| 1247 Sambursky, «Gematria»; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 103, citing Cicero Inv. 2.40.116; Hengel, Hellenism, l:80ff.; Lieberman, Hellenism, 47–82. Some may also reflect Babylonian sources (Cavigneaux, «Sources»). 1248 Judith 16:7; Josephus War 1.353; 2.155–158; Ag. Ap. 1.255; 2.263; Pesiq. Rab. 20(cf. Greek Phlegethon; cf. the Elysian plain and Acherusian lake in Sib. Or. 2.337–338, probably Christian redaction; Apoc. Mos. 37:3). 1249 E.g., Artapanus in Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.27.3; Sib. Or. 2.15 (Poseidon); 2.19 (Hephaistos); 3.22 (Tethys); 3.110–116, 121–155, 551–554, 588 (euhemeristic; cf. similarly Let. Aris. 136; Sib. Or. 3.723; 8.43–47); 5.334 (personification; cf. also 7.46; 11.104, 147, 187, 205, 219, 278; 12:53, 278; 14.56, 115); T. Job 1.3 (cornucopia); 51:1/2 (perhaps allusion to Nereus, also in Sib. Or. 1.232); cf. (not Greek) Ishtar as an evil spirit in Text 43:6–7, perhaps 53:12, Isbell, 103; cf. art (some of it in Palestinian synagogues) in Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8 (and Dura Europos synagogue, vols. 9–11, and 12:158–183). 1250 The clear examples are few (even Egyptian use may have been more common; cf. «Biblés Psalm»), despite apologetic protestations to the contrary (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.165; 2.257). 1252 E.g., Martin, Colossians, 18–19; Knox, Gentiles, 149; Wilson, Gnostic Problem, 259. Although an Egyptian provenance for the Testament of Solomon is possible, I would favor an Asian provenance, given its date (cf. also Artemis in 8:11, etc.), and stress the magical-mystical nature of some of Judaism in Asia. 1253 So Kennedy, Epistles, 14, 22; Robinson, Redating, 294. Palestine had its Pharisees and Essenes, but had even more Am Háarets. 1258 Cf. CD 5.6–8; lQpHab 9.6–7. Others also believed that profaning the temple could bring judgment, although not applying it to this time (Pss. So1. 1:8; 2:1–10; Josephus War 5.17–18; cf. the ambiguous evaluation of Tannaitic sources in Goldenberg, «Explanations»). 1263 Grant, Gods, 51; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 121–22; Conzelmann, «Areopagus,» 224; van de Bunt-van den Hoek, «Aristobulos»; cf. Renehan, «Quotations.» Jewish and early Christian texts often followed the Greek practice (instilled in school memorization exercises) of citing or alluding to Homer (e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 195–197; Syr. Men. 78–93; Josephus Ant. 1.222; Sib. Or. 3.401–432, passim; 3.814; 5.9; 2 Bar. 10:8; Tatian 8; cf. Rahmani, «Cameo») or other poets (Acts 17:28; 1Cor 15:33 ; Tit 1:12 ; Justin 1 Apo1. 39; Theophilus 2.37; Athenagoras 5–6; cf. Manns, «Source»), or proverbs originally based on them. |
| 197) Апостольское предание. 35.1–3; ср. Каноны Ипполита. 21. 26. 198) Апостольское предание, там же; ср. Каноны Ипполита. 27. 199) Ср. Августин. Об оглашении необученных . 11: “Катехумены слушают нас или, скорее, слушают Бога через нас”. По мысли Исидора Севильского , Бог говорит с катехуменами через священника подобно тому, как Он обращался к Израилю через Моисея. См. О церковных установлениях. 2.21.1//PL 83.814. Ср. Ильдефонс Толедский. О смысле крещения. 20//PL 96.120. 200) Иоанн Златоуст призывает неофитов приходить в церковь каждый день на рассвете перед работой, а также второй раз после работы. См. Слово огласительное. 8.16–17. 201) О существовании таких домов сообщает Псевдо-Климент (Воспоминания. 4.6, 10.71). 202) Это предположение высказывает, например. M.J. Rostovtzeff (Dura-Europos and Its Art. С. 17). 203) Согласно реконструкции A. Chavasse (La structure du Carême et les lectures des messes quadragésimales dans la liturgie romaine. C. 78). Лазарева суббота, приходящаяся в православном календаре на конец шестой недели Великого поста, восходит к древнему римскому обычаю читать Ин.11:1–45 в последнее воскресенье (а не субботу) перед Пасхой. О праздновании Лазаревой субботы в Палестине в конце IV в. свидетельствует Эгерия (Паломничество. 28.5). 204) Августин. Толкование псалмов. 41.1. 205) Подробнее об этом см. Н.С. Puech. Le symbolique du cerf et du serpent. C. 18–60. 206) Подобного мнения придерживается, например. Н. Lietzmann (Mass and the Lord’s Supper. C. 58). Критику этого взгляда см. C.F.D. Moule. Worship in the New Testament. 207) Иустин. Первая апология. 67. 208) Дидахе. 10.7. 209) По поводу подлинности молитвы см. A. Tripolis. ΦΩΣ ΙΛΑΡΟΝ. Ancient Hymn and Modern Enigma. C. 194. 210) Дидахе. 10.6. “Маранафа” возможно означает на арамейском “приди, Господь наш!”, если читать “марана фа”, или “наш Господь пришел”, если читать “маран афа”, что менее вероятно. Ср. 1Кор.16:22; Откр.22:17, 20. 211) Дидахе. 14.1–2. Ср. требование публичного покаяния перед молитвой в Дидахе (4.14) и Послании Варнавы (19). |
| Dura-Europos and Its Art. Oxf., 1938; idem. The Foundations of Dura-Europos//SK. 1938. T. 10. P. 99-106; idem. Res Gestae Divi Saporis and Dura//Berytus. 1943. Vol. 8. P. 17-60; Hill E. Roman Elements in the Settings of the Synagogue Frescoes at Dura//Marsyas. N. Y., 1941. Vol. 1. P. 1-15; idem. The Orpheus in the Synagogue of Dura-Europos//J. of the Warburg and Courtauld Inst. L., 1958. Vol. 21. P. 1-6; Stechow W. Jacob Blessing the Sons of Joseph//Gazette des beaux-arts. Ser. 6. 1943. T. 23. P. 193-208; Idem//No Graven Images. 1971. P. 261-276; Shoe L. T. Architectural Mouldings of Dura-Europos//Berytus. 1948. Vol. 9. P. 1-40; Welles C. B. The Population of Roman Dura//Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of A. Ch. Johnson. Princeton, 1951. P. 251-274; idem. The Chronology of Dura-Europos//Symbolae R. Taubenschlag dedicatae. 1957. Vol. 3. P. 467-474; Kraeling C. H. The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Rep. New Haven, 1956. Vol. 8. Pt. 1: The Synagogue; 1967. Vol. 8. Pt. 2: The Christian Building; Шишова И. А. Дура-Европос - крепость Парфянского царства//УЗ Ленинградского ун-та. 1956. 192. Вып. 21. С. 107-125; Goodenough E. R. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. N. Y., 1964. Vol. 9-11: Symbolism in the Dura Synagoge; Bickerman E. Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue//HarvTR. 1965. Vol. 58. P. 127-151; Шифман И. Ш. Рабы в документах из Дура-Европос//Античное общество: Тр. конф. по изуч. античности. М., 1967. С. 81-85; Perkins A. The Art of Dura-Europos. Oxf., 1973; Пигулевская Н. В. Ближ. Восток: Византия, славяне. Л., 1976; Hopkins C. The Discovery of Dura Europos. New Haven; L., 1979; Matheson S. Dura-Europos: The Ancient City and the Yale Collection. New Haven, 1982; Gates M.-H. Dura-Europos: A Fortress of Syro-Mesopotamian Art//BiblArch. 1984. Vol. 47. N 3. P. 166-181; Goodenough E. R., Gutmann J. Early Synagogue and Jewish Catacomb Art and Its Relation to Christian Art//ANRW. 1984. Pt. 2. Vol. 21. Hbd. 2. P. 1313-1342; Gutmann J. The Sacrifice of Isaac: Variations on a Theme in Early Jewish and Christian Art//Thiasos ton Mouson: Studien zu Antike und Christentum: FS J. |
| The woman at Dura-Europos has yet more secrets to reveal. Archival photographs and drawings made by the archaeologists on site show that the supposed absence behind the female figure is not totally silent — it speaks a couple of lines. That is to say, a field sketch of the wall done “to show additional details” depicts two painted lines touching the woman’s back, along with a kind of starburst on the front of her torso, features described as “unexplained” in the archaeological report. But with the new interpretation of the figure, in connection with the Eastern iconography that came later, the lines invite a rather evident meaning. They appear to represent a motion toward the woman’s body and a spark of activity within it, as if something invisible were approaching and entering her — an incarnation. If correct, this woman at a well is the oldest securely datable image of the Virgin Mary. Devotees of the Roman catacombs may demur, since a few female figures there are often presented as Mary. But these are challenging to date with certainty, and many scholars argue that the proposed examples have insufficiently specific iconographic signifiers. Identifying the oldest image of Mary isn’t an end in itself. Reidentifying this woman helps us to ponder anew the distinctive emphases of early Christians in Syria, who in this baptistery celebrated salvation through images of marriage, pregnancy and birth — as much or more than through participation in a ritualized death. This is not to undermine the power of Jesus’ passion and resurrection accounts, but rather to rebalance the perspective of modern Western viewers, looking back after centuries of art focused on the cross. In the extant art from Dura-Europos, we see the hope of new spiritual birth, but the death of Christ is not pictured once. Today the paintings from this church are safe. But further opportunities to understand early Syrian Christianity are slipping away, as the archaeological sites of Deir ez-Zor are being systematically plundered under the auspices of the Islamic State. According to satellite images and reports from the ground, the looting pits at Dura-Europos are innumerable. Even while the human tragedy of the refugee crisis justifiably occupies our attention, the destruction of cultural heritage tells a parallel narrative. |
| This description corresponds with that of the two oldest archaeological finds of ancient house churches — those at Megiddo (Palestine) and Dura Europos (Syria), which both date to the 3rd century AD (early-to-mid 200s at latest). Both churches-within-households had a place for baptism (like the central pool mentioned above), an area for the general assembly of people, and a small area for the Eucharistic rite itself (often an elevated platform with a table/altar). A large, mosaic inscription in Greek at the Megiddo house church reads: “The God-loving Aketous has offered this table to the God Jesus Christ, as a memorial,” a seemingly obvious reference to the Eucharist, given the words “table” and “memorial.” It gets even more interesting at Dura Europos, where the extensive discovery has yielded not only abundant examples of Iconography throughout the house church structure (e.g. frescoes of Christ as the Good Shepherd, Christ walking on water, the Samaritan woman at the well, and the myrrh-bearing women at the empty tomb), but also some fragmentary manuscripts in the Hebrew language that show a continuity with the Eucharistic liturgy of the first century Didache and the more developed Apostolic Constitutions . A Greek-language “harmony” of the Gospels (in fragments), that is distinct from the Diatessaron , has also been found at this site. The Eucharistic anaphora in the Didache, which has been dated as early as AD 50-60, reads: Thou, O Lord, Almighty, hast created all things for the sake of Thy name, hast given food and drink to the children of men for enjoyment, but to us Thou hast granted spiritual food and drink for eternal life through Jesus, Thy servant. For all these things we thankfully praise Thee, because Thou art powerful. Thine is the glory forever. Amen. The Didache , 10 The Hebraic fragment uncovered at Dura Europos also includes an anaphora, and it has a strikingly similar composition: Blessed be the Lord, King of the Universe, who created All things, apportioned food, appointed drink for all the children of flesh with which they shall be satisfied; But granted to us, human beings, to partake of the food of the myriads of his angelic bodies. For all this we have to bless with songs in the gatherings of [the] people. |
| The fact is, some readers of the New Testament have always found it helpful to have the elements of all the individual Gospels laid out in a continuous narrative, as in one book. Throughout most of Christian history the use of Gospel Harmonies has not brought with it a rejection of the four individual Gospels. Interestingly, in 1933, the same year in which Mr. Boettner published his Harmony of the Gospels, excavators working in Dura Europa, on the lower Euphrates in Syria, unearthed a four-inch-square parchment fragment of the Diatessaron. 169 Illustration 5.1 P.Dura 10, the earliest-known fragment of Tatian’s Diatessaron, in Greek. A parchment roll. Early third century. Used by permission of Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University. Because the town of Dura was destroyed in 256 – 7 CE, we thus have a portion of a Greek translation of the Diatessaron that is probably no more than about fifty years later than Tatian’s original. It is in fact the reconstructed translation of this fragment which was given at the beginning of this chapter (notice that it used all four Gospels). 170 Many scholars at first assumed that the Dura Harmony must have functioned as Holy Scripture for a congregation of Christians which, archaeologists were able to discover, met in a house just two blocks away from where the fragment was found. But several decades after the discovery of the fragment, and after many other early Christian manuscripts had come to light, papyrologist C. H. Roberts made an interesting observation: All Christian manuscripts of the Bible, whether of the Old Testament or the New Testament, attributable to the second or the earlier third century, are codices, all written on papyrus. 171 With Christian manuscripts other than biblical, practice varies; some, possibly because they were candidates for the Canon, others more probably on the analogy of the biblical texts, are in codex form; others, and not only scholarly treatises when pagan practices might be expected to be followed, but texts such as Tatian’s Harmony of the Four Gospels (found at Dura Europos and so written before the destruction of the city in A.D. |
| -. Romanesque Painting From the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century. Mural Painting, A. Grabar; Book Illumination, Carl Nordenfalk. Translated by Stuart Gilbert. NY: Skira 1958. 229 p. (The Great centuries of painting.) Translation of De la fin de l’epoque romaine au onzieme siecle. Bibliography: p. 211–214. Icons: Windows on Eternity: Theology and Spirituality in Colour. Gennadios Limouris, comp. Geneva: WCC Publications, 1990. x, 228 p., 16 p. of plates (Faith and Order paper; 147.) Bibliography: p. 217–224. James, Liz. Light and Colour in Byzantine Art. New York: Clarendon Press, 1995. Kalokyres, Konstantinos D. The Byzantine Wall Paintings of Crete. Photographs by Farrell Grehan; translation by Leonidas Contos and Constantine Kazanis. New York: Red Dust, 1973. 184 p. Translation of the author’s Greek original, published in 1957. Bibliography: p. 182. -. The Essence of Orthodox Iconography. English translation by Peter Chamberas. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1985. 107 p., 19 p. of plates. Translation of He ousia tes Orthodoxou eikonographias. Kartsonis, Anna D. Anastasis: The Making of an Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. xviii, 263 p., 68 p. of plates. Bibliography: p. 237 –255. Kitzinger, Ernst. Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies. Edited by W. Eugene Kleinbauer. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976. xvii, 419 p. -. Byzantine Art in the Making: Main Lines of Stylistic Development in Mediterranean Art, 3rd-7th Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. xii, 175 p. -. Byzantine Art in the Period Between Justinian and Iconoclasm. [s. 1.: s. n.], 1958? 50 p., 26 leaves of plates. Based on a lecture delivered at a symposium entitled “Byzantium in the seventh century” held at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1957. -. “Byzantine Contribution to Western Art of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1965.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers (Washington), n. 20 (1966), p. 265–266. -. “Byzantine Contribution to Western Art of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries. Substance of the Conclusions presented at the final session of a symposium on The Byzantine contribution to western art of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, held at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1965.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers (Washington), n. 20 (1966), p. 25 –47. |
| 107 Пространный христианский катехизис Православной Кафолической Церкви. С. 48. О том же есть указание и у митрополита Макария: Макарий (Булгак о в), митр. Православно-догматическое богословие. СПб., 1883. Т. 2. С. 198. 109 Феофан, еп. Начертание христианского нравоучения. С. 434. О том же см.: Феофан, еп. Толкование на Первое послание апостола Павла к коринфянам. М., 1893. С. 207–214. 131 Фома Аквинский. Summatheologiae. ParsII(2). Q. 2. Art.4, 5; Q.4. Art. 2. Ad 3; Art. 1. Ad 2. Выписки даны по английскому переводу Summa theologiae (1952). 132 Киреевский И. В. О характере просвещения Европы и его отношении к просвещению России//Полн. собр. соч. М., 1911. Т. 1. С. 194–195. 133 Киреевский И. В. О необходимости и возможности новых начал для философии//Полн. собр. соч. М., 1911. Т. 1. С. 237–238. 136 Киреевский И. В. О необходимости и возможности новых начал для философии//Полн. собр. соч. М., 1911. Т. 1. С. 239. 137 Фома Аквинский. Summa theologiae. Pars II (1). Q. 113. Art. 4. Ad 1; Pars II (2). Q. 19. Art. 5. Ad 1; Q. 18. Art. 2; Q. 4. Art. 4. Ad 2; Q. 6. Art. 2. Ad 1. 154 Он же. О необходимости и возможности новых начал для философии//Полн. собр. соч. М., 1911. Т. 1.С. 249. 155 Киреевский И. В. О необходимости и возможности новых начал для философии//Полн. собр. соч. М., 1911. Т. 1.С. 251–252. 157 Письмо к А.И. Кошелеву. Цит. по: Ел аги н Н. Материалы для биографии И.В. Киреевского//Киреевский И.В. Полн. собр. соч. М., 1911. Т. 1. С. 74. 159 Сидонский Ф., свящ. Речь при отпевании Ивана Васильевича Киреевского//Русская беседа. 1856. 2. С. 3. 166 Хомяков А. С. Письмо к редактору «L’Union Chrйmienne» о значении слов «кафолический» и «соборный»//Полн. собр. соч. М., 1900. Т. 2. С. 312, 313. 171 Цит. по: Неводчиков H., свящ. Знакомство и переписка A.C. Стурдзы с Филаретом, митрополитом Московским. Одесса, 1868. С. 38. 189 Из письма к М.П. Погодину от 31 декабря 1885 г. Цит. по: Князев Г. М. Братья Киреевские. С. 24. 190 Цит. по:Гиллельсон М. Неизвестные публицистические выступления П.А. Вяземскогои И.В. Киреевского//Русская литература. 131. |
| After a long interval, Hermes again comes back to the subject of the gods which men have made, saying as follows: But enough on this subject. Let us return to man and to reason, that divine gift on account of which man has been called a rational animal. For the things which have been said concerning man, wonderful though they are, are less wonderful than those which have been said concerning reason. For man to discover the divine nature, and to make it, surpasses the wonder of all other wonderful things. Because, therefore, our forefathers erred very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to their worship and service, they invented this art of making gods; and this art once invented, they associated with it a suitable virtue borrowed from universal nature, and being incapable of making souls, they evoked those of demons or of angels, and united them with these holy images and divine mysteries, in order that through these souls the images might have power to do good or harm to men. I know not whether the demons themselves could have been made, even by adjuration, to confess as he has confessed in these words: Because our forefathers erred very far with respect to the knowledge of the gods, through incredulity and through want of attention to their worship and service, they invented the art of making gods. Does he say that it was a moderate degree of error which resulted in their discovery of the art of making gods, or was he content to say they erred? No; he must needs add very far, and say, They erred very far. It was this great error and incredulity, then, of their forefathers who did not attend to the worship and service of the gods, which was the origin of the art of making gods. And yet this wise man grieves over the ruin of this art at some future time, as if it were a divine religion. Is he not verily compelled by divine influence, on the one hand, to reveal the past error of his forefathers, and by a diabolical influence, on the other hand, to bewail the future punishment of demons? For if their forefathers, by erring very far with respect to the knowledgeof the gods, through incredulity and aversion of mind from their worship and service, invented the art of making gods, what wonder is it that all that is done by this detestable art, which is opposed to the divine religion, should be taken away by that religion, when truth corrects error, faith refutes incredulity, and conversion rectifies aversion? |
| Liturgical art is in crisis, for it is based on Divine Liturgy and Eucharist, which are only entering the centre stage, as the Church is only beginning to discuss its understanding of liturgy and the role of bishops, priests and laity in liturgy. At least in Russia it is only beginning. And there are more questions than answers. If we remain barely as passive participants in the liturgy without much insight into its composition and content, then it would be quite naïve to expect the liturgical art based on seeing and understanding the liturgy to flourish. The questions that follow are even harsher: how much longer will the Orthodox Church surrender to the onslaught of mass production of Church commodities? How much longer will the manufacturers, in pursuit of better (lower) prices, remorselessly sacrifice not just quality, but canon and the Orthodox Tradition itself? How much longer will the churches and church shops sell this kitsch without giving it a second thought? These very questions stem directly from the Church teaching. Can we say that problems of theology of image and iconoclasm issues were successfully resolved at the Seventh Ecumenical Council? In a negative scenario, mass production of low-quality church goods can lead to something bigger than just loss of reverence for the holy images. We risk losing the very ability to read and understand the language of icons, Orthodox hymnography and symbolism of church architecture. Do not be surprised if new iconoclasts knock on our door sooner or later. I would like to be mistaken, but there are real forewarnings for that happening. Moreover, quite a few artists and cultural professionals are ready to dialogue with the Church. But does the Church extend the invitation for such dialogue? What tasks can the Church entrust them with? What does she have to offer them? Our experience in exhibiting Christian art in Moscow proves that the Orthodox Church does have its own contemporary art . However, it takes a lot of courage, wisdom and sobriety to rebut the claim that Church art consists purely of imitating the prototypes of the past. Living tradition of the Church art is represented by a constellation of bright, accomplished artists and iconographers, movie and theatre directors, musicians, composers, sculptors… Unfortunately, it would be hard to mention even the most prominent of them within the time given for this presentation. |
|
|
