Theology & Culture-Volume 1.1 by Departamenti i Theologjisë dhe Kulturës, Kolegji Universitar Logos

Theology & Culture

The Academic Journal of the Department of Theology and Culture University College Logos

Theology & Culture Volume 1, Number 1, June 2020 ISSN: 2708-6755

Department of Theology and Culture University College Logos

Publication information:

Theology & Culture is the Academic Journal of the Department of Theology & Culture, Univeristy College Logos and is published online two times per year. The Department is located at Saint Blaise, 5 minutes outside DurrĂŤs, Albania.

Volume 1, Number 1, June 2020 ISSN: 2708-6755 Aims and Scope:

Theology & Culture is an international peer-reviewed open access journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research articles in the field of Theology, Study of Religion, Education, Literature and Social Sciences. The journal publishes reviews, original papers, conference announcements, book reviews and research reports trying to provide a platform for experts and scholars worldwide to exchange their latest researches and findings. Another goal of the Journal will be the promotion of case studies that concern religion, history, culture and society in Albania and the Balkans in general. The official language of the Journal is English and only in special cases will be printed articles in German, French or Italian.

Editorial Board Members:

1. Dr. Georgios Gaitanos, Lecturer of Religious Studies (Head of the Department of Theology and Culture, University College Logos) 2. Dr. Georgios Keselopoulos, Lecturer of Liturgical Studies (Department of Theology and Culture, University College Logos) Manuscripts and correspondence are invited for publication. You can submit your papers via e-mail to theolculture@gmail.com. Submission guidelines and Web Submission system are available at https://theolkulogos.wordpress. com/2020/01/30/theology-culture/ CopyrightÂŠ 2020 by the Department of Theology & Culture, Univeristy College Logos and individual contributors. All rights reserved. The Department of Theology & Culture, Univeristy College Logos holds the exclusive copyright of all the contents of this journal. In accordance with the international convention, no part of this journal may be reproduced or transmitted by any media or publishing organs (including various websites) without the written permission of the copyright holder. Otherwise, any conduct would be considered as the violation of the copyright. The contents of this journal are available for any citation, however, all the citations should be clearly indicated with the title of this journal, serial number and the name of the author.

Contents Acknowledgements 7 Nikolaos Tsirevelos 1. Christian Witness, Communication and Education: The example of Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and all Albania Anastasios (Yannoulatos)

Georgios Keselopoulos 2. Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection? A patristic approach

Konstantinos Georgiadis 3. From a Christological controversy to an Iconoclastic one: Biblical dicta as interpreted by the Councils of Hieria (754) and of Nicaea II (787) Georgios Gaitanos 4. A modern perspective on the History of Religions

45 57

Thoma Ă&#x2021;omĂŤni 5. Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

Chrysovalantis Ioannidis 6. The Hymns of the Great Lent: its content and origin

Acknowledgements

e have the honor to announce that this is the first volume of the Journal “Theology & Culture” (ISSN: 2708-6755), which is the official academic Journal of the Department of Theology & Culture, University College Logos. The Department of Theology & Culture belongs to the Faculty of Human Sciences of University Logos and at the moment our Department provides a three-year undergraduate program in Theology. The department is housed in a modern building complex around the Holy Monastery of Shen Vlash, in the homonymous village, 5 minutes outside the city of Durrës. This academic journal will be published two times per year in print and online. Theology & Culture is an international peer-reviewed open access journal dedicated to publishing high-quality research articles in the field of Theology, Study of Religion, Education, Literature and Social Sciences. The journal publishes reviews, original papers, conference announcements, book reviews and research reports trying to provide a platform for experts, scholars and researchers that has started their career now to exchange their latest researches and findings. Another goal of the Journal is be the promotion of case studies that concern religion, history, culture and society in Albania and the Balkans in general. The official language of the Journal is English and only in special cases will be printed articles in German, French or Italian. The journal will be indexed by Google scholar, DOAJ (Directory of Open Journals) and is hosted to our Issuu page (https://issuu.com/ departamentiitheologjisedhekultures). Also, the journal has its own Academia (https://independent.academia.edu/AcademicJournalTheologyCulture) and Researchgate (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Theology_Culture) account and every article is accompanied by a Doi number. Theology & Culture is a peer review journal. All research articles in this journal undergo rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by at least two anonymous referees. And also, our reviewers and editorial board members are from different countries all over the world. For this first volume, we are publishing 6 articles of new career academics 7

Acknowledgements

and researchers that refer to Orthodox Theology, Patristics, Study of Religion, Christian Education, Christian Ethics and Byzantine Hymnology. We would like to thank our contributors for this first volume and especially Dr. Nikolaos Tsirevelos-“Christian Witness, Communication and Education: The example of Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and all Albania Anastasios (Yannoulatos)”, Dr. Georgios Keselopoulos-“Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection? A patristic approach”, Dr. Konstantinos Georgiadis-“From a Christological controversy to an Iconoclastic one: Biblical dicta as interpreted by the Councils of Hieria (754) and of Nicaea II (787)”, Dr. Georgios Gaitanos-“ A modern perspective on the History of Religions”, MSc. Thoma Çomëni-“ Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life”, Dr. Chrysovalantis Ioannidis-“ The Hymns of the Great Lent: its content and origin”. The Editorial Board Dr. Georgios Gaitanos Dr. Georgios Keselopoulos

1 Christian Witness, Communication and Education:

The example of Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and all Albania Anastasios (Yannoulatos)

Nikolaos Tsirevelos

Visiting Lecturer of Christian Education, Department of Theology & Culture, Univerity College Logos, Tirana

Corespondence:

e-mail: ntsirevelos@hotmail.com

Abstract

Keywords:

The paper refers to the close relationship between missionary preaching and education. The main source of research is the writing and Sunday aids that have been co-written by the missionary Archbishop of Albania Anastasios. The purpose of the study is to highlight the pedagogical positions and material used to convey the gospel message to condescending indoctrination (mission to nations) but also to Christians who ignore Christian teaching (re-evangelization). For the best development of the subject, the work includes the study of teaching methodology, the contents, the ways of transmitting the Christian faith and the characteristics of the catechists who seek effective learning.

Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), communication, Christian Education, Christian Testimony (Mission).

Citation:

Tsirevelos N. Christian Witness, Communication and Education: The Example of Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and all Albania Anastasios (Yannoulatos). Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(1): 9-32. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22372.40321

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

Introduction

hristian education includes ecclesiastical indoctrination as well as the ways of transmitting the Gospel message to catechumens and baptized Christians. Initially the development of Christianity was carried out by the Apostles who followed the example of the Lord’s teaching and in a unique communicative way spread the Gospel. Consequently, there is a close connection between Christian education, sermon (communication) and Christian testimony (mission) amongst the nations (Perselis, 2003, pp. 15-23), which have been increasingly emerging in recent years (Kalaitzidis, 2016). This position also applies to environments where the Orthodox Church is the prevailing religion. This form of witness in Christ is prevailed to be called re-evangelism. This term means that the systematic education (indoctrination) of baptized Christians “have some knowledge, memory or experience of the Christian faith” (Koukoura, 2014), but for a variety of reasons do not know or may even confuse elementary points of Christian teaching. The work of indoctrination and re-evangelization of the Orthodox of all ages is now undertaken in collaboration with the Bishops and priests of the parishes, or catechists, who must be distinguished for their missionary zeal. After all, these people are the modern workers of the gospel. Undoubtedly, a modern evangelist is the current Archbishop of Tirana and of all Albania Anastasios (Yannoulatos). Archbishop Anastasios has worked pioneering for the missionary awakening of the Orthodox and the resurgence of the Orthodox testimony in nations during the post-war period to this day. With his theological discourse and ecclesiastical work first through the magazines Go Ye (Porefthedes) and All Nations (Panta ta Ethni), he has helped activate the interest of the Orthodox (not only the Greeks) in the evangelism of the nations (Tsirevelos, 2014, p. 59). Also, as a member of the Christian Brotherhood “Zoi” as well as being the director of the Apostolic Ministry, which is an official body of the Church of Greece, he has laid the foundations for the indoctrination and the re-evangelization of Christians in Greece (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 45). Simultaneously, he pioneered the creation of new ecclesiastical communities in East Africa (Papathanasiou, 2004) and the reconstruction of the Church of Albania after 24 years of persecution and enforced atheism (Yannoulatos, 2015, p. 379; Yannoulatos, 2017, p. 37). In this context he founded and organized a large number of Sunday schools, primary and secondary schools as well as the University “Logos” (Delikostopoulos, 10

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

2005, p. 46). Archbishop Anastasios’ missionary ministry follows the spirit of paternal tradition and at the same time adapts to the needs and requirements of the modern world (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 13). His groundbreaking way of working, which harmoniously combines theory and practice, has recently been analyzed by many scientific studies (Tsirevelos, 2007; Peppera, 2014; Tsirevelos, 2015; Kyiazou, 2019). These studies focus on the contents and methodology of his missionary work. However, the effectiveness of this universal contribution, apart from the theological documentation and ecclesiastical work, consolidates an incomparable pedagogical process and a unique gift of communication. The main purpose of the article is to present the pedagogical basis of the transmission of the gospel message to a variety of recipients by the current Archbishop of Tirana and of all Albania Anastasios. The attainment of this objective is served by the following axes, which are the individual objectives of this research. In particular, the first axis explores the pedagogical method he chooses in Sunday school aids which are co-written by Archbishop Anastasios. Then, there is the study of the contents and the way the Christian message is transmitted. The last axis includes the promotion of the catechists’ personality through their missionary offering. The main source of this study constitutes a large part of the current Archbishop of Albania Anastasios’ written work. However, special emphasis is placed on the research of books -from Sunday aids entitled, Spiritual Course, Divine Messages, Faith and Life, which were published by the Apostolic Diakonia of the Church of Greece. These books were co-authored by Archbishop Anastasios, when he was a deacon in 1960-1963, “hence were honored by the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece to be used for the indoctrination of high school students” (Yannoulatos, 2014). These aids have been reissued several times in Greece. In the effort to reconstruct the Church of Albania they were updated and enriched with examples - references from modern life and then published and translated into Albanian (Yannoulatos, 2009; Yannoulatos, 2011). In this way, I think that the pedagogical, didactic and communication contribution of the current Archbishop Anastasios in the field of the Orthodox ecumenical witness is developed and presented thoroughly. At the same time, an aspect of the missionary of ministry is illuminated which is not particularly well known and requires the need for further study. 11

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

1. Method and course of teaching “Teaching methods” refer to established and structured systems of teaching approaches that serve the achievement of the purpose of a course. The most well-known methods are induction, abduction, analytical, synthetic, Socratic, problem solving, interdisciplinary, etc. In particular, the teaching method refers to the way and the design of learning, the selection of appropriate teaching strategies and teaching activities, in order to serve the specific objectives of each course and to achieve the expected learning outcomes. In general, the methods are distinguished in teacher-centered, where the emphasis is on how and what the teacher will do, and on students, in which students have the leading role (Vasilopoulos, 2008, p. 231; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; Koukounaras-Liagis, 2019). The method is linked to the course of instruction, i.e. the various phases of the educational process, which can last for one or more hours. Thus, in each individual phase, the appropriate teaching techniques are selected to make learning effective (Vasilopoulos, 2008, p. 241). In the books – Sunday aids Spiritual course, Divine Messages, Faith and Life, Archbishop Anastasios develops each subject in five stages. The first stage is the “Introduction” to the subject of teaching. It is of particular pedagogical importance that the Archbishop proposes that this stage refers to the lives of students and makes it “an interesting idea from the direct experience of children, with a question or a short anecdote” (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 10). In fact, he often makes up stories from lives of students or excerpts from biographies of contemporary or historical personalities, by which these examples can be inspired by children (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 238 & 254). Methodologically, therefore, he chooses an experiential approach to the subject and promotes students’ experiences, so that the theological knowledge can then be directly connected with their lives. In the 9th chapter, there is an indicative example, entitled “The Prophets for Jesus Christ” in the book Divine Messages. The introduction of the thematic module refers to a ship that is travelling and due to a storm is in danger of sinking, while radio operators constantly send “SOS” signals, asking for help. Finally, a message is received stating that another ship will come to their rescue. The author parallels the ship that is in danger with humanity. The radio operators are paralleled with the prophets of the Old Testament, which is then followed by the development of the Mission of the Prophets (Yannoulatos, 12

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

2009, p. 91). The second stage is called “Resonance”. As the Archbishop states (2009, p. 10), “it usually contains some first basic elements of the subject”, which may come from the Bible, the Christian Fathers or the ecclesiastical history and life. In fact, this is the first attempt to link the experience of students with religious knowledge. Such a choice meets the requirements of later experiential teaching, where the second stage usually (the meaning), “is to make sense, to students, of the previous experience with religious content, which is new to them” (Koukounaras-Liagis, 2019, p. 114). In the subject “Prophets”, used as an example above, citations from the Old Testament are selected at the narrative stage, where the Prophets predict various events of the life of the expected Messiah (Yannoulatos, 2009, p.93). These events refer to The Birth (Mich. 5:1), healing man (Is 35:5-6), The Passions (Is 50:6/ 53:7), The Crucifixion (Ps. 21:1/ 17-19), and the acceptance of Messiah by all nations (Ps. 21:28-32). The didactic proposal of these excerpts often promotes the teacher-centered method, which was the dominant one at the time, and emphasizes the narration by the catechists. However, in many cases there are instructions that refer to the student’s self-energy and in any case to the assimilation of knowledge through its discovery (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 29). Undoubtedly, today this material can be exploited with group collaborative techniques, which are based more on the student’s self-energy and lead to discoverable learning. The next stage of these teaching projects involves substantial processing and the depth of the basic issue. This stage is called “Development”. Essentially, it is “the methodical conceptual development of the subject” (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 11), where students process teaching material and are invited to discover new knowledge as well as a deeper theological understanding of the central concept. In the section “Prophets” chosen in the earlier stages, Archbishop Anastasios proposes a variety of pedagogical techniques in rich material. This material, apart from ecclesiastical sources, includes quotes of great people, such as Pascal, but also examples of the daily lives of students, in order to motivate their interest (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 98). In addition, the Archbishop gives an alternative between the interactive and the obstetric method. Thus, the questions to be answered and the attempt to acquire knowledge operate like a large puzzle, where the student is activated to discover and process knowledge, while cultivating his critical ability and oth13

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

er skills (Tsirevelos, 2020, p. 71). This method is of particular value, because the baptized and catechumen Christians process and understand theological knowledge in a logical way. In this way, they constitute an active “sheepfold of spiritual sheep” (Akathist Hymn, 2nd Stasis) and therefore a living community through education is taught charismatically to promote culture (Matsoukas, 1989) At the end of this stage, in the lesson “Prophets” it is suggested that: “In the face of Jesus Christ, the Messianic prophecies of Israel were fulfilled” (Yannoulatos, 2009, p.100). This lesson essentially reflects the central idea and is the main axis of linking teaching with what has been preceded and what will follow. At the same time it also functions as a “motto”, which students can easily remember. “Implementation” is the next stage of teaching. “In the Application, care is paid to highlight some direct practical consequences of the truth developed for the daily lives of children, with concrete examples” (Yannoulatos, 2009, p.11). In other words, the application of theological knowledge is sought in order to make it useful in the daily ecclesiastical and social lives of children. This highlights the pedagogical orientation required to include modern indoctrination and religious education (Koukounaras-Liagis, 2019, p. 118), with the ultimate aim of enriching the lives of adolescents (Perselis, 2001). In the course titled “Prophets”, the emphasis of the truth that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer that the world expected, is associated with attitudes and emotions, such as “joy, confidence, courage, optimism” (Yannoulatos, 2009, p.100). These are considered necessary for the young to build a healthy and integrated personality and thus to act as a responsible loyal believer and citizen. However, this section also links the issue to the mission of Christians. More specifically, the centuries-old disciples and the disciples of Christ have the mission to broadcast the joyful news of the Gospel and with their lives to reveal that through Jesus Christ, “The last enemy to be abolished and put to an end is death” (A Kor. 15:26). Along these lines Archbishop Anastasios uses a pedagogical manner that seeks the disciples to build a healthy personality and at the same time become the same apostles, deacons of the sermon of the Lord, confessing to every man that Jesus is Christ, “the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16). The above teaching phases lead to the last stage called “Epilogue”. In this, all the pedagogical process and the knowledge discovered by the students are sought to be sealed with a story or phrase, which will be a trademark and a guide in their lives. Thus, once again, emphasis is placed on the students’ per14

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

sonal understanding of the theological subject, while the epilogue is sought to be the point of reference and reflection. In the lesson “The Prophets” is given the passage Jn 1:45: “We have found the One Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote about—Jesus from Nazareth”. The passage is given in the original but also translated, in order to understand and serve the pedagogical purpose (Yannoulatos, 2009, p.101). This achieves the teaching goals and the students recognize the close connection between the Old and New Testaments and discover that Jesus is an expected Messiah. Completing this brief investigation of the learning course used by Archbishop Anastasios, it is necessary to emphasize the experiential way of teaching. This way and the learning stages are consistent with modern proposals for the choice of the experiential method in wider education, and certainly in religious and ecclesiastical education (Koukounaras-Liagis, 2019; Tsirevelos, 2020). In the context of the experiential method, learning is linked to the ownership of knowledge, as L. Vygotcky notes (1986). Thus, students explore, sign, evaluate and conquer new knowledge (e.g. theological knowledge), connecting it with their own experience. “According to a socio-cognitive approach, nature does not provide humans with a ready profile, but a wide range of ‘possibilities offered’. The exploitation of these possibilities by each person is based mainly on the richness of his sociocultural environment. This environment is obviously extrinsic in relation to the human brain, and therefore intimacy is mandatory through learning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012, p. 237). Therefore, through specific teaching techniques and educational activities the student is invited to be chosen with the social - cultural environment and theological knowledge. Then there is the discovery and assimilation of knowledge, which will lead to the practical exploitation of new knowledge and possibly reflection. Especially for Christian Education these are of particular importance, because the event of the Church is the primary experience which is then followed by the linguistic wording and the theoretical description of this experience. Let us not forget that this is also the example of the Fathers of the Church (Tsirevelos, 2020, p. 13). Apart from these modern approaches to theories of learning, which correspond with the structure developed by Archbishop Anastasios, it is necessary to emphasize the help offered by these teaching manuals to the Christian and theologian teachers. In fact, the explanatory link of each stage and the meaning from the author himself are of particular importance. In this way it is eas15

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

ÂŠ2020 Tsirevelos

ier for the teacher to follow or design their own teaching plan, to choose the appropriate content and in any case to adapt knowledge to the possibilities, experiences, data, stimuli and interests of the student (Vasilopoulos, 1998, p. 118).

2. Contents Effective education is always linked to the choice of appropriate content. The contents and material that teachers choose to teach are essentially the educational goods. In the Orthodox Church there is a huge wealth of written and supervisory monuments that local churches or teachers can use in the context of their teaching (Vasilopoulos, 2008, p. 167). So the current Archbishop of Albania Anastasios suggests that this material be used, while with the examples he chooses he succeeds in updating each subject. Undoubtedly, the Bible and especially the New Testament are the basic learning materials in these Sunday aids. The study of the Bible is important because it contains the faith, teaching and truth of the Church. Thus, the Bible is not proposed to be used in the context of intellectual study and individualistic moralistic learning. On the contrary, a variety of examples and interpretive comments from the Bible are being used to affect the minds and emotions of the students as well as become a practical part in their lives. In addition, many explanations are provided for the symbolic language of the texts, accompanied by examples of modern life. Let us not forget that the Lord has often chosen to address the world with parables and narratives from agro-livestock life, whereas today many children, who live in an urban environment, may not understand certain terms or descriptions. Thus, in the specific aids, the interpretative approach of the texts and their didactic exploitation connect to a biblical interpretation with the modern world. Another characteristic feature of Archbishop Anastasiosâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; books is that the Old and New Testaments are inextricably linked. Also, the exploration of the timeless meanings of the Bible extends to the formation of culture and the signage of the modern world by Christianity (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 34). That is why the biblical passages contained are not treated in a moralistic and idealistic way. Much more importantly, it is underlined that the Bible is the book of the Eucharist community, which acts and functions as a community after the end of the Eucharist. This is why in these aids the study of the Bible is directly or indirectly (depending on the subject and teaching goals) connected to the 16

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

Eucharistic and mysterious life of the ecclesiastical community (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 208; Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 138. 152). In this context the face of Christ is interpreted through the living tradition of the Church. Thus, the Bible is understood through the spirit of paternal tradition as well as the Church, which as a living organism has carried on for centuries (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 109-126). At the same time, it emerges with arguments how Christ contributed to the formation of human history. Of course, the acceptance of this truth, as noted in Sunday aids, takes place in ecclesiastical life and cannot be cut off. Therefore, the Christological content is in direct relation to the ecclesiological one. In this way, it is revealed that man is not an individual being, but is in relation to other people and is integrated into a community where the godfather Jesus Christ is the leader (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 128-138). The Church, which is the Secret Body of Christ, is ultimately the one that teaches and transmits the Gospel message in every era (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 214). As a result, the teaching plan to be designed by the teacher based on the specific Sunday teaching aids, leads the students to a live meeting with the persons and events of the Bible. Thus, the student becomes the interlocutor with the hagiographic narratives (Perselis, 2001, p. 105-114). Moreover, it is clearly revealed that the Lord of history is Christ himself, who animates man and renovates creation (Rev. 21:5). In this context, special emphasis is placed on the teaching exploitation of worship, where students are invited to experience the Mysteries, the sequences (services) and the various worship ceremonies. Their teaching aims at the majority of the students’ participation in the worshipful life of the Church. This goal is the heart of catechism. According to Professor Emmanuel Perselis (1994, p. 37), “students must understand that for a Christian Orthodox person, the Divine Liturgy is the life and soul of the Church, because through mass (Eucharist) Jesus offers Himself for our salvation and redemption”. Thus, in the aids co-written by the then deacon Anastasios Giannoulatos, learning is governed by the principles and purposes of functional education and seeks to introduce the disciples into the Eucharistic life of the Church. Let us not forget that worship has been the preeminent environment of Christian indoctrination since the early Christian years. Prayer and frequent share in the mystery of mysteries, the Eucharist, ontological nourishes man and renovates him, offering him the grace of the Triune God (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 209). Based on these conditions, students are invited to understand 17

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

in depth that the mystery of the Eucharist unites man and God ontologically. They also have the ability to discover the importance of constant personal vigilance in the effort of repentance and forgiveness. Such a view excludes the interpretative understanding of repentance as a duty of morality with punishment (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 270). Of particular importance, is that in specific aids the knowledge of worship always leads to functional (liturgical) understanding of everyday life. This is how students are pushed to recognize the importance of “Liturgy after the Liturgy”. This term was first formulated by the then Bishop Androusis and now Archbishop of Tirana Anastasios in Echmiadzin, Armenia in 1975 (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 130). This term was linked to the mission by the church’s act. At the same time, the motto for a lasting Eucharist attitude to life in everyday life was given in an apt way. As Archbishop Anastasios points out: “This concept (divine liturgy) should not be lost as an instant thrill, but used to expand Mass into everyday life. And transform life into a function. To make our office, our altar, our factory or our home, our temple, our work our function, where our soul and body will be offered “sacrifice lived, holy, rejoice in God’” (Yannoulatos, 2010, p. 129). Moreover, these contents are enriched by preachers’ texts, events of ecclesiastical history and secretariat and definitely excerpts from the lives of saints (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 46). Thus, the students discover the course of the Church over the centuries and know the difficulties of spreading the gospel. They also understand in depth that the Fathers are carriers of the Holy Spirit, those who teach the ethos in Christ and reveal the universality of the gospel. In this way they learn about the influence of the Church on various social, political and cultural issues of history (Gaitanos, 2019). At the same time they can understand modern developments and, above all, shape the present and the future of their lives and the society in which they live as active citizens. In addition, the students know that the saints are the imitators of Christ and are called to be exemplary in their lives. In fact, the investigation of the martyrdom of the saints (in the first Christian centuries and the new martyrs) leads to reflection on how martyrdom becomes a testimony of Christ’s life (Yannoulatos, 2003, p. 61; Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 167. 366). At the same time through the preachers’ texts and ecclesiastical history, they realize that the Lord’s centuries-old disciples (therefore themselves) are carriers of peace in Christ, which begins with man’s relationship with God, himself and ends in the relationship with fellow man and the natural environment (Yannoulatos, 18

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

2011, p. 39). In this context they also understand the importance of freedom in the Christian tradition and call themselves to fight constantly against their passions and everything that holds man captive. Thus, it is aptly demonstrated that the Holy Fathers are the timeless markers of course, while ecclesiastical history illuminates the present and orients the future of society (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 189). In addition, these books direct catechists’ sitcoms to develop various contemporary and current topics. So they teach and trouble the recipients, to make sense of their lives through the timeless message of the Gospel. These issues address a variety of social issues and highlight the deacon testimony of the Church. Poverty, injustice, exploitation, but also the causes, consequences and way of dealing with them to name just a few. The author’s exhortations and educational exploitation underline the need for solidarity, support and practical love (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 80). Another group of issues highlights the universal values that govern the religious world, such as peace, justice, honesty, respect for life, tackling poverty and ending violence. There is no doubt that these values meet throughout the religious world. However, as highlighted in the great work of Archbishop Anastasios (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 309), love is at the top of all values. More specifically, he writes in a recent paper: “Love is considered the culmination of offering on the scale of values. Christianity in a unique way emphasized the universal dimensions of love. It clarified in the strongest possible way its multifaceted meaning and significance. It extended it beyond all boundaries, racial, religious, and social. It made it a universal force, embracing and transforming everything. Lastly, matched it to the ultimate reality, with God” (Yannoulatos, 2006). In this context, the current Archbishop of Albania delivered rich teaching material for Sunday schools and even for public Religious Education. Of course, in all this wealth of content, Archbishop Anastasios with pedagogical awareness notes that in each thematic section the catechists are required to choose part of the proposed teaching material and not to teach everything. As he states: “The diagram at the beginning of each course helps the teacher orient themselves on the course of the subject and clearly know what ideas are to be emphasized” (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 11). Thus, it is recognized that “the resilience of children is usually limited” (Yannoulatos, 2011, p. 83). This position that also responds to the work of St. Gregorius Nazianzinos (PG36, 212) is entirely in line with modern pedagogy (Vasilopoulos, 2008, p. 250). 19

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

However, is it enough to choose the right methods and contents for successful teaching? What other elements make up effective learning and which of them does Archbishop Anastasios use in his work?

3. The transmission of the Gospel message to the capabilities of each recipient

The choice of method and teaching content contributes to effective learning, if combined with the appropriate way of teaching, i.e. how new knowledge can be transmitted. In this case the new knowledge is the message of the gospel. Modern research highlights the transfer of the Christian message with immediacy and always according to the capabilities of the recipients (Koukoura, 1998). Archbishop Anastasios has applied this tactic in practice, as highlighted by the study of his multidimensional ecumenical work (Tsirevelos, 2015, p. 138). Perhaps the most characteristic example of immediacy in communication from the life of Archbishop Anastasios is the greeting “Christ is Risen” in Albanian (Krishti u Ngjall), when he first went to Tirana as patriarchal Exarches in 1991 (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 185). Of course, there are other examples that can be mentioned. In particular, he took part in collaboration with Greeks and Africans for the translation of the Bible, the functional texts, the Fathers and other books in the language and dialects of Africans, while he did the same in Albania (Yannoulatos, 2013, p. 41). In this way “the translation of Christian texts into the language of each nation gives them the immediacy and complete access to understand the timeless truths of faith” (Tsirevelos, 2015, p. 140). This method was also chosen in the reissue of teaching (Sunday) books, where the language of the purist was replaced with the local language, while many subjects were updated. This linguistic choice in combination with the immediacy contributes, so that the theological discourse is transmitted in simple terms, a well-received vocabulary organized structure and framed with a variety of references and examples from everyday life. Also the topics mentioned in the lives of teenagers, aim to move them and attract their interest in exploring and discovering the richness of orthodox tradition. This position is also confirmed in the recent postdoctoral research conducted with adolescent recipients (Tsirevelos, 2018, p. 370). All this requires the addition of excellent language and apt examples - explanations used by the author, in order to clearly transmit the teaching con20

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

tents and thus achieve effective learning. Of course, the gift of the immediacy of Archbishop Anastasios’s speech is observed throughout his work, both in his scientific and sermons and in the Sunday lessons we investigate. As Professor Athanasios Delikostopoulos says, Archbishop Anastasios “is an excellent manipulator of written work, who victoriously lifts the burden of the message of man’s salvation [...] He holds the scepter of the spiritual providence of written and oral work” (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 17). This linguistic choice undoubtedly facilitates the oral transmission of each subject. However, in order to facilitate the recipients, i.e. the catechist that teaches teenage students deliver the basic ideas in a compact way and then analyze them in depth. In this way, recipients can gradually explore new knowledge, evaluate it and certainly link it to their lives. Therefore, learning becomes an experiential state and is certainly adapted to the student’s capabilities. However, the Archbishop suggests that the teaching material be used through the interaction of the catechist with the students. That is why it recommends that teachers use dialogue to activate interest and achieve learning goals. It also considers that the queries contribute to the self-energy of the students and the mobilization for the discovery of knowledge. Let us not forget that when students get to the point of asking questions, this means that they have gained knowledge and are ready for the next topic. At this point it is necessary to note that Archbishop Anastasios recognizes the importance of the use of new technology. Undoubtedly, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) are a key element of life, not just for teenagers. Let us not forget that ICT contributes decisively to the communication of ideas with religious information, its critical management, the development of representation models and the interaction of religious groups through the construction of knowledge, the creation of tasks and active and collaborative learning (Karamouzis, 2007, p. 161). Moreover, the creation of teaching scenarios using ICT assists, so that the student can reconstitute, describe and reveal with images, sound or text the pluralistic ecclesiastical reality (Mitropoulou, 2007, p. 25). On our subject, Archbishop Anastasios suggests that the material of Sunday school aids be used in the context of the possibilities offered by new technologies as well as supervisory learning. Completely indicative of the theme “Love to the Lord”, the author suggests that the educator use PowerPoint for certain verses of The Apostle Paul, and attach a short comment to each passage. The use of images activates the interest of children of all ages, while the 21

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

choice of supervisory learning facilitates the transmission and assimilation of new knowledge (Vasilopoulos, 2008, p. 167). At the same time, however, it contributes to the self-energy of the student, which is the subject according to modern pedagogical theories (Kalanztis – Cope, 2012, p. 52). Consequently, the use of supervisory tools and even further teaching the use of ICT serve the teaching objectives and facilitate the teaching of contents in a variety of recipients regardless of their cognitive and emotional maturation. Of course, although communication and teaching techniques are necessary, the new question is whether they are sufficient enough to lead to successful teaching. Finally, who or what are the determinants that will lead the student to discover knowledge according to the work of Archbishop Anastasios?

4. The personality of the catechist The current Archbishop of Albania Anastasios has worked as a missionary throughout his life. For 65 years he has been ministering the Church through Sunday teaching (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 30), missionary work, pastoral care and certainly the foot leadership and reconstruction of the Church of Albania. In this way, he made a commitment to convey the gospel message to non-Christians but also to Christians who wish to accurately and in depth learn the teachings of the Church. The Archbishop recognizes the importance of choosing the appropriate modes of transport and doctrine of the Christian message. However, he believes that the most important factor is the workers of the gospel themselves. Those who minister missionary and teach the word of God have the greatest responsibility, so that the work of testimony and doctrine in Christ will bear fruit. Archbishop Anastasios’ reflection focuses on the missionary’s personality and his spiritual struggle. This is why he argues mainly that “God sent people and not plans for the transformation of the world” (Giannoulatos, 2013, p. 221). However, it is necessary to stress that the missionary is always a teacher of faith. Therefore, these positions that are to be developed – mutatis mutandis – also apply to catechists. The catechists are those who, through teaching, confess with their lives the life of the Lord. So as His original disciples continue His mission incessantly, “Until He comes again” (1 Cor. 11:26). Their daily work in the field of education should be the living example and the main attraction of the students, in order to get to know the Church of Christ in depth. Undoubtedly, these posi22

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

tions apply whether the Christian teachers minister in traditional Orthodox or non-Orthodox or even non-Christian environments through the so-called external mission. In particular, the spiritual composition of the catechist is considered a necessary condition and is the central force for the testimony in Christ. “Intensity of inner life with prayer and study, desire for total devotion to God” (Yannoulatos, 2013b, p. 37) is a certain characteristic point of their spiritual struggle. The dedication to educational (Sunday) and missionary ministry is reinforced by the constant contact with the First Missionary, the Lord (Voulgarakis, 1989, p 33). This primarily means obedience to His commandment, as recorded in the Gospel of John: “as the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (Jn. 20:21). Directly, however, he declares the continuing communion with God the Father who sends His Son into the world (Jn. 6:56-57), for reconciliation between God and man to take place. Also this sentence is codified and the imitation of the lord’s humbleness, which the catechist (and every Christian) is called to follow. At the same time, teachers of faith are invited to imitate the work and life of the Saints. Archbishop Anastasios mentions the example of the Apostle of Nations, Paul. The principle which Apostle Paul sets is a one-way street for the Church. “For if I [merely] preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast about, for I am compelled [that is, absolutely obligated to do it]. Woe to me if I do not preach the good news” (1 Cor. 9:16). This post is an uninterrupted continuation of Christ’s experience and results in the existential acceptance “it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). Such an experience inevitably leads to the heart of Christian education, which is love to Christ and children. After all, the Archbishop himself “with his warm heart and great love embraces everyone from children of the gospel to the elders of the mountains of Albania”, while as Professor Delikostopoulos (2005, p. 12) continues a little below. The Archbishop “has two loves in his life; he love for Christ and man”. In fact, he pointed out, like the Fathers of the Church, which genuine and practical love always, go with humbleness (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 49). Thus Archbishop Anastasios is the poet and has taught the faith of the Church through the mission. After all, through his example he teaches the catechists to cultivate love for God and His creations. Archbishop Anastasios, as a professor of the department of History of Religions at the University of Athens, he was “impeccable”, while he had the gift of penetrating deeply into the soul of every man 23

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

and cultivating trust with the example of his virtuous life (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 17 &amp; 33). Thus, it shows in practice that teaching begins with the construction of sincere relations between catechists and catechumens. This relationship is directly related to the ethos, internal education and training of the catechist (Yannoulatos, 2013b, p. 30). In this way, a bridge of trust is built between a teacher (missionary) and students (catechumens), while preventing possible excitement or suspicion. Another theme highlighted by the Archbishop is the well-scientifically theological training of the Christian teacher (Yannoulatos, 2013b, p. 31). The transfer of theological discourse is based on “persistent theological enlightenment” (Yannoulatos, 2013, p. 223). Excellent knowledge of theological science enables teachers to respond comprehensively and satisfy the existential as well as broaden the horizons of the catechist. In this way, the systematic transmission of the happy young people of the gospel can be achieved and the greatest desire to work in the Church can be cultivated. In close relation to theological training, the Archbishop points out both the broader scientific education and the continuous training of missionaries-teachers, which he combines (Delikostopoulos, 2005, p. 42). The latter includes knowledge of local history, sociological study with an emphasis on current social conditions, and even training in other religious traditions that coexist in the same place. In this way, the modern environment is more understood and the appropriate conduits are created for the codification of the gospel. Thus, culture and cultural studies in relation to the “experience of the world”, as Archbishop Anastasios calls it (Yannoulatos, 2013b, p. 49), aim at the specialized study of modern conditions. This training is necessary in order to exploit the particular cultural elements of each place and accordingly be used “by expressing the new life” (Yannoulatos, 2013, p. 216) in Christ Jesus. In this respect, it is necessary to add the excellent pedagogical study and knowledge of modern teaching and communication strategies by the catechists. Of course, the needs and requirements of modern life underline the need for an interdisciplinary approach to many issues related to Christian teaching and especially Christian morality. In these matters Archbishop Anastasios promotes in the framework of missionary teaching cooperation with other specialized scientists. Scientists such as educators, ethnologists, historians, philologists, linguists, doctors, lawyers can contribute to the teaching of Christianity, to the preparation of the contents of education (indoctrination) but also to the dialogue with the modern challenges faced by people at local 24

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

and global levels (bioethics issues, ecology). In this way the teaching provided is complete; In addition, the contribution of the folk element to the Sunday-missionary ministry is highlighted. Therefore, the Church is manifested in practice as the “Body of Christ”, where each member has his special gifts, which he offers in the construction of faith and in social contribution.

Discussion - Suggestions Archbishop Anastasios of Albania conveyed the Gospel message to a variety of recipients using educational methods and techniques. At a time when it was not self-evident that the students were self-deprecating and the cultivation of dialogue aimed at highlighting these pedagogical values. The teaching projects included in Sunday school aids, he suggested that catechists should cultivate children’s interest and combine theological knowledge with examples of everyday life that favor the interactive approach. In this way, Christian education contributes to the construction of personalities responsible and useful for the life of the Church and society. More specifically, Archbishop Anastasios - pioneering for his time - chooses in the course of learning methods that lead the student to build knowledge through exploratory and experiential learning. Teenagers’ experience is always useful. After the development of the subject, the issue is the application of knowledge to the daily lives of students. In this context, the appropriate content is proposed, which corresponds to the capabilities of the students. Let us not forget that the contents are the materials, where by the appropriate methods, the students will acquire knowledge. This is why it proposes a variety of material derived from the Bible, the Fathers, ecclesiastical history and the Synaxarion (life of the saints). These contents are always accompanied by a large number of explanations and examples from everyday life, history, science and culture to facilitate the student’s assimilation of knowledge. At the same time, it demonstrates that the Gospel message must be transmitted in various ways to a variety of recipients. Most importantly is the factor of the common code of communication, i.e. language, so that knowledge can be recruited with directness. Interactive techniques and supervisory learning are equally important. In the latest editions of Sunday aids, it is proposed that supervisory material be used with new technologies. 25

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

ÂŠ2020 Tsirevelos

Moreover, Archbishop Anastasios accepts that the most decisive factor for successful teaching is the catechist himself. Teachers of faith are primarily invited to be connected through the Mystery of the Eucharist with the Lord and this relationship be conveyed to their disciples. But in order for learning to be effective, they need to foster relationships of trust and safety with children. In addition, catechists are invited to the continuous theological and pedagogical scientific training, while needed to have excellent knowledge of social life, so that new knowledge can be utilized in the daily lives of students. Even though, Archbishop Anastasiosâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sunday aids, were written in the early 1960s, nevertheless have maintained their freshness. They remain useful for catechists and can be exploited through modern teaching methods and techniques. However, this option is the sole responsibility of the catechist to transmit Christian teaching through modern tubes (Tsirevelos, 2020, p. 87). Then there are some thoughts, which as a matter of fact involve the work of Archbishop Anastasios. In particular, it is necessary to note that the catechist must have great teaching potential. That is why he must be able to stand by the children and be an assistant in their search for the meaning of life. In addition, he creates relationships of trust, is chosen by everyone and all, without refusing to answer the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s questions, nor criticize them for their possible differing views. Much more, he strengthens the initiative and encourages their active participation. Thus, he speaks honestly and expresses respect for their positions without dogmatism (Yannoulatos, 2003, p. 267). So he acts as an example for children to discover the Truth of Christ. He should always consider students as collaborators and co-researchers and cultivate their critical ability. Nor should the catechist be critically and derogatorily reported to the people or systems of other religions. However, it is sobriety required to reveal the differences between Christianity and other religions and to help children discover the sermon of the gospel as a teaching of peace (Mt. 5:9). That is why they are required to choose actions that stigmatize fanaticism and weaken religious stereotypes as well as fundamentalist prejudices, which lead to violent attitudes towards heterodox/heterogeneous (Karamouzis, 2015, p. 75). Thus, the educator with honesty and responsibility towards the Church, who has entrusted them with this role, will teach the Christian faith and protect it from the aberrations of fanaticism, intolerance and religious extremes. Religious as well as anti-religious fanaticisms harm the Church and society. In addition, the indoctrinating teacher is invited to know in depth the modern achievements of pedagogical science and to choose the appropriate ways 26

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

of teaching it- i.e. method and techniques - to help lead the students to new learning experiences. This will make them a capable member of the Church. The basic principle that every catechist must follow is respect for the student’s freedom and not psychological or authoritarian coercion. Each person, however different, is understood as an individual and unique person. This position puts the student at the center of the cognitive process, while it switches the teacher to orchestrate of learning. On the basis of all the above, the teacher of faith is invited to be creatively liberated, to develop “openness, theological and pedagogical imagination in order to reach out to the modern adolescent student and their sensibilities, so that the religious lesson has the characteristics of a modern educational process” (Delykontis, 2013, p. 414). This means that it is necessary to encourage and guide students so that both during the educational process and after it they can express themselves and create. At the same time they should be able to understand their actions and choices through the Christian faith and life and also understand the world based on their personal search and share in the Church. Thus, the main objective of the catechist is to create the conditions through which the student will explore Christian teaching, cultivate his critical thinking and develop skills, attitudes and behaviors (Koukounaras-Liagis, 2012). This way aims at strengthening and developing the personal identity of students, in the dynamic exploitation and application of what they learn from Christian teaching in their daily lives. I think that all this, as well as the selection of participatory and collaborative actions can be applied to the plans for the teaching of Sunday aids co-written by Archbishop Anastasios. In this way, students are actively involved in exploratory and experiential learning methods. Thus, knowledge is built by students based on social interaction and the meaning they discover themselves. Always taking into consideration the pedagogical and scientific context in the teaching process, the role of the catechist is crucial. In particular, the catechists/teachers are called to: a) act as the enthusiastic and creative coordinator of the learning process and not as a typical transmitter of knowledge; b) ensure that all pupils are equally involved and can express themselves; c) be more of a mentor for the discovery of children’s knowledge and animator (Zoumboulakis, 2017, p. 45); 27

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

d) highlight and exploit their skills and competences; e) be interested in cultivating their critical capacity f) provide a variety of ways of processing teaching topics (Karamouzis & Tsirevelos, 2020); g) promote a variety of teaching methods and techniques of research, experiential, interactive and collaborative learning; h) be truly democratic and cooperative in their relationship with the students and not just friendly and forgiving (Vasilopoulos, 2008). In this context, conventional and traditional methods such as teacher-centered methods are not excluded. However, they are required to have their own position and not to monopolize the teaching practice. There is no doubt that all educational strategies are acceptable to the extent that they successfully serve the intended learning. What must be ruled out is authoritarian and inadequate education. But the emphasis now needs to be placed on student techniques and group collaborative actions. Thus, the role of the teacher, and therefore of the catechist, is to guide students in learning, to coordinate the groups, to animate each group or individual, to help students discover theological knowledge, to advise them on the basis of pedagogical principles and to create the conditions for reflection (Koukounaras-Liagis, 2019, p. 140). “Reflection” means a complex and multi-layered process involving all the processes of learning and the experiences of the student. It is therefore a meta-cognitive process that renews the educational practice and guides the thoughts, by extension, the teaching actions of teachers (Koukounaras-Liagis, 2019, p. 18 &amp; 122). Undoubtedly, the course of learning in the educational books of Archbishop Anastasios and especially the last stage of the “Epilogue” favor the reflection of the student. In this way, students can “return” to the theory they have known – in this case theological knowledge – to discuss it, review it and recognize its applications in their daily lives. In effective learning that promotes reflection, modern techniques of educational drama (Koukounaras-Liagis, 2012) and the motifs of artful thinking (Tsirevelos, 2020, p. 77) contribute. With these teaching techniques, students can in a pleasant and creative way get to know in depth the life and teaching of the Church, to experience it, to apply it in their lives and thus to convey with completeness the message of the gospel throughout the familiarity. 28

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

Special reference is required for the exploitation of ICT (Karamouzis, 2007, p. 140). Especially nowadays the pandemic of corona virus (covid19) imposes the transmission of the gospel message through the pipeline of the internet and using digital environments. That is why it is urgent for the Orthodox Church to make creative use of distance learning in order to convey its message to a variety of recipients. As far as Sunday schools are concerned, this means that teaching should be geared towards the creation of material and the encouragement of the students themselves to create tasks using modern multimedia applications. This mobilizes their interest, promotes interactivity and leads to effective learning (Mitropoulou, 2015). At the same time, however, recipients of the gospel message are switched to transponders of this message. Let us not forget that the ecumenical work of Archbishop Anastasios was founded on this basic pedagogical position and developed by gradually converting the catechumens (students) into catechists (teachers). Thus, the testimony of the Orthodox Church to the world is required to invest in reforming Sunday education by exploiting modern forms of communication. The success of this goal is based on ecclesiastical education, where it activates the student to apply knowledge in his life. In other words, it is a way to follow Christ’s footsteps and practice the combination of theory and practice. This is what the current Archbishop of Albania, Anastasios, teaches us with his life and his examples. This experience is coded in the below quote and reveals the context for effective teaching in Christ: “Only when we ‘live in the Lord’ and we are living members of our church, with fervent prayer, with our substantial contact with the word of God and the mysterious life of the church, our existence is permeated by the Holy Spirit, our catechism ministry will acquire vitality, power and activity that will elevate it from the level of simple teaching to sacred function, where teenage souls will be deeply mistreated to the “Mystery faith ‘» (Yannoulatos, 2009, p. 12). These words are the quintessence for the development of a modern Christian Education. In this way, the Church will continue to put into practice her living testimony to the challenges and quests of the 21st century locally and globally, and at the same time continue to declare in practice that we expect “new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells”(2 Pet. 3:13)!

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

References Βασιλόπουλος, Χ. (1998). Οι κατηχήσεις του Κυρίλλου Ιεροσολύμων. Ψυχοπαιδαγωγική προσέγγιση, Θεσσαλονίκη: Κυριακίδη. Βασιλόπουλος Χ. (2008). Σχολική Θρησκευτική Αγωγή. Θεσσαλονίκη: Βάνιας. Βουλγαράκης, Ηλ. (1989). Ιεραποστολή – Δρόμοι και Δομές, Αθήνα: Αρμός Γιαννουλάτος, Α. (2013), Η λησμονημένη εντολή Πορευθέντες… από τον λήθαργο στην αφύπνιση, Αθήνα: Αποστολική Διακονία. Γιαννουλάτος, Α. (2013β). Εώς εσχάτου της γης, Αθήνα: Αποστολική Διακονία. Γιαννουλάτος, Α. (2014), Θεία Μηνύματα. Πίστη και Ζωή, Τίρανα: Ορθόδοξος Αυτοκέφαλη Εκκλησία της Αλβανίας. Γιαννουλάτος, Α. (2014β), Πνευματική Πορεία, Τίρανα: Ορθόδοξος Αυτοκέφαλος Εκκλησία της Αλβανίας. Δεληκωνσταντής, Κ. (2013), Το κοινωνικό περιεχόμενο των δικαιωμάτων του ανθρώπου, Αθήνα. Δεληκωστόπουλου, Α. (2005). Αγίας και της ειρήνης, Αθήνα: Επτάλοφος, Αθήνα. Gaitanos, G. (2019). The study of Religion in the early Christian Literature. Journal of Us-China Public Administration, Vol. 16, N. 1, p. 7-15. Gregorius Theologos, Logos LB΄, PG 36, 212. Kalaintzidis, P. (2016). New Wine into Old Wineskins?: Orthodox Theology of Mission Facing the Challenges of a Global World”. Atola L., Huang Po Ho, Uta Andrée (Ed). Theological Education and Theology of Life. Wipf and Stock, p. 119-147. Kalanztis, Μ. – Cope, Β. (2012). New Learning: Elements of a Science Education, 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press Καραμούζης, Π. (2007), Πολιτισμός & Διαθρησκειακή Αγωγή, Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα. Καραμούζης, Π. (2015), Η κοινωνιολογία της Θρησκείας μεταξύ Εκπαίδευσης και Κοινωνίας, Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Ακαδημαϊκά Ηλεκτρονικά Συγγράμματα. Καραμούζης, Π. & Τσιρέβελος, Ν. (2020). Εκπαίδευση και κατάρτιση εκπαιδευτικών στη θρησκευτική αγωγή: Το παρόν και το μέλλον για το όραμα του Νέου Σχολείου, Σοφός Αλ. κι άλλοι (επιμ.), Παιδαγωγικά Τμήματα και το 30

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

Μέλλον τους. Εκπαίδευση εκπαιδευτικών: Προκλήσεις και προοπτικές σε έναν κόσμο που αλλάζει, Αθήνα: Γρηγόρη. Κουκουνάρας Λιάγκης, Μ (2012). Οι θρησκείες στο σχολείο. Μια μετανεωτερική προσέγγιση της Θρησκευτικής Εκπαίδευσης με τεχνικές από το Θέατρο στην Εκπαίδευση. Γκόβας, Ν. Κατσαρίδου, Μ., Μαυρέας, Δ. (επιμ.), Θέατρο και Εκπαίδευση. Δεσμοί αλληλεγγύης. Αθήνα: Πανελλήνιο Δίκτυο για το θέατρο στην εκπαίδευση, σ. 232-239. Κουκουνάρας Λιάγκης, Μ (2019). Τι Θρησκευτικά χρειάζεται η εκπαίδευση σήμερα;. Αθήνα: Gutenberg. Koukoura, D. (1998) Communication factors and the Greek-speaking Orthodox Church in the modern world, Synaxis, Is 66, pp. 10-13. Κούκουρα, (2014). Επανευαγγελισμός στις «Χριστιανικές» κοινωνίες. Μια Ορθόδοξη προσέγγιση. Σύνθεσις, Vol. 3, No 1. Retrieved from https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/synthesis/article/view/4302/4380. Κυριάζου, Α. (2019). Ευαγγέλιο και Πολιτισμός. Στη ζωή και το έργο του Αναστασίου Αρχιεπισκόπου Τιράνων, Δυρραχίου και πάσης Αλβανίας, Αθήνα: Εν Πλω. Matsoukas, N. (1989). The Economy of the Holy Spirit. The standpoint of Orthodox Theology. The Ecumenical Review, Geneva 41, p. 398-405. Μητροπούλου, Β. (2007). Νέες τεχνολογίες και Θρησκευτική Αγωγή, Θεσσαλονίκη: Βάνιας. Μητροπούλου, Β. (2015). Οι τεχνολογίες της πληροφορίας και των επικοινωνιών στη διδακτική του μαθήματος των Θρησκευτικών, Θεσσαλονίκη OstraconPubl. Papathanasiou, A. (2014). Missionary Experience and Academic Quest: The Research Situation in Greece. Frieder, L. (ed). European traditions in the study of Religion on Africa, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pg. 301-311. Περσελή, Ε. (1994). Χριστιανική Αγωγή και Σύγχρονος κόσμος. Θέματα θεωρίας και πράξης της χριστιανικής αγωγής, Αθήνα: Αρμός. Perselis, Ε. (2001), Christian Orthodox Education as a contemporary educational process, Phronema , vol. 16, p. 105-114. Περσελή, E. (2003). Κατήχηση και Παιδεία. Αθήνα: Γρηγορή. Πιπέρα, Ε. (2014). Η ιεραποστολική θεολογία του Αρχιεπισκόπου Τιράνων, Δυρραχίου και πάσης Αλβανίας Αναστασίου (Γιαννουλάτου) και η μαρτυρία 31

Christian Witness, Communication and Education

της στον σύγχρονο κόσμο. (Μεταπτυχιακή Εργασία). Retrieved from https:// apothesis.eap.gr/handle/repo/26998. Τσιρέβελου, Ν. (2007). Η συμβολή του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αλβανίας Αναστασίου στην αναβίωση της Ορθόδοξης ιεραποστολής, Θεσσαλονίκη: Κυρίλλειο Κέντρο. Τσιρέβελου, Ν. (2014). Τα ιεραποστολικά περιοδικά και η αποτύπωση της Ορθόδοξης μαρτυρίας κατά τη μεταπολεμική περίοδο. Επικοινωνιακή προσέγγιση. (Διδακτορική διατριβή) Τσιρέβελος, N. (2015). Θεολογική θεμελίωση της Ορθόδοξης μαρτυρίας. Σπουδή στο έργο του Αρχιεπισκόπου Αλβανίας Αναστασίου (Archbishop Anastasios’ Theological Foundation of Orthodox Witness), Thessaloniki: Ostracon Publ. Τσιρέβελου, Ν. (2018). Το μήνυμα των Χριστουγέννων, Δωδεκάνησος, τ. Κ΄, σελ. 275-490 Tsirevelos. Ν. (2020), Formimi dhe Edukimi i Krishtere: Nga teoria ne praktike. Shen Vlash: Departamenti i Theologjise dhe Kultures, Kolegji Universitar Logos. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language, Cambridge: MIT Press. Yannoulatos, Α. (2003). Facing the World. Orthodox Christian essays on Global concerns, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary. Yannoulatos, Α. (2006), “God, in your Grace transform the world”, The Ecumenical Review, Vol. 58, No 1-2, p. 6-15. Yannoulatos, Α. (2009), Mesazhe Hyjnore. Tirana:Kisha Orthodhokse Autoqefale e Shqiperise. Yannoulatos, Α. (2010), Mission in Christ’s Way, Geneva: WCC. Yannoulatos, A. (2011). Udhetim Shpirteror, Tirana: Kisha Orthodhokse Autoqefale e Shqiperise. Yannoulatos, A. (2015). In Africa. Witness and Service, Boston: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. Yannoulatos, Α. (2017). Ringrtja e Kishes Orthodokse Autoqefale te Shqiperise (1991-2016), Tirana: Ngjallja. Ζουμπουλάκης, Στ. (2017). Για το σχολείο, Αθήνα: Πόλις.

2 Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection? A patristic approach Georgios Keselopoulos

Lecturer of Liturgy, Department of Theology & Culture, Univerity College Logos, Tirana

Corespondence:

e-mail: gkeselop@gmail.com

Abstract

The current paper studies the unity in the resurrection narratives of the four evangelists on the basis of patristic thought and hermeneutics. All the Church fathers and ecclesiastical writers share the view that the four evangelists describe different visits to the tomb on the night of the resurrection.

Citation:

Keselopoulos G. . Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection? A patristic approach. Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(1): 3344. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18178.09921

Keywords:

Holy Scripture, patristic tradition, resurrection

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

Introduction

he current paper is the result of an extensive study of sermons and homilies on the resurrection and is based on my second doctoral thesis, entitled ‘The Easter message: A diachronic and synchronic examination of homiletics text’, which examined almost 150 homilies dating from the 2nd to the 21st century.

1. Four narratives relating to different chronological times on the same night In the gospels there are four different narratives relating to the visit of the myrrh-bearers and disciples of Christ on the night of the resurrection to the tomb where the body of the Lord was laid. These are: Matthew 28:1–10; Mark 16:1–10; Luke 24:1–12; and John 20:1–18. When we read and compare the details given by the four evangelists regarding the night of the resurrection as parallel texts, it is clear that there are contradictions and inconsistencies: each narrative presents a different number of myrrh-bearers and disciples, while only Mary Magdalene is shown by all four evangelists as a central figure in the events that take place. Moreover, both the number of angels and the time of the visit are different in the four narratives. This raises the following question for the general reader: are the four narratives consistent? During the course of this study of the resurrection message, eight texts dating from the 2nd to the 14th century were identified. These analyse the unity and discrepancies between the four gospel narratives of the resurrection. They are the following: 1. Eusebius of Caesarea (265–340 AD), To Marinus (PG 22, 937–958), 2. Gregory of Nyssa (335–395 AD), Treatise II on the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (PG 46, 628–652), 3. John Chrysostom (c.349–407 AD), On the myrrh-bearing women (PG 59, 635–644), 4. Anastasius of Sinai, Patriarch of Antioch (period of office 599–609 AD), Do the four evangelists agree on Christ’s resurrection or not? (PG 89, 809–813), 5. Theophanes Kerameus (1129–1152 AD), Homily 29: On the second matins gospel (PG 132, 617–629), 6. Theophanes Kerameus, Homily 31: On the fourth matins gospel (PG 132, 34

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

641–648), 7. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359 AD), Homily 18: On the Sunday of the Myrrh-bearers and that the Mother of God was first to see the risen Lord (PG 151, 236–243), 8. Chrysanthus of Jerusalem (period of office 1707–1713 AD, 1663–1731 AD), On Easter Sunday (Chrysanthus of Jerusalem 1734 pp. 100–108). We could also add the text of Hesychius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d.433), Treatise III: On the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and that the evangelists did not contradict one another but related the events of the resurrection of Emmanuel differently (PG 93, 1452), from which only the title survives. All of these texts follow the same line of argument, that the narratives relate to different points in time of the same night and complement one another1. The narratives present different figures and a different number of angels; Mary Magdalene is the only figure to play a central role in all four accounts. Current biblical scholarship adopts a stance that is distinct from patristic tradition, viewing the resurrection narratives as parallel texts or stories that contradict one another (Dunn J. 2003, especially chapter 18; Moloney F. J. 2013). The events of the narratives are presented chronologically in Table 1, together with the participants.

1 The full title of the texts of Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom confirm the above remarks: Περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ὅτι κατὰ μηδὲν ἀλλήλοις ἐναντιωθέντες οἱ εὐαγγελισταί, διαφόρως τὰ συμβεβηκότα τῇ ἀναστάσει τοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ ἱστόρησαν (Gregory of Nyssa, PG 46, 628); Εἰς τὰς μυροφόρους γυναῖκας· καὶ ὅτι οὐδεμία διαφωνία οὐδὲ ἐναντίωσις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς εὑρίσκεται περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 635), who also states in his text: “Φέρε δὴ τῆς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν ἱστορίας εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραχέα διαλεχθῶμεν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ ἀγάπῃ, καὶ δείξωμεν ὅτι οὐδεμία διαφωνία, οὐδὲ ἐναντίωσις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς εὑρίσκεται περὶ αὐτῆς.” (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 635). Theophanes Kerameus writes: “τὰς διαφόρους δὲ τῶν γυναικῶν εἰς τὸν τάφον ἐπιφοιτήσεις ἀνὰ μέρος ἕκαστος ἐφηγήσατο.” (Theophanes Kerameus, PG 132, 620). Moreover, the excerpt from Gregory Palamas is also characteristic:: “ἐπειδήπερ, ὡς ἔφην, αἱ Μυροφόροι πολλαί τε ἦσαν, καὶ οὐχ ἅπαξ, ἀλλὰ καὶ δὶς καὶ τρὶς ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον, σὺν ἀλλήλαις μὲν, οὐχὶ ταῖς αὐταῖς δὲ, καὶ κατὰ τὸν ὄρθρον μὲν πᾶσαι, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ χρόνον ἐπ’ ἀκριβείας... Ἕκαστος οὖν τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν, μίαν ἔστιν ὧν προσέλευσιν εἰπών, τὰς ἄλλας παρῆκεν.” (Gregory Palamas, PG 151, 241Α).

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

Table 1 A chronological sequence of the gospel passages on the resurrection

Gospel passages in chronological order

1. Matthew 28:1–10

Time of arrival at the tomb

Participants

‘In the end of the Sabbath’: Mary very late on Saturday, at Magdalene and Mary, the end of the week; in the the Mother of God. early hours of Sunday morning.

Angels

One angel who brings about an earthquake and rolls away the stone.

Two angels The stone has Mary Magdalene, already been Joanna, Mary, rolled away the mother and inside of James, and the tomb others. Peter there are (goes alone to ‘two men… in shining the tomb). garments’.

2. Luke 24:1–12

‘On the first day of the week, very early in the morning’: long before sunrise.

3. John 20:1–18

‘The first day Mary of the week… Magdalene, early, when it Peter, and way yet dark’: John go the on Saturday tomb and m o r n i n g , enter inside; when it was they see that it still dark. is empty.

4. Mark 16:1–10

‘Very early in the morning the first day of the week… at the rising of the sun’: it is now day.

Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome.

Appearance of the resurrected Christ The risen Christ appears to the two women and greets them, saying, ‘Rejoice’. They worship him and touch his feet.

In this narrative Jesus does not appear to the myrrh-bearers; he appears on the way to Emmaus.

Mary Magdalene sees Mary Jesus for the Magdalene second time and sees ‘two mistakes him angels in for the gardener. white sitting’. Christ says to her: ‘Touch me not’. Here only Jesus’ appearance An angel: ‘a to Mary young man Magdalene is sitting on the related; we do right side, not know if clothed in a it is the third long white appearance garment’. or one of the earlier two appearances.

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

2. A detailed account of events according to John Chrysostom John Chrysostom provides the most detailed description of the events of the night of the resurrection, as though observing firsthand. The full title of his work highlights the objective of his text: On the myrrh-bearing women and on the absence of disagreement or contradiction among the evangelists regarding the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ2. In the introduction he remarks that other Fathers of the Church had previously touched on this topic3, as noted above. In this homily John Chrysostom attempts to present the chronological sequence of events according to the evangelists. He begins with the account of the Friday on which Christ died on the cross. He continues with the Saturday on which the disciples rested in accordance with Mosaic law, while Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, and some other women had gone to buy perfumes so that they could anoint Jesus’ body on the following day (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 635). Matthew’s narrative (Mt. 28:1–10) presents the earliest events relating to the resurrection. The phrase ‘in the end of the sabbath’ means, according to John Chrysostom, very late on Saturday or in other words in the early hours of Sunday morning4. The participants in this event are Mary, mother of James (ie the Theotokos, mother of James, the Lord’s brother) and Mary Magdalene. As regards Mary, the Mother of God, John Chrysostom notes that she could not wait for the other women and left to go first to Christ’s tomb. He singles out Mary Magdalene as a woman of distinction; she was, in fact, the only person to be mentioned in the narratives of all four evangelists5. When the 2 He also notes in the first lines of his work: “Φέρε δὴ τῆς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν ἱστορίας εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βραχέα διαλεχθῶμεν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ ἀγάπῃ, καὶ δείξωμεν ὅτι οὐδεμία διαφωνία, οὐδὲ ἐναντίωσις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς εὑρίσκεται περὶ αὐτῆς” (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 635). 3 “Οἱ δὲ ἅγιοι Πατέρες ἡμῶν βραχεῖ λόγῳ διέλυσαν τὴν ἐκείνων ἄνοιαν ...” (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 635). 4 “Ἀμέλει τινὲς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν, Ὀψὲ Σαββάτων, ἔχουσιν, ὡς εἰώθαμεν λέγειν, ὀψὲ τῆς ὥρας, ὀψὲ τοῦ καιροῦ. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἑσπέρᾳ εὐθὺς τοῦ σαββάτου, ἀλλ’ ὀψίας, ἤτοι ὀψὲ σαββάτων. Σημαίνει δὲ τὸ μεσονύκτιον, ἢ καὶ ἔτι βραχύ. Πόθεν δῆλον; Ἐκ τοῦ δεῖν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν αὐτοῦ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι, τουτέστι, τῇ ἁγίᾳ Κυριακῇ.” (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 637). 5 “Ἡ οὖν ἁγία Παρθένος καὶ Θεοτόκος Μαρία ὀδυνωμένη μᾶλλον ἁπάντων, σύνδρομον αὐτῇ περὶ τὴν σπουδὴν εὑροῦσα Μαρίαν τὴν Μαγδαληνὴν (σπουδαιοτάτη δὲ αὕτη ἡ γυνὴ, ὅθεν καὶ παρὰ τοῖς τέσσαρσι τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν μνημονεύεται) ἦλθεν εὐθὺς μετὰ τὸ μεσονύκτιον, ἤγουν ὀψίας σαββάτων, εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον...” (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 637).

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

two women reached and entered the tomb, according to Matthew’s account of events as analysed by John Chrysostom, there was a great earthquake and an angel rolled back the stone that sealed the tomb and sat on it. However, the author clarifies that this was not the moment of the resurrection; Christ had already risen and his body had passed through the stone, just as he later passed through closed doors to meet his disciples6. The angel announced Christ’s resurrection to them and Christ himself then appeared to the two women and greeted them, saying ‘rejoice’. The two women fell at the feet of the resurrected Christ. He exhorted them not to be afraid but to tell the other disciples to go to Galilee where they would meet him. Matthew’s account of the resurrection ends at this point (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 637–638). The Theotokos and Mary Magdalene recounted events to the disciples but the latter were not persuaded. The Theotokos was fully persuaded of what she had seen though, as a result of her humility, she made no effort to convince them. She thus withdrew and played no part in what followed7. However, Mary Magdalene began to have doubts about what had happened as a result of the unbelief of the disciples, who regarded her words as figments of her imagination, stemming from her grief. She therefore prepared to go once more to the tomb with other women to confirm her earlier experience (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 638). It is at this point that Luke’s narrative begins. The events he relates take place ‘very early in the morning’, long before sunrise. The women who visited the tomb for the second time found the stone rolled away; Christ’s body was not inside. They did, however, find two men in shining garments who confirmed that Christ had risen. When the women returned, they informed the disciples who again were not persuaded. Then Peter ran alone to the tomb and saw Jesus’ burial cloths but he was afraid to enter the tomb (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 638–639). Mary Magdalene could not bear the disciples’ lack of faith and therefore tried to persuade the two most ardent, Peter and John. It is here that the third resurrection narrative, that of John, begins (John 20: 1–18). Chronologically, 6 “Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ εὐαγγελιστής, ὅτι ἀποκυλισθέντος τοῦ λίθου τότε ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ τοῦ τάφου, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἀπεκύλισεν ὁ ἄγγελος τὸν λίθον, καὶ ἐκάθητο ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. Ὁ γὰρ Κύριος ἀφθαρσίᾳ λοιπὸν τὸ οἰκεῖον σῶμα, ὡς Θεός, διαλαμπρύνας, καὶ ὄντος τοῦ λίθου εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον ἐξῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν.” (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 637). 7 “Ἐκείνη δὲ ἡ καθαρὰ καὶ λελαμπρυσμένη ψυχὴ τῆς Παρθένου, πεπεισμένη ἀκριβῶς, οἷς εἶδε καὶ ἐψηλάφησεν, ἔμεινεν ἐφ’ ἑαυτῇ, μηδὲν πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς πλέον φιλονεικήσασα· μηκέτι δὲ ἀπελθοῦσα πρὸς τὸ μνημεῖον, ἀνενδοιάστως τοῖς ὁραθεῖσιν αὐτὴ πεποιθυῖα.” ( John Chrysostom, PG 59, 638).

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

this takes place ‘early, when it was yet dark’ (John 20:1). In her attempt to persuade the two disciples, Mary Magdalen did not state explicitly that Christ was risen but told them that someone had taken away Christ’s body from the tomb and that she did not know where they had laid him. John Chrysostom considers that Mary Magdalen’s words are indicative of her wisdom and remarks: ‘behold, the woman’s wisdom’. Given that the disciples could not be convinced of the supernatural event, at least they would be convinced by the absence of Christ’s body in the tomb. Although Peter had gone earlier, he was uncertain about what he had seen because of his fear and the darkness of night. Thus Mary Magdalene, Peter, and John arrived at the tomb (for the third, second, and first time respectively) and realized that it was empty. The two men departed while Mary Magdalene remained and wept at the tomb. Two angels, who were dressed in white and were sitting on either side of the tomb, then appeared to her and asked her why she was weeping and what she was seeking. She replied that they had taken the Lord and she did not know where they had laid him. Then another man, whom she thought to be the gardener, appeared to her in the place where he was crucified. Christ in his risen body is seen only by those whom he chooses. He repeated the question previously asked by the two angels and she replied as before, adding the question: ‘Did you take his body?’ Mary Magdalene’s faith was shaken as a result of the lack of faith of the other disciples. The Lord, who knows the hearts of men, saw her lack of faith and addressed her by name reprovingly. She recognized Christ’s voice and attempted to clasp his feet for the second time, but Christ pushed her away, saying ‘Touch me not’. The first time he allowed his mother and Mary Magdalene to touch him, so that they would have further proof of his resurrection. However, the second time Mary Magdalene was rebuked for her lack of faith. Christ wished to stress through his subsequent words to Mary Magdalene that he is not a mere man but God. He therefore says, ‘Go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.’ On hearing these words Mary Magdalene returned to the disciples and this time did not say that they had taken Jesus’ body but assured them that she had seen the Lord (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 639–641). The final resurrection narrative is that of Mark (Mark 16:1–11), which takes place ‘at the rising of the sun’. Here, Mary Magdalene, together with other women who had prepared the ointments from the previous day, walked to Christ’s tomb. John Chrysostom notes that Mary Magdalene was happy on this fourth visit to the tomb and guided the other women. On this occasion 39

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

the myrrh-bearers met Jesus as well, while this was the third time that Mary Magdalene saw him (John Chrysostom, PG 59, 641).

3. The Theotokos was the first to see the risen Christ A view that is seen for the first time in the ninth century and is developed mainly by Gregory Palamas is that the Theotokos was the first to learn of the resurrection and meet Christ. George of Nicomedia, a ninth century author, was the first to advance this view in his treatise entitled Treatise on the presence of the pure Virgin at the tomb and thanksgiving on the most glorious resurrection (PG 100, 1489–1504), stressing that while all the others had gone to sleep, she was ablaze with love for Jesus and, inspired by a spirit of bravery, did not close her eyes to sleep8, but awaited his resurrection. According to this author, the Theotokos was by rights the first to see her risen son, before the myrrh-bearers, apostles or even the angels9, despite the various references in the Gospels to the large number of myrrh-bearers. A few centuries later Gregory Palamas emphatically underlies that the Theotokos was the first of all the myrrh-bearers to see the risen Lord, since she first learned of the resurrection: ‘I consider that that life-giving tomb first opened for her’. He adds that the Archangel Gabriel himself, who had brought tidings of her conception, now announces the resurrection (Gregory Palamas, PG 151, 241CD). Indeed, he stresses that the evangelists conceal this fact, to avoid arousing suspicions among the unbelievers that the person who attest8 “Αὕτη γὰρ μόνη, τῶν ἁπάντων ὑποχωρησάντων, ἅτε μόνη τῷ σφοδρῷ τῶν σπλάχνων διαφλεγομένη πυρί, καὶ τῆς πίστεως, καὶ ἀνδρείας ἀμετατρέπτῳ πεπηγυῖα παρεκάθη τότε καὶ διεκαρτέρει, καὶ ἀκοίμητα ἀμφότερα τὰ ὄμματα διετήρει.” (George of Nicomedia, PG 100, 1496). 9 “Δι’ οὖ μοι δοκεῖ, καὶ τῆς θείας ἐξαναστάσεως αὐτῇ πρώτῃ δεδόσθαι τὰ εὐαγγέλια· καὶ ὡς ἐνῆν τῆς ἀῤῥήτου οἰκονομίας κατατρυφῆσαι καὶ θέας, καὶ λαμπρότητος τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Μητρί τε γὰρ οὔσῃ, καὶ μόνῃ τὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐμπεπιστευμένῃ μυστήρια, μόνῃ καὶ τὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ὁ Δεσπότης καθυποδείκνυσι παράδοξα· οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἀποστόλους καὶ μυροφόρους, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀγγελικὴν καὶ νοερὰν μύησιν.” (George of Nicomedia, PG 100, 1496). Elsewhere he notes: “τῇ δὲ Μητρὶ, μυστικώτερόν τε καὶ οἰκειότερον ἀνακαλύπτεται ... Πρώτην τοίνυν καὶ τρανοτέρως τὰ τῆς θείας ἐγέρσεως οἱ κήρυκες εἰδότες μεμνημένην τὴν Μητέρα.” (George of Nicomedia, PG 100, 1497). See also: “Οὕτω τῇ θεολόγῳ καὶ μυροφόρῳ Παρθένῳ, καὶ ἀνυμνούσῃ, καὶ ἱκετευούσῃ πρώτῃ τὴν τῆς ἀναστάσεως ὁ Υἱὸς καθυποδείκνυσι λαμπρότητα, καὶ ὡς ἐνῆν μυήσασθαι, καὶ τιμῆσαι Μητέρα, τῇ τῆς οἰκείας ἐμφανείας προτιμᾷ παρουσίᾳ. ... Ἡ γὰρ δὴ τεκοῦσα, καὶ πρὸ τῆς νοερᾶς τῶν ἀγγέλων μυήσεως, τὰ τοῦ τεχθέντος καθορᾷ μυστήρια. Ἁπάντων γὰρ ὑπερφλεγομένη τῷ πόθῳ, καὶ ὑπεραθλοῦσα, καὶ μόνη διακαρτεροῦσα, πρώτη καὶ τῶν κατ’ ἀξίαν τυγχάνει δωρεῶν. Ἔδει γὰρ πρώτην τὴν παγκόσμιον ὑποδέξασθαι χαρὰν, τὴν τοῦ πληρώματος ἡμῖν αἰτίαν τῆς τοιαύτης ὀφθεῖσαν εὐφροσύνης.” (George of Nicomedia,PG 100, 1500C).

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

ed the resurrection was one of Christ’s relatives10. He considers that the Theotokos was the only person to believe at once, without doubts, and that she was filled with joy, in contrast to the fear and ecstasy that overcame the other myrrh-bearers11.

Conclusion In light of the above it is clear that all the authors adopt the same stance, arguing that the evangelists’ resurrection narratives describe different visits to the tomb on the night of the resurrection and are therefore not contradictory but rather complementary. Moreover, the view that the Theotokos was first to see the risen Christ emerges after the ninth century. The hermeneutical basis of Orthodox theology stems from a combination of scripture, patristic theology and worship (lex orandi – lex credendi)12. It is in this way, through the prism of worship and patristic theology, that we can understand the way in which scripture is received and interpreted by the Church. This is expressed by Professor Karavidopoulos, who notes: ‘A significant portion of the New Testament, the Gospels which are its core, is permanently kept on the altar of every Orthodox church. From the altar the priest takes the text, in liturgical use known as a unified book “The Holy Gospel”, in order to read it in the liturgical gathering of the faithful. And he returns it to the altar after the reading. This indicates the special position that the Word of God has in the Orthodox Church as well as the close relationship which exists between the Holy Scriptures and the Church. The Church does not merely keep its Scriptures and read them to its faithful but it interprets them in a responsible manner throughout the centuries’ (Karavidopoulos 1997). 10 The text notes characteristically: “Τὸ γὰρ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναστάσεως εὐαγγέλιον πρώτη πάντων ἀνθρώπων, καθάπερ καὶ προσῆκον ὑπῆρχε καὶ δίκαιον, ἡ Θεοτόκος παρὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἐδέξατο, καὶ αὕτη τοῦτον ἀναστάντα πρὸ πάντων εἶδε, καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ θείας ὁμιλίας ἀπήλαυσε, καὶ οὐκ εἶδεν ὀφθαλμοῖς μόνον αὐτόν, καὶ αὐτήκοος αὐτοῦ γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ χερσὶν ἥψατο πρώτη καὶ μόνη τῶν ἀχράντων φανερῶς οὐ λέγωσι, μὴ θέλοντες τὴν μητέρα προφέρειν εἰς μαρτυρίαν, ἵνα μὴ τοῖς ἀπίστοις ὑποψίας ἀφορμὴν δῶσιν.” (Gregory Palamas, Homily 18, PG 151, 237D). 11 “...τὴν δὲ Θεομήτορα τὴν μεγάλην κτήσασθαι χαράν, τὰ παρὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου συνεῖσαν, καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς γενομένην ὅλην, ὡς κεκαθαρμένην ἄκρως, καὶ κεχαριτωμένην θείως, καὶ διὰ πάντων βεβαίως τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ γνωρίσασαν, καὶ τῷ ἀρχαγγέλῳ πιστεύσασαν, ἐπεὶ καὶ πιστὸς οὗτος ἐκ πολλοῦ ταύτῃ διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐφάνη.” (Gregory Palamas, PG 151, 244). 12 See “My contention is that for the Orthodox theology, essentially different in this from Western theology, the sui generis hermeneutical foundation is to be found in the lex orandi: the epiphany and the experience by the Church of herself with our Tradition, that the scripture is interpreted “by the Church,” and that the Fathers are witnesses of the catholic faith of the Church.” (Schmemann 1969 p. 221).

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

ÂŠ2020 Keselopoulos

This study of the texts highlights the agreement within the patristic tradition that Christ had already risen and passed with his body through the stone that sealed the tomb, without this needing to be rolled back. Fundamentally, there is no contradiction between the evangelists. The existence of a considerable number of texts on the issue reflects contemporary interest in the gospel, while the absence of a homily of this kind from the fifteenth century onwards may be considered to indicate the reverse.

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

References Primary sources Anastasius of Sinai, Patriarch of Antioch (period of office 599–609 AD), Do the four evangelists agree on Christ’s resurrection or not? (PG 89, 809–813). Chrysanthus of Jerusalem, On Easter Sunday (Chrysanthus of Jerusalem 1734 pp. 100–108). Chrysanthus of Jerusalem (1734), Ὁμιλίαι ὀλίγαι ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν εὑρεθεῖσαι, νῦν πρῶτον τύποις ἐκδοθεῖσαι, σπουδῇ καὶ δαπάνῃ τοῦ Μακαριωτάτου καὶ ἁγιωτάτου Πατριάρχου τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων κυρίου κυρίου Μελετίου, at the Press of Antonio Bortoli, Venice. Eusebius of Caesarea (265–340 AD), To Marinus (PG 22, 937–958). John Chrysostom (c.349–407 AD), On the myrrh-bearing women (PG 59, 635–644). George of Nicomedia, Treatise on the presence of the pure Virgin at the tomb and thanksgiving on the most glorious resurrection (PG 100, 1489–1504). Gregory of Nyssa (335–395 AD), Treatise II on the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ (PG 46, 628–652). Gregory Palamas (1296–1359 AD), Homily 18: On the Sunday of the Myrrh-bearers and that the Mother of God was first to see the risen Lord (PG 151, 236–243). PG = J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca. Theophanes Kerameus, Homily 29: On the second matins gospel (PG 132, 617– 629). Theophanes Kerameus, Homily 31: On the fourth matins gospel, PG 132, 641– 648).

Secondary sources Dunn James D. G. (2003), Jesus Remembered, Christianity in the making vol 1, Michigan USA/ Cambridge U.K. Καραβιδόπουλου Ιω. (2000), Βιβλικές Μελέτες Β΄, (= Βιβλική Βιβλιοθήκη 16) Θεσσαλονίκη. Moloney F. J. (2013), The Resurrection of the Messiah: A Narrative Commen43

Unity or diversity in the four gospel narratives of the resurrection?

tary on the Resurrection Accounts in the Four Gospels, Paulist Press. Schmemann Al. (1969), “Liturgical Theology, Theology of Liturgy and Liturgical Reform”, SVTQ 13 (19694) 217-224.

3 From a Christological controversy to an Iconoclastic one:

Biblical dicta as interpreted by the Councils of Hieria (754) and of Nicaea II (787)

Konstantinos Georgiadis

Adjunct Lecturer of Dogmatics, Department of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Corespondence:

e-mail: konigeorg@gmail.com

Abstract

nition of Hieria. Perhaps this was the essential historical cause of the Byzantine Iconoclasm. Nevertheless, Fathers of the Nicaea II, based on their biblical hermeneutics together with their philological, historical and theological reasoning, prove that both the Old and the New Israel have not only exactly the same theological and so iconological background but also a similar tradition of cult images, even according to the Second of the Ten Commandments.

How true is that the Word of God incarnated? If he really became flesh, and dwelt among us, for our sake, then, without losing his divinity, he has all properties of the human nature, even more, the capability of being circumscribed in the created world, for example through the Holy Icons. But what happens to his flesh as well as to his consubstantial flesh of the humankind after the Resurrection? Also, what the Greek term “σὰρξ” really means in the context of the New Testament? Does it always mean the “human nature” or sometimes in crucial Christological Pauline dicta such those of 2 Cor. 5:16 and Philip. 3:21 refers only to the flesh’s perishability and mortality, which is overcome after the Resurrection of Christ? However, what matters most is a specific misinterpretation of such biblical terms, leading to a docetic Christology explicitly expressed in the Defi-

Keywords:

Second Commandment, Pauline theology, Christology, Iconology.

Citation:

Georgiadis K. From a Christological controversy to an Iconoclastic one: Biblical dicta as interpreted by the Councils of Hieria (754) and of Nicaea II (787). Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(1): 45-56. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27195.85289 45

he systematic compiling of biblical florilegia or else anthologies (“ἀνθολόγια”) and of patristic and conciliar dicta (“χρήσεις”) as the classic aphorisms of a unified ecclesiastical tradition constituted the standard method of theological expression for councils just as much as for individual fathers of the Church, and even for heretics of the Late-antique and Byzantine period. Indeed, the doctrine of sola Scriptura appears for the first time just after the Protestant Reformation. Consequently, we are today in a position to perceive that the indissoluble unity between the prophets, apostles and fathers of the Church was never called into question as a theological principle during the Middle Ages, even during theological controversies. In this context, the Iconoclasts through their Council of Hieria (754), in employing an anthology of biblical and 8 patristic excerpts, present themselves as the sole guardians of the genuine ecclesiastical tradition (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 70610-73218). They begin by affirming each Definition or else Horos (“Ὅρος”) of all previous councils, then moving on to anathematize all heresies from Arianism to Monothelitism (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 606177828). Their case offers yet more proof that heresy is not a shared ideological deviation. Rather, as a hardening of the heart and a simultaneous perversion of the mind (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 6189-11) as well as against the True Reason (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 6107. 66825. 7648), heresy presents a broader problem of conscience that ensnares even fundamentalists who protest their exclusive loyalty to Church tradition. It is therefore evident that either the Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) or their opponents, the Iconoclasts of the Council of Hieria (754), refer primarily to the Bible. What issue is put firstly under investigation is the antiquity of cult images as an unchangeable tradition going back in history to reach even the times of Moses. The Iconoclasts rely mainly on the Second of the Ten Commandments (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 69616-19. Exod. 20:4. Deut. 4:15: “οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον, οὐδέ παντὸς ὁμοίωμα, ὅσα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς. οὐ προσκυνήσεις αὐτοῖς, οὐδὲ μὴ λατρεύσεις αὐτοῖς/ Thou shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth”) in a controversy where the Iconophiles, besides their different interpretation of this Commandment, re46

fer to a series of biblical and patristic excerpts with emphasis on the Apostle Paul. What matters most is not two diametrically opposed theologies reflecting on analogous iconological tendencies and so iconographic traditions. It is the existence and veneration of Holy Icons throughout the history of the Old and the New Israel’s worship, including all the prophets and the apostles. If this tradition remains exactly the same from Moses to the iconophile Fathers, then we have an indication of an also unchangeable theological and so iconological background. So, the question is not only whether iconoclastic or at least iconophobic tendencies were being developed in the church body before the 7th Ecumenical Council, but if they were really compatible to theology of either the Church Fathers or of the Apostles, approaching even the era of the Prophets and Patriarchs. Based on the dominant to date interpretation of the Second Commandment, Iconoclasts in the line of the Masoretic tradition are sure that the Israelites at Mount Sinai were strictly warned by Moses to neither adopt nor adapt any of the religious practices of the peoples around them. Supposedly, Israelites were not allowed to construct and venerate any handmade image of God due to its materiality, as being unrelated to God’s immaterial reality. But is this real, although as an issue it is discussed about the problems it creates (Raphael 2009; Barton 2004; Calvin 2004; Polish 2007)? On the other side, Iconophile Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council take a completely different view based on their philological and historical evidence and research. The first distinction to be made is between the identity of God that is worshipped and the way that God is worshipped. To be more precise, what is really prohibited by the 2nd Commandment is not God’s handmade images themselves but the divine archetype (“θεῖον ἀρχέτυπον”) they depict, if it is a false deity and not the true God. This scientific certainty of the Iconophile Fathers is based on a reasoning expressed or implied in the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council, as follows: 1. In the Septuagint Text of the Old Testament what is prohibited according to the Second Commandment is described by the Greek term “εἴδωλον”. Regardless of whether this crucial Greek term is translated only as image into modern languages, affected directly or indirectly by the corresponding term of the Masoretic Text, it has a similar and at the same time a different meaning to its synonym “εἰκών”. In ancient Greek, both “εἴδωλον” and “εἰκὼν” mean the depiction of the world through material art, from which God is supposed to be excluded. How47

ever, while “εἴδωλον” refers to a non-existed imagined world or fake likeness (“σκιώδες ὁμοίωμα”, in Suidae Lexicon, 329; Etymologicon Magnum, 29558) and so to any false deity, “εἰκὼν” means the image which represents the true reality (Suidae Lexicon, 331), even the true God as far as it is incarnated in the creation and the history of humanity. 2. This is the reason why the same unchanging iconology applies to both the Old and the New Israel: since a real person or fact is believed to reveal the true God and so it is adopted as God’s Holy Icon, it can be depicted through the painting just as it appeared to humanity. Even before the incarnation of God, Israelites went so far as to portray angels on sacred relics and on the walls of the Temple of Jerusalem and of Synagogues. Fathers of the 7th Ecumenical Council knew even more this Truth in Paintings (Barber 1997, 1021-1022, 1035), based on crucial Old and New Testament verses (Exod. 25:17-22; Num. 7:88-89; Ez. 41:1,16-20, in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Quarta ACO II.3.2, 28624-2882; Πρὸς τοὺς διαβάλλοντας τὰς ἁγίας εἰκόνας.3.84, 1781-20) centered on Apostle Paul (Hebr. 9: 1-5, in ACO II.3.2, 284232882). “The Old Testament Tabernacle was an artistic masterpiece and far from being devoid of images. For the construction of the Tabernacle God gave Moses instructions pertaining to the making of the ark of the covenant and the curtains of the Tabernacle. In light of the prohibition against the making of graven images it is something of a surprise to read that God instructed Moses to make two golden cherubim and to place these above the cover of the ark of the covenant” (Arakaki 2011). What the descendants of these ancient Israelites did under the influence of an indefinable Aniconism during Late Antiquity is another matter. 3. This uninterrupted iconographical tradition is the best proof of an also uninterrupted iconology and so theology through time, from the Prophets and Patriarchs to the Apostles and Fathers, as being clearly implied in many Bible verses. On this basis, the blame of idolatry is really concerned with whether one is pursuing a false god or the true God. The fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council perceived that certain passages from the letters of the apostle Paul could be misinterpreted in such a way as to lead to iconoclasm. This is discussed especially in the most important and extensive of their conciliar Acts— in the sixth session, where the anthology of biblical and patristic dicta from the iconoclastic council in Hieria is examined—while Nikephoros of Constantinople also analyzes the issue in his 48

“Ἀντίῤῥησις καὶ ἀνασκευὴ τῶν Εὐσεβίου καὶ Ἐπιφανίδου λόγων” (Spicilegium Solesmense, Nicephori Antirrhetica, 371-504). The crux of the problem related to two passages: 1) 2 Cor. 5:16: “εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν/ even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer” (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 69820-23. 70029-32); and 2) Philip. 3:21: “ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸ σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ/ who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 6989. 7042-5), used by Iconoclasts in a sense that, if Christ loses his human flesh after his Resurrection, so does his consubstantial mankind, especially the Saints, with the result that there is no material nature, nothing describable through the Holy Icons, besides the immaterial and so indescribable divine nature. In this case, the particular cause of scandal was to be found in the semantic content of the term flesh (“σάρξ”) as it appears in 2 Cor. 5:16, a usage already present in John 1:14: “Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν/ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”. Thus, it is not only undoubted that the Iconoclastic controversy derives from the prior Christological one, an issue that has already been examined in great depth through an extensive bibliography (Georgiadis 2011; 2013; Pallis 2015; 2017), but also that something odd is going on in the doctrine of the resurrected flesh of Christ. After seven centuries, from the time Paul authored his letters up to the council of Hieria (754), a misinterpretation of 2 Cor. 5:16—Manichaean or Monophysite in nature—makes its appearance in the writings of ecclesiastical authors, most notably in Epistula ad Constantiam Augustam (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 73024 – 73216), dubiously attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea (Sode and Speck 2004, 130-34). Through such excerpts this misconception of the Orthodox Christology passes into the Iconoclasts, despite the intervening biblical exegesis of both authoritative Church fathers, first and foremost Cyril of Alexandria, and of councils, mainly Ephesus and Chalcedon. This is not to say that the same passage is not used rather autonomously, with a particularly prominent position among the iconoclastic anthology of Hieria. 49

Perhaps the attempt to locate the causes of Iconoclasm exclusively in a mistaken reading of biblical texts, indeed of Paul’s Christology, gives the impression of a rash, arbitrary oversimplification. This is true of current Scholars, who have exhaustively analyzed the issue from all perspectives of culture, politics, philosophy and religion, focusing finally on Iconoclasm’s essential sine qua non primary, historical cause. However, the explanation of historical actions with reference to the theological orientation of actors who have an admittedly vibrant religious life—in other words, the explanation of an ecclesiology dependent upon its analogous theology—would turn to the way in which the Scriptures were being read. The voice of the Gospel, which is to say the historically reliable witness of the apostles concerning the incarnate God the Word, together with their correct faith as we find it in the first baptismal creeds, precedes both conciliar and patristic writings and doctrines, developing them. Respecting this ultimate theological reference point and recognizing its indissoluble continuity in the fathers and councils, the iconoclasts attempt to establish their doctrine against the holy icons on the authority of the apostles, especially Paul. Nevertheless, behind any reading of Scripture indisputable lies a particular philosophical and theological background. In this case, the prominent background seems to be the dualism of Manicheanism, foreign to Greek thought. It is to be found throughout both Eusebius’ and the iconoclasts’ thought— even if unconscious on their part—thus excluding the possibility of authentic biblical exegesis. This particular Christological problem does not solely involve the type or completeness of God the Word’s flesh, nor the manner in which it is united with his godhead, regardless of how this is understood. Those issues have already arisen due to the misinterpretation of the crucial Gospel passage John 1:14: “Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν/ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”. Besides the fact that Nikephoros of Constantinople associates Eusebius’ interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:16 generally with Docetic Christology (Spicilegium Solesmense, Nicephori Antirrhetica, 396-397, 405-409), based apparently on Gnosticism and surely not on the Greek philosophical background (Matsoukas 1989, 347-60; Zografidis 1997, 83), the issue is rather focused on the time following the Resurrection. It is at this point that Eusebius believes that whatever flesh God the Word had is simply erased. In other words, according to Eusebius’ allegedly authentic reading of Paul, the Resurrection of the shadowy flesh, separate from divinity and lacking in either 50

soul or mind, is to be understood as a shift towards the nature of divinity. Within this Christological viewpoint, which exercised decisive influence upon the iconoclasts to the point of provoking their fury against the holy icons, all heresies are summarized. Arianism, Apollinarism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism are identical in a similar Christology, sharing the common denominator of Docetism or Manicheanism. This, of course, is the reason that the fathers of Nicaea criticize the iconoclasts for their simultaneous espousal of all of these varying and/or superficially opposing heretical movements. How else can the contradiction of accusing the iconoclasts both of Nestorianism and Monophysitism be explained? On the one hand, in Epistula ad Constantiam Augustam, with which the iconoclast anthology of Hieria culminates, it is explicitly expressed the complete shift of God the Word’s flesh after the Resurrection, amounting to the erasure of his human nature. On the other hand, is already perceived God the Word’s humanity as shadowy, with no soul and separate from his divinity. Moreover, in the Definition of Hieria we find God the Word described as uncircumscribable even after his incarnation, (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 7624-5) for which the fathers of Nicaea accuse them of idle words, calling them strange allegorists (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 76014). In any case, the 2 Cor. 5:16 is deployed as the primary biblical support of the view that God the Word’s humanity exists before the Resurrection, even if only in appearance. However, after the Resurrection it is completely erased, leaving only his divinity. According to Eusebius’ and the iconoclasts’ logic, there are two forms or natures of the incarnate God the Word, but conceived of as divided. At one and the same time, God the Word’s divine form is believed to be uncircumscribable because it is uncreated, while his human form is also believed to be uncircumscribable. Despite his human body’s passion—as a part of a contaminated and ephemeral material world—Eusebius and the Iconoclasts believe that God the Word cannot truly assume it as his own body. It is clear that this particular Christology leads directly to iconoclasm. With the belief that the humanity of the incarnate God the Word is shadowy, separate from his divinity and erased after the Resurrection, there is nothing left to depict as his holy form. The holy icons are left without thematic content. Simply, for both Eusebius and the iconoclasts the incarnate God the Word is uncircumscribable not only according to his divinity, but also to his flesh. Thus, any representation of him in an icon—much less the veneration of said 51

icon—would necessarily constitute idolatry. At this point the question that results, and has already been asked by the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, relates to the reason that the iconoclasts opposed icons even of saints. In other words, whereas the uncircumscribability of God the Word could find support in a confused understanding of the distinction between created and uncreated (which would naturally be perceived as one between contaminated and holy), how could the same be true of the entirely created nature of the saints? The answer is to be found in the word “σύμμορφον” (like) from Philip. 3:21: “ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸ σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ/ who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body”. This is the second passage from Paul’s letters, whose misinterpretation decisively influenced iconoclasm. The conjunction of Philip. 3:21 with 2 Cor. 5:16 will serve the iconoclasts as evidence that the created nature of the saints, like that of God the Word’s flesh after the Resurrection, will undergo the same shift towards the nature of divinity according to Cyril of Alexandria (Contra Synousiastas, in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 74225-29). In short, this false flesh of the departed saints, their historical form, cannot be visually represented and venerated in liturgical tradition since their humanity must be erased after the Resurrection. Quite apart from the Manichaean dualism prevalent in the iconoclasts’ thought as the essential reason for their opposition to the holy icons, would the misinterpretation of ecclesiastical texts, specifically the apostle Paul’s letters, be an equally sufficient cause for them? In other words, if the iconoclasts—who affirm the Definitions of all their previous ecumenical councils and also anathematize all heresies one by one—understood that their interpretation of scripture clashes with that of the fathers of the Church, would they remain insistent upon it? Clearly, the iconoclast leadership, which compiled the anthology of dicta and formulated the relevant argumentation employed at Hieria, departs from Church tradition either willingly or unwillingly. Another portion of the iconoclasts was likely carried away later on, and thus at Nicaea they justified their unwilling deviation and were forgiven. For this reason, the Seventh Ecumenical Council takes care to bring to their attention textual sources of authoritative fathers: the venerable Chrysostom, Athanasios the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, who specifically focus on the Pauline passages deployed by Eusebius of Caesarea and the council of Hieria. These fathers, among whom Cyril seems to respond particularly to the 52

like-minded followers of Eusebius in his Contra Synousiastas (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 74231-32), unanimously emphasize that in the passage from 2 Cor. 5:16 the word flesh refers exclusively to the passive nature of God the Word according to the following patristic citations: a) John Chrysostom, In Epist. 2 Cor., in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 7029-10: “Εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν. τί οὖν, εἰπέ μοι; τὴν σάρκα ἀπέθετο, καὶ νῦν οὐκ ἔστι μετὰ τοῦ σώματος; ἅπαγε. καὶ γὰρ καὶ νῦν ἐν σαρκί ἐστιν. οὗτος γὰρ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἀναληφθεὶς ἀφ’ ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, οὕτως ἐλεύσεται. ‘οὕτως’, πῶς; ἐν σαρκὶ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος. πῶς οὖν φησιν. ‘εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν’; ὅτι εἰ καὶ παθητὸν ἐγνώκαμεν τὸν Χριστὸν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι/ ‘Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer’. So what? Tell me. Did Christ expel his flesh and now is he without it? In no case, because even now he is in flesh. This Christ, just as he ascended from our world into heaven, he will come in the same way; “in the same way’, but how? In the flesh with human body. How then [as Apostle Paul says]? ‘Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer’; in other words, even though we regarded that Christ is subject to suffering [and corruption], we do not regard him so now”, and b) Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. In Epist. 2 Cor., in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 70221-26: “Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος καὶ ῥίζα τοῦ γένους ἐφάνη Δευτέρα – οὐ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἐξ Ἀδάμ, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἀμείνοσιν ἀσυγκρίτως νοουμένη καὶ ὑπάρχουσα –, μετεστοιχειώμεθα πρὸς ζωήν. οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὑπὸ θάνατον, ἀλλ’ ὑπ’ αὐτὸν τὸν τὰ πάντα ζωοποιοῦντα λόγον. καὶ οὐδείς ἐστιν ἔτι ἐν σαρκί, τουτέστιν ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ σαρκικῇ, ὅ ἐστιν ἡ φθορά/ Since the [One and] only begotten Son of the Father became human and appeared as a second root of the humanity–not like the first one from Adam, but incomparably understood and existing–, we are transfigured to life. We are not under death, but under the Word that gives life to everything. And no one is longer in flesh, which means the body weakness and corruption”. Thus, it only encompasses the weakeness of post-lapsarian human nature, which God the Word willingly assumes with his incarnation and redeems as 53

God, even though At other times in Scripture, the word “flesh” may signify common humankind and so mean “being in sin”, according to the statement of John Chrysostom: “ἐπὶ ἡμῶν μὲν γὰρ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, τὸ ἐν ἀμαρτίαις εἶναι. τὸ δὲ μὴ κατὰ σάρκα, τὸ μὴ ἐν ἀμαρτίαις εἶναι/ in us [that is in the humanity] ‘in flesh’ means ‘[living] in sin; ‘not being in flesh’ means ‘not living in sin’” (In Epist. 2 Cor., in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 70210-11). Thus, according to apostolic and patristic doctrine, after the Resurrection Christ puts off the passivity of his created, assumed flesh (“πρόσλημμα τῆς σαρκὸς”), not his human nature. He underwent death in the flesh (2 Cor. 5:16: “κατὰ σάρκα”), just as he is expected to come again in the flesh at his second coming (John Chrysostom, In Epist. 2 Cor., in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 70216-17; St. Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. In Epist. 2 Cor., in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 70231-33). Moreover, what God the Word enacts by economia as well as in truth in his assumed human nature—namely the assumption of passivity in his incarnation and his deliverance from it after the resurrection (Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 7022-3)—he has foreordained as a divine gift for Church’s saints who have become like him (John Chrysostom, In Epist. 2 Cor., in Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Actio Sexta ACO II.3.3, 70216-17). In other words, they are delivered from passivity while simultaneous receiving the divine gift of incorruption, which is given as a healing and deification of human nature, not as a shift in essence towards divinity as the Monophysite Christology of Iconoclasts would have it. However, the following statement gives the sure criterion to discern between the Monophysite doctrine of the Incarnation and the Christian Orthodox one: “πρέπει νὰ γίνει ἀντιδιαστολὴ μεταξὺ τῆς φθαρτότητας ὡς κτιστότητας, καὶ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ὡς κατὰ χάρη μετοχῆς στὸ ἄκτιστο καὶ οὐσιαστικῆς ἕνωσης τοῦ κτιστοῦ μὲ αὐτό, πράγμα ποὺ συμβαίνει στὴν κτιστὴ ἀνθρώπινη φύση τοῦ Χριστοῦ, / there must be made contradistinction among the perishability of the created world and the imperishability as communion with uncreated God, as fact applying to the created human nature of Christ” (Matsoukas 2003, 313).

References Sources Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Concilii Actiones I-III, ACO II.3.1, E. Lamberz (ed.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2008. Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Concilii Actiones IV-V, ACO II.3,2, E. Lamberz (ed.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2012. Concilium Universale Nicaenum Secundum, Concilii Actiones VI-VII, ACO II.3.3, E. Lamberz (ed.), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2016. Etymologicon Magnum, Th. Gaisford (ed.), Oxford 1848. Ἰωάννης Δαμασκηνός, Πρὸς τοὺς διαβάλλοντας τὰς ἁγίας εἰκόνας, Λόγοι Α΄, Β΄, Γ΄, CPG 8045. PG 94, 1232-1420. B. Kotter (ed.), Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, 3, PTS 17, Berlin 1975. Νικηφόρος ΚΠόλεως, Ἀντίῤῥησις καὶ ἀνασκευὴ τῶν Εὐσεβίου καὶ Ἐπιφανίδου λόγων, J. P. Pitra (ed.), Spicilegium Solesmense, Nicephori Antirrhetica, 1, Paris 1862, repr. Graz 1962, 371-504. Suidae Lexicon, Im. Bekkeri (ed.), Berolini 1854.

Literature Arakaki, Robert. 2011. “The Biblical Basis for Icons.” Reformed Bridge, July 12, 2011. Αccessed June 20, 2020. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/is-there-a-biblical-basis-for-icons. Barber, Charles. 1997. “The Truth in Painting: Iconoclasm and Identity in Early-Medieval Art.” Speculum 72, no 4: 1019-36. Barton, John. 2004. “The second commandment: ‘The work of human hands’ (Psalm 115:4): idolatry in the Old Testament.” In Brown, W. P. (ed.), The Ten commandments: The reciprocity of faithfulness. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Calvin, John. 2004. “On the law and the commandments.” In Brown, W. P. (ed.), The Ten commandments: The reciprocity of faithfulness. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Carnes, Natalie. 2017. Image and Presence: A Christological Reflection on Iconoclasm and Iconophilia, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. 55

Georgiadis, Konstantinos. 2011. “Πηγὲς καὶ Θεολογία τῆς Ζ΄ Οἰκουμενικῆς Συνόδου.” PhD diss., Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. http://thesis.ekt.gr/ thesisBookReader/id/23794#page/1/mode/2up -------- 2013. “Τὸ φιλοσοφικὸ καὶ θεολογικὸ ὑπόβαθρο τῆς ὀρθόδοξης εἰκονολογίας.” ΚΟΣΜΟΣ/COSMOS 2: 165-243. http://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/ kosmos/article/view/5417/0. Matsoukas, Nikos. 72003. Δογματικὴ καὶ Συμβολικὴ Θεολογία Β´. Ἔκθεση τῆς ὀρθόδοξης πίστης, ΦΘΒ 3, Θεσσαλονίκη: Π. Πουρναρᾶ. -------- 1989. “Ἱστορικὲς καὶ Θεολογικὲς προϋποθέσεις εἰκονοφίλων καὶ εἰκονομάχων.” In Ἀναφορὰ εἰς μνήμην Μητροπολίτου Σάρδεων Μαξίμου 19141986. Geneva: 347-60. Raphael, Melissa. 2009. Judaism and the Visual Image: A Jewish Theology of Art. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from http:// dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781472548597. Sode, Claudia, and Paul Speck. 2004. “Ikonoklasmus vor der Zeit? Der Brief des Eusebios von Kaisareia an Kaiserin Konstantia.” JÖByz 54: 113-34. Pallis, Dimitrios. 2015. “A Critical Presentation of the Iconology of St. John of Damascus in the Context of the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversies.” The Heythrop Journal 56 (2), 173-191. _____________. 2017. “Communion with God and Theology of the Icon: A Study of the Christological Iconology of St. John of Damascus.” In Edwards, M. and D-Vasilescu E. E. (eds.) Visions of God and Ideas on Deification in Patristic Thought (Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World), Abingdon: Routledge. Polish, Daniel. 2007. “The second word: No other Gods.” In Roger Van Harn (ed.), The Ten Commandments for Jews, Christians, and Others. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Zografidis, Georgios. 1997. “Παρατηρήσεις για την τεχνητή εἰκόνα και το υπερβατικό πρότυπο στην αρχαία ελληνική θεωρία της τέχνης.” Ελληνικά 47: 71-94.

4 A modern perspective on the History of Religions Georgios Gaitanos

Head of the Department of Theology & Culture, Lecturer of Religious Studies, University College Logos, Tirana

Corespondence:

e-mail: gaitanosg@yahoo.gr

Abstract

The paper examines and comments on the opinions concerning the scientific study of religion and how they were applied in the field of History of Religions. It is a report that methodically deals with presenting, analyzing and commenting on older and modern positions of the sector. Many of these positions can lead us to conclude that many times there is no valuable data for religion and that religion is only the work of its scholars. This mentality also reflects the general attitude of the scholars to the subject of “religion”. In many cases we have to be strict about the methodology followed by scholars of religion, because in many cases there was a construction of terms and concepts, derived from the imagination and personal comparisons made by scholars in order to formulate their arguments for analyzing a religious phenomenon and to make generalizations. On the contrary, religion is

a social phenomenon and we need to see its role in shaping society and culture. Religion is therefore associated with a human activity essential to social life and is for the most part a human construct. What is being proposed is a historically endoscopic interpretation of the study of religion, emphasizing that man is a homo faber, a maker of worlds and not a homo religiosus. Our methodology is mainly anthropocentric, as the concept of “religion” is understood through our relationship with it and not with anything other than it.

Keywords: History of Religions, religion, scientific study, social-cultural phenomenon.

Citation:

Gaitanos G. A modern perspective on the History of Religions. Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(1): 57-65. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32438.73286

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

ÂŠ2020 Gaitanos

Introduction

he History of Religions examines the historical evolution of religions by studying their sources, their teaching, and their path in the course of history. What characterizes this field of the Study of Religion is the dialectical relationship between the object and the methods of its research. Thus, the historian of religions should know that the subject of his/ her study is purely historical and must constantly research the changes, alterations and developments that occur in his/her research (Bianchi, 1987, p. 399407; Ziakas, 2002, p. 16-18). The historical process means exploring the ways in which human societies acted in the environments in which they were found and in the ways in which they sought to reshape these environments to meet their needs. It refers to the exploration of the whole complex of geography, technology, religion, social structures, and countless other historical factors. It is about exploring the ways in which societies change in response to stimuli, as well as the ways in which they resist this change. It is related to the exploration of traditions that have been imprinted on different cultures and the ways in which these traditions have been sustained over long periods of time. We could say that the historian looks like a detective, a researcher1. Like the detective, the historian examines the evidence in order to reconstruct the facts. Nevertheless, the detective is primarily interested in finding out what happened, who did it, and why, as the historian goes one step further and asks what all this means. Addressing the question of significance, the historian transfers the simple curiosity of events of the past to a humanities science. No source in itself contains the unalterable truth or the complete picture. Each one gives us only a glimpse of reality and it is the historianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s job to unite these pieces of the past into one solid picture. Although many of the pieces are missing, it is possible to put most, if not all, of the remaining pieces in a logical sequence to form a fairly accurate and compact image. The resulting image may not be complete (it is never complete), but it is useful and valid. The key to putting these pieces together is hard work and imagination2.

1 It is a theory that Robin Winks developed very successfully in his book The Historian as Detective: Essays on Evidence (New York, 1969). 2 Imagination and redescription are main characteristics that a historian of religions and in general an intellectual must possess.

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

1. Methodology Essentially, history is the method and religion is the subject of the study (Lincoln, 1969, σ. 225). It is always necessary to explore and analyze the cultural and social context of each religious community in definite chronological order in order to draw more correct conclusions. It is therefore necessary to study all the interesting human dimensions of the rituals and institutions that have been attributed to them, either by their followers and representatives or by theologians and phenomenologists of the “divine”, “eternal”, “transcendent” (Lincoln, 1969, p. 225; Arnal & Braun). Thus, the historian of religions is still a social scientist who studies a different part of the perceptible world, religion, but does not regard it as a sui generis phenomenon (Braun, 2003, p. 43). Comparison was an important feature of the development of the sector of History of Religions. However, the comparisons between religious systems should be analogical. This historical comparison will be able to examine different religious systems without seeking to classify the various aspects into one category, but rather to form a multidimensional field for religion, moving in all directions (Bianchi, 1987, p. 399-407; Detienne, 2000, p. 63). After all, the concept of “religion” itself enables the development of various intellectual theories and interpretations that cover the interests of each researcher rather than a one-dimensional perspective that is isolated from reality (Braun, 2003, p. 41-43; McCutcheon, 2007, p. 71). In many cases, however, we must be strict about the methodology followed by scholars of religion, since religion was treated either as a sui generis phenomenon or as a means of political classifications to the detriment of non-Western societies. Indeed, the way it has been studied can lead us to the conclusion that many times there is no data on religion and that religion is only a creation of its scholars. This mentality, in my opinion, also reflects the general attitude that the scholars had to the subject of “religion”. Through personal comparisons they formulated their arguments for analyzing a religious phenomenon, but they eventually came to make vague generalizations (Smith, 1982, p. xi). Indeed, the difficulty of the subject is that there may be elements and data that could be considered and classified as religious, but in essence there is no clear data for religion, a stable point from which the historian of religions can precede with his/her research. Basically, it’s about making a story or a theory that we generalize, so that we can integrate it into the realm of religion (Smith, 59

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

1978, p. 289-290; Smith, 1982, σ. xi; Smith, 2004, p. 193-194; McCutcheon, 2006, p. 292). That is, the historian constructs a category, religion, which is his/her subject of knowledge, just as the language for linguistics and culture for anthropology (Smith, 2004, p. 207, 369). More generally, there has been and in some cases continues a persistence to emphasize the sacred element, the sacredness of religious things, the hierophanies as the main and perhaps the most important characteristic of religion. This persistence reveals a purely theological approach to things, as scholars of religion have shown particular indifference to the data collected by anthropologists, and essentially present religion as something divine, not human, as a gift only of revelation. Religion is a purely cultural product, as it encompasses the classifications, acts, thoughts that make their appearance daily in the public domain. Thus, the meaning of the signs and messages of everyday actions must not be separated when they appear in the religious realm, as if they were a divine sign (Smith, 1982, p. 41-43). The inability to specialize and new perspectives has led to the generalization and, in essence, to a classification based on a prototype that usually was Christianity. Thus, ontology was formed that aimed to present general characteristics of the generalized category of “religion”. Of course, generalization means hiding some features and showing only specific ones (Gill, 1998a, p. 300-301; Smith, 2004, p. 365, 367, 372, 377). So there is a need to connect the gathered data with a theory that will motivate thinking and research.

2. Analogy and Redescription Sorting, comparing, and describing data is the main task of the historian of religions and its ability is shown in how capable it is of making the unknown and the paradoxical, familiar (Smith, 2004, p. 383, 389). Analogy should be the main methodological direction of his/her work, as the comparisons the historian of religion makes should not only focus on two cases, but should be compared with more so that they can be understood and answered in a variety of subjects. In essence, the analogue mode of work is of interest to the reader and the researcher, as it attempts to combine and explain situations, rules, classifications and incidents in the daily lives of different cultures and societies in a way that has some relevance to our own situations, rules, and classifications. The common ground and the formation of a new category of case classifications, which show that they are completely different or belong to different eras gives interest and provokes the thinking of historians of religion, 60

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

as through the differences that identifies can form a new way of approaching of their material. It is important to emphasize that the material and example analyzed by the researcher can come from any field or discipline, only the choice, the theoretical background and the relation to the subject of the history of religions need to be clarified. So what is being proposed is that the historian of religions should not look at the data he/she records as something exotic, but stand up to his/her object, approaching it as something that happens in everyday life, even in the West. Clearly, this process is not particularly easy, as scholars have always come across and will encounter incidents from other people and cultures that will find them extremely strange and unthinkable, always in line with Western society stereotypes. If we borrow Victor Shklovsky’s term “defamiliarization”, that is, the process of viewing the familiar as strange in order to promote our understanding of the familiar, it may be suggested as a different way of approaching certain issues from the history of religions (Smith, 1982, p. xiii; Smith, 2004, p. 163). In this way, it is possible to select examples that can support the theory of any researcher to make comparisons of events and situations between Western and non-Western cultures. We could say that the motto of the research of the study of religion is to examine the differences and not so much the similarities between religions and in particular their religious perceptions, traditions and activities, as it gives rise to thought, reflection and research (Smith, 1987, p. 13-14; Smith, 1990, p. 49; Smith, 2004, p. 246). We borrow the view of the French poet Francis Ponge (Méthodes, 1948), who considers that the study of differences is leading to progress (Smith, 1982, p. 1). Of course, this position is not just a slogan, as it also involves significant difficulties. What we should really be interested in when comparing is not so much the connection and resemblance of the phenomena we study, but rather the connection and comparison of the situations and problems observed (Smith, 1990, p. viii; Gill, 1998b, p. 283-284; Smith, 2004, p. 197). According to J. Z. Smith, “The difference must be negotiated, but never be overcome” (Smith, 2004, p. 389).

3. Comparison Particular emphasis should therefore be placed on descriptions and comparisons, as the conditions under which they are to be made will be of interest to thought and research (Smith, 1982, p. 20). Because precisely the historian of religions has often dealt with issues of the past, he is essentially responsible 61

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

for bringing to life memories and experiences of the past by shaping his “own” story. As we have mentioned, comparison alone does not tell us anything if the data we collect are not analyzed in order to feed our gaps in theory and vice versa. The process of comparative work has four stages: the description, the comparison, the redescription and the correction. The description is a dual process that highlights the historical and anthropological aspect of the work. Initially, the scholar should choose his/her own example, which will contain a complete analysis of society, history, cultural meanings given by the “native’s” side. The second process of description involves the analysis of the example we present by the researchers who have so far dealt with the same topic. Once this double process has been completed, then the researcher can proceed to the description of a second example, which will be analyzed in exactly the same way. Having presented two examples, we can proceed to compare themes and relationships that seem to be important by following either a theory or a question that concerns us. The purpose of this comparison is to describe the examples we have presented, each based on the data we have identified from the other, and of course to correct the taxonomic categories to which the cases we are considering are included (Smith, 2004, p. 10, 24, 106). What is being proposed is essentially a reciprocal exchange of data and structural features that prevail in western societies with societies following a different way of life in order to be understood in our own vocabulary. So, following Max Black and Mary Hesse’s view that our models cause us to construct something in terms of the other, the scholar of religion should choose a new description of religious experiences and expressions (redescription) associated with the West, and on this basis to approach similar situations in non-western societies (Smith, 2004, p. 29, 197-198, 371-372; Heever, 2005, p. 118). Precisely because comparison is a mental process, the researcher of religion has to divide his data into categories and reconstitute them by modifying specific variables related to the phenomenon he/she is examining so that they can be compared according to certain rules (Smith, 1982, p. 36; Smith, 1990, p. 52; Heever, 2005, p. 117). The process of comparison is therefore an indispensable theoretical tool for the study of religion and for the promotion of human thought in general (Mack, 1992, p. 227). However, what is important is the effort that the researcher must take every time to correct the categories. That is, when a category is formed, it should not merely be descriptive and include some obser62

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

vations that present some general elements of social behavior, but should set out a set of phenomena that have some similarity but may differ in their particular cultural environment. A category is therefore successful when it comes to managing similarities and differences in intercultural comparisons (Mack, 1992, p. 227-228). Therefore, the corrected categories or outlined generalizations can be considered as the foundations for the development of a general theory of religion that examines religion as part of the intellectual process of human societies that construct and shape their world in order to be sustainable and look interesting. For example, for the ritual sacrifice, which is a category, one should not seek a universal structure and function, but certainly it is necessary to analyze it to contribute to human activity for social construction (Mack, 1992, p. 228).

Conclusion To conclude, two points should be made regarding the examination of various historical texts and ethnographies. The first one relates to human’s tendency to produce symbols, to form ways and means of classifying and delimiting his environment. Thus, Eliade’s homo religiosus is probably a homo symbolicus, as the human interprets and signifies the place, the people involved, and the objects in it. An anthropological dimension needs to be given to the study of the texts being evaluated and compared, as the differences of cultural systems are essentially compared and examined. Symbols and classifications do not remain unchanged forever, but alter meaning and renegotiate with change in social status, political and economic life in one place (Mack, 1987, p. 39-40). The second point concerns the attempt to conceal an inappropriate situation between the text and the reality attempted by the particular group or community. The inappropriate situation gives rise to thinking, questioning and developing new positions. It is typical that when people say that they are doing something, in reality they are doing something else; so they are looking for ways to fill the gap in their statements each time (Mack, 1987, p. 46, 49). It is interesting to look for the reaction of human societies to situations of inappropriate situation, when it is necessary to develop a strategy and create new traditions based on older institutions. Essentially, what is interesting is the scholar to find the meaning behind people’s words and behaviors (McCutcheon, 2007, p. 11-12).

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

References Arnal, W. E. & Braun, W. Does Theology belong in Religious Studies?. in B. Verter – J. C. Wolfart (eds), Rethinking Religion 101: Praxis, Pedagogy and the ‘Religion Question’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bianchi, U. (1987). History of Religions. in M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 6 (p. 399-407). New York: MacMillan. Braun, W. (2003). Thriskeia. in W. Braun & R. T. McCutcheon (eds), Eghirideio Thriskeiologias (trans. in Greek D. Xygalatas, ed. P. Pachis) (p. 28-51). Thessaloniki: Vanias. Detienne, M. (2000). Sygkrinontas ta mi sygrisima (trans. in Greek P. Marketou). Athens: Metaichmio/Epistimes. Ziakas, G. (2002). Thriskeia kai Politismos ton Proistorikon koinonion kai ton arxaion laon. Thessaloniki: Kornelia Sfakianaki. Gill, S. (1998a). Territory. in Mark C. Taylor (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies (p. 298-313). Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. -------- (1998b). No Place to Stand: Jonathan Z. Smith as Homo Ludens, The Academic Study of Religion Sub Specie Ludi, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 66.2, 283-312. Heever van den, G. A. (2005). “Loose Fictions and Frivolous Fabrications”: Ancient Fiction and the Mystery Religions of the Early Imperial Era (dissertation at the University of South Africa). Lincoln, B. (1996). Theses on method, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 8, 225-227. Mack, B. (1987). Introduction: Religion and Ritual. in R. G. Hamerton-Kelly (ed.), Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, Rene Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation (p. 1-70). Stanford, Stanford University Press. -------- (1992). After Drudgery Divine, Numen, 39.2, 225-233. McCutcheon, R. T. (2006). Relating Smith, Journal of Religion, 86.2, 287-297. -------- (2007). Studying Religion: An Introduction. London: Equinox. Smith, J. Z. (1978). Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 64

A modern perspective on the History of Religions

ÂŠ2020 Gaitanos

-------- (1982). Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: Chicago University Press. -------- (1987). To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. -------- (1990). Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. London: University of London. -------- (2004). Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago; London: University of Chicago. Winks, R. (1969). The Historian as Detective: Essays on Evidence. New York: Harpercollins College.

5 Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life Thoma Çomëni

Lecturer of Christian Ethics, Department of Theology & Culture, University College Logos, Tirana

Corespondence:

e-mail: thomacomeni@hotmail.com

Abstract

subject seeks to highlight the reason why the concept of the brotherhood of Jesus Christ and his Church is different and more substantial than the infinite concepts that exist in the world. The concepts of love, gratitude, the unification of time with the physical space are some of the thoughts that describe the subject and are a challenge for today’s family and social life.

The paper examines the phenomenon of brotherhood. The brotherhood is one of the most difficult subjects to analyze because of the sensitivity it creates in human society. The original meaning and other concepts that have benefited at different times show this. The paper tends to unfold the fraternal approach from the Orthodox point of view. Of course, there are still special places, such as the monastic fraternity, which may be the subject of a future issue. The issue begins with a general introduction to the fraternity. It continues with the evolution in Judaism, where it takes on a religious connotation and where an attempt is made to create a fraternity of universal dimensions. This study seeks to provide an answer on how it is possible for the fraternity to be shaped, developed and perfected. Human nature itself, freedom, logic and love are some of the elements on which opportunity is based. The

Keywords: Brotherhood, love, communication, relationship, society, image of God.

Citation:

Çomëni T. Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life. Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(1): 67-81. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36633.03688

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

Introduction

henever topics that has a human and social sensitivity, such as fraternity, come to the forefront of human discussion and analysis, there is a great deal of dilemma about them. This is, in a way, understandable when, in the face of deep human thought, everyday social reality is offered, on which the multifaceted clash often prevails, appearing or stimulated not infrequently and artificially. The difficulty lies in the fact that, although the interior of every human being requires brotherhood, at the same time it is in danger of being found in the context of the existence of utopia. Despite this situation, man continues to search in the depths of life, of the experience of his story and at the same time tries to make an objective analysis of human reality in order to understand the dimension of brotherhood. Like any concept or phenomenon of human society and in the case of brotherhood we find its meaning in different dictionaries or encyclopedias. In general, today’s dictionaries refer to both the blood relationship and other relationships that go beyond it. The same wording is found in dictionaries of the Albanian language or other languages, which list a number of concepts starting with that of blood and ending with a relationship where the brotherhood is perceived by the connections of spiritual interests, as well as interwoven with economic, social, religious etc. interests. Even among the people of Israel, the fraternal ties developed between people who practiced the same profession, considering their master as their father and being called brothers, a phenomenon that emerged when Israeli society moved from a rural society to a urban society (Oikonomou, 1992, p. 296). So in the people of Israel we have an effort to expand the original meaning of fraternal relations. In addition to the family, kinship, social, etc. concept. There is also theological thought about brotherhood. Theological thinking about brotherhood comes from the people of Israel, the first monotheistic people, followed by Christianity and Islam. In the view of the people of Israel we have a strong bond of brotherhood, which is not limited to the narrow meaning of the family, who born of the same mother (Gen. 4:2), but exceeds the boundaries of the race (2 King 19:13), and is then accompanied by characteristics such as ethnicity (Deut. 25:3, Judges 1:3), which more than that for internal unity it was to distinguish the people of Israel from other peoples. In this way the brotherhood of the people of Israel came out of its original context, that is, the blood in the family sense, and included the dimension of ethnicity and, in some 68

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

cases, the case of individuals of the same profession. Even the national character was united with the religious, thus creating a wider dimension, where blood, nation, profession and faith come together to give a broader dimension to the concept of brotherhood. Efforts may have been made to give a universal dimension, but it could not be completed or supplemented. So we can say that the people of Israel tried to overcome the basic concept of the term “brother” and therefore the concept of brotherhood moved from blood brotherhood to brotherhood of the nation (Λεξικό Βιβλικής Θεολογίας, 1980, p. 34) and faith, but could not for to create a universal brotherhood. Thus, he developed a theological and universal view, but failed to perfect it. The following development of the subject will bring to our attention three important elements for brotherhood: the possibility of its creation and development, the role of Jesus Christ and the Orthodox perception.

1. Is it possible to create a brotherhood beyond that of blood? The case of the Jewish people tells us that there is a possibility of brotherhood. First of all, we must say that humans have only one human nature and Adam is the representative of man and therefore all people have parts of Adam’s body, his blood and all are equal in death and life. At this point, of course, the question arises as to how far man can go in his brotherly relationship. To analyze this issue, the first stories in the books of the Old Testament and at the same time the history of the people of Israel come to our aid, which made it clear that all creatures and, of course, man have a Creator. The phrase “for you are dust and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:10) expresses that people are equal both before death and before life, regardless of their social status. Man also took life from the breath of life to God (Gen. 2:7) and was created in image and the likeness of God (Gen 1:26). Everyone has their own spirit that allows them to maintain a personal relationship with God and develop their personality. Thus, God loves as a human being. The more one realizes this, the more one can become part of the life of a community that has a divine purpose of its own (Ratzinger, 1966, pp. 114-130). Also, man does not remain confined within the earthly community. The ambition of eternal life is to return to the dust of the earth and then to the resurrection, the transition to the eternal community, which is the community, the community of the sons of God (Ratzinger, 1966, pp. 114-130). In this way humanity has continuity from the human couple created by God and therefore, despite the existence of 69

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

segregation between people in race, gender, ethnicity, color, culture, etc., each retains its divine origin and undoubtedly the dignity of that origin. So people who are sons of God are brothers to each other (Anastasios, 2004, pp. 84-85). Second, the relationship between people is not limited to the idea of creation, but the idea of a common destination for human beings is linked to the idea of common creation. This is how people are created together, but they have the same destination and in the Christian sense the common destination is eternity, for every other thought that is not related to eternity it creates a gap between the creatures and the Creator and therefore between man himself. The concept of likeness, is not just an idea of the human origin, but also is the concept of marching (Anastasios, 2004, p. 85). This concept gives man the starting point, but also the destination, which is important to keep people alive and at the same time connect people spiritually, in the form, containing fraternity, regardless of whether there is a blood clot or not. However, this unifying concept of man of the same origin and the same destination was challenged by divine reality. Man is called upon to challenge himself, they lost God and instead of maintaining a brotherly relationship with every human being, failed to break and connect blood. The origin of this problem is identified much earlier, as Cain’s moon took the life of Abel, an action that left no room and no opportunity for repentance. Abel’s assassination of Cain (Gen. 4:8) is man’s cruel attempt against love to attack his own existence. This separation came from sin, as sin is essentially separation. Thus, from a unifying sense, man went to an intuitive sense. It continues to have the connecting elements of brotherhood, such as blood, nation and religion, as the people of Israel show us, but it has lost its universal and inclusive dimension. There is a reason for this. Maybe the people of Israel and the whole man will lose their evaluative and emotional action and leave more room for deliberate or just traditional action and so the man lost his identity, that he is a person. Being together, but without being a person, on the one hand, is a collective union without identity, but on the other hand every collective union where the individual does not find the space of his freedom and does not express his love, a fraternal relationship cannot be formed, much less developed (Mantzaridis, 1996, pp.18-19. The typical case is that of the people of Israel, remaining in the blood, the nation and the faith in the creation and development of fraternal relations united them at this point, so much so that it is difficult to distinguish between them. However, the case of Judaism tells us that there is a possibility of broth70

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

erhood. It exists because within man there is feeling, love, justice, equality, freedom, which are the basic elements of the development of a brotherly love. Thus, although man has sinned and turned away from God, there is still a chance that fraternal relationships will develop, for although the image of God faded, he remained in it, because man desires good (Mantzaridis, 2003, p.45). Even the person of Jesus Christ is the one who brought another dimension to the form and content of brotherhood. It extended beyond the three elements it had to Judaism, blood, nation and religion by revealing to man not only the desire for brotherhood, the possibility of formation and exercise, but also the inner need for it. So, in addition to the opportunity to practice brotherhood, the need for it also comes to the fore.

2. The brotherhood revealed by Jesus Christ We mentioned above that brotherhood is a feeling and an opportunity for the feeling to develop beyond the instinct found in man. True brotherhood is love, where personal interest is a foreign concept. Brotherhood is justice, freedom and equality. Brotherhood is a relationship. It was on these elements of defining the nature and character of brotherhood that the Lord Jesus Christ spoke, preached, acted, and revealed. He first pointed out that the fraternity in its original sense was showing problems of functioning. Perhaps the human being is challenged by situations that are created by it. Being within the vortex that sin creates, it is difficult for man to discover the healing medicine of the vortex on his own. Knowing this situation, there are many cases when the word “brother” comes to the center of the discussion. Jesus Christ confronts the brothers, who were the sons of Joseph (Matt. 12:46-50. Mk. 6:1-6), when the brothers clash with each other (Luke 12:13-14), and thirdly discusses the brethren born of the new faith and also creates a dimension of brotherhood that transcends ethnic frameworks or kinship. The brotherhood revealed by Jesus Christ is a brotherhood founded on love, since man was created out of love. He strives to highlight this brotherhood revealed by God and found deep in the depths of the human being to show that brotherhood is not something foreign to man, nor a human relationship, which goes beyond its limits. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ opposes his brother’s insult by calling him Raka (foolish), as the offender and the offender as its users destroy the good result of love. Offending creates or expresses hatred, creates rifts within the brotherhood, family or even the human community, and undoubtedly removes man from peace. Thus the lack of 71

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

love creates division, stabilizes and develops evil. In this way the agreement with the brother is almost equal to the offering to God, as God does not accept sacrifice without love (Chrysostom, PG 57, 250-251). Even Christ does not remain within the framework of an existing love, but goes further. In the Gospel of Matthew (Matt.5:47), he reveals the first attempt at the re-perception of brotherhood. A perception where the brother goes beyond blood ties or mutual interests, as do tax collectors, who at the time identified themselves as abusers. These people, who have nothing to do with faith, have a moral within them, a moral that the believer must transcend and pass on to others. Jesus Christ advises that brotherhood is a movement for communication. It is a human movement to challenge one’s selfishness, monotony, and steppe, while at the same time challenging one’s own enmity. If a person does not overcome the bad and foolish habit in which the other must speak first, he cannot create the conditions for a spiritual development and consequently cannot develop a fraternal relationship (Chrysostom, PG 57, 272-274). This fact tells us that the creation and development of a fraternal relationship contains various challenges, but the first is the attempt to talk and greet the people that man has in life, to develop a fraternal relationship. It is the first experience that leads man to a brotherhood of resurrection, as resurrection does not refer to a part, group, people or race, but to all peoples (Anastasios, 2007, p. 57). The unfolding of the dimension and content of the brotherhood continues with other examples from the Lord Christ. The most typical case is the “Good Samaritan” parable. The question the young person asks is one of the questions that at first glance seems like an attempt to identify the relative. But at the same time it is an attempt to show that there is such a person who is not a relative. And this concern of this young man expresses the existence of persons who do not enter the circle of relatives, but who mean brother. Also, the concern of the young person highlights the uncertainty in the determination of the relative, i.e. the brother, to show that and when human societies have defined by rules the conception of the relative or brother, and again there are spaces for re-perception or expansion of the circle of fraternity. Also, Jesus Christ tries to express that the person cannot be underestimated, considered a subspecies or thing that can be ignored. good Samaritan is the tetanus, where through direct or indirect way, Jesus Christ states that the concern for the relative or brother should be, but not for what is considered such by blood, nation or faith, but for all, as the Samaritan did. good. In this way he refreshes 72

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

the answer of Leviticus1, reconfiguring the visible boundaries of brotherhood (Bock, 2004, pp. 1028-1029). For man to find the other and consider him “brother” he must encounter habits, thoughts and concepts that exist within the society in which he lives. Human society is full of stereotypes, which create a basis where man treads on his daily life, but at the same time creates obstacles in challenging new social and spiritual realities. For example, in societies where racial differences take on dimensions not just image but also spiritual definition, as in the case of black or white, then society creates some stereotypes that make it difficult to overcome oneself and the society in which one lives. Then society and the people within it find it difficult to make connections and even more fraternal, and perhaps this was one of the reasons that the Apostle Paul in his letters emphasizes not once, but several times the fact of non-distinction between the persons of the communities where he lived or knew2. Finding and creating brotherhood requires the existence of the sensitivity and necessity of man in his daily life and the willingness to offer his being. These elements define the love that Jesus expresses in answering the question posed by the young man of the law. The story of the Good Samaritan constitutes a breakdown of practical action as man can find, recognize, and create brotherhood (Luke 10:27). So the Samaritan acted by breaking the barrier of distance, transforming the thought that he is insensitive, as he feels pain for the person in front of him. Even the action against pain becomes practical by mourning, dyeing and healing his wounds. Transporting and placing them in a safe place by facilitating physical and spiritual torment as well as caring and spiritual torment for the healing of another are stages that describe the development of a fraternal relationship from its inception to its advanced and strong form. In this way brotherhood is not avoidance, but confrontation with reality. This may seem heavy, but it is easier than avoidance, as avoidance is not a real part of human nature, but an artificial part of it (Bock, 2004, p. 1032). St. Basil the Great says that the greatest love of man is when he offers his soul to his friends (Jn. 15: 12-13). In order for man to offer his soul, it is necessary to show readiness for small things, without caring about human obligations, but to please God (Basil of Great, PG. 31,917). So it is with love, which is fraternal, since its nature requires neither reward nor human gratitude, but from God. 1 “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord”. Lev.19:18. 2 “There is neither Jew or Greek, therë is neither slave mor free, there is no male and female, for you arë all one in Christ”. Gal. 3:28.

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

The brotherhood is not only given, but also sought after. Often people seek peace or understanding by avoiding confrontation. In fact, brotherhood is controversial because it is communication. This confrontation or communication is within the social environment, but it is not only a social problem, but also a personal and even personal responsibility. Just like a spiritual problem. If it is not considered a personal and spiritual problem, it cannot escape the vicious circle of the social context and thus no solution can be found, but it remains a personal and obviously social wound (Yioultsis, 2005, pp. 141-142). The above opinion of St. Basil shows us another fact, that brotherhood has a form, model and obviously an inspiration, God. Perhaps human initiative or human contribution to the formation of fraternal ties and experiences requires something beyond the human dimension, as man finds it difficult to maintain, develop, and perfect his fraternal blood ties, and even more so those that have no blood ties. This is one of the reasons why Jesus Christ addressed not only the apostles but also the people who followed him, seeking the hatred of the biological family (Luke 14:26). It requires overcoming biological connections, which do not turn into spiritual connections and even more so they become an obstacle to the development of fraternal ties with other people and above all hinder the development of divine love, the empty love of God (Mantzaridis, 2003, p.378) . Care must be taken that here we have no competition between love for God and brotherly love for neighbor, because there are two different natures of love. Love for man cannot determine love for God. Love of God precedes love of man, because love exists before man (Mantzaridis, 2003, p. 238). Divine love is the inspirer of brotherly love. St. John Chrysostom, when referring to the concept of the brotherhood of Jesus Christ, tells us that He called brother the human being in the name of value, but in the name of the value of love, where He loved whether rich or poor, free or servants, free or captive, heard or silent, showing that love must be the same. Christ not only loved man, but took up his body, wanting to become the brother of the human being, emphasizing that man should set aside arrogance, conceit, and frivolity, and be willing to speak and call every man by his name (Chrysostom, PG 60, 441-442). For St. John Chrysostom, brotherhood is the transcendence of human selfishness, which is like the tool that man uses to hide his fear, which is man’s greatest obstacle and which is related to the threat of death. The other outside the biological, kinship, ethnic or religious family is perceived not only as a foreigner, but potentially as a danger, from which the experience and the 74

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

term “xenophobia” was created (Yioultsis, 2005, pp. 141-142). The incarnation of Christ and above all His resurrection offers brotherhood, considering people brothers3. Christ defeated death and not only real death, but also that of daily life, which is expressed in sin, injustice, slander, envy and hatred “The experience experienced transforms enmity into reconciliation, hatred into love, pain into joy, humiliation into triumph, meaningless daily into triumph,” (Anastasios, 2007, pp. 157-158). Thus, the Church, founded and led by Christ, which at its center has resurrection, according to the concept of Orthodox theology and at the center of communication with God has Divine Thanksgiving, which is not a simple human communication with Jesus Christ. , but it is a gathering where people come together regardless of their background and social position. Even the mystery of Repentance is a meeting of man with God, where man encourages action and thought to turn away from sin and join brotherhood. This is where the real meaning of the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father” lies, where through the words; Jesus Christ conveys the dimension of community and brotherhood (Ratzinger, 1966, pp. 114-130). Thus, Christianity does not simply offer a religious identity. The Christian brotherhood, or body of the Church, is more than a fraternal existence. She is a functional brotherhood. The challenge of maintaining this connection, which is often challenged by its formalities, the case of the First Letter to the Corinthians makes this clear to us (1 Cor. 11:1734) it requires commitment and action based on faith. This means that the fraternity requires not only gathering in space but also gathering in experience. It is not enough to gather people from different social strata and groups, but also to get closer to each other, having God in mind. Brotherhood in this way is divine and human, concrete and visible. To show this, Jesus Christ shows the parable of the Last Judgment (Matt. 25:31-46), where eternal life is perfect brotherhood and eternal torment is eternal enmity. The first is perfect brotherhood, because people with their behavior showed love, even to the “little brothers” (Matt. 25:40), who for John Chrysostom are considered little brothers not because of age, but the little ones include the impossible the humble, the unknown and the unheard of in the world (Chrysostom, PG 58, 717-724). Jesus Christ sees in the elementary aspects the love for biological and non-biological brothers. He strongly condemns not because they did not heal the sick, but because they did not visit him, not 3 “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why hi is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying: “I will tell of your name to my brothers; in midst of the congregation I will sing your praise”. Heb. 2:11-12

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

because they did not release the prisoner, but because they did not see him. God’s criteria are the criteria of hospitality, where negligence is completely foreign. Negligence or mental and non-spiritual solidarity create a distance in fraternal communication, which can take on great proportions when accompanied by the creation of scandals. The process of creating man must avoid scandals by sometimes limiting his freedom when it becomes part of seemingly good actions, but which are actually scandalous (Dimitropoulos, 1970, pp. 256-257). Love is a way of life. Man, lovingly creates brotherhood and by creating brotherhood manages to live far from his religiosity and close to humility. This enables him not only to understand but also to experience the love of God and the love of neighbor. Thus is experienced a God who not only sent the Holy Spirit to men, but who is everywhere and who fills and unifies them all. This is the unifying dimension of the Church of Christ, to bring people closer together, so that in humans, the innate ability to love and befriend the other takes the greatest place (Anastasios, 2003, pp. 140-145).

3. Brotherhood and theological reality in the Orthodox Church The brotherhood to which Jesus Christ gave another dimension by extending its boundaries to the dimension of inclusiveness continues to be challenged by everyday human reality. Determined to experience the world, she is confronted with the multifaceted ways in which society works and the human dilemmas that accompany it. This challenge is for everyone, even the Orthodox believer. One of the challenges today is whether a fraternal relationship can be established when people do not belong to the same faith. This dilemma arises, because until late times, perhaps until the second half of the 20th century, the structure of our society was such that family members not only had blood ties, but ties with the same faith. So today social, friendly relationships can be established, but how difficult is it for fraternal relationships? Or does the dilemma sometimes arise that the possibility of a real fraternal relationship can become a reality or even easier, by stripping people of their religious beliefs? The latter view directly or indirectly raises the question: Is it not easier for fraternal relations to develop without the presence of religious faith? Perhaps we should say that striving for a fraternal relationship may seem tempting within the atheistic, agnostic, and indifferent to the faith or misinterpreting and ignoring the religious faith, but it can never have the desired result. In the concept of Orthodox theology, there are several reasons. 76

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

First, the essential interest of religion is the value of being human. Man, being considered an “image of God”, is unlikely to see the world and, of course, his co-worker with the eye of use, which can lead to the loss of a relationship with society and man (Mantzaridis, 1999, p.143).The philanthropic social work that takes place within the Church aims not at mastering the world, but at offering (Mark 10:42-45), ranging from a glass of water (Mark 9:41) to the sacrifice of life. This work starts from the relationships between persons, continues in the community and goes towards a global dimension. Second, there is a real and inspiring example of brotherhood. The example of Jesus Christ, with the creation of the world, incarnation, preaching, doing miracles, suffering, crucifixion, Resurrection, sending the Holy Spirit are events that do not belong to the personal CV of Jesus Christ, but the mission of saving the human being (Matsoukas, 2001, pp. 241-242). The correct and complete understanding and experience of the person of Jesus Christ is not a protection of the relics of the past, but of the presence of the present, for the person of Jesus Christ as much as he is of the past, he is also of the present and of course of the future. Faith and worship of Jesus Christ is a guarantee of developing a vital relationship, which is important for the development of a brotherly relationship. The Holy Trinity, where the three persons the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have a nature, is a model of brotherly and absolute love. The person of Jesus Christ is an extraordinary example and a practical indicator, where human nature lovingly obeys the divine nature. It is both of these important examples that show but also promote how fraternal relationships can develop in form and content. Third, liturgical and ethical life is elements that keep the believer’s spiritual and social life charged. In a blessing during the Divine Liturgy it is said: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God the Father and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all you” (The Holy Anaphora to Divine Liturgy. 2 Cor 13:13). It is precisely the three elements of Grace, that is, the gifts, love, and companionship that are experienced strongly, and are consequently those that inspire believers in their lives. These are also reflected in the social work where the believer approaches the other with a sense of gift, love and companionship. Also, the liturgical experience highlights and equips the believer with the common work, which brings out the need of man not only to share the space with the people around him, but also to experience the joy in the common place and time. This shared experience is reflected in life within inhabited centers, but also in monastic centers (Keselopoulos, 2009, p. 225).

Fourth, the theological perception of the person motivates the Church to a spiritual, moral, and realistic approach to the other. If man is perceived as a 77

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

creature of God “the image of God”, which has logic, freedom, love and will, then the fraternal approach of the other is possible. It happens that there is love, which makes possible the functioning of man as a person, and man is called a person when love is found alongside freedom, freedom contains logic and logic is accompanied by will. This connection makes it possible for freedom not to end up in certain rights and logic not to end up in ideology. The formation and experience of being a person helps in a fraternal approach in the dialogue with the person who does not believe like me, to dialogue with the person who is tormented by the right. Thus the principle of the person is the basic principle for the development of the deepest fraternal relations. Interfaith and inter-Christian dialogue, charity for people of other faiths and above all community life in common spaces is based on these principles.

Conclusion The need for brotherly approach to man is an aspiration of man. Objective or subjective factors have managed to turn man away from God, who is the source of fraternal love, and even remove man from man, but they could not remove the aspiration for fraternal relations even for fraternal love, which is one more level, higher than fraternal relations. The resurrection of the term “brother” after the fall into sin, after the murder of Abel by Cain, is a fact that man seeks his own nature despite the obstacles that arise around him. The world needs fraternal examples and even different forms of its manifestation, but the case of Jesus Christ remains authentic, as it once again showed love to the human being, because without love there is no brotherhood. Christ also revealed his Church, which, unlike a collective gathering of people, which often leave man without identity by placing man within the crowd, for the Christian faith founded by Christ the spiritual and social life takes place beyond biological activity. The Church is not a gathering place for people, but the Body of Christ, which means that freedom is needed in the reception of mysteries, just as personal self-awareness and the desire to know the divine are required. The fraternity demands confrontation with the monotony. Often times social frameworks not only create monotony, but also forget the value of man and his life. The effort for brotherhood is an attempt to find the value of one’s being, to find Paradise where the issue of brotherhood is indisputable. Also, brotherhood requires examples, which are not offered to it as outdated and meaningless forms, but as points of orientation, which accompany man to78

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

ÂŠ2020 Ă&#x2021;omĂŤni

wards the destination. Brotherhood is a sacrifice, as it is opposed to the murderous attack of demonic powers, and consequently its experience is the approach and union of the human being. Perhaps this sacrifice must go beyond the social forms that society of all time has built and move towards the form that God created and revealed to man. Brotherhood is communication, experience, movement, responsibility. It is life and consequently seeks to have humility, love, appreciation, courage, freedom and joy as the starting and shaping points. In order to have these, it is necessary to have a fair assessment of the human being, the living and real example, the effort for permanent charging, where the gift, love and society are experienced correctly. Brotherhood is not an ideology, but a spiritual dimension where man meets God and with Him, the relative who is in front of him.

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

References Anastasios Yannoulatos (Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania).(2004), Globaizmi dhe Orthodhoksia (trans. in Albanian K. Xhumba), Tirana, KOASH. Anastasios Yannoulatos (Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania), (2007), Tani të gjitha u mbushën me dritë…., Tirana, KOASH. Anastasios Yannoulatos (Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania), (2003) Facing the World – Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns, Geneva, WCC, Geneva. Mantzaridis I. G. (1999), Koinoniologia tou Hristianismou, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Mantzaridis I. G. (1996), Orthodoksi theologia kai koinoniki zoi, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Mantzaridis I. G. (2003), Hristianiki Ithiki ΙΙ’, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Ratzinger J. (1966), The Dogmatic and Ascetical Meaning of Christian Brotherhood - Man Before God, Readings in Theology, New York, P.J.Kenedy&Sons, pp.114-130. Keselopoulos G. A. (2009) Protaseis Poimantikis Theologias, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Yioultsis. B. (2005), I Alli Theasi tou Koinonikou, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Leksiko Biblikis Theologias (1980) (trans. in Greek. Aristea Aggelopoulou and others), Athens, «Άρτος Ζωής». Matsoukas A. N. (2001), Dogmatiki kai Simboliki Theologia Γ’, Thessaloniki, P. Pournara. Anestis Keselopoulos, Προτάσεις Ποιμαντικής Θεολογίας (Parashtrime të Theologjisë Pimantike), P. Pournara, Thessaloniki 2009. John Chrysostom, Interpretation in Matthew, PG. 71,724. John Chrysostom, Homily 16 in Matthew, PG. 57, 250-251. Joan Chrysostom, Homily 18 in Matthew, PG. 57, 272-274. Basil the Great, Question 163, PG. 31, 917. Joan Hrisostomi, Homelia 15 in Rom. 8:28, PG, 60,441-442. Oikonomou E. (1992) Paradoseis Arhaiologias tis Palaistinis kai Biblikis Thes80

Brotherhood in terms of orthodox theology and life

mologias, Athens. Bock L. D. (2004), Luke volume 2; 9:51-24:53, Michigan, Baker Books. Dimitropopoulos X. P. (1970), Orthodoksi Hristianiki Ithiki, Thessaloniki.

6 The Hymns of the Great Lent: its content and origin

Chrysovalantis Ioannidis

Dr. Theology, Professor of Music and Protopsalte

Corespondence:

e-mail: ioannidischrisovl@yahoo.gr

Abstract

and definition. Despite this final predominance of the Studitic model of the Triodion, the Sabaitic tradition is also evident in the definitive formation of the collection. Consequently, each Sunday of Lent has two themes: a new one that applies to modern liturgy and an older one, originating from Jerusalem. These newer themes are generally embedded in the spirit of Lent and evoked the commemoration of the Prophets, the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Poor and Rich Lazarus. In addition, they shifted the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Publican and Pharisee, which were read on the first and second preparatory Sundays of the preLent period. Keywords: Lent, Triodion, Palestine, Constantinople, Hymnography.

In the liturgical collection called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Triodionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; we can distinguish layers of liturgical traditions of different eras and different origins. The tradition of two very important religious and historical centers of the Byzantine Empire, Palestine and Constantinople, played an important role in the formation of the book Triodion. In particular, until the 9th century the Sabaite poets were the most productive in compiling the hymns of the Lent, who relied on the original themes of the Gospel of Jerusalem, which survived up to the 10th century. On the other hand, the hymnography of Constantinople followed from the beginning the liturgical tradition of Great Church and the reformed content of Sundays, as its captured in modern worship. From the ninth century, the Monastery of the Studiou in Constantinople played a catalytic role in completing the hymnography of the Triodion and generally in its radical form, the greater formulation

Citation:

Ioannidis C. The Hymns of the Great Lent: its content and origin. Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(1): 83-94. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17129.52324 83

The Hymns of the Great Lent

he “Holy and Great Lent” coincides with the period of fasting1 that lasts forty days before Easter and is part of the wider period of the Triodion, which is characterized by the liturgical use of the homonymous book (Triodion, 1960). In the liturgical collection called ‘Triodion’ we can distinguish layers of liturgical traditions of different eras and different origins. There are many old elements, as well as many new ones. The newer elements prevail and dominate or are mixed with the older ones and this coexistence creates several historical problems. Despite the existence of this strange mixture, there is a relative unity following the same line (Fountoulis, 1971, pp. 33-34). In terms of its structure, the Triodion is divided into ten weeks, focusing on Sundays and their thematic content, of which six belong to the Lent2. In particular, each Sunday of Lent has two themes: a new one that applies to modern liturgy and an older one, which was most likely replaced in Constantinople during the 6th to the 14th century (Fountoulis, 1971, p. 36). On the one hand, the original celebrations, which originated in Jerusalem, coincided with the content of the corresponding Gospel lectionary (Fountoulis, 1971, p. 34; Smeman, 1981, p. 86)3, as it is still valid today for the four Sundays leading up to the beginning of the Orthodox Lent4. On the other hand, some great historical events of the Church, as well as the commemoration of great Saints monks, were connected with the Sundays of the Lent and finally prevailed as major festive issues until today. These newer themes are generally embedded in the spirit of Lent and evoked the commemoration of the Prophets, the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Poor and Rich Lazarus5. In addition, they shifted the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Publican and Pharisee, which were read on the second and third Sundays of Lent. 1 The forty days are calculated from the Monday of the first week until Friday before Lazarus, without including the Holy Week. 2 It is characteristic that the Cheese Feast it was considered in Palestine as the first Sunday of the Lent while the week before the Cheese Feast was mentioned in relation to the Lent as a preparatory week, see Theodorou (1986), p. 33 and Miliaras (1914), p. 211. 3 It should be noted that the ancient Agiopolite canon of Gospel Lectionary is completely differentiated in relation to the Constantinople, which eventually prevailed throughout the Orthodox East, in parallel with the new Orthodox content of Sundays of the moving cycle of feast, see Miliaras (1914), pp. 213-241 and 310-327 in relation to the Asmatic Typicon of the Great Church Patmos 266 in Dmitrievskij (1895), pp. 1-152. 4 The three prelimitary weeks were added afterwards and gradually, from the 6th century until the 8th in Constantinople, see Fountoulis (1995), p. 123 and Theodorou (1986), p. 33. 5 As mentioned above (see p. 1, footnote 7) the content of the Hymnography of the five Sundays was associated with the Gospel readings of the Divine Liturgy, that were read in the environment of the Agiopolite Church from 5th to 9th century at least, see in the Euagelistarion of code Sinai 120 of 8th century folia 42v-50r and Μiliaras (1934), pp. 215-221.

The Hymns of the Great Lent

ÂŠ2020 Ioannidis

As for the newer issues, the Adoratio Crucis is associated with the Wednesday of the fourth week and specifically in the oldest source of the Constantinopolitan Asmatic Rite of the Great Church of the 9th century6 (Patmos Code 266 in Dmitrievskij, 1895 , p. 116 ) without being observed in the oldest sources of the Public Hagiopolite Rite. The second feast that has been established is that of Orthodoxy, which is first mentioned when the Patriarch in Constantinople was Methodius the Confessor7. Then St. Maria the Egyptian is mentioned in the Typicon of the Monastery of Studiou, which reflects to the liturgical practice of the 11-12th century in this important monastic center of the capital of Byzantium (Dmitrievskij, 1895, p. 538; Spyrakou, 2008, p.141). Her celebration with St. John of Climakos was transposed to the fifth and fourth respective Sundays of the Lent from the stable festive cycle, which always coincided with the period of the Lent (Fountoulis, 1971, pp. 36-38)8. This fact was not in favour of rendering religious honor to them, due to the katanyctic character of the intervining days of the Lenten weeks, in contrast to the festive character of Sundays (Fountoulis, 1995, pp. 127-128). Finally, the commemoration of Saint Gregory of Palamas was incorporated on the second Sunday of Lent in the 14th century, whose date of death which is November the 14th is also honored by the Orthodox Church9. All the above thematic axes, although quite diverse in relation to the original or later theme of some Sundays, are reflected in the Hymn of the Triodion and have survided in the modern liturgical practice. The liturgical tradition of two very important religious and historical centers of the Byzantine Empire, 6 It should be noted that the Feast of the Adoratio Crucis resulted from the shift of the commemoration of the Holy Cross on March 6, see Fountoulis (1995), pp. 125-126. This shift took place rather early enough, if we take into consideration the existence of the Contacion of Romanos Melodos, see Miliaras (1934), p. 178 and 453-454. Then the transfer of the celebration from the middle of the week in the third Sunday was held only in 12th century and only then was generalized throughout the Orthodox Church, see Miliaras (1934), p. 178, as well as inTypicon Messina of the year 1131 in Arranz (1969), pp. 218-220, that was mentioned for the first time, as incorporated on Sunday. 7 The feast of Orthodoxy was celebrated for the first time immediately after the end of the Byzantine Iconoclasm in 842 by Queen Theodora, see Religious Encyclopedia, p. 956. However, the fact that it is not included in the Asmatic Typicon Patmos 266 of the 9th century, as well as in later Triodia manu-scripts, testifies that its celebration was not immediately generalized. 8 The commemoration of the two saints on the 1st of April and the 30th of March, respectively, is earlier than the 11th century, given that it is included in theTypicon of the Great Church, see Mateos (1962), pp. 261-262, as well as the St. Maryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Kontakion that is attributed to Romanos Melodos, see Miliaras (1934), pp. 453-454. This shift took place later in the 11th and 13th century, respectively, see Bertoniere (1997), p. 92 9 The consecration of the Saint took place in 1368 by the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheos Kokkinos, who also wrote his Service, see Theodorou (1986), p. 39.

The Hymns of the Great Lent

ÂŠ2020 Ioannidis

Palestine and Constantinople, played an important role in the formation of the multidimensional mosaic given the fact that liturgical poetry creation of the Lent covers a period of almost ten centuries (5-14th) century10. The area of Palestine, which is considered to be the birthplace of the basic form and content in the Offices of the Orthodox Church11, the older subjects survived up to the 10th century12. On the contrary, in Constantinople, which used to be the crucible of the individual rich traditions of Asia Minor (Trempelas, 1993, pp. 323-324), the reformed content of the Sundays gradually prevailed and the unification of the Studitic and the earlier Sabaitic hymnographic material of the 9-10th century13. Until the 9th century the Sabaite poets, represented by Sophronius the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Miliaras, 1934, p. 458) and the almost contemporary Stefanos the Sabaite and Andrew Pyros (Eustratiades, 1933, p. 594) were the most productive in compiling the hymn of the great Lent. In particular, the latter enriched with Idiomela all the Sequences of the Days except Saturday and Sunday and gave a more spiritual and ascetic dimension to the meanings of his hymns14. On the contrary, the Hymns of the Great Lent of the former Patriarch of Jerusalem were prematurely eliminated from the material of the Triodion (Trempelas, 1949, p. 26)15, with the exception of the Idiomela of the Holy Week (Miliaras, 1934, p. 458). Finally, Sabaite hymnographer Theofanes 10 A comprehensive report on the origin of the Hymnography of the Triodion is contained in the dissertation of N. Obancea (2013), pp. 23-42. 11 The famous Lavra of Saint Sabas was the place where it was formed and completed by the great writers of Canons of 8th Century, the whole ritual and the largest part of the Hymn of the Flint, see Fountoulis (1995), p. 90. 12 In the Sinaitic Tropologion NE/MG 56 + 5 of 9th century, that consists a later great source of the Jerusalemite liturgical tradition, the subjects are delivered as a whole see Nikiforova (2012, 2013), pp. 195-235. 13 The Sabaitic Services and consequent of the hymnography that were developed in Palestine by Theodoros Studites, during his time as abbot of the famous Monastery of Constantinople and then the completion and enrichment of the Hymnography of the moving feast by himself and his brother Joseph at the beginning of the first quarter of the 9th century, consisted the start and at the same time the most decisive step in this direction, see Obancea (2013), pp. 32-36 and 42. 14 Most of his Idiomela were incorporated into the collection of the Triodion and to a greater extent in comparison with any other Sabaite poet, excluding Holy Week. In his Hymns he treats the Sundayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Jerusalem-themed issues for all the weekly cycles of Lent, which greatly influenced the content of the Sequences and the Palestinian liturgical act of 8-9th century, see, for example, in the Sinaitic Tropologion NE / MG 56 + 5 in Nikiforova (2012, 2013), pp. 195235, where the new ones, in relation to the previous Jerusalemite Canon, Idiomela belong to its stylus. 15 It should be noted that in the main body of his poetry it might be included the rather simple hymnographic content of the Jerusalemite Gospel Canon, which reflects the ascetic liturgical practice of the 7th century in the Holy City, see Miliaras (1934), pp. 215-221.

The Hymns of the Great Lent

Graptos composed individual Canons and Idiomela (Xydis, 1956, pp. 155160). On the other hand, in the environment of Constantinople, where the Byzantine liturgical type took its definite form, the liturgical collection of the Tropologion was in use until the 5th century, which mainly included the Kontakia of the mobile and stationary operating cycle in their full form (Alygizakis, 1985, pp. 166-169; Trempelas, 1949) pp. 27-29). From the extensive material that dates back to the period of the Triune and consequently the Great Lent, which comes mainly from the stylus of the great composer of the period Romanos Melodos, only the Prooimion and the first Oikos of Kontakia has survived (Miliaras, 1934, pp. 453-455). From the ninth century onwards, the Monastery of the Studiou, with its main representatives, the two brothers Theodoros and Joseph, played a catalytic role in completing the Hymnography of the Triodion and generally in its radical form, the greater formulation and definition (Xydis, 1956, p. 131; Bertoniere, 1997, pp. 142-144). Apart from the new poetry with which they complete the new themes of the Sundays of Lent, their main originality lies in the introduction of numerous Triodia and Tetraodia collection from which it got its name as well as Prosomoia Kathismata and Stichera in the intermediate daily days of its six weeks (Miliaras, 1934, pp. 513, 556; Theodorou, 1986, pp. 37-38). As mentioned above, apart from the different time period during which the poetic composition of the two centers of the empire stood out, this intercultural ism was strengthened by diametrically differentiation of the thematic content of the hymns of the two traditions. Thus, Palestinian poetry was structured on the basis of the original themes of the Jerusalem Gospel, while Constantinople followed from the beginning the liturgical tradition of Great Church and the reformed content of Sundays, as its captured in modern worship. Despite this final predominance of the Studitic model of the Triodion, the Sabaitic tradition is also evident in the definitive formation of the collection. Based on Sunday οf Orthodoxy (Ioannidis, 2009, p. 34), the first Sunday was dedicated to the commemoration of the Prophets (Fountoulis, 1971, p. 34; Theodorou, 1986, p. 29)16, probably in connection with the issue of the previous Sunday, the expulsion of Adam from paradise (Fountoulis, 1971, p. 34). As 16 After the establishment of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the feast of the Prophets was transferred to the Sunday before Christmas along with the memoriam of “all the people that responded to the will of God from the beginning of the world, from Adam to Josephus Mnistora”, see Religious Encyclopedia, p. 957.

The Hymns of the Great Lent

for this older festive content of the day, it is characteristic that in the Asmatic Rite of the Great Church, as well as in Sinaitic manuscripts Triodia of 10-11th only the Holy Prophet is mentioned17. In addition, in Typica that are related to the Studitic Monastic tradition, the original theme of Sunday is mentioned along with the newer one18. On the other hand the elements of the office that refer to the oldest layer of its original content are the first two Stihera of Vesper, Doxasticon of Liti (Religious Encyclopedia, p. 957)19, Doxastikon of the Ainoi the apostolic and evangelical lesson of the day20, Prokeimenon and Allelouarion21, as well as some troparia that are sung daily in the second week of the Great Lent (Fountoulis, 1971, p. 34)22. The rest of the weekly hymnography is not related to the content of Sunday, in contrast to the following weeks, but is inspired by the general all-encompassing character of the period, with a focus on the past and especially on its virtues23. In continuation the second Sunday had as a focal point up to at least the 11th century in Palestine, the parable of the Prodigal Son, which earlier in Constantinople had conquested the stand of the prelimitary Sunday before the Lent. Respectively, the third Sunday was dedicated to the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee in contrast to Constantinople which was incorporated into the Typicon of the Great Church. The Feast of the Adoratio Crucis, perhaps due to the transfering of the commemoration based on the day that was found on March 6th. More specifically, on the subject of the two Parables, the two hymns of the Aposticha of the Katanyctic Vesper refer to the Hymns of the Triodion, the Doxastika of the Ainoi of the Third Sunday and all the Idi17 See indicatively for the manuscripts Triodia the codes Sinai 733, f. 77a, 736 f. 68b, 755 f. 36a and for the Asmatic Rite the codes of Patmos 266 and Timiou Stavrou 40 in Dmitrievskij (1895), p. 115 and Mateos (1963), p. 20 respectively. On the contrary, in the Mount Athos Triodia Lavra C15 f. 91b and Vatopedi 1190 f. 9a, the Feast of Orthodoxy is also mentioned. 18 See the Southern Italian Typicon of the code Messinensis gr. 115 f. 188b in Arranz (1969), p. 213, as well as the Sinaitic Canonarion 150 in Dmitrievski (1895), p. 186. 19 As far as the Doxasticon of Liti is concerned, it is also found in Vesper on Sunday before Christmas that holds the position of Doxastikon of Aposticha and bears the name of the Studite hymnographer of Kyprianos, to whom the Apolytikion of the day is attributed, see Menaion (1970), p. 123. 20 Jews 11, 24-26, 32-40 and John 1, 44-52. The first part is referred to the struggles and passions of the Prophets, while the corresponding Gospel speaks for the recognition by the disciples in the person of Christ the Messiah who was prophesied by the Prophets. 21 Daniel, 3, 24-25 and Psalms 98, 6 respectively. 22 As such we can mention the two Stichera of the Vespers of the Sunday of Joseph the Hymn writer and the Idiomelon “Wonderful weapon” from the Aposticha of the Ainoi of the Orthros of Monday in first plagal mode. 23 It is noteworthy that pray and almsgiving are the main themes of the Gospel reading that it saves for the First Sunday of Lent the Sinaitic Lectionary of code 120 f. 39a.

The Hymns of the Great Lent

omela of the daily offices of the third and fourth week respectively24. Similarly, the three Idiomela Aposticha of the Katanyctic Vesper of the two last Sundays of the Lent are thematically related to the Gospel Lectionary derived from the Jerusalemite liturgical environment25. The same applies to the two Doxastica of the Ainoi26, as well as to the two Canons that precede the corresponding Canons of St. John of Climakos and the corresponding of St. Mary the Egyptian respectively27. Following is a table where the above exhibits are presented in a concise manner Sundays of Triodion:

24 It should be noted that the idioms of the following weeks of Lent have a Palestinian origin. 25 In particular, the Catanyctic Vesper Sequence of the fourth Sunday of Lent has in the section of the Aposticha two Idiomela, from which the first one contains clear references from the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and the second from the Gospel that included the Parable of the two sons and the bad farmers, see in Euangelistarion Sinai 120, f. 48a (Matthew 21, 33-46). In addition, the Stichera Prosomoia of the fifth Sunday of the same sequence refer to its original parabolic content. 26 It should be noted that the Doxastikon of the fourth Sunday draws its content from the Gospel lesson and not from the Divine Liturgy. 27 The Rule of the fourth Sunday is attributed to Elijah, Patriarch of Jerusalem, see Miliaras (1895), p. 509. 28 During the 10th century, the Constantinopitan liturgical Rite had spread in Palestine, as well as throughout the empire, see. Spyrakou (2008), p. 142. 29 Secondly, some hymns of Sunday are related to the Parable of the vineyard and the bad farmers, which was the Gospel reading of the Orthros (αντί article), see the Gospel Lectionary of the code Sinai 120, f. 48a (Matthew 21, 33-46)

The Hymns of the Great Lent

Sundays of Triodion

Thematical content

Palaistinian tradition (until 10th century)28

Pyblican Prodigal son Carnival

Cheese Feast

Preparatory Sunday (7th century) (First Sunday of the Lent) Fasting and the discharge of experiential worries (at least 7th century)

Constantinopolitical tradition The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (7th century at least) The Parable of the prodigal son (7th century at least) Second Coming (7th century at least) Expelled of the protoplast from the paradise (7th century at least)

The Solemn Procession of orthodox Αlmsgiving, prayer (year 843) First Sunday of the and fasting in secret (at Lent The commemoration of the least 7th century) Prophets (until 9th century at least) The Parable of the The commemoration of Second prodigal son Gregorios Palamas (5th century) (year 1368) The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Crucifixion Third Collector (12th century) (5th century) The Parable of the good The commemoration of Forth Samaritan John Climacos (5th century) (13th century at least) The Parable of the rich The commemoration of the Fifth man and poor Lazarus Blessed Mary the Egyptian (11th century at least) (5th century)29 The Lord’s Triumphal entry into Jerusalem Palm Sunday (4th century)

The Hymns of the Great Lent

ÂŠ2020 Ioannidis

From the above summary presentation it is concluded that the Palestinian theme recedes from the 10th century onwards and is either replaced by the projection of historical ecclesiastical periods and ascetic forms, or shifted to preparatory Sundays of the pre-Lent period. Also in terms of content, the Parables in the Jerusalemite Tradition create the impression of a more primitive and simple spiritual atmosphere, in contrast to Constantinople, which displays events and persons that refer to corresponding ecclesiastical manifestations of the Orthodox life experience and Christian virtues (Obancea, 2013, pp. 2830, 32). This parallel joined hymnographic is finally extended to general lines in Holy Week, with the only distinctiveness that most of it is occupied by the poetry of the Sabaite hymn writers and in particular of the earlier Fathers of the Palestine desert of the 7th and 8th century.

The Hymns of the Great Lent

References Alygizakis A. (1985). The Octoechos in the Greek liturgical Hymnography, a dissertation at the Department of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Arranz M. (1969). Le Typicon du Monastere du Saint Sauveur a Messine, codex Messinensis gr. 115, Orientala Christiana Analecta 185, Roma. Bertoniere G. (1997). The Sundays of Lent in the Triodion. The Sundays without a Commemoration, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 253, Roma. Dmitrievskij J.A. (1895). Opisanie liturgitjeskich Rucopisej I, Kiev. Eustratiades S. (1933) Andrew Pyros or the Βlind, Athens. Eustratiades S. (1933). ‘‘Stefanos the Sabaite”, Nea Sion 28. Theodorou Eu. (1986). The educational value of the Triodion, Athens. Religious and Ethical Encyclopedia, Volume I, Athens. Miliaras K. (Archimandrite) (1914). ‘‘Archaic Typicon of the Church of Jerusalem in the 7th Century”, Nea Sion 11. Miliaras K. (1934). “Historical overview of the Triad. His plan and training”, Nea Sion 29. Ioannidis Chr. (2009). The Sunday of Orthodoxy in Psaltic Art, Master thesis at the Department of Pastoral and Social Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. Mateos J. (1962-63) Le Τypicon de la Grande Eglise, MS Sainte-Croixno 40 (Xe siecle), Orientalia Christiana Analecta 165-166, Rome. Menaion of December. (1970). published by the Apostolic Diakonia of the Church of Greece, Athens. Nikiforova A. (2012-2013). The Tropologion Sin. Gr. ΝΕ / ΜΓ 56 + 5 (9th c.): Complete Incipitarium in To the History of Menaion in Byzantium: Hymnographic Monuments of the 9th – 12th Centuries from the St. Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai, Moscow. Xydis Th. (1956). “The Hymnograph Theodoros the Studite”, Nea Estia 59. Obancea N. (2013). The Anthropology of the Triodion, PhD thesis submitted to the Theology Department of the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki. 92

The Hymns of the Great Lent

Smeman A. (1981). Lent, a march to Easter, Athens. Τriodion Katanycticon. (1960). published by the Apostolic Diakonia of the Church of Greece, Athens. Spyrakou E. (2008). Singers’ Choirs during the Byzantine tradition, PhD thesis at the Department of Music Studies of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Foundation of Byzantine Musicology, Study 14, Athens. Trempelas P. (1993). Liturgical types of Egypt and the East, Athens. Trempelas P. (1949). Election of Greek Orthodox Hymnography, Athens. Fountoulis I. (1971). Logical Worship, Thessaloniki. Fountoulis I. (1995). Liturgy I, Introduction to Divine Worship, Thessaloniki.

Theology & Culture-Volume 1.1

Articles inside

Theology & Culture