巡礼者の小道(Pursuing Veritas)

聖書の真理を愛し、歌い、どこまでも探求の旅をつづけたい。

アンティオケ学派の神学について(『ベイカー福音主義神学事典』他)

Image result for antioch church in 4th century

アンティオケ学派アレクサンドリア学派情報源

 

目次

 

Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, 1984("Antiochene Theology"の項を全訳)

 

(執筆担当者: ポール・ウーリー、Paul Woolley, 1902-1984, ウェストミンスター神学大、教会史)

 

WTSPhotos_Box1_StudentLifeChestnutHill_WestminsterFaculty1930s001

1931年当時のウェストミンスター神学大教師たち

〔前列左から〕ネッド・ストーンハウス(29歳、新約学)、オスワルド・T・アリス(51歳、旧約学)、J・グレシャム・メイチェン(51歳、新約学)、ポール・ウーリー(29歳、教会史)、コーネリウス・ヴァン・ティル(36歳、弁証学)

〔後列左から〕ジョン・マーレー(32歳、新約学)、アラン・マクレー(29歳、旧約学)情報源

 

 

使徒の働きを読むと、クリスチャンという語は、最初にアンティオケ(アンティオキア)で使われ始め、また、使徒パウロの初期ミニストリーの際、教会がその地にあったということが書かれています(11:26)。パウロが三回の伝道旅行を開始したのはいずれもアンティオケからでした。またエルサレムで行われた使徒会議の決定事項もアンティオケで発行されました(使15:30-31)。

 

イグナティオス

 

最初に卓越性を得た主任監督は、2世紀前半に任職に就いたアンティオケのイグナティオスでした(110年殉教)。7つの書簡の中で彼はキリストの全き神性および全き人間性を熱心に擁護しています。彼は特にキリスト化現説(docetism)に対する警告をしており、ここに、ーー後年ますますアンティオケ学派を特長づけるものとなっていった強調点ーーの原始が現れています。

 

イグナティオスの基本見解は次のようなものでした。ーー神は受肉され、処女マリヤより生まれた。キリストは無知および悪魔から人々を解放するべく死なれた。主は私たちのために死人のうちより蘇られた。信者はただ単にキリストの内にあるだけでなく、christophoros (χριστόφορος "Christ-bearing,"キリストを担う者)でもある。聖餐はキリストの肉であり血である。(しかし実体的な変化についての示唆はありません*1。)また、キリスト者の愛に関するテーマが、イグナティオスの著述における際立った強調点です。

 

 

テオフィロス

 

アンティオケのテオフィロス(Θεόφιλος Αντιοχείας)は、2世紀後半、ロゴス論を発展させました。彼はロゴスのことをprophorikosと言及していますが、これは、つまり、ロゴスが初めは神の御思いの中にある思惟として、そして実在の世界を創るべく創造的力として突出(project)したという彼の考えを表しています*2。また、trias(三からなる)という語を最初に神格に適用したのもテオフィロスです。

 

サモサタのパウロ

 

それから70年余り後、サモサタのパウロが、アンティオケ主教となりました。後期アンティオケ学派を特徴づけるキリストの人性に対する強調は、サモサタのパウロの主張の内に明確に現れています。モナルキア的強調をしつつ、彼は神的デュナミスであるロゴスは、御父の御思いの一部であり、イエスの誕生の時よりイエスの内に宿っているけれども、処女〔マリヤ〕とは分離されています。イエスはエネルゲイヤ(力)としてご自身を顕されました。

 

彼によると、イエスは礼拝の対象ではありませんが、イエスの、ロゴスとの耐久性は量的に並外れています。そして神とのイエスの合一は、目的、意志、愛における合一です。彼にとっては、神とロゴスにおける一プロソーポン(prosopon; 「顔」,ラテン語の persona,英語のperson の語源)という側面を語ることは可能でした。また、キリストと御父のホモウーシオス(ομοούσιος; 同一本質)という語を用いることも可能でした。しかしながら、彼にとり、ロゴスと御子はどうしても同一のものであるとは考えられませんでした。

 

その後、彼は破門され、ローマが再びアンティオケを奪回した後には、彼の影響はほぼ完全に失われました。またサモサタのパウロの論敵たちは、ホモウーシオスという語を認めておらず、後にそれは正統派・非正統派を選り分ける試金石となっていきました。

 

ルキアノス

 

サモサタのパウロの罷免からしばらくして、ルキアノスという教師が、アンティオケにおいて指導力を持つようになりました。ルキアノスは、サモサタのパウロよりも、キリストを高い次元に捉えていました。しかし彼が、イエスの神性を御父と同等のものと考えていたのかどうかについては定かではありません。ギリシャ語聖書本文に関する彼の著述は広範囲に渡っており、また彼は聖書の歴史的・批評的解釈を推奨していました。

 

ヨハネス・クリソストムス

 

ニケア(ニカイア)公会議から数十年経った後、アンティオケには、アリウス論争に関する多種多様な意見が混在していました。しかしそんな風潮の中、登場してきたのがヨハネス・クリソストムスです。彼は説教者としての類まれなき能力と共に、成熟性をもった人物でした。キリスト教の倫理的価値を強調しつつ、彼は歴史的釈義の重要性を説き続けました。

 

タルソの長老ディオドルス

 

そのうち、クリソストムスの師匠の一人であったタルソの長老ディオドルスが、タルソ主教となり、381年に開かれたコンスタンティノープル公会議では「正規の」神学者として認められていました。しかしながらディオドルスは、キリストの神性および人性の関係をいかに適切に表現すべきかについて、それを表す言葉を未だ見つけることができずにいました。彼の考えの中ではもしかしたら、それは二元的人格性を持つものだったのかもしれません。

 

テオドロス

 

もう一人の長老テオドロスは、後にモプスエスティアの主教になりましたが(350-428)、彼はさらに歴史的批評学を発展させていきました。彼は旧約聖書の中に三位一体の教理を見い出すことができず、また、詩篇の中におけるメシヤ預言に関してもこれを正当に評価できていなかったように思われます。

 

とは言え、テオドロスは聖書解釈の基盤としての本文・歴史的釈義学の重要性を非常に重んじていました。また彼は神と人類の相違点をも強調していました。ーーロゴスは自らを低くされ、人間になりました。人のプロソーポン(prosopon)は完全であり、それは神格のプロソポーンにおいても同様です。

 

キュロスのテオドレトス

 

彼の弟子であり、教会史家であったキュロスのテオドレトス(Θεοδώρητος Κύρρου, Theodoret of Cyrus, 393-458)は、師匠の釈義研究の後継者となりました。テオドレトスの聖書釈義は、最良の歴史的伝統の中に位置づけられ、また彼の弁証関連の著述は、明瞭かつ良く体系化されています。彼は神と人類の間の無限なる相違点を論じました。また彼のキリスト論は、アンティオケ学派の主要人物であり、彼の友人でもあったネストリウスから間違いなく影響を受けています。

 

ネストリウス

 

熱烈で情熱にあふれたネストリウスは、学者ではありませんでした。彼はイエスの人性を強調してはいましたが、彼が異端的見解を表そうと意図していたわけではないというのはきわめて明瞭です。彼の見解によると、キリストにおける神格と人格の合一は自発的なものですが、「そこにはイエス・キリストの一つのプロソーポンがあると言い得るかもしれない」と彼は考えていました。

 

ネストリウスは処女マリヤに対するTheotokos(《神の母》)という称号は不適切であると反対しました。(但し、もしも〔この語の実質的意味が〕きちんと理解されるならば、その際には、この語は異議のないものとなると彼は言っていました。)しかし、キリストの人性と神性の分離に対する彼の過度の強調はやはり危険なものだったと言えるでしょう。

 

543年に発布されたユスティニアヌス1世の法令の「3章問題*3」は、アンティオケ学派に対し不公正でした。そしてこの法令で、モプスエスティアのテオドロス及びキュロスのテオドレトスの著述等が糾弾・排斥されました。553年に開かれた第二回コンスタンティノープル公会議(第五全地公会)ではアンティオケ学派の著述類が糾弾されましたが、それは、虚偽にして骨抜きされた引用句をベースになされたものでした。

 

まとめ

 

ネストリウス派を導いた司教たちの帝国教会からの分離および、イスラム興隆によるアンティオケ占領(637年)は、アンティオケ学派のさらなる特異性助長を抑制する一因になりました。アンティオケ学派の理性・倫理的属性・人間の自由因力に対するアリストテレス的強調は確かに不評です。しかし、三位一体の第二位格の両性(神性/人性)に対するこの学派の見解、および、文法的・歴史的解釈の重要性に対する彼らの主張は肯定的に評価されてしかるべきだと思います。

 

ー終わりー

 

〔文献案内〕F. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines; F. Loofs, Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine; C. C. Richardson, Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch; R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies; A. R. Vine, Approach to Christology; D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch: A Study of Eastern Christian Thought.

 

(執筆者:Paul Woolley)

 

〔補足資料〕ジョン・メイエンドルフ著「ビザンティン神学―歴史的傾向と教理的主題」ーーカルケドン公会議以降のビザンティン神学について〔英文〕

 

John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical trends and doctrinal themesより一部抜粋

 

本著には以下のように邦訳もあるようです。

 

Byzantine Theology after Chalcedon

 

Constantinople, the great cultural melting pot, the "New Rome" and capital of the empire, did not produce any real outstanding theologian in the fifth and sixth centuries; but the city witnessed the great theological debates of the day since their conclusion often depended upon imperial sanction.

 

Bishops, monks, exegetes, and philosophers coming to the capital to seek favour and support created around the Episcopal see of the imperial city, from which the government‟s theological advisers were usually drawn, a convergence of ideas, and a predisposition to syncretic and compromise solutions.

 

The bishops of Constantinople and their staffs however were still able to defend explicit theological convictions, even against the imperial will, as the lonely pro-Chalcedonian stand adopted by the patriarchs, Euphemius (489-495) and Macedonius II (495-511), under the reign of the Monophysite emperor Anastasius, bears witness.

 

Thus, a theology, which can be termed specifically "Byzantine" in contrast to the earlier currents of Eastern Christian thought and centred mainly in Egypt and Syria, comes into being during the post-Chalcedonian period. It would receive an official sanction under Justinian (527-565) and an expression in the balanced synthesis of Maximus the Confessor (†662).

 

It would have seemed that no individual figure played a decisive role in the formation of this theology, and one could be equally hard-pressed to locate any school or other intellectual centre in the capital where the theological thought was creatively elaborated. Though it seemed reasonable to assume that a theological school for the training of higher ecclesiastical personnel was connected with the patriarchate, sources about its character or the levels of its teaching were wanting.

 

A centre of theological learning was attested at the famous monastery of the Akoimetai (the "Non-Sleepers"), and others certainly existed elsewhere, but very little was specifically known about them. Theologians, who were active during the fifth and sixth centuries, often received their training in distant parts of the empire, such as Syria or Palestine.

 

The Lavra of St. Sabbas near Jerusalem, for example, was the scene of violent debates between competing Origenist factions. The imperial, secular University of Constantinople, founded by Constantine and reorganized by a decree of Theodosius II (408-450), did not include theology among its subjects; yet it certainly served as a channel for the perpetuation of ancient Greek philosophical ideas.

 

The university remained bilingual (Greek and Latin) until the seventh century and until the reign of Justinian and included pagans among its professors. But the drastic measures taken by Justinian in excluding both, pagans and non-Orthodox Christians, from the teaching profession and in closing the pagan University of Athens must have emphasized that the role of secular studies in Christian Byzantium was purely ancillary.

 

Even if a small circle of intellectuals perpetuated the philosophical traditions of the ancient Greeks, the official position of both, Church and state, now considered philosophy as at best a tool for expressing Revelation, but it never admitted that philosophy was entitled to shape the very content of theological ideas. In practice, one might readily admit that Aristotelian logic is to be taught in the schools, but one would be consistently distrustful of Platonism because of its metaphysical implications.

 

Yet Platonism would subsist through patristic literature mainly and especially through the Origenist tradition; but it would never be formally acknowledged as a valid expression of religious ideas. Conservative in form and intent, Byzantine theology in the age of Justinian continually referred to tradition as its main source.

 

In particular, the Christological debates of the period consisted chiefly of a battle between exegetes of Scripture about philosophical terms adopted by Christian theology in the third and fourth centuries and about patristic texts making use of these terms. Liturgical hymnology, which began to flourish at this time, incorporated the results of the controversies and often became a form of credal confession.

 

The various elements of Byzantine theological traditionalism dominated in the fifth and sixth centuries, constituted the basis of further creativity in the later periods, and required very special attention.

 

Exegetical traditions.

 

"It is necessary for those who preside over the churches... to teach all the clergy and the people... collecting out of divine Scripture the thoughts and judgments of truth but not exceeding the limits now fixed, nor varying from the tradition of the God-fearing Fathers. But, if any issue arises concerning Scripture, it should not be interpreted other than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have expounded it in their writings; let them [the bishops] become distinguished for their knowledge of patristic writings rather than for composing treatises out of their own heads."

 

This text of Canon 19 of the Council in Trullo (692) reflects the traditionalist and conservative character of the Byzantine, approaches to theology and to exegesis in particular, and explains the presence in all monastic and private libraries of Byzantium, of innumerable copies of patristic catenae, and "chains" of authoritative interpretations of particular Biblical texts expressing or claiming to express the continuity of exegetical tradition.

 

Even though the consensus patrum reached by this method was in some instances partial and artificial, the standard Church teaching came to rely on it especially when it was sanctified by liturgical and hymnographical usage.

 

The Bible was always understood not simply as a source of revealed doctrinal propositions or as a description of historical facts but as a witness to a living Truth, which had become dynamically present in the sacramental community of the New Testament Church. The veneration of the Virgin, Mother of God, for example, was associated once and for all with a typological interpretation of the Old Testament temple cult: the one who carried God in her womb was the true "temple," the true "tabernacle," the "candlestick," and God‟s final "abode."

 

Thus, a Byzantine, who on the eve of a Marian feast listened in church to a reading the Book of Proverbs about "Wisdom building her house" (Pr 9:1 ff.) naturally and almost exclusively, thought of the "Word becoming flesh" — i.e., finding His abode in the Virgin. The identification of the Old Testament Wisdom with the Johannine Logos had been taken for granted since the time of Origen, and no one would have thought of challenging it.

 

As early as the fourth century, when much of the Arian debate centred on the famous text "The Lord created me at the beginning of his works" (Pr 8:22), it was quite naturally interpreted by the Arians in favour of their position. Athanasius and other members of the Nicaean party declined to challenge the identification between Logos and Wisdom preferring to find references to other texts supporting the uncreated character of the LogosWisdom.

 

No one questioned the established exegetical consensus on the identification itself. Much of the accepted Byzantine exegetical method had its origin in Alexandrian tradition and its allegorism. St. Paul, in describing the story of Abraham‟s two sons as an allegory of the two covenants (Ga 4:23), gave Christian sanction to a non-literal method of interpreting Scripture known as Midrash, which had developed among Palestinian rabbis in pre-Christian times.

 

Thus, in pushing the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture to its very extremes, the Alexandrian Hellenistic milieu, common to Philo, Clement, and Origen, could refer to the illustrious precedent of St. Paul himself. Allegory was first of all consonant with the Hellenic and especially the Platonic concern for eternal things as the opposite to historical facts.

 

The Greek intellectual's main difficulty in accepting Christianity often lay in the absence of direct speculation on the Unchangeable since his philosophical training had led him to associate changeability with unreality. The allegorical method however allowed the possibility of interpreting all concrete, changeable facts as symbols of unchangeable realities.

 

Thus, history itself was losing its centrality and in extreme cases simply denied. But consonance with Hellenism was not the only element, which contributed to the widespread use of allegory in exegesis. The method provided an easy weapon against Gnosticism, the main challenge of Christianity in the second century.

 

The major Gnostic systems — especially those of Valentinus and Marcion — opposed the Demiurge, the Yahweh of Judaism, to the true God manifested in the New Testament. Christian apologists used allegory to "redeem" the Old Testament and counteracted the Gnostic dualism with the idea that the Old and the New Testaments have the same "spiritual" meaning and reflect a continuous Revelation of the same true God. Origen also made use of this concept of the "spiritual meaning" in his notion of Tradition.

 

The Spirit, which had inspired the Biblical writers, was also present in the "spiritual men" of the Christian Church. The saint alone therefore could decipher the authentic meaning of Scripture.

 

The Scriptures [Origen writes] were composed through the Spirit of God, and they have not only that meaning which is obvious, but also another, which is hidden from the majority of readers. For the contents of Scripture are the outward forms of certain mysteries and the images of divine things. On this point, the entire Church is unanimous, that while the whole Law is spiritual, the inspired meaning is not recognized by all, but only by those who are gifted with the grace of the Holy Spirit in the word of wisdom and knowledge.*4

 

Although it raises the important problem of authority in exegesis, this passage certainly expresses a view largely taken for granted in Medieval Byzantine Christendom and explains the concern for a consensus patrum expressed in a formal way in the canon of the Council in Trullo quoted at the beginning of this section. In addition to Alexandrian allegorism, the Byzantine tradition of exegesis incorporated the more sober influence of the School of Antioch.

 

The opposition between Alexandria and Antioch —, which found a well-known and violent expression in the Christological debates of the fifth century — should not be exaggerated on the level of exegesis. The chief minds of the Anti-ochian school — Diodore of Tarsus (ca. 330-ca. 390), Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428), and Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393-ca. 466) — did not deny the possibility of a spiritual meaning in Biblical texts; yet they reacted strongly against the elimination of the literal, historical meaning and against an arbitrary allegorism based on Platonic philosophical presuppositions foreign to the Bible.

 

Thus, the notion of theory ("contemplation"), which implied the possibility of discovering a spiritual meaning behind the letter of the text, was not rejected, but the emphasis was placed upon what actually happened or said historically as well as upon the moral or theological implications of the text.

 

The theological authority of the School of Antioch was shattered by the condemnation of Nestorius, a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia, at Ephesus in 431 and by the anathemas against the Three Chapters (Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa) pronounced by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

 

After 553, the scriptural commentaries of Theodore, one of the greatest exegetes of early Christianity, could be preserved only clandestinely in Syrian or Armenian translations while the Greek original survived only in fragments scattered in the catenae.

 

But the tradition of Antiochian exegesis survived in the exegetical works of Theodoret, which were never prohibited, and even more so in the writings of Theodore‟s friend John Chrysostom, by far the most popular of all Greek ecclesiastical writers. His definition of typology, as opposed to allegory, as "a prophecy expressed in terms of facts*5" and his concern for history served as safeguards against the spiritualizing excesses of the Alexandrian tradition in late-Byzantine exegetical literature, while still leaving room for theory, i.e., fundamentally a Christ-oriented typological interpretation of the Old Testament.

 

 

The philosophical trends in post-Chalcedonian Byzantium were determined by three major factors:

(1) the patristic tradition and its implications — the transfer, for example, of the Cappadocian Trinitarian terminology to the problem of the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ,

(2) the ever-reviving Origenism with its implied challenge to the Biblical doctrine of creation and to Biblical anthropology, and

(3) the continuing influence of nonChristian Neo-Platonism upon intellectuals (Justinian‟s closing of the University of Athens put a physical end to a centre of thought and learning only recently adorned by the last major figure of pagan Greek philosophy, Proclus, 410-485).

 

In all three cases, the basic issue implied was the relation between ancient Greek thought and Christian Revelation. Some modern historians continue to pass very divergent judgments on the philosophy of the Greek Fathers.

 

In his well-known Histoire dc la philosophic, Emile Brehier writes, "In the first five centuries of Christianity, there was nothing that could properly be called Christian philosophy and would have implied a scale of intellectual values either original or different from that of the pagan thinkers."*6

 

According to Brehier, Christianity and Hellenic philosophy are not opposed to each other as two intellectual systems, for Christianity is based on revealed facts, not on philosophical ideas.

 

The Greek Fathers, in accepting these facts, adopted everything in Greek philosophy, which was compatible with Christian Revelation. No new philosophy could result from such an artificial juxtaposition. A seemingly opposite view, more in line with the classical appraisal of Adolf Harnack, has been expressed by H. A. Wolfson whose book on The Philosophy of the Church Fathers presents the thought of the Fathers as "a recasting of Christian beliefs in the form of a philosophy, [which] thereby produc[ed] also a Christian version of Greek philosophy."*7

 

Finally, the monumental work of Claude Tresmontant La Metaphysique du Christianisme et la naissancc de la philosophic chretienne (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1961) strongly maintains the historical existence of a Christian philosophy, which the Fathers consistently defended against the Hellenic synthesis.

 

This philosophy implies basic affirmations on creation, on unity and multiplicity, on knowledge, freedom, and all other incompatible with Hellenism, and is fundamentally Biblical. "From the point of view of metaphysics," he writes, "Christian orthodoxy is defined by its fidelity to the metaphysical principles found in Biblical theology."*8

 

Therefore, if the Greek Fathers were orthodox, they were not, properly speaking, "Greek." Actually, in modern historical and theological writing, there is no term more ambiguous than "Hellenism."

 

Thus, Georges Florovsky makes a persistent plea for "Christian Hellenism" meaning by the term the tradition of the Eastern Fathers as opposed to Western Medieval thought*9, but he agrees fundamentally with Tresmontant on the total incompatibility between Greek philosophical thought and the Bible, especially on such basic issues as creation and freedom.(((April 1950), 74-76. 7. Georges Florovsky, "The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy," Eastern Church Quarterly))

 

Therefore, Tresmontant‟s and Florovsky‟s conclusions appear to be fundamentally correct, and the usual slogans and clichés, which too often serve to characterize patristic and Byzantine thought as exalted "Christian Hellenism," or as the "Hellenization of Christianity," or as Eastern "Platonism" as opposed to Western "Aristotelianism" should be avoided.

 

A more constructive method of approaching the issue and of establishing a balanced judgment consists in a preliminary distinction between the systems of ancient Greek philosophy — the Platonic, the Aristotelian, or the Neo-Platonic — and individual concepts or terms.

 

The use of Greek concepts and terminology were unavoidable meanings of communication and a necessary step in making the Christian Gospel relevant to the world in which it appeared and in which it had to expand.

 

But the Trinitarian terminology of the Cappadocian Fathers and its later application to Christology in the Chalcedonian and post-Chalcedonian periods clearly show that such concepts as ousia, hypostasis, or physis acquire an entirely new meaning when used out of the context of the Platonic or Aristotelian systems in which they are born.

 

Three hypostases united in one "essence" (ousia) or two "natures" (physeis), united in one hypostasis cannot be a part of either the Platonic or Aristotelian systems of thought and imply new personalistic (and therefore non-Hellenic) metaphysical presuppositions.

 

Still the Trinitarian and Christological synthesis of the Cappadocian Fathers would have dealt with a different set of problems and would have resulted in different concepts if the background of the Cappadocians and the audience to which they addressed themselves had not been Greek. Thus, Greek patristic thought remained open to Greek philosophical problematics but avoided being imprisoned in Hellenic philosophical systems.

 

From Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century to Gregory Palamas in the fourteenth, the representatives of the Orthodox tradition all express their conviction that heresies are based upon the uncritical absorption of pagan Greek philosophy into Christian thought.

 

Among the major figures of early Christian literature, only Origen, Nemesius of Emesa, and pseudo-Dionysius present systems of thought, which can truly be defined as Christian versions of Greek philosophy. Others, including even such system-builders as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, in spite of their obvious philosophical mentality, stand too fundamentally in opposition to pagan Hellenism on the basic issues of creation and freedom to qualify as Greek philosophers.

 

Origen and pseudo-Dionysius suffered quite a distinct posthumous fate, which will be discussed later, but the influence of Nemesius and of his Platonic anthropological "system" was so limited in Byzantium, in contrast to its widespread impact on Western Medieval thought, that the Latin translation of his work Peri physeos anthropou (De natura hominis) was attributed to Gregory of Nyssa.*10

 

Thus, as most historians of Byzantine theology should admit, the problem of the relationship between philosophy and the facts of Christian experience remains at the centre of the theological thought of Byzantium, and no safe and permanent balance between them has ever been found.But is really such a balance possible if "this world" and its "wisdom" are really in permanent tension with the realities of the kingdom of God?

 

The Problem of Origenism 

 

Recent research has cast a completely new light on the history of Origenism in the fifth and sixth centuries. The publication of the works of Evagrius Ponticus has in particular clarified the issues, which divided rival monastic parties in Egypt, in Palestine, and in other areas of Eastern Christendom.

 

While the Trinitarian problematics of Origen served as one of the starting points for the Arian controversies of the fourth century, his views on creation, the Fall, man, and God-man relations fascinated the first Greek intellectuals to the point of inducing them to join the monastic movement. In his system, monastic asceticism and spirituality find a justification, but contradict the basic presuppositions of Biblical Christianity.

 

As a result, Origen and his disciple Evagrius were condemned in 400 by Theophilus of Alexandria and in 553 at Constantinople II. But even these condemnations did not preclude the lasting influence of their systems, which served as background for the integrated Christian philosophy of Maximus the Confessor.

 

Origenism thus remained at the centre of the theological thought of post Chalcedonian Eastern Christianity, and its influence on spirituality and theological terminology did not end with the condemnation of the Origenistic system in 553 but continued at least until the iconoclastic crisis of the eighth century. Origen was undoubtedly the most successful of the early apologists of Christianity.

 

His system made the Christian religion acceptable to Neo-Platonists, but the acceptance of Christianity on Origenistic terms does not necessarily imply the rejection of the basic Neo-Platonic concepts of God and of the world.

 

If the Cappadocian Fathers, for example, after reading Origen in their student years, were finally led to orthodox Christianity, others, such as their friend and contemporary Evagrius Ponticus, developed Origenism in a quite different direction.

 

In his famous De principiis, Origen first postulates creation as an eternal act of God. God has always been the all-powerful Creator, and "we cannot even call God almighty if there are none over whom He can exercise His power." But since Origen is very careful to refute the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of matter, he maintains that the ever-existing created world is a world of "intellects," not of matter.

 

The basic Platonizing spiritualism implied here will always appeal to monastic circles looking for a metaphysical justification of asceticism. The next step in Origen‟s thought is to consider that the "intellectual" world, which includes "all rational natures — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Angels, the Powers, the Dominions, and other Virtues as well as man himself in the dignity of his soul — are one unique substance."*11

 

A later patristic tradition will oppose to this idea the notion of the absolute transcendence of God expressed in apophatic theology; but for Origen, the monistic structure encompassing God and the "intellects" in one single substance is broken only by the Fall.

 

Misusing their "freedom," the intellects committed the sin of revolting against God. Some sinned heavily and became demons; others sinned less and became angels; others did still less and became archangels. Thus, each received a condition proportionate to its own sin.

 

The remaining souls committed sins neither heavy enough to rank with the demons nor light enough to become angels, and so it was that God created the present world and link the soul with a body as a punishment.*12

 

The present visible world, which includes man — understood as an intellect transformed through sin into a body — is the result of the Fall; man‟s ultimate destiny is dematerialization and a return to a union with God‟s substance.

 

Evagrius Ponticus significantly developed this Origenistic system by applying it to Christology. According to Evagrius, Jesus Christ was not the Logos taking flesh but only an "intellect" that had not committed the original sin and thus was not involved in the catastrophe of materialization. He assumed a body in order to show the way toward a restoration of man‟s original union with God.*13

 

Around this teaching of Evagrius‟, serious conflicts, which lasted until the reign of Justinian, arose between feuding monastic parties. At the centre of these disturbances, which was the Lavra of St. Sabbas in Palestine, some monks claimed to be "equal to Christ" (isochristot) since in them through prayer and contemplation there is the original relationship with God, which also existed in Christ, had been restored. This extreme and obviously heretical form of Origenism was condemned first by imperial decree, then by the ecumenical council of 553.

 

The writings of Origen and Evagrius were destroyed and preserved only partially in Latin or Syrian translations or protected by pseudonyms. Ancient Hellenism had to give way once again to the basic principles of Biblical Christianity.

 

Preudo-Dionysius 

 

Image result for Pseudo-Dionysius

 

The condemnation of Origen and Evagrius did not mean however the total disappearance of the Platonic world-view from Byzantine Christianity.

 

The Hellenic concept of the world as "order" and "hierarchy," the strict Platonic division between the "intelligible" and the "sensible" worlds, and the Neo-Platonic grouping of beings into "triads" reappear in the famous writings of a mysterious early-sixth-century author who wrote under the pseudonym of Dionysius the Areopagite. The quasi-apostolic authority of this unknown author went unchallenged in both East and West throughout the Middle Ages.

 

Historians of Eastern Christian thought usually emphasize the role of Dionysius — together with that of Gregory of Nyssa and of Maximus the Confessor — in expounding apophatic theology. According to Vladimir Lossky, Dionysius, far from being "a Platonist with a tinge of Christianity," is the very opposite: "a Christian thinker disguised as a Neo-Platonist, a theologian very much aware of his task, which was to conquer the ground held by Neo Platonism by becoming a master of its philosophical method."*14

 

And, indeed, several elements of Dionysius‟ thought appear as successful Christian counterparts both to Neo-Platonic and to Origenistic positions. Dionysius specifically rejects Origen‟s notion of knowledge of God "by essence" since there cannot be "knowledge" of God, for knowledge can apply only to "beings," and God is above being and superior to all opposition between being and non-being.

 

With God, there can be a "union," however: the supreme end of human existence; but this union is "ignorance" rather than knowledge for it presupposes detachment from all activity of the senses or of the intellect since the intellect is applicable only to created existence. God therefore is absolutely transcendent and above existence and — as long as one remains in the categories of existence — can be described only in negative terms.*15

 

God does however make Himself known outside of His transcendent nature: "God is manifested by His „powers‟ in all beings, is multiplied without abandoning His unity." *16

 

Thus, the concepts of beauty, being, goodness, and the like reflect God but not His essence, only His "powers" and "energies,*17"which are not however a diminished form of deity or mere emanations but themselves fully God in whom created beings can participate in the proportion and analogy proper to each.

 

Thus, the God of Dionysius is again the living God of the Bible and not the One of Plotinus; and in this respect, Dionysius will provide the basis for further positive developments of Christian thought.

 

One must remember however that Dionysius‟ theology property — i.e. his doctrine of God and of the relationship between God and the world — is not wholly original (in fact, its essential elements appear in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers), and that, through his hierarchical view of the universe, Dionysius exercised a highly ambiguous influence, especially in the fields of ecclesiology and sacramental theology.

 

If for Origen, the hierarchy of created beings — angels, men, demons — are the result of the Fall, for Dionysius it is an immovable and divine order through which one reaches "assimilation and union with God.*18"The three "triads" — or nine orders — of the celestial hierarchy and the two "triads" of the ecclesiastical hierarchy are essentiality a system of 10 mediations. Each order participates in God "according to its capacity," but this participation is granted through the order immediately superior.*19

 

The most obvious consequences of that system occur in the field of ecclesiology; for Dionysius, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which includes the triads "bishops (hierarchs)-priests-deacons" and "monks-laymen-catechumens (sinners)," is nothing but an earthly reflection of the celestial orders; each ecclesiastical order, therefore, is a personal state, not a function in the community. "A hierarch," Dionysius writes, "is a deified and divine man, instructed in holy knowledge."*20

 

And since the hierarch is primarily a gnostic, an initiator there is fundamentally no difference between his role and that of a charismatic. The same applies of course to the other orders.*21

 

And since Dionysius also holds very strictly to the Platonic divisions between the intellectual and material orders, the material being only a reflection and a symbol of the intellectual, his doctrine of the sacraments is both purely symbolic and individualistic; the function of the Eucharist, for example, is only to symbolize the union of the intellect with God and Christ.*22

 

Our conclusion to these brief comments on Dionysius must be therefore that. In areas where he transcends Neo-Platonism — the area of the theologia — he is a real Christian without however being truly original; but that his doctrine of the hierarchies, even if it represents a genuine attempt to integrate the Neo-Platonic world-view into the Christian framework, is an obvious failure, the consequences of which have led to much confusion, especially in the fields of liturgy and of ecclesiological formulations.

 

One wonders too if the Western Scholastic doctrine of the sacerdotal "character" and, to a lesser extent, the confusion, frequent in the Byzantine East, between the role of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and that of "holy men" do not go back ultimately to Dionysius. Liturgy. The appearance of the Dionysian writings coincides chronologically with a turning point in the history of Christian liturgy.

 

When Justinian closed the last pagan temples and schools, Christianity became unquestionably the religion of the masses of the empire. The Christian liturgy originally conceived as the cult of small-persecuted communities now came to be celebrated in immense cathedrals — such as the magnificent "Great Church," Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, one of the glories of Justinian‟s reign — with thousands of worshippers in attendance.

 

This completely new situation could not help but influence both the practice and the theology of the liturgy. The Eucharist, for example, could no longer really retain the external character of a community meal.

 

The great mass of the people in attendance consisted of nominal Christians who could hardly meet the standard required of regular communicants. Starting with John Chrysostom, the clergy began to preach that preparation, fasting, and self-examination were the necessary prerequisites of communion and emphasized the mysterious, eschatological elements of the sacrament.

 

The eighth and ninth centuries witnessed such additions as the iconostasis-screen between the sanctuary and the congregation and the use of the communion spoon, a means to avoid putting the sacramental elements into the hands of laymen.

 

All these developments were aimed at protecting the mystery, but they resulted in separating the clergy from the faithful and in giving to the liturgy the aspect of a performance, rather than of a common action of the entire people of God. The writings of pseudo-Dionysius contributed to the same trend.

 

The author‟s ideas about God‟s grace descending upon the lower ranks of the hierarchy through the personal mediation of the hierarchs did much to shape new Byzantine liturgical forms, which he considered only 11 as symbols revealing the mysteries to the eyes of the faithful.

 

Appearances and disappearances of the celebrant, veiling and unveiling of the elements, opening and closing of the doors, and various gestures connected with the sacraments often originated in the rigid system of the hierarchical activity as described by Dionysius and found ready acceptance in a Church otherwise concerned with preserving the mysterious character of the cult from profanation by the masses now filling the temples.

 

Fortunately, Dionysian theology has had practically no effect upon such central texts as the baptismal prayer and the Eucharistic canons. It served principally to develop and explain the extremely rich fringes with which Byzantium now adorned the central sacramental actions of the Christian faith, without modifying its very heart, and thus leaving the door open to authentic liturgical and sacramental theology, which would still inspire the mainstream of Byzantine spirituality.

 

Another very important liturgical development of the fifth and sixth centuries was the largescale adoption of hymnography of a Hellenistic nature. In the early Christian communities, the Church hymnal was comprised of the Psalter and some other poetic excerpts from Scripture with relatively few newer hymns.

 

In the fifth and sixth centuries however with the insistence on more liturgical solemnity (often copied from court ceremonial) in the great urban churches and the unavoidable Hellenization of the Church, the influx of new poetry was inevitable.

 

This influx met strong opposition in monastic circles, which considered it improper to replace Biblical texts of the liturgy with human poetic compositions, but the resistance was not a lasting one.

 

In fact, in the eighth and ninth centuries, the monks took the lead in hymnographical creativity. But as early as the sixth century, the religious poetry of Romanos the Melody was regarded as revolutionary in Constantinople.

 

The models of his poetry and music were generally localized in Syria where poetic religious compositions had already been popularized by Ephraem († 373). Born in Emesus, Romanos came to Constantinople under Anastasius (491-518) and soon attained great fame by composing his fantasia. Generally based upon a Biblical theme or, in other words, exalting a Biblical personality, the kontakion is essentially a metrical homily recited or chanted by a cantor and accompanied by the entire congregation singing a simple refrain.

 

It follows a uniform pattern beginning with a short prelude and followed by a series of poetic strophe. Romanos‟ poetry generally relies on imagery and drama and contains little or no at all theology. The Christological debates of the period, for example, are not at all reflected in his kontakya.

 

Written in simple popular Greek, they must have played a tremendous role in bringing the themes of Biblical history to the masses; they undoubtedly strengthened profoundly that understanding of Christianity centred on the liturgy, which became so characteristic of the Byzantines.

 

Some of Romanos' kontakya remain in the liturgical books in an abridged form, and the pattern, which he established, was reproduced almost exactly in the famous Akathistos hymnos, one of the most popular pieces of Byzantine hymnography.

 

Although, as we shall see later, subsequent hymnographical patterns formed in the monasteries were quite different from those of Romanos, the work of the great melody of the sixth century played a central role in 12 shaping Byzantine Christianity as distinct from the Latin, the Syrian, the Egyptian, and the Armenian. The cultural framework of Byzantine theology after Chalcedon was increasingly limited to the Greek-speaking world.

 

The wealth of the various non-Greek traditions of early Christianity — especially the Syrian and the Latin — was less and less taken into account by the theologians of the imperial capital.

 

One should remember however that until the emergence of the twelfthcentury revival of theology in the West, Constantinople remained the unquestioned intellectual centre of Christendom, with very little competition.One understands therefore that it developed a sense of increasing, though regrettable, and self-sufficiency.

*1:訳者注:カトリック、正教会、ルター派、改革派、ウェスレー派、聖公会等の聖餐論に関する有益な記事はココ

*2:訳者注:Η περί Λόγου διδασκαλία Θεοφίλου του Αντιοχείας (2ος αιώνας μ.Χ.). Α΄ Κεφάλαιο: α) Οι σχέσεις τού Χριστιανισμού με την Ελληνική φιλοσοφία. Η ιστορία τού Δόγματος από τής εποχής τών Απολογητών μέχρι του 318 μ.Χ. Τού Ανδρέα Θεοδώρου.

*3:「三章問題」の背景について。カルケドン公会議で否定されたとはいえ、単性論的思想はローマ帝国領の全域に浸透していました。特に帝国の重要都市アレクサンドリアにおいてアレクサンドリア学派の思想とあいまってそれは根強いものでした。

地中海沿岸の旧西ローマ帝国領を征服し、統一ローマ帝国の復興を図っていたユスティニアヌス1世は、この問題が帝国の統治の妨げになると考え、単性論への理解を示すことで解決を図ろうとしました。しかし、それによって逆に帝国の西方地域の教会指導者との間で不和が生じたのです。さらに、ユスティニアヌス1世が、腹心とも思い、自分がローマ教皇の地位につけてやったと思っていたウィギリウスもユスティニアヌス1世の意に反する立場を明らかにしたため、ここにおいてユスティニアヌス1世はアンティオキア学派に連なる3つの著作を非難し、排斥することで事態を好転させようとしました。これが「三章問題」です。ここで排斥された著作は以下のようなものでした。 

①キュロスのテオドレトスの著作  

②アレクサンドリアのキュリロスを糾弾したモプスエスティアのテオドロスの著作

③モプスエスティアのテオドロスを支持したエデッサのイバスの書いたペルシアのマリス宛て書簡 

ローマ教皇ウィギリウスも参加を強いられましたが、自分の立場が危ないとみて彼はカルケドンに逃れました。公会議は553年5月5日にコンスタンティノポリスのカテドラルにおいて開会しました。参加者は主教(司教)など150名ほどであったと考えられています。会議はコンスタンティノポリス総主教エウテュキオスの指導下に行われ、6月に終了し、先に提示された3章が有罪として排斥されました。教皇ウィギリウスは当初、これを認めることに難色を示していましたが、最終的にこれを承認しました。しかし、西方地域の主教(司教)たちの中にはこれを不服とする人々もいました。結局、この神学論争は決着せず、さらに単意説論争として続くことになります。(参照

*4:Origen, De principiis, Praefatio 8; ed. B. Koetschau, GCS 22 (1913), 14.6-13; trans. G. W. Butterworth, On the First Principles (London: SPCK, 1936), p. 5.

*5:John Chrysostom, De paenitentia, horn. 6, 4; PG 49:320.

*6:fcmile Brehier, Histoire de la philosophic (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1931), II, 494.

*7:A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), I, VI.

*8:Claude Tresmontant, La Mέtaphysique du christianisme et la naissance de la philosophic chretienne (Paris: du Seuil, 1961), p. 23.

*9:Georges Florovsky, "The Eastern Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement," Theology Today 

*10: (1949), 53-77. 8. See fctienne Gilson, La philosophic an Moyen-Age (2nd ed., Paris: Payot, 1952), pp. 72-77.

*11:Quoted by Jerome in Ep. 124, ad Avit., 15.

*12:See anathemas of the Council of Constantinople (553) as given in F. Dickamp, Die origenistischen Streitigteiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das junjte allgemeine Concil (Munstcr, 1898), pp. 90-96.

*13:The essential texts are found in A. Guillaumont, Les "Kephalaia Gnostica" d‟tvagre le Pontique et I‟histoire de I‟origenisme chez les Grecs et les Syriens (Paris: du Seuil, 1962), esp. pp. 156-160.

*14:Vladimir Lossky, Vision of God (London: Faith Press, 1963), pp. 99-100. 

*15:Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology, V; PG 3:1045p-1048A.

*16:Lossky, Vision, p. 102.

*17:See, chiefly, pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, II; PG 3:636ff.

*18:Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy, III, 2; PG 3:165λ.

*19:See R. Roques, L‟univers dionysien: Structure hierarchique du monde scion le pseudoDenys (Paris: Aubier, 1954), p. 98ff.

*20:Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, I, 3; PG 3:373c.

*21:See the analysis of Roques, L‟univers dionysien, pp. 172ff. 21. Ibid., pp. 267, 269.

*22:Ibid., pp. 267, 269.