An Overview of the Catenae

Catenae appeared in Judaea/Palestine at the beginning of the sixth century. They consist of commentaries, homilies, scholia of the past centuries, and any other literary form in which Scripture verses are explained. Ecclesiastical writings are quoted in the form of extracts, sometimes literal, sometimes rewritten, according to the order of the verses of each Biblical book. Each extract is normally preceded by the name of its author in the genitive case. With time, the catenae were formed not only from commentaries, homilies, scholia, and other patristic writings, but also from pre-existing catenae mixed with these sources. After the sixth century, catenae became the most important media of biblical commentary until the end of the Byzantium Empire (1453). Many debated issues remain. Is Procopius of Gaza (470–530) the father of the catenae? Maybe the two-author catenae predate him, even if this form is better connected with the Byzantine humanism of the ninth and tenth centuries. As for the multiple-author catenae, it is not certain if any of them do are prior Procopius. The compilers of the catenae began their project with the Old Testament, as it was considered to be obscure and foundational to the New Testament, whereas the New Testament was considered to be clear and explicative of the Old Testament. The identity of the compilers of the catenae is shrouded in mystery. Only a few names are known: chiefly, Procopius of Gaza in Palestine and Nicetas of Heraclea in Constantinople. Other names have been proposed: the patriarch Photius, Peter of Laodicea, John Drougarios, but without any persuasive arguments. A final issue concerns Monophysite (or Miaphysite) catenae: were some catenae Monophysite? Or was this literary form indifferent to questions of orthodoxy? In some catenae, Severus of Antioch is called ‘saint’, which may indicate a Monophysite origin. Finally, despite recent progress, many catenae still await publication. For instance, Nicetas’ catena on the Psalms is a monumental work of Byzantine scholarship and it deserves to be available to modern readers.

Severus of Antioch

This chapter addresses the transformations of the Cappadocian philosophy introduced by the miaphysite opponents of the Council of Chalcedon. It begins with a critical assessment of a scholarly tradition that saw miaphysite thought as opposed to Cappadocian principles. In reality, all major representatives of this tradition drew on Cappadocian insights although their reception was partial. Central to the chapter is an analysis of Severus of Antioch’s use of Cappadocian philosophy in his controversy with John the Grammarian. It is shown that Severus throughout exploited the concrete dimension of the Cappadocian theory but left the abstract dimension to one side. To explain the ontological continuity between universal natures and their individual manifestations, he came close to introducing particular natures. Ultimately, he recognized the need to adapt the Cappadocian theory in light of the Christological debate but was reluctant to move beyond the terms and concepts he found in the fathers.

Ancient Natural Philosophy in Byzantine Christology: The Issue of Penetration of Fire into Iron

Introduction. The author shows how the Stoic principle of total blending of physical bodies finds its refraction in the Byzantine Christological teachings on the example of penetration of fire into iron. According to the Stoics, total blending occurs when one body accepts certain qualities of the other, however, remaining themselves, or both mixed bodies acquire qualities of each other preserving their natures. Analysis. The author asserts that Origen’s use of the example of iron incandesced by fire turned out to be paradigmatic for the subsequent Christian literature, and influenced the formation of two directions of using this example at once: in Christological context, as well as to describe deification of man. Further, the author addresses to Christological problematics and claims that using the incandesced iron example in Byzantium literature in properly Christological context began with Apollinarius of Laodicea. The paper also investigates the specificity of the refraction of this example in Christological perspective in (Ps.-) Basil of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, John of Damascus, and Corpus Leontianum. Results. In this context, the author pays special attention to the discrepancy between John Damascus and Leontius of Jerusalem regarding the issue of the complexity of Christ’s hypostasis. The researcher clarifies prerequisites of this discrepancy.

The Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians (Past - Present - Future): An Athonite Critique. Part 2: Introduction, ch. 1, nn. 4-9; ch. 2

Вниманию русскоязычного читателя предлагается вторая часть перевода с новогреческого на русский язык книги Ὁ Θεολογικός Διάλογος Ὀρθοδόξων καί Ἀντιχαλκηδονίων (παρελθόν - παρόν - μέλλον): Μία ἁγιορειτική συμβολή. Ἅγιον Ὄρος: Ἱερά Μονή Ὁσίου Γρηγορίου, 2018 (841 σ.). Это издание посвящено богословскому диалогу между Православной Церковью и антихалкидонитами и включает в себя все тексты соответствующей тематики, составленные на Святой Горе Афон в период 1991-2015 гг. Настоящая публикация включает в себя перевод части введения (гл. 1, п. 4-9; гл. 2). Продолжение первой главы посвящено истории официального богословского диалога между православными и антихалкидонитами. Затрагиваются основные проблемы диалога - вопросы о православии Диоскора и Севира и о снятии анафем. Вторая глава введения посвящена вопросу о возобновлении диалога. Рассмотрены новые взгляды и теории, которые возникли после окончания официального диалога (в частности, теория “миафизитства”) и должны быть приняты во внимание в случае его возобновления. The Russian-speaking reader is presented with the second part of the translation into Russian from the modern Greek of the book Ὁ Θεολογικός Διάλογος Ὀρθοδόξων καί Ἀντιχαλκηδονίων (παρελθόν - παρόν - μέλλον): Μία ἁγιορειτική συμβολή. Ἅγιον Ὄρος: Ἱερά Μονή Ὁσίου Γρηγορίου, 2018 (841 p.). This edition is devoted to the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the non-Chalcedonians and includes all texts of the relevant topics, published on the Holy Mount Athos in the period 1991-2015. This publication includes a translation of a part of the Introduction (Chapter 1, paragraphs 4-9, and Chapter 2). The continuation of Chapter 1 is devoted to the history of the official Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and antiChalcedonians. The main problems of dialogue are touched upon - questions about orthodoxy of Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch and the lifting of anathemas. Chapter 2 of the Introduction is devoted to the resumption of the Dialogue. It considers new views and theories that arose after the end of the official Dialogue (in particular, the theory of “miaphysitism”) and should be taken into account if it is resumed.

Logos-sarx christology and the sixth-century miaenergism

The article discusses the question of the relation between the sixth-century Miaenergism, which is the idea of Christ having one divine-human operation, and the Logos-sarx type of Christology. The purpose of the article is to argue that the Miaenergism was dependent on the Christology centered on the divinity of incar­nate Christ. The Logos was acknowledged as the active principle even of Christ’s humanity, so that the human volition and operation of Christ was neglected in fa­vor of the Logos. This model of Christology was being developed especially from the second century in the writings of Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius of Alexandria and Apollinarius of Laodicea; then it was continued by Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch; it also influenced Leontius of Byzantium and Theodore of Pharan. The Miaenergism of the sixth and then of the seventh century was being developed on a ground of the Logos-sarx type of Christology, although it acknowledged the Dyophysitism of Chalcedon.

Excusatio non petita: las réplicas de los feligreses a las críticas eclesiásticas por la asistencia a los espectáculos (siglos III-VI) = Excusatio non petita: The Parishioner’s Replies to the Ecclesiastical Criticism for the Attendance at Shows (3rd-6th Centuries)

Resumen: El presente trabajo gira en torno a la evolución experimentada por las respuestas que los feligreses opusieron a las incesantes críticas de las autoridades eclesiásticas en relación con su asistencia a los espectáculos de la tradición romano-pagana. Éstos eran tachados de idólatras e inmorales, y sin embargo la mayor parte de los cristianos, bien integrados en la sociedad de su tiempo, acudían a contemplarlos. Ante los continuos reproches de sus predicadores, muchos individuos se ampararon en una gran diversidad de excusas. Conocemos la naturaleza de dichas réplicas gracias al recurso dialéctico, usado por los predicadores, de reproducirlas en sus discursos a fin de poderlas rebatir después fácilmente ante todo su auditorio. Y gracias también a este recurso sabemos la evolución del pensamiento de los feligreses en este terreno. Nuestro estudio se inicia con el análisis del testimonio de Tertuliano (s. II) y de Novaciano (s. III) y los extravagantes pretextos en los que se escudaban aquellos cristianos que acudían a los juegos. En el siglo IV cambió esta postura, pues las respuestas eran mucho más directas y contundentes, como se observa en los sermones de Agustín de Hipona y de Juan Crisóstomo, en el tránsito entre los siglos IV y V. Finalizamos nuestro estudio con el análisis de Severo de Antioquía y de Jacobo de Serugh, cuyos sermones sobre los espectáculos evidencian hasta qué punto había evolucionado la actitud de los fieles en el siglo VI, cuando ya hacía más de un siglo que la política de Arcadio y Honorio había secularizado oficialmente todas las manifestaciones lúdicas.Abstract: The present work deals with the evolution in the responses of parishioners who opposed to the incessant criticism of the ecclesiastical authorities in relation to their attendance at shows of the Roman-pagan tradition. These were branded as idolatrous and immoral, and yet most of the Christians, well integrated into the society of their time, came to contemplate them. Because of the continual reproaches of their preachers, many individuals sought shelter in a great diversity of pretexts. We know the nature of these replies thanks to the dialectical resource used by preachers who reproduced them in their speeches in order to easily rebutted them in front of their audience. And thanks also to this resource we know the evolution of the thinking of the parishioners in this field. Our study begins with the analysis of the testimony of Tertullian (2nd century) and Novatian (3rd century) and the extravagant excuses made by those Christians who went to the games to justify their behaviour. In the 4th century, this attitude changed, for the answers were much more direct and forceful, as we can see in the sermons of Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom in the transit between the 4th and 5th centuries. We finalize our work with the analysis of Severus of Antioch and Jacob of Serugh, whose sermons on the shows evidence to what extent the attitude of the faithful had evolved in the 6th century, when it had been more than a century since the policy of Arcadius and Honorius had officially secularized all these festive manifestations.Palabras clave: Espectáculos, idolatría, homilías, excusas, secularización de los ludi.Key words: Shows, idolatry, homilies, pretexts, secularization of the ludi.