The following article focuses on a printed text of the Arabic Book of the Divine Liturgies, produced in 1745 in Iași (Jassy), capital of Moldavia, by Sylvester, the Patriarch of the Greek-Orthodox Church of Antioch (1724-1766), which is comprised, together with a section of a Syriac and Arabic manuscript commentary on some Gospel passages, in MS 15 of the library of Dayr Sayyidat al-Balamand (near Tripoli, Lebanon). It is a rare copy of this early Arabic printed book, whose existence was recently established. The study encloses an outline – based on Romanian, Greek and Arabic sources – of Patriarch Sylvester’s printing activity in Iași and Bucharest in 1745-1747, a description of the Book of the Divine Liturgies (Iași, 1745) preserved in the Balamand codex, and comments on the value of this finding for future research on the printing work carried out in the Romanian Principalities, in 1701-1747, for the Arabic-speaking Christians of Ottoman Syria.
The present article surveys the early stages of the Graeco-Syro-Arabic Melkite translation movement in Antioch, from the first known translation (the Graeco-Syriac version of the Life of St. Symeon the Stylite the Younger, BHG 1689) dating to 827/8 AD to the Antiochene translators Ibrāhīm the protospatharios, Gregory of Dafnūnā, Chariton of Aršāyā, and Yūḥannā ʿAbd al-Masīḥ (the compiler of the Antiochene Menologion), all of them disciples of the martyred patriarch of Antioch Christopher (d.967). It provides new evidence on each of these translators. Significantly, it re-dates Yūḥannā ʿAbd al-Masīḥ to the early eleventh century.
The realist ontology of Maximus the Confessor cannot be considered representative of the Greek theological discourse of his time. Several authors writing in the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries denied the existence of immanent universals in creation. This position was first formulated as a response to the nominalist Trinitarian theology of John Philoponus. As time went on, however, it began to serve a different function. It was now used to emphasise the distinction between God and creation.
In the note, the author focuses on the additional drawing made by an unknown reader on the miniature of the Old Rus’ illuminated manuscript of the Tale of the Route of Mamai. The drawing depicts the image of the Mandylion over one of the key scenes of the Tale: Dmitry Donskoy receiving the blessing and prosphoron from St Sergius of Radonezh. The author examines both, the text, that is illustrated, which cites the monastic rite of Panagia, and the symbolism of the image of the Holy Saviour Not Made by Hands, to conclude whether the addition was accidental or not.
In the mainstream anthropology of Byzantine patristics, the human “I” is twice inconsistent, being identical to but different from a “part of God” and, in the created world, being not a something while without being a nothing. The latter kind of inconsistency was described as well by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his peculiar doctrine of subjectivity.
Beginning with Paul Holloway’s view that the letter to Philippians is a letter of consolation aimed at comforting the “grief” of the grieving among the Philippi community, this paper argues one step further that the grief in the community is a problem of perception, with the help of new institutional economics (NIE). The primary reason for the divergence in perception is due to living in the Roman colony, the believing community was greatly affected by the values embedded in both formal and informal rules of the economy. In order to justify this view, this paper will, first, demonstrate the textual evidence showing that Paul’s major concern is the perception of believing community. Then, with the help of NIE, I will show how the formal and informal economic institutions of the Roman colony might constitute a perception that is very different from what Paul would expect.
Being the most prominent philosopher and theologian of his epoch (late 11th-early 12th cent.), Eustratius of Nicaea provoked important theological discussions in the fields of both Christology and Triadology. He was eventually condemned (1117) for his Christological views, but his Triadology faced a strong opposition as well. His Byzantine opponents unfavourable to the Latins rejected his logically consistent approach to the Trinity and developed their own non-consistent (paraconsistent) approach, whereas his 13th-century latinophrone opponent Nicetas “of Maroneia” demonstrated that Eustratius’s logically consistent Triadology is more naturally compatible with the Filioque.