Christian Prophets of the I–II century

Christianity was born among the Jewish circles. In a natural, though not unpremeditated way, the Young Church derived its inspiration from the religious heritage of Judaism. For instance, from the very beginning, it definitely rejected the literal observation of the Jewish Law. Another important element of the Judaic tradition were the prophets. As those who spoke out directly on God’s behalf, they admonished the people of Israel as well as its rulers and proclaimed the message of hope, but above all, they announced the coming of the Messiah. The prophetic tradition had been taken over in the very first phase of the Church’s life. This is best borne out by the numerous testimonies from the Act of the Apostles, St. Paul’s Letters as well as by the testimonies contained in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, above all the Didache and the Shepherd, though not exclusively. By the end of the first century, in the vicinity of Antioch and Asia Minor, the prophets played an important role in the structures of church „offices”; in other words, they also participated in the daily administering of the churches. Afterwards, their institutional role disappears, yet the prophets themselves continue to be present in the church communities and prophesying continues to enjoy spiritual authority. It is recognized as significant for the Church’s authenticity. It seems that ultimately it was the argument over Montana who declared himself to be a new prophet, that put an end to this tradition. Under the influence of the discussion concerning the authenticity of Montana’s prophetic gift, it was definitely announced in Rome that „The Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets” and this statement had gradually become one of the fundamental tenets of faith. The past tense used in this declaration signifies that the time of the prophets came to an end at the moment of Jesus’ coming, similarly as the apostolic time had definitely ended at the moment of death of the last of the Apostles.

The Gospel of Judas and the Early Christianity and Gnosticism. A Research Reconnaissance

The subject of the article is the recently discovered and published copy of a Coptic version of an apocryphal Gospel of Judas (the Greek original was written in the middle of the II century) recovered from The Codex Tchacos dating back to III-IV century. The author describes in a synthetic way, the history of its discovery and presents the results of the research that has gone into its edition; he pre-sents its content and gives its rough interpretation; he also defines its literary genre and the religious circles which gave rise to it. The author classifies the text as belonging to the early pseudepigraphic Gnostic writings which arose in the Cainite sect (Judaites). The discovery of the gospel authenticated the existence of this sect which was known from the writings of some Christian heresiologists and whose existence was being questioned by certain scholars; it provided an insight into its doctrine which was sometimes regarded as an invention of the ancient anti-Gnostic polemicists. Right now, the group of Cainites „had spoken with its own voice”.

The Problem of the Relation Between Satan and Apostasy in the Writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon

In the present article I am trying to analyze the relation between the figure of Satan and the cate-gory of apostasy which occurs in the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon. Apart from the fact that the author of Adversus haereses refers to Satan as an „apostate” or „angel apostate”, he also refers to Satan as a „leader of apostasy” (¢ρcηγÕςτÁς¢ποστασίας) or the „cause of apostasy” (causa ab-scessionis). At the same time, Irenaeus treats apostasy as something similar to an autonomous strength which has dominion over man. Such a use of the term ¢ποστασίαbecame the basis of an interpretation which treated apostasy in Irenaeus’ writings as a specific type of synonym of Satan in the sense of a personification of evil. However, such interpretations do not seem to be correct for a number of reasons, to mention just the fact that expressions of the type „the leader of apostasy” sug-gest in a direct way that Satan and apostasy are two different things. A preliminary distinction be-tween the two is provided by the Greek language itself (which was used by the bishop of Lyon), where the term ¢ποστασίαdenoting the state of apostasy and assuming the idea of apostasy (¢ποστάτης) is distinguished from the term ¢πόστασιςsignifying the very act of apostasy. Satan committed an act of apostasy which turned him into an apostate, thereby initiating the existence of the state of ¢ποσταία. Thus, in order to understand the very nature of the relation between Satan and the state of ¢ποστασίαin Irenaeus’ writings, one should take a closer look at how he describes the very act of the diabolic ¢πόστασις. Most likely, Irenaeus’ conception of Satan as an apostate had in its background the Jewish myth concerning the rebellion of the angels, in which Satan is presented, on the one hand, as a rebel who wishes to take God’s place, and on the other, as an offender who opposes God’s laws relating to the natural order in the universe. On the basis of the apocryphal corps of the Books of Adam and Eve, the Bishop of Lyon develops the concept of Satan’s envy in relation to man (caused by the fact that man was created in the image and likeness of God) as the nucleus of Satan’s ¢πόστασις. By envying man (and in this way, also God), he became an apostate of the Divine law which determined his permanent position as man’s subject in the hierarchy of creation. By contradict-ing this Divine law, he introduced profound chaos into the structure of the creation and by infecting man out of revenge with his own envy in relation to God, he had led to the situation in which man and the world became cut off from the Creator. This state of being cut off, shared by Satan and the people who through their own apostasy became Satan’s slaves, is what Irenaeus defines by the term ¢ποστασία.

The beginning of the „Aryan Controversy”

We know today that the so called „Arian controversy” began with a certain theological dispute; the dispute was initiated by bishop Alexander and presbyter Arius. The argument concerned the inter-pretation of a certain fragment of the Holy Scripture. It is not known when exactly the dispute took place, but in all likelihood, it occurred at the beginning of the twenties of the IV century. In the artic-le, the author analyzes the three texts which are fundamental to the above controversy, namely: Arius’ Letter to Alexander in which he presents his own credo, Alexander’s Letter to All the Bishops, from which we learn about the condemnation of Arius and his followers by the synod which had gathered specially for this end in Alexandria, and finally Arius’ Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. In his letter, Arius appeals to his followers for support in his dispute with the bishop. In the article, the author draws our attention to the fact that the above controversy could not have been the real reason for calling the Nicene Council as Emperor Constantine tended to ignore its significance which is best borne out by his letter to Alexander and Arius sent in the autumn of A.D. 324 and delivered in person by bishop Hosius of Cordoba. When the emperor had learnt about the fiasco of Hosius’ mission, it was already too late to invite the bishops to Nice for July 325, as they would not have received the invitation in time to be able to travel to Nice and attend the Council.

The Body and Soul in the Anthropology of Gregory of Nyssa

The paper raises one of the issues which are present in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa, namely that of the relation between body and soul. The above issue is closely associated with the anthropo-logy of the bishop of Nyssa which is based on a fragment of the book of Genesis that treats about man being created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27). Contrary to Philon and Orygenes who refer the act of dual creation to both Gen 1:27 and Gen :7, Gregory of Nyssa bases his conception of dual creation exclusively on the above-mentioned verse. In the conception of the bishop of Nyssa, the first creation relates to man understood as the humankind and it is a creation in the image and like-ness, whereas the second creation is a division into sexes (God introduces this division foreseeing man’s inclination to sin). With an act of free will, man selects sin and together with the original sin the biological sphere becomes activated. In spite of continuing in this state, the corporeal nature of man is not perceived in a negative way. In the second part of the article, the author raises the issue in what way the body and soul create a unity in man, at the same time being differentiated in the sphere of its nature. The conception presented by Gregory of Nyssa is clearly anchored in neo-Platonism. The text shows in what way the soul displays its varied activity through the body and in what way the body itself is adjusted through its constitution to the needs of the soul. Through the relation of body and soul, Gregory presents the conception of man as a dynamic and exceptional being as the two orders – the spiritual and the bodily one are united in man.

The Conception of the Inner Senses from the Perspective of Late-Antique Theories of Perception

The subject of the article is the idea of a subtle perception which is present in the late-antique tra-dition. The starting point is an attempt to capture the original meaning of the Christian conception of the inner senses in the theory of Origen and placing it in a wider historical, cultural, and above all theoretical context. The article takes up the various points of reference of the conception of the inner senses: 1) the problem of subtle perception in the shape adopted in the Neoplatonist tradition against the background of the development of the idea of the subtle body, and also 2) the issue of cognitive presentation (φαντασίακαταλυτική) in the sense of the Stoical theory of perception. The analysis carried out mainly from the perspective of the research conducted by R. Sorabji and E.R. Dodds shows that an analogous conception of subtle senses was developed by the particularly mature Neo-platonist tradition. Whereas the Christian conception which developed in monastic circles was influ-enced, to some extent by the stoical solutions.

Polémique dans les oeuvres d’Aphraat et d’Ephrem

Dans cet article on se limite sur l’aspect formel de la polémique laquelle on peut discerner dans les Éxposés d’Aphraat et dans les certaines oeuvres de saint Ephrem (Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan, hymnes De fide et Contra haereses). Le Sage Persan discutait avec le judaisme, tandis que le Diacre d’Edesse niait la valeur des doctrines hérétiques. Les deux Syriens constatent que faute de cohérence logique dans l’argumentation des hérétiques et des rabbins juifs leurs méthodes d’analyse et leurs conlusions sont fausses; en plus emprisonnés par la subjectivité épistémologique ils ne peuvent que l’inventer un monde de fiction qui n’a rien avoir avec un monde réel. Caricature et invective ce sont des instruments formels avec lesquels Aphraat et Ephrem ont essayé de défendre l’ortodoxie chrétienne.

The Polemic with Marcionism in Origenes’ Commentary to the „Letter of St. Paul to the Romans”

The article discusses the references to Marcion of Pont as well as to Marcionites contained in Origenes’ commentary to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. It was particularly those places where the commentator mentions the heresiarch by name that were taken into consideration; on this basis the views ascribed to the Marcianites are analyzed. Moreover, the author quotes those fragments of the text which though do not mention Marcion directly, yet which contain remarks directed against certain unspecified heresies; the latter may also be regarded as part of Marcion’s teaching. The analyzed fragments of the commentary point out, above all, to the most important element of Marcion’s heresy , in Origenes’ view, namely to his insistence on the literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture which had led this preacher from Pont to a rejection of the whole of the Old and a conside-rable part of the New Testament. Also the interpretation of those writings of St. Paul’s which Marcion regards as inspired turns out to be erroneous precisely due to the author’s failure to use an allegorical exegesis. In the conclusions, the author points out that although Origenes presents Marcion’s views, he does not devote a lot of attention to refuting them. Nevertheless, he points out emphatically that in order to assure the correct theological interpretation of the Holy Scripture, one needs to recognize both the literal and the allegorical sense of it.

The Conception of Logos in „Poimandres”

The problem of Logos constitutes one of the main motifs of the classical philosophical and theo-logical reflection at the beginning of our era. In the article the author discusses the meaning of Logos in the hermetic treatise „Poimandres”, and compares it with other presentations of this problem (above all in Christianity and Gnosticism). The operation of the hermetic Logos consists in giving sense to existence, thanks to which the world emerges out of chaos. Logos is continually present in the world and as such, it can also be experienced directly, and may therefore have a sensual character. The hermetic Logos has a paradoxical character: it remains concealed throughout the whole time, and at the same time, it is open; it is elusive and incarnate; it is an expression of transcendence and at the same time of immanence. Consequently, the process of getting to know the world, becomes the pro-cess of getting to know Logos, and ultimately – God himself. In Poimandres, all of these issues were described by means of a vivid language of myth. Whereas Gnostic Logos always remains beyond the world and beyond language, becoming revealed exclusively in the inner experience leading to the highest illumination. And it seems that from the point of view of the Christian interpretation of Logos, Poimandres did not play any major role in the classical times, in spite of the many convergences and similarities between the two conceptions. Yet at the threshold of modern times, the logos of this myth once again became an up-to-date interpretation of Logos and as such, it exerted an important influen-ce on the character of the entire European civilization.

The Noahite Commandments in „Talmud” – the Universalism of Judaism Towards the Expansion of Christianity („Sanhedrin” Treatise 56a–57a)

The end of the classical era marks the period of the expansion of Christianity in the Greek-Roman world which owes its success to the missionary activities combined with religious universalism. In the same period, Judaism formulates a universalistic moral message based on the oral tradition which it addresses to the non-Jews – the so called seven Noahite commandments. It is also a period of consolidation of the oral tradition of Judaism in Talmud, in which one may find a story relating to the Noahite laws. A sizable part of the article is taken up with a translation accompanied by commentary of a fragment of gemara of the Sanhedrin treatise 56a–57a from the Babylon Talmud. The above fragment constitutes the first part of the so called „Noahite digression” and is devoted to a rabbinical debate devoted to the catalog and sources of the Noahite commandments. According to a commonly accepted view, the commandments in question consist of seven laws: a ban to indulge in idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual promiscuity, robbery and consumption of any part of a living animal, as well as an injunction to create a legal system. It is commonly assumed that the biblical source of the above commandments is a verse in the Book of Genesis: „Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition: »You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden«” (Gn 2:16).

Acta Synodalia ab anno 50 ad annum 381 (Synodi et Collectiones legum vol. I) – Dokumenty synodów od 50 do 381 roku (Synody i Kolekcje Praw tom 1), układ i opracowanie Arkadiusz Baron i Henryk Pietras SJ, Kraków 2006 (Wydawnictwo WAM, „Źródła Myśli Teologicznej” 37), ss. 356.

PORFIRIUSZ Z TYRU, GROTA NIMF, TŁUM. PIOTR ASHWIN-SIEJKOWSKI, KRAKÓW 2006

AREJOS DIDYMOS, PODRĘCZNIK ETYKI, TŁUM. MICHAŁ WOJ-CIECHOWSKI, KRAKÓW 2006

PORFIRIUSZ Z TYRU, PRZECIW CHRZEŚCIJANOM, PRZEKŁAD, WSTĘP I KOMENTARZ: PIOTR ASHWIN-SIEJKOWSKI KRAKÓW 2006, ss. 159