Transmitting Theodore to the Church of the East: The Contribution of Thomas of Edessa

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 712-737
Author(s):  
UTE POSSEKEL

Thomas of Edessa (d. c. 540), author of Explanations of the Nativity and of Epiphany, flourished as a teacher at the School of Nisibis in Sasanid Persia. By analysing his understanding of salvation history, exegesis and the idea of the human being as ‘bond of creation’, this article shows how Thomas took up and popularised concepts central to the theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The article posits that the Nisibene school theology of Thomas and others constituted – alongside liturgy, canonical decrees and biblical commentaries – one of the principal avenues by which Theodore's theology was transmitted to the Church of the East.

2021 ◽  
pp. 102-145
Author(s):  
Алексей Дмитриевич Макаров

Настоящая публикация является второй частью исследования, посвященного проблеме заимствования Первого собрания сочинений известного аскетического писателя Церкви Востока Исаака, епископа Ниневийского, христианами других конфессий. В данной части представлены результаты текстологического анализа разночтений имён авторитетных духовных писателей, цитируемых св. Исааком. Анализ был осуществлен по доступным автору сирийским манускриптам восточносирийского, западносирийского и сиро-халкидонского происхождения, которые в изначальном виде содержали полный текст Первого собрания св. Исаака Сирина, а также по греческому переводу и нескольким арабским рукописям. Задача исследования - восстановить историю филиации текста Первого собрания при пересечении конфессиональных границ. По результатам исследования удалось зафиксировать модификации текста во всех случаях употребления св. Исааком имён авторитетных для восточносирийской церковной традиции авторов: Диодора Тарсийского, Феодора Мопсуестийского и Евагрия Понтийского. При пересечении конфессиональных границ эти имена или относящиеся к ним эпитеты были заменены или пропущены с целью очищения исходного текста от нежелательных для переписчиков других конфессий элементов. При этом аутентичное чтение всегда засвидетельствовано списками восточносирийской редакции. В заключение автор исследования предлагает новую классификацию сирийских манускриптов, разделив их на четыре группы в зависимости от их происхождения и содержащихся в них чтений имён. В процессе исследования была установлена неизвестная доселе церковно-конфессиональная принадлежность нескольких манускриптов. Впервые удалось прояснить причины ряда текстуальных разночтений в восточносирийских списках, подвергшихся интерполяции со стороны сиро-ортодоксальных читателей. Isaac, bishop of Nineveh, belongs to the Church of the East’s most famous ascetic authors This three-part study explores the way how the First Part of his writings was adopted in other Syriac Christian communities. The second part analyzes variant readings of personal names of some important church figures in Isaac of Nineveh’s writings. Makarov uses all available Syriac manuscripts of East Syriac, West Syriac, and Chalcedonian Syriac origin, which initially contained the full text of the First Part, as well as its Greek and Arabic manuscripsts. Makarov seeks to reconstruct how the text changed as it crossed borders of different Christian communities. For that purpose, he explores variant readings of names of persons considered important in the Eastern Syriac tradition: Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Evagrius Ponticus. When Isaac’s writings were adopted in other Syriac Christian communities, the names or titles of those persons were intentionally removed or altered in order to purge the original text from the elements viewed as heterodox by the copyists and translators. In the East Syriac texts, however, the original reading is always preserved. Makarov proposes a new classification of the Syriac manuscripts based on their origin and on forms of personal names they contain. He also clarifies the origin of some previously unattributed manuscripts and explains variation in the East Syriac manuscripts, which, as he argued, is due to the later Jacobite readers.


Author(s):  
Hauna T. Ondrey

This work compares the Minor Prophets commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria, isolating the role each interpreter assigns the Twelve Prophets in their ministry to Old Testament Israel and the texts of the Twelve as Christian scripture. It argues that Theodore does acknowledge christological prophecies, as distinct from both retrospective accommodation and typology. A careful reading of Cyril’s Commentary on the Twelve limits the prospective christological revelation he ascribes to the prophets and reveals the positive role he grants the Mosaic law prior to Christ’s advent. Exploring secondly the Christian significance Theodore and Cyril assign to Israel’s exile and restoration reveals that Theodore’s reading of the Twelve Prophets, while not attempting to be christocentric, is nevertheless self-consciously Christian. Cyril, unsurprisingly, offers a robust Christian reading of the Twelve, yet this too must be expanded by his focus on the church and concern to equip the church through the ethical paideusis provided by the plain sense of the prophetic text. Revised descriptions of each interpreter lead to the claim that a recent tendency to distinguish the Old Testament interpretation of Theodore (negatively) and Cyril (positively) on the basis of their “christocentrism” obscures more than it clarifies and polarizes no less than earlier accounts of Antiochene/Alexandrian exegesis. The Conclusion argues against replacing old dichotomies with new and advocates rather for an approach that takes seriously Theodore’s positive account of the unity and telos of the divine economy and the full range of Cyril’s interpretation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-26
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Meyers ◽  
Katherine Sonderegger

These essays were presented at the Jubilate conference at Christ Church Cathedral in the Diocese of Southern Ohio on 2 November 2019. Meyers urges the expansion of images and metaphors used to speak of the mystery of God in liturgy while not abandoning classical masculine language for God. Expanding our language is essential, she argues, both to speak the truth about God and to uphold the dignity of every human being. Sonderegger contends that masculine language for God is a settled matter in the church and in liturgy, and that this is compatible with a particular vision of Christian feminism, one centered on the material conditions of living women.


Author(s):  
Анна Леонидовна Краснова

В XVIII в. на основании общего интереса к святыням Востока, а также единой тенденции для крупных монастырей изготавливать гравюры на память для паломников, многие греческие гравюры свидетели русско-афонских отношений попадают на территорию Российской Империи. Сохранились такие гравюры и в Церковноархеологического кабинете Московской духовной академии, собрание которых насчитывает 29 эстампов. Пять гравюр из этого собрания имеют надписи на греческом и на славянском языке. Надписи свидетельствуют о месте и времени создания гравюры, о граверах и заказчиках, являются источниками кратких исторических сведений. В статье приведены выявленные дополнительные факты об этих гравюрах, которые свидетельствуют о наличии церковных, экономических и политических отношений на базе культурных связей между Российской Империей и странами православного Востока. The Russ has always been supporting the relationship with the Orthodox Church of the East. As a result of these connections, we have a lot of icons and other gifts from The Mount Athos, The Saint Catherine’s Monastery and others holy places. There are five Greek engravings in the collection of The Museum of Church Archaeology at the Moscow Theological Academy, which have inscriptions in Greek and Slavic. These engravings were to be spread in Slavic countries. They are dated from the 17th to the 19th century. Some of them were made in Moscow. The images and the inscriptions of the engravings are the subject of a research presented in this article.


2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 497
Author(s):  
Pedro Trigo

RESUMEN: Ponemos el núcleo de la modernidad en el descubrimiento de la individualidad, entendido como un proceso emancipatorio respecto de las co­lectividades que pautaban su vida. Sus dos modos básicos, en pugna constante, serían desarrollar su individualidad autárquicamente o entenderse como un ser humano, autónomo y único, pero referido a la única humanidad. Parecería que se ha impuesto el individualista, objetivando su dominio en los sistemas económico y político, pretendidamente autoconstruidos y autorregulados. Siempre hubo cristianos modernos, pero debieron soportar la contradicción de la institución eclesiástica. El Vaticano II discernió que el ser humano es histórico y que al hacer la historia se hace a sí mismo; reconoció que los bienes civilizatorios propician la vida humana, pero no equivalen al desarrollo propiamente humano. Sólo éste es escatológico. La responsabilidad ante los hermanos y la historia, que se ejerce en la encarnación solidaria, es el nuevo humanismo. La superación de la modernidad se da en el paso del individuo solo o en relación, al ser humano constitutivamente relacional, que se hace persona al actuar como hijo y hermano desde su insobor­nable individualidad.ABSTRACT: We put the core of Modernity in the emerging phenomena of indi­viduality, understood as a process of emancipation from the ruling groups. Its two ways, always in tension, would be to develop an individuality autocratically or to understand the individual as a unique and autonomous human being, but only in reference to humankind. It looks like that the individualist model has imposed itself dominating the economical and political systems, supposedly self-made and self-regulated. Modern christians have always existed, but they had always to deal with the contradiction of the Church as institution. The Vatican II discerned that the human being is historical and while making history we form themselves; rec­ognized that the civilizing benefits propitiate human life, but they do not equate to true human development. This is only eschatological. The responsibility towards brothers and history, that we perform in our caring incarnation, is the new hu­manism. We go beyond modernity when we pass from the individual alone or in relation to humankind intrinsically relational, that becomes a person by acting as a son and brother while anchored in indelible individuality. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-175
Author(s):  
Warseto Freddy Sihombing

AbstractNo one can be justified before God for doing good deeds. No matter how good a man is, if he does not believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, he will not be saved from the wrath of God to come. There is no human being who is right before God, and no sinful man can save himself in any way. The only way out is in the way that God has given to the problem of all sinners, by sending Jesus Christ to the world to die for sinners. "And for this he came, so that every man believed in him, who was sent by God" (John 6:29). The Bible teaches that salvation is only obtained because of faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the object of that faith. This salvation is known as the statement "Justified by faith. Paul explained this teaching in each of his writings. This teaching of justification by faith has been repeatedly denied by some people who disagree with Paul's opinion. The history of the church from the early centuries to the present has proven the variety of understandings that have emerged from this teaching, but one important thing is that sinful humans are justified by their faith in Jesus Christ before God.Keywords: Paul;history; justified by faith.AbstrakTidak ada seorang pun yang dapat dibenarkan di hadapan Allah karena telah melakukan perbuatan baik. Sebaik apa pun manusia, jika dia tidak percaya kepada Yesus Kristus, Anak Allah maka ia tidak akan selamat dari murka Allah yang akan datang. Tidak ada seorang pun manusia yang benar di hadapan Allah, dan tidak ada seorang manusia berdosa yang dapat menyelematkan dirinya sendiri dengan cara apa pun. Satu-satunya jalan keluar adalah dengan cara yang Allah telah berikan untuk masalah semua orang berdosa, yaitu dengan mengutus Yesus Kristus ke dunia untuk mati bagi orang berdosa. “Dan untuk itulah Dia datang, yaitu supaya setiap orang percaya kepada Dia, yang telah diutus oleh Allah” (Yohanes 6:29). Alkitab mengajarkan bahwa keselamatan hanya diperoleh karena iman kepada Yesus Kristus. Yesus Kristus adalah obyek iman tersebut. Keselamatan ini dikenal dengan pernyataan “Dibenarkan karena iman. Paulus menjelaskan ajaran ini dalam setiap tulisannya. Ajaran pembenaran oleh iman ini telah berulang kali disangkal oleh beberap orang yang tidak setuju dengan pendapat Paulus. Sejarah gereja mulai dari abad permulaan sampai pada masa sekarang ini telah membuktikan beragamnya pemahaman yang muncul terhadap ajaran ini, namun satu hal yang terpenting adalah bahwa manusia berdosa dibenarkan oleh iman mereka kepada Yesus Kristus di hadapan Allah.Kata Kunci: Paulus; sejarah; iman; dibenarkan oleh iman.


2019 ◽  
pp. 250-264
Author(s):  
Максим Глебович Калинин

В статье опубликован фрагмент анонимного комментария на «Главы о ведении» раббана Афнимарана, восточносирийского мистика VII века. Этот фрагмент представляет большой интерес, поскольку содержит новые сведения о богословской полемике, развернувшейся в Церкви Востока в VIII в. Эта полемика, сопоставимая по масштабам и значимости с паламитскими спорами в Византии, касалась проблемы границ богопознания и прежде всего вопроса о том, способна ли человеческая природа Христа созерцать Его божественную природу. Сведений об этой полемике сохранилось относительно мало, что делает новое публикуемое свидетельство особенно ценным. После краткой характеристики «Глав о ведении» раббана Афнимарана в статье предлагается перевод комментария на главу 90 и анализ этого текста. Особое внимание уделяется термину yaddūʕtānā, «знающий», который раббан Афнимаран использует применительно к человеческой природе Христа. Комментарий на главу 90 - важное свидетельство того, что тезис о способности человеческой природы Христа созерцать Его Божество был характерным для восточносирийского мистического движения (или, по крайней мере, для одной из монашеских традиций внутри этого движения). The aim of the present paper is to introduce new data concerning the polemic that took place in the VIII century C.E. and was related to the mystical movement in the Church of the East. This data are provided by an anonymous commentary on «Chapters on the Knowledge» which belong to rabban Aphnīmāran, an 7th century mystical writer. Among the problems the aforementioned polemic was related to, was the question on whether the humanity of Christ can see His divinity. For the positive answer on this question, John of Dalyāthā, a prominent mystical writer of the 8th century, was condemned by Catholicos Timatheos. In the commentary on the 90th chapter of rabban Aphnīmāran, an anonymous interpreter claims that the vision of God is the knowledge of God. As rabban Aphnīmāran calls the human nature of Christ «knowing» (yaddūʕtānā), the humanity of Christ inevitably knows His divinity, the author of the commentary concludes. In the present article, the text of this commentary is published and analyzed. One may see that the thesis on Jesus’ ability to contemplate the divine nature was not a particular opinion of John of Dalyāthā. This opinion was representative of East Syriac mystical movement (or at least of one of monastic traditions within this movement).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document