| Further reading Lossky, V., In the Image and Likeness of God, ed. J. H. Erickson and T. E. Bird, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1974. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1976. Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, trans. Ian and Ihita Kesarcodi-Watson, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1978. Papanikolaou, A., Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. Yannaras, C., Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith Schram, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. On the Absence and Unknowability of God: Heidegger and the Areopagite, ed. A. Louth, trans. Haralambos Ventis, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Person and Eros, trans. Norman Russell, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, forthcoming. Zizioulas, J. D., Metropolitan of Pergamon, Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1985. Communion and Otherness, ed. P. McPartlan, London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2007. 16. The witness of the Church in a pluralistic world: theological renaissance in the Church of Antioch NICOLAS ABOU MRAD It is not fortuitous that the followers of Jesus were first called «Christians» in Antioch (Acts 11:19–26). It was only natural for a city that gathered believers from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds in one eucharistic community to be linked to the very nature of Christianity. Referring to Antioch, the apostle Paul stresses in Galatians 2 the importance of the universality of the gospel of Christ, its ability to address Jews and Greeks alike, as a sine qua non for the veracity and credibility of his mission. This »pluralistic dimension» has always characterised the Orthodox Church of Antioch and shaped its theological discourse. From its first years, Antioch has had a unique experience of multiplicity and diversity; it has always represented a rich human and cultural tapestry, resulting from the encounter of the civilisations of the ancient Near East with Greek and Roman cultures. Later in its history Antioch co-existed with Islam, experiencing both the tolerant openness of the early Islamic rulers and the strict control of the Ottomans. Due to cultural and historical circumstances, the Christians of Antioch did not experience the triumphant dominance of an established Christianity such as we see in both the Byzantine world and medieval Western Europe. |
| Patriarch Nikon continued to promote his campaign for liturgical reform through the end of 1656. Then in January of 1657, Tsar Alexis returned from battles against the Poles to find Moscow seething with discontent against Patriarch Nikon. The Tsar cooled in his support of Nikon, ordering him to restore to communion one of the most out-spoken and prominent opponents of the reform, Father Ivan Neronov, who had been imprisoned in a monastery in 1653. Nikon obeyed, allowing him to use the old service books, and even saying, “Both are good. It doesn’t matter; use whichever books you wish.” From this point on, the Patriarch seemed to lose heart in the campaign for reform, turning to building new monasteries and churches. Then, on July 10, 1658, Nikon uttered public complaints against the Tsar at the end of a divine liturgy, and announced his intention to retire from the Patriarchate, probably expecting the Tsar to rush to him to apologize. However, Tsar Alexis only sent two boyars to assure the patriarch of his continuing friendship. The petulant Patriarch, unsatisfied with this response by the Tsar, remained true to his threat, and retired to a monastery, but without officially resigning from the Patriarchate. For eight years he played for time, neither resigning nor taking up his duties again. Many consultations were held, including with various Eastern Patriarchs. Several councils were held, but still Nikon remained aloof, and the Church remained in a kind of limbo. Finally, in the Spring of 1666, Tsar Alexis summoned a major council of all the Russian bishops, which reaffirmed the new service books but did not condemn the old books as heretical. On this basis, many of the clergy who opposed the reforms accepted them. Those who still rejected them, such as Avvacum, were again anathematized. This council went on to address many of the concerns of all the reformers – matters of pastoral care, proper maintenance of the churches, proper records being kept, proper celebration of services (including yedinoglasno – only one voice being heard at a time), etc. |
| In the last 30–40 years there have appeared signs of the beginning of the rebirth of faith in Christ among Jews. In a whole row of large cities in the USA, missionary centers of Jewish Christians have appeared, teaching among their brothers by blood faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is very interesting and enlightening to familiarize oneself with their brochures and books on religious themes. It is apparent that the compilers of these brochures distinctly understand the Holy Scriptures and the Old Testament Jewish religion. They explain the predictions of the prophets about the Messiah and about His blessed Kingdom clearly and convincingly. Currently, throughout the world, there are nearly 200 Messianic Jewish congregations – Christian Jews that observe their national customs. In telephone books, their communities appear under the rubric – Jewish Messianic. The following are Jewish Christian societies that are in existence: Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, the Fellowship of Jewish Congregations, International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues, Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, Jews for Jesus, The Chosen People, American Board of Mission to the Jews, and others. In confessing to the cardinal Christian dogmas, members of these congregations strive to preserve their national identity and continue to observe ancient Jewish holidays and customs, like the Sabbath (Saturday), circumcision, Pascha (Passover), and others. Supplementary data on the Messianic movement can be found in the books Return of the Remnant by Michael Schiffman and Elliot Klayman, Lederer Publications, Baltimore, Maryland, 1992, and Messianic Jews by John Fieldsend, Marc Olive Press, Monarch Publications,1993. Some Messianic congregations are active in publishing journals and books, in which they convincingly prove – on the basis of the Old Testament prophesies – to their fellow Jews that the Lord Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah. This type of literature can be received, for example, from the publisher Jews for Jesus, 60 Haight St., San Francisco, CA 94102, tel. (415) 864–2600. |
| We now use books of the edition made by Patriarch Nikon " s correctors. The Old Ritualists remain with the old books and the old rites. The schism haunts us even to this very day. How can one explain why one and the same reform elicited such diverse consequences? It proceeded peacefully in western Russia yet painfully in the North-East. Of course, here one must take into consideration historical circumstances and the psychology of both West and North, both being shaped by history. Western Russia was too absorbed with the fundamental battle for the preservation of the faith, so much so that questions of internal and particular character, in particular the selection of liturgical texts, were relegated to a secondary status. Muscovite Russia looked upon itself as the sole and unshaken depository of ancient piety, bound to remain faithful not only in great, but in little things, not only in primary, but also in secondary matters. But aside from this, can one say with certainty that the reform in the western borderlands proceeded without any opposition? The church books printed in the provinces of Lithuania-Poland provide us with a basis for thinking otherwise. There no such protest, revolt and schism took place, but there was, without doubt, a silent rebuff. These are its symptoms. On the western borderlands, besides the great printshops of Kiev, Lvov and Vilno, there was, in the 17th century, a great network of small printshops belonging to the monasteries and brotherhoods, which served local needs. In the 17th century, there were such printing presses in Ostrog, Derman, Ugortsy, Minsk, Chetverten, Striatin, Pochaev, Zabludov, Uniev, Yeviu, Kliros, and Suprasl; some of these became Uniate even in that century.(7) The expense entailed in obtaining type and a press for a book with octavo-sized pages, printed in one color was probably not considerable. On inspecting such a book, the eye is struck by the lack of technical means or skill evinced in the production of the individual pages, e.g., the last words of the lower lines of pages are often deformed, and letters are pushed out of alignment. |
| In reality, there was no “New Testament” when this statement was made. Even the Old Testament was still in the process of formulation, for the Jews did not decide upon a definitive list or canon of Old Testament books until after the rise of Christianity. As I studied further, I discovered that the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. This translation, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century B.C., contained an expanded canon which included a number of the so-called “deuterocanonical” (or “apocryphal”) books. Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received by Christians into the Old Testament canon. In reaction to the rise of Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the deuterocanonical books-although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly, it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants today. When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no finalized Old Testament. The concept of “Scripture” was much less well-defined than I had envisioned. Photo: http://azbyka.ru EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS The second big surprise came when I realized that the first complete listing of New Testament books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St. Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the writing of the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we wouldn’t see a final product until the year 2076! The four Gospels were written from thirty to sixty years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. In the interim, the Church relied on oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses-as well as scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. |
| Was Moses Really the Author of the Pentateuch? How should the Orthodox be? I would suggest, above all, not imposing grievous ties on oneself by confusing the stubbornness of Protestant fundamentalism with Patristic Tradition. For them, the authority of Scripture is based upon a literal interpretation of Revelation: God dictated these words to the great Prophet Moses, and therefore they are trustworthy. But for them, on the other hand, there is no such thing as Tradition. The average Orthodox reader of the Bible doesn’t think about questions such as the authorship or dating of individual books. The first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch of Moses? Of course, the Prophet Moses wrote it – after all, that’s what it’s called, and that’s what Scripture and Tradition teaches. And whoever doesn’t agree is an impious atheist. But then this Orthodox reader might come up against arguments from the other side. He either rejects them out of hand, starting directly from the conclusions without bothering with the arguments, or… he considers them and agrees with some of it. Does this then mean Scripture and Tradition are unreliable? Some draw this conclusion. Let’s stop and think about it. Tradition is a difficult and diverse thing; in it one can find all kinds of different statements (for instance, about a flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, and the marriages of hyenas with morays), but only some of them are in fact of doctrinal significance. The question of the authorship of Biblical books clearly is not one of them. But what about the name the “Pentateuch of Moses”? Doesn’t it indicate an author? Not necessarily. Thus, the Psalter bears the name of King David, but David definitely didn’t write Psalm 136, “By the waters of Babylon,” simply because he died long before the Babylonian captivity. It’s unlikely that Jonah, Ruth, and Job themselves wrote the books that bear their names. And the Prophet Samuel certainly didn’t write the two books bearing his name in the Hebrew tradition (First and Second Kings in ours [i.e., in the Septuagint]) simply because he died in the middle of the first book. |
| Irenaeus also valued other, non-Scriptural, Christian literature such as the letters of his former teacher Poly carp, or those of the martyr Ignatius, the popular allegory The Shepherd written by a Christian named Hermas, the traditions collected by Papias of Hierapolis, or the apologetic writings of Justin of Rome. But Irenaeus definitely did not welcome books which embodied the heretical views he thought were so harmful to people and dishonouring of the God of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. This being the case, it is sometimes hard for scholars to resist overstating his methods of dealing with opponents. We have already cited Pagels’s statement that Irenaeus resolved to ‘to hack down the forest of “apocryphal and illegitimate” writings’. Just how does she think Irenaeus undertook to accomplish his literary deforestation project? According to Pagels, ‘Irenaeus confronted the challenge... by demanding that believers destroy all those “innumerable secret and illegitimate writings” that his opponents were always invoking... ’ 93 Again, she calls attention to Irenaeus’ ‘instructions to congregations about which revelations to destroy and which to keep...’ 94 Censoring books would be bad enough. But ordering their destruction sounds positively barbaric! Based on this practice alone, it is easy to form a conception of Irenaeus as a cruel inquisitor willing to employ extreme measures to achieve and enforce theological uniformity. The only problem is, the charge isn’t true. Nowhere in the five books of Against Heresies does Irenaeus demand that anybody destroy any rival, holy books. Nor in his other surviving theological work, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, does he make any such demand. Without question, he would have preferred that heretical books should not exist, and that no Christian should ever have to read them – he clearly advocates that rank-and-file Christians avoid them (AH 5.20.2). But ordering their destruction – as if he had the authority to give such instructions to churches and expect them to be obeyed – is another matter. |
| Father George: Why is that? A. Grigoryan: Because while working there I discovered many problems that existed in the organization. I was 20 then, so I was in quite an adolescent and romantic state of mind. I was at the heart of the organization, a place that employs the most respected people, who directly manage the organization here in Russia. This is a like a town unto itself,inhabited by about 300 people, the elite of the organization. They are together 24 hours a day. Staying there exposed a different side of the organization to me. I saw with my own eyes that all weaknesses, passions, psychological and spiritual illnesses that people had before joining the organization were still there. I realized that there was no spiritual transformation. I also saw that indeed nothing human is alien to the elite, including hypocrisy, deception, anger, gossip, alcoholism and many other things. This made me look at the organization a bit more objectively. Secondly, while working in the Administrative Center, I had access to a very interesting library that had a section dedicated to various religions. Nobody was interested in it, except for the translators who worked with various materials and needed to know the terminology. That section had many very interesting books by Orthodox authors of early 20th century. For example, there were books by N.N. Glubovsky and various professors of Kiev, Kazan and Moscow Ecclesiastical Academies. There were also three volumes of the Explanatory Bible by A.P. Lopukhin. I saw serious Orthodox literature for the first time in my life. I was amazed, because, as you can imagine, people in all such pseudo-Christian organizations have a very low opinion of Orthodox faith and theology. Father George: I'm afraid they’ll remove these books from their library after watching our program ( laughs ). A. Grigoryan: Maybe they already did. So, I took these books and started reading them out of pure curiosity. The more I read, the more I was amazed at how profound, interesting and convincing these books were. |
| Despite these noble accomplishments, little formal attention was given to the development of programs for adult religious education and faith formation during this period. This was a critical failure that would have profound consequences. In the period after World War II, most Orthodox young adults who were born in this country were furthering their education and were in constant contact with other Americans of different religious backgrounds. Yet, most Orthodox young adults were sadly limited when it came to understanding and expressing their faith. Many had been taught to understand the church chiefly as an ethnic community. Few had developed a genuine appreciation of the doctrinal and ethical teachings of the Orthodox Church. Few heard sermons that they could truly understand. Fewer understood the meaning of the church " s ritual. Many church leaders appear to have ignored these facts. Yet, these difficult facts led some farsighted clergy to begin to pay more attention to the importance of adult religious education and worship. As a result, there was an increase in the number of books and pamphlets in English designed to provide explanation of the teachings, customs, and traditions of the Orthodox Church. It is interesting to note that Archbishop Michael of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese published his study entitled The Orthodox Church in 1952. About the same time, Metropolitan Antony (Bashir) of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese published his study entitled Studies in the Greek Orthodox Church. Father George Mastrantonis, a pioneer in the writing of books and pamphlets for American Orthodox readers, published his What Is the Eastern Orthodox Church? in 1956. Father Timothy Andrews in 1953 provided a comprehensive bibliography of the growing number of books and pamphlets. 225 This period saw the publication of a number of prayer books, often bilingual, that contained the text of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, no less than four such bilingual versions of the liturgy appeared between 1948 and 1955. While three of these were prepared by parish priests, one was published by the seminary press in 1950 and received the official sanction of the archdiocese. In addition to these prayer books, a number of guides to the liturgical services began to appear. 226 |
| Much as Origen would later do, Irenaeus had apparently made his own collection of heretical books which he used for study and response (AH 1.31.2). In fact, he notes in one place that previous apologists for his brand of Christianity had been ineffective precisely because they were not sufficiently studied in the doctrines of their gnostic opponents (AH 4.preface.2). And so, Irenaeus took the trouble to read their books and to hold personal conversations with those of different persuasions. This part of Irenaeus’ library may have consisted of at least the Gospel of Judas (1.31.1); the Gospel of Truth (3.11.9); a version of the Apocryphon of John (1.29.1) (these last two have been preserved in the Nag Hammadi finds); some writings of the Carpocratian sect (1.25.4, 5); certain Valentinian ‘commentaries’ or ‘notes’ on Scriptural passages (1.preface.2), including comments by a man named Ptolemy on the Prologue to the Gospel of John; and he had at least read, if he did not also own, some written work of Marcion’s. Irenaeus had also come across some books by a man named Florinus, and it is in connection with these that we find the closest thing there is in the writings of Irenaeus to a demand to destroy heretical books. This comes not in Against Heresies but in a letter/treatise Irenaeus wrote to Victor of Rome shortly after the latter’s election as bishop in 189 CE. In this letter Irenaeus informs his younger colleague about the writings of Florinus, who was at that time advocating Valentinianism. Irenaeus and Florinus had been acquaintances decades earlier when Irenaeus was a youth in Smyrna in Asia Minor and Florinus was a young government official assigned to Smyrna and an admirer of the well-known Smyrnaean bishop, Polycarp. Florinus later drifted away from the teaching of Polycarp and (after flirting for a while with Marcionism) had embraced the doctrines of the Valentinians. At the time of Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, Florinus was living in Rome, teaching in what was probably a house church and writing books which espoused Valentinianism while still claiming to be a presbyter of the orthodox church in Rome. |
|
|
