About the scapegoat. Message to Bishop Akakios of Scythopolis

Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Bishop Akakios of Scythopolis “On the Scapegoat” (24 chapters) was probably written in 432. This is one of the best letters of St. Cyril, presenting the characteristic features of his exegesis, Christology and soteriology. The letter gives a typological interpretation of the sacrifice described in the Book of Leviticus. According to the Old Testament law, of the two goats sacrificed for the sins of the people, one was slaughtered and the other was sent into the wilderness (Lev. 16:5-23). In ancient times, there was the following understanding of this legal establishment: the first animal was sacrificed to God, and the second to a demonic creature. It is precisely against this false interpretation of St. Kirill strongly protests: God did not order sacrifices to be made to demons. According to St. Cyril, the offering of 2 goats is a type of Christ, who for our sake becomes “sin,” or a sacrifice for sin (since a goat in Holy Scripture is usually an image of a sinner). He takes upon Himself our sins and becomes the propitiation for them. As a man He dies, but as God remains impassive. The two birds sacrificed for a healed leper have a similar meaning, one of which was released (Lev. 14:2-7). The saint draws attention to the fact that the presence of two sacrificial animals in the prototypes does not mean that there are “two Sons” in Christ. The animals are identical to each other and point to the One and the Same Christ. *The title of the work in Greek is Περ τοῦ ἀποπομπαίου. Contents Abstract A copy of the message written by the same (Cyril) to Bishop Akaky about the release Bibliography For the first time in Russian, a translation of the message of St. Cyril of Alexandria, containing an interpretation of the sacrifice described in the book of Leviticus. The preface establishes the identity of the addressee, the time of writing, and gives an overview of the contents of the message. The typological nature of the proposed interpretation and its close connection with the Christological and soteriological views of the saint are noted, and other typological interpretations of this place in early patristics are mentioned. To the interpretation of the sacrifice of two goats described in the book of Leviticus 1 St. Cyril of Alexandria appealed three times: in the early work “Glafira” 2, in an extensive apologetic work “against Julian the Apostate” 3 and, most extensively, in a treatise specially devoted to this issue - an epistle to Bishop Acacius 4, the translation of which is offered to the reader. In the past, its addressee was identified with St. Akaki Melitinsky 5, however, preserved in Florilegium Cyrillianum and St. Photius of Constantinople's testimony made it possible to clarify that this is another Akakios of Scythopolis 6. Apart from the title and the message addressed to him, nothing is known about him, so we can only say with certainty that he was the bishop of Scythopolis 7 and belonged to the Palestinian circle of close friends and admirers of St. Kirill. The letter is dated to 432, that is, after the Third Ecumenical (Ephesian) Council until the conclusion of peace with Antioch 8, or it is attributed to a later time 9, bringing it closer to the events reported in a letter to Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria (448) by Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus. From him we learn that St. Cyril, in addition to Akaki, sent his treatise “On the Scapegoat” (together with the essay “Against Julian the Apostate”) to Archbishop John of Antioch with a request to show it to “famous teachers in the East.” This contributed to the final reconciliation of the two opponents: Bl. Theodoret “not without surprise” read the books sent, and they were from St. Kirill exchanged messages, demonstrating mutual respect 10. This could have taken place after the blzh. Theodoret was inclined to recognize peace between Alexandria and Antioch, until the death of Archbishop John, with the exception of the time of the dispute over Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, that is, in the period from 434 to 437 or from 439 to 441 11. Let us note that in the works of the Cyrus shepherd himself, an interpretation of the same passage in the book of Leviticus occurs twice, basically similar to the interpretation of St. Kirill 12. So, we are talking about two goats offered for the sins of the people, one of which, having received the lot “to the Lord,” was slaughtered, and the other, after confessing his sins, was sent into the desert. The name of the lot of the second goat is ἀποπομπαῖος, “released” 13, which, in fact, is discussed with St. Cyril Bishop Akakios, was a neologism of the translators of the Septuagint, who tried to convey the etymology of the corresponding Hebrew word 14. Most modern biblical scholars read לעזאזל in the Masoretic text as “Azazel,” seeing here an indication of the personal name of a certain demon 15. Thus, the following understanding of the legal establishment is brought to light: the first animal was sacrificed to God, and the second to a demonic creature. About the existence of such an interpretation in ancient times, in addition to St. Kirill, testifies blzh. Theodoret 16; This is how Emperor Julian the Apostate understood the indicated place, who identified the biblical ἀποπομπαῖος with ἀποτρόπαιος (“disgusting”), thereby unambiguously introducing this sacrifice into a polytheistic context 17 . But it is precisely against this false interpretation of St. Kirill strongly protests. And if we seriously take the principle of divine inspiration and unity of Holy Scripture, self-evident for the church tradition, his argument is irrefutable. There can be no question that God Himself allegedly ordered sacrifices to demons 18. The true meaning of the offering of two goats, like all Old Testament offerings, is revealed only in the light of the “mystery of Christ,” that is, His atoning sacrifice. Only she can “remove the veil” that lies over the writings of the prophet Moses 19. The saint himself offers an exclusively typological and Christocentric interpretation. According to him, the sacrifice of two goats is an image of Christ, who for our sake becomes a “sin”, or a sacrifice for sin (since a goat in Holy Scripture is usually an image of a sinner), that is, he takes upon himself our sins and becomes a propitiation for them. As a man (ἀνθρωπίνως) He dies, but as God (θεϊκῶς) he remains impassive 20. The sacrifice of two birds made for a healed leper, one of which was released 21, has a similar meaning. The last image gives important additional features: birds are brought, which speaks of the heavenly origin of God the Word; the released bird was dipped in the blood of the slain bird, which testifies to the Word’s assimilation of the redemptive sufferings of His flesh 22 . The saint refutes a possible dualistic interpretation of the prototypes: the presence of two sacrificial animals does not mean that there are “two Sons” in Christ, since their identity points to one and the same Christ 23 . In conclusion, another Old Testament image is cited - the sacrifice of Abraham, but not in order to give its “spiritual” interpretation, which, of course, is known to the saint 24, but only to point out the limitations inevitably inherent in the “shadows” of the law 25. In general, the letter to Bishop Akakios is one of the best in the epistolary heritage of St. Cyril, presenting the characteristic features of his exegesis, Christology and soteriology, and also providing an excellent illustration of the organic unity in which his biblical interpretations were with his theological views. The translation was made according to the edition of E. Schwartz 26. The interpreted passages of the book of Leviticus (as well as other Old Testament books not included in the publications of P. Yungerov) are translated directly from the Greek language, being as close as possible to the Synodal and Slavic (according to the “Elizabethan” Bible) translations 27 . In other cases, the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament is quoted mainly from the translation of P. Yungerov, the New Testament according to the Synodal, deviations from which reflect the peculiarities of the biblical text by St. Kirill and his own understanding of the quoted passages 28. A copy of the message written by the same (Cyril) to Bishop Akaki about the release (1) Having just received your reverence’s messages, I was greatly comforted and, almost hugging them, kissed them. After all, what had I reached in my thoughts: it seemed to me as if there was no distance between us, for greetings from loved ones are enough to inspire such a feeling. This is true for me, but I am convinced that your godliness is no different. And since you deigned to inform me that some reasoning is required from me about the “released”, so that through them the mystery relating to it becomes clear, I must say this. Although your keen mind has enough understanding and a wide and admirable knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, so that it is perhaps unnecessary for anyone else to talk about these issues, but since it is not at all a burden for me to state what comes to my mind, we wrote it down: after all, I could not reject your command. If we happen to err a little against perfect accuracy, be lenient, because understanding the hard-to-reach places to be considered 29 may turn out to be difficult to explain and not easy. However, we are not far from hoping that through the prayers of your piety the Lord will guide us to this, who reveals deep things from darkness 30, makes the blind wise 31 and gives speech 32 as the Word 33. (2) So, in the book of Leviticus it is written about the released one: And he will take two goats and set them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of testimony, and Aaron will cast lots on the two goats: one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the released one, and Aaron will bring the goat on which the lot was released to the Lord and offer it for a sin offering, and the goat on which the lot was released will be set up alive before the Lord, to finish over purification for him, to send him away for remission; will send him into the desert 34. (3) And a little later: And he shall kill the goat, which was for the sin of the people, before the Lord, and shall bring some of its blood within the veil, and shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and shall sprinkle its blood upon the propitiation 35 upon the face of the propitiation, and shall cleanse the holy place from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their trespasses for all their sins 36 . And he will do the same with the tabernacle of testimony, which is set up among them in the midst of their uncleanness 37 . (4) This is about the goat that is slaughtered and with the blood of which the holy tabernacle is consecrated, and about the living one and the one that is sent away it is said this way: And he will bring the living goat, and Aaron will lay his hands on the head of the living goat, and will confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their crimes and all their sins, and will place them on the head of the living goat, and will send it away by the hand of a special man into the wilderness, and will take the goat take upon themselves their crimes into an inaccessible land, and he will send him into the wilderness 38 . (5) So, all Scripture is inspired by God and useful, 39 because whatever God says, it is certainly saving. And to those who are able to understand the meaning of the truth, its beauty comes to meet them halfway, illuminating the mind with the knowledge of the mystery of Christ, but if someone has a mind that is not sufficiently strengthened, but as if still faltering and infantile, even the most excellent of the passages under consideration can sometimes turn out to be close to reproach and accusation. (6) And I say this because, not without careful testing, I read what was written by your piety. After all, some of you there reasoned, perhaps, that while one of the goats was intended for dedication and sacrifice to God, who is above all, the other was sent to some “dismissed”, nasty and unclean demon in the desert, and this was done by the hand of a priest and according to a legal decree. From this it turns out that this matter is absurd and worthy of laughter, but one can ask those who understood it in this sense: shouldn’t it have been better to think about this, namely: how the Creator, who is beyond all mind and word, being by nature the only God and Lord, could allow the apostate Satan to be accepted as a certain partaker of His Kingdom and glory? However, we clearly hear what He says through one of the holy prophets: My Glory I will not give to another 40. If the law, given through the wise Moses, prescribed that the dedication, whoever wishes, must be offered (to God), and only to Him, and further, He Himself who spoke the law declared that the bad demons should also be given the glory most appropriate (to God), and only to Him, does He not contradict his own words? After all, what He renounced is what He commanded to be fulfilled. But it is extremely senseless to think that God, who rules over everything, neglects the honor and glory due to him and wants to attribute it to others, while He clearly speaks through Moses: Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone 41 - and: You shall have no other gods besides Me 42. (7) Therefore, the divine Moses carefully conforms to the judgments on high, from God, and says to those who are of the seed of Israel: And these are the decrees and judgments which you must endeavor to do in the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you as an inheritance all the days that you shall dwell in the land. You shall certainly destroy 43 all the places where the nations served their gods, which you will inherit, on the high mountains and on the hills and under the branches of the tree. And destroy their altars, and break down their pillars, and cut down their groves, and burn the images of their gods with fire, and destroy their name from that place 44 . How was it possible for the One who, through Moses, commands to move from Hellenic deception to the light of truth and at the same time to incinerate the places reserved for idols, to demolish altars and cut down groves, so that no trace remains of their abominations, so that He shares glory with them, as I said before, and even came to the opinion that the very ones prepared for Him for sacred rites (animals) commands to be brought to them in sacrifice by sending one of the goats into the desert? And this despite the fact that He severely accused Israel, who created a calf for themselves in the desert, saying to the divine Moses: Go, quickly descend from here, for your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt, have committed iniquity... they have made idols for themselves 45. (8) And also for those who joined Baal-Peor, when they fornicated with Moabite wives, attracted by bodily beauty to apostasy, as we see, he prepared a bitter punishment, for a considerable number of them perished for this reason 46 . It would not be an unimportant accusation against the Divine and impeccable council if those who worshiped foreign gods fell and perished, and at the same time God Himself, angry with the apostates, commanded to honor with gifts and sacrifices the unclean and nasty force, which is called “released,” as some will probably say, not seeing with the inner eyes of the mind the meaning of the Holy Scriptures 47 . (9) We, having directed the mind to Divine prophecies without any negligence or carelessness, but, on the contrary, carefully and, as far as possible, vigilantly, will try to find the amazing beauty of truth. And we affirm that the God of all, while overthrowing polytheistic error and enlightening those who are in darkness, 48 ​​having proclaimed the law to the ancients through Moses, would in no way have tolerated a way and a door appearing, much less teaching that unclean demons should be venerated. But by carefully examining what is found in the inspired Scriptures, we will find the hidden truth; and it would be fitting for those who peer into the shadows of the law to say what was so truly said by one of the holy prophets: Who is wise and understands this? And (who) is intelligent and recognizes this? 49 For the law has a shadow of future good things, and not the very image of things, 50 as it is written; shadows hardly give birth to truth, but they are not, of course, the truth itself. Therefore, the divine Moses put a veil on his face 51 and thus addressed the sons of Israel, almost crying out that the beauty of the prophecies pronounced through him can be seen not at all in external images, but in contemplations hidden within. 52 (10) So let us, having taken away the shadow from the law and freed the face of Moses from external coverings, let us see the naked truth. So, he commanded that two goats be brought and two lots written for them, so that one of the goats should be called Lord, and the other released. Consequently, the names for the goats are Lord and the Abandoned One, and through both the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ are designated. How? Let's say, whenever possible, paying attention to the accuracy of the places in question. Now, the goats 53 were the sin offerings, according to the law. For the inspired Scripture in many places likens the righteous to a sheep, and the one who is given over to sin to a goat. And for what reason? The fact is that the righteous man is full of distinctions in virtue and can rightly be considered fruitful, but a sheep brings wool, and that is why he is rightfully compared to a sheep. The soul of the one who sins can be seen naked, barren and devoid of good deeds. Therefore, her image is a goat, and this animal is useless and inferior in value to a sheep. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ says: When the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, He will put the sheep on the right side and the goats on the left 54 ​​. And to those on the right side, since they have the fruits of righteousness, He will return the Kingdom prepared for them 55 , but on those on the left side He will bring fire, punishment and punishments befitting the devil 56 . (11) So, the goat was slaughtered for sin, and you will learn this from the law, which clearly says: And if the ruler sins, and unwittingly does something against the commandments of the Lord their God 57 , which he should not have done, and sins and trespasses, and the sin that he has sinned becomes known to him, let him bring his gift, a goat of goats 58 , a male without blemish 59 . God Himself, Who is above all, said about those who inherited the priesthood: They feed on the sins of My people, 60 that is, sacrifices for sin; for the offerings to the Lord are a portion and an inheritance for the priests, according to what is written 61 . Therefore Christ became the sacrifice for our sins, according to Scripture, 62 and for this reason, we say, He is called sin. After all, the wise Paul writes that He, of course, God and the Father, made him who knew no sin to be sin for us 63 . We are not saying that Christ became a sinner, let him not be! but that, although He was righteous, or rather, He was righteousness in itself (after all, He knew no sins), the Father made Him a sacrifice for the sins of the world and He was numbered among the wicked, 64 having received the lot most appropriate for the wicked. And the divine prophet Isaiah confirms this, saying that we all, like sheep, have gone astray, each 65 has lost his way, and the Lord gave Him up for our sins 66 , and He suffers for us, and by His stripes we were healed 67 . The wise Peter also writes that He bore our sins in His body on the tree 68. (12) Consequently, although the lot weighed upon those living on earth to have to endure death, both because of the transgression in Adam, and because of the sin that reigned from him and down to us, the Word from God the Father, rich in mercy and love for mankind, became flesh, that is, man, conformed to us who are under sin, and took upon Himself our lot. After all, as the most excellent Paul writes, by the grace of God He tasted death for all, 69 and made His soul a ransom for a deceitful life, and died for all, so that all might live for God, sanctified and quickened by His Blood and justified freely by the grace given from Him. After all, as the blessed Evangelist John writes, the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin 70 . (13) So, the name of the goat being slaughtered is Lord; he received the slaughter by lot, and this holy and sacred sacrifice was the image of Christ, Who does not die for His own sake, but, as I said, sanctifies the Church for us with His own Blood. For, it is said, he will slay the goat for the sin of the people before the Lord, and bring some of its blood inside the veil, and sprinkle its blood on the atonement for the face of the atonement, and cleanse the holy place from the uncleanness of the children of Israel and from their transgressions for all their sins. And he will do the same with the tabernacle of testimony, which is pitched among them in the midst of their uncleanness 71 . After all, the Lord entered into the Holy of Holies not through the blood of goats and bulls, but through His Blood, having obtained eternal redemption 72 and sanctifying, as I said, the truer tabernacle, that is, the Church and everything that is in It. After all, the divine Paul writes that Jesus, in order to sanctify people with His Blood, suffered outside the gates 73 , and in another place: Therefore, imitate God, as beloved children, and live in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us as an offering and a sacrifice 74 for a sweet aroma 75 . Therefore, we must see in the slaughtered goat Immanuel, who suffered the death of the flesh, although for the destruction of death and sin. After all, he was free in the dead, 76 that is, inaccessible to sins and not subject to the death sentence along with us. (14) So let us see Him in another goat, alive and sent into the wilderness: that He, while suffering as a man, did not suffer like God, and that He was stronger than death in the mortification of the flesh, and that He does not remain with us in the tomb, and that He is not held back by the gates of death along with others, as the Jews imagine. After all, His disciple says: His soul was not left in hell, and His flesh did not see corruption, 77 for He came to life, having plundered hell and saying to the prisoners: Come out, and to those in darkness: Open yourselves, 78 and flew up to the Father on high, into a land inaccessible to people, 79, taking upon Himself our sins and being the propitiation for them. After all, the divine John writes to those who believed in Him: Children! 80 I write these things to you so that you will not sin; and if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also (for the sins) of the whole world 81. (15) But I think that it is necessary to quote the appropriate passage from the legal Scriptures to remind the listeners, and it is this: And he will bring a live goat, and Aaron will lay his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions and all their sins, and put them on the head of the live goat, and send him away by the hand of a special man into the wilderness 82 . So notice that although the first goat is slaughtered, the other is repeatedly called alive; for through both was described, as I said, the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ in the suffering of His flesh and beyond suffering, in death and above death. For the Word of God was alive, even when His holy flesh tasted death, and It remained impassive, although it assimilates the suffering of its own flesh and takes it to Himself. (16) It can be seen that this great and profound mystery is described in the book of Leviticus in another way. The law given through Moses declares the leper defiled and orders him to be sent out of the camp as unclean. If he happens to be freed from the disease, he commands that then he must be received, and at the same time says: This is the law for the leper on the day when he is cleansed and they bring him to the priest. And the priest will go out of the camp, and the priest will see: and behold, he has been healed of the disease of leprosy, and the priest will command, and they will take for him two clean living birds 83 . And the priest will order one bird to be slaughtered in an earthen vessel over the living water, and he will take the living bird 84 and dip it in the blood of the bird slain over the living water, and sprinkle it on the cleansed leper seven times, and he will be clean, and he will release the living bird into the field 85 . So, two birds were taken, moreover, immaculate, that is, clean and not giving any reason for accusation, of course, from the law. And while one of them was slaughtered “over living water,” the other, remaining outside the slaughter and then dipped in the blood of the deceased over living water, in exactly the same way as the goat, was sent into the desert. And in this place the image can again point us to the great and sacred mystery of our Savior. (17) After all, (God) the Word was from above, that is, from the Father and from heaven (which is why He is quite rightly likened to a feathered creature), but according to the economy He descended to be like us and took on the form of a servant 86; however, even so He was from above. For He clearly spoke to the Jews: You are from below, I am from above. I am not of this world 87 . And one more thing: No one has ascended to heaven except the Son of Man 88. After all, as I just said, even having become flesh, that is, a perfect man, He was not earthly or earthly, like us, but heavenly 89 and the highest of the world, insofar as He is thought of as God. However, one can see in the birds, as well as in the goats, that although He suffered in the flesh 90, according to the Scriptures, He was beyond suffering and, dying as a man, He continued to live as God, for the Word was life 91. After all, the wise disciple said that He was killed in the flesh, but came to life in the spirit 92. (18) And yet, although it was not possible for the Word to suffer death in His own nature, He nevertheless appropriates to Himself the suffering of His flesh, as I said before. In fact, a living bird was dipped in the blood of a dead one, and having mixed with the blood and almost becoming an accomplice of suffering, it was sent into the desert. After all, the Only Begotten Word of God ascended into heaven together with the flesh united with Him, and this sight in heaven was wonderful. For the multitude of holy angels were amazed, seeing in a form like ours the King of glory and the Lord of hosts. And they even said: Who is this one who came from Edom, that is, from the earth, in scarlet robes from Bozrah? 93 And Bozhar is interpreted as flesh or oppression and sorrow. And they asked Him: What are these wounds on your hands? He (answered) to them: They laid them on Me in the house of My beloved 94 . After all, just as to the unbelieving Thomas, according to a special dispensation after the Resurrection from the dead, He showed his hands and the marks of nails on them, and also commanded him to touch the wounds in his ribs, so when he was in heaven, He assured the holy angels that He was rightly rejected and fell away from His friendship with His beloved Israel. Therefore, He showed the clothes mixed with blood and the wounds on His hands, not as if He could not get rid of them (for, having risen from the dead, He put aside corruption and everything that proceeded from it), but, as I said, so that, according to the economy, the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the Church to the principalities and powers in heaven, according to the eternal purpose, which He fulfilled in Christ 95, for so writes the most sacred Pavel. (19) Thus, just as the mystery of Christ was wisely described through goats, so also through birds. But, probably, someone will ask: why then do you say that there is one and the same Son and Lord Jesus Christ, although two goats and two birds were brought? Did not the law rather clearly indicate that there are certainly two Sons and a Christ? And some have already reached such wickedness that they think and assert that one Christ is in itself the Word from God the Father, and the other is He who is from the seed of David. But we say to those who, from their ignorance, believe that this is so: the divine Paul writes: One Lord, one faith, one baptism 96. Therefore, if you say that there are two Sons, then there will certainly be two Lords, and two faiths, and the same number of baptisms. The one who, according to him, had Christ speaking in him will then turn out to be a liar 97. But it’s not like that, it won’t be! There is, of course, one Lord and one faith, one baptism, for we believe “in one Lord Jesus Christ,” that is, in the Only Begotten Word of God, made man and incarnate. Therefore, we are baptized into His death, and we know Him alone as Lord, as God, not positing man and God separately, but insisting that, as I said, the Word Himself from God the Father became man, while He remained God. After all, It is immutable and unchangeable by nature. (20) Let the opponents say: if they assert that there are two Sons, one in itself, the one who is from the seed of David, and the other, also separately, the Word from God the Father, then the Word from God the Father is not by nature better than the one who is from the seed of David, and even incomparably superior to him? For what is human nature in relation to the Divine and highest nature? But I think that they will reluctantly say that the Word from God the Father is better in nature. Then what should we do if we see goats not of different natures among themselves, but, on the contrary, belonging to the same species and not differing in any way in what they are? The same argument can be made for the two birds. Let them then agree, on the basis of one kind of goats or birds, that the Word of God differs in no way from man. But they will not tolerate, as I think, such a thought, for the distance between Divinity and humanity is so great. So let us allow the examples to be understood in their proper sense, for they are much inferior to the true things and it happens that they only partially show what they mean. And we affirm that the law was a shadow, an image and, as it were, a drawing, offered to the vision of those who see the object. The art of those who paint in a picture is characterized by the fact that shadows are first drawn, onto which colored paints are then applied, and then the beauty of the drawing 98 appears. So, it was necessary for the law given through Moses, when he wanted to clearly describe the mystery of Christ, to reveal Him not through one of the goats or birds, dying and at the same time living, so that what was happening did not seem to be something like a stage miracle, but although in one (animal) he accepted Him as if undergoing slaughter, through another he revealed that the same one was alive and being released. (21) but in order to prove that our reasoning about this does not go beyond the limits of fairness, I consider it necessary to bring here another image besides those that I spoke about. So, in the book of the world order 99 it is written: And it came to pass after these events that God tempted Abraham and said to him: Abraham, Abraham! He said: here I am. And He said: Take your beloved son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you. He 100 got up in the morning, saddled his donkey, took with him two servants and Isaac his son, and having split the wood for the burnt offering, he got up and went and on the third day came to the place about which God had told him. And Abraham raised his eyes and saw (this) place from afar. And Abraham said to his servants: Stay here with the donkey, and I and my son will go there and, having bowed, will return to you. And he 101 took the wood for the burnt offering and laid his son on Isaac, took fire and a knife in his hands, and they both went together 102. And a little later: And Abraham built an altar there, and laid in the wood, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand to take the knife and slay his son 103. (22) So, if one of us wanted to see the story of Abraham written in a picture, how could the painter depict it? Do they really do everything that is told at once, or do they do it one by one and in different ways, that is, the same thing (Abraham) in different forms and many times? I mean, something like this: first he mounted a donkey, took his son, and was accompanied by servants; then he loaded the wood onto Isaac and held a knife and fire in his hands, while the donkey remained below with the servants; and also in another place and in another form: him, who tied the youth on top of the firewood and took a knife to carry out the slaughter. However, Abraham, seen many times and in different ways, was not now one thing and now another, but he is the same everywhere, although the art of the painter is always applied to the requirements of the things (depicted). After all, it was not decent or, in any case, possible to see him immediately doing everything told. (23) So, the law was a design and images of real things, which with difficulty gave birth to truth, so that, although it was necessary to bring two goats to demonstrate the sacrament of Christ, and although there were two birds, He was one in both: in suffering and outside suffering, in death and above death, ascending into heaven, like a certain secondfruits of humanity renewed to immortality. After all, He has renewed the high path for us, and we will follow Him in due time. For He says: I go to prepare a place for you, and 104 I will come again and take you to Myself, so that where I am 105 you also may be. This is our true hope. (24) So, I wrote what I understood, but your piety is able to bring into the written and more accurate research, so that if something better happens to be found, it will benefit both us and the people there. After all, Christ is the One who reveals the deep 106 and sends understanding into the hearts; for in Him and with Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge 107; through Him and with Him to God and the Father is strength and might with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. Ranovich 1990 – Ranovich A. Primary sources on the history of early Christianity. Ancient critics of Christianity. M., 1990. [Ranovich A. Pervoistochniki po istorii rannego khristianstva. Antichnye kritiki khristianstva (Primary sources on the history of early Christianity. Ancient critics of Christianity). Moscow, 1990.] Evieux 1985 – Evieux P. Introduction // Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Contre Julien. P., 1985. Vol. 1. Livres I, II (SC 322). P. 9–72. Guinot 1988 Guinot J.-N. L’ exegese du bouc emissaire chez Cyrille d’Alexandrie et Théodoret de Cyr // Augustinianum. 1988. Vol. 28. P. 603–630. Kopallik 1881 Kopallik J. Cyrillus von Alexandrien. Mainz, 1881. La Bible d'Alexandrie. 1988 La Bible d'Alexandrie. Vol. 3. Le Levitique / Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, introduction et notes par P. Harle, D. Pralon. P., 1988. St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the scapegoat. Epistle to Acacius, Bishop of Scythopolis (traslated from Ancient Greek, an introduction with notes by hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev)) The publication offers a first Russian translation of the Epistle by St. Cyril of Alexandria containing an interpretation of the sacrifice as described in Leviticus. The introduction sheds light on the addressee’s identity and on the time of writing. It also provides a survey of the contents of the Epistle. The author notes the typological character of the proposed interpretation and its close connection with the Saint’s christological and soteriological views. The author also mentions other typological interpretations of this excerpt in the writings of the Early Fathers. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentateuchun In Leviticum // PG 69, 585–589 (CPG 5201). Rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2001. Book. 2. pp. 368–370. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Contra Iulianum imperatotem. Lib. IX // PG 76, 960–969 (CPG 5233). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 41. ACO 1, 1, 4, 40–48; PG 77, 201–221 (CPG 5341). Kopallik 1881. S. 339–340. As addressed to St. Akaky Melitinsky, this message was published in old editions by J. Aubert, D. Mansi and J.-P. Minya. Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 21/Ed. R. Hespel. Louvain, 1955. P. 119; Photius. Bibliotheca 169, 116b:29–30/Ed. R.Henry. P., 1960. Vol. 2; Ephraem Antiochenus apud Photius. Bibliotheca 229, 253ä9–10 (CPG 6908) / Ed. R.Henry. P., 1965. Vol. 4. The current city of Beit Shean (Israel). One of the oldest cities in Palestine, mentioned in Holy Scripture: Judgment. 1, 27 (according to the Septuagint: τὴν Βαιθσαν ἥ ἐστιν Σκυθῶν πόλις; syn. translation: “Bethsan, which is Scythopolis”), Jude. 3, 10 and 2Mac. 12, 29, as well as in the writings of Herodotus, Pliny the Elder and Josephus. In the Roman era, it became the main city of the Decapolis (Decapolis) established by Pompey; from the 4th century administrative and ecclesiastical center of the province of 2nd Palestine. Currently widely known thanks to the discoveries here in the 20th century. architectural monuments of late antiquity. Evieux 1985. P. 13; Guinot 1988. P. 605. Unfortunately, these researchers only state such a definite date, without substantiating it in any way. ACO publisher E. Schwartz believes that it was written “in the last years of his life” (ACO 1, 1, 4. P. 40) by St. Kirill, referring to the message of the blessed. Theodorite of Cyrus to Dioscorus of Alexandria (see next note). Theodoretus ep. Cyri. Epistula 83 (SC 98. P. 216:9–19). Rus. trans.: Creations of the blessed. Theodorit. St. Petersburg, 1907. Part 7, pp. 91–92. A later date is usually preferred (Evieux 1985, p. 13). Theodoretus ep. Cyri Quaestiones in Octateuchum. In Leviticum. Cap. 22/Ed. N. Fernandez Marcos, A. Saenz-Badillos. Madrid, 1979, 172:23–177 (CPG 6200). Rus. trans.: Creations of the blessed. Theodorit. M., 1855. Part 1. P. 175–179; Idem. Eranistes 208:21–211/Ed. G. H. Ettlinger. Oxford, 1975 (CPG. 6217). Comparative analysis of interpretations of St. Kirill and Blessed. Theodoret is presented in a detailed article by J.-I. Guinot, a specialist in patristic exegesis (Guinot 1988). La Bible d'Alexandrie. 1988. T. 3. P. 151–152. At the direction of the blzh. Theodoret, Symmachus translates the same word as απερχόμενος, “departing”, Aquila απολυόμενος, “abandoned” (Theodoretus ep. Cyri. Quaestiones in Octateuchum. In Leviticum. Cap. 22 (P. 174: 2–5). Rus. trans.: Works of Blessed Theodoret. M., 1855. Part 1. P. 176). St. Cyril produces άποπομπαΐος from the verb αποπέμπω “to send”, “to let go” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentatauchum. In Leviticum // PG 69, 588 B: 16–17. Russian translation: Tvoreniya. M., 2001. Book. 2. P. 368). In this case, they are based mainly on the apocryphal 1st book of Enoch. In the rabbinic tradition, Azazel is the name of a deserted place where the second goat was sent (La Bible d’Alexandrie. 1988. T. 3. P. 151). Theodoretus ep. Cyri Quaestiones in Octateuchum. In Leviticum. Cap. 22 (P. 173:15–16). Rus. trans.: Creations of the blessed. Theodorit. M., 1855. Part 1. P. 176. J.-I. Gino suggests that the bl. Theodoret has in mind, among others, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who, by the nature of his exegesis, could well deny the typological significance of this sacrifice, although there is no documentary evidence for this (Guinot 1988. P. 616. n. 55). In the saved St. Cyril of Alexandria in fragments of the emperor’s work “Against the Galileans” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Contra Iulianum imperatorem 9 // PG 76, 950 AB. Russian translation: Ranovich A. Primary sources on the history of early Christianity. Ancient critics of Christianity. M., 1990. P. 425). And Ranovich had every reason to translate αποτρόπαιος in this place simply as “demon,” since this word usually means a “misfortune-avoiding” god, most often Apollo, or a “misfortune-avoiding” sacrifice to pagan “gods” (LSJ. P. 224). However, in Christian literature one can find the use of this term in relation to the saving death of Christ (PGL. P. 218). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 41, 9. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 41, 10–15. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 41, 16–18. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 41, 19–20. He sets out a typological interpretation of this place in “Glaphyra” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentateuchun In Leviticum. Lib. III // PG 69, 137 B-148 A; Russian translation: Tvoreniya. M., 2001. Book 2. pp. 84–90). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 41, 21–23. Interpretation of the bl. Theodoret, as already mentioned, is very close to the interpretation of St. Kirill. He also rejects the idea that the word άποπομπαΐος designates a demon, citing the translations of Aquila and Symmachus in support of this. For him, this sacrifice is also an image of Christ offered for our sins. The two goats, as well as the two birds offered for the leper, indicate His two natures (Guinot 1988, pp. 614–617). In early church literature there are other typological interpretations of this place. "The Epistle of Barnabas", St. Justin Martyr and Tertullian see two comings of Christ in two goats (La Bible d’Alexandrie. 1988. P. 152). Origen sees Christ in the man who took the scapegoat into the desert (Origenes. In Leviticum homilia 9 (M. Borret. P., 1981 (SC 287). P. 6:38–45 (CPG 1416), or identifies the slain goat with Christ, and the scapegoat with the robber Barabbas (Orig. In Leviticum homilia 10 (P. 2:18–44)). ACO 1, 1, 4. pp. 40–48. A modern English translation was also available to us (McEnerney 1987, pp. 167–181). At the same time, the Old Testament translations in the series “Alexandrian Bible” (La Bible d’Alexandrie. 1988) were taken into account, where a modern French translation of the Septuagint is given, accompanied by very informative textual and historical-exegetical notes. The following editions of texts and translations of the Holy Scriptures were used. 1) Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes edidit Alfred Rahlfs. Editio nona. Vol. 1–2. Stuttgart, 1970 (hereinafter Rahlfs). 2) The Bible. Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and Job Testaments. Anniversary publication dedicated to the two thousandth anniversary of the Nativity of Christ. M., 1999 (Syn.). 3) The Bible, that is, the Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and Job Testaments with parallel passages. Second embossing. St. Petersburg, 1900 [M., r 2009] (Elizav.). 4) Books of the Old Testament translated by P. A. Yungerov. Great prophets. M., 2006. 5) Books of the Old Testament translated by P. A. Yungerov. Prophet Daniel. Minor prophets. M., 2006. 6) Books of the Old Testament translated by P. A. Yungerov. Educational books. M., 2012 (Yungerov). 7) Job Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ. Translation from the Greek original, ed. Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov). M., 1997 (Bishop Cassian). Lit. "contemplations" (τῶν θεωρημάτων). As an exegetical term, θεώρημα actually means “object of contemplation” in relation to passages of Holy Scripture subject to spiritual interpretation (PGL. P. 647). ῥῆμα. Yungerov: “gives his word.” Ps. 67, 12. ῶς λόγος. In lat. lane (PG 77, 201 D) and in English. lane (McEnerney 1987, p. 168) this expression is translated: “as it is written.” The lid of the ark (ἱλαστή ριον). Wed: “lid” (Syn.); “purification” (Elizab.). Matt. 4, 11. Wed: Deut. 6, 13; 10, 20. “You will destroy with destruction” (Elizab.). In addition to the same arguments about the absurdity of likening the sacrifices of Moses to polytheistic practice, Bl. Theodoret makes one subtle remark: the second goat, like the first, is brought before the Lord (Lev. 16:10). Therefore it is also a sacrifice Wed: Is. 9:2; Matt. 4:16. In the “Glaphyra” the saint cites the same passage to confirm that only the “internal” meaning of the Old Testament institutions has value, without which they themselves are “useless” and “superfluous” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. In Deuteronomium // PG 69, 665A; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2001. Book 2. P. 419). in the appropriate place of the “Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,” he expounds in detail the apostle’s thought that only in Christ, Who is the fulfillment of the Old Testament law and takes away what lies on it. α ἲ ξ ἤ τράγος ἤ γοῦν ἔριφος . Theirs (= Rahlfs): theirs (Syn.; Elizab.). 2 Cor. 5:21. Wed: “made for us (a sacrifice for) sin” (Sin.); “made us sin instead” (Bishop Cassian). Everyone (= Jungers): a person (Elizab.; Rahlfs). Lit. "to our sins" or "by our sins" (ταῖς ἁ μαρτ ί αις ἡμῶν). Is. 53:6. Heb. 9, 12 (translated by Bishop Cassian). Ἐν νεκροΐς ελεύθερος (Ps. 87:6). P. Yungerov’s translation “counted among the dead” suggests a different interpretation of this passage (Books of the Old Testament translated by P. A. Yungerov. Educational books. M., 2012. P. 361. Note 8). Wed: “freedom in the dead” (Elizab.); “thrown among the dead” (Syn.). Next at St. Cyril omitted: “cedar wood, scarlet thread and hyssop.” Further omitted: “cedar wood and scarlet thread.” In the essay “On Worship in Spirit and Truth” by St. Kirill gives a similar description of the painter’s technique in relation to the typological interpretation of Holy Scripture (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate. Lib. I // PG 68, 140C:36-D:45; Russian translation: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creation. M., 2000. Book 1. P. 128–129). Abraham (Yungerov; Elizab.; Rahlfs). Omitted: “when I go and prepare a place for you.” You might be interested in: