analele stiintifice nr.1 2010

8/8/2019 Analele Stiintifice nr.1 2010

1/178

ANALELETIINIFICEALE

UNIVERSITII ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZADIN IAI

(SERIE NOU)

T EOLOGIE O RTODOX

TOM XV 2010No. 1

Editura Universitii Alexandru Ioan Cuza Iai


2/178

COMITET DIRECTOR: Preafericitul P rinte Daniel, Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Romne,Membru de onoare al Academiei Romne naltpreasfin itul Printe Teofan, Mitropolitul Moldovei i BucovineiAcademician Prof.dr. Emilian PopescuProf.dr.pr. Viorel Sava decanProf.dr.pr. Gheorghe PopaProf.dr.pr. Nicolae AchimescuProf.dr.pr. Petre SemenProf.dr.pr. Ioan C. Te uProf. Joseph Famere Universit Catholique de Louvain, Louvain - la - Neuve, BelgiaProf. Franois Bousquet, Facult de Thologie et de Sciences Religieuses de lInstitut

Catholique de Paris, Fran aJ.A. McGuckin, Universitatea Columbia, New York, USA

CONSILIU DE REDACIE: Prof.dr.pr. Gheorghe PetraruProf.dr.pr. Ion VicovanConf.dr. Vasile CristescuConf.dr. Carmen-Maria BolocanConf.dr. Carmen-Gabriela L z reanuLect.dr.pr. Alexandrel BarneaLect.dr.pr. Ilie Melniciuc-Puic Lect.dr.pr. Dan Sandu

Lect.dr.pr. Adrian-Lucian DinuLect.dr.pr. Daniel Ni -DanielescuLect.dr. Meri or DominteLect.dr. Stelian Onica

REDACTOR RESPONSABIL:Prof.dr. Nicoleta Melniciuc-Puic

TEHNOREDACTOR:Valentin Grosu

Adresa:

Str. Clo ca, nr. 9 Tel: 0040 232201328;Ia i, 700 066 0040 232201102 (int. 2424)Romnia Fax: 0040 332816723; 0040 232258430


3/178

C ONTENTS

Clarification of the opponents destination countered by Saint Mark

The Ascetic in his dogmatic work Adversus NestorianosAssist.Prof.PhD. V ASILE CRISTESCU ...................................................5

The Holy Scripture and the Idea of Holiness in Literature general overviewAssist.Prof.PhD. C ARMEN -M ARIA BOLOCAN ....................................21

Orthodox Monasticism: Applying Authority DemocraticallyRev.Lect.PhD. D AN SANDU ...............................................................41

The Foreign Policy of Tsar Peter the Great of Russia and Its Influence uponthe Romanian Orthodox Church in the Romanian Principalities

Rev.Lect.PhD. D ANIEL N I -D ANIELESCU ......................................47

Unless you change and become like little children... (Matthew 18, 3). To Become Children: an Attitude, a State and a Spiritual Act

Rev.Lect.PhD. A DRIAN D INU .............................................................69

The relation between the internment of sick persons feelings of themAssist.Prof.PhD. C ARMEN -G ABRIELA LZREANU ..........................93

Biblical statements in the forth and fifth articles of Niceean Creed Rev.Lect.PhD. I LIE M ELNICIUC -P UIC ............................................113

The study of Sacred Art and of Cultural Patrimony at the Faculty of OrthodoxTheology of the Al. I Cuza University in Iasi

Lect.PhD. S TELIAN O NICA ,Lect.PhD. M ERI OR G. DOMINTE .....................................................131


4/178

The Solomonar: An Enigmatic Figure of the Romanian Folk MythologyPhD.Cand. C ONSTANTIN -IULIAN DAMIAN .......................................143

The Monument Church Assumption from Borze ti. New Painting in "Fresco" Technology

Lect.PhD.Cand. V ASILE TUDOR .......................................................159

The problem of compatibility between middle age and today pedagogical methods in teaching of iconography

Lect.PhD. T ODOR M ITROVI ............................................................171


5/178

Clarification of the opponents destination countered bySaint Mark The Ascetic in his dogmatic work

Adversus Nestorianos

Vasile Cristescu

Assist.Prof.PhD. Faculty of Orthodox Theology,

Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Ia i, ROMANIA

Abstract: In his work Adversus Nestorianos, St. Mark the Ascetic combats a Christology of

the separation which expresses the origenistic doctrine held in its basic lines: the pre-existence of Christs soul and his incarnation, emptying this way Christs reference and history by their action. At the same time St. Mark also rejects other origenistic

statements that attributed saving events to Christs spirit. For St. Mark the saving eventsare attributed to the incarnated Son of God. Through this there is also challenged theorigenistic idea that considered Christ a simple man, denying thus the hypostatic unionbetween the Son of God and humanity in a single hypostasis. According to St. Mark only by confessing this hypostatic union in all saving events and emphasizing the identityof the same subject, God-the Man, the Christology of the separation or the origenismul can be combated.

Keywords : God-the Man, origenism, pre-existing soul, identity, subject

In a previous study (Cristescu 2009a: 42-59) we have showed thatSaint Athanasius the Great has a catalog of heresies in which he speaksabout a christology of Jesus separation (Saint Athanasius the Great 1887:1052C) characteristic to the origenism, about which there are seriousindications as being a determined reaction against it in the work Adversus

Nestorianos of Saint Mark the Ascetic.Next we will follow other sources in order to find more information

about the origenism and its partisans fought by St. Mark the Ascetic inthis work. In order to achived this we willl take into consideration theresearch made by A. Grillmeier to this effect (Grillmeier 1997: 292). Thefirst question is whether Saint Mark became aware of the origenistChristology and of the opponents faced in his work, Adversus


6/178

Vasile Cristescu6

Nestorianos , from St. Epiphanius of Salamis. Of the 72 paragraphs of Chapter 64 of his work Panarion , written between 374-377, 51 are anexcerpt from Saint Methodius of Olympus. Three paragraphs (6, 7 and10) are an excerpt of Origen and of his commentary on Psalm 1. Only theparagraph 19 comes from St. Epiphanius.

Some researchers believe that from Saint Epiphanius littleinformation can be found regarding the origenism of the fourth century,even if he provides the basis for later stories about origenism. This isbecause Origen should be seen as the father of arianism and anomoeans

when stating the teaching of the pre-exististence of the soul, whenteaching certain heresies about the body and bodily resurrection. Nothingcan be found at Saint Epiphanius regarding the strange doctrine of theopponents, about which Saint Mark the ascetic talks, meaning theteaching about Christs soul as a vehicle of Incarnation.

Only a foreign education is appointed or dismissed by St.Epiphanius and Saint Mark. It means cancelling the holly connectionwith the body of Christ or destroying the body of Christ. A. Grillmeierstates that there is no dependency of Saint Mark to Epiphanius.

Theophilus of Alexandria and Saint Mark The Ascetic aboutorigenism

Another antiorigenist representative is Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria (385-4129). Is has to be established whether the description of the origenist Christology made by Patriarch Teoctist clarifies thedestination of the opponents from St. Marks work Adversus Nestorian and the peculiarity of his teaching.

The following points of view have to be taken into consideration:the matter of Christs soul as the subject of Incarnation and thecharacterization of the enemies, Christology partisans of separation asseparatists and rationalists. The question is whether the origenists arebeing put by Theophilus under the same question mark as St. Marksopponents. The point of gravity lies here on the question whether St.Mark talks about the same origenists against whom Patriarch Theophilusis fighting against. In case of asserting this identity it has to be found whoinspired this dispute.


7/178

Clarification of the opponents destination countered by Saint Mark The Ascetic 7

Following other researchers, Grillmeier states that between St. Mark the ascetic and Theophilus of Alexandria there has been found a spiritualexchange regarding the problem of heresies rejection. In the letter writtenin 402 when celebrating the Easter, Patriarch Theophilus writes aboutsuch issues: no. 8: nec carnem deduxit de caelo nec animam, quaeprius subsisterat et ante carnem eius condita erat, suo corpori copulavit,sicut Origenis nituntur docere discipuli, si enim anima salvatoris,antequam ille humanum corpus adsumeret, in caelorum regionibusmorabatur et necdum erat anima illius, impiissimum est dicere ante

corpus eam fuisse domini agentem aliquid et vigentem et postea inanimam illius conmutatam, alliud est, si possunt de scripturis docere,antequam nasceretur ex Maria, habuisse hanc animam deum verbum etante carnis adsumptionem animam illius nuncupatum, quodsi etauctoritate scripturarum et ipsa suscipere ratione coguntur Christum nonhabuisse animam, antequam de Maria nasceretur-in adsumptione enimhominis et anima eius adsumpta est-, perspicueconuincuntur eandemanimam et illius et non illius fuisse dicentes.

Sed cessent illi a novorum dogmatum impietate furibundi! nosscripturarum normam sequentes tota cordis audacia praedicemus, quodnec caro illius nec anima fuerant, priusquam de Maria nasceretur, nec anteanima in caelis sit commorata, quam sibi postea iunxerit; nihil enimnostrae condicionis e caelo veniens secum dominus deportavit(Theophilus 1945: 192).

As regards the place of Philippians 2, 5-7, Patriarch Theophiluswrites: No... 14: ille ausus est dicere, quod anima salvatoris seevacuaverit et formam servi acceperit, ut Iohannes mentitus esse credatur,qui ait: verbum caro factum est similem nostrae condicioni ingerenssalvatorem, dum non est ipse, qui se evaquavit et formam servi accepit,sed anima illius, et fidem, quae omnium confessione firmata est, suaimpietate dissoluit, si enim anima salvatoris est, quae fuit in forma dei etaequalis deo, juxta Origenis insaniam, aequalis autem deo filius dei est,et, quod aequale deo est, eiusdem conuincitur esse substantiae, ipse nosdisputationis ordo perducit, ut unius naturae animam et deum essecredamusverum non est ita, fratres, nec anima salvatoris, sed ipse filiusdei, cum esset in forma deiet aequalis deo, se exinanivit formam serviaccipiens, et Origines in profundum impietatis demersus caenum non


8/178

Vasile Cristescu8

intellegit se gentilium esse participem (cit. Rom 1, 22-23)sic et isteinmutavit gloriam incorruptibilis dei in forma illius et aequalitate animamsalvatoris adserens, quae creata est, et hanc se evacuasse et non verbumdei ad terrena venisse, sicut apostoli adfirmat auctoritas.No. 16 (partially preserved in Greek): Aliam rursus filio dei nectitcalumniam et his verbis loquitur, sicut pater et filius unum sunt, ita etanima, quam adsumpsit filius dei, et ipse filius dei unum sunt, necintellegit patrem et filium unum esse propter communionem substantiae eteandem divinitatem, filium autem et animam eius diversae et multum

inter se distantis esse naturae, etenim, si, sicut pater et filius unum sunt,unum erit pater et anima salvatoris et ipsa dicere poterit: qui vidit me,vidit parem, sed non est ista-absit hoc ab ecclesiastica fide!-filius enim etpater unum sunt quia non est inter eos diversa natura; anima autem etfilius dei et natura inter se discrepant et substantia, eo quod et ipsa a filiocondita sit nostrae condicionis atque naturae. (it follows a place from DePrincipiis, IV, c. 4, 4 of Origen; Koetschau, p. 353, 18-354, 3), Matthew26, 38: Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem , and Joh. 12, 27: Nuncanima mea turbata est . Theodoret has preserved the Greek text: ergo simelior est et potentior filius dei anima sua, quod nulli dubium est,quomodo anima illius in forma dei esse poterat et aequalis deo, quam cumdicat se evacuasse et servi adsumpsisse formam, omnes hereticosmagnitudine blasphemiae superat? Si enim in forma dei et aequalis deoverbum dei est, in forma autem dei et aequalitate eius anima salvatoris est,quomodo potest inter aequalia aliud esse maius, aliud minus ea enim,quae inferioris naturae sunt, sublimiorem naturam atque substantiam suidefectione testantur.

From the comparison of the origenism described by PatriarchTheophilus and St. Mark the following observations can be made: the 8thepistle from Easter talks about a pre-existence of Christs soul. This pre-existence is being defended by Origens disciples. Unlike Theophilus,St. Mark keeps himself away from the issue of the pre-existence of thesoul. This problem is known by him and rejected by his teachings in his

Adversus Nestorianos . Paragraph 9 of this work can be understood fromparagraph 14 of the paschal epistle of Patriarch Theophilos. In connectionwith the place of Philippians 2, 7, Theophilus shows the difference


9/178


between the origenist interpretation and the teaching of the Churchregarding Incarnation.

According to Origen, not the Logos, but the soul of Christ is first inGods face in order to comply with the emptiness. St. Mark does notaccept being in Gods image, but talks about the same understanding of the Incarnation as the origenists when he says: Because they haventconffessed during baptism that through the intercession of God the Wordbecame body and human soul (Cristescu 2009b: 22-53), and thenappointed in this connection all the saving events of Christ.

Patriarch Theophilos clearly sees that here the subject of Incarnationis being established in a false manner. Not a pre-existent soul is in theimage of God and with God, but the Son of God Himself (ipse filius dei).He is the one who taking a human soul created and the body from Marybecomes a man and subject of emptiness.

While Theophilus follows even the last implications of thedistinction between Church teaching and origenistic interpretation of Incarnation, for St. Mark it is enough to show that God the Word becamebody and man by means of the soul. His effort doesnt consist indiscovering false speculative effects of the origenist addition regardingthe report of the pre-existing soul with God (as seen by Theophilus no. 14and 16) but is part of the soteriological field. The fact that all christianevents are related to a false point, meaning the soul of Christ and not God-the Word, St. Marks opponents clear the sending and the history of Jesus by their action.

Because of this the listing of the saving events from the life of Christ is being made by the enemies since they belong only to the soul.As Theophilus, St. Mark puts things on their right line because all theseredeeming events are attributed to the Son of God (filius dei). Here it isbeing considered the destination of the Same, meaning of the Son of Godas keeper of history, which Theophilus briefly outlines them by referenceto the place of Philippians 2, 5-7 and St. Mark by listing the singleredeeming events confessed in Article 2 of the Symbol of faith.Both Theophilus and St. Mark point out a fundamental difference of theorigenistic interpretation of the person of Christ. According to theorigenists, Patriarch Theophilus shows, both the Logos and the pre-existing soul are in Gods image ... and with God. How can between


10/178

Vasile Cristescu10

those who are alike one to be greater and the other one smaller?. Thismeans crushing the unit of Jesus. Theophilus argues in his epistle takingan anti-arianistic position. St. Mark reaches the same position even if inanother approach. His position is that through this central location of ahuman soul created between word and body is being broken the unitybetween the Word and the body meaning that on the one hand theyseparate the body from the word, and on the other hand the word from thebody. The opponents are representatives of a Christology of separationwhich is being defeated in the work of St. Mark, Adversus Nestorianos .

As regards this issue St. Mark goes clearly beyond Patriarch Theophilus.St. Marks opponents argue that the Word as Son is truly God. But

because they do not accept the union after hypostasis of this word withthe human nature in Jesus, they make Jesus a simple man. St. Mark does not accuse his opponents of Arianism, but rather of Nestorianism.Both Theophilus and St. Mark find at the enemies an attitude outside theChurch as one can see in the letter written in 402 during the Easter:Unde, qui Origenis erroribus delectantur, festivitatis dominicae nonspernant praeconia nec unguenta, aurum et margaritas quaerant in luto neque matrem suam ecclesiam, quae eos genuit et nutriuit, in magnisurbibus lacerent, qui aliquando nostri nunc propter illum et discipulos eiusgentilium in nos odia superant et in delectatione eorum in nos maledictacongeminant divitumque obsident foresilli, qui quondam iactabant sesolutidinis amatores, saltim paruulam ad occultanda maledicta super labiafuroris sui aedificent cellulam quamquam effeminatis auribus etgentilium odiis se nostri detractatione commendet carpentesecclesiasticam disciplinam et patientia nostram quasi quodam temeritatisformite abutentes, tamen aliquando taceant et quiescantdeisiderentqueea sapere, quae digna sunt vita solitaria, et ecclesiae principem acmagistrum non contristent deum (Theophil 1935: 207-208). No. 23:indignatur et saeviunt contra ecclesia medicamina, quibus vulneratissanitas redditur. Nos, quae scimus, loquimur, et quae didicimus,praedicamus orantes, ut, qui ecclesisticas despiciunt regulas, normamrecipiant veritatis nec propter hominum confusionem, per quam difficultererrantes corrigi solent, perdant utilitatem paenitentiae, et nunc dicimus etante praediximus et idem frequenter ingerimus: vagari eosnolumus necper alienas errare provincias, sed ad extorres et furibundos cum propheta


11/178


clamamus et loquimur (Ieremia 28, 50). Patriarch Theophilus talks aboutwanderer monks who spread the origenisic teachings without praisingGods holiday (praeconia festivitatis dominicae), meaning the Easter.They criticize the Patriarch in wealthy homes and refuse obedience to thechurch life. They have separated themselves from the church meeting andnot take part in the common fraternal joy (fraterna in communelaetitia). Once they preferred solitude, says Patriarch Theophilus, andthey should build a cell over their lips ( cellula ) to no longer give free reinto defamations about him in front of opponents.

As in case of St. Mark, Patriarch Theophiluss opponents areportrayed as representatives of new dogma, against whom he mustoppose the Scripture as a norm. The image depicted by St. Mark about hisopponents is being induced more by the Christological issues and not bythe attitude towards the church authority. However as PatriarchTheophilos describes the situation, the same tension can be seen betweenChurch tradition and opponents points of view. As shown in paragraph 9of St. Marks work, Adversus Nestorianos, his opponents areintellectualists who want to enter by means of sharp questions the unionmanner after hypostasis of the Son of God with the human nature.Their continual insistence on the way the union took place is beingcharacterized by St. Mark as a useless act as an unnecessary action.Because of the fact that they do not understand this way they lose theirfaith. Through this they get into conflict with the Scripture. They alsoomit the common confession of faith. They should be ordered: mavqe toV khvrugma, kaiVantilevgwn ai*scuvnhti . Even the deny of their preachingis a consequence of their pedantic subtileties: ou* diafeuvxh thVn tou~khruvgmato a[rnhsin.

Several times St. Mark speaks of the baptismal symbol. For hisresearch he showed an increasing interest. The baptismal symbol is thecorrect answer to all pedantic subtleties and questions about the union

manner. Instead of an useless research of Gods union with humanity inChrist, the believer fulfills the commandments. The research regardingthe union is certainly related to the teaching about Christs soul presentedby St. Mark in paragraph IX, meaning an origenistic teaching as describedby Patriarch Theophilus.


12/178

Vasile Cristescu12

The comparison between the work Adversus Nestorianos and thedescription of the origenists made by Patriarch Theophilus leads to thefinding that one can talk about representatives of origenistic Christologywho are in conflict with the Scripture, Kerygma and Confession of theChurch, who dedicate themselves to a life without peace in a zealousadvocacy for their ideas. They are origenists and this is proved by the factthat both St. Mark and Theophilus fight the same false doctrine accordingto which the Incarnation is attributed to the soul of Christ. Because in allhis work Adversus Nestorian, St. Mark speaks about the same opponents

whose main teaching is just this strange destination of the incarnationtopic, A. Grillmeier certainly founds out that the work of St. Mark is anantiorigenistic writing.

In order to show that this finding is true, Grillmeier asks whetherthe origenists may be representatives who may be considering aChristology of separation in Christ, because it seems that some featuresused by St. Mark in Adversus Nestorianos when describing the opponentsmatch rather others than the origenists.

Saint Mark the Ascetic vis a vis of origenism of Evagrius PonticusIn order to prove the truth that the origenists are those who separate

the person of Christ, he refers to the relationship between St. Mark andEvagrius Ponticus. The first direct evidence for that Christology,attributed by Theophilus to the origenists and criticized by St. Mark, canbe found in Evagrius. Grillmeier says that as a disciple of St. Basil and St.Gregory of Nazianzen, Evagrius was initiated in the work of Origen.Here we should note that what was not made clear in the studies regardingthis theme including Grillmeiers, is that Cappadocian parents neverundertook the wrong teachings of Origen, but they have left them behindand even drew the attention on their threat, as does St. Basil in his treatiseOn the Holy Spirit. Moreover they have corrected such teachings withoutappointing Origen. Through this way of discerning the claims of Origenswork, they brought Evagrius in right Confession of faith of Nicaea. Afterhe came to Egypt, Evagrius got to the desert of Nitria and then in Kelliaunder the influence of the origenists, particularly of long brothers andAmmonius.


13/178


The question is whether the Christology of Evagrius is a subject of criticism for St. Mark. A text from the comment to the Psalms (Psalm131, 7) of Evagrius corresponds to the teaching described by St. Mark:We love the Saviors body not because of its nature, but because Christis in it, but the body is worthy of worship due to Christ, but Christbecause of God - the Word that is in him. But here I name Christ therational and holy soul, which together with God-the word lived a humanlife because a simple body by nature is unable to receive God because ourGod is Wisdom. In good heart, as Solomon says, rests wisdom (Wisdom

14, 33). But anything which is composed of four elements cannot receiveknowledge. But our God is knowable (is knowledge) (Evagrie Ponticul1883: 330). The wording is strange. Christ is in this body. The body of Christ (rational soul) together with the Logos forms the incarnated onethat is the Savior. In the text there is a definition of Christ. Evagriusconsiders that Christ is identical to the rational soul. According toEvagrius, the rational soul is the starting point in understanding Christ.God the Word is together with this spirit. This soul can clearly mediatebetween word and body.

The soul of Christ is the subject of Incarnation. Evagrius isapollinarist considering that: There are heretics who speak evil of thesoul of Christ and deny it (Evagrie Ponticul 1883: 225).

When Palladium says in Historia Lausiaca that Evagrius was takenin a cross-fire by three demons, namely one dressed like arian other aseunomian other as apollinarist, the apollinarists (Palladius 1898-1904:121) are being taken into account. E vagrius gives Christs soul the centralplace in Christ because he needs this as a mediator between word andbody. Evagrius emphasis more the union of the Word with the Father:The Body of Christ is united to our body and his soul is the nature of oursouls, but the word that is in him is united to the Father (EvagriusPonticus 1884: 251).

A. Grillmeier correctly points out that the Christ of Evagrius is aconcession made to the medium Platonism, no less evil than the one madeby Arius, although with a completely different interpretation of Christsnature. Above there is a divine monad united to God the Word. Thenfollows the pre-existing soul of Christ, which is linked to the God- the


14/178


15/178


authentic Greek text, the text is different from the one of the first version.Here it is the text translation made by A. Guillaumont of both versions:

Syriac version: Christ is not united to Trinity. Indeed he is not theessential science, but he only has in him in an inseparable manner theessential knowledge. But Christ, I mean the one who came up with Godthe Word and in spirit is God, is inseparable from his body and is by unityconnected to his father because he is the essential science (Guillaumont1958: 223).

The first version called a purified one is as follows: The body of

Christ is part of human nature, he in whom the whole fullness of theGodhead wanted to live bodily. But Christ is God over all as says theword of the Apostle.

According to the authentic text of the Syriac version, Evagriuscannot say that Christ is connected to others third. Christ is the incarnatedspirit and in this connection Lord who has the knowledge of the divinenature, possessed by the Word. Categorically expressed here is the factthat this Christ is not the knowledge of the divine nature, but he only hasit in himself in an indivisible way. This Christ who came (soul) istogether with God the Word, one, inseparable by his body. The fact thatthis understanding was suspected is being shown by the text of thepurified version or newly designed, in which Christ is described in themeaning of the orthodox Christology.

Towards the authentic text of the Syriac version there has beenrightly taken a position being recognized in it the origenism. This provesthat St. Mark has a good understanding when combating a concept thatmade from Christs soul the subject of incarnation. Through this Evagriusalso comes in the battle field of St. Mark.

Saint Mark the Ascetic in his fight against origenismSt. Mark brings an authentic clarification when talking about those

who divide Christ, so they split up according to the parts on the one handthe body from word, and on the other hand the word from the body(Saint Mark The Ascetic 1895: 12). In addition, he reproaches to hisopponents that they teach a separation or sharing of Christ. Thiscriticism appears always in his work Adversus Nestorianos.


16/178

Vasile Cristescu16

Researchers such as J. Kunze, said that between 381-431 therehadnt been other representatives of the separation of the person of Christexcept for some Antiochians, such as Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and his followers. They were seen as enemies of St. Mark. L.Abramowski states that a comparison of the terms of Diodorus of Tarsusand those of St. Mark from his work Adversus Nestorianos has as a resultthe fact that St. Marks opponents and Diodor represent the sameChristology (Abramowski 1949: 58). Grillmeier fairly notes that thisfinding needs is a strong differentiation, namely the notion of

antiochiens has to be differentiated.Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, Nestorius

and Andrew of Samosata are different in common concepts and trends. If one of the Antiochians would belong to the opponents of St. Mark, theprosopon unity term would have been certainly discussed upon. In thiscase, says Grillmeier, Antiochians opponents would have been verypleased with St. Mark finding, according to whom God the word took theperfect man as seen by St. Mark, while he would have been morecautious in case of a dispute with the word sunavfeia .

Since the separation of Christ made by the opponents of St. Mark isgiven by the centering of the image of Christ on the soul of Christ, itresults an entirely different structure of their doctrine of separation thanthe one of the Nestorians who are appointed in the full title of the work XIof St. Mark. In addition, together with the doctrine of separationsupported by the opponents of St. Mark other disposals have to be seen:the trend towards bold speculations, strange exaggerations and love of knowledge. However all these the Antiochians lack.

Different expressions and reproaches through which the Antiochiandoctrine has been characterized, such as for example the blame often puton St. Marks opponents who used to call Christ a mere man ... accordingto the mentioned researchers seem to show their teaching. However theopponents mentioned by St. Mark in his work Adversus Nestorian arebeing assigned other teachings. These do not fit the Antiochians.

In paragraph 9 of this work St. Mark often finds out that thereceivers of his writing, place in parallel the mere word ... and themere body of Christ. They do this with the desire of not letting the bodyevents to approach the word. So, for instance in order to interpret the birth


17/178


of Christ the opponents seem to avoid the sharing of Christ. According toSt. Mark the born One is no mere Logos or mere man, but The OnlyChrist. His opponent would have to agree that Christ is One, a unit,entirety. However he is not honest, because as one can see in paragraph14 of St. Marks work, he says - changing the words of Apostle Paul wepreach the crucified Christ (I Corinthians 1, 23) - we preach thecrucified body. According to this enemy it would be an unreasonablething to believe in the crucified as being the Son of God.

To this, St. Mark responds that the Saint Apostle Paul calls the

crucified power and wisdom of God (I Corinthians 1, 24). This apostledoesnt speak about two Christs, but One. The mere word as opponentscall it, cannot be crucified, but neither the mere man can be power andwisdom of God. The true response to this matter is according to St.Mark, receiving the true union between God- the Word and the body,which means that Christ is therefore chosen as the name of the union.The opponents did not agree to the union in the person of Christ, seeing inthe crucified to death but a simple man and a dead body. They areguilty of necrology, because a simple man and a dead body cannot be theLord of glory and the power of God. The adversaries understand theirfaith in the Crucified God as the faith in God who lives. The conceptionabout the word that lives in the body would fit the above listedAntiochians.

However the reasoning is being extended further, because only onegroup is being questioned, meaning the group that wants to cancel theentire order of the Incarnation and Crucifixion. It cannot see theIncarnation and death of Christ as an expression of Christs saving power.Therefore St. Mark replied: the claims that He became body for us, diedfor all men, that through death he defeated the one who dominates death,meaning the devil (Hebrew 2, 14) that saves all people who believe inHim (John 3, 16) and that through Incarnation gives believers thekingdom of heaven, are somehow the work of a mortal, as you say, or if,on the contrary, of the power and wisdom beyond comprehension, as theApostle was saying?.

Grillmeier says that the assessment of the whole behavior of Christfrom Incarnation until crucifixion seen as a work that aims only to death,instead of a proof about the power of life and wisdom of God can never


18/178

Vasile Cristescu18

be attributed to the Antiochians. It can be attributed to groups that have anegative opinion on the subject and body and have also a negativerelationship with them. This is not the case of the Antiochians.

From this negative attitude towards Incarnation the opponents of St.Mark believe in a limitation of Christs human nature. Against this St.Mark underlines several times the eternal importance of assuming thehuman nature by God the word in the body for all time inseparable andimmortal? The son of God is and remains in the body. Over all He madeways of being of the body, not only on earth, now, but forever in heaven.

St. Mark sees all creation crowned by Incarnation, because in Christ allshall be reviewed as in a head (Eph. 1, 10). These truths should not beunderlined when talking about Antiochians, but when talking aboutorigenists. In addition, St. Mark describes an entire series of happeningsregarding the monastic origenistic circles.

On the first hand it is about the disturbances of the aspirationtowards rationalism and an emphasis on knowledge. They are present inthe entire work Adversus Nestorianos. In addition, those who producedthem opposed to the recognition of the crucified Christ as a Lord of glory, and Wisdom and power of God and refused to accept the unionof God the Word and the human nature in Christ. The fundamentalrationalist attitude of the opponents is characterized by St. Mark asfusiologein (natural-philosophical consideration) towards Christ asGods wisdom and power.

The opponents always make St. Marks wonder about how a Logosunited with the body by hypostasis can do the passions its own in apassionless way. Such a question is a blasphemy before God. From suchan attitude the opponents put the Incarnation and the whole work of salvation under the sign of necrology. Towards any question about howthis occurs, St. Mark stresses that failure to know the divine work.Because the opponents do not see the power that Christ as God achievesthe union in him, they dare to divide Christ. Because they share the powerof Christ as measured through the fact seen in humans, they share Christ:on the one hand the mere body acting for itself and on the other hand onlythe word.

To the opponents question about the work of salvation in Christ,St. Mark responds with a reference to the baptismal confession. A


19/178


peculiar interest in this context it consists of a reference to the Gnosticattitude of the opponents regarding the question about the purpose of Christs coming in the world: What (else) than to learn the truth (fully),which no one else learnt, in order to believe in the Father, the Son and theHoly Spirit of course by fulfilling the commandments and not by vainknowledge?.

So the opponents put salvation under mere knowledge as opposedto fulfilling the commandments. This does not fit Antiochians, but thecircles around Evagrius. Their desire of knowing instead of believing,

pure knowledge rather than active fulfillment of Christs words, leadthese Gnostics to a futile act, lacking sincerity, instead of honestendeavors. St. Mark always brings this reproach. By this he refers to bothoverstated knowledge and unnecessary speculation about the nature of Christ and the question regarding the union with human nature of the Sonof God in Christ towards the faith that came by hearing and a spiritual lifein obedience towards the commandments of God.

The verb periergavzes ai used to support the site II Thessalonians3, 11 and the nouns derived from it periergasia v and periergiva are inthe literature of the fourth century techniques for an exegesis of excessivesubtlety. About this issue there were warnings of John Chrysostom andBasil. Periergav zes ai and the nouns related to it appear in St. Mark for 11 times. St. Mark uses them in order to express the blame towardsthe opponents thinking, expressed in these terms: Opus IV (Saint Mark The Ascetic. 1886a: 958B), Opus V (Saint Mark The Ascetic. 1886b:958B), Opus Opus VII (Saint Mark The Ascetic. 1886c: 1101A). Thereproach made by St. Mark regards the Christological conception of theopponents that separates Christ.

In his Adversus Nestorianos are being claimed the origenist circleswhose Christological doctrine, attitude toward preaching and HolyTradition of the Church, rationalism and trend towards gnosis, are being

observed and controlled by St. Mark step by step. In the Christologicalorigenistic doctrine combated by St. Mark shines a Neoplatonic thoughtthat can understand the word Incarnation only by means of anintermediate being between word and body, and has special difficulties tokeeping close to the final reality of the Incarnation.


20/178

Vasile Cristescu20

References :- Abramowski, L. 1949. Der theologische Nachla des Diodor von

Tarsus. In Zeitschrift fr Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 42.- Cristescu, Vasile. 2009a. Hristologia Sfntului Marcu Ascetul n

lupta Bisericii mpotriva nv turilor gre ite . Teologie iVia , nr. 5-8: 42-59.

- Idem. 2009b. Aspecte dogmatice ale hristologiei Sfntului MarcuAscetul. . Teologie i Via , nr. 1-4: 22-53.

- Evagrie Ponticul. 1883. Comentar la Psalmul 108, 19 . In col. J.B.Pitra. Analecta Sacra III . Venetii.

- Idem. 1883a. Comentar la Psalmul 44. 8 . In col. J.B. Pitra. Analecta Sacra III . Venetii.

- Idem. 1886a. Comentar la Psalmul 104. 15 . P.G. 12.- Idem. 1886b. Comentar la Psalmul 118. 3. P.G. 12.- Evagrius Ponticus. 1884. Capita gnostica, VI, 79 . P.G. 28.- Grillmeier, A. 1997. Fragmente zur Christologie . Freiburg im

Breisgau: Hg. von Th. Hainthalter.- Guillaumont, A. 1958. Le six centuries des Kephalaia Gnostica

dEvagre le Pontique, VI, 4 . In Patrologia Orientalis , 28.Paris.

- Idem. 1962. Le Kephaleia Gnostica dEvagre le Pontique .Paris.

- Palladius. 1898-1904. Historia Lausiaca . Ed. de C. Butler. The Lausiac History of Palladius. Texts and Studies, VI, 1-2 .Cambridge.

- St. Athanasius the Great. 1887. Ep. c tre Epictet, cap. 2 . P.G. 26.- St. Mark The Ascetic. 1886a. De baptismo . P.G. 65.- St. Mark The Ascetic. 1886b. Ad Nicolaum praecepta animae

salutaria. P.G. 65.- Idem. 1886c. Disputatio cum quodam causidico . P.G. 65.

-

Sfntul Marcu Ascetul. 1895. Adversus Nestorianos. Text greceditat de J. Kunze. Marcus Eremita. Ein neuer Zeuge fr dasaltkirliche Taufbekenntnis . Leipzig.

- Theophil, Al. 1935. Ep. Fest. anni 402 . In Ieronim, Ep. 98 . Ed.Hilberg. In col. Corpus Sanctorum EcclesiasticorumLatinorum, 55.


21/178

The Holy Scripture and the Idea of Holiness in Literature general overview

Carmen-Maria Bolocan

Assist.Prof.PhD. Faculty of Orthodox Theology,


Abstract: The Book of Books has always been a sourse of inspiration for authors and artist

of all the centuries. Still, the aesthetic value of the text of the Bible has never beenconsidered until now. But to speak about the aesthetic value of the text we have to decidewhether the text of the Bible is literature in itself or is affiliated to a certain kind of literature. Is it acceptable to call a sacred text literature? Can we use the Bible outsidethe sacred favourite place which is the Church and the religious services? These areonly a few aspects of a complex problem that we are trying to solve within this paper.

How should we consider the Bible is a question for which we offer a valid answer taking into account the difficulty and complexity of such an issue.

Keywords : Holy Scripture, literature, sacred, Church

IntroductionFrom the appearance of the first Christian texts the following

problem was put forward for discussion: should these texts be consideredaccording to their role in comparison with the kerygma of the Church?Saint Evangelist Luke states this with no doubt when he adresses toTheophilus, the recipient of his book, that he is writing him in order toassure him of the solidity of the teaching he had already received(according to Luke 1, 4). Moreover he thinks it is important to dissociatehis text from the multitude of writings that appeared at the time about thelife and the activity of Jesus Christ, even though he declares, with theadequate honesty of the author, that many of those served him whenwriting his book (acc. Luke 1, 1-3).

The words of Saint Luke offer a base solid enough to believe that heis no longer writing to retell the story of jesus Christ, but to state and


22/178

Carmen-Maria Bolocan22

transmit a teaching that he considers to be Messianic and vital to betought all over the world, to Gods glory and to the redemption of the

people (See also John 20:30-31, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Second of all, hedraws attention upon several previous attempts to narrate in writing thefacts that have been fulfilled among us (Luke 1,1). Taking into accountthe fact that, up until the date to which this text was written, only theGospels of Saint Mark an Matthew had appeared, it is rather improbablethat Saint Luke reffered only to these two writings. We know that in the1st century some different versions of the life of Jesus Christ were already

circulating, as well as other documents reffering to His teachings. On theother hand, St. Lukes attitude as opposed to the stories in discussionseems to be rather cautious. The Romanian translators have valuable triedto preserve this indication hardly perceived even in the Greek text,translating the Greek text with many have undertaken temselves to setdown (a.u.). Luke rarely uses in his texts the verb to take in hand withthe meaning of to subdue, to dominate, to try, to take great pain,

but he does this in very explicit contexts for us. The verb appears twomore times in The Acts of the Apostles: firstly when he speaks about thevain attempts of the Hellenistic Jews to kill Paul and Barnabas inJerusalem (Acts 9,2); and once more when the author mentiones the zeal(ardour) of some itinerary exorcists to take out deamons, abusing the

power of Jesus Christs name. Their efforts, sais St. Luke, wil haveunfortunate consequences (Acts 19,13). We may observe that in bothcases he speaks about failed attempts. On the strength of the traditionalhermeneutical principle of the parallel places, we may say as aconsequence that when he speaks about vain attempts of the many tonarrate the facts that have been fulfilled among us the author implies theexistence of two categoris of texts. Indeed, of all the science that healludes to, only a few pieces can be found today within the HolyScriptures. The others, without the help of the Church, they either got lostor didnt have a great authority or influence.

This happened because the dissociation process started by St. Lukewas continued during the following decades and centuries by theChurchs representatives, materializing in a few edcisions that establishtwo important categories of text: the first caracterizes the corpus of booksrecommended to the believers for reading and, more than this, worthy to


23/178

The Holy Scripture and the Idea of Holiness in Literature general overview 23

be called Holy or Divine; and a second category of good books,instructive and thus acceptable, but not holy (Floca 1992a: 50, 230-231,252-253, 335-336) [See the Canons: 85 Apostolic, 60 Laodiceea, 24Cartagina, 2 nd of St. Athanasius the Great, 1 st of St. Gregory theTheologian and 1 st of St. Amphilohius]. To conclude, we may say that thetexts from the first category not only affirm but also celebrate the faith of the Church, while the second category is accepted because they illustrateit in an appropriate manner. Of course, there are also the texts fullyrejected, as being spread by somenone under the sapect of holiness, to

the peoples and the clergys loss (Floca 1992: 38) [The Canon 60Apostolic]. One may easily observe that the status of each corpus of textsis given by their relation with the doctrine, with the faith. Some evenaffirm and celebrate it, others just illustrate it and the latter alter and evencontradict it.those from the first category are easily accepted right fromthe beginnng in the Canon and thus enjoy the status of the sacred letter.The others are tolerated on condition, if not rejected but some of themwill subsequentl find a shelter in the oral tradition or in what was later oncalled secular literature.

In the following lines we aim to analyze the evolution of thisrelation in the 20 th century. The new hypothesis, if not even shocking for some, that we will try to check on is that in the 20 th century the Bible hasa rather paradoxical status: on one hand it is assimilated to the sacredliterature, on the other hand it is aborbed by the secular literature. Alongwith this process of appropriation another one also develops, that of thesacralization of the literature mainly recongnized as secular.

In an incipient state of the process, the Bible holds the monopoly of the statement and celebration of the faith, as presented by St. Luke, thus

joining without rest in what Adrian marino calls, according to Jeronimos,sacred literature (Lat. s acris lettris ) (Marino 1987: 62); now, the other texts have for the better an illustrative-didactic role of the doctrine. In asubsequent phase, starting with the Renaissance and coming to a headwith the Enlightenment, the secular literature, strongly influenced by the

biblical pattern presents obvious signs of (self)sacralization. Fromhandmaid of Piety as John Wesley considered it in 1780 (Wesley1990: passim ), the literature tends to become, especially with the romanticideas of the 19 th century, the Mistress of Truth the noblest Handmaid


24/178


25/178


language. Regarding the importance of this translations for the evolutionof literature, most of the papers only mention historical information.

The Holy Scripture and the literature theoretical perspectivesWe would like to discuss, within the following, the relation between

Bible and literature from a theoretical point of view. When we consult,even superficially, the specialized bibliography, we may observe the

presence, among the specialists, of two important trends: one according to

which the Bible belongs to literature; and another, according to which theBible is literature.

The statement according to which the Bible belongs to literatureestablishes, right from the start, a well determined hierarchy and comesalong with two important problems. None of these received a satisfactoryanswer until now. First of all, by compressing the field of discussion thisstatement rises the problem of the affiliation of the bible to a certainliterature. Second of all, proving to be tributary to the trend that equatesthe idea of literature with that of belles lettres , it proposses for discussionthe aesthetic value of the Scripture, thus rising a series of questions whichthe more interesting the more difficult they are.

Nowadays it would be difficult to say exactly to which nationalliteratureb belongs the Bible. Or to which historical period. The answer that it belongs to everyone is not far from reality, but not very clear either.

The most tempting answer for the first problem would be: the Bible belongs to the ancient literature. Or another, more precise: the Bible belongs to the ancient Hebrew literature. But the problem gets morecomplicated when we realise, we say this with the risk of repeating whatwe have already stated, that we are not dealing with a regular book, but,in fact, with a collection of books having th proportions of a real library.Books written by different authors, in different ages and even in differentlanguages. Some are poetical, others narrate historical facts or meaningfulfictions. The authors are: moralists, theologians, poets, bitter critics,historians, politicians; some of the are sensitive, other seem to have a tastefor arguing all the time; some are just insinuating, while others call aspade a spade. The Bible is book just from a convetional point of view, towhich we automatically subscribe. In fact, we have to deal we a whole


26/178


literature concentrated, through a typographical artifice, between thecovers of a single volume. And then again, is this literature ancient or Hebrew?

More than that, along with the appearance of Christianism, the biblical Hebrew literature is enriched with a new corpus of foundingtexts: the Christian texts. And because of the universal character of whatin the beginning was thought to be just a new sect detached from theTemple, the Scriptures go beyond its margins and, implicitly, beyond themargins of the ancient Hebrew literature. From now on the Bible can be

read either as a part of the ancient Hebrew literature, or as a part of theChristian literature. And this only complicates the problem further more.

To answer the second question, we are obliged to speak about theaesthetic value of the Scriptures text. When the literature is defined bycriteria which are mostly, if not exclusively aesthetic it stands to reasonthat no text, not even a sacred one, is accepted in its departmentdepending on the extent to which it satisfies certain criteria taking intoaccount the artistic beauty, too.

If in the 60s 70s almost no one took seriously a study refering tothe literary characteristics of the Bible, on the grounds that this book isstrictly religious, during the last decades, especially after the publicationsome works by foreign authors, many researchers and literary critics have

begun to study the text of the Scripture from a not so usual perspective.Of course, the study of the Bible from a literary point of view has to deal,from the very beginning, with difficulties of essence. Firstly we findourselves mnot in front of a book, but of a whole library, written duringseveral centuries; then, it is impossible to speak here of a unity of thestyle, not even of the language; last but not least and this is another hypothesis to be demonstrated - , because as soon as it enters the field of letters, the Bible requires, even in an apparently neutral space (Johansen,trans. Jinga 1993: 16), confessions of faith: we cannot support such anapproach, which after all is exegetical, without mentioning from the very

beginning what the literature represents.In a pioneers essay, The Art of Biblical Narrative , Robert Alter

stated that, in order to understand the narrative art of such an old text asthe Bible, we should focus, firstly on the stylistic methods present withinthe text. In the given case, we would be speaking about the frequent use


27/178


of the analogy and secondly about the rich expressive function of thesyntax (Alter 1981: 21). The solution proposed by Alter, it was later

proved, is viable only if we consider the aesthetic value to be a foregoneconclusion. This is almost impossible to achieve in the case of the Bible,at least for as long as we linger in what Tzvetan Todorv called our modern parishism. The aesthetic value of the Bible in itself is not anobvious thing for everyone. For some, for example, the Bible is a sacred

book and as a consequence it is forbidden to analyse its text from astylistic point of view and a literary approach would only betray its

meaning. As radical as it may seem, such a position cannot be ignored.Others consider, and they may not be so far from the truth, that itwouldnt be out of the question for ome expressions which to us,nowadays, seem beautiful, to have had a certain weight at the time, or tohave been only translation mistakes. In a relatively recent study LouisPanier tates that the biblical authors dont create figures of speech on

purpose, but use formulasfrom the daily language. However, the biblicaltexts are written in an approachable language.

An interesting solution, opposite from that proposed by LouisPanier, is that of the Oxonian professor G.B. Caird. Right from theappearance of the first studies on this theme, Caird observed that wecannot speak about artistic values in the case of the Scriptures, unless wediscover in the biblical text enough clues so as to support the hypothesisthat the authors use certain expressions with a precise stylistic intention.He even offers some suggestions in order to discover their stylisticconscience. Here are some of them: the author explicitly indicates the factthat he uses a figure of speech (such as in Galatians 4,24, for example);there are passages which we can be sure that cannot be considered ad litteram (as in Amos 9, 2-3); it is the same case for the juxtaposition of images (see Isaiah 33,11) etc. (Caird 1980: 183-193). But Cairds positionalso proved to be criticable. He chooses rather uninspired the quotationthrough which he tries to exemplify the first indication of stylisticintention. The fragment from Galatians 4, 24 reffers to two characters of the Old Testament, Sarah and Agar. St. Paul revaluates the story in atheological way: he illustrates, by alluding to the story of the two women,the specific of the two promises made by God to His people (on Sinai andJerusalem). In a similar way we may qoute the fragment from 1


28/178


Conrithians 10, 11, where St. Paul applies a similar interpretationtechnique, this time referring to the post-Egyptian history of the hebrews:these things happened to them to serve as an example, and they werewritten down to instruct us. Based on these examples one could only saythat Paul is able to recongnize the figures of speech from a text and to usethem. But this would be very little: in fact, Paul doesnt relate to the textthis much but to the historical event. Pauls skill depends on his ability tosee the history as a discourse of the divinity and to translate this discoursein a common language. Things would probably be easier if we were able

to aproximate as correctly as possible the function of these figures as partof the culture and civilisation of the time. Was it an ornamental function?A didactic one? Or a doxological one? We are told that an essentiallyaesthetic text from the Bible is The Song of Solomon (Song of Songs).But even here: among delicate descriptions of the bride and groom, wealso find a rather contrary one, where Shulammites hair is compared to aflock of goats and her teeth to a flock of shorn ewes that have come upfrom the washing (Song of Songs 4, 1-2). We must admit the fact that thisimage is not capable to produce an intense aesthetic emotion to a reader atthe end of the 20 th century, perhaps still sensitive to Sonnet 15 ( Whatever might restrain me when I feel drawn ) from Dantes Vita Nova or toEminescus poem So delicate - not to mention other examples. It isobvious the fact that beauty was defined according to different criteria

back then. But this only brings us back from where we started.From Paniers point of view the skill of these authors consists of

their ability to revaluate the daily language, to grant it a theologicalmeaning (Panier). The observation is true for some of the books from theOld and the New Testament. But most of the biblical writings wouldargue against the ideas of the French scientist refering to the simplenessof the language or, to do justice to Anerbach, to the fact that Louis Panier lets us understand that a simple language doesnt have much in commonwith the aesthetics. But, apart from this, learned authors such as Isaiah or Daniel, for example, not tomention the authors of the sapiential books,express in a very elegant manner. On the other hand, the poetical textsfrom the Scriptures are not to be ignored too easily in such a discussion.The publishing in the 18 th century of Robert Lowths book, De Sacra

poesis Hebraeorum meant not only the rediscovery of parallelism, as a


29/178


fundamental principle of the Hebrew prosody, but also the realizing of thefact that the biblical poetics function according to criteria which are verydifferent from the European ones (A detailed presentation of RobertLowths work at Prickett 1986: 106-123; Alter 1992: 171-190).

We can speak about the literare, aesthetic value of the Bible onlyafter we have stated our principles. Moreover, our fear is that, whentrying to speak about the Bible as literature in the sense of belles lettres ,instead of succeeding to get out of our modern parishism in order toshare the beauty of the Scriptures text, we only struggle in vain to

overlap the translucent surfaces of some paradigms that dont have toomany things in common. We believe that in the literary character of theBible is to be looked for in another direction, of which we will speak inthe following.

The Bible is literatureAs a sacred text, the Scripture produced in time multiple forms of

literature. The first responsables for this were, of course, the authors of the first attempt of interpretation. It would be difficult enough to mentionhere the Targums although paraphrases can also be read like this [We arethinking especially at Targum Jonathan ]. But the midrashes already offer us a very good example. Generated by the necessity to explain certaincontradictions, to offer biblical fundaments to new laws or to establish thesense of of certain passages according to different cultural contexts, themidrashes developed on two main directions: halakah and haggadahwhile the halakah midrashes indicate the fulfilling of the Law in

particular situations, the haggadah midrashes are initially homileticstructures, meant to clarify the receiver upon different aspects of the Toraespecially, and also of the Scripture in general. Most of the haggadah midrashes are characterized by an elaborate discourse, full of imagination,using generously the parables in a very entertaining manner. These occur mostly in the form of narrations starting from a given biblical fragment anretell it, bringing out certain aspects, which are considered to be important(a very good work on this theme in Romanian is that of Peterc 1999; seealso the monumental work of Ginzberg 1911-1938; or the studies of Vermes 1973). Analysing among other ways of reading the Scriptures, the


30/178


haggadah midrashes the researchers will draw the interesting conclusionthat they present all the necessary elements for us to consider them bothas factors which contributed substantially to the consolidation of theCanon ans as incipient forms of transforming the Bible into literature(Wadsworth 1981: 11-15). For the researchers, entire fragments fromDantes Divine Comedy , or other works such as Joseph and His Brothers

by Thomas Mann should be conceived as ample haggadah midrashes for the correspondent biblical passages (Wadsworth 1981: 20-21). Thus, onemay observe that a great part of the iterature developed in relation with

the Scriptures and finally from a hermeneutical necessity.The statement according to which the Bible is literature places the

two terms on positions of equality and proves as we are going to see, awider understanding of the concept: the Bible is a written text, so it isliterature and it belongs to literature in the same time. On the other hand,the Bible may be considered a literature in itself, a literature which, alongthe centuries, continued to influence the universal thinking. Indeed, thereare very few national literatures and epochs that dont have any creationsinspired by the Bible or works which are more or less related to the Bible.From a literary point of view the Scriptures represent the inevitable book.Great authors are inevitable in literature, and great books such as theBible enjoy an astonishing immanence.

If we were to give credit to George Florovsky, then the discussionshould be moved in the field of iconography. Referring to the style of theevangelists, Florovsky observes that they didnt mean, as we saw beforein the discussion about the words from the beginning of Lukes Gospel, torealte faithfully, step by step, all the deeds of Jesus Christ. Lets not forgetthat realism appeared much later. According to Florovsky, the authors of the gospels write in order to transmit a doctrine and an image, but not onethat is historical and divine in the same time. We will not find in thegospels a protrait of Jesus Christ as a historical person, instead we willfind His icon (Florovsky 1972: 25). And in our opinion this technique can

be generalized for all the biblical authors. None of them abunds in details,most of them prefer to suggest the characters qualities han to describethem. It is also the case for the narrative fragments. This lead someresearchers to to conclude that the Bible is written in a simple rough stylewith no aesthetic value whatsoever.


31/178


Some researchers stated that, especially in the historical Book, theevents are described in terms of action, and the characters are presentedrather sketchy, without too any details. We can characterize a personageor another, mostly by analysing its reactions in a difficult situation. Andmost of the events narrated in the Bible are, in fact, difficult situations.The biblical authors are very selective in their descriptions, they note onlywhat is essential and narrate strictly events of great importance. Theexplanation offered would be that they write, in fact, at a notable distancein time from the moment when the related event actually took place.

Could it be only this? The researchers had already spoken about thelaconicism of the biblical authors and had remarked with ood reason thatmost of the details in a biblical text dont have a pragmatic value, but atheological and moral one. He notes the profoundness of the biblicaldetails and the fact that such a concise style suggests, in fact, much morethe complexity of life and always opens to something else (Alter 1992:24; Henn 1970: 21-23; Auerbach, trans. Negoi escu 2000: 13-16).

According ot Florovsky, we have to deal with a rather concentratedlanguage, such as the one that poetry uses. Each element of a biblical texthas its precise place and role, similar to the details of an icon. And an icondoesnt necessarily offer a faithfull image of the historical reality, but itsneither far from it. In its turn, the biblical text offers a multitude of suggestive significant elements that are suited to many ways of reading,

but will never fully correspond to a given historical reality because it isnot a text meant to inform but to discover. If things were different, thehermeneutic would be useless. In exchange, we interpret in order tounderstand the text, to illustrate a faith teaching, to distinguish moraladvices etc. in the case of the process of interpretation, the exegete iscalled to distinguish the significance of the text at the moment of itswriting from that viable for the context where it is interpreted. In the caseof the Bible it is also interesting what its authors wanted to say but, morethan that, speaking about a reference canonic inevitable text, its content isespecially what its books continue to say, even independently from theintentions of some authors of conjuncture (Eco, trans. Mincu end Buc 1996: 101). If the details that signified the text in the past and those whichsignify it in the present belong to the mythological paradigm of thecentury, than we may say that the interpret destroys the myth and then he


32/178


recreates the mythology of the text. Well, the art often deals with similar translations. It is not by chance that the scientists consider art in generalas an alternative form of hermeneutic. We can imagine Moses not as hewas, says T.R. Henn, but the way Michelangelo sculpted him (Henn1970: 183).

If for the west the 15 th century meant the beginning of theRenaissance, for the Eastern part of the continent, the same centurymarked the beginning of the Turkish domination. According toSchneidau, we may say that in the West the process involved manifest

especially after the Reform, as a natural consequence of the Judeo-Christian theology that was at the time in continuous expansion. Themovement is from within towards the exterior, from the heart of theChurch towards the diverse and polymorphous area of the century. Theinvention of the printing press, the philological discussions about thevariants of the manuscripts, the translation of the Book in the vernacular languages lead to what we called the democratization of the text andimplicitly to the taking out of the Bible from the ecclesiastical space. Onthe other hand, in the East, the secular pression comes from a foreignculture and civilization, the muslim one. The phenomenon has specificconsequences even on a spiritual level. Here one may observe on onehand attempts to continue the politics of symphony, characteristic for theByzance, between the Church and the civil authority and on the spirituallevel, a pronounced interior muster. During the following periodhesychasm appeared, we believe, as a natural reaction in such aconfigured situation. Also, the structures and the doctrine of the Churchenter a real regime of survival and preserves the institutions of the sacred,almost miraculously, in their original form (the history of the

phenomenon and its analysis at Schmemann, trans. Moorhouse 1996: 116 sq ). The result is that in the Eastern Churches, the Scriptures never leavethe ecclesiastical space. Here, the Bible is still Holy, and its reading andinterpretation are mediated liturgically. The favourite place for thereading of the Book of Books remains the Church, the time time is that of the religious services and the person who performs the reading must beone from the cult personnel [We refer, of course, to the function of reader/anagnostis from the minor orders of clergy] (Brani te 1993: 104-105; Kucharek 1971: 435-437).


33/178


The liturgical hymns are just comentaries to certain biblicalfragments which aim along with finding the meaning, to encourage adoxological disposition in the mind and in the heart of the ministry(Breck, trans. Jinga 1998: 76-77; Lecca 1999). A very interestingcomposition of the Oktoih says: The tree once in eden brought us

bitterness and the wood of the Cross bloomed sweet life; for when Adamate he fell into death and now we delight with Christs body and acquirelife and mysteriously become gods, receiving the eternal kingdom of God.For that we raise our voices with faith: Glory to your sufferigs, Word

(Oktoih 1975: voice 8, Wednesday, Matins, Sedealna after the 3 rd Kathismata). The biblical fragments to which this text alludes areobvious. It is very interesting the waythey are put together according to alogic unusual to us we have to admit, if we dont identify its typologicalroots:

- The tree of knowledge and the Cross, proving to be the tree of life;

- Adam, the old man, and Christ revealed as a new Adam restorer of the human being;

- The forbidden fruit from which adam ate and Christs body i.e.the Eucharist;

- The parallel tree-man, familiar to the Hebrew mystic is meant toreinforce the discourse, to draw the the attention upon itsmystical value and to prepare the final doxology.

The whole history of the fall and of the delivering of the human being as well as the doctrine about sin and redemption are concentrated inthese lines.

Finally, this state of facts represents only a reflex of the balance between the two ways of transmition of the divine Revelation, confessed by the traditional churches: the Scripture and the tradition. We adopt herethe observation made by George Florovsky (Florovsky 1972: 79), whodefined the Tradition firstly as a hermeneutical principle and a method.Of course, his statement is entirely trueonly if we refer strictly to the

primary Church, to the period before the first ecumenical synnods. Thesituation doesnt change completely after the validation of the firstsynodical decrees and the anrichment of the tradition with the documentsthat will form the corpus of canonical texts. But the apostolic century still


34/178


remains the period when this phenomenon may be best observed becausenow the relations of continuity between the Christian and the Jewishhermeneutic are still obvious [In this respect see a classical work: C.G.Montefiore, where the author makes an extremely interesting paralell,supported by analysis on the text between rabbinic and Christian canonicwritings in the apostolic century. Lukes Gospel, for example, is analyzedcomparatively almost verse by verse, and in the appendix of the book he

presents rabbinic texts from the same epoch, clasified tematically: aboutfaith, about deed and about repentance] (Montefiore 1930); [as important

as this we consider the book of Jacob Neusner, where the methods of themidrashes exegesis are discussed. Even is Neusner doesnt refer explicitly to Christian texts, from his analysis one may recognize some of the techniques used in the patristic literature (we think especially toMaxim the Confessor, Origen or in general, to authors who belong to theAlexandrian school)] (Neusner 1983). This is where the idea comes from,in the East, that the Bible can only be understood in the light and theframe of the Tradition. In the West this conception will only be kept bythe Roman-Catholics. Florovsky (Florovsky 1972: passim ) underlines thefact that the Tradition was the living context and the comprehensive

perspective that lead to the perceiving and the appropriation of the trueintentionof the Scripture and of the divine plan. In other words, theTradition doesnt add anything to those already revealed by the HolyScriptures, but it offers the optimum ambient and indispensable in order to uncode the divine message which is, thus, accesible to everyone who islooking for it with a corresponding state of the spirit. This ambient has to

be appropriate, similar to the Scripture, to those that are heavenly, but tosuch an extent so as to transfigure those wh are earthly. The finalmessage, as we may see, is the same but its transmission or, more

precisely, its fulfilling can be achieved corectly only through thecomunion of the two ambients.

After the fall of Byzance and setting up of the Ottoman domination,the most faithfull and accesible expression of the Tradition understood assuch remains the Liturgy (Golitzin, trans. and preface by Ic jr. 1998: 6).The Church becomes the real saving ark, floating over the whirlinghistory of the century, and similar to the model of the Holy Virgin, it iscalled spiritual refuge. Now, here it is kept the true Clavis Scripturae


35/178


Sacrae of the East. The works of the father circulate on a small area butthe essence of the patristic hermeneutic was already concentrated in thetexts of the prayers recited during the services and also in the liturgicalobjects and robes. We may say that from now on the Church becomes inits whole the true world of the text [It is interesting the fact that, after afew decades the anglican bishop of Monmouth discovers in this action of rediscovery of the liturgical hermeneutic a possible solution for the wayof the biblical disciplines in an already post-modern world] (AccordingRowan Williams 2000: 52-53). For example the diskos on which the

particles are set may symbolize the place of Jesus Christs birth and inanother liturgical moment, His tomb. The Epitrachelion of the priestsymbolizes the lost sheep, rescued by the good shepherd. It is a symbol of the minister but also of the greatness of the office. The prayer that the

priest says when he dresses the epitrachelion is very significant: Blessedis God, Who pours out grace upon His priests: as the chrism upon thehead, which ran down unto the beard, the beard of Aaron, ran down evento the hem of his garment. The text of this prayer refers to the moment of aarons consacration as priest of the chosen people (Exodus 29, 21;Leviticus 8, 30) thus affirming the ancestry of the Christian priesthoodand the fact that Christs followers form the new Israel, so they are calledto fulfill mans destiny according to the divine law.

We can see clearly that in the Orthodox space we have to deal withan approach both hermeneutical and doxological in the same time. Fromthe Eastern point of view, the two cannot function separatly. Thus, therelation between Bible and literature supports a specific development. For example, in the British cultural space we could speak about anappropriation of the Bible by literature especially after the publishing of the Authorized Version (1611) facilitated a great deal by the fact that it ismass diffused and entire passages from it are taken over by the spelling

books of the time, so that whole generations will learn how to write andread starting from the Scripture. In the East, the Bible is not used as asupport for teaching writing and reading , but it is replaced by the Livesof the Saints or by other religious books or even the Breviary, nowfamous because of the memories of Ion Creanga. The specific literaturefor this cultural area tends to imitate and to take over, at the beginning of the text of the cult and much later (during the 19 th and 20 th centuries) the


36/178


37/178


ConclusionAs a conclusion of what we have presented so far, we may say that

the Biblehas been for ages a real inspiration sourse for art in general andfor literature in particular. Because of the means of expression and of themanner of text organization privileged by the authors of the texts presentin the Canon, the Bible has been and continues to be an endless sourse for the creators of art of all times. There is an impressive number of narrations, parables, proverbs which, during all this time haveimpregnated the European literature and have stood, many times, at the

basis of the foundings of new artistic forms. No doubt, the handiestexample is offered by the Romantic literature where, at least in the anglo-saxon space, the Bible succeeds in replacing the Classics as a literarymodel, and from this point on, it becomes the metatype of the WesternRomantic culture, in its effort to distinguish not just a sacred text, butalready to find the meaning of a world more and more changeable (Henn1970: 80) [Prickett draws this conclusion by analysing the implications of the spreading of the authorized version of the Scripture in England, a

phenomenon conjugated with the influence of Schleiermecher and Fr.Schlegels ideaas in shaping the romantic sensitivity. See an overview of the phenomenon in the work of Jeffrey 1992]. Indeed, starting with the18 th century, the literature authors feel called not just to enchant the spiritwith their creation but also to look for an answer to the great questions of the mankind, parabolically transfiguring the moment.

In the East, the literature appeared in the light of the Bible aims tothe status of sacrality either joining a political creed, like in the West, or even entering the library of the Churchs institutions. The pious literatureand the literature of religious origin will never aspire to becom sacred textfor the simple fact that here, any such decision belongs to the Church. Therole of these literary productions will always be, at best, an illustrativeone. Only certain writings can affirm or celebrate faith. On the other hand, because it isnt appropriated by the secular literature, the Bibledoesnt leave the liturgical space, unless it is absolutely accidental and itcontinues to be venerated as such.


38/178


References:

- Oktoih . 1975. Bucure ti: Editura Institutului Biblic i de Misiuneal Bisericii Ortodoxe Romne. Edi ia a II-a.

- Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative . London,Sydnei: George Allen & Unwin.

- Alter, Robert. 1992. The World of Biblical Literature . London:SPCK.

- Auerbach, Erich. 2000. Mimesis. Reprezentarea realit ii nliteratura occidental . Translation by I. Negoi escu. Polirom.

- Brani te, Rev.Prof.Dr. Ene. 1993. Liturgica general , cu no iunide art bisericeasc , arhitectur i pictur cre tin . 2nd edition. Bucure ti: Editura Institutului Biblic i de Misiune alBisericii Ortodoxe Romne.

- Breck, Rev. John. 1998. Principii ortodoxe de interpretare aBibliei. Trans. Constantin Jinga. In Altarul Banatului .Revista Arhiepiscopiei Timi oarei. Episcopiei Aradului iCaransebe ului. Year IX (XLVIII), new series, no. 1-3,January-March.

- Caird, George B. 1980. The Language and Imaginary of the Bible .London: Gerald Duckworth.

- Eco, Umberto. 1996. Limitele interpret rii . Translation bytefania Mincu and Daniela Buc . Constan a: Ed. Pontica.

- Floca, Archideacon Prof.Dr., Ioan N. 1992. Canoanele BisericiiOrtodoxe. Note i comentarii . Sibiu.

- Florovsky, Georges. 1972. Bible Church, Tradition: An EasternOrthodox View . Volume One in the Collected Works of G.F. .Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company.

- Ginzberg, L. 1973. The Legends of the Jews . Volumes I-VII.Philadelphia: 1911-1938.

- Henn, T.R. 1970. The Bible as Literature . London: LutterworthPress.

- Ic jr., Deacon Ioan. 1998. P rintele Alexander, mistagogia iteoria marii unific ri n teologia ortodox . Introductive studyto Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin: Mistagogia experien a lui


39/178


Dumnezeu n Ortodoxie. Studii de teologie . Trans. and presentation deacon Ioan Ic jr. Sibiu: Ed. Deisis.

- Jeffrey, D.L. 1992. A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature , Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

- Johansen, Jorgen Dines. 1993. Literatura ca model al existen eiumane. Translation by Constantin Jinga. In the magazineOrizont , No. 8/April.

- Kucharek, Casimir. 1971. The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of Saint John Chrzsostom. Its Origin and Evolution . Alleluia Press.

- Lecca, Archim. Paulin. 1999. Cum s citim Biblia n nv turaSfin ilor P rin i. Bucure ti: Ed. Sophia.

- Marino, Adrian. 1987. Hermeneutica ideii de literatur . Cluj- Napoca: Ed. Dacia.

- Maritain, Jacques. 1999. Cre tinism i democra ie. Translation byLiviu Petrina. Bucure ti: Ed. Crater.

- Montefiore, C.G. 1930. Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings . London: Macmillian.

- Neusner, Jacob. 1983. Midrash in context. Exegesis in formative Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

- Panier, Louis. From Biblical Text to Literary Enunciation and ItsSubject . http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/Semeia/E-Semeia/vol001/Panier.html

- Pavel, Toma. 1999. Arta ndep rt rii. Eseu despre imagina iaclasic . Translation by Mihaela Manca . Ed. Nemira.

- Peterc , Mgr. Vladimir. 1999. Regele Solomon n Biblia Ebraic i n cea Greceasc . Contribu ie la studiul conceptului demidra . Preface by Francisca B ltceanu. The CollectionPlural. Religie. Ia i: Ed. Polirom.

- Rowan, Williams. 2000. On Christian Theology . Blackwell.- Schmemann, Alexander. 1996. Introduction to Liturgical

Theology . Transl. by Asheleigh E. Moorhouse. London: TheFaith Press Ltd.; Potland: The American Orthodox Press.

- Schmitt, Carl. 1996. Teologia politic . Translation and notes byLavinia Stan and Lucian Turcescu. Postface by Gh.Vlduescu. Ed. Universal Dalsi.


40/178


- Stephen Prickett. 1992. Words and the Word. Poetics and Biblical Interpretation . Cambridge University Press.

- Vermes, Geza. Scripture and Traditionin Juddaism. Haggadic studies . Leiden: E.J. Brill.

- Wadsworth, Michael. 1981. Ways of reading the Bible . Sussex:The Harvester Press.

- Wesley, John. 1990. Preface of the volume A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People called Methodists (1779) . U.S.:Abingdon Press. New edition.

- Wordsworth, William. 1810. Essays on Epitaphs . First printed in22 Feb. 1810 in Coleridges journal The Friend.


41/178

Orthodox Monasticism: Applying AuthorityDemocratically

Dan Sandu

Rev.Lect.PhD. Faculty of Orthodox Theology,


Abstract: It is not easy for the contemporary person to accept authority as such, unless

he/she judges and experiences it in all its aspects. A different approach is to live out withthe authority which one did not know previously in the so called monastic settlementwhere one cannot speak of democracy or rights. According to the monasticregulations, a monastic community is based on an authority which is freely accepted byand large, and starts with the nomination of the Father Superior in the office by hisbishop. Beyond the authority of God who is the key concern for the monastics sense of life, there is a freely accepted authority of the Spiritual Father and the Abbot. Thisauthority is based on love of both sides, and above all, love for God, for whose sake

somebody renounces the world and accepts a life often full of renunciation. The studyabove is a short exposure of how the land of Eastern Romania came to experience themonastic vocation along its history and how it is lived out now within an every day more

secularized world.

Keywords : monasticism, renounciation, authority, reclus, abbot, spiritual father, hermit,monastery, disciple

Monasticism in the Orthodox understanding has two meanings:1. Withdrawing from the world aiming to work for the salvation of

the world

2.

Assuming an ascetical life for the sake of personal salvation, toomonasticism being often called the angelic likeness.Monasticism in the Orthodox Church claims its roots in the example

of Saint John the Baptist who was wondering in the wilderness andproclaiming the coming of Jesus , in continence and hard lifestyle, freely


42/178

Dan Sandu42

accepted. Following in his steps an ascetic, be it a monk or a nun, shoulddeny himself/herself and proclaim the Risen Lord throughout his/her life.

The first known name of monasticism was Anthony the Great, inEgypt, in the 4th century who lived the monastic life away from the worldand who made the first disciples. The first to organize monasticism as acommunity (cenobitic life) was Pachomius in the same 4th century.

Historic insightMonasticism appears in the Romanian history as early as the 4th

century when the first archaeological evidences have revealed anorganised monastic life. The first monks known in this century seemed tohave come from a Christian population that was dislocated in Cappadociaby the Goths. Some are believed to have been disciples of Basil the Great,whose Regulations they were observing, in South-Eastern Romania,which was called Scithhia Minor (present Dobruja). They wereproclaiming the Gospel among pagan dacians. There are caves in Dobrujawhere Christian symbols were found on the walls. One should alsomention the psalm singing of which a martyr of the 4 th century, Savathe Goth, was accused by prosecutors. From the very beginning they wereorganized in monastic communities, and not as solitary individuals,sharing all in common, according to the apostolic tradition.

Monasticism developed throughout history in an uninterruptedsuccession to the present days. Today monasticism is flourishing giventhe new context of freedom. The number of monks and nuns number isdecreasing and the commitment to the real asceticism is harder to assumeindividually, as the monasteries are becoming places of interest fortourists or even retreats, where people are bringing with them influencesof the modern secularized world.

Profession into monasticismA candidate to monasticism must first and foremost apply to enter a

monastery out of a real vocation to serve God with absolute commitment.The vocation for monasticism is the key point and weights when thedecision to be accepted must be taken by the superior of a monastery. It isfor this particular reason that a candidate is first questioned about thereasons to join in that community, then follows a period of tests. This


43/178

Orthodox Monasticism: Applying Authority Democratically 43

includes: three months of temptation, followed by the blessing to startpracticing the obedience which normally takes 3 years; it can be extendedif necessary. This period is followed by a training in theology, in amonastic seminary, ending with the monastic tonsure, or the professioninto monasticism, which is a life lasting decision. During this testingperiod, the novice should have daily talks with his/her confessor, andmust practice piety, obedience and faith.

The service of profession itself is similar to both: a wedding and aburial. First because the candidate is engaged with the community and

takes over the entire stewardship of Christ and His Church. Secondbecause he/she dies to the world in order to be born again into a new life.It is the reason for which the name is changed. Being dressed up, after thevow, he/she receives every piece of clothing with a special meaning andsymbolism for the future monastic life, which should never be abandoned.

Every person professed into monasticism should observe the threevows for the rest of his/her life:

1. Unlimited obedience2. Absolute chastity3. Complete poverty

Ora et LaboraSimilarly to monastic life of other parts of the Christian world, the

monk/nun should have certain preoccupations and so called obediencesin the monastery. Among the most important, it is worth mentioning:

Prayer Monastic community prayer in Romania follows the pattern of the

ancient Byzantine style. Offices are ordered in such a way that the wholeday and night must be marked by prayer and meditation, fragmenting thenormal activity in order to avoid passion for a particular activity. It is

analele stiintifice nr.1 2010

Documents