “They didn’t build a palace here. The carpenter did nothing, he only walked around the cities and villages, gave to the poor, taught them about the new God, also healing the sick and casting out demons and doing many similar things. We thought that he was a sorcerer, but his compassion and healing, for which he does not demand remuneration, his strict life and piety reveal that he is either a magician or an apostle of the new God. For he fasts and prays a lot, eats only bread and salt, drinks water, wears only clothes and does not take anything from anyone for himself and gives what he has to others.” And when the king heard about this, he covered his face with his hands and shook his head.
He sent to call Judas and the merchant who bought it, and said: “Have you built me a palace?” Judas replied: “Yes, I built you a palace.” The king asked, “When can we go and see it?” Judas told him: “You cannot see the palace now, but only when you leave this world.” The king became furious and in anger ordered that Thomas and the merchant who brought him go to prison until he asks Judas about his affairs and who he distributed the treasury to, then he will kill him. But Judas walked rejoicing and said to the merchant: “Do not be afraid, and believe, and you will be freed from this world and receive eternal life.”
The king was considering what kind of death to put Judas and the merchant to death; he decided to skin them alive and then burn them together. That same night, the king's brother, named Gad, fell ill from grief caused to the king. He sent to call the king and said to him: “My brother, I entrust you with the house and children, for I am saddened and dying of grief because of the crime committed against you. If you don’t punish that sorcerer, you will not give peace to my soul in hell (Sheol).” The king answered him: “All night I thought about how I could kill him, and I decided to skin him alive and burn him.” And the brother said to the king: “If there is anything worse, do it to him. And I entrust you with my house and my children.”
And when he said this, his soul left him. The king was saddened by the death of his brother, for he loved him very much, and wanted to bury him in a magnificent grave. But when the soul of Gad, the king's brother, left the body, the angels took her, brought her to Heaven and showed her successively every place in which she would like to stay. When they came to the palace that Judah had built for the king, the brother saw him and said to the angels: “I beg you, let me live in one of the lower rooms of this palace.” The angels answered him: “You cannot live in this palace.” He asked them: “Why?” They tell him: “This is the palace that a Christian built for your brother.” Then he said to them: “I ask you, let me go so that I can go and buy this palace from him, for my brother does not understand the matter and will sell it to me.” The angels released the soul of Gad. She entered his body, and Gad turned to those who stood in front of him: “Call my brother so that I can make a request to him.” Then they sent to tell the king: “Your brother has come to life.” The king jumped up and went to his brother's house with several people.
And when he approached the bed, he was surprised and could not speak. His brother said to him: “I know, my brother, that if a man asked you for half of your kingdom, you would give it for me. And now I’m asking you to sell me what you’ve been working on.” The king asked him: “Tell me what I should sell you.” He answered: “Swear to me.” The king swore that he would grant him whatever he asked from his possessions. Gad said, “Sell me the palace that you have in heaven.” The king replied: “Who gave me the palace in heaven?” His brother remarked: “The Christian who built it for you.” Then the king understood and said to his brother: “I cannot sell this to you, but I will ask and pray to God so that I can enter the palace and be among its inhabitants. And if you really want to buy a palace for yourself, then this builder will build you one that will be better than mine.”
The king sent to release Judah and the merchant, who were imprisoned together, and said to Judah: “I ask you, as a man asking the Ruler God, to pray for me and ask Him, whom you worship, to forgive me what I did to you, and to deign me to enter the palace that you built for me, so that I too may become a worshiper of the God whom you preach.”
Thus the king and his brother were converted. They were immediately baptized and admitted to the sacrament of communion.”
For a student of the history of the Syrian Church, the real interest of the “Acts of Thomas” lies not in the narratives about the journey and deeds of the apostle, although there is undoubtedly a grain of historical truth in them, but in the prayers and instructions, in the teaching that St. preaches. Thomas. This is not an embellishment to the narrative, but the true essence of the book. The author wants to draw our special attention to the sermon about virginity and poverty, to highlight their influence on the soul. There is no doubt about the seriousness of the work: not a single ancient Christian writer, Orthodox or non-Orthodox, would cite the Lord’s Prayer just for decoration.
The Syriac origin of the Acts of Thomas is beyond any doubt. The whole mood of this story suggests that it belongs to the countries washed by the Tigris and Euphrates. Proper names are the names of Syriac-speaking Christians, and they could hardly have been invented by the Greeks. For their interpretation we must turn to Iranisches Namenbuch Justi, and not to Griechische Eigennamen, Pase. Mazdai, Wizan Managnar - ancient Persian names. Mygdonia is named after the river Nizibia, just as Edessite Bar-Daisan was called after the river Edessa. Of course, it is significant that in the only ancient Roman case of the sale of a slave from Mesopotamia that has found its way into a modern library, the slave is called Habban, i.e. just like the merchant who bought Judas Thomas from Jesus Christ. Apart from Xanthippus, the deacon, and Tertia, the queen, there is not a single European name among all the characters in the novella.
The Acts of Apostle Thomas narrate that, after the conversion of Mygdonia, the apostle was captured in the house of Sephur and thrown into prison, by order of King Mazdai. There he sings “Hymn of the Soul” - a work that, as is generally accepted by researchers, is completely independent from the “Acts of Thomas” and only later included in its composition. This is not so much a hymn as it is a short epic poem, telling us the tale of a prince who went to Egypt to bring back a pearl. Traveling with the hero, we find ourselves in unusual areas. The prince's house is the old Parthian monarchy. The king, his father, lives either in Hyrcania or near the southern shores of the Caspian Sea. The wealth of the Empire is stored in the mountain sanctuaries of Atropateni (Atropateni - modern Azerbaijan). With the tact of a poet, the author does not mention the contemporary cities of Ctesiphanes and Seleucia. For the prince, the entire Euphrates valley is the land of Babylon, a foreign, hostile region inhabited by demons. Egypt is also completely different from the country called the granary of the Roman Empire.
In our hymn it is an unclean land, a land of magic and enchantment, mysteriously located on the other side of the sea. But between Babylon and the sea, where our hero passes, lies the region of Maishan or Mesena, a friendly country, subject to some extent to his father. The only comrade the prince finds in Egypt is a merchant from Mayshan, a foreigner like him. On the return journey, all dangers end when the prince reaches the Maishan region.
Although the narrative is never interrupted by sermon or philosophy, the main purpose of the allegory is clear. Here are the words of Nöldere: “We have here an ancient hymn about a soul that is sent from its heavenly home to Earth and there forgets both its origin and its purpose until it is awakened by a revelation from heaven; after this she fulfills the duty prescribed to her and returns to the higher regions, where she again unites with her celestial clothing, her ideal double, and enters into circulation with the highest celestial powers. Let me point out for now that some details are actually not as strange as they seem to us at first glance. The King of Kings, the Queen of the East and the next in dignity Co-Ruler, is the father, mother and brother of the soul. They seem to correspond to the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son. In the Semitic languages the Spirit is feminine, and Aphraates himself does not hesitate to call the Holy Spirit the Mother of man, that mother whom, according to Holy Scripture, he leaves when he marries.
The idea of heavenly clothing, unusual for us, is not uncommon in earlier Christian speculation. Here the dress is not a piece of clothing, but a heavenly image. It is removed and put on by the soul and “stretched” like clothing; on the other hand, in the hymn he is presented as taking on the image of the returning prince and even talking to his guards. A tunic of royal scarlet is draped over the dress, and the soul dwells in it. But when the time comes for the soul to be born into this world, the heavenly garment is left in the presence of the Father. It grows in Heaven together with the soul on Earth and suffers and rejoices with it. Finally, when the soul fulfills its earthly purpose, it takes off forever its unclean clothes, i.e. flesh, and on the way back to the Father’s house, again encounters its heavenly image.
There is reason to believe that the hymn was composed before the overthrow of the Parthian dynasty in 224 AD. The entire structure of the poem, since it does not relate to the fairy-tale kingdom, corresponds to the conditions of the Parthian monarchy. There is nothing that would indicate the time when the successors of this dynasty, the Sassanids, already reigned.
Let's move on to the anthem itself. Here is its full text.
When I was in my Father's house as a small child,
Growing up in luxury, very happy with life in the palace,
My parents sent me to travel far from the East, my homeland,
And from the royal treasures they prepared cargo for my journey.
It was precious and light, and I alone bore the burden.
There was Median silver in it and silver from Atropatene,
Garnets and rubies from Hindustan and Bactrian agates.
I was clothed in diamond armor, stronger than iron.
But my parents took off my dress, in which their love clothed me,
And a light tunic, woven from scarlet material and made according to my figure.
For they decided and wrote it in my heart so that I would not forget:
“If you go and bring back from Egypt a pearl, the only one
Guarded there in the sea that surrounds the loud whistling serpent,
You will put on your scarlet dress and tunic again,
And together with your brother, the prince, you will inherit the kingdom.”
So I left the East. Two guards escorted me down.
The road was difficult for the child, and a dangerous path had to be passed.
Early I passed Maishan, the market of eastern merchants.
In the land of Babylon I hastened my steps.
And my companions left me within the borders of Egypt.
I went straight to the serpent and made my home close to it,
To steal the pearl from under his guard while he dozes and sleeps.
I was alone, an exile under foreign rule,
Seeing no one from the free-born race of the East.
Except for one young man, the son of Maishan, who became my comrade.
He was my friend, to whom I told why I came here,
Warning him against the Egyptians and all their unclean ways.
Meanwhile, I dressed in their dress so as not to be recognized,
Fearing that they, having learned that I am a stranger,
Those who come from afar for the pearl will incite the serpent against me.
From my friend they learned that I was not from their tribe;
In their wickedness they gave me some of their unclean sweets to eat.
I forgot my tribe and began to serve the king of the country.
I even forgot the pearl my parents sent me for,
Plunging from the poison of that country into an unconscious slumber.
My parents knew everything that happened and deeply mourned me.
From all the Earth they called to our gates
Parthian princes and kings and all eastern leaders.
There they came up with a way to save me from Egypt,
By writing a letter signed with the name of each chief.
From your father, the king of kings, from the queen, your mother
And from your brother, to you, our son in Egypt. We welcome you.
Arise and arise from sleep and listen to the words of our letter.
You are the son of kings who keep you in bondage.
Think of the pearl for which you live in Egypt.
Think of your shining dress and remember your glorious tunic,
Which you will wear when your name is added to the list of heroes.
And together with your brother, your co-ruler, you will be in the kingdom.
Such was the letter, sealed on the cover with the king's own seal,
So that it does not fall into the hands of the fierce Babylonian demons.
It flew high in the sky like an eagle, the king of birds,
It flew and descended near me and spoke in the words of my country.
Then, at the sound of his speech, I shuddered and woke up from my slumber.
Taking it, I kissed it and broke the seal on it.
And like the words carved into my heart, the words of the letter were to me.
So I remembered my royal origin and free-born nature;
So I remembered the pearl for which they sent me to Egypt,
And he began to bewitch the terrible, loudly whistling snake.
He fell asleep at the sound of my father's name
And in the name of my brother and in the name of the Queen, my Mother.
Then I took possession of the pearl and set off on my way back,
Leaving behind the unclean clothes I wore in Egypt.
I directed my flight straight to the East, towards the light of my homeland.
And on the way in front of me I saw a letter encouraging me.
Once it woke me up, now it has become a star on my path.
For with its silken clasps it illuminated the path that I needed
was to go, Encouraging my hasty steps with his voice and direction,
Carrying me with love through a dangerous place,
Until I left Babylon's guards behind me unharmed
And he did not reach Maishan, the merchants' harbor washed by the sea.
What I wore before, my dress with a scarlet tunic, Was sent there
my parents from the distant mountains of Hyrcania, It was brought by faithful servants who
kept it. I was a child when I left the dress and couldn't remember
his appearance, But when I looked, the dress took on my build and likeness.
It was myself, whom I saw in front of me, as in a mirror. Two
We stood in number, but only one in appearance, No less similar than two
twin guardians, who brought my dress, each marked with a royal
coat of arms Both are servants of the king, whose loyalty returned my treasure to me.
The dress in its glory seemed to me to be a truly royal treasure. Fun
it shone with silver, sardonics and rubies: Among the various shades
the color of sapphire glittered there. All his seams were tightly welded with stone
diamond, And above everything the king himself was depicted.
While I looked, it manifested life, like a sentient creature,
As if endowed with the gift of speech and hearing.
Then I heard the sounds of its voice, as it shouted to the guardians:
This is the champion for whom I was created by my father,
Have you not noticed how my camp grew along with your labors?
All the time my dress was approaching with a regal look,
Impatiently flying towards me with those who carried him.
I ran to it, grabbed it and put it on myself.
And again I was clothed in my dress and shone with its beauty.
And the light, multi-colored tunic lay in folds on me.
Dressed in a dress, I headed towards the palace gates,
Bowing my head before the glorious banner that my father sent.
I remembered his order, and he kept what he promised.
So in the courtyard of the satraps I joined the many leaders.
My father graciously accepted me, and I lived in a kingdom close to him.
This is the “Anthem of the Soul”. There is also a fragment of another stanza in the manuscript, but the size is incorrect; we warn us that the text is poorly preserved. This stanza tells that the prince, having returned home, awaits the great day when he will present his pearl to the king of kings, his Father. On that day, translating the imaginary into a language closer to us, St. Paul, “God will be all things in everyone.”
In view of the difficulty presented by the original Syriac text and its interpretation, it is interesting to read the interpretation of the hymn compiled by Niketas, Archbishop of Thessalonica. This interpretation was discovered by Professor Bonnet. The time when Nikita lived is not known with precision, but it was probably before the half of the 2nd century. At the conclusion of the interpretation, Nicetas of Thessaloniki writes (Analecta Bollandiana, 20:63): “If I have correctly understood the meaning of these allegorical words, then the inspired apostle clearly points to the wonderful beginning of our race from God. The incorruptible goodness of the mercies that came from here is the spiritual weapon that is given to us against those who are called Egyptians and against the serpent, their leader and fighter. We see their machinations, tricks, charms, the inevitable fall of those who believe in them, the subsequent destruction of divine gifts, the slow infection with sins, symbolically depicted in the poem under the guise of sleep and numbness; then compassion from above, help brought by St.
With Scripture, as if by letter, after the arrival of which a revolution occurs, enlightenment through baptism will awaken, and we find a pearl of great price. In addition to all this, we see the joy felt by our Lord and Father and the Divine powers around him at the return and repentance of those who have fallen; and, finally, the safe attainment of the eternal rewards which God has prepared for him who has fully returned to Him. Strengthening with these words the timid and doubtful state of our souls and teaching us, dead through sins, how we should lead a new life, the Apostle Thomas left eternal consolation not only for those in prison, but also for all timid souls in all ages.”
Martyrdom of Syrian Christians
The persecution suffered by Syrian Christians is divided into two distinct groups: Persecution in the eastern Roman Empire and persecution in the Persian Empire during the Sassanid dynasty.
Edessa and Samosata martyrs. St. Azazail. Acts of the Martyrs of Western Mesopotamia.
The martyrdoms of western Mesopotamia speak of the persecution of Christians in Edessa and Samosata. The Edessa martyrs are Haggai, Sharbel, Barsamya, Guriy, Shamuna and Habib. We have already spoken about these sufferers for the faith and their acts of martyrdom when we discussed the beginning of Christianity in Edessa.
The city of Samosata was also a place of religious persecution. The third year of the reign of Maximinus saw the execution of some Christians of this city on the occasion of offering sacrifices to the Church of Fortune. Hipparchus and Philotheus resolutely refused to attend these sacrifices; in addition, they converted their friends, noble patricians: Jacob Paragrus, Habib, Roman, Lulian, to Christianity. They were all arrested, tortured and finally crucified. The acts of these martyrs were, in all likelihood, compiled by eyewitnesses; they contain an interesting description of the city of Samosat. Assemanius, who published them (Acta martirum, 2: 123-147), attributes this persecution to Maximinus Hercules, but Schulthess believes, with more reason, that it refers to Maximinus Galerius, who cruelly persecuted Christians.
Here it is also necessary to note the "History of Saint Azazail", the son of noble parents from Samosat, who went to Rome, where he suffered a martyrdom during the reign of Maximinus Hercules in the year 304. This legendary story is only an imitation of the Greek acts of St. Pancras, as admitted by Makler, who published the Syriac text with a French translation.
Martyrdom of Persian Christians. Persecution of the Sassanids. Martyrs: Adurparva and Mirnarse, Jonah and Berik-Yeshu, Shapur, Bishop of Nicator. "The History of Beth-Selokh." “The great persecution of Shapur II - Marut of Mayperkat and the martyrdom acts compiled by him. Subsequent persecution of Syrian Christians
No sooner had the era of persecution against Christians ended in the west than it began in the east against the Christians of the Persian Empire. The first persecutions date back to the reign of Shapur II (309–379). Persecution by the Sassanids was sporadic. Prompted by the magicians, the Persian kings ordered the beginning of persecution, since they knew about the sympathy of their Christian subjects for the centuries-old enemies - the Romans, but these persecutions usually remained local and affected only some provinces of the Empire.
The Syrian Martyr Acts in Persia contain valuable data for the history and geography of Persia during the Sassanid era.
The first of these acts relates the martyrdom of the two brothers Adurparva and Mirnarsa and their sister Magdukta, committed on the mountains of Berain in the vicinity of Beth Seloch, the capital of Beth Garmay, in the ninth year of the reign of Shapur II, in 318 AD. These acts were edited by Rabban Gabriel, a monk from the monastery of Beth Abe, who lived in the second half of the 7th century, and they contain a lot of legends.
In the 23rd year of the reign of Shapur II, 327 AD, the martyrdom of Zebina, Lazarus, Maruta, Narses, Elijah, Mari, Habib, Sabba, Shembait, Jonah and Berik-Yeshu falls. According to other Latin and Greek authors, these confessors suffered torment not in the 18th year of Shapur’s reign, but in the 31st, after the publication of the edict against the Church. The author of these acts was Isaiah, the son of Hadbo (Hadabu) from Arzan (Ἀρζανηνή), an eyewitness to the events. The place of the latter was Arzan, the border of two rival Empires: this province is not named in the acts, but its location is completely clear from their text. The acts of Shapur, the bishop of Nekator, Isaac, the bishop of Beth-Selah, Mane, Abraham and Simeon lead us again to Beth-Garmai. The martyrdom of these confessors is dated to the 30th year of the reign of Shapur, corresponding to 339 AD. The Syriac edition that we have appears to come from Edessa; in the acts we read that the martyrs now rest in Edessa, in the new Martirium within the city.
This message is, of course, borrowed from ancient documents: the Christians there are called Nazarenes, as they were once called in Persia. Comparing these acts with the “History of the City of Beth-Selocha,” we encounter a number of serious contradictions. In the History of Beth-Selokh, Bishop Isaac, who suffered martyrdom, is the predecessor of Johannan, who was present at the council of 318 bishops, i.e. at the First Ecumenical in 325; on the other hand, Manet, Abraham and Simeon suffered not under Shapur II, but under Yazdegerd II, in the 8th year of his reign, which corresponds to 407 AD. The "History" gives precise details, apparently taken from ancient sources. If the author of the Syrian Acts wrote them in Edessa after the relics of the saints were transferred to this city, then he could easily mix up the dates of the events.
He claims that Bishop Isaac is a contemporary of Manet, Abraham and Simeon and this anachronism is explained by the fact that there really was a priest Isaac who was executed with these martyrs and the execution took place in the same place in the city of Kenar, Nikatorsky district, where Bishop Isaac was once executed.
The History of Beth-Selocha tells us about other martyrs who suffered in this city. First of all, about Bishop Manet, the predecessor of Isaac, who was captured, at the instigation of the Manichaeans, and killed along with other Christians. The church was destroyed, and even the nuns were persecuted, dying outside the city in a place called “The Mountain.” The History does not mention the names of the holy women, but they are preserved in another Syrian document: Thekla, Dapa, Taton, Mama, Mesakia and Anna. Other persecutions listed in this History took place in the next century. We'll leave them out for now.
The voluminous scrolls of acts of martyrdom in Syriac, especially valuable for the information they contain for a historian studying the fate of the Syrian Church, relate to the so-called “great” persecution of Shapur II against Christians, which lasted from 340 to 379.
Previously, when the Roman Emperors persecuted Christians, the Christian subjects of Persia, who enjoyed freedom of religion in Persia, were for her her best loyal subjects and most reliable enemies against the Romans. Now, when Constantine the Great helped Christianity to triumph over paganism in his Empire, the Sassanian Christians directed all their sympathies to the side of the Roman Empire and this was immediately revealed during the war that Shapur II undertook against the Romans in 337-338. The sermons of Bishop Aphraat, one of the oldest representatives of Syrian literature, are quite expressive in this regard; at the same time, the capital's bishop Simeon allowed himself unrestrained antics against Shapur II. Understanding the mood of the Christians and irritated by what was happening, Shapur II, simultaneously with the war against the Romans, initiated a merciless persecution of Christians in his state (from 340), which in the mournful annals of the Christian East is called “great”.
The motives that guided Shapur II were not religious fanaticism: it is true that he respected his Zoroastrian religion, and it is believed that the current edition of most of the Zend Avesta was established under him, but Shapur II left the Jews, who were as hateful to the magicians as Christians, alone, and in the very lives of the saints he is many times presented as a person who has no religious prejudices. It is simply not the Christian religion, but the Christian organization that was undesirable for Shapur II - just as Diocletian had done quite recently in the Roman Empire, Shapur II did not want to allow a state within a state, and, moreover, a state that had commonality with the neighboring hostile Roman Empire. In order to disorganize Christianity, he directed special efforts at the destruction of churches and the persecution of bishops and priests, and he had a technique to weaken the spirit of the community by ordering that priests be stoned by prominent members of their own flock.
Of course, while the king was guided only by political considerations, the magicians tried to take advantage of the opportunity and gave full manifestation to their religious fanaticism, which is why the persecution of Christians acquired an even darker shade. The great persecution of Shapur II was reflected in Syrian literature in voluminous scrolls of the lives of the holy martyrs. Their compilation is learned by Maruta, Bishop of Maiperkat, a man of great weight and influence, who was twice sent by Emperor Theodosius II with an embassy to the Persian monarch Iezdegerd I and presided over the councils in Seleucia or Ctesiphon under Catholicos Isaac and Yab-alakh. They also say about him that he was a most skillful enemy. Abd-isho attributes the following works to him: “the book of the lives of the martyrs, antiphons and hymns in memory of the martyrs and a translation of the canons of the Council of Nicaea with the history of this council. He undertook the last of the named works at the request of Isaac, Catholicos of Seleucia, who died in 416. The canons known by his name are the canons of the Council of Seleucia, which took place in 410.
But Maruta’s main work was the “Book of Martyrs,” containing stories about those who suffered for the Christian faith under Shapur II, which he prefaced with two discourses on the glory of the martyrs and their suffering. These arguments are considered the best works among apologetic literature.
Patriarch Simeon Bar-Sabbae reveals a number of martyrs who suffered in the 32nd year of the reign of Shapur - 341 AD. The persecution was motivated by the patriarch's refusal to collect the double poll tax, which the tsar imposed on Christians at the instigation of the Jews, who enjoyed the favor of the queen mother. The latter treated the Jews mercifully and had great influence on the king’s son. The churches were destroyed to the ground and Simeon, along with some priests, was sent to Susiana, where at that time the residence of the king was located. Several bishops were also brought to Shapur: Gadiab and Sabin, bishops of Beth-lapat, Yohannan of Gormidza-Ardashir, Bolida, bishop of Forat, Johainan, bishop of Karka of Ledan, as well as 97 priests and deacons. These numerous victims were beheaded. On the eve of their execution (Nisan 13 on Thursday of Holy Week), Gushtazad, the chief of the royal eunuchs, who turned to Christ and publicly confessed his faith, was beheaded.
The compiler states that he wrote these acts based on more detailed stories from previous writers. The conclusion of the acts tells of the execution carried out the next day on Possi, the eldest of the workers, who encouraged the confessors to be firm, then about the martyrdom of Possi’s daughter, who took monasticism, her martyrdom followed on the first day of Easter.
The persecution did not stop there, but continued the following days, with even greater cruelty. Two documents speak expressively about this, differing in some points, but generally consistent with each other. According to these documents, the executions of Christians continued without interruption for ten days, from Maundy Thursday to St. Thomas Week. The names of the victims were not preserved, since most of them were brought from distant provinces, and no one knew them in Susiana; note: Amri and Mekim, bishops from Beth-lapat, priest Hormizd from Shuster. The memory of these confessors is celebrated for three days.
Among the victims of these executions was a certain Azad, the king's favorite eunuch. The king bitterly regretted the death of this faithful servant and ordered him to act more carefully in the future. First they had to write down the names of Christians, their parents and their place of residence, then begin the interrogation. This order appeared on the Sunday of the second week of Easter; “Then,” adds the first document, “the bloodshed stopped and there was a short break.” The next month, May, saw the martyrdom of two sisters of Simeon Bar-Sabbae - one of them was called Tarbo - and their maid, all three took monasticism.
The acts of Tarbo and her friends are followed by those of Miles, Bishop of Susa, who died as a martyr on November 13 of the same year. The Acts of Miles are of particular interest because they contain a narrative of the discord that arose between the patriarch Pope and his clergy, in which the bishop of Susa took part. This story differs in some points from Bar-Ebrey's story.
The second year of Shapur's persecution was marked by the martyrdom of Shahdost, the successor of Simeon Bar-Sabbae as patriarch of Seleucia. The Patriarch was arrested along with 128 clergy, priests, deacons, monks and nuns. His head was cut off, like most of the others arrested, on February 20, 342.
Barbashmon, Shahdost's successor, suffered the same fate. He was martyred along with 17 priests, deacons and monks on January 9, 346. The patriarchal see of Seleucia and Ctesiphon remained vacant, according to some sources, for 22 years, and according to others, for 40 years.
The collection attributed to Maruta also contains acts of the martyrs of Susiana and Fars for the years 342 and 344. At Beth-Garmapah the martyrdom of Narses, bishop of Shargerd, the ancient metropolitan see of the province, took place. This bishop died under the sword of the executioner along with his disciples Joseph on November 10, 344 during the stay of King Shapur in the city of Shargerda.
At this time, Arbel and Addabena became the main place of persecution against Christians. The persecution continued almost continuously from 344 to 376, they are described in the acts of: Johanna, Bishop of Arbel, martyred along with the priest James on November 1, 344; Abraham, successor of Yohannan, whose head was cut off on February 5, 345; Ananias, a layman martyred at Arbela on December 12, 346; priest Jacob and nun Mariam, his sister, from the village of Tella Shelila, martyred on March 17, 347; nun Thekla and four other nuns, her friends, executed on June 6, 355; Aitalakh and Gafsaya, martyred on December 16, 355.
The event that made the most noise during these persecutions was the conversion and martyrdom of Kardag, the military governor of Adiabene, in 358, in the 49th year of the reign of Shapur. Numerous miracles, visions, allusions to subsequent historical events contained in the acts of Kardagh show that these acts were written much later than the martyrdom of the saint; they probably date back to the 6th century. It is possible, as indeed it is assumed, that Kardag's conversion was not entirely disinterested. This ruler, of noble origin, rebelled against Shapur II, having first built a fortress on the Malki hill near Arbel; Having converted to Christianity, he counted, of course, on the support of the Roman troops, but even if he had such a hope, his expectations were not justified. The fortified castle was taken and Kardag was stoned. These acts, despite all sorts of additions to them, contain valuable explanations regarding the geography of the country and the political and social state of Persia during the reign of the Sassanids.
The saint was revered for a long time in this area, a church was erected on the site where he suffered martyrdom, his memory was celebrated there annually for three days, and pilgrimages organized to this place annually lasted six days.
We must mention here the acts of the Gel martyrs, which are of historical interest. The Gels lived along the southwestern coast of the Caspian Sea in the Gilap valley, adjacent to the Deylamites, who occupied the mountainous part. The acts of these martyrs tell us that the Gels served as mercenaries in the Persian army and that in the 4th century they were already Christians. The martyrdom of these warriors falls on the year 351 and occurred on the banks of the Euphrates during the campaign of Shapur, heading for Roman territory. The names of these confessors are as follows: Berik-Yeshu, Edeb-Yeshu, Shapur, Sanatruk, Gormizd, Gadarmanur-Galpid, Aitallaha, Mekim, etc., two women, Galmadur and Phoebe, were also executed with their children.
In the 53rd year of the reign of Shapur II - in 362 - persecution raged in Beth Zabda, on the right bank of the upper Tigris. This province was the border between the Roman and Persian Empires. The fortified place in this area was called Kastra Beth-Zabde or also Fenech. In several moves, Shapur tried to capture Beth-Zabde and Nisivin, the possession of which opened the way for him to Armenia and Mesopotamia. He actually managed to capture the fortified place of Feneca in the summer or autumn of 360. According to Persian custom, the capture of the city was accompanied by a massive relocation of residents to the Persian provinces and the execution of the main members of the clergy. We have several documents regarding this, the most important of which is called “Confession of the Captives.” In this document, the persecution of the inhabitants of Bet Zabde is dated to the 53rd year of the reign of Shapur or 362 AD.
Since the same date appears in some other acts of martyrdom, we must accept it and recognize that the expulsion was carried out two years after the capture of Fenech, apparently after an uprising of the inhabitants, who were counting on the help of the Roman troops, among them was Bishop Iliodorus with his two vicars, priests, deacons, monks and nuns. The bishop died on the road. Three hundred prisoners were assigned to live in the province of Dara, under the condition of accepting the religion of the magicians; only 25 apostatized, the rest were executed. The persecutions in Beth-Zabda include the acts of Saba-Pirgushnasp, in which useful historical and geographical information is found regarding this province and the neighboring Beth-Arbel, but there is an error in these acts, namely, the capture of Fenech is dated back to the time after the cession of Nisivin to the Persians, which was in 363. The error is undoubted because the acts precisely mark the 53rd year of Shapur.
The legend of the persecution of Christians at Beth-Zabde is still alive among the current inhabitants of this country; they show the place where Shapur executed 6,000 Christians for their adherence to their religion, as well as for the fact that his son converted to Christianity.
During these persecutions, Wassus, whose name is popular among the Western Syrians due to the famous monastery in Anamea, named after the saint, was martyred. The original acts have not been found, but there is a metrical homily compiled from these acts. Based on it, the history of martyrdom can be reconstructed. There must have been a complete collection of acts of the martyrs of Beth-Zabde, only a few of them have survived to us. By mistake, the persecution marked the 76th year of Shapur's reign, instead of the 53rd. There were two other monasteries under the name Mar-Vassa (one on the spot where the saint was martyred, the other not far from him in Tur-Abdin).
The acts of Bekhnam (Benjamin) and his sister Sarah, acts related to the history of the monasteries of Mar Matthew and Mar Bekhnam, also date back to the time of this persecution. These acts accurately indicate the date of 663 Seleucid year, or 352 AD, but due to a strange anachronism, the persecution in them began after Julian’s campaign in Mesopotamia.
According to the peace treaty concluded between Jovian and Shapur in 363, Nisivin was ceded to the Persians. There followed a temporary cessation of the persecution of Christians, but this break was short-lived. The year 376 is marked by the martyrdom of 40 clergy from the province of Kashkar, among them two bishops. The acts of these martyrs are included in the collection attributed to Maruta. The same year marks the martyrdom of Vadim, the abbot of the monastery he founded near Beth-Lapata. The last acts are those of Akepsim, Bishop Genait, Priest Joseph and Deacon Aitalakha.
At the end of his history of the Persian martyrs, the author says that he himself witnessed the last persecutions, and he tells about previous events from the words of respected and trustworthy elders who witnessed them.
In conclusion of this gloomy picture of the persecution of Shapur II, we will present one legendary document, the acts of Gubarlakh and Karo, the son and daughter of King Shapur II. By these acts the king's son was instructed in the Christian religion by Dadu. This latter, by order of Shapur, had his head cut off and the young prince was beaten with whips. Another version of this event is presented in the Syrian fragment, analyzed by Goffman. Gubarlakha dies after prolonged torture, his sister Kaza, whom he converted, is beaten with whips and, having been baptized, gives her soul to God. The death of these confessors was preceded by the death of a magician named Gargamusi, whom Gubarlakha converted to the Christian faith. The place of execution, according to this edition, was Karka Ledanskaya, the event dates back to September 22, 23rd year of the reign of Shapur, corresponding to 332 AD. It is difficult to separate truth from fiction here. A local tradition that still exists, according to Taylor, indicates that the conversion of the king's son Shapur was the main reason for the persecutions that took place in 352 in the province of Beth-Zabde.
We will not stop at the long martyrology of Christians in Persia. The persecution continued with greater or less intensity during the reigns of other kings of the Sassanid dynasty. The penetration of Nestorianism into Persia in the second half of the 5th century, creating a gap between the western and eastern Syrians, had the effect of weakening the persecution. What we have described about the acts of the martyrs during the time of Shapur II is quite sufficient for familiarization with this type of Syrian church literature. There is no point in going into an analysis of the acts of subsequent martyrs, due to their monotony. Of the subsequent persecutions, we will note only some of the most outstanding episodes. “The History of the City of Beth-Selokha” reports that Yazdegerd II in the first seven years of his reign was merciful towards Christians, but in the 8th year he killed his daughter, who at the same time was his wife, as well as many great people in his kingdom.
The martyrdom of Saint Petion dates back to the time of the persecution of Iezdegerd II, which fell in the ninth year of the reign of this king. There are several editions of this martyrdom. One of them was published by P. Kozlui in volume VII of Analecta Bollandiana in 1888, based on a manuscript from the British Museum. Another edition is found in volume 2 of Bejan's Acta Martyrum, p. 559–634. In the Vatican manuscript, syr.184, there is a poem on St. Petion, compiled by Archdeacon Mara. The Acts of James date the martyrdom of this saint to the year 732 of the Seleucids (421 A.D.) during the second or first year of the reign of Bahram V. They were published by Assemani, Acta sanct. martyr. 1:242~and Bejan Acta mart. II, p.539.
Patriarch Baboe was executed by Peroz in 431 on the denunciation of Barsauma, who intercepted a letter from this partarch seeking Roman intervention. The acts of this martyr contain a story close to that of Amr and Bar-Ebrey. The martyrdom of Gregory, whose real name was Pirangushnasp, dates back to the second year of Khosroes I or Khosroes Anushirvan; he was from Re and belonged to the Persian Mihran family.
The martyrdom of Yazdepanah followed shortly after the martyrdom of Gregory. Yazdepanah from the province of Karki Ledan was the ruler and judge in this country.
In the 25th year of the reign of Khosroes II or Khosroes Parvez (615 A.D.), the priest George, who belonged to a noble Persian family, was martyred. His real name was Miramgushnasp. He was baptized by Simeon, Bishop of Gir. His sister Gazarovai also converted to Christianity, took the name Mary and became a nun. The acts of this saint were written by Mar-Babe, the abbot of the monastery on Mount Izla. They contain important notes regarding the history of the Nestorians at the end of the 6th century.
In the 30th year of the reign of the same king, the martyrdom of Isho-Sabran (Mahanosh), a Nestorian ascetic, Persian by origin, spent a significant part of his life in prison. The acts of this martyr were written a few years after his death by Isho Yab III, the Nestorian patriarch around 650. Together with Isho-sabran, twelve other noble Christians perished, about whom, as Isho-yab reports, it was written by another author.
Syrian Martyr Acts outside Mesopotamia and Persia
Of this group of Syrian martyrdom acts, the acts that tell of the persecution of Christians in Yemen are of greatest scientific interest.
The main document regarding the persecution of the Christians of Yemen by the Jewish king of that country in the 6th century AD is the letter of Simeon, bishop of Beth-Arsham, to Simeon, abbot of the monastery of Gabbula 596. In this letter, the bishop of Beth-Arsham reports that on January 20, 524, he left the city of Ghiru together with the priest Abraham, sent as an ambassador by Emperor Justin I to the Arab king Mondir. Travelers found Mondir in Ramla. Soon after their arrival, the Arab king received a letter from the Jewish king of the Gimiariites, Zunovas, which spoke of the persecution instituted by this king against the Christians of Yemen. This message was intended to encourage Mondir to begin persecution against his Christian subjects. From this letter it was clear that the following circumstances served as the reason for the beating of Nejran Christians in Yemen.
The Christian king, whom the Ethiopians installed in this city, died in Winter, the Ethiopians could not move across the sea and appoint an heir to the late king, the Jews took advantage of this circumstance and seized control into their own hands, the Jewish king, proclaimed by them, treacherously captured the city of Nejran, killing the Ethiopians, among 280 people, spiritual and secular, living in Yemen. Having taken the city, the Jewish king orders to burn the church and kill all Christians who do not want to renounce Christ. The men were the first to suffer, some ran away and hid in the mountains. The women also remained steadfast in their faith and joyfully accepted suffering for her. A noble woman named Doma stood out among everyone with her enthusiasm. Together with her daughters, she bravely endures all the torture and insults the king, but the latter, struck by her beauty, wanted to save her.
“Such was the content of the letter,” adds Simeon, received by Mondir when we arrived to him with the priest Abraham, whom we spoke about above, and Sergius, Bishop of Rezaf.
Returning to Gira, Simeon talks about new cases of this persecution, not indicated in the letter of the Jewish king. As soon as the city was taken, the most prominent persons, numbering 340 people, were brought to the Jewish king; at their head was Kharifa (Aref), who courageously confessed Christ and called on his fellow believers to follow his example. Another fact omitted from the letter of the Jewish king is the confession of a three-year-old child who wished to die with his mother rather than renounce Christ. Then there is another fact - the insult the Jewish king received from Doma's youngest daughter when he persuaded a noble woman to apostatize.
Simeon, concluding his letter, calls on the bishops of his confession (Monophysites) to pray for the Himiarite Christians and expresses the hope that the bishops of the Emperor’s confession will intercede with the latter to put an end to the intrigues of the Jews against the Xpucmians. The letter of the Bishop of Beth-Arsham was published for the first time by Assemanius on the basis of the third part of the chronicle of Dionysius of Tel Mahra - that part which, according to the research of Abbot Nou, is a simple copy of the second part of the History of John of Ephesus. This letter is also included in the Syriac Compilation of the History of Zechariah Rhetor, Bishop of Mytilene on Lesbos. Based on this source, the letter was printed in volume X of Script Veterum Nova collectio Mansi and in volume III, p. 235, Anecdota Cyriaca Landa.
The text of the chronicle of (pseudo) Dionysius is not much different from the text of the history of Zechariah; this is an abbreviated review probably made by John of Ephesus. Guidi, whose research in the field of Syrian literature is so fruitful, found in one manuscript of the Borgia Museum and in two manuscripts of the British Museum an original text more complete than that published by him in his memoirs Reale Academia dei Lincei in 1881 under the title La lettera di Simeone vescovo di Beith-Arscham sofra i martiri Omeriti. The persecution of Dhu-Novas and the martyrdom of Arefa form the first part of the Martyrium᾽a Arefae preserved in Greek. The first part of this document was written in Syriac by Sergius (or George?), Bishop of Rezaf, who was with Simeon and Abraham at Mondir when the latter was handed the letter of Zu-Novas. From the Syriac language it was translated into Greek.
There was a lot of controversy regarding the letter of Simeon of Beth-Arsham and regarding its authenticity. The first works on this subject by Blau, Pretorius and Mordtmann appeared in Zeitsch der deut. morgenl. Gesellsch. XXII:560; XXIV: 624, XXV:260, XXXI:66. Halévy in Revue des Etudes juives, t. XVIII: 16–42 and 161–178 again examined this letter and the documents that relate to it; Based on a fairly convincing argument, he came to the conclusion that Omaeon's letter is doubtful and that it was composed at the end of the reign of Justinian. In addition, Halevi tries to exonerate the Jews from the accusation that they were the perpetrators of persecution, arguing that the Arians were such. Duchesne (Revue des Etudes juives, vol. XX p. 220) also rejects the authenticity of the letter, but he accepts as reliable the tradition relating to the persecution of Nejran Christians by Jews, cf. Halevi, ibid, vol. XXI, pp. 73 et seq. There are two other Syrian documents regarding the persecution of Christians by the Gimiarites. The first is a letter from Jacob of Serug to the Gimiarite Christians expressing the author’s grief over this persecution; letter published by Schröter. Jacob died in 521, the publisher dates the composition of the letter to 580.
But Guidi rightly notes that in 520 a Christian king reigned in Nejran; Jacob’s letter refers to the first persecution of Zu-Novas, which ended in 519 after the latter’s flight.
The second document is the hymn of John Psaltes (Calligrapher), abbot of the Ken-Neshri monastery. Psaltes lived in the first half of the 6th century and was a monophysite by religious convictions. The hymn of Psaltes forms part of a collection of Greek hymns translated into Saoirse by Paul of Edessa during his stay in Cyprus and reviewed by James of Edessa. It refers to the persecution during which Arefa died. Other Syriac texts talking about various martyrs outside Syria and Mesopotamia are not so interesting: they are mostly translations of the Greek Acts.
A Syriac translation of the history of the Palestinian martyrs by Eusebius was published by Evod Assemani in the second volume of Acta sanct. martyrum. Another edition (from the British Museum manuscript) was published by Cureton in 1861 and reprinted by Bejan in Acta Martyrum, I, p. 202. Bruno Violet gave a German translation of this edition, together with a study of various texts of the work of Eusebius regarding the martyrs of Palestine, in Texte und Untersuchungen of Gebhardt and Harnack, vol. XIV, 4th edition; the second part of this work was published separately as a doctoral dissertation - Ueber die Palestinischen Martyrer, Leipzig, 1896. Eusebius's panegyric of the Christian martyrs, found in the same Syriac Manuscript of the British Museum, appears through the care of Wright in the Journal of sacred literature, 4th series, vol. V, p. 403; Cowper published a translation in the same historical journal, vol. VI, p. 129. Bejan published the Syriac text of the acts of the forty Martyrs of Sebaste in the 3rd volume of the Acta martyrum, p. 355, and the homily of James of Serug on these martyrs, in the 6th volume, p. 662. The Homily of St. Ephraim on the same occasion was published by Lamy sancti Ephraemi syri hymni et sermones, III, 936. Bejan's Acta martyrum also contains a Syriac translation of various Greek acts of martyrdom.
In volume X, page 650, the homilies of Jacob of Serug, Sergius and Bacchus are printed.
From documents belonging more to the realm of tradition than history, we note the acts of St. George, martyred by one of the Persian kings, named Dadiana, St. Sophia and her three daughters: Faith, Hope and Love, martyred by Hadrian; Saint Febronia of the time of Diocletian, Saint Paphnutius and his companions - martyrs of the same era.
Eastern monks, community members and hermits, experienced a feeling of living wonder at the ascetics of the Skit and Thebaid hermitages, about whose life they read in Syrian translations; they visited places consecrated by the exploits of these ascetics and settled there if they had the opportunity. In the Skete desert, the Syrians founded the famous monastery of the Most Holy Theotokos, which still exists today. A Syriac translation of Palladius's Historia Lausiaca and Rufinus's Historia monachorum must have existed from very early times. Dad-Isho of Cathar, abbot of the great monastery on Mount Izla, who lived at the end of the 7th century, translated The Paradise of the Western Monks - this work probably means Palladius's Historia Lausiaca.
The Syrian review (edition - Ed.) of the book of Palladius, which has survived to this day, is the work of Anan-isho, undertaken by this monk in the monastery of Bet Abbe at the request of Patriarch George (661-680) and which became an exemplary work on this subject in the Nestorian monasteries. The collected work of Anan-isho is divided into 4 parts: the first two contain in Syriac all the material of the Historia Zausiaca with additions from other sources, the third is the Syriac translation of the Historia monachorum in Aegyphto (Rufina), attributed here (as in the Greek manuscripts) to Jerome, and the fourth is the collection Apophtegmata patrum, attributed Palladia. Anan-isho himself was not a translator of all texts, but only a collector into one whole of all the material available before him in the Syriac language. Based on research by Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Lausiac history of Palladius. Cambridge, 1898 (Texts and studies. Vol. IV: 1). Anan-Isho used two editions of the Syriac translation of Palladius's Historia Lausiaca. But there were more of them. In the British Museum there are manuscripts of three Syriac translations of this work and fragments of a fourth.
The work of Anan-isho has reached us in several manuscripts; one of them, which belonged to Budge, is described by this scientist in The Book of governors, etc., II, pp. 192 ff., where some excerpts are also reported (see ibid. pp. 31–36). It has now been published in full by Bejan in volume VII of Acta mart, et sanct., but this edition cannot be called critical, although the publisher used different manuscripts, the versions of which he reports. Unfortunately, Bejan did not use the above-mentioned Beja manuscript, which in many cases gives much better readings than those accepted by him in the text in the edition.
In the London manuscript Add. 172.64 there is a work entitled "Illumination of the Book of Paradise"; unfortunately, the author's name was erased from the original manuscript; but from the subsequent epithets one can conclude that its author is not Anan-Isho; Lives of St. Anthony, Paul the Hermit and St. Pachomius, which are not in Palladius’s book, are printed in volume V of Bejan’s Acta martyrum et sanct. The Syriac version of the life of St. Anthony, the Greek text of which is adopted by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, proves, as Friedrich Schultes says, that there were at least two different Greek editions, for the Syriac text suggests that there is another Greek text different from the one known. It is possible that these various Greek editions were translated into Syriac; the Syriac manuscripts presenting this life do represent significant variations, as Bejan notes. Like the Paradise of Paladius, which contained the lives of Western ascetics, there was the Paradise of the East by Joseph Gazzaia and the Little Paradise of David of Beth-Raban, which contained the lives of Eastern ascetics.
These works are known only from the Ebed-Ieshu catalog and the History of the Monks by Thomas of Marg. Dionysius Beth-Salibius of Melitene (Malatia) is noted as the author of a compedium on the history of the Fathers, Saints and Martyrs. The Life of Mar-Benjamin, a disciple of Saint Mar-Avgin, is a later work, taken in large part from the life of Mar Mika (Bejan, Acta mart. 111:510).
Acta martyrum et sancturum Bejana introduces us to the lives of some other saints from the eastern Syrians: Zaya, the great saint of Kurdistan, whose relics are in Jelu; Shalita, a student of Mar-Avgin, an Egyptian by birth, who went with Jacob of Nisibin to Mount Kordu (Ararat) to found a monastery there on the site where Noah's Ark stopped; Jonah, a student of Mar-Avgin, who went to the East with his teacher and lived as an ascetic in the desert of Peror-Shabor, or Anbar; James, Bishop of Nisibin, who was present at the Council of Nicaea, who managed, with the help of the prayers of his disciple St. Ephraim to drive the Persians away from the siege of Nisibin in 338. St. Ephraim is credited with composing the acts of Abraham of Kidun and those of Julian Saba, two saints who were contemporaries of this father. The Acts of Abraham do not appear to be those of St. Ephraim, the acts of Julian are translated into the Historia religiosa of Theodoret; see MG 82:1306. They are attributed to St. Ephraim, thanks to the hymns he composed in honor of these ascetics.
The Acts of Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, are a translation from the Greek. The style is elegant and spiritual, very precise details indicate that the author was a contemporary of the events described; [a living picture is given of the persecutions undertaken by Valens against the Orthodox, at the instigation of the Arians; Eusebius of Caesarea was placed at the head of the Arian party.
The Acts of Simeon the Stylite represent a panegyric to the great Syrian saint - a panegyric in which miracles occupy a central place. The Syriac text complements the biography of this saint, written by Theodoret of Kursk, his contemporary. Judging by the final words of these acts, they were written by Simeon, son of Apollo and Bargatarus, son of Udan, on April 17, 521 of the Antiochian era or 472 A.D., therefore several years after the death of the founder of the pillars. This conclusion destroys the hypothesis of Joseph Assemani and Evod Assemani, who considered the author of this document to be the priest Cosmas from the village of Fanir, a letter addressed to Simeon the Stylite that has survived to this day. Jacob of Serugsky compiled a metrical homily in honor of Simeon, which we owe our acquaintance to Evod Assemani.
The Life of Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, one of the best works of its kind known to us, was written shortly after the death of the bishop by one of his students. This life clearly depicts the personality of Rabbula with pronounced traits of his character - renunciation, mercy and self-sacrifice. Rabbula led an ascetic life before accepting the episcopate, and he continued to subject himself to the same hardships and mortifications when he was called to govern the Church of Edessa.
The Syrian story about the man of God belongs to this era, equally widespread both in the west and in the east. This story, which appeared in Edessa shortly after the death of Rabbula, tells how one Roman patrician, simply called the man of God, left his wife and parents on the night after his wedding, went from Rome to Edessa, where he lived on alms, spending days and nights in prayer, he was content with a small amount of bread and vegetables and gave the excess of what he received to other beggars. This saint died in the hospital. After his death, Tyros, the sexton of the Edessa Cathedral, a witness of his exemplary piety, went to tell Rabbula everything he had seen and heard about the man of God. The bishop himself wanted to bury the saint's body, but the latter was already buried, and when they opened his grave, they found only the rags in which he was dressed. This is the story in the Syriac text.
Later it turned into a new version of the story of St. Alexios, which tells that the saint was resurrected and returned to Rome to his parents, where he lived with slaves until his second death. Only then was he recognized by his own people.
The Syrian Acts of Saint Pelagia, the Aniochean Actress, converted by Nonnus, the second successor of Rabbula in the episcopal see at Edessa, are not an original document, but an additional edition of the Greek Acts of the Saint.
The lives of the saints of the Jacobite church at the end of the 5th and 6th centuries are the best source for the spread of Monophysitism in Syria and the lively trade relations established in this era between Antioch and Alexandria. The most important collection of these biographies was compiled by John of Ephesus, when he was in the monastery of St. John (Amid), and is called “Lives of Eastern Saints.” All the saints, monks and nuns that John wrote about were Monophysites and contemporaries of the author. In Volume 2 of Landa's Anecdota syriaca, pp. 32–34, a list of their names is given in the preface; The Syriac text is printed in the same volume, pp. 2–288 from the manuscript Add. 14:647~British Museum. Among these names appear: Simeon, Bishop of Beth-Arsham, whose Monophysite confession is now no longer doubted; James Baradeus, the apostle of this confession in Syria, has long been his name to the Jacobite sect; John of Tell, sent into exile in the North, Theodosius, Apoimus (?), Sergius and Paul. This biographical work of John of Ephesus is supplemented in Land's edition with several additions borrowed from other manuscripts in the British Museum.
By the way, here is the text of the life of Jacob Baradeus, which is more widespread than that given in the “Biographies of the Eastern Saints.” This second life of James Baradeus is also attributed to John of Ephesus, but Klein, to whom we owe an excellent study of James Baradeus, pointed out that it belonged to another author. We also owe to Klein our acquaintance with the life of John of Telus, written by Elias, one of the friends of the ardent Monophysite preacher, and different from the one that John of Ephesus left us.
The Life of Peter Iver, Bishop of Maiyum, which is a translation from the Greek original that is now lost, has many-sided interest, it contains new information about the kings and queens of Iberia and their conversion to Christianity, information about various localities of Palestine and Arabia, and provides some information from the history of the Alexandrian Church. Peter Iver took part in the dedication of Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Elur. The great fame enjoyed by this Madame Bishop in the East due to his outstanding religiosity is noted in various documents. The life of the ascetic Isaiah, written by 3axarius Scholasticus, was duplicated in Syriac by Land at the end of volume 3 of his Anecdota syriaca, pp. 346 et seq. and translated into German by Arex in Die sogenannre Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rbetor, Leipzig, 1899, p. 263. Zacharias the Scholastic compiled in Greek in Constantinople (in 515 or 516) the life of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch.
In compiling this biography, the author set out to, as he himself indicated in the preface, refute the slander of the opponents of the Patriarch of Antioch, who accused the latter of being a pagan in his youth. This document also contains Zechariah's autobiography. From the latter we learn that Zechariah was born near Tara, that he studied grammar, rhetoric in Alexandria and law in Beirut. He took an active part in the persecution directed against the pagans. The biography of the North begins with the youth of the hero and is brought to the moment when he became the Patriarch of Antioch. The biography of Severus, made by John, abbot of the monastery of Beth Aftonia, also written in Greek, tells of the struggle that the patriarch endured on religious issues that worried the east. The original Greek is lost, but we have a literal Syriac translation by Sergius Bar-Karya. The plerophoria of John, Bishop of Maiyum, constitute a collection of memoirs and stories about Peter Iver and the contemporary Palestinian Monophysites, divided into 89 chapters.
This work, written in Greek about 515, is preserved in the Syriac text in the manuscript Add. 14, 650 of the British Museum and was included in an abbreviated form in the history of Michael the Syrian.
Simeon Bar-Sabbae. Milles. Jacob Nisivinsky
Of Simeon Bar-Sabbae ("son of the dyer"), bishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, and of Milles, bishop of Susa, we know little more than the fact of their martyrdom during the persecution of Christians instituted by Shapur II. Simeon, says Abed-Yeshu, wrote “epistles which apparently no longer exist.” Various hymns and a work entitled "Ketava d᾽abahāta (Book of the Fathers)" are also attributed to him, which, according to Sachau, discusses the heavenly and earthly hierarchy. Abed-Yeshu argues that Millais's writings were “epistles and speeches (memre) on various subjects,” but time has deprived us of these too.
The name of Jacob (or St. Jacob) of Nisivinsky is known in much wider circles. As Bishop of Nisibin, he attended the Council of Nicaea. He was an eyewitness to the beginning of the war between the Pimlians and the Persians and, they say, delivered the city with his prayers from the dominion of the latter. He died in the same year 338. Based on the authority of Gennady of Marseilles and an ancient Armenian translation, a collection of teachings was attributed to him, the Syriac text of which was discovered and published only relatively recently. George, bishop of the Arab tribes, in a letter to a friend in 714, had information that the author of the teachings was a certain “Persian sage” (hakkima farsaya); he talks about his time and the position he occupied in the Church, but does not think of identifying him with Jacob of Nisibin. Later writers are better informed. Bar-Ebrey knows the name of Farhad as the author of the work; Ebed-Ieshu gives the more ancient form "Afrahat", or Αφραάτης, and he is also called by name Elijah of Nisibin (in the 11th century) in his chronicle.
Therefore, the true author of the 22 alphabetic teachings and the separate teaching “On the Vine” was, as is now known, Aphraates, a Persian Christian who took the name of Jacob and later became famous under the name of the “Persian Sage.”
Aphraates, Persian sage
Gennady of Marseilles in his work “De viris illustribus”, regarding the literary activity of Jacob of Nisibin, writes: “James, by the name of the sage, bishop of the glorious Nisivin of the Persian kingdom, one of the confessors during the persecution of Maximin and one of those who at the Council of Nicaea condemned the Arian superstition about imitation. Why Blessed Jerome, calling this man in his chronicle a man full of many virtues, did not mention him in the catalog, is easy to understand if we pay attention to the fact that three or four Syrian writers noted in his catalog, Blessed Jerome, according to his own words, read in translation into Greek. From this it is clear that at that time he did not know the Syriac language and literature, and therefore did not know this writer, who had not been translated into any language. Nevertheless, the works of Jacob of Nisivinsky are contained in 26 books. In the further presentation, Gennady of Marseilles gives a list of a whole kind of homilies, like the works of Jacob Nisivinsky.
Except for Gennady, none of the Greek, Latin, Syrian and Arab writers speak about the literary activity of the latter, although some of them, such as Blessed Theodoret of Kursk, John of Darsky, Dionysius Bar-Salibius, Bar-Ebreus, had direct reason to talk about it. Nevertheless, the opinion of Gennady of Marseilles found its brilliant confirmation at first glance when in 1756 Antonelli, based on a copy of the ancient Armenian codex from the library of the Mekhitarist monastery in Venice, published an Armenian translation of the homilies of Jacob of Nisibinsky, adding to it the Latin one.
It is necessary to make a reservation that Antonelli himself considered the Armenian translation to be the original text. Antonelli's edition was reprinted in his “Bibliotheca veterum patrum” and on the basis of this reprint, one of the employees of “Christian Reading” for the year 1827 gave a brief outline of the life and work of Jacob of Nisivinsky, and then over a number of years, from 1827 to 1842, published a translation of the six homilies attributed to him. While in Church historical science the opinion of Jacob of Nisivinsky as the author of famous homilies became more and more strengthened, new discoveries and research undoubtedly established that in this matter science had taken the wrong path. Among the Syrian manuscripts of the Monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Nitrian Desert, which came to the British Museum between 1838 and 1864, there are three ancient manuscripts that contain 23 homilies. The latter in their content coincide with those mentioned by Gennady Marseille, and their text is the original in relation to the Armenian translation of 19 conversations published by Antonelli.
Nevertheless, the researchers did not dare to substitute the name of Jacob of Nisivin under the vague and mysterious expressions that are used in the Syrian manuscripts to designate the author of 23 homilies, such as: “the sage of Persia, “Mar Jacob, the sage of Persia,” and they did this for sufficient reasons: 1) The activities of Jacob, bishop of Nisivin, took place mainly in Nisivin, which is the only place in the world 363 years old, concluded between Jovian and Shapur II, came under Sassanid rule. Consequently, there was no historical basis for Jacob of Nisivinsky to adopt the name Sapientis Persae; 2) Second and decisive reason. The homilies of the Syriac manuscripts from the 11th to the 22nd were written, as evidenced by the author himself, in the year 655 of the Ionian era, i.e. in 343–344 AD. Meanwhile, Jacob of Nisivinsky died in 338. This is a firmly established historical date, which is based on the message of the Edessa Chronicle, Dionysius of Tel Mahr, the so-called “Book of Caliphs”, Elijah Bar Shinai and Ephraim the Syrian.
Thus, the question of the authorship of Jacob of Nisivinsky in relation to the homilies mentioned by Gennady of Marseilles and contained in the Armenian and Syrian manuscripts disappeared by itself. Meanwhile, the totality of evidence from ancient writers made it possible to definitively resolve the issue of the name of the Persian sage. Isho Bar-Bahlul, a famous Syrian lexicographer of the 10th century, writes in his dictionary: “Afraat, mentioned in the Book of Paradise, is, according to legend, a Persian sage.” Elijah bar Shinaya inscribed one chapter of his “Chronographiae” as follows: “the years of the house of Adam according to Aphraates, the Persian sage.” Gregory Bar-Ebrey in the “Chronico Ecelesiastico” reports: “in his, i.e. Pope, Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, at the time, a Persian sage named Farhad was known.” Ebed-Yeshu, listing in his catalog all the books of ecclesiastical works by Syriac, Greek and Latin writers, makes, among other things, the following remark: “the most blessed Aphraates, this sage of Persia, set out two volumes of speeches, arranged in alphabetical order.”
Thus, the Syrian writers testify with complete certainty that the name of the Persian sage, the author of the homilies, was Aphraates. But how to explain the mistake of Gennady of Marseilles and the Armenian translator? The answer to this question is given by one small note by an unknown reader in the margins of the Syriac manuscript (1364), where we read: “The sage Aphraates is Jacob, bishop of the monastery of Mar Matthew.” Based on this note, we can conclude that the original name of the Persian sage was Aphraates, but in subsequent times, probably when he was elevated to the rank of bishop, according to the custom of the Syro-Persian Church, his name was changed to Jacob.
William Cureton, who discovered the original text of the homilies of the Persian Sage, had no doubt that they belonged to Aphraates, and on his deathbed bequeathed to his friend, viro de syriacis litteris peritissimo, Wright their publication, which the latter carried out in 1869. Soon afterwards there appeared a study by Sasse and Forget, a translation by Bert᾽a, into German and an edition by Graffin᾽a, where, in addition to the Syriac text, a Latin translation and an extensive praefatio Parisot are given. Thus, the ancient Syrian writer Afraat was restored to ownership of his literary works, which Gennady of Marseilles and the Armenian translator had deprived him of.
Afraat, or Afrahat, is one of those writers about whose activities the most scanty information has been preserved to this day, but only thanks to the foresight of Afraat himself. It is known that he wrote the first ten of his homilies in the year 648 of the Ionian era, the next twelve in 655, and the last homilia was compiled in the month Ab 656. If these data are translated into our chronology, we get in the first case 336–337, in the second 343–344, in the third – 345.
Since Aphraates wrote his homilies, of course, already in adulthood, which is undoubtedly evidenced by the scientific exhaustive knowledge of Holy Scripture, as well as the design and construction of speeches, it will not be a big mistake if, together with Sasse and Forget, we attribute the time of birth of Aphraates to the 80s of the 3rd century. Therefore, George, bishop of the Arab tribes (724), was right when, in a letter to the priest and recluse Jesus of Innib, he wrote that those who consider the sage of Persia a disciple of Ephraim the Syrian, who, as is known, died in June 373, are mistaken. Whether Aphraates was a Christian by birth, or whether he only later turned to faith in the Redeemer, Sasse answered this question laconically: omnino nescimus. But already Forget, followed by Bert, Parisot, Bpockelman, Nöldecke and others, based on a number of passages from the homilies of the Persian sage, established that he was born into a pagan family. The name itself speaks for this - Afraat. Some passages from the homilies of the Sage of Persia also speak for this, cf. hom.
XVII; “He turned our stubborn minds away from universal superstition and empty delusion and taught us to worship, serve and pray to the One God, the Father and Creator of our thoughts... And if you (a Jew) say that the Messiah has not yet come, then I will invite you to read this. For it is written that when He comes, the Gentiles will trust in Him (Gen. 49:10). And so I heard from the pagans that Christ would come, and before He came, I already believed in Him and through Him I would glorify the God of Israel. When He comes, will it really expose me that I believed in Him before He came,” hom.XVI: “The Jews are angry because we have been made heirs in their place.”
On the question of the homeland and place of activity of Aphraates, Bishop George already wrote: “where the Persian sage lived in Nisivin, as some say, or in some other place, he himself least of all speaks about it.” But there is a lot of data that convinces us that Aphraates lived and acted not in Nisivin or some other city under the rule of the Romans, but precisely within the boundaries of the Sassanid kingdom. This is evidenced, firstly, by the name Frahat itself, which, translated from Persian, according to Sasse, means dux, praeposibus, and according to the late professor V.V.
Bolotova, προών, praesens, the real most excellent; secondly, the fact that Aphraates, exposing the Valentinians, Marcionites and Manichaeans, did not say a single word about the Arian heresy, which by 343–345, the time of the compilation of the last 13 homilies, caused unrest among the Christians of western Syria, who were under the rule of the Romans; thirdly, the Persian sage often calculated times by the years of the reign of Shapur II; fourthly, in the homily De bellis, where the author assures his addressee that in the upcoming war between the Persians and the Romans, victory will remain on the side of the latter, Shapura II and the Romans are depicted under images borrowed from the book of the prophet Daniel. Symbols would have been completely unnecessary if Aphraates had felt himself beyond the reach of the power of the formidable Shapur.
To resolve the question of the position of Aphraates in the Persian Church, we have only the data contained in his XIV and X homilies. Homily XIV is a letter written by Aphraates on behalf of a council of bishops, deacons, presbyters and laity, which was convened on the occasion of discord between believers and terrible vices among the clergy. It opens with the following words: “We bishops, presbyters and deacons and the entire Church of God, together with all the sons of her various countries who are with us, decided to write this letter to our brothers, all the sons of the Church who live in various places. To our brothers, beloved bishops, presbyters and deacons, together with all the sons of the Church who are with you, in the Lord our life-giving God, who through Christ gave us life and drew us to Himself, may there be great peace.” This introduction leaves no doubt that Aphraates was a member of the clergy, and Bishop George already referred to this place to confirm the same idea.
Reading further pages of the XIV homily, we will notice that the author castigates vices, especially arrogance, pride, greed, envy, love of strife, abuse of power, etc. persons whom he calls rulers, judges, shepherds, leaders, prophets or teachers, the light of the world, the salt of the Earth, the eyes of the body of the Church of Christ, the house built on top of the rock, wise architects, apostles.
There is no doubt that Aphraates is talking about bishops and priests, among whom he includes himself when he writes: “this we did, and this happened to us. We are ruined (robbed), we are oppressed. Since we hated each other, those who hate us without any reason have multiplied. Because we laughed at others, now they laugh at us. Since we slandered, we ourselves became the subject of slander. Because we despised, now they despise us. Because we were exalted, we found ourselves humbled. Because of the injustice that we committed, injustice fell upon us.” A little lower, addressing the same shepherds of the Persian Church, Aphraates writes: “let us humble ourselves, beloved, by labor, fatigue, wakefulness, fasting, prayer, supplication and condemnation by the righteous judgment of God. We must not neglect the judgment of the Holy One, lest He reject us.” From these and other similar places it is concluded that the Persian sage was either a bishop or a priest.
But the authoritative tone in which the epistle was written, the very fact of denouncing the bishops and the order to compose the epistle on behalf of the council suggest that the denouncer himself was a bishop who enjoyed not only wide authority, but also the advantage of power among other pastors. To whom else, if not a respected bishop, are these words befitting, which we read in the X homily: “I demand from you, shepherds, that you do not appoint foolish or inexperienced people, or greedy and addicted to wealth, as rulers of the flock.” That by shepherds in this sentence we mean bishops, as Sasse notes, does not require further proof.
In the light of these provisions, the message of an unknown reader of the codex of 1364 that Mar-Jacob Aphraates was the bishop of the monastery of Mar Matthew takes on significance. With this remark in margin is usually compared the message of Assemanius that “once Nineveh was the see of a bishop, who was also called the bishop of the monastery of Mar Matthew. Two remarks must be made regarding this comparison. Monastery of St. Matthew near Mosul, located on the southwestern bank of the Tigris River, played a major role in the history of the enlightenment of the Syrian Church. Isaac of Nineveh, famous for his writings on asceticism, came from here. Here lived Maruta, as Wright notes, the first true Mafrian and the organizer of the Jacobite Church in the east. Dionysius of Tel-Mahr remained here for some time, as evidenced by Bar-Ebreus. The monk and bishop of this monastery was Jacob Bar-Shakko, famous for his “Book of Treasures” and letters. His enormous library, Wright and Duval suspect, was used to fuel a public bathhouse.
The activity of Bar-Ebrey, one of the most learned and sensitive men that Syria has ever produced, may be thought to be in connection with the monastery of Mar Matthew, for here his body was transported and here his grave was seen as early as October 1843 by Badger. But the existence of this glorious monastery during the time of Aphraates must be called into question. This question remains valid for us, even after the bold assurances of Budge that this monastery was founded by Mar-Matthew, a disciple of Mar-Avgin, and that it already existed in the time of the “Persian Sage”. It remains valid because the first half of this statement rests on Bege’s blind trust in such a literary monument as the life of Mar-Avgin. The latter, as Labourt᾽a's research shows, is a complete legend. In the second half of their statement, Bedge, together with Hoffmann, rely on a note in the margin of the 1364 manuscript, on which, due to its late origin, it is impossible to draw serious conclusions.
The existence of the see of the Bishop of Nineveh during this period must also be questioned even more. In the Syrian Martyrology 411–412 the names of Yohannan and Abraham, bishops of Arbel, and four presbyters from Khdayav are already inscribed, while the names of the martyrs of Nineveh or Ator are not found. Probably, Christianity in Nineveh in the 4th and 5th centuries was still quite weakly spread, and the first bishop of Nineveh, Ahudemeh, whose name is known to us, appears only at the VII Council of the Persian Church, precisely in 553.
When and with what death Aphraat died is unknown. Nestle is inclined to identify the sage of Persia with the martyr Aphraates of the Syrian martyrology of 411–412. But to what extent such an identification has any basis, the Syrian martyrology itself can best say. Here we read: “The names of the gentlemen confessors killed in the east: Ava, the first confessor, Dalai, the second confessor, Bulkha-Khazar and Afraat and Minophil from among the ancients; Milos, resp. Milles, bishop and Abursam and Sine, ancient confessors.
The names of the lords of the confessors of Persia: Simeon and Barbashmin and Shahdost, bishops of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, the city of Beth-Armai, etc. From the above list it is clear, firstly, that the first eight martyrs were also killed in the east, i.e. not in the Roman cities of Edessa and Nisivin, but within the borders of the Persian kingdom, for the Edessa and Nisivin martyrs are already recorded in the first part of the Syrian martyrology, as “Western Confessors”; secondly, the first eight martyrs suffered before St. Simeon Bar-Sabbae, i.e. before the persecution that began in 31 of the reign of Shapur II or 340 AD.
The time of life and activity of Aphraates is a time of severe crisis in the history of the Syro-Persian Church, the reasons for which were given both in the internal conditions of the life of the Church and externally - in relation to the secular authorities.
While zealous missionaries spread the light of the teachings of the Savior of the world to the most remote corners of the Sassanid kingdom, the shepherds of the Syro-Persian Church moved away from it. Here's a fact. The author of the martyrdom of Milles, bishop of Suzana, and Abursam, presbyter and deacon Sina at the beginning of the persecution, “narrates that Bishop Milles, at one of the Beth-Armai councils, confronted the bishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon, Pope Bar-Agaius, in a dispute: “St. Milles denounced the Pope for cruelty towards the presbyters and deacons of his city,” and in conclusion quoted the words of the Lord: “Whoever wants to be first among you, be your slave” (Matthew 20:27). The Pope replied to Millais: “Foolish man, do you really think that I don’t know the Scriptures?” Milles placed in front of him the Gospel, which he constantly carried with him, and said: “If you do not want to hear the truth from me, then listen to it from the Gospel.” The Pope, at the suggestion of the devil, striking the Gospel with his hand, mockingly said to the Gospel: “Tell me the truth, Gospel, I will listen.” This is a fact. We have no doubt about its reliability.
And here is the whole picture that Afraat paints before us. “Leaders have risen among our people who have abandoned the law and are known for their cruelty. They gather wealth and are overcome by greed. They give money for interest and accept collateral. They allow the guilty and condemn the innocent, they love the rich, they hate the poor, they feed themselves, but they scatter their flock. In their days the law was darkened, the commandments of the Lord were forgotten. They are filled with anger and rage, they enjoy ridicule, they love sins. What is good, they call evil, and what is evil, they call good, they consider light to be darkness, and darkness to be light, they pass off bitter as sweet, and sweet as bitter.” This picture is all the more characteristic of the morals of the shepherds of the Syro-Persian Church because at that time the formidable Shapur II, the “king of kings and brother of the Sun,” struck the Christians of the Sassanid kingdom as a thunderstorm.
Shapur II, simultaneously with the war against the Romans, launched a merciless persecution of the Christians of his state, which in the mournful annals of the Christian East is called great and which is reflected, for example, in Syrian literature in voluminous scrolls of the lives of St. martyrs who suffered under Shapur II.
In order to disorganize Christianity, Shapur devoted special efforts to the destruction of churches and the persecution of bishops and priests, and he had a technique to weaken the spirit of communities, so that priests were stoned by prominent members of their own flock. Of course, while Shapur was guided by political considerations, the magicians tried to take advantage of the opportunity and gave full manifestation to their religious fanaticism, which is why the persecution of Christians acquired an even darker shade. In the acts of the martyrs who suffered during the persecution of Shapur II, another enemy of the Syro-Persian Christians is often mentioned, who armed the government and people against them. We mean the Jews, whose number was especially numerous in ancient Babylonia, which formed the core of the Perthian and Sassanian kingdoms. The vast territory that the Jews occupied here, according to Neubauer᾽a’s study “Geography of the Talmud,” embraced many districts that bore the following names in Talmudic writing: Babylon, i.e.
the region lying between the Tigris and the Euphrates, in the place where these rivers converge especially close to each other: Mesopotamia or Mesopotamia, the maritime district, the area near the Persian Gulf east of Shat-El-Arab, Meshan or, according to Greek and Latin authors, Mesena, the region west of Shat-El-Arab and north of the Persian Gulf. The external position of the Jews within the Parthian and Sassanian kingdoms should be considered favorable to them. What freedom of action the Parthians provided to the Jews is evident from the flourishing of the small Jewish fiefdom of Nagardea. Even more remarkable is the conversion to Judaism of the king of the Babylonian region, Adiabene. The Jews enjoyed the same freedom under the first Sassanids, from Ardeshir to Bahram V. King Shapur II honored Mar-Samuel with such friendship that the latter himself was sometimes called “King Shapur.” The attitude of the Syro-Persian Jews towards Christians at first, as evidenced by the teachings of Addai, was imbued with a feeling of great goodwill, but then changed sharply and turned directly into hostility.
The acts of the martyrs who suffered during the persecution of Shapur II often mention that the accusers of Christians before the king were, in addition to magicians, Jews. We have no reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the messages.
The internal mood and moral decline of the clergy, the persecution of Shapur II, the bitterness of the Zoroastrian clergy and the enmity of the Jews - these were the main moments in the life of the Syro-Persian Church during the activity of Aphraates, which found expression in his 23 homilies. 22 of them are arranged in the order of the letters of the Semitic alphabet, and the first word of each of these homilies begins with the corresponding letter in strict alphabetical order. This was not the fruit of an idle and idle thought: Aphraates wanted to prevent interpolations. Therefore, he is not content with alphabetical order and at the end of the 22 homilies he again lists all his conversations. The immediate reason for their compilation was the request of one of Aphraates’ friends, whose name is unknown to us, to quench his thirst for religious knowledge and, above all, to resolve questions about the essence and content of faith. In his homilial response letters, Aphraates went, as he himself admits, beyond the boundaries of his friend’s questions.
The first ten of these homilies, with the exception of the fifth, are devoted to the question of faith and good deeds associated with it, namely, love, fasting, prayer, repentance, and stewardship of the flock. The fifth homily, which is signed “On Wars,” has a different purpose. For in it Aphraates does not speak of a spiritual struggle, as Assemanius suggests, but undoubtedly of the war between Shapur II and Constantine the Great that had begun or threatened to begin. Why Shapur II and the Romans are depicted in it under images borrowed from the book of the prophet Daniel, we have already discussed this above.
Homilies from XI to XXII are dedicated to the defense of the Christian religion against the Jews. Only XIV has a different purpose; it is aimed at restoring peace among the believers of the Syro-Persian Church and raising the moral level of its shepherds. Antonelli was sure that this homily did not belong to the author of the other 18 conversations that are in the Armenian Codex and found the basis for this, by the way, in the note of the Armenian translator.
But the latter only says that the XIV homily was not written to Gregory the Enlightener of Armenia. We can put Antonelli's doubts aside, for Aphraates himself testifies that the letter was written by him and on behalf of the council. Assemanius thinks that the latter was convened on the occasion of a schism caused by the arrogance and cruelty of the Pope, Archbishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. But this opinion is refuted by chronological data. According to Bar-Ebrey, the council to examine the Pope’s case took place ten years after the Council of Nicaea, i.e. in the year 334, and the Pope himself died, according to Bar-Ebreus in the year 335, and according to Assemanius in the year 326. Aphraates says that he composed the message in the month of February 655 of the Ionian era or 344 AD. Wright, in the preface to his edition of the works of Aphraates, expresses the opinion that the letter was written on behalf of the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 344. But church historical science, as far as we know, does not have any data about this cathedral.
The last 23rd homily, “On the Vine,” which surpasses all others in its volume, was written in August 345 AD, when Shapur II’s persecution of Christians reached particular intensity. One after another, three Seleucia-Ctesiphon Catholicos, Simeon Bar-Sabbae, Shahdost and Barbashmin, were executed, and, according to the Acta martyrum, a twenty-year, and according to Elia Nisivinsky, a forty-year widowhood of the Seleucia-Ctesiphon See began. In this homily, Aphraates answers the following questions from his friend, shocked by the bitterness and difficulty of the situation: what is the essence and significance of the vine that the prophet Isaiah spoke about? Why are the prayers of the righteous sometimes heard by the Lord, and sometimes not?
The 23 homilies of Aphraates, written in a light, not devoid of grace, style in pure Syriac, as Noldeke notes, and constructed according to a very simple plan, introduce us to the circle of the worldview of the Church within the Sassanid kingdom, which had not yet been reached by the great wave of Trinitarian disputes that arose in the Greco-Roman Church. The sources that determined the views of its first literary representative, from whom original works have been preserved intact to this day, are of three kinds. Among them, the first place is occupied by the Holy Scripture. Aphraat constantly emphasizes that he is a student of the Holy Writers. Their books are an immeasurable wealth. Human thought is unable to explore or exhaust it. Ten scholars can interpret the same passage in ten different ways, and not one of them will deviate from the truth. Aphraates himself preferred the literal meaning of Scripture, although he often turned to the mystical. The second source of the views of the Persian sage is Church tradition.
“What I wrote in these chapters,” notes Aphraates in the XXII homily, “was written not according to the views of an individual man, but according to the views of the entire Church.” According to Parisot, it is the influence of church tradition that explains the points of agreement that are observed between Aphraates and Ephraim the Syrian.
Bishop George, who carefully studied the works of Aphraates, in a letter to the priest and recluse Jesus of Innib, among other things, notes: “Know, friend of learning, that the Persian writer made all his calculations from the books of the Jews.” These words of Mar-George lead us to the third source of the worldview of Aphraates: the Jewish tradition, which was jealously guarded in the Babylonian academies of Nagardea, Sura, Pumpadita, Peroz-Shabor and Makhoz and from here penetrated into the Christian schools of the Syro-Persian Church. A zealous opponent of Judaism, who directed almost the entire second series of his homilies against it, Aphraates of Persia was himself imbued to the marrow with the learning of the Babylonian Jews. The latter determined not only his chronological calculations, contained in the XXIII homily, not only his opinions on certain sometimes petty issues from the history of the chosen people, but even such an important point of his worldview as the doctrine of the duration of the existence of this world.
Based on the misunderstanding of the words of Psalm 89: “Like a thousand years before Your eyes, O Lord, like yesterday,” the idea that the world will exist for six thousand years became firmly established among the Jews and was reflected in the Talmud. Relying on the authority of teachers and proceeding from the same words of Psalm 89, Aphraates expresses a completely identical thought, namely, in the 21st homilies he writes: “the world, just as it was created within six days, will be destroyed after 6,000 years, and then the Sabbath of God will come in the likeness of the one that was after six days of creation.”
Dogmatic and moral teaching of Aphraates 597
Aphraat confesses the eternal one uncreated God and three persons in Him. His teaching about the nature of the Son is an echo of the Gospel of John and is developed in the 17th homily. This last one was written against the Jews, who accused Christians of worshiping a simple man, calling Him the Son of God, forgetting the saying of God: “I am God and there is no God except Me.” “We,” notes Aphraat, “hold firmly that Jesus our Lord God is, the Son of God, the King and the Son of the King, the Light of the Light, the Son and the Counselor, the Leader and the Life, the Savior and the Shepherd, the Gate, the Pearl and the Candle. Thus, many more names can be adopted by Him. But we want to leave all this aside and only show that He is the Son of God, God Himself, Who came from God.” In other places, Aphraates defines the Son as the Only Begotten, the Only One, Who came from the bosom of the Father, equal to Him from the beginning, and notes: “in praising Him, we praise the nature of the Father, who separated Him from His essence and sent Him to us.” So, the dogma of Christ, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, finds clear expression in the homily of Aphraates.
His teaching on the Holy Spirit is worthy of attention. If in the Creed we say about God the Father: “Creator” of the world, we must equally put in a certain gender the definitions relating to the Holy Spirit. Greek πνεῦμα is neuter. There is no neuter gender in the Semitic language, and ruach, the word for wind, spirit, femini generis. In ancient Syriac literature, which was free from Greek influence, the Holy Spirit was defined as a feminine person. In the 23rd homily Aphraates writes: “Dominion and honor belong to the Father, the Son and the Spirit, the Life-Giver and the Holy One.” The Life-Giving One and the Holy One in older manuscripts, as Wright notes, are placed in the feminine gender. But Aphraat goes further and transfers the question from a grammatical basis to the basis of definitions of the metaphysical properties of the Holy Spirit. In his homily “On virginity against the Jews,” he writes: “We have heard from the law: let a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. But who (the one? - Ed.) leaves his father and mother when he accepts a wife.
The meaning of the words is this; while a man does not have a wife, he loves and honors God (his Father), and the Holy Spirit (his Mother), and he has no other love. But as soon as a man takes a wife, he leaves his father and mother, precisely those whom I spoke about above, and attaches his mind to the world. His mind, his heart, his thoughts move far from God and he is immersed in the world, and he loves it, as a husband loves the wife of his youth. And his love for the world is different from the one with which he loves his father and his mother.”
The creation of the world out of nothing in six days, as well as the provision for it, Aphraates assimilates to the Father. Everything exists by His will. He commands, and the Sun rises and flows around the whole world. The Moon changes in an amazing way, and God did this to distinguish between the times. He established the stars in the firmament and adorned the entire Universe. By His will the winds blow and stir the sea, mountains move, birds soar in the air and fish swim in the rivers. Everything that was, is and will be - all of this was created by the Father and all of this by its nature is different from Him. Man was created on the sixth day, but in Divine thought he existed before all heavenly and earthly creations. The husband, intending to marry his son, chooses a bride for him, builds a house, decorates it and prepares in it everything that is necessary for the future family, after which he arranges a wedding feast and brings his son into the house. Likewise, God created man only when the world was already decorated and organized. He formed him with His own hands, breathed His breath into him, and gave him the ability to discern good and evil and to know God as his Creator.
The woman, who played (according to Afraat) a fatal role in the history of mankind, was the immediate cause of this fall. Through Eve, writes the Persian sage, the devil approached Adam and Adam, due to his inexperience, was deceived and condemned. Adam's condemnation spread to all his sons. “For,” notes Aphraates, “whoever ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge has lost the fruit of the tree of life.” “Among those born,” he writes in another place, “there is not one innocent except our Lord Jesus Christ.” The consequence of condemnation was death, as an eternal reminder of the sin of our ancestors and a warning against our personal sins. “From the days of Adam, sin reigned in the world, and among people there was no one who, when entering into conflict, was not wounded... Repelled by many, the sin of many others conquered and killed them, although it itself was not struck to death until the Savior came. God sent Christ in the likeness of a servant, so that the devil and his army would be put to shame, and the King would come down from His place and be born of the Virgin Mary from the seed of the house of David through the Holy Spirit.
He who is rest to all who labor, Himself grew weary on the way; Who is the source that waters the entire Universe, thirsted and asked for water; Abundant with everything - hungry; He who lived in Heaven had no place to lay his head. The hands of the doctor of all the sufferers were pierced with nails. The Giver of Life to all mortals was put to death on the cross, for the Father wanted us to come to life through the death of His Only Begotten Son. Through the cross we have received salvation and redemption by the body and blood of Christ.” “The door of the kingdom,” writes Aphraates, “is open to all.” But only those who are reborn to a new life through faith, grace-filled enlightenment in the sacrament of baptism, participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist and repentance enter it.
Aphraat reveals the question of faith, its content and practical significance in his first homily. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,” and if the Persian sage placed the discussion of this problem at the forefront of his creations, he did so, undoubtedly, because it was the most important for him. 150 years later, the Syrian theologian and scientist, the ardent Philoxenus of Mabbog, also opened his “speeches on the best behavior” with a discussion of the issue of faith as the basis of life in Christ. Faith, according to Afraat, is like a building that consists of heterogeneous and varied materials. The foundation of our faith is Christ. Bepa is established on this stone, and the whole building is built on Bepa. Its components are: fasting with holiness, prayer, love, mercy, meekness, humility, virginity, purity, wisdom, patience, peacefulness, modesty. All this is proposed and affirmed by faith, based on a solid and indestructible stone, which is Jesus Christ, who dwells in people who are created through these virtues. Having indicated the fruits of faith, Aphraat proceeds to define its essence.
“This is faith,” he says, “for a person to believe in God, the Lord of all, who created Heaven and Earth, the sea and everything in them, who created Adam in His image and gave the law to Moses, who sent His Spirit on the prophets and finally sent the Messiah into the world. This is faith, so that a person believes in the resurrection of the dead and the sacrament of baptism.” Faith finds its completion in the sacrament of baptism, in the waters of which a person is reborn for a new life. Baptism is “true circumcision.” In it, the believer is forgiven of his sins and receives the spirit of the Messiah. “At that hour when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit, the Heavens are opened, and He comes down, hovers over the water and draws those who are baptized to Himself. For from all those born carnally, until they are reborn by water, the Spirit is far away" 598 .
In the act of baptism a person becomes a member of the Church of God, and in the sacrament of the Eucharist a partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ. Noteworthy is the certainty with which Aphraates confesses the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of baptism.
“Fasting must be observed precisely in the sense as the prophet Isaiah defined it once and for all: abstinence from bread and wine. The fast of Abel and Enoch, righteous Noah, believing Abraham, chaste Joseph should be our example. Think and understand, my dear, how good it is when a person cleanses his heart, guards his tongue and keeps his hands from evil. If a person wants to fast with bread and water, then he should not mix adultery and other shameful deeds with fasting.”
“Only you have the door to your home, which is the church of God. It is impossible, man, for anything dirty and unclean to come out through the same door through which the King passes.” “Listen to what the Savior told us: it is not what enters a person that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth is his defilement.” In these passages, taken from the third homily, Aphraates teaches about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This is even more clearly reflected in the XII homily, where the Persian sage offers a unique calculation of the three days and nights of Christ’s stay in the tomb. In his homily “On Easter” Aphraates says: “Our Lord gave His body and His blood to the disciples. But He,” he continues, “Whose blood they drink and Whose body they eat, must be numbered among the dead.” The three days and three nights of the Lord’s stay in the tomb must be calculated from the time of the Last Supper,” and since Aphraates counts the three-hour darkness as a whole night, and then the remaining time of Friday as a whole night, and then the remaining time of Friday as a whole day, he without difficulty receives the desired sum of days and three nights.
Thus, Christ at the same time celebrated Easter together with His disciples and was the Paschal lamb. “Therefore,” adds Aphraates, “He was silent before Pilate, for it is impossible that He who was already numbered among the dead could still speak.” The peculiar calculus belongs, of course, to the oddities of Aphraates' exegesis. For the history of Christian teaching, the idea argued by this calculation is important - the recognition of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Aphraat's instructions regarding the sacrament of repentance are no less clear: life is a difficult path of struggle, a path of fall and rebellion. Doctors or priests have the gift of healing those wounded in this struggle, as soon as they themselves open their wounds and say: “I have sinned.” Let no one hesitate to confess and reveal their sins. Doctors should help everyone and not refuse treatment to anyone.
Ancient Syriac Theology 599. Aphraat. His concept of faith. Aphraat and Trinitarian doctrine. His teaching about the Holy Spirit. Christology. Saint Ephraim the Syrian. Carmina Nisibena. Poetry of Saint Ephraim. His Sermo de Dominon Nostro. Rabbula. Decline
In some churches it was the custom on major holidays of the Church year to read the Latin Confession of Faith, known to us under the name of the Athanasian Creed. This monument is currently not popular. He proves that he will not warm you with the warmth of feeling. But there is one saying in the Athanasian Symbol that so elegantly represents the essence of the great disputes of the 4th and 5th centuries that I used it as a kind of text. As you know, the Athanasian symbol teaches us to say, “Just as by Christian truth we are forced to confess each person in himself as God and Lord, so the Catholic religion forbids us to speak of three Gods and three Lords.”
The Catholic religion is the living and uninterrupted tradition of the doctrine once communicated to people through revelation; Christian truth is the logical development by Christian thinkers of the reverence of the faithful for their Lord, interpreted in the light of Greek philosophy. Here, finally, we become acquainted with what was not necessarily sacred for Christians. A significant and serious question arises as to how much of the outward expression of our religion was played not by Divine revelation, but by the desire to harmonize it with the philosophical ideas current at the time when Christian theology was being defined. In the present reading I will try to throw light on the great theological controversies by examining what a Syriac-speaking Churchman, who lived apart from the atmosphere of Greek and Latin thought, thought of some of the leading members of the Christian religion.
We must not take the sermons in the Doctrine of Addai as an early expression of Syrian theology, for we have seen that this work contains some later elements, and it is quite possible that the compiler of this apocryphal book, writing it at the very end of the fourth century, put into the mouth of Addai phrases which had never been used before, but arose in the midst of the controversy. It is a fact that the excellent learned abbot Tixeron, who very carefully examined the theological explanations in the Doctrine of Addai, came to the conclusion that their phraseology was post-Nicene both in thought and in time. We cannot therefore take the Teachings of Addai as our starting point, but we have another remarkable work, usually known as the Homilies of Aphraates. This work is remarkably adapted, both from its content and from the personality of the writer, to serve us as an introduction to the theology of the ancient Syrian Church.
[Afraat, or rather Afrahat, generally known as the “Sage of Persia,” lived in the first half of the 4th century. The first 10 of his 22 homilies were compiled in 337, the remaining 12 in 344, and an additional homily, On the Vine, dated to 345 AD. He was a monk and a bishop. One later tradition says that he was the abbot of the monastery of St. Matthew near Mosul. It is reliably known that Aphraates was among the members of the council of 344 and that he was elected to compose a district message on behalf of the council, addressed to the metropolitan diocese of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. He subsequently published this message as No. 14 of his homilies.
The outline of Aphraates's great work is remarkably adapted to give a general overview of Syrian theology. We speak of the "homilies" of Aphraates from those speeches that are known by that name, and are not a collection of random conversations. On the contrary, it is a complete and coherent presentation of the Christian faith, structured in the form of answers to second-person questions. The 22 teachings correspond to the 22 letters of the Semitic alphabet, and the first word of each teaching begins with the corresponding letter of the alphabet: the first with Alaph, the second with Beth, etc. This is not a simple quirk, but a serious technique to preserve the true order of speeches. It is difficult to interpolate or distort an acrostic poem without it being immediately noticed. And as if not satisfied with this alphabetical order, Aphraates, at the end of the 22nd homily, lists the entire series in the correct order].
It is necessary first of all to note the official position and unblemished reputation of Aphraates if we are to appreciate the significance of what he spoke about. Later generations of Syrian writers can tell us very little about Aphraates, except what we know about him from his writings, but all, without exception - both Nestorians and Monophysites - alike testify to the Orthodoxy of this father of the fourth century.
Let's start with the first homily “On Faith” 600. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and dogmatically, what comes first is the main thing in the eyes of the writer. Bepa, according to Afraat, is like a building made of different materials of different colors. But the foundation of our faith is Jesus Christ, the chief cornerstone, as the prophets say (§2). First, a person believes, then he loves, then he hopes, then he becomes justified and perfect and is the church in which the Messiah dwells, as Jeremiah said: “The church of the Lord, the church of the Lord, you are the church of the Lord, if you correct your ways and your deeds” 601, and as our Lord himself said: “You are in me, and I in you” (§ 3). A person who has faith tries to become a worthy abode for the spirit of the Messiah. There must be: fasting, prayer, love, mercy, humility, virginity, chastity, prudence, hospitality, simplicity, patience, meekness, contrition, purity: faith needs all these ornaments (§ 4). Christ is both the foundation and owner of the house of faith.
Jeremiah says that people are churches of God, and the Apostles said: “The Spirit of Christ dwells in you.” This is one and the same, for the Lord said: “I and the Father are one” (§5). The prophets spoke of the Messiah as a stone or rock (§§ 6–9) and as light (§§ 10–11). He is the only foundation that can withstand fire (§§ 12–13). Faith leads us to heaven, saves us from the flood, frees captives, quenches fire, feeds the hungry, restores us from the grave, stops the mouth of lions, humbles the proud, exalts the meek (§ 18).
Afraat does not limit himself to vague generalizations. After praising faith, he defines it:
For this, he says (§ 19), is faith:
If a person believes in God, the Lord of all,
Who created the Heavens and the Earth and the seas and everything that is in them,
Who created Adam in His own image,
Who gave the law to Moses,
Who sent His Spirit upon the Apostles,
Who sent His Messiah into the world,
And if a person believes in the resurrection of the dead
And he also believes in the mystery of baptism:
This is faith in the Church of God,
And if a person separates himself
from observing the hours and Sabbaths and months and seasons,
magic and fortune telling, and astrology and magic,
from fornication and feasting and from
vain doctrines, weapons of evil, and
from the flattery of sweet speeches, from blasphemy and adultery;
And unless a person bears false witness and speaks in two ways:
These are the works of faith, resting on the sure rock,
who is the Messiah, upon him is erected every building.
This is the confession of faith of Aphraates. For him, Christianity was a revelation of the Holy Spirit dwelling in man and fighting moral evil, and not only or mainly the subject of philosophical speculation about the nature of the Divine in itself. [But this is completely alien to the character of Greek and Latin Christianity, as it appears from the 4th century].
About 150 years after Aphraates wrote, Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis and a prominent Syrian theologian and scholar, wrote his discourses on Christian life and character. He also began with the Christian faith and also hoped to define it well. This is what he says 602: “Through faith you have heard everything about God: that He is eternal and infinite and that He exists in Himself, and that He was not created by anyone else, and that He is not one person, but an essential substance, which is believed and confessed to be in three persons. And, moreover, regarding persons, the word of faith teaches you to affirm that He who gave birth was not divided, and that He who was begotten was not separated, but the Father exists with His Son by nature and eternally together with the Holy Spirit, Who is of the same nature with Him.” And so on and so forth, for as far as I have read, what follows is an examination of the nature of cherubim and what to think about their spiritual state. For Philoxenus, faith ceased to animate the entire personality; it became a matter of the head, not the heart, rather a subject of the Theological system than of moral duty.
For the Syrians, just as for us, the philosophy of the Greeks was an unusual way of thinking, and faith, expressed in an alien or unsuitable philosophy, necessarily had to become artificial.
It should not be assumed that Aphraates did not recognize the Trinity. We learn from him that the Syrian Church, like the rest of Christendom, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and his testimony is confirmed by the Doctrine of Addai and other early Syriac documents. “The head of man,” says Aphraates (23:63~–Wright, 500), “is the Messiah.” O you who swear with your head and, moreover, falsely, if you call on three great and glorious names on your head: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if you have received the seal of life, in a word, if baptism has been performed on you, do not swear with your head.” Or again (22:60~–Wright, 496): “Above Heaven, what is there? who can say? What lies below the Earth? no one will tell! What is the firmament spread over? or Heaven, what do they hang over? The earth, what is it supported by? or the depth on which it is fixed? We come from Adam and perceive little with our senses. We only know that God is One and His Messiah is One, and One Spirit, and One Faith, and One Baptism.
It is not given to us to say more: if we say more, we will be mistaken; if we investigate, we will find ourselves helpless.” I need hardly remind you that the "investigation" of which Afraat speaks is not speculation and empirical analogy, but a patient and modest comparison of [reliable] facts.
I cannot help but point out to you one remarkable feature in the teaching of Aphraates about the Holy Spirit. If in the Creed we talk about the Lord the Giver of Life, then we must indicate the gender of the Holy Spirit. We must choose between Lord and Mistress. The Greek πυεῦμα is, of course, neuter. But in Semitic languages there is no neuter gender and Rûh - the word for wind or spirit - is feminine; therefore, in the older Syriac literature, before the influence of Greek theology became perceptible, the Holy Spirit is also spoken of in the feminine gender. In the ancient Syriac translation of John 14:26 we actually read: “The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, She will teach you all things” 603. Thus, in agreement with the more ancient usage, Aphraates in the doxology (23:63~–Wright, 498) writes: “glory and honor both to His Son and to His Spirit, the Giver of Life and the Holy One,” where “life-giving” and “holy” are feminine in the older manuscript. But the Persian sage goes further: for Afraat this is not only a question of grammatical accuracy.
In his discussion “On virginity against the Jews” (18:10~–Wright, 354) he says: “We have heard from the law: A man shall leave his father and his mother and be united to his wife, and they shall become one flesh; truly this is a great and wonderful prophecy. What father and what mother does a man leave when he takes a wife? This is the meaning: while a person has not yet married, he loves and honors God, his Father, and the Holy Spirit, his Mother, and he has no other love. But when a man takes a wife, he leaves the Father and Mother, those of whom I spoke, and his thoughts with this world: his mind, his heart, his thought are torn from God, and he loves and adores the world, for a man loves the wife of his youth, and his love for her is different from his love for the Father and Mother.
[We will return to this view of the Holy Spirit again when we consider the Acts of Thomas 604].
There is very ancient Christian authority for this teaching about the Holy Spirit. In the ancient Gospel to the Hebrews, as Origen and Blessed Jerome quote it, our Lord Himself speaks of the Holy Spirit as His Mother. Origen (on John 2:12), who wants to show that everything, including the Holy Spirit, received existence through the Word, does not reject this expression as “apocryphal,” but explains it. He proves that the Holy Spirit does the will of the Father and therefore He really needs to be described as the Mother of Christ [according to Matthew 12:50. It was perhaps inevitable that the idea of the Holy Spirit as the Queen of Heaven had to be excluded from Christian theology, but before completely condemning this teaching as disturbing popular sentiments, thanks to the false application of logic to Divine objects, let us remember that the theology of the era when it finally disappeared reduced the Christian vocabulary to the word Θεοτόκος].
Let's return to Aphraat. His teaching about the person of Christ is also very far in expression from what has become common in later times. But just like the teaching of Aphraates about the Holy Spirit, it does not represent anything new, but is only a relic of one of the most primitive Christian beliefs. Thus, Homily XVII, entitled “Concerning the Messiah, that He is the Son of God,” is an echo of one of the most remarkable sayings in the Gospel of John 605. This homily, like many written by Aphraates, is directed against the Jews, who declared that Christians worship a man whom they call the Son of God, contrary to the word of God himself: “I am God, and there is no God besides Me.” (§1) Aphraates makes it his task to defend the Christian faith. “Although,” he continues, “we affirm that Jesus our Lord is God, the Son of God and the King, the Son of the King, the Light of the Light, the Son 606 and the Counselor, and the Guide, and the Way, and the Savior, and the Shepherd, and the Door, and the Treasure, and the Lamp, and we call Him by many names, but now we will show that He is the Son of God and God, born of God” (§2).
For the divine name was given to the righteous, as, for example, to Moses, who was a god not only to Pharaoh, but also to Aaron 607 (§ 3), and although the Jews say that God has no Son, yet He called Israel 608 His firstborn and Solomon His son 609 . David also says about them: I said, you are gods and sons of the Highest of you all 610 (§ 4). God gives the highest titles to whomever he wants. He called the wicked Nebuchadnezzar the king of kings. For man was created by God in His own image to be the church in which He would dwell, and therefore He rewards man with honors denied to the Sun and Moon and the heavenly host 611 (§§5-6). Of all creatures, man was the first conceived in the mind of God, 612 although he was not introduced into the world until the world was prepared for him (§ 7). Why should we not worship Jesus, through whom we know God, Jesus, who turned our minds away from empty superstitions, taught us to love and serve the One God, our Father and Creator?
Is it not better to do this than to worship the kings and emperors of this world, who are not only apostates themselves, but also lead others to apostasy (§ 8). The prophets spoke about our Messiah, even about the details of the crucifixion (§§ 9–10). Therefore we will bow before the greatness of His Father, who has directed our service to Him. We call Him God, like Moses; Firstborn and Son, like Israel; Joshua, like Joshua the son of Nun; A priest like Aaron; A king like David; a great prophet, like all prophets; A shepherd, like the shepherds who watched over and governed Israel. And, adds Aphraates, He called us sons, making us His brothers and we became His friends (§§ 11-12).
Nothing else can give such a true idea of the method and style of Aphraates as this complete exposition of the XVII homily. It is most surprising and instructive to encounter work imbued with this spirit in the middle of the 4th century. [This is not exactly what we are accustomed to reading from the Fathers, but it very closely follows the words of our Lord’s answer to the Jews in order to brand it as a non-Orthodox point of view]. The Persian sage lived outside the Roman Empire and was raised in a culture only slightly touched by Greek philosophy. He did not feel the need for logical subordination, for the correct relationship of parts to the whole, for which the Greeks were later the first of all mankind to fight.
[I confess that the efforts of Aphraates to create an acceptable Christology arouse in me more sympathy than the self-confident metaphysics of the “insatiable mind of the Greeks,” to use the expression of Hooker.] Aphraat seemed to know that it was impossible for man to construct a logical diagram of the universe. Aphraates adhered to the two cardinal tenets of the Christian faith as strictly as the author of the Quicunque vult. On the one hand, he was completely imbued with the monotheism of the “Catholic religion,” on the other, his devotion and fidelity to the Lord convinced him that no titles or honors given by Christians would be too high for Jesus Christ, through whom they were united with the Divine nature. [The whole of Christian theology rests on the joint action of these two provisions, but not in the form in which they were agreed upon by the metaphysical science of the Greco-Roman Church].
“The highest place that Heaven can give is His, His by right.”
This cry, exclamation expresses the demand of the Christian conscience, and it remains for theologians and metaphysicians to determine how Heaven differs from Olympus or Nirvana.
The significance of Aphraates in the Christological problem, which still, as Loisy rightly reminds us, requires serious reflection on the part of the churchman, 613 is that he shows us that it was possible to defend the Christian position with slogans different from those which the Church borrowed from her rebellious sons Tertullian and Origen.
We come now to the person who, of all the sons of the Syrian Church, is best known by name to Christendom: Ephraim, usually called Ephraim the Syrian, died at Edessa in the year 373, during the reign of the Arian Emperor Valens. His homeland was Nisibin [Nisibia], where he lived until Jovian gave this city to the Persians in 363, after the defeat and death of Julian the Apostate. In Edessa, Ephraim lived as a hermit or hermit in a cell outside the city, but his fame as an interpreter and fighter against heresies was great even during his lifetime. They say that he visited Saint Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia and was ordained a deacon by him.
It is difficult to say what created this extraordinary fame for Saint Ephraim. [His biographer ascribes to him the honor of composing a polemical hymn, a rather melancholy addition to public worship].
The significance of Ephraim for modern scholars lies in the fact that the Syrian writer of the fourth century, whose works are extremely extensive and well preserved, cannot fail to give us some curious features of the life and thoughts of the Church to which he belonged. Saint Ephrem is unusually verbose, he repeats himself endlessly, and from the whole mass of material, it seems that very little can be chosen. His style is so allegorical that the thought gives the impression of deep and subtle, but when the meaning is disassembled, it usually turns out to be banal. Take, for example, the thirteenth of the Nisibian hymns, entitled "Of Saint James and His Companions" 614. It should be noted that Saint James was the bishop of Nisibia, he was succeeded by Bavu, and Bavu by Valgesh or Vologese, who was still alive when the poem appeared.
Like two great luminaries
To us, whose grief for two was great,
The latter was a complete consolation.
Glory to You, who chose them.
He who created the two great luminaries,
I chose three great luminaries for myself
Prisoners of darkness who were going broke
When the two lights went out,
The latter was absolutely radiant. Glory to You, etc.
Three shepherds were treasurers,
Kept intact
They opened three doors for us;
Each of them has its own key
In due time he opened his door.
The first key was to unlock the door
The middle key unlocked the door
The third door was unlocked
(It is intended that from this stanza the reader will learn that during the bishopric of James war began between the Romans in the west and the Persians in the east, that it continued during the bishopric of Bavu, and that a truce was concluded under his successor Vologeses. I skip thirteen stanzas like those I have quoted to you, and pass to No. XVIII.)
Nizibia, lying on the waters,
Waters, hidden and open!
The first priest was her vinedresser,
He grew its branches to the skies.
Look, when he died and was buried in it,
Then he became a fruit in her womb,
For when the cutting branches came,
The fruit that was in her saved her.
The time has come to prune the branches,
It came and took her vinedresser,
So that she does not have an intercessor.
She hastened and in her forethought
She hid the vinedresser in her bosom,
So he could free her.
Daughters of Nizibia, imitate Nizibia,
Which hid the body within itself,
And it became her wall.
Create a living body within yourself,
So that it can be a wall for your life.
The meaning of the last verses is this: Saint James, Bishop of Nisibia, defended Nisibia with prayers during his lifetime. When he died and was buried in the city, his relics were equally effective in driving off the Persians.
I have cited this example of St. Ephraim’s poetry not because I consider it particularly beautiful or inspired, but because it is unusually characteristic. Of course, in the Syriac original it sounds somewhat more elegant, since the Syriac original is written in stops. But as far as I can judge, he is not distinguished by either simplicity or elegance in the choice of words, the main idea - the protection provided by the relics of the deceased bishop - is far from highlighted. Remember that the entire poem is stretched over 22 stanzas, of which I only read eight. Evaluating according to the rules applied to religious literature, this work must be considered insignificant. But we ourselves must remember once again that the author enjoyed great and lasting fame. This kind of poetry apparently corresponded to what was required by believers in the fourth century. If this is a deplorable example of public taste, it is our business to evaluate to what extent we ourselves, in judging this period, are influenced by another department of thought.
But we should give credit to Saint Ephraim. His humility is quite sincere. We saw his faith in the power of the relics. In a curious work known as his testament or will, he conjures his disciples not to bury him in the church under the altar or among the ancient martyrs and confessors, but to lay him, wrapped in an old cloak, in a common cemetery among strangers.
This is not the place to make a general analysis of the works of St. Ephraim or to examine the authenticity of the huge mass of material that was published under his name at various times. But at one point a warning would be in order. Much of what has been printed as being from the pen of St. Ephraim is not his, and from the sample I have just given you have seen that from his true style it is not easy to extract the precise statements necessary to illustrate his dogmatic position. In any case, when referring to opinions or words quoted as the words of St. Ephraim, or to illuminate the dogmatic beliefs of his time and country, it is especially necessary to ascertain whether they are taken from works of undoubted authenticity. As an example, I will mention that of the five quotations extracted by the late Dr. Moberly from the well-known collection of Dr. Pusey, to illustrate the teaching of St. Ephraim about the Eucharist, not a single one is taken from the reliably authentic writings of St.
Ephraim, and I doubt whether any of them belongs to his pen 615, although very similar thoughts can be borrowed from the original works of St. Ephraim.
Let us therefore confine ourselves to those undoubtedly written by St. Ephraim's labors. You have probably already had enough of his poetry, and I will now move on to prose.
It is a curious fact that St. Ephraim is much more readable in prose than in poetry. In prose works our attention is not tired by a number of those strained fantasies with which his contemporaries apparently delighted. The real theology of St. Ephraim is best studied in a work called Sermo de Dominon nostro, published by Lamy 616. It is actually a discourse on the incarnation. Later writers, for example Philoxenus, cited extracts from it as from a recognized theological authority. She was not known to the Syrians by her opening words: “Mercy touched blasphemous lips and made them harps giving praise. Therefore let all lips praise Him, for He restrains them from blasphemous speech. Praise be to You, who left one dwelling and dwells in another, to come and make us a dwelling for Him whom You sent. The Only Begotten withdrew from the Divine Essence and dwelt in the Virgin, so that through an ordinary birth he could become the brother of all.
And it was He who left hell and dwelt in the Kingdom to find a way from hell, which oppresses everything, to that Kingdom, which rewards everything. For our Lord gave His resurrection to mortal men as a guarantee that He would remove them from hell, which receives the dead without distinction, into the Kingdom, which receives those who were distinguished, so that from where the bodies of all people are treated equally, they can go to where the works are distinguished.” And again he continues, saying: “He, the First-born, begotten according to His Own (Divine) nature, was begotten by another (human) birth besides that which was natural to Him, that we in our turn might know that after our natural birth another birth was necessary for us besides that which was natural to us. For He, as a spiritual being, could not become material until He was born materially.” “Our Lord Himself,” says Ephraim, “was begotten of the Godhead, according to His own nature. He was born of man contrary to His nature (in a miraculous way), and He was born in a strange way through baptism.
The meaning of this is that we can be born from man, according to our nature, and from the Divine, contrary to our own nature, and from the Spirit in an extraordinary way.” “Glory to Thee,” he says again, “Who made of Your Cross a bridge over death, so that through it souls could pass from the house of death to the house of life.”
From these excerpts, I think you can get an idea of most of the main ideas in St. Ephraim. According to St. Ephraim, the purpose of the incarnation, the perception of humanity by God, was so that Christians could perceive the Divine into their human nature. We can notice that in Ephraim's view, the doctrine of the nature of Christ and the doctrine of the sacraments are inextricably linked. Jesus Christ received the Holy Spirit at baptism so that we too could be born of the Spirit. He is the “elixir of life”, which death swallowed up 617, but could not hold, in other words, He is φἀρμακον τῇς α θανασίας, to whom Saint Ignatius says (ad Eph. XX), by him the gates of hell were opened and the patriarchs of the Old Testament were freed. But Ephraim also uses this phrase metaphorically: “Our Lord,” he says, “was with those who eat and drink, not for pleasure, as the Pharisees supposed, but so that with the true food of mortals He could mix His teaching as the medicine of life.”
Indeed, it is very difficult to extract from the works of St. Ephraim a clear idea of his views. He moves from symbol to symbol, and the points he considers particularly important are sometimes quite controversial. “Our Lord,” he says, “spit on His fingers and put them in the ears of the deaf and molded clay with His saliva and anointed the eyes of the blind with it, so that we could know that with the leaven of His body everything is perfected, everything that is lacking in our body is supplemented. It would be unjust to cut anything from the body of our Lord in order to make up for the imperfections of other bodies. But with what could be taken without loss to Him, He made up for the deficiencies of the imperfect, so that what could be eaten in Him, mortals would partake of His body. So He supplied what was lacking and gave life to what was dead, so that we might know that from the body in which the true fullness dwells, what was lacking in the imperfect was supplied, and that from the same body in which the true vitality dwelt life was given to mortal man.”618
[So, Ephraim’s teaching about the Eucharist is that one must come into real contact with the Lord and taste Him, who brings true life and health to Christians, just as physical contact with Him gave hearing to the deaf and sight to the blind. The characteristic vagueness of Ephraim's style always allows one to think that the author is talking about spiritual nutrition].
Another feature of St. Ephraim's Christology is his curious teaching of what we may call Charismata, i.e. about spiritual advantages that were, as it were, only lent to Israel and then, one after another, taken back by Christ, their real owner. Ancient Christian theologians were fully convinced of the legitimacy of the Israeli hierarchy. The Jewish king was recognized as the anointed of the Lord, the Jewish priest as a legitimate servant of God, and the Jewish prophet as the herald of the Holy Spirit. How did our Lord give priesthood authority to His disciples? From whom did He receive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were given to St. Petra? 619 St. Ephraim tells us that the priesthood was given to our Lord in the church when Simeon took Him in his arms, or rather, that the Lord received the priesthood from Simeon, who, having laid aside the gift given to him, was ready to depart into the world. “So,” he continues, “he collected each of the gifts prepared for the Son from their real tree.
He took baptism from the Jordan, although John continued to baptize after that, He accepted the priesthood from the church, although Anna the high priest was still serving in it, and He accepted the gift of prophecy, which was transmitted among the righteous, although Caiaphas, with his help, still had to weave a crown for our Lord, and He accepted the kingdom from the house of David, although Herod was made his vicegerent. It was He, our Lord, who came down from the heights to the Earth, and when all the gifts that He had given to Israel in ancient times saw Him, they flew up and came on every side and descended upon Him, their Giver, gathering together from all sides to come and take root in their true native trunk. But when our Lord received the priesthood from Israel, He sanctified all nations with it, and when He took the gift of prophecy, He revealed His promises to all nations, and when He put on His crown, He bound the strong man who had taken everyone captive, and divided his spoils.
These gifts were of no use to the barren fig tree, so barren that she made even gifts like these barren; therefore it was cut down without fruit, so that these gifts could spread and henceforth bear much fruit in all nations.”
“Moreover,” says Ephraim in conclusion, “He, the One who came to make our bodies their dwellings, has left all dwellings. Let each of us therefore become a dweller, for, He says: Whoever loves Me, I will enter into him and make him a dwelling. This is the Divinity, for the knowledge of Whom, although all created beings do not know Him, a humble and modest mind is sufficient” 620.
[The hint of piety and mysticism in this unusual conclusion should incline us, I think, to judge more easily the weak philosophy and fantastic arguments of St. Ephraim. But the philosophy is actually very weak, and the argumentation is extremely fantastic. Aphraates sometimes makes us wish that the Church would be content with preserving the simpler theology of the first times. St. Ephraim shows us that the formal expression of the Church's faith requires strict order and precision. Without the Creed, the theology of St. Ephraim may have, I believe, drawn the Syrian Church into tritheism. “Man,” he says 621, “is not left defenseless. The Father equips him with weapons, the Son holds his shield, the Spirit helps him in the fight.” Expressions like this may not be heretical, but they are more dangerous than that: they are rhetorical, and rhetoric in theology leads directly to superstition. The definition of the being of God expressed by people in human language, at best, remains an imperfect premonition.
The only value of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the Divine and human natures of Christ, is that it helps us to imagine less insufficiently the relationship between us and the mysterious Power outside of us that governs the world - the Power that through Jesus Christ we have learned to call Father. Teachings such as these are either worthy of respect or must be outright rejected, but they are not to be trifled with by those who perceive them. They occupy an area of thought where there is no place for “beautiful fantasies”, but for St. Ephraim is full of such fantasies. At the beginning of each of the 6 volumes of the Roman edition of his works there is a charming print in the style of the 18th century depicting a saint sitting under a spreading tree with small winged cupids (amoretti) hurrying down with inspired scrolls straight from Heaven. The saint accepts them with humility while, in the background, his disciples look in surprise at the miracle. This is all wonderful and incorrect only in the sense that it is completely untrue. The same is true with the theology of St. Ephraim.
It does not come into contact with reality, it does not give us either the historical appearance of Christ, or the Christianity of the first Church, or even clearly defined teachings of post-Nicene times. In a word, St. Ephraim reflected the transitional time to which he belonged. The fatal lack of spiritual seriousness in his teaching partly explains to us why the Church, having become strictly Orthodox under Rabbula, a hundred years later constantly fell into non-Orthodoxy and schism 622].
The spiritual atmosphere of Rabbula is, of course, very different from the one in which St. lived. Ephraim. Both were ascetics, but that's where the similarities end. Rabbula is the true embodiment of clear and correct churchism. I do not know whether his worldview can be better illuminated by the sermon that they say he delivered in the church of Constantinople, when Nestorius was still patriarch. “There are two main commandments, my beloved brothers,” he says, “those with which the law and the prophets are exhausted. The first is that you must love God with all your heart. Therefore, the one who loves does not explore, but obeys, and does not test, but believes.
It is not only necessary to love God in words, but also in deeds, for (He says) he who loves Me keeps My commandments. The second says that you should love your neighbor as yourself. He who loves does not kill, does not steal, does not commit adultery, does not lie or covet, because what he does not want to be done to him, he does not do to others and treats his neighbors the way he wants to be treated, because he loves them. These are teachings that save our souls, my brothers; they indicate what is useful for the creation of the entire Church of the Messiah. Moreover, we must direct our attention to them at all times in our works, for they alone give good value to our true righteousness.”
All this is expressed completely in the style of Aphraat himself. “But,” continues Rabbula, “since I know that your ears and your attention are waiting to hear our word and our faith and you want to know our justification in the Messiah, we are forced, out of love for you, to talk to you about subjects that should be honored in the silence of faith. The question we propose is this: “Was the Virgin Mary truly the Mother of God or was she called that only by name, and should she be called that?” “Now we,” says Rabbula, “since in this we place our firm hope, for this is our life, and we believe in this, for this is our pride, we proclaim with loud voices without deception that Mary is the Mother of God, and in justice her name should be so proclaimed, for she became the Mother of God the Word by His will, even the Mother of Him, Who by nature has no mother in Heaven. God sent His Son, and He was born of a woman, declares the Apostle. Now, if anyone dares to say that She gave birth to God the Word, according to the natural course, then he not only does not speak the truth, but believes incorrectly.
For we call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God not because She, according to the natural course, gave birth to the Divinity, but because God the Word was born of Her when he became a man. For listen, it is said that behold, the Virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, which means “God with us.” But this does not mean that our Lord received His first beginning from the blessed Virgin, for in the beginning He was with the Father, as John testifies, but it means that from Her in the flesh, by His merciful will, according to the natural course, the Messiah appeared, Who is God Himself above all.”
I have given this long excerpt entirely not to criticize the theological views expressed in it from a modern point of view, but to compare its tone with what I previously read from Aphraates and Ephraim, which is the natural manner of Eastern Theologians to express their thoughts. What we heard from Rabbula is the voice of Greek philosophy. He argues with data borrowed from the works of the Greco-Roman world for his thoughts on substance and nature and other products of philosophical thought.
[To correctly judge the method used by Rabbula to express his thoughts, one needs not only more philosophical knowledge, but also more sympathy for the course of the controversy of the 5th century than I have].
I believe that there can be little doubt about the authenticity of this sermon, for it accurately reflects the state of the Church under the great Bishop of Edessa. That he eventually had to take the side of the anti-Nestorians, which will not be surprising if we read his hymn at Christmas. But Rabbula may have been entirely sincere when he abandoned the debate about the exact degree of veneration that should be paid to the Virgin. For Rabbula it was truly Θεοτοκος, but he chose not to argue on this issue, since the people of Constantinople were accustomed to discussing such issues at the hippodrome or in the theater, as interesting topics for dispute. Rabbula's mind was strictly practical. He condemned the theater and the circus, and the disgusting spectacle of wild animals shedding human blood in the stadium, he prohibited by his authoritative order (Life, Overbeck, 179). For him the atmosphere of Constantinople was deeply unpleasant [and no doubt his visit to the city strengthened him in his opposition to the popular religion of the capital].
What Rabbula loved most was order. In Nestorian disputes, he took the side of the Orthodox, but even otherwise he would have taken care to regulate the life of his diocese. Practically, this meant comparing what was in Edessa with what was in Antioch and other large centers of the Greek-speaking church. As far as it depended on him, Edessa and with it the rest of Syrian Christianity ceased to differ in its Bible, Liturgy, teaching and slogans from other Churches of the Empire.
But for this his Church suffered heavy punishment. She ceased to have any independent life or thought. Since the 5th century, Syriac-speaking Christianity has become completely derivative and secondary. Greek theology fit poorly into Syriac thought and was poorly transmitted into the Syriac language. And the Syrians were not able to go beyond Constantinople. From the point of view of the Chalcedonian creed, they all fell into heresy. 50 years after the death of Rabbula, in the year 495, you would be hard pressed to find a community of Syriac-speaking Christians in complete unity with the Byzantine Church. Those who lived within the Persian possessions were almost all Nestorians, and those who lived within the Roman Empire were almost all Monophysites. The edifice erected by Rabbula was destroyed by the hands of his successors, and the outward unity of the Christian Church in the East fell into pieces, which were never again welded into one whole.
"Sons of the Covenant" Syriac Church
The Church, of which Aphraates was the leader, has some features that are completely close to us. It has bishops, priests, and deacons. Much of Aphraates's teaching on the sacraments is exactly what we might expect from a fourth-century cleric. But this cannot be said about everything that we find in his writings.
The Church of Aphraates, like the Church of St. Athanasia, a legitimate child of 2nd century Christianity, but her line of descent is different, and the cousins are not alike in everything. Regarding the Last Supper, Aphraates tells us that in the Eucharist the faithful partook of the Body and Blood of Christ. It is necessary to fast and the fast should be as Isaiah once for all proclaimed, for abstinence from evil is always better than abstinence from bread or water. The abstinence of Abel and Enoch, righteous Noah and faithful Abraham and Joseph should serve as an example for us. If abstinence is not from the heart, then it is not valid. Remember and see, my beloved, that it is good if a person purifies his heart and preserves his tongue and cleanses his hands from evil, for it is not proper to mix honey and wormwood. Let a person who abstains from bread and water not mix deceit and curses with fasting. You have only one door to your house, that house, which is the church of God, is not becoming for you, man, for dirt and abomination to come out through the door through which the King enters.
For if anyone wants to taste the Body and Blood of the Messiah, let him take care of his lips, through which the Son of the King enters. You are wrong, O man, to spew unclean words through these very lips. Listen to what the Savior tells us. What enters into a man does not defile him, but what comes out of his mouth defiles him. Temperance is here spoken of metaphorically, but there can be no doubt that Aphraates teaches that Christ is actually present in the consecrated bread and wine.
The view of the Eucharist adopted by Aphraates can be further illuminated from the strange and fantastic explanation of the three days and nights after death, which the Lord predicted for Himself. In his Easter speech, Aphraates says that Our Lord gave of His Body and Blood to His disciples at the Last Supper. But, he concludes, the one whose body was eaten and whose blood was drunk should already be counted among the dead. Three days and three nights must be counted from the time of the Supper, and since Aphraates takes three hours of darkness as a whole night, and the subsequent light time on Good Friday in the afternoon as a whole day, it is not difficult for him to accumulate the required number of days and nights. So, Christ, celebrating the Jewish Passover with His disciples, is Himself the Passover lamb. Moreover, adds Aphraates, this is the reason why He remained silent before Pilate and the Jews, for it is not fitting for one who is already numbered among the dead to speak. All this belongs to the features of the exegesis of Aphraates.
But what matters for the history of Christian teaching is that such a chain of reasoning necessarily presupposes the actual presence of Christ in the bread and wine that He gave to the Twelve at the Supper. Most of Aphraates's discussion of baptism is not particularly striking. Christian baptism is true circumcision, it is performed in the name of the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Baptism is associated with rebirth, sins are washed away and the body is preserved for the day of judgment. In baptism we receive the Spirit of the Messiah. For at the same hour when the priest calls on the Holy Spirit, the heavens are opened and He comes down and overshadows the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed with Him. The Spirit is far from all who are born of the body until they are born through water and through this have received the Holy Spirit.” According to ancient custom, the rite of baptism was performed on the Holy Resurrection of Christ.
All this is normal and correct, almost banal. When we come to the question of who was baptized, we find ourselves in a completely different world. For Aphraates, baptism is not the usual seal of every believer, but the advantage of those who remain celibate.
The passage where this striking insight is most clearly revealed is so important for the understanding of early Eastern Christianity that I give it in its entirety. In his word to the penitents, having told the story of Gideon, who displayed the mystery of baptism, when, testing with water, he chose 300 people and, citing the words of the Lord that many are called, but not many are chosen, Aphraates continues, saying: “Therefore the trumpeters and heralds of the church should notify the people of God before baptism - those, I say, who have devoted themselves to virginity and piety, boys and girls - they should notify heralds. They should say: “He whose heart is set on marriage, let him marry before baptism, so as not to fall into spiritual struggle and not be killed, let him who is afraid of this struggle return back, so that he does not break the heart of his brothers, like his own. Also, the one who loves his property, let him return back from the army, so that when the battle begins to intensify, he does not remember his possessions and does not return back, for the one who goes back will then be covered with disfavor.
If someone who has not dedicated himself and has not yet put on his weapon returns back, he will not be blamed, but he will be a laughing stock who, having dedicated himself and put on his weapon, returns from the struggle.
This exhortation is not common for us Europeans. Aphraat does not condemn those who have not yet received baptism; if they want to get married, let them do so, but in this case, the life bestowed by baptism no longer exists for them. The deliberate preservation of baptism for the spiritual aristocracy of Christianity shows that the view of the Syrian Church on the sacrament is completely different from the catholic view. The important thing is that people intending to get married must refuse to accept baptism; they are advised to retire, because married life and the life of baptized xpucmians are incompatible. The Christian community, according to Aphraat, consists of baptized virgins, together with a society of like-minded people who are not considered members of the community and stand outside it, but who enjoy the joys of life. Clear as is the meaning of the passage from the speech to the penitents, I can hardly expect that it will be appreciated in its full meaning without confirmation of this strange concept of the church from other Syrian sources.
It is necessary first of all to come to a clear definition of the meaning of the term, which is very often found in Syriac church literature. This term is bar Q᾽yâmâ, literally translated "Son of the Covenant", but usually rendered as "monk". We will not have a correct idea of the ancient Syrian church until we understand what was signified at various times by the word bar Q᾽yâmâ. The Syriac language is very rich in words meaning "monk" or "nun". A monk living in a dormitory is called dayrâyâ, a word correctly formed from dayra, a monastery. For eremita they have îhîdâyâ; an anchorite or recluse was called h᾽ßîshâ and h᾽ßîshâgâ. The stylite, like the famous Simon, was called estônâyâ or estônârâ. And, of course, there are corresponding feminine terms to designate the various ranks of nuns. Given this abundance of nomenclature, it is likely that bar Q᾽yâmâ and in the feminine gender bath Qyâmâ did not simply mean monk and nun, but had a more specific and special meaning.
The first answer that can be given, going into a brief etymological discussion for a moment, is that bar Q᾽yâmâ canon or monk, i.e. a Christian who lives according to special statutes, like the statute of Basil the Great. Thus we find in the Syriac translation of the 15th canon of Laodicea that b᾽nai Q᾽yâmâ (plural of bar Q᾽yâmâ) correspond to κανονικοί in Greek. But this does not answer the intended question. We must go on and ask: who were the monks of the first Syrian Church? What rules did they live by?
It is not difficult to answer this question. I think that the b᾽nai Q᾽yâmâ were simply baptized laymen of the first Syrian Church, and that in the first stages of development not a single layman was baptized without first preparing him for a life of strict abstinence and oblivion of worldly concerns. Various monuments of ancient Syriac literature provide sufficient material to confirm this point of view.
In the Teachings of Addai we read (p. 47) “that the whole community, men and women, were modest and decent, and they were holy, sincere and modest, they lived without shame, observing the services, caring for the poor and visiting the sick.” The ideal picture of the church in the time of Addai the Apostle tells us nothing about Christian children, nor about the responsibilities of Christian parents, nor about Christian schools.
The next document is the martyrdom of Shamun and Guria. We have seen that this document, belonging to the year 297, is indeed the earliest historical narrative relating to the Syrian church and which has come down to us in almost its original form. As such, it is especially interesting in that everything described in it took place before the Edict of Toleration and before Constantine’s accession to the throne of the Caesars. In the very first phrase we meet b᾽nâth Q᾽yâmâ, “daughter of the covenant.” We read "that in the days of Cona, bishop of Edessa, the wicked Diocletian raised a severe and cruel persecution against all the churches of the Messiah, so that the priests and deacons were tormented by deep sorrow and the b᾽nâth Q᾽yâmâ and the nuns of the monasteries were subjected to a severe trial and all Christians were given over to sorrow and grief."
The narrative tells how Gury and Shamuna were captured and how valiantly they confessed their faith and endured torture. Gury was from Sargi (Sargi), and Shamuna from Ganada or Gagnada (Gaknada, Gaqnada), both names apparently refer to villages near Edessa. Shamuna is described only as a friend or comrade of Gury, but Gury is further distinguished by the epithet m᾽qadd᾽shâ, i.e. "sanctified". The word "holy" is often used instead of chaste in Syriac ecclesiastical literature. Before his martyrdom, therefore, Guria was looked upon as more holy than Shamun. We find out what this view is based on at the end of the story. So, by the way, it is mentioned that Shamun had a daughter. The ascetic thought is clear. Gury is a celibate “saint”, Shamuna – who has a daughter, is not a saint.
Let us now return to Aphraates himself. He has a whole homily (No. VI) on b᾽nâi Q᾽yâmâ and the place it occupies among other homilies is important. First come the homily on the first duties of faith - love, abstinence and prayer. Then there is talk of the great war between Rome and Persia, then raging, a war which seemed to foreshadow the last times. Next come two speeches on the Christian community, followed by three short speeches on the resurrection, on humility and, finally, an appeal to the shepherds, which is, as it were, the conclusion of the first book of Aphraates. The Christian community is divided by Aphraat for practical purposes into two parts, the b᾽nâi Q᾽yâmâ and the penitents. As far as I can see, they correspond to the baptized and catechumens (Catechumen). Aphraates begins with a general exhortation to the Christian life, addressed to those “who have received the chains of saints.” He reminds them that the enemy is skillful, but continues: “All the children of the light do not fear him, for darkness flies before the light. The children of God do not fear evil, for the Lord has given them the power to trample it underfoot.
When he becomes like those before them, they become light, and when he grovels before them like a snake, they become salt, which he cannot eat 623. If he attacks them in the form of a desire for gluttony, they defeat him by fasting, like our Lord. If he wants to fight them with the lust of his eyes, they turn their eyes to the heights of heaven. If he tempts them with sleep, they are cheerful and vigilant, singing psalms and praying. If he seduces them with possessions, they give them to the poor. If it appears to them as something sweet, they do not taste it, knowing that it is bitter. If he inflames them with desire for the daughters of Eve, they live alone, and not with the daughters of Eve.
What follows is a list of evils that the Bible says were caused by Eve and her daughters. Aphraates reminds us in one place, which I quote in full because it is very characteristic of his style, that through Eve Satan attacked Adam, and Adam was tempted due to his inexperience. And again Satan went against Joseph through his master’s wife, but Joseph knew his cunning and did not listen to him. Through a woman he fought with Samson until Samson ceased to be a Nazarene. Reuben was the firstborn of all his brothers, and through his father's wife the enemy brought shame upon him. Aaron was the great high priest of the house of Israel and through Miriam his sister he became jealous of Moses. Moses was sent to free the Jews from Egypt and took with him a woman who advised him to commit shameful acts. The Lord appeared to Moses and wanted to kill him before he sent his wife back. David won all his battles, but through one of Eve’s daughters, a vice was revealed in him.
Amnon was beautiful in body and soul until the enemy took him prisoner through desire for his sister, and Absalom killed him for the shame of Tamar. Solomon was taller than all the kings of the earth until, in his old age, his wives seduced him. Through Jezebel the daughter of Jeheebaal, Ahab's iniquity increased. Further, Job was tempted by the enemy, and when Satan could not prevail over him, he went and brought his weapon against Job, bringing with him the daughter of Eve, because of whom Adam fell, and through her mouth he said to Job: “Blaspheme God.” But Job rejected her advice. King Asa also defeated the damned one when he wanted to go against him through his mother. But Asa knew his cunning and deprived his mother of her high position and cut her idol (the goddess Astarte) into pieces and threw it down. John was greater than all the prophets, but Herod killed him for the sake of the dance of his daughter Eve. Amman had prosperity and was third in honor from the king, until his wife advised him to destroy the Jews.
After this long list, Afraat continues: “Therefore, my brothers, if any of you bar Q᾽yâmâ or a saint who loves a solitary life, at the same time desires that a bath Q᾽yâmâ woman like himself should live with him, then it would be better for him to openly take a wife, and not indulge in lust, and a woman should also in this case openly become a wife if she does not moves away from the desert man. A woman must live with a woman, and a man must live with a man. And if a man desires to remain pious, let his wife not live with him, lest he return to his former nature and be considered an adulterer. This advice is proper and correct and beautiful, I give it to myself, and also to you, my beloved hermits who do not take wives, and maidens who are not taken as wives, and those who love piety; it is true and right and wonderful that even in grief a man should be alone and it becomes him to live as it is written in Jeremiah the prophet: “Blessed is he who took Your yoke in his youth and remains alone and keeps silence” (Lamentations 3:27-28).
For thus, my beloved, it behooves him, who bears the yoke of the Messiah, to keep it pure. Aphraat recognized only two degrees among Christians: baptized - celibates (the clergy were elected from this category) and not baptized - repentant. At the appearance of the Son of blessed Mary,” he continues, “the thorns were plucked up and the sweet was taken, the fig tree was cursed, the curse was nailed to the cross, and the blade of the sword was broken off before the tree of life, and food was given to the faithful, and Paradise was promised to the blessed one and to the virgins and to the saints, and the fruits of the tree of life were given as food to the faithful and to the virgins and to those who do God’s will. For those who do not take wives are governed by the heavenly guards, those who maintain holiness remain in the Holy of Holies of the Most High: all hermits are one with the one born from the womb of the Father. There are neither men nor women, neither free nor unfree, but all are sons of the Most High. And all the pure virgins who were betrothed to the Messiah light their lamps and enter with the bridegroom into the bridal chamber. The wedding feast of Eve's daughters lasts 7 days, but their groom will never leave.
The clothes of the daughters of Eve are made of wool, which wears out and perishes, but the clothes of the virgins do not wear out. The beauty of Eve’s daughters fades over the years, but their beauty is renewed at the resurrection.”
“O virgins who are betrothed to the Messiah,” continues Aphraat, if one of the b᾽nâi Q᾽yâmâ says to one of you: “I want to live with you and you serve me, then you must answer him like this: “I am betrothed to the royal Spouse, and I serve Him, and if I leave His service and serve you, my Betrothed will be angry with me and write me a letter of dissolution.” marriage and will drive me out of His house, if you want me to respect you and for you to respect me, be careful that evil does not come to you and me. Do not take fire into your chest so that it does not burn your clothes, but respect yourself, and I will respect myself.”
There are many other general instructions given by Aphraat in the rest of the speech regarding the behavior of b᾽nâi Q᾽yâmâ, but they do not require special attention. The rule of life which he outlines here is calm, dignified and moderate, without much asceticism. I have taken large extracts from those parts in which his view of the relationship, or rather the lack of relationship, between man and woman is expressed, for this forms the essence of his views on the Christian life. No one will illuminate his views better than such detailed references. And here again I must note the importance of that place in the seventh speech where Aphraates dissuades those who intend to marry from receiving baptism. This is the decisive point separating the teachings of the Persian sage from those such as the speeches of Philoxenus. “Priests, scribes and wise men, call out and say to all the people: let the one who is engaged to a wife and wants to take her return and live with his wife,” says Aphraat.
The Christian community, with all its advantages and blessings, is limited, according to his theory, to the celibate, who have withdrawn as far as possible from the world; the masses remain on the sidelines. Not only art, science and politics, but even the heart and home were excluded from the realm of religion. Aphraat is the last witness of the old order of things. After his administration, and maybe even before him, in the Syrian regions of the Roman Empire, married people were already allowed to be baptized. Baptism and participation in the Last Supper were no longer looked upon as inaccessible to married people. It is easy to trace the gradual decline of the b᾽nâi Q᾽yâmâ, marked by the rules which, according to Rabbula, it was necessary to draw for the sons of the covenant. These rules are found in the work called "Commands and admonitions to the priests and sons of the covenant living in the country" 624. There is no better way to get an accurate picture of the Mesopotamian church at the beginning of the fifth century than by studying what Rabbula prescribes and what he prohibits.
1. “First of all, says Rabbula: let the sons of the Church know the true faith of the holy Church, so that they are not led astray by heretics.
2. Let none of the periodeuts or priests and deacons or sons of the covenant live with women, except mother, sister or daughter, and let them not set up households for these women outside their homes and keep themselves from living with women.
3. Let not the priests, deacons, and sons of the covenant force the daughters of the covenant to weave garments for them.
4. Let no women serve priests and deacons, especially the daughters of the covenant.
5. Let priests, deacons and periodeuts not accept gifts from anyone, especially from those who come to them with requests.”
. The periodevts were something like inspectors, a cross between a suffragan bishop and a village abbot.
6. Let the priests and deacons not collect from the sons of the covenant or the laity, even if they are ordered by the priests or deacons from the city, the needs of the church must be supplied by those who give of their own free will.
7. When a bishop comes to a village, they should not collect from the laity in the name of the bishop, but if there is anything in the church, let them pay what follows from the church funds, and if there is nothing in the church, let them give nothing.
9 . Let the priests, deacons, sons and daughters of the covenant not demand profit or excess interest, and do not trade with wicked profit.
10. The sons and daughters of the covenant should not allow their priests to live with the laity, except with their relatives or with each other.
11. Let all the sons of the Church remain in fasting and constant prayer, let them take care of the poor and demand justice for all the humiliated without distinction.
12. Let all the priests in the villages take care of the poor who resort to them, and especially those who are sons of the covenant.
16. In every existing church, let there be known a house in which the poor can stay, who go there, but soothsayers and sorcerers and those who write talismans and anoint men and women under the pretext of healing, expel them from everywhere and demand a promise not to enter your domain.
17. Do not allow the daughters of the covenant to come or go alone to church at night, but if possible, let them be together, and also regarding the sons of the covenant.
18. If any of the sons or daughters of the covenant are in need, let the priests and deacons of their villages take care of them, but if they cannot do this, let us know and we will help them, so that need does not force them to do anything improper.
From this it is clear that the son or daughter of the covenant was rarely in want, and apparently they did not take a specific vow of poverty.
19. Let the sons of the covenant teach psalms, and the daughters of the covenant also hymns.
20. Let the priests and deacons, the sons and daughters of the covenant, not pronounce the name of the Lord, nor swear by unrighteousness or righteousness, but (let their speech be) as commanded. Here, of course, there is a hint of the conversation on the mount, but the phrase about not pronouncing the name of God is of a Jewish nature.
21. Periodevts, priests or deacons should not stay in public inns or inns, but in ecclesiastical inns or monasteries.
22. Let the priests, deacons, sons and daughters of the covenant abstain from wine and meat, but if there are any among them who are sick in body, let them be given a little wine, as it is written, but those who are drunk or enter a wine shop should be removed from the church.
23. Let no one who has become a disciple of Christ be covetous or seek to get more than he needs, but let him act and behave as a steward for the poor.
24–26. Priests, deacons and sons of the covenant should not become keepers of barns or vineyards, or hired workers for the laity, or mediators for the laity, or having anything to do with the law, but let them take care of the Church service and not allow prayers and the singing of psalms to cease day or night. The phrase about the law is unclear. Probably, clergy were forbidden to become officials.
27. Anathematize, bind and send to the city for trial the laymen who dared to marry the daughter of the covenant, if she was seduced with her own consent, send her too.
The tone of passion that still sounds in this rule makes me think that such incidents sometimes happened and that not a few daughters of the covenant repented of premature vows.
28. Send the fallen sons and daughters of the covenant to monasteries for repentance; if they do not stay in the monastery, do not accept them into the church.
29. Do not allow a woman who has a husband other than her own spouse, and a man who has a wife other than his lawful wife, to study (or become a disciple), so that the name of God is not blasphemed.
30. Let the bishops not allow the sacraments to be administered to those who have been convicted of adultery except with our special permission.
31. Let none of the priests or deacons or sons of the Church dare to place ordinary vessels next to the sacred vessels in any box or chest (Here again is the same tone of sublime indignation that we already noted in the rule about the seduction of the daughter of the covenant, and this reasoning is suitable for Rabbula, for from his point of view it is exactly the same guilt).
32. Let no one dare to come close and offer sacrifice (Oblation) unless he is a priest or a deacon.
35. Give all the lords of the village the honor due to them, but do not become servile and do not oppress the poor.
36. Do not allow the sons of the covenant to go to the gathering except with the priests, and the daughters of the covenant except with the deaconesses.
37. Let none of the priests or deacons, or sons of the covenant, except as we command, go to any distant place, even if the interests of his village or his church require it.
38. Let all priests take care of the service in the house of God, doing everything necessary for the order of the house, and not feeding the animals in the church, so that the house of God will not be humiliated.
39. Priests, deacons, and sons of the covenant are not to give guarantees for anyone, whether by written document or not.
40. A periodist, priest or deacon who leaves this world must leave everything he has to the Church.
41. Let the priests and deacons live in the church and, if possible, also the sons of the covenant.
42. Priests and deacons must ensure that a copy of the individual Gospels (Evangelion da Mefarrshe) is preserved in each church and used for reading.
43. Let where there is a priest, he reads the Gospel, and not a deacon; the priest should also, where possible, perform baptism.
44. Laymen are not to serve in the church unless there are sons of the covenant for the office.
45. Let the sons and daughters of the covenant not drink wine at the memorial (literally after the deceased). “It seems they looked at it as a pagan custom.”
47. Let the sons of the covenant have no relations with heretics, either in words or in deeds.
49. Look for the books of heretics and their repositories everywhere, and where you find them, bring them to us or burn them in the fire.
51. Let the priest not give oblation to those who are tormented by demons.
52. Husband