Two homilies for the Presentation from the "Commentary on the Gospel of Luke"

“Discourse on the Presentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ” 1 was first published in 1638 by J. Aubert in the fifth volume of the collected works of St. Cyril of Alexandria among the “various homilies” (homiliae diversae), from which it was reprinted in the Greek patrolology of J.-P. Minya. Although in the manuscript on which its first publisher relied, the “Conversation” is presented as a separate sermon 2, it is part of another much more lengthy work of the Alexandrian saint - “Commentaries on the Gospel of Luke” 3. This interpretation is preserved both in Greek (mainly in the catenae) and in the Syriac translation. The most extensive part of the Greek catenas on the Gospel of Luke consists of passages (scholia) inscribed with the name of St. Kirill 4. They were collected and published by the famous librarian of the Vatican Library A. Mai in two subsequent editions (1838 and 1844) 5 . The publisher reproduced all those inscribed with the name of St. Cyril fragments without any critical assessment of whether they really all explain the verses from the Gospel of Luke, and not parallel passages 6, and whether they were taken from other works of St. Kirill or other authors 7. However, despite the shortcomings, A. Mai’s publications also had their value 8 . In any case, even in the form of fragments presented by him, the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke” is one of the most significant exegetical works of the Alexandrian saint - in terms of volume, richness of content and perfection of exegesis. The Syriac translation was first published in 1858 by R. Payne Smith 9 based on two manuscripts from the 7th and 8th centuries. 10 Despite significant gaps, the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke has been preserved in these manuscripts much more completely than in Greek, and also in the form of a coherent text. This made it possible to clarify the original appearance of the monument. The entire interpretation is divided not into “chapters” or “scholia,” but into homilies, before each of which the Gospel verses being interpreted are placed. Thus, this is the only exegetical commentary of St. Cyril, compiled in the form of homilies. The entire work consists of 156 homilies 11. The author in them is more concise and follows the Gospel text to a greater extent than in his “Commentary on the Gospel of John,” where there are often lengthy digressions of a dogmatic and polemical nature. The first homily explains the events of the Nativity of Christ (starting from the 2nd chapter of the Gospel of Luke), but there is no interpretation of the 1st chapter. It can be assumed that the saint began to pronounce homilies precisely at Christmas, so that the first of them corresponded to the events of the liturgical year 12. Since the interpretation contains echoes of polemics with Nestorianism, it was compiled no earlier than 429. 13 The discovery of the Syriac text of the homilies made it possible to compare the Greek scholia published by A. Mai with it. It has been confirmed that most of them (though by no means all) are indeed extracted from the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 14. On the other hand, a comparison of the homilies with the Greek text from the catenas showed the remarkable accuracy of the Syriac translation 15. It also turned out that part of this interpretation are some already published Greek homilies: “The Discourse on the Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ” represents the 51st homilia (interpretation on Luke 9, 27–36 16, and the “Discourse on the Presentation” is a contamination of the 3rd and 4th homilies. Although in the Syriac homilies known to R. Payne Smith the text corresponding to the "Conversation on Candlemas" (commentary on Luke 2, 21-35) was lost, three short fragments of the 3rd and 4th homilies from the Syriac patristic florilegium 17 allowed him to identify this "Conversation" with them. Moreover, the 4th homilia as a separate sermon was discovered in a handwritten Greek collection of festive homilies XI in 18. This find not only made it possible to draw a precise boundary between the two homilies in the already well-known “Conversation on Candlemas”, but also revealed the initial words of the second of them 19. Subsequent publications added to the number of known Syriac and Greek fragments from the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 20 and contributed to the appearance of a critical edition of the Syriac text monument 21 . The newest critical edition of the Greek scholia from the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke was carried out in 1984 by I. Reuss 22 . However, this major specialist in the field of New Testament catenas did not avoid mistakes in determining the authenticity of the scholia. Some of them, belonging to the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke,” turned out to be among his forgeries 23. These errors were caused, in particular, by the fact that the manuscript of the Syriac liturgical homilary of the 14th century, found in 1971 in Damascus by an employee of the Vatican Library J. Sozh 24, was not taken into account in the edition of J. Reuss. The manuscript contains 18 homilies from the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke,” six of which, including the 3rd and 4th homilies that interest us, first became known in Syriac in their entirety 25 . A newly discovered Syriac translation confirmed that the Candlemas Discourse is a slightly shortened version of the 3rd and 4th homilies, and also revealed the authenticity of a Greek fragment from the catenas corresponding to the end of the first of them 26 . Thus, the text of the “Conversations on the Meeting of Our Lord Jesus Christ” was formed as a result of the combination of the 3rd and 4th homily of the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke”. Each of them has completeness and internal unity, reflecting different, but equally characteristic aspects of the saint’s creations. The first (interpretation on Luke 2:21–24), speaking about Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament instructions about circumcision and sacrifice for the firstborn, reveals the spiritual, educational meaning of both these legal institutions themselves and the Savior’s observance of them. The second (interpretation of Luke 2:25–35), telling about the meeting of Christ with the righteous Simeon, is focused on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the appearance of the Savior to Israel, the calling of the pagans, the condemnation of unbelieving Jews and the justification of the remnant of the faithful. It is these two homilies that we offer to the Russian reader. The basis of our translation was the Greek text “Conversations on the Presentation” 27. In the catenas among the scholia inscribed with the name of St. Cyril and explaining the same Gospel verses (Luke 2:21–35) 28, there are fragments that are additional compared to the text of the “Conversations”. Were some of them included in the 3rd and 4th homilies of the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke? The final answer to this question can be given by the Greek text of the 4th homilia and the Syriac translation of both homilies 29. Although they remain in manuscripts and are inaccessible to us, their contents can be judged from the English translation of the 4th homily 30 and from the information reported by J. Sozh 31 . These publications allow us to assert that the 3rd and 4th homilies included only two additional fragments that were omitted when combining these homilies into one: the end of the first of them and the beginning of the second. We have included these fragments directly in the translation, in angle brackets 32. The notes give important discrepancies between the text of the Candlemas Discourse and the corresponding scholia from the catenas. Apparently, others published under the name of St. Cyril's scholia did not belong to the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Three of them were identified with the works of St. Cyril and St. Photius of Constantinople 33. Since the origin of the others remains unclear 34, it can be assumed that they were taken from some unknown works of the Alexandrian saint. We place them after the translation of the homilies as an appendix that well complements the interpretation presented in the homilies. “The Discourse on the Meeting of Our Lord Jesus Christ” was presented in detail and partially translated in the famous work of A. Mirolyubov, who classified it, like the “Conversation on the Transfiguration,” among the best sermons of St. Kirill 35. Its complete Russian translation - with a reconstruction of the 3rd and 4th homilies of the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke - is published for the first time. The Holy Scripture is quoted according to the synodal text and according to the translation of P. Yungerov (for those books of the Old Testament that were translated by him), but preserving the features of biblical quotations from St. Kirill. These features are specified in the notes. The translator expresses his gratitude to Rev. Tikhon (Zimin), who took the trouble to revise our translation. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, discourse on the Meeting of our Lord Jesus Christ (Conversation 3 from the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.” Luke 2:21–24) Our congregation is very large and our listeners are zealous (for we see that the Church is full), but our teacher is not rich. However, He who gives man a mouth 36 and a tongue will give us good thoughts this time too. After all, He Himself says: Open your mouth and I will fill it 37. And since you all came with such zeal because the Lord’s brightest holiday brought you here, let us, together with the radiance of the lamps, pronounce a bright solemn word and begin to contemplate what has been fulfilled in a Godly manner today, gathering from everywhere the basis for faith and love of God. Just recently we saw Emmanuel as a Baby lying in a manger 38, and although He was wrapped in swaddling clothes 39 as a man, the army of holy Angels sang Him as God, and they announced His birth to the shepherds 40. After all, God and the Father, as an exceptional honor, provided the beginnings of preaching about Him to the heavenly powers. We saw Him today obeying the law given through Moses, or better yet, we saw God the Lawgiver as a man who obeys His own precepts. And for what reason, the wise Paul teaches us this, saying: While we were children, we were enslaved to the material principles of the world; but when the fullness of the time had come, God sent His Son, who was born of a woman, subject to the law, to redeem those under the law 41 . Consequently, Christ redeemed from under the legal oath those who, although they were under the law, still did not keep it. But how exactly did you buy it? - Having fulfilled it. And in another way: in order to resolve the accusations for the crime in Adam, He presented Himself in our place to God and the Father, well-behaved and obedient in everything. For it is written: Just as through one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so through one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. So, He, together with us, bowed His neck to the law, moreover, He did this according to the economy, because He had to fulfill all righteousness 43. In fact, since He took on the form of a slave in everything, 44 it was for this reason that, as if finding himself in humanity among those who are under the yoke, He once brought along with them a tax to the collectors of didrachms, 45 although He, even being a tributary, is by nature free as a Son 46. Thus, when you see Him keeping the law, do not be tempted and do not reduce Him who is free to the number of servants, but rather look at the depth of the economy. So, when the eighth day arrived, on which, according to custom, circumcision according to the flesh is performed, according to the decree of the law 47, He also receives a name, this name: Jesus 48 - it means: “Salvation of the people.” For God and the Father willed that His own Son, born in the flesh from a woman, should be called this way, because it was then that the salvation of the people and not just one people took place, but many, or better yet, all nations and all under heaven. So, at the same time as circumcision was performed, He also accepted this name. But let's try again to see what a mystery there is and what secrets what is happening reveals to us. Blessed Paul says: Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing 49 . However, they will rightly ask: did not God, through the wise Moses, decree that it should be observed, and also assign punishment to those who violate it? I can agree with this. Indeed, although as regards the very nature of this action, or what is performed in relation to the flesh, it is complete nothing, it gives rise to an image of the sacrament that is not at all devoid of beauty. For on the eighth day Christ rose from the dead and gave us circumcision in the Spirit. Namely, God 50 prescribed to the holy apostles: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit 51 . Circumcision in the Spirit, we affirm, is accomplished, first of all, during holy Baptism, when Christ shows us to be partakers of the Holy Spirit. And the image of this for his part was that ancient Jesus, the leader after Moses. After all, he 52 brought the children of Israel across the Jordan, and then immediately circumcised them with stone knives 53 . Therefore, when we cross the Jordan, then Christ circumcises us by the power of the Holy Spirit, not cleansing the flesh, but destroying spiritual filth. So, on the eighth day Christ is circumcised and receives, as I said, His name. For then, just then, we were saved by Him. They carry Him to Jerusalem to present Him before the Lord 54. Oh, how great and wondrous is the economy! Oh, the depth of wealth and wisdom and knowledge of God! 55 The Son, who dwells in the bosom of the Father, sits with Him and is co-eternal with Him, by whom all things 56 are brought into being 56 fittingly 57 with God, not only found himself within the boundaries of humanity, but even makes a sacrifice - (and this is) the One to whom everyone serves, extols and glorifies together with His own Parent. 58. And what is it that He brings as the Firstborn and Male Child? Two turtle doves or two pigeon chicks 59, in accordance with what is specified in the law 60. But what does the turtledove indicate and what does the other thing mean, that is, the pigeon chick - let's look at this carefully. So, one is the most talkative of the field birds, the other is meek and quiet; but this is how the Savior 61 of all became for us, possessing the highest meekness, and, like a turtle dove, (with His voice) flooding 62 the heavenly places and filling His own vineyard with His euphony, that is, us who believe in Him. In fact, in the Song of Songs it is written: The voice of the turtledove is heard in our land, 63 for He spoke to us the Divine and Gospel saving sermon 64 . 65. For He Himself is a euphonious turtledove, He Himself is an immaculate dove> 66. So, they brought turtle doves and chicks of pigeons when He appeared before the Lord, and it was possible to see the Truth together with the images at the same time. Therefore, Christ brought Himself into a pleasant fragrance 67 in order to bring us through Himself and in Himself to God and the Father, thereby eliminating our falling away, which occurred because of the transgression in Adam and because of the sin that reigned over us all 68 . After all, we were the ones who cried out from ancient times: Look at me and have mercy on me 69, 70, since the Lord does not look at those who are possessed by sins, but at the meek and silent and trembling before His Divine words 71. So, it was necessary first that we should be cleansed and thereby merit God’s care; and we have obtained this through Christ the Savior of all, born of a woman and under the law> 72 . (Discourse 4 from the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.” Luke 2:25–35) Isaiah says that beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news> 74 . And where else could there be as many grounds for heartfelt joy as not in the knowledge that God saved the heavenly places when the Son became a mediator, becoming like us? In fact, it is written that there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for the ransom of all, 75 because He voluntarily descended into our poverty in order to show us rich, as having acquired what was characteristic of Him. 76 So, see that He, as if one of us, is brought to the Father, obeys the shadows of the law, and even makes a sacrifice according to custom, even if it does it with the help of the Mother. So was He really hidden from everyone in Jerusalem and not recognized by anyone here? However, can this be true? After all, from time immemorial God the Father foretold through the prophets that in due time the Son would clearly come to save the lost 77 and enlighten the darkened 78 . In fact, He said through one of His prophets: My righteousness 79 is quickly approaching, and My mercy is coming to be revealed 80 , and My salvation will burn like a light 81 . But mercy and righteousness are Christ, for we have received mercy and are justified through Him, having washed away the impurity of depravity, obviously by faith in Him. And what the lamp moving in front of them serves for those who are in the darkness of the night, that is what Christ became for those who were in mental darkness and darkness, giving them Divine light. That is why the blessed prophets prayed to become partakers of such grace, crying: Show us, O Lord, Thy mercy and grant us Thy salvation 82 . So, Christ was carried into the church, while still a small child, an infant 83 , but blessed Simeon, honored by prophetic grace, took Him in his arms and, filled with the highest joy, blessed God, saying: Now you are releasing Your servant, Master, according to Your word, in peace 84 . For my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all nations, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Your people Israel 85 . After all, even before the creation of the world, the sacrament of Christ was prepared, and in the last times of the century it was revealed and became a light for those in darkness, those who were mistaken and who fell under the power of the devil. They were those who served the creature instead of the Creator 86, worshiped the incipiently evil serpent and the unclean crowd of demons, gave the glory of God, but were called by God and the Father to the knowledge of the Son, Who is the true Light 87. Indeed, He spoke with the voice of Isaiah: I will give them a sign 88 and will gather them, for I will redeem them, and they will multiply, just as those 89 who went astray but were called through Christ were numerous. And again numerous, as before, are those who are gathered and redeemed, having received the sign of peace from God the Father, nearness and grace through faith in Christ. Namely, the divine disciples were scattered among the nations. And what happened? Those who were far from God became close by their dispensation; The Divine Paul writes to them, saying: But now 90 you, who were once far away, have become near through the Blood of Christ 91 . And, having become close, they boast in Christ. After all, again God the Father said about them: And I will strengthen them in the Lord their God, and in His name they will glory 92, says the Lord 93. This is what the blessed Psalmist teaches in his speech when he addresses the Savior of all: Lord! In the light of Your face they will walk, and in Your name they will rejoice all day long, and in Your righteousness they will be exalted, for You are the praise of their strength 94 . We find that the prophet Jeremiah exclaimed to God: Lord! You are my strength, and my help, and my refuge in times of trouble! Nations will come to You from the ends of the earth 95 and say: Our fathers 96 acquired false idols, from which there is no benefit 97 . So, Christ became a light for the enlightenment of the Gentiles, but also for the glory of Israel 98 . After all, even if some of them turned out to be daring, rebellious and having a mind full of foolishness, yet the remnant of them were saved 99 and glorified through Christ. And their firstfruits became the Divine disciples, the radiance of whose glory illuminates the whole of heaven. But in another way 100 is the glory of Israel, because from them came God in the flesh, who is over all and blessed forever, Ameen 101. Simeon also blesses the Holy Virgin, as having obeyed the Divine will and giving birth, and at the same time not having suffered the effects of the laws of humanity. For She gave birth, being a Virgin, and not from a husband, but from the Holy Spirit who descended on Her. But what, finally, does the prophet Simeon say about Christ? Behold, this lies for the fall and rebellion of many in Israel and is to be contradicted as a sign 102. Indeed, Immanuel was placed by God and the Father at the foundation of Zion, being a precious cornerstone. However, while those who believed in Him were not put to shame, 103 those who remained unfaithful, ignorant and unable to know the mystery pertaining to Him fell and were crushed. Indeed, God the Father speaks again: Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a stone of offense; but whoever believes in Him will not be ashamed 104, and on whomever it falls, it will crush him 105. But the prophet Isaiah warns those who are from Israel, saying: Sanctify Him, and He will be your light 106; and if you trust in Him, He will be your sanctification, and you will not stumble as over a stumbling block or over a fallen rock 107 . Therefore, since Israel did not honor the holiness of Immanuel, although He is Lord and God, and therefore did not rely on Him, they stumbled, as if on a stone, through unbelief, were crushed and fell; but many rebelled - those who accepted faith in Him. After all, they were transplanted from legal service into spiritual service and, instead of having the spirit of slavery in themselves, they were enriched with the Spirit of freedom, that is, with the Holy Spirit; they became partakers of the Divine nature 108, were worthy of adoption and remain in the hope of acquiring that very highest city, that is, the Kingdom of Heaven. And he calls the honest Cross a sign that can be disputed, as the wise Paul also writes: For the Jews it is a stumbling block, and for the Greeks foolishness 109 , and again: The word about the Cross is foolishness for those who are perishing, but for us who are being saved, it is the power of God 110 for salvation. So, this sign is disputed, and although among those who are perishing it seems madness, for those who know its power it is salvation and life. Simeon told the Holy Virgin that a weapon would pierce your soul too, 111 calling the weapon, most likely, the grief that She experienced because of Christ, seeing Him whom She gave birth to crucified, not knowing that He would be stronger than death and would rise from the dead. And don’t be surprised that the Virgin remained ignorant, when we even find the holy apostles themselves lacking faith in this. After all, blessed Thomas, until he put his hands into His ribs and felt the wounds from the nails, did not dare to believe, although the other disciples told him that Christ had risen and that He clearly appeared before them 112. So, the wise evangelist benefits us by teaching everything that because of us and for our sake, the Son endured, becoming flesh and not considering it unworthy to accept our poverty, so that we glorify Him as Redeemer, as Lord, as Savior and God, for to Him and with Him to God and the Father be glory and power with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. After eight days, when the Child was to be circumcised, they gave Him the name Jesus (Luke 2:21). For in Him, says (the apostle), you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the sinful body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in Him you were also resurrected 113 . Therefore, for our sake there was His death, and resurrection, and circumcision 114, namely, He died so that we, who died with Him, would no longer live in sin, since He died to sin. That is why it is said: If we died with Him, then we will live with Him 115. It is said that He died to sin, not because He sinned (after all, He committed no sin, and there was no flattery in His mouth 116), but because of my sin. So, just as we died with Him who died, so we will rise again with Him 117. On the other hand, since the Son appeared among us, although being by nature God and Lord of all, He did not neglect our condition in this either, but together with us found himself under the same law, although as God He Himself is the Lawgiver; He is circumcised on the eighth day along with the Jews in order to confirm his kinship with them and so that they would not deny Him, because Christ was expected from the seed of David, 118 and He showed a clear sign of this kinship. In fact, since even when He was circumcised, they said: We do not know where He comes from 119 - then if He had not been circumcised in the flesh, then their denial would have had a plausible pretext. However, after He was circumcised, circumcision was abolished, since what it signifies, that is, Baptism, was introduced to us, so we are no longer circumcised 120. And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him before the Lord (Luke 2:22) After He was circumcised, He again awaits the time of purification; and when these days were fulfilled (and the fulfillment of the days was Pentecost), then He was raised up to Jerusalem and brought before the eyes of the Father as a man like us, God the Word, Who sits with Him, but at the same time, through the shadow of the law, is recorded among the firstborn. The fact is that the firstborn, which before becoming man was sacrificed to Him according to the law, was also holy and dedicated to God. However, we must examine, firstly, about whom it is written: their purification; secondly, to present Him before the Lord, and thirdly, which means: two turtle doves and two chicks of pigeons 122. After all, if we begin to think that their cleansing refers to the Holy Mother of God, or to Blessed Joseph, or to the Lord, then we will be blasphemous. After all, neither Joseph knew the Holy Virgin, nor was She caught in iniquities, like other wives, so that this relates to the purification of themselves, but she conceived without seed and gave birth incorruptibly. And where there is no coming together of wife and husband, no sleep and sweetness, no intercourse and mixing, what need is there for purification? But this is not said about the Lord, immaculate and beyond all purity 123. And to sacrifice (Luke 2:24) He, in turn, contributed a tax to the collectors of didrachms 124, although he did not have to pay, since He is the Son in truth 125; He paid, since he was under the law 126. For it was fitting for Him, indeed it was fitting for Him to fulfill the dispensation which He undertook for our sakes. And we will find that even in the payment of the didrachm He is depicted as the Savior and Redeemer. Namely, the didrachm, on the one hand, was a type of nomisma with a royal image, and on the other hand, according to the law it was paid for two persons. So, see that Christ is again depicted in the didrachm. After all, He is the nomisma from heaven, being the image of the Father and the mark of His hypostasis 127, offering Himself as a redemption for two peoples: Jews and pagans 128. Abinea 1987 – Abinea M. Les “Catenae in Lucam” de J. Reuss et de Cyrille d’Alexandrie // BZ 80. 1987. P. 29–47. Payne Smith 1858 – S. Cyrilli Alexandriae archiepiscopi Commentarii in Lucae Evangelium quae supersunt syriace e manuscriptis apud Museum Britannicum / Ed. R. Payne Smith. Oxford, 1858. Payne Smith 1859 – A Commentary upon the Gospel according to S. Luke, by S. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria now first translated into English from an ancient Syriac Version by R. Payne Smith. Vol. 1–2. Oxford, 1859. Rahlfs 1935 – Septuaginta / Ed. A. Rahlfs. Vol. 1–2. Stuttgart, 1935. Reuss 1984 – Reuss J. Lukas-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kommentare Kirche. Berlin, 1984 (Texte und Untersuchungen 130). Rücker 1911 – Rücker A. Die Lukas-Homilien des hi. Cyrill von Alexandrien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese. Breslau, 1911. Sauget 1974 – Sauget J. M. Nouvelle homélie du “Commentaire sur l’Évangile de s. Luc" ​​de Cyrille d'Alexandrie dans leur traduction syriaque // Symposium syriacum 1972 celebré dans les jours 26–31 October 1972 à l'Institut Pontifical Oriental de Rome. Roma, 1974. p. 439–456 (OCA 197). Sickenberger 1909 – Sickenberger J. Fragmente der Homilien des Cyrill von Alexandrien zum Lukasevangelium. Leipzig, 1909 (Texte und Untersuchungen 34, 1). Tonneau 1953 – S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Commentarii in Lucam. (Pars 1) / Interpretatus est R. M. Tonneau. Louvain, 1953 (CSCO 140. Scriptores syri. T. 70). Cyr. Alex. Homilia 12. In occursum Domini. CPG 5207.1 (CPG 5256). PG 77.1039–1050. Paris. Coislin. 274. F. 180 v –187 r. Cyr. Alex. Commentarii in Lucam. CPG 5207. Devreesse R. Chaînes exégétiques grecques // Dictionnaire de la Bible. Suppl. I. Paris, 1928. Coi. 1190. The second of them, prepared with the involvement of a larger number of sources, was reprinted in the patrolology of J.-P. Minya (PG 72, 475–950). Among the creations of St. Cyril there is a “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,” also preserved in catenas (the newest edition: Reuss J. MatthA:us-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche. Berlin, 1957. S. 153–269 [Texte und Untersuchungen 61]). It could well have been used by the compilers of catenas on the Gospel of Luke. It is known, for example, that a significant part of these catenas are extracts from the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Matthew (Sickenberger J. Die Lukaskatene des Niketas von Herakleia. Leipzig, 1902. S. 92). Sauget 1974, pp. 439–440. In addition, A. Mai several times combined different scholia into one and did not always indicate the sources (Reuss 1984. S. X). He also lacks interpretations on Luke. 9, 23–10, 21 and on Luke. 24, 51–53. It is determined by the merits of the manuscript of the catena of Nikita of Heraclea (Vatican, graec. 1611 Codex A), which served as the main source for A. Mai. Nikita of Heracles gives extensive quotations from ancient authors and, as a rule, very accurately indicates the works cited (Sickenberger 1909. S. 67). As a good side of A. Mai's edition, one can also note his careful editorial work on the Greek text (Payne Smith 1859. P. XIX). Brit. Mus. Additional 14.551, Additional 14.552. These manuscripts contain, respectively, the first and second parts of the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Their text was partially supplemented by several Syriac homilaries and florilegies (Payne Smith 1858. P. V-VII). Soon the same publisher prepared an English translation, taking into account the Greek evidence known to him (Payne Smith 1859). Although the ending of Additional 14.552 is lost (the manuscript ends at 153 homilies), the index placed at the beginning of this manuscript (see: Payne Smith 1858, pp. 192–196) allows us to establish the exact number of homilies. The beginning of the “Discourse on the Presentation” (that is, the beginning of the 3rd homily) speaks of the “bright feast of the Lord” as being celebrated “today” and points to the Nativity of Christ as a very recent holiday (PG 77, 1040D:51–1041B:19). For example, at the end of the 63rd homily there is a clear similarity with the anathematisms against Nestorius (see Tonneau 1953, p. 167). This dating of the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke” was argued by A. Rücker (Rücker 1911. S. 57–61) and is now generally accepted. Wed: Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur. Bd. IV. Freiburg im Bresgau, 1924. S. 42; Quasten J. Patrology. Vol. III. Utrecht/Antwerp, 1960. P. 124. Sickenberger J. Die Lukaskatene des Niketas von Herkleia. Leipzig, 1902. S. 95–96 (Texte und Untersuchungen 7, 4). A. Rücker gave a list of those Greek fragments from the catenas in PG 72, the belonging of which to the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke” is beyond doubt (Rücker 1911. S. 35–56). Payne Smith 1859. P. XII. Cp.: Reuse 1984. S. XXVI. Nomilia 9. In transfigurationem. CPG 5207.2 (CPG 5253). PG 77, 1009–1016. Cp.: Tonneau 1953. P. 119–122. Since in a number of manuscripts this homily is inscribed with the name of St. Proclus of Constantinople, its identity with the 51st homily of the Syrian monument is, in turn, the strongest argument in favor of the authorship of St. Kirill (Sauget 1974. R. 442. Note 14). Brit. Mus. Additional 12.154. Cantabrig. Trim B 8.7. F. 155–157 v. Based on this, P. Payne Smith, in his English translation, used for the 3rd and 4th homilies the Greek text of the “Discourses on Candlemas” according to the edition of J. Aubert, expanding it with the scholia from the catenas, taking into account the Cantabrig manuscript. Trim B 8.7 (Payne Smith 1859. P. 18–28). Soon after the edition of R. Payne Smith, part of the lost leaves of Additional 14.552 was found and published (Wright W. Fragments on the Homilies of Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of S. Luke edited from Nitrian MS. London, 1874). A. Rücker also published several previously unknown Syrian fragments in his work (Rücker 1911. S. 87–94). I. Zickenberger published the Greek scholia missing from A. Mai from the catena of Niketas of Heraclea on Luke. 9, 23–10, 21 and on Luke. 24, 51 (Sickenberger 1909). In 1912, the first part of the interpretation, 1–80 homilies, was published (Chabot J. S. Surilli Alexandrini Commentarii in Lucam. Pars 1. Textus. Parisiis, 1912 (CSCO. Script. Syri. Series 4. T. 1)), and in 1953 an additional volume was published containing amendments to the text of these 80 homilies and their Latin translation (Tonneau 1953). Reuss 1984. J. Reuss sought to use the maximum number of catena manuscripts, classifying them into six types (Reuss 1984. S. X-XVII. Cf. Abipeai 1987. R. 29–32). Through comparison with the Syriac translation and with the three homilies preserved in Greek, he distributed the scholia from the catenae, inscribed with the name of St. Kirill, in three departments. In the first section – those who undoubtedly belong to the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke” (group I, 363 fragments), in the second – those whose belonging to this interpretation is in question (group II, 125 fragments), in the third – those who were certainly excluded from this interpretation (group III, 118 fragments). The text of the scholia of the last group is not given in full, but only their initial and final words are indicated (Reuss 1984. S. XIX, XXVII). Most of the fragments of the last group were published by A. Mai, that is, they can be found in the patrolology of J.-P. Minya (PG 72). Below, with reference to fragments of St. Kirill, according to the edition of J. Reuss, the fragment number is given without indicating the pages of this edition. Abipeai 1987. P. 46. On the other hand, at least one fragment included by J. Reuss in group I (Fr. I, 14) does not actually belong to the Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. J. Reuss classified it as an authentic scholia due to the similarity of its content with the “Discourse on Candlemas” and the Syriac passage of the 4th homilia (PG 77, 1049:26–30; Tonneau 1953. R. 6:14–16). However, the literal coincidence of this fragment with another work of the Alexandrian saint, “Interpretation on the Prophet Zechariah” (Cyr. Alex. Comm, in XII proph. 2, 506: 17–22 [ed. P. E. Pusey. TLG 4090/1]), leaves no doubt that it was taken from this “Interpretation” in the catenas. Damas. 12/20 (Patr. Syr. Orth. Cod. 12/20). Sauget 1974. P. 446. J. Sauget indicated those scholia from the catenas according to PG 72 (their arrangement, incipit and desinit), which have a correspondence in the text of the Syrian homilies discovered by him (Sauget 1974. P. 447–452). The homilies themselves have not yet been published. PG 72, 501C:33–39 (Sauget 1974, pp. 448–449). This fragment was unreasonably excluded from the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke” in the critical edition of J. Reuss (Fr. Ill, 16. Cf. Abipeai 1987. R. 40). Fr. I, 7–17; Fr. III, 14–21. PG 72, 496B:16–505D:45. Cantabrig. Trin. B 8.7; Damas 12/20. Payne Smith 1859. pp. 24–28. In his article, he indicated the Greek scholia corresponding to the end of the 3rd homily and cited the beginning of the 4th homily, which are missing in the Greek text of the “Conversations on Candlemas” (Sauget 1974, pp. 448–449). According to J. Soget, all other Greek fragments, confirmed by the Syriac text of these homilies, are found in A. Rükker in his list of indisputably authentic scholia (Rükker 1911. S.35–36). The end of the 3rd homily is given according to the patrolology of J.-P. Minya (PG 72, 501С:33–39); beginning of the 4th homily from the Cantabrig manuscript. Trin. In 8.7 - according to the Greek text given by J. Sauget (Sauget 1974. R. 448). Also included directly in the text of the translation are several short passages that are part of the undoubtedly authentic scholia, according to the edition of J. Reuss. One scholia is borrowed from the 15th book of the treatise “On Worship in Spirit and Truth” (PG 72, 500B:23-C Fr. III, 17. Compare: Cyr. Alex. De ador. PG 68, 1005B:24-C:41). The second is from the “Commentary on the Prophet Zechariah” (PG 72, 505C: 34-D Fr. I, 14; Fr. III, 20–21. Cp.: Cyr. Alex. Comm, in XII proph. 2, 506: 14–24). Above (note 23) we have already mentioned the mistake of J. Reuss, who attributed part of the last scholia to the “Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.” The third scholia is identical to the fragment of the “Amphilochium” of St. Photius of Constantinople (PG 72, 500A:4-B:22. Compare: Photius. Ad Amphil. 105. PG 101, 637BT4-C:32). Based on this, J. Reuss in his publication placed it among the fragments of St. Photius (Reuss 1984. S. 307. (Photius. Fr. 21)). In a number of scholia one can see some textual correspondence with other works of St. Cyril (PG 72, 500D:46–51, 504A:5–7. Cf.: Cyr. Alex. Fr. homiliae quod unus est Christus 458:19–21, 458:15–18 [ed. P. E. Pusey. TLG 4090/9]), as well as Origen’s homilies on the Gospel of Luke (PG 72, 497B:29-C:34, 500A:4. Cf.: Orig. Homiliae in Lucam 14, 84:6–14, 83:19–20 [ed. TLG 2042/16]). One of the scholia may be a condensed exposition of a passage from the 13th “Easter Epistle” of St. Cyril (PG 72, 504A-B:19. Compare: Cyr. Alex. Ep. pasch. 13, 4:1–60 / Ed. W. N. Burns. Paris, 1998 (SC 434)). Mirolyubov A. Sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Kiev, 1889. pp. 252–255. law † He who gave the law to Moses, and before that to Abraham, is himself circumcised (PG 72, 496C: 40–42). God < Fr. I, 8:12. PG 72, 497A:2. Fr. I, 8(PG 72, 497B:21). godly: slavishly (Fr. I, 9:2. PG 72, 500D:53). Fr. I, 9:4–6 (PG 72, 501A:2–5). Savior: Father and Lord (Fr. I, 9:9); Creator and Lord (PG 72, 501A:11) flooding (κατακλύσας): enchanting (κατακηλήσας) (Fr. I, 9:10. PG 72 501A:12–13). Fr. I, 9:13. Song 2, 12–13. Syn: the voice of the turtledove is heard in our country, ... and the vines, blossoming, emit an incense. saving sermon: a saving sermon for the whole world (PG 72, 501B:19). Fr. I, 9:14–16 PG 72, 501B:20–24. sin † and thus merit the Father's care (PG 72, 501B:30-C:31). PG 72, 501С:33–39 (Fr. III, 16. See: Sauget 1974. R. 449). Gal. 4, 4. Cantabrig. Trin. B 8.7 (Payne Smith 1859, p. 24). Cantabrig. Trin. B 8.7 (Sauget 1974. P. 448). Is. 52, 7. Wed: Matt. 18, 11; OK. 19, 10; Is. 51, 5. Sin.: My truth is close. Is. 56, 1. Sin.: and the revelation of My truth. Compare: καὶ ἐξεΛεύσεται ὡ ς φῶς τὸ σωτήριόν μου (Rahlfs 1935). See Isa. 51:5: and My salvation will appear as light. Syn.: My salvation ascends. Is. 62, 1. Syn.: His salvation is like a burning lamp. as a child † and brought forth what was determined by law, two turtle doves and two chicks of doves, an image of chastity and meekness, and in addition the differences between those ways of life, for each of which He is the Lawgiver; after all, it’s true, you can call those who are easy on the move, more spiritual and have chosen the monastic life for themselves - doves, and those who take care of childbirth and other household affairs - turtle doves (PG 72, 504B: 23-31). in peace † Where are you letting go from? From the worldly field, since life is redemption and prison. For He has come to this world who intends to give peace, who unites heaven with earth, who makes earth heaven through the preaching of the Gospel (PG 72, 504C: 35–40). Zach. 10, 8. Syn: I will give them a sign and gather them, because I have redeemed them; they will be as numerous as before. Syn: and now in Christ Jesus. Zach. 10, 12. Syn: I will strengthen them in the Lord, and they will walk in His name, says the Lord. Yungerov (Elizav.): from the edges. Yungerov (Elizav.): Truly our fathers. Jer. 16, 19. Sin.: Lord, my strength and my fortress and my refuge in the day of trouble! Nations will come to You from the ends of the earth and say: “Only lies our fathers inherited, emptiness and that in which there is no benefit.” Is. 10, 22; Rome. 9, 27. Fr. I, 10:13. PG 72, 505A:1. Rome. 9, 5. Blessed forever, amen: eternal (Fr. I, 10:14. PG 72, 505A:3). OK. 2, 34. Syn: subject of controversy. 1 Pet. 2, 6; Wed Is. 28, 16. Rome. 9, 33; Wed Is. 28, 16. φῶς. Compare: φόβος (Rahlfs 1935). Yungerov: Honor Him sacredly, and He is fear for you. Is. 8, 13–14. Sin.: Honor Him holy, and He is your fear, and He is your trembling! And He will be a sanctification, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense. The initial words of the scholia coincide with a fragment from Origen's homilies on the Gospel of Luke (Cf.: Orig. Homiliae in Lucam 14, 84: 6–14). Fr. III, 14. PG 72, 497B:29-C:42. PG 72, 497C:43–500A:4. The final words of the scholium (“therefore we are no longer circumcised”) are found in Origen’s homilies on the Gospel of Luke (Cf. Orig. Homiliae in Lucam 14, 83:19–20). In the catenas on the Gospel of Luke, further under the name of St. Cyril is followed by a scholia, the text of which is identical to the beginning of treatise 105 from the “Amphilochios” of St. Photius of Constantinople. Let us quote this passage, which perfectly explains the meaning of Old Testament circumcision. “The fact is that circumcision, as it seems to me, had a certain threefold effect. Firstly, it seemed to mark the descendants of Abraham with a certain sign and seal and separated them from the rest of the nations. Secondly, in itself it served as a prototype of the grace and power of divine Baptism, namely, just as in ancient times the circumcised through this seal was declared to belong to the people of God, so the baptized, imprinting the seal of Christ on himself, is ascribed to adoption by God. And thirdly, it was a symbol of believers who are in grace, who, with the sharp word of faith and ascetic labors, cut off and mortify the uprisings of carnal pleasures and passions, not cutting the body, but cleansing the heart, receiving circumcision in the spirit, and not in the letter. And their praise does not require human judgment, but is determined by a decision from above (Rom. 2:29), as the divine Paul testifies” (PG 72, 500A:4-B:22. Compare: Photius. Ad Amphil. 105. PG 101, 637B:14-C:32). PG 72, 500C:42-D:51 (Fr. III, 15). Cp.: Cyr. Alex. Fr. homiliae quod unus est Christus 458:15–18. PG 72, 501C:32–504A:3. A good addition to the thoughts expressed here can be a fragment of the 15th book of the work of St. Cyril “On Worship in Spirit and Truth,” also included in the catenas on the Gospel of Luke. The saint draws attention to the accuracy of the corresponding law (Lev. 15, 19-30), according to which not every woman in labor is declared unclean, but one who has conceived from a seed (σπερματισθ ῇ). This was precisely not the case in the birth of the Savior from the Virgin, since She gave birth from the Holy Spirit, thereby prefiguring our future spiritual birth (PG 72, 500B:23-C Fr. III, 17. Compare: Cyr.Alex. De ador. PG 68,1005B:24-C:41). Cp.: Cyr. Alex. Fr. homiliae quod unus est Christus 458:19–21. PG 72, 504A:5-B:19. The interpretation of the Gospel episode considered here (Matthew 17:24–27) is missing in the surviving fragments from the “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew” by St. Kirill. Among his works, the closest in content to the real scholium is the passage of the 13th “Easter Homilia”, where the same typological explanation of the didrachm is given, only much more extensively (Cf.: Cyr. Alex. Ep. pasch. 13, 4: 1–60). It is possible that the scholium is an abbreviated retelling of this particular fragment.