The Orthodox Church in America and Its Future

by Saint Nikolai Velimirovich

I feel greatly honored in being called to speak to you in this great city* on this day, the Sunday of Orthodoxy. For this day is indeed our pan-Orthodox Thanksgiving Day, because on this day for the last thousand years we have been giving thanks to Almighty God for the spiritual victories He granted to the holy Fathers of our Church and, through them, to us.

When I mention the Fathers of the Church, I am thinking first of all of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the first of which was held in A.D. 325 and the last in 787. These Seven Councils represent the seven greatest spiritual battles in the history of Christendom. Like seven pillars of light (the light being Christ), they have illumined the path of our Church through the ages. They remind us of the Biblical words, "Wisdom has built her house, she has hewn out her seven pillars" (Prov. 9:1). They fought against all the apostasies, heresies, pagan teachings and practices, against nebulous oriental occultism and pretentious philosophic theories contrary to Christs revelations.

The seventh of these Councils, which we specially celebrate today, confirmed the canons and regulations of the preceding six and added new ones. Therefore, Orthodox churches the world over are today offering thanks to God for having granted to Christendom those spiritual giants in the first thousand years, when all Christendom was united in one Church.

Besides those Fathers of the Ecumenical Coun-cils, we remember today all the other luminaries of early Church history, which no storm of succeeding events could extinguish. Some of them were great theologians, teachers, and preachers; others were extraordinary ascetics; still others were wonder-working intercessors, or wise leaders and organizers of Christian communities, or successful missionaries, or glorious martyrs for Christ, both male and female. By their words and deeds, by their wisdom and life examples, they continue to edify and assist us in following Christ. All that they taught and wrote is part of what we call the Sacred Tradition of the Church. They represent a precious treasure in our Church, which is Gods family. And therefore we are lifting our hearts with thanks to God for this precious treasure. Yes, this is our pan-Orthodox Thanksgiving Day.

The examples and experiences of these holy men and women are like precious stones left to posterity as their loving legacy. What are these precious stones? They are as many as the number of Christian virtues, but I will discuss here just three of the most essential for our modern times. They are: spiritual vision, moral discipline, and competition in doing good.

Spiritual Vision

Our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to mankind an invisible world incomparably greater than the visible. The spiritual horizon which He opened to men was a much greater wonder than the physical horizon of distant galaxies discovered by modern telescopes. He spoke not like other teachers and philosophers—by hypotheses and theories and probabilities, but by authority of an eyewitness who descended from that great heavenly world in order to draw us to it. He called that world the Kingdom of Heaven. It was the most staggering and gladdening annunciation since the creation of the world. It wiped away the tears of mothers for their dead children, and the tears of children for their deceased parents. "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad,"He said to the mournful world. "Open your spiritual eyes and behold a glorious Kingdom beyond, in which the King is your real Father. And if you cannot easily open your inner sight, look through Me; I am your telescope. Believe me and follow me. Rejoice, and again I say, Rejoice!"

An English lady happened to be present at a Serbian funeral service and heard Orthodox priests chanting repeatedly: "Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia." She was shaken and asked, "Is it proper to sing a song of joy over a dead person?" "For us, death is not evil," I answered, "sin alone is evil."

Many times I asked holy monks on Mount Athos—Greeks, Serbs, Russians, Romanians: "What is the best means to keep a person from sinning?" Their usual answer was: "The constant vision of the heavenly world." A Greek elder on Karoulia said, "You must exercise in spiritual vision every day until the other world is clearly opened to you."

It is no wonder that many Protestants call our Orthodox Church transcendent. Through all centuries and generations we have been taught to strive toward the realization and visualization of the other world.

In many of our church hymns, saints and martyrs are glorified because they "gave up the cheap for the precious," or "the mortal for the immortal," or "the transitory for the eternal." Their motive for such a choice was the spiritual vision of the Kingdom of Heaven as our true fatherland, as the real goal of our travelling and toiling in this physical world of mere symbols and shadows.

Moral Discipline

Now, since we acquire that spiritual vision of the Kingdom of Heaven by hard spiritual training and exercises, the question arises: How can we make ourselves worthy of that Kingdom? For the end of our physical life is very near and we have to decide quickly, lest it be too late. The answer is: by moral discipline.

What is moral discipline? It is the "narrow path" that leads to eternal life and bliss. It is clearly described and prescribed in the Gospel, and more particularly in the apostolic epistles, and it is exemplified in the lives of holy men and women, some of whom are mentioned in our calendar, and myriads upon myriads of whom are written in Heavens Book of Life.

Moral discipline is the way to perfection. And nothing less than perfection is our ideal, according to Christs exhortation: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). To accomplish this tremendous task, our holy ancestors who loved the living Christ courageously climbed up the ladder of perfection, step by step. The steps were: incessant prayer, meditation, obedience, humility, meekness, self-restraint, weeping, watchfulness, forgiveness, repentance, sacrificing everything—even their own body. They trained themselves to abstain not only from every evil deed and word, but from every negative thought. They lived in this world as if they were not of this world. They used things of this world as if they were not using them. They considered themselves to be not citizens of this world but merely visitors.

They vigilantly controlled the inner circle of their soulsobserv[ing] every movement of their mind and heart. Thereby they became the greatest psychologists in the world. If you want to know the human soul, read the records of the great spiritual fathers such as Saints Macarius of Egypt, John Chrysostom, Isaac of Syria, and other ascetic fathers. And you will see how impoverished our modern psychology is by comparison. Externally they lived as the most destitute, yet in terms of spiritual wealth, in truth and virtue, they were the richest people. The whole world was not worthy of them. Truly are they called "barefoot aristocrats".

Today we are remembering these spiritual aristocrats, who by superhuman efforts and Gods grace reached perfection. And we are offering our thanks to Christ for presenting us with this brilliant gallery of beautiful and perfect souls in order that we and our children might emulate them. Therefore, we call this day our Orthodox Thanksgiving Day.

Competition in Doing Good

I come finally to the third point, the third jewel that adorned those of our ancestors whom we are celebrating today. That is the new competition or the competition in doing good. Whereas spiritual vision and moral disciplined have individual bearing, the competition in doing good concerns society. It is the highest social virtue.

Christ proclaims this virtue throughout His Gospel. In essence this teaching is: Give more than you are expected to give, and do more than you are expected to do. The world has been revolutionized by this marvelous doctrine. But the Author of this doctrine was crucified because the world was intoxicated by the old competition in doing evil. When a man was striving by every possible means to get rich, his neighbor tried to get richer. If a Roman patrician had a thousand slaves, another patrician tried to have two thousand. If a pharaoh became famous by some conquest, his successor desired greater fame by greater conquests. While Emperor Caligula was very cruel, Nero tried to be yet more cruel.

The new competition in doing good was as different from the old as traveling in darkness is from traveling in sunshine. Our holy ancestors understood the doctrine of the new competition as the highest social virtue, and they trained themselves in that virtue most strenuously all their life long.

Imagine how marvelously changed this awful world would be if you and I entered this competition of doing good. For instance, if every day we eagerly tried to be more pious than some other pious people, more forbearing, more merciful, more peaceful, more sympathetic, more constructive, more forgiving, more loving than others. And all this not for prides sake but for Christs sake. Verily it would solve all the crucial social, political, and economic problems in every Christian country, and it would mightily help Christian missions among non-Christian peoples and nations.

We are glorifying the Lord God because our Orthodox forefathers pointed out and exercised this social ideal of a new competition in doing good and because they showed us a glorious personal example to follow. Therefore, in all Orthodox countries and in the diaspora, this day is considered our common Thanksgiving Day.

Let us now turn our gaze from the East to the far West, i.e., to America.

About 150 years ago Orthodox people of every nationality began to come to this New World, first daring individuals, then small groups, until in our days they have reached, by immigration and by birth, a number equal at least to the number of Episcopalians in the United States.

The first settlers were very simple people, hard workers, farmers. They were just the kind of people who were authentic bearers of that threefold Christian ideal, i.e., of spiritual vision, of moral discipline and of competition in doing good. This was the backbone of their souls, inherited from their fathers in the old countries. They lived up to it as much as they could in this country under changed circumstances. And that was, and still is, their greatest contribution to building American civilization, along with their other contributions of sweat and blood—of sweat in mines and factories, and of blood on Americas battlefields.

They never got rich in this rich country, for they had to divide their modest earnings into three parts: one part for their subsistence and the education of their children, a second part they sent to their families in the old country, and the third they gave to church, school, insurance, and charities.

They built churches and called priests from the old country....They preserved their religious traditions. They cultivated the ancient virtues. They delighted in their national music and songs, in their national costumes and dramatic performances. Personally, I have a deep admiration for these old Orthodox generations in America, both for those who passed away in the Faith, and for those who are still living by their faith. They have been a spiritual and constructive component of the New Worlds humanity. I dare say that in their own way they have been heroic generations no less than other national groups, now blended into one great American nation. In their modesty these humble people never expected a poet to laud them or a historian to describe them.

Alas, the last of these old Orthodox generations is rapidly passing away. Their sons and grandsons, and their daughters and granddaughters are now coming to the field. And this new generation is American born. They speak good English but little or no Greek, Serbian, Russian, Rumanian, Syrian or Albanian. And no wonder: They attended American schools, many of them served in the US army, they have grown in conformity with the American standard of living, their hearts are not divided between two countries. They are naturally Americans, and they intend to remain American. Accordingly, they have some demands respecting the Church of their fathers.

They want English to replace national languages in church services. They desire to hear sermons in English. This is a legitimate desire. Our wise priests of every national Orthodox Church in this country are already preaching in both English and in their respective national tongue. They are in a difficult position at present, for they have on one hand to be considerate of the elderly (elderly generations of Moms and Pops) who do not understand English well, and on the other hand they are willing to respond to the desire and need of the younger generations. In this matter I think evolution is better than revolution, for the Church is the mother of both the old and the young.

The time may not be far off when there will be a united Orthodox Church in America, which will include all the present Eastern national Churches in this country, a Church with one central administrative authority. I see a tendency toward such an end in each of our now individual Churches. ... And when by Gods Providence the time is ripe for the accomplishment of such a unity, I dare not doubt that the venerable heads of all our Orthodox Churches in Europe, Asia, and Africa, always led by the Holy Spirit, will give their blessing for the organization of a new and autonomous sister Church in America.

And now let me make an appeal to all our American Orthodox youth.

America is your cradle and your earthly motherland. It is a wonderful Gods country, and you are expected to be wonderful Gods people in this country. Remember that our greatest contribution to America is of a spiritual and moral nature. And that is precisely what America needs today. That is what every Christian country today needs most of all—in boundless measure. For all nations, especially the Christians nowadays traveling as if in a wilderness of confusion created by senseless materialism and its blind daughter atheism. I offer this to what leading American men and women are saying: "The only hope for us and for the world is to return to religion." Again I say: "Our hope is in the Church." You ought to listen to these words, too, and to ponder them. We live in very tragic times, which are made more tragic by easy-going and self-indulgent people who have never read the story of Sodom, of Laish, or of Capernaum.

If I am correct in my observations, the greatest struggle of America these days is the struggle for the priority and superiority of spiritual and moral values over techniques and technological lordship: in other words, for predominance of the spiritual over the material, of goodness over cleverness. The Serbs often say of a clever man: "He is clever as the devil." They never say: "He is good as the devil."

America is constantly sounding the sympathetic watchwords: "dignity of man" and "liberty of men and nations." But the deepest meaning of these watchwords can be found in the sacred teaching of Him without Whom we can do nothing. That meaning is found most explicitly in the threefold program of our Orthodox Church: spiritual vision, moral discipline, and competition in doing good.

For the dignity of man—in other words, the superior value of man—has real and eternal meaning only if you know and acknowledge the Kingdom of Heaven as the true fatherland of all men, from which we originated and to which we are returning as children of one common Father, Who is in heaven. And freedom is most useful, joyful, and sacred if you exercise moral discipline over yourself and practice competition in doing good.

These are the fundamentals upon which you can build your individual and communal happiness. And you have received these fundamentals as a glorious heritage, never to part with. By practicing this spiritual heritage in your daily life, you will become an adornment to America. And through you all Americans will come to know and appreciate our ancient Church of the East and her spiritual heroes, whom we are praising today.

From Orthodox America, Vol. XIX (No 5 [169]).

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

On Bar Codes and Other Apocalyptic Myths

A relevant talk by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Unceasing Struggles of the Faithful

"There can be no rest for those on earth who desire to be saved," says St. Ephrem the Syrian. The struggle is unceasing be it either external or internal. The adversary acts visibly at times through men and other things and at other times, invisibly through thoughts. At times, the adversary appears openly and behaves brutally and cruelly like an enemy and, at other times, under the guise of a flattering friend, he seduces by shrewdness. That which occurs in battle between two opposing armies also occurs to every man individually in battle with the passions of this world. Truly, "There can be no rest for those on earth who desire to be saved." When salvation comes, rest also comes.

- St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Prologue

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Symbol of Georgian National and Spiritual Revival

April 9, 2010
The Messenger

The Holy Trinity Cathedral, commonly known as Sameba, is the main Georgian Orthodox Christian cathedral in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia.

In May 1989 the Georgian Orthodox Patriarchate and the Tbilisi authorities announced an international contest to design the Holy Trinity Cathedral to commemorate the 1,500 years of the autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox Church and 2,000 years from the birth of Jesus Christ. 1989 was a crucial year for the then-Soviet Republic of Georgia but the idea of building a new cathedral filled the people with hope for a better future.

It was difficult to identify the best entry despite the huge number of participants. No winner was chosen in the first round of the contest, to which more than a hundred projects were submitted. But finally architect Archil Mindiashvili's design proved the winner.

The subsequent turbulent years of civil unrest deferred this grandiose plan for six years, and it was not until November 23, 1995 that the foundation stone of the new cathedral was finally laid. The construction of the church was sponsored by mostly anonymous donations by several businessmen and common citizens of Georgia.

The cathedral was consecrated by Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II and the high-ranking representatives of fellow Orthodox churches around the world on St. George's Day on November 23, 2004. The consecration was also attended by the leaders of other religious and confessional communities of Georgia and political leaders.

Sameba Cathedral is built on the Elia Hill, which rises above the left bank of the Mtkvari River in Avlabari in Old Tbilisi. The Cathedral represents a synthesis of traditional styles of Georgian church architecture at various stages of its history but also contains several innovations. Sameba is a cruciform church crowned with a dome over a crossing, which rests upon eight columns. At the same time the parameters of the dome are independent from the apses, imparting a more monumental look to the dome and the church in general. The dome is surmounted by a 7.5 metre-high cross covered with gold.

The cathedral consists of chapels dedicated to the Archangels, John the Baptist, Saint Nino, Saint George, Saint Nicholas, the Twelve Apostles, and All Saints, five of them situated in a large underground compartment. The overall area of the cathedral, including a large narthex, is 5,000 square metres and it occupies 137 cubic metres of space. The inner perimeter of the church is 56m by 44m. The height of the cathedral from the ground to the top of the cross is 84 metres. The underground chapel occupies 35,550 cubic metres and is 13 metres tall.

Natural materials have been used in its construction. The floor is made of marble tiles and the altar will also be decorated with mosaics. Murals are being painted by a group of artists led by Amiran Goglidze. The whole Sameba complex consists of the main cathedral church, a free-standing bell-tower, the residence of the Patriarch, a monastery, a clerical seminary and theological academy, several workshops, places for rest, etc.

The Holy Trinity Cathedral has become the symbol of the Georgian national and spiritual revival. Thousands of faithful attend liturgies there and pray for the peace and unity of their country, asking God for blessings and waiting for a miracle.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Saint Antipas: A Martyr of the Apocalypse

Hieromartyr Antipas of Pergamum (Feast Day - April 11)

From the OCA website:

The Hieromartyr Antipas, a disciple of the holy Apostle John the Theologian (September 26), was bishop of the Church of Pergamum during the reign of the emperor Nero (54-68).

During these times, everyone who would not offer sacrifice to the idols lived under threat of either exile or execution by order of the emperor. On the island of Patmos (in the Aegean Sea) the holy Apostle John the Theologian was imprisoned, he to whom the Lord revealed the future judgment of the world and of Holy Church.

"And to the angel of the Church of Pergamum write: the words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword. I know where you live, where the throne of Satan is, and you cleave unto My Name, and have not renounced My faith, even in those days when Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwells" (Rev 2:12-13).

By his personal example, firm faith and constant preaching about Christ, St Antipas began to turn the people of Pergamum from offering sacrifice to idols. The pagan priests reproached the bishop for leading the people away from their ancestral gods, and they demanded that he stop preaching about Christ and offer sacrifice to the idols instead.

St Antipas calmly answered that he was not about to serve the demons that fled from him, a mere mortal. He said he worshiped the Lord Almighty, and he would continue to worship the Creator of all, with His Only-Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. The pagan priests retorted that their gods existed from of old, whereas Christ was not from of old but was crucified under Pontius Pilate as a criminal. The saint replied that the pagan gods were the work of human hands and that everything said about them was filled with iniquities and vices. He steadfastly confessed his faith in the Son of God, incarnate of the Most Holy Virgin.

The enraged pagan priests dragged the Hieromartyr Antipas to the temple of Artemis and threw him into a red-hot copper bull, where usually they put the sacrifices to the idols. In the red-hot furnace the martyr prayed loudly to God, imploring Him to receive his soul and to strengthen the faith of the Christians . [He also asked forgiveness for his tormentors and that he would help be a source of healing to the faithful, especially those suffering from ailments of teeth]. He went to the Lord peacefully, as if he were going to sleep (+ c. 68 or c. 92).

At night Christians took the body of the Hieromartyr Antipas, which was untouched by the fire. They buried him at Pergamum. The tomb of the hieromartyr became a font of miracles and of healings from various sicknesses.

We pray to the Hieromartyr Antipas for relief from toothache, and diseases of the teeth.


From The Prologue of St. Nikolai Velimirovich:

Antipas is mentioned in the Book of Revelation as, "Antipas, my faithful witness, who was martyred among you, where Satan lives" (Revelation 2:13), i.e., in the city of Pergamum. The inhabitants of this city lived in the darkness of idolatry and in extreme impurity. They were slaves to passions. They were slanderers, tyrants and they were incestuous. In other words, they were the servants of Satan. Here among them lived Antipas, "As a light in the midst of darkness, as a rose among thorns and as gold in mud." He, who captured and killed a Christian, would be deemed as good and just. The totality of pagan belief consisted of soothsaying, interpretation of dreams, serving demons and extreme perversion. Being frightened of Antipas as from fire, the demons appeared to the soothsayers in a dream and confessed how afraid they were of Antipas and how, because of him, they must depart from this city. The pagan priests summoned a large number of people against Antipas and began to interrogate and to force him to deny Christ and to worship idols. Antipas said to them: "When your so-called gods, lords of the universe are frightened of me, a mortal man, and must flee from this city, do you not recognize that, by this, your faith is an aberration?" The saint also spoke to them further about the Faith of Christ as being the only One, True Saving Faith. They became enraged as wild beasts and dragged the aged Antipas to the temple of Artemis before which stood an ox cast in bronze. They heated the bronzed ox and hurled the servant of God into the red-hot molten ox. From within the molten ox, St. Antipas glorified God with thanksgiving, as once did Jonah in the belly of the whale or the Three Youths in the fiery furnace. Antipas prayed for his flock and for the entire world until his soul parted from his weakened body and ascended among the angels into the Kingdom of Christ. He died suffering and was crowned with unfading glory in the year 92 A.D.

HYMN OF PRAISE: SAINT ANTIPAS

In a fiery ox as in a luminous temple
Antipas, the Christian, does not suffer loneliness:
In his pure heart, the Lord abides
Neither the fire burns him neither is he in horror of it
The saint for Christ patiently endures all,
And prayers to Christ from the fire, ascend,
Oh, All-Powerful Christ, King of all ages,
For these sufferings, a hundred-fold thanks be to You!
All in me that is sinful, let burn with fire,
That I be more precious according to heavenly worth.
Oh Savior, I pray to You; my flock protect
In this town, in awful dung!
May my blood strengthen them in the Faith,
And their hearts to You be fixed.
And for the heathen, also, O Blessed One I pray to You
Seize them, once and for all, from demonic lies;
And for all sinners, who ridicule Your law,
Direct them to You, the only One to serve.
Behold, all is within the authority of Your Holy Will,
And finally, to You I pray: may it be better for the Church!


Apolytikion in the First Tone
The celebrated hierarch and Pegamum's first prelate, the fellow-contestant of Martyrs and most divine myrrh-streamer, ye faithful, come let us honour now wise Antipas, who truly is a great and swift healer of severely afflicted teeth, and cry to him with our whole soul: Glory to Christ that hath glorified thee. Glory to Him that hath crowned thee. Glory to Him that worketh healings for all through thee.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
Unto the hierarch and renowned Great Martyr of the Lord, to the most excellent protector of all Pergamum, unto him that cast our common foe down in ruin, unto Antipas let us sing praises as is due, for he healeth them that suffer from afflicted teeth. Let us cry with love: Rejoice, O thrice-blessed Father.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Thomas Didn't Believe So That All May Believe

by St. Gregory the Great

Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. He was the only disciple absent; on his return he heard what had happened but refused to believe it. The Lord came a second time; He offered His side for the disbelieving disciple to touch, held out His hands, and showing the scars of His wounds, healed the wound of his disbelief.

Dearly beloved, what do you see in these events? Do you really believe that it was by chance that this chosen disciple was absent, then came and heard, heard and doubted, doubted and touched, touched and believed? It was not by chance but in God’s providence. In a marvelous way God’s mercy arranged that the disbelieving disciple, in touching the wounds of his Master’s body, should heal our wounds of disbelief.

The disbelief of Thomas has done more for our faith than the faith of the other disciples. As he touches Christ and is won over to belief, every doubt is cast aside and our faith is strengthened. So the disciple who doubted, then felt Christ’s wounds, becomes a witness to the reality of the resurrection.

Touching Christ, he cried out: "My Lord and my God."

Jesus said to him: "Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed."

Paul said: "Faith is the guarantee of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."

It is clear, then, that faith is the proof of what can not be seen. What is seen gives knowledge, not faith. When Thomas saw and touched, why was he told: "You have believed because you have seen me?"

Because what he saw and what he believed were different things. God cannot be seen by mortal man. Thomas saw a human being, whom he acknowledged to be God, and said: "My Lord and my God."

Seeing, he believed; looking at one who was true man, he cried out that this was God, the God he could not see.

What follows is reason for great joy: "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."

There is here a particular reference to ourselves; we hold in our hearts One we have not seen in the flesh. We are included in these words, but only if we follow up our faith with good works. The true believer practices what he believes. But of those who pay only lip service to faith, Paul has this to say: "They profess to know God, but they deny him in their works."

Therefore James says: "Faith without works is dead."

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Doubting Thomas

By Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann

“Unless I see…I will not believe” (John 20:25). So said Thomas, one of Christ’s twelve disciples, in response to the joyful news of those who had seen their crucified and buried Teacher risen from the dead. Eight days later, as recorded in the gospels, when the disciples once again were all together, Christ appeared and told Thomas: “Put your finger here and see my hands; and put out your hand and place it in my side; be not faithless, but believing.” And Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and my God!” Then Christ told him: “You have believed because you have seen me; blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe…” (John 20:24-31).

Millions of people today think and speak essentially like Thomas, and assume that this is the only correct approach worthy of any thinking person. “Unless I see, I will not believe…” In our contemporary speech isn’t this the “scientific approach?” But Christ says: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” This means that there is, and was, another approach, another standard, another possibility. True, others may say, but that approach is naïve and not rational; it’s unscientific; it’s for people who are backward; and since I’m a person of the modern world, “Unless I see, I will not believe.”

We live in a world of great oversimplification and therefore spiritual poverty. “Scientific” or “Unscientific.” People use words like these all the time as if they were self-evident and self-explanatory, and they use them because everyone else also uses them, without reflection, without debate. In fact, they themselves believe these reductions blindly and simplistically, and so any other approach appears to them as neither serious nor worthy of attention. The question is already decided. But is that really true? I just said that we live in a world of great spiritual poverty. And indeed, if the end result of humanity’s interminable development boils down to this pronouncement, “I won’t believe it till I see it”; if the human race looks upon this as the height of wisdom and reason’s greatest victory, then our world truly is poor, superficial, and most all, incredibly boring. If I only know what I see, touch, measure and analyze, then how little I really know! The whole world of the human spirit falls by the wayside, all the intuition and profound knowledge that flow not from “I see” or “I touch,” but from “I think” and, most importantly, “I contemplate.”

What falls away is that realm of knowledge which for centuries was rooted not in external, observable experience, but in another human faculty, an amazing and perhaps inexplicable ability that sets human beings apart from everything else and makes them truly unique. Even robots, machines and computers can now touch, handle and manipulate objects; they can make accurate observations, and even make predictions. We know that they actually perform better than human beings in measuring, comparing, making exact observations flawlessly; they are more accurate, more “scientific.” But here is what no robot, under any circumstances, will ever be able to do: to be filled with wonder, to be awed, to have feelings, to be moved by tenderness, to rejoice, to see what can’t be seen by measurement or analysis of any kind. No robot will hear those unheard sounds that give birth to music and poetry; no robot will ever cry, or trust. But without all this doesn’t our world become colorless, boring and, I would say, unnecessary? Oh yes, planes and spaceships will fly ever further and faster. But where to and what for? Oh yes, laboratories will conduct their analyses with ever increasing accuracy. But to what end? “For the good of humanity,” I’m told. I understand, so this means that one day we will have a healthy, well fed, self-satisfied human being walking about, who will be totally blind, totally deaf and totally unaware of his deafness and blindness.

“Unless I see I will not believe.” Clearly, however, observable experience, empirical data, is just one form of knowledge, the most elementary, and therefore the lowest form. Empirical analysis is useful and necessary, but to reduce all human knowledge to this level is like trying to comprehend the beauty of a painting by a chemical analysis of its paint. What we call faith is at a second and higher level of human knowledge, without which, it can be claimed, man would be unable to live even a single day. Every person believes in something or someone, so the only question is whose faith, whose vision, whose knowledge of the world corresponds more accurately and more completely to the richness and complexity of life.

Some say that the resurrection of Christ must be a fabrication since the dead do not rise. True, if there is no God. But if God exists, then death must be overthrown, since God cannot be a God of decay and death. Others will then say: but there is no God, since no one has seen him. But how then do you account for the experience of millions of people who joyfully affirm that they have seen, not with their physical eyes, but with a profound and certain inner sight? Two thousand years have passed, but when the joyful proclamation “Christ is risen!” descends as if from heaven, all still send out the same triumphant response, “Truly He is risen!”

Is it really true that you neither see nor hear? Is it really true that in the deepest part of your consciousness, away from all analysis, measurements and palpation, you neither see nor feel any undying, radiant light, you do not hear the sounds of an eternal voice: “I am the way, the resurrection and the life…”? Is it really true that in the depth of your soul you do not recognize Christ within us, within me, answering Doubting Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe?”

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Homily for the Sunday of Saint Thomas

by St. John of Kronstadt

Christ is Risen!

Beloved brothers, so Bright Week has passed and taken with it our deeds to the throne of the Heavenly Master and Judge: there, brothers, there are our deeds now. I say this in order to frighten with the fear of the heavenly judgment those who unworthily, not Christian-like, spent the feast of the bright Resurrection of Christ and to comfort those who spent it with temperance and spiritual joy.

How did very many spend the feast of the bright Resurrection? I would not like to call to remembrance foul human deeds but they, together with those that performed them, need to be remembered and judged on behalf of God. The all-bright feast was met, after the bright Paschal service, with dark deeds: intemperance and drunkenness, fights, cursing, and all types of sin. Consider that we fasted before the feast only in order to, with even more eagerness, rush into all fleshly, sinful deeds so that we can unashamedly and with insolence indulge in every iniquity. Alas! Woe unto us!

All those who met the feast with intemperance and drunkenness, adultery, cursing, and other similar deeds of the flesh lost all the benefit which they had received (if they even received any) from the fast, lost the benefit from repentance and communion of the Holy Mysteries, trampled them as an unreasonable animal under their feet, lost the acceptable time for salvation, given them by the mercy of the Lord, time which will not be returned. It was proper to say to you during the fast, behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2) for it was just then that you had come to the saving font of repentance and to the all-cleansing, true Mysteries of the body and blood of the Lord. Now your confession and communion is put off until the next fast but who knows if the Lord will vouchsafe you to again confess and commune? Who knows if you will repose in those very iniquities with which again, after the font of repentance, you have defiled yourself? How painful, how piteous, beloved brothers, that so soon you have turned out to be betrayers of Christ and have given yourself over to the devil to serve him, the original murderer, the author of, and instructor in of every type of sin! You are, using the words of the Savior, and I, a great sinner, am as well are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (John 8:44).

What, then, remains for us to do, beloved brothers? To pray and weep for our sins. To weep that not Christian-like and not even human-like did many of us meet the feast but like vile idol worshipers and like wild animals, which have not been fed for a long time with their favorite food. To weep that we have trampled upon the great, soul-saving Mysteries of Christ, that is, repentance and communion, and counted them as nought. To weep that the time, given for salvation, we have thoughtlessly lost. May we weep and pray to the Lord that He “not become angry with us neither destroy us with our iniquities” (first morning prayer) but would return us to the way of repentance and make us skilled performers of His commandments. Let us firmly decide from now on not to give ourselves over to intemperance and drunkenness and all the sins which follow, and with tears ask the Lord that He, with the Grace of the Holy Spirit, would strengthen us in our intentions and good deeds.

Brothers! May we all shed tears for we all unworthily met the great feast of the Lord and angered our Lord; not in this way, not in this way indeed, should we meet the feasts of the Lord. We need to meet them with spiritual joy in the Lord, for our deliverance from sins and for our eternal salvation through Christ, the Son of God, with deeds of mercy, temperance from passions, visiting the church of God in spirit and truth and with simplicity in food and clothing.

O, you, decorated with gold and a multitude of precious fabrics, women and maids! In the name of the Lord, I direct my speech to you! What a multitude of poor would you have been able to cause to rejoice on the all-bright day of the Resurrection of Christ and, in that way, worthily meet that great feast, if you would have, in generosity and Christian love, changed even a few of these decorations into money and given that money to the poor who are so many in our city? Would it not have been reasonable, in a Christian way, if you had fewer precious clothing and the money remaining you had given to the poor? What rich mercy would you have received on that day from Christ the Lord? Yes, truly Christian-like would you have then met the feast of Christ’s Resurrection. But now what? You are decorated like idols but the members of Christ are without clothes; you are satiated but the members of Christ are in want; you roll in every possible pleasure but those are in tears; we are in rich and decorated dwellings but those are in cramped conditions and uncleanness, in dwellings which are often not any better than a pigsty. We do not have Christian love and, therefore, there is no true feast of the Resurrection of Christ, for those truly celebrate the Resurrection who himself is raised from dead deeds to deeds of virtue and Christian faith and love, trampling on intemperance, luxury, and all of the passions. Brothers! May we celebrate the feasts of the Lord as Christians and not as pagans! Amen.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Orthodox Bulgaria Marks Sunday of St. Thomas

April 10, 2010
Novinite

Bulgaria marks on April 10, the Sunday after Easter or Sunday of St. Thomas, also known as Second Sunday or Antipascha.

Historically, this day in the early Church was the day that the newly-baptized Christians removed their robes and entered once again into the life of this world.

This day is also known as Antipascha. This does not mean "opposed to Pascha," but "in place of Pasch," i.e., at the other end of Bright Week.

Liturgically, the Church remembers the Apostle Thomas' vision of Christ after eight days.

Thomas the Apostle, also called Doubting Thomas was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He is best known for disbelieving Jesus' resurrection when first told of it, then proclaiming "My Lord and my God" on seeing Jesus in John 20:28.

On the eight day Christ said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (John 20:26-29).

In Bulgaria, on Sunday of St. Thomas women dye eggs one more time and give them away for the souls of their dead relatives and friends. The belief is that this giving away of colored eggs will prevent the latter from reincarnation.

The Second Sunday in Bulgaria is also the name day of Toma, Tomislav, Tomislava.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Feast of the Synaxis of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers

Icon of the Synaxis of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers

On the Saturday of Bright Week, a service has been written to commemorate all of the Saintly Holy Fathers of the so-called "Kollyvades" movement. These were monastics primarily from Mount Athos who taught adherence to Holy Orthodox dogma and tradition amid waves of westernization and secularism during the years of the Turkish occupation of Greece. The ranks of such Holy Fathers include some of the Church's most beloved Saints: St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, St. Makarios (Notaras) of Corinth, St. Nektarios of Pentapolis, St. Kosmas Aitolos, St. Savvas of Kalymnos, St. Athanasios of Paros, St. Paisius Velichovsky, St. Nicholas Planas, and so many more. The following quote (from mountathos.gr) discusses the Holy Mountain and the Kollyvades by Monk Moses:

"In the mid 18th century a grave theological debate developed all over the Holy Mountain in connection with the issues of the holding of memorial services for the departed, frequency of Holy Communion, and other matters relating to the exact observance of Orthodox tradition. The starting-point for this prolonged controversy was the building of the kyriakon at the Skete of St Anne (1754). The question arose as to whether the commemoration of the founders and benefactors should be held on Saturday or Sunday, and with what frequency the monks should receive Holy Communion. The debate divided the monks, and those who insisted that the memorial services should be held on Saturdays were mockingly dubbed 'kollyvades'. It seems, however, that, behind their apparent obstinacy, they had a profound knowledge of church tradition and fought hard for its authenticity and for its purification from adulteration. Thus the name of 'kollyvas' became a title of honour and the movement was responsible for a profitable and beneficial regeneration and renewal. Indeed, this devout movement was led by three saints: Makarios Notaras, Nicodemus the Athonite, and Athanasios of Paros, and they numbered among their supporters and sympathisers distinguished scholars such as Neophytos Kafsokalyvitis, Christophoros Artinos, Agapios of Cyprus, Iakovos the Peloponnesian, Pavlos the hermit, Theodoritos of Esphigmenou, and a number of others. Some of them chose voluntary exile and took refuge in mainland Greece or the islands, where they founded scores of monasteries, of which a fair number survive today. Thus we see Makarios Notaras on Chios, Niphon on Skiathos, Dionysios of Skiathos on Skyros, Ierotheos on Hydra, with numerous disciples and friends of that Athonite tradition which has nourished monks and saints. The monasteries which they founded were noted for their vigour and service. The Ecumenical Patriarchate by decisions of the Holy Synod finally put an end to the 'kollyvades' issue, by ruling that memorial services could be held as circumstances demanded and that Holy Communion, with the proper preparation, could be received frequently, and that the life of the substance, and not the aridity of the form, was to be adhered to."
(taken from: http://www.mountathos.gr/active.aspx?mode=en%7B00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000004%7DView)

Apolytikion (in Greek) of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers

Apolytikion of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers - 1st Tone
Let us honor the choir of Kollyvades Fathers, ministers of the Holy Spirit, stewards of grace, they taught to us the Gospel of Christ in evil times, and as very bright stars, they delivered souls from the darkness of error. Rejoice o Godly band, rejoice boast of the nation, rejoice torches of truth and expounders of the faith.

For the full service text (in Greek) of the Synaxis of the Holy Kollyvades Fathers:
http://www.pigizois.net/latreia/paraklitikoi_kanones/pdf/esperinos_kolivadon_pateron.pdf http://www.pigizois.net/latreia/paraklitikoi_kanones/pdf/orthros_kolivadon_pateron.pdf

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

"The Byzantine Empire Sucks": A Cynical View

In 60 seconds Olivia Munn offers an "epic" rant as to why she thinks the Byzantine Empire sucks. Though I of course strongly disagree with her (except for her first point), I am only hoping that this segment will prove not only how under appreciated the Byzantine Empire is, but how misunderstood as well.

Game Reviews - E3 2010 - Comedy

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

Experiences of the Risen Jesus

Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection

by Gary R. Habermas

Introduction

Having specialized for several decades in critical studies of the resurrection of Jesus, I recently decided to update my Bibliography. What began rather modestly evolved into a five year study of well over 2000 sources on this topic, published from 1975 to the present in German, French, and English. I was most interested in scholarly trends, resulting in a survey of well over 100 sub-issues.

One area of concentration was the common historical content recognized by virtually all researchers. For a variety of reasons, contemporary scholars widely conclude that after his death, Jesus' followers at least thought that they had seen appearances of the risen Jesus. Do the disciples' beliefs that they had witnessed resurrection appearances provide any clues as to what may really have occurred? The answer depends on how one accounts for these experiences. Here, where scholarship differs widely, three chief options prevail. In spite of these differences, it is my contention that this is the single most crucial aspect of the historical question.

During the examination of this subject, I will attempt to clarify some of the relevant issues in order to narrow the major options. While I will not choose between these answers regarding the underlying cause, my chief task is to tighten the focus of the discussion. In the process, I will use chiefly those data to which the vast majority of recent researchers agree, at least in principle, regardless of their theological positions. Due to the volume of relevant material, I will often resort to summarized conclusions of recent scholarly trends. The endnotes provide additional background information, perspectives, argumentation, and other details.

The Disciples' Experiences of the Risen Jesus

The substantially unanimous verdict of contemporary critical scholars is that Jesus' disciples at least believed that Jesus was alive, resurrected from the dead. Reginald Fuller refers to the disciples’ belief in Jesus' resurrection as "one of the indisputable facts of history." Upon what was their claim based? Fuller continues that it is clear that the disciples had real experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus. Whether these are explained naturally or supernaturally, this experience "is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree."[1]

In recent studies of the historical Jesus, this aspect has enjoyed the support of a broad scholarly consensus. E.P Sanders declares that the "equally secure facts" indicate that Jesus' disciples "saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death . . . . Thereafter his followers saw him."[2]

That the vast majority of scholars, in spite of extensive disagreements in other areas, recognizes that the disciples had some sort of experience is a significant starting point. How these experiences are explained is another matter. But there are some rather impressive reasons that explain such a widespread, initial conclusion. We will begin by listing eight pointers, four from Paul and four more from various other sources.

(1) Contemporary critical scholars agree that the apostle Paul is the primary witness to the early resurrection experiences. A former opponent (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13-14; Phil. 3:4-7), Paul states that the risen Jesus appeared personally to him (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal. 1:16). The scholarly consensus here is attested by atheist Michael Martin, who avers: "However, we have only one contemporary eyewitness account of a postresurrection appearance of Jesus, namely Paul’s."[3]

(2) In addition to Paul's own experience, few conclusions are more widely recognized than that, in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., Paul records an ancient oral tradition(s). This pre-Pauline report summarizes the early Gospel content, that Christ died for human sin, was buried, rose from the dead, and then appeared to many witnesses, both individuals and groups.

Paul is clear that this material was not his own but that he had passed on to others what he had received earlier, as the center of his message (15:3). There are many textual indications that the material pre-dates Paul. Most directly, the apostle employs paredoka and parelabon, the equivalent Greek terms for delivering and receiving rabbinic tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23). Indirect indications of a traditional text(s) include the sentence structure and verbal parallelism, diction, and the triple sequence of kai hoti Further, several non-Pauline words, the proper names of Cephas (cf. Lk. 24:34) and James, and the possibility of an Aramaic original are all significant. Fuller attests to the unanimity of scholarship here: "It is almost universally agreed today that Paul is here citing tradition."[4] Critical scholars agree that Paul received the material well before this book was written.[5]

The most popular view is that Paul received this material during his trip to Jerusalem just three years after his conversion, to visit Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:18-19), both of whose names appear in the appearance list (1 Cor. 15:5; 7). An important hint here is Paul's use of the verb historesai (1:18), a term that indicates the investigation of a topic.[6] The immediate context both before and after reveals this subject matter: Paul was inquiring concerning the nature of the Gospel proclamation (Gal. 1:11-2:10), of which Jesus' resurrection was the center (1 Cor. 15:3-4, 14, 17; Gal. 1:11, 16).

Critical scholars generally agree that this pre-Pauline creed(s) may be the earliest in the New Testament. Ulrich Wilckens asserts that it "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity."[7] Joachim Jeremias agrees that it is, "the earliest tradition of all."[8] Perhaps a bit too optimistically, Walter Kasper even thinks that it was possibly even "in use by the end of 30 AD . . . ."[9]

Indicating the wide approval on this subject, even more skeptical scholars frequently agree. Gerd Ludemann maintains that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. . . . not later than three years. . . . the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE. . . ."[10] Similarly, Michael Goulder thinks that it "goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion."[11] Thomas Sheehan agrees that this tradition "probably goes back to at least 32-34 C.E., that is, to within two to four years of the crucifixion."[12] Others clearly consent.[13]

Overall, my recent overview of critical sources mentioned above indicates that those who provide a date generally opt for Paul's reception of this report relatively soon after Jesus’ death, by the early to mid-30s A.D.[14] This provides an additional source that appears just a half step removed from eyewitness testimony.

(3) Paul was so careful to assure the content of his Gospel message, that he made a second trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-10) specifically to be absolutely sure that he had not been mistaken (2:2). The first time he met with Peter and James (Gal. 1:18-20). On this occasion, the same two men were there, plus the apostle John (2:9). Paul was clearly doing his research by seeking out the chief apostles. As Martin Hengel notes, "Evidently the tradition of I Cor. 15.3 had been subjected to many tests" by Paul.[15]

These four apostles were the chief authorities in the early church, and each is represented in the list of those who had seen the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5-7). So their confirmation of Paul's Gospel preaching (Gal. 2:9), especially given the apostolic concern to insure doctrinal truth in the early church, is certainly significant. On Paul's word, we are again just a short distance from a firsthand report.

(4) Not only do we have Paul's account that the other major apostles confirmed his Gospel message, but he provides the reverse testimony, too. After listing Jesus' resurrection appearances, Paul tells us he also knew what the other apostles were preaching regarding Jesus' appearances, and it was the same as his own teaching on this subject (1 Cor. 15:11). As one, they proclaimed that Jesus was raised from the dead (15:12, 15). So Paul narrates both the more indirect confirmation of his Gospel message by the apostolic leaders, plus his firsthand, direct approval of their resurrection message.

(5) Critical scholars usually recognize that James, the brother of Jesus, was a rather skeptical unbeliever prior to Jesus' crucifixion (Mk. 3:21-35; Jn. 7:5). Not long afterwards, James is a leader of the Jerusalem church, where Paul finds him during his two visits (Gal. 1:18-19; 2:1-10; cf. Acts 15:13-21). In-between, the pre-Pauline statement in 1 Corinthians 15:7 states that the risen Jesus appeared to James.

Scholars find several reasons for believing that James was an unbeliever before this event. John Meier points out that James' unbelief is multiply attested. Further, the criterion of embarrassment is probably the strongest consideration, since it would be highly unlikely that the early church would otherwise sponsor what would potentially be some "deeply offensive" statements regarding Jesus' brother, as well as a major leader. To a lesser extent, the criterion of coherence indicates a similarity between Jesus' frequent call to place God before one's family, and Jesus' own example, in that he did the same although some of his own family members were unbelievers.[16]

Surprisingly, Fuller concludes that even if the New Testament had not referenced the resurrection appearance to James, "we should have to invent" one in order to account for his conversion and his promotion to his lofty position in the Jerusalem church![17] The majority of recent scholars, including many rather skeptical ones, agree that James was converted from unbelief by Jesus' personal appearance.[18]

(6) Many other early creedal texts are found throughout the New Testament. Many scholars think that the Book of Acts incorporates some of these early traditions, located in the sermons contained there.[19] They are generally identified by factors such as their compactness, theological simplicity, and because the structure, style, and/or diction reflect word patterns other than the author's. Not as widely accepted as the pre-Pauline tradition(s) in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., it still appears that a majority of critical scholars conclude that some of these snippets reflect the early preaching of the Gospel message.[20] The risen Jesus is the center of each tradition, and Jesus' appearances are mentioned frequently.[21]

These Acts traditions are often dated very early. Gerald O’Collins thinks that this book "incorporates resurrection formulae which stem from the thirties."[22] John Drane concludes that this material "almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place."[23]

(7) Virtually no critical scholar questions that the disciples’ convictions regarding the risen Jesus caused their radical transformation, even being willing to die for their beliefs. Their change does not evidence the resurrection appearances per se, but it is a clear indication that the disciples at least thought that they had experienced the risen Jesus.[24] Alternatives must account for this belief.

(8) In the study mentioned at the outset of this essay, I found that approximately 75% of the surveyed scholars accept one or more arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb. The remaining 25% accept one or more arguments against the early church's knowledge of an empty tomb. If the majority is correct that Jesus' burial tomb was later found empty, this perhaps adds some credibility to the disciples' claim that they saw the risen Jesus. If the minority view is correct, this reason would of course not support Jesus' appearances.[25]

The survey revealed almost two dozen reasons supporting Jesus’ empty tomb. These include the potentially embarrassing but unanimous agreement in all four Gospels that women were the earliest witnesses, Jerusalem being the least-likely place for a resurrection proclamation, the attestation by multiple sources, the early pre-Pauline creed (1 Cor. 15:3-4) implying an empty tomb (cf. the possible early tradition in Acts 13:29-31, 36-37), along with the later report that the Jewish leaders conceded it (Matt. 28:11-15).[26]

The minority position that accepted one or more reasons against the empty tomb cited a total of about a dozen opposing considerations. These tend to center on the lateness of the Gospel reports, Paul's lack of discussion (and perhaps knowledge) of the empty tomb, and that the report served apologetic purposes in Christian preaching.

The empty tomb is not as widely held as are the other historical reasons for the disciples' experiences, which are seldom disputed. Still, most critical scholars agree that Jesus' tomb was found empty. James D.G. Dunn concludes: "I have to say quite forcefully: the probability is that the tomb was empty. As a matter of historical reconstruction, the weight of evidence points firmly to the conclusion. . . ." Potential alternative explanations are not feasible.[27] Historian Michael Grant surprisingly states that "the historian . . . cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb" because normally applied historical criteria indicate that, "the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."[28]

These eight reasons indicate why virtually all recent scholars conclude that the disciples thought that they had seen the risen Jesus. Paul's eyewitness testimony, the early date of the pre-Pauline creed(s) in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff., scrutinizing his Gospel message at least twice before the chief apostles who were also witnesses, and Paul's knowledge of their eyewitness teaching on the resurrection appearances produces a simply astounding, interconnected line of evidence nearly unheard of in ancient documents. Howard Clark Kee surprisingly remarks that Paul's research "can be critically examined and compared with other testimony from eyewitnesses of Jesus, just as one would evaluate evidence in a modern court or academic setting."[29]

Further, four additional reasons include the conversion of James from unbelief after witnessing an appearance from his brother Jesus, other early creedal texts in Acts and elsewhere, the disciples' transformation, and the possibility of the empty tomb. It is clear that the disciples were thoroughly convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead and that they had seen him. Still other factors could be mentioned, but these are sufficient for our purposes.[30]

No other thesis viably opposes the conclusion that the disciples at least thought that Jesus was raised from the dead. This was what Fuller termed "one of the indisputable facts of history." The disciples thought that they had witnessed Jesus' appearances, which, however they are explained, "is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree."[31] Fuller adds that "[e]ven the most skeptical historian" must do one more thing: "postulate some other event" that is not the disciples' faith, but the reason for their faith, in order to account for their experiences. Of course, both natural and supernatural options have been proposed.[32]

For the remainder of this article, we will survey the major categorical options that propose explanations to account for the disciples' belief that they had actually seen the risen Jesus. Although we will not decide here on a specific cause, it is my contention that even narrowing the options can be of great assistance in addressing the single most crucial aspect of these historical issues.

Accounting for the Disciples' Experiences

Each of the eight reasons above argues clearly for the belief that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion. The widespread view of contemporary scholars is that a visual claim was being made, either as a perceived revelation or as some type of presence. The disciples proclaimed that they had seen appearances of Jesus. This is what Paul clearly attested. The pre-Pauline creed lists Peter, James, and the other apostles as recipients. Peter, James, and John were all present when Paul's Gospel was affirmed. Paul knew of their preaching on Jesus' appearances. Most scholars agree that Jesus' tomb was empty. As a result, these disciples were transformed.

Recent scholars agree. Helmut Koester points out that, "We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect." Jesus' appearances "cannot very well be questioned."[33] Bart Ehrman declares: "we can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that . . . he soon appeared to them, convincing them that he had been raised from the dead."[34] Ehrman adds: "Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since this is a matter of public record."[35] Holtz thinks that the disciples' "experience of resurrection . . . is in fact an undeniable historical event."[36] Ludemann reminds us that the appearance language employed by Paul is that of sight: "active sensual perception. . . . Paul is claiming a visual side to the appearance . . . ."[37] More specifically, Paul thinks that Jesus appeared in his "transformed spiritual resurrection corporeality."[38]

It seems clear that the disciples were utterly persuaded that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. The data are strong enough that this is granted by virtually all critical scholars. Can we get any closer to the nature of the experience that convinced the disciples? We will mention three avenues, each of which presents its own problems.

Those who deny (or question) whether the disciples actually saw Jesus in some sense would seemingly sever the connection between what the disciples thought, and what really happened. They generally move in either of two directions, by directly or indirectly positing their solution.

(1) The more popular of the two skeptical approaches, reaching its heyday in nineteenth century thought, posed a naturalistic theory to account for the data. Such a move basically accepted the strongest historical facts, while veering off in a natural direction instead of affirming the resurrection.[39]

However, in spite of a minority resurgence at present,[40] this approach has proven to be the most difficult. In fact, the vast majority of critical scholars reject this option. They are often well aware that the weight of the known historical facts opposes each of the proposals, and comparatively few attempt it. Scholars generally concede that there are multiple historical problems with each of the options.

For instance, Raymond Brown refers to these theses as "gratuitous charges."[41] James D.G. Dunn charges that these "alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation."[42] Stephen Davis agrees: "All of the alternative hypotheses with which I am familiar are historically weak; some are so weak that they collapse of their own weight once spelled out. . . . the alternative theories that have been proposed are not only weaker but far weaker at explaining the available historical evidence. . . ."[43] John A.T. Robinson admits that, "It is indeed very difficult to dismiss [Jesus' appearances] and still find a credible explanation."[44]

(2) Another option[45] is the agnostic plea that we do not (or cannot) really know what happened. The disciples indeed were sincere in their belief that they saw Jesus, but we cannot determine the cause.

This position sometimes seems to reject even the possibility of actual appearances, rather than following the data to its conclusion. The approach is difficult to maintain, since its question mark could be answered by the many factual considerations. Perhaps we have plenty of evidence already to decide the case, especially since we used only those minimal data that virtually all critical scholars accept, including agnostics. So critics must not reject, or pull up short of, the results that are indicated by their own research, which may clearly indicate that more than an undefined "something" occurred to Jesus' disciples.

Recognized historical particulars must be accounted for in a viable manner. For example, perhaps the eight areas mentioned above could settle the matter of the cause of the disciples' experiences. But simply to label these data as insufficient does not explain them--they may be precisely what is capable of solving the historical issue. With Fuller, many scholars counter that we are capable of positing a cause for the disciples' faith beyond the faith itself.[46]

(3) In my study mentioned at the outset of this essay, by far the most popular option at present is that Jesus was actually raised in some form, either as an objective vision or in a transformed body.[47] The former view was more popular a few decades ago, while the latter appears clearly to be the majority view at present . Reasons such as those listed here are most frequently mentioned for establishing this position, each of which points to a visual event that changed the disciples' lives, completely convincing them that they had seen the risen Jesus.

Besides the rejoinders posed by the naturalistic hypotheses, various a priori objections have been proposed. While seldom addressed specifically to the resurrection, these philosophical misgivings are aimed at miracles in general. For example, naturalists or more deistic thinkers object that miraculous events do not occur. Or, these reservations might concern background information (as with Bayes Theorem), or issues regarding the nature of the evidence. While favored by some philosophers, these responses are also opposed by many.[48]

Conclusion

I have argued that at the center of the historical issue regarding the resurrection appearances is that Jesus' disciples were totally convinced that they had seen the risen Jesus. Many strong reasons support the historicity of these beliefs. Virtually all critical scholars agree that these the disciples' convictions are thoroughly historical.

Do the disciples' beliefs that they had experienced resurrection appearances provide any clues as to what caused these convictions? We have outlined three chief options. It is not our purpose here to choose between these general paths that purport to account for the cause of the disciples' experiences.

One option might potentially show itself to be superior. For example, since many researchers accept the maxim that a viable natural hypothesis is to be accepted before a supernatural one, postulating and checking alternative scenarios by the known data will probably continue. This process makes sense. On the other hand, if alternative theses continually fail amid dissatisfaction with agnostic reluctance, the reasons favoring the disciples' experiences might indicate that the most likely scenario is that the disciples actually did see the risen Jesus.

In general, the more thoroughly one option fails, the more likely the others become. And the more strongly an option is established, the more the others diminish. Even without a final solution here, however, there is still value in honing our instruments and narrowing our options.

Endnotes

[1] Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner's, 1965), 142.

[2] E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993), 11, 13.

[3] Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University, 1991), 81.

[4] Reginald Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 10.

[5] Of the vast number of scholars who agree, some examples include John Kloppenborg, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 40 (1978), especially 351, 360; Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 43 (1981), 582-589; John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 2001), Vol. 2:139; Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 277; Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsberg, 1983), 97-99.

[6] Several studies on the meaning of historesai in Gal. 1:18 have reached similar conclusions. See William Farmer, "Peter and Paul, and the Tradition Concerning `The Lord's Supper' in I Cor. 11:23-25," Criswell Theological Review, Vol. 2 (1987), 122-130, in particular, and 135-138 for an apostolic, Petrine source for the pre-Pauline tradition. Also helpful is an older but still authoritative study by G.D. Kilpatrick, "Galatians 1:18 historesai Kephan" in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, A.J.B. Higgins, editor (Manchester: Manchester University, 1959), 144-149. Paul Barnett reports that this same term appears in Herodotus, Polybius, and Plutarch, for whom it meant to inquire (41). Similar ideas are contained in J. Dore, "La Resurrection de Jesus: A L'Epreuve du Discours Theologique," Recherches de Science Religieuse, Vol. 65 (1977), 291, endnote 11.

[7] Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection: Biblical Testimony to the Resurrection: An Historical Examination and Explanation (Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1977), 2.
[8] Joachim Jeremias, "Easter: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation," New Testament Theology, trans. John Bowden (N.Y.: Scribner's, 1971), 306.

[9] Walter Kaspar, Jesus the Christ, new ed., trans. V. Green (Mahweh: Paulist, 1976), 125.

[10] Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38 (Ludemann’s emphasis).

[11] Michael Goulder, "The Baseless Fabric of a Vision," in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996), 48.
[12] Thomas Sheehan, The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986), 118; cf. 110-111.

[13] For instances, see A.J.M. Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 274, note 265; Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1993), 24; Jack Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 16-17; G.A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton, 1986), 30.

[14] Besides those listed above, a few of the many others include: Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:139; Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10, 14, 48; Raymond Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (N.Y.: Paulist, 1973), 81; Francis X. Durrwell, La Resurrection de Jesus: Mystere de Salut, (Paris: Les edtions du Cerf, 1976), 22; Peter Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth--Christ of Faith, trans. Siegfried S. Shatzmann (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 8; C.E.B. Cranfield, "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Expository Times, Vol. 101 (1990), 169; James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Louisville: Westminster, 1985), 70; Leander E. Keck, Who is Jesus? History in Perfect Tense (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 2000), 139; Helmut Merklein, "Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn)," Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der alteren Kirche, Vol. 72 (1981), reprint, 2.

[15] Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 38.

[16] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2:68-71.

[17] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 37.

[18] Of the many examples, see Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 109; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), Vol. 2:84; Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996), 33; Wedderburn, 116; John Shelby Spong, The Easter Moment (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 68; Peter Stuhlmacher, "The Resurrection of Jesus and the Resurrection of the Dead," trans. Jonathan M. Whitlock, Ex Auditu, Vol. 9 (1993), 49; E.P. Sanders, "But Did it Happen?" The Spectator, Vol. 276 (1996), 17.

[19] The most popular candidates for these condensed confessional segments are located within the sermon material in Acts 1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31.

[20] For some examples, see Gerd Ludemann, Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), especially 47-49, 112-115; Hengel, 34; Kloppenborg, 361; John Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradiitons Analysis with Text-Synopsis, Calwer Theologische Monographien 5 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), 64-65, 81-85; Merklein, 2; Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahweh: Paulist, 1994), 112-113, 164; Durrwell, 22; Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), 61, 64, 66; Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 44-45; Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 90, 228-231; Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), esp. 79-80, 164-165; Luke Timothy Johnson, Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1999), 34; C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint, 1980), 17-31.
[21] For examples, mentions of Jesus' appearances are found in Acts 2:31-32, 3:15, 10:39-41; 13:29-37.

[22] Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), 109-110.

[23] John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), 99.

[24] For critical agreement in various elements here, see Willi Marxsen, Jesus and Easter (Nashville: Abingdon, 1990), 66; J. Dore, "Croire en la Resurrection de Jesus-Christ," etudes, Vol. 356 (1982), 536-537; Funk, Honest to Jesus, especially 270; Wedderburn, 46-47; Hengel, 65; J.K. Elliott, "The First Easter," History Today, Vol. 29 (1979), 210, 215, 218; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus--God and Man, second ed., trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 96; Michael Grant, Saint Peter: A Biography (N.Y.: Scribner, 1994), pp. 89, 96; Sanders, 11, 276-280; Hugh Jackson, "The Resurrection Belief of the Earliest Church: A Response to the Failure of Prophecy," The Journal of Religion, Vol. 55 (1975), 419-422; Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Random House, 1979), 8.

[25] This data is summarized in my forthcoming article, "The Empty Tomb of Jesus: Recent Critical Arguments."

[26] Similar reports are also found in Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 108 and Tertullian, On Spectacles 30.

[27] Dunn, 68.

[28] Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (N.Y.: Collier, 1992), 176.

[29] Howard Clark Kee, What Can We Know about Jesus? (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990), 1-2.

[30] For details on all of these reasons, as well as other pertinent information, see Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003), Chapter 1.

[31] Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 142.

[32] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2, 169, respectively; cf. 181.

[33] Koester, 2:84.

[34] Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University, 1999), 230.

[35] Ehrman, 231.

[36] My translation of the German text in Traugott Holtz, "Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu: Eine Skizze zum Verhaltnis zwischen historisch-philologischer Erkenntnis und historisch-theologischem Verstandnis," Theologische Literaturzeitung, Vol. 104 (1979), 10.

[37] Ludemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, 50; cf. 37.

[38] Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus: A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, with Alf Özen, trans. John Bowden (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 103.

[39] For details, see Gary R. Habermas, "The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection," Trinity Journal, new series, Vol. 22 (2001), 179-196.

[40] Represented by the works of Ludemann, Goulder, and Kent above.

[41] Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, 163; cf. 163-167.

[42] Dunn, 76. Cf. N.T. Wright, "Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem," Sewanee Theological Review, Vol. 41 (1998), 118-122.

[43] Stephen T. Davis, "Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?" Philo, Vol. 2 (1999), 57-58.

[44] John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 124.

[45] Represented by the works of Marxsen and Wedderburn above.

[46] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 2, 169, 181.

[47] The first is favored by Jeremias and the second by Wright above.

[48] For examples of each, see Rodney D. Holder, "Hume on Miracles: Bayesian Interpretation, Multiple Testimony, and the Existence of God," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Volume 49 (1998), especially 60-62; George N. Schlesinger, "Miracles and Probabilities," Nous, Volume 21 (1987), especially 219, 230-232; John Earman, "Bayes, Hume, and Miracles," Faith and Philosophy, Volume 10 (1993), especially 293, 305-306; Richard Otte, "Schlesinger and Miracles," Faith and Philosophy, Volume 10 (1993), especially 93, 97; David Owen, "Hume Versus Price on Miracles and Prior Probabilities," Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 37 (1987), 187-202.

Originally published in Dialog: A Journal of Theology, Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297; published by Blackwell Publishing, UK.

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Jesus Trilemma: Liar, Lunatic or Lord

For those who accept the account of Jesus written in the New Testament, an honest conclusion must eventually be made from a trilemma of choices as to who Jesus is and how He is represented - He is either a liar, lunatic or Lord. C.S. Lewis popularized this apologetic argument in order to fend off a casual approach to Christianity. The argument is as follows from Lewis' Mere Christianity:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said, or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The "Miracle" of the Universe

Miracles

Gil Dodgen

When asked if I believe in miracles I reply yes, and that I know of one for sure — on the grandest scale imaginable. What is a miracle? It is an event with no naturalistic explanation or cause. The event of the origin of the universe is, by definition, a miracle, since matter, energy, space and time (nature) did not exist to cause it. By definition, the universe had a super(beyond or outside of nature)natural cause.

Concerning the origin of the universe, I get frustrated that almost no one ever makes an obvious point when debating atheists who challenge, “Who designed the designer?” Matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at the birth of the universe. (Matter and energy are two manifestations of the same phenomenon, as are space and time. These are just two of Einstein’s great insights that are no longer disputed even amongst the most secular physicists.)

Language becomes difficult at this point, because one cannot reference a time before time began. “Before the origin of the universe” has no meaning, because “before” implies a point on the time line of the physical universe.

This simple logic leads to the following conclusion: The cause of the universe does not have, and cannot have, a cause. It has no past (or present, or future, all points on the time line of the physical universe), and therefore no history or point of origin. With this in mind, asking “Who designed the designed the designer?” is as pointless as asking, “Where is an airplane on the ground when it is in the air?”

After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM.

Tweet

Share on Tumblr

The Zoodochos Pege (Life-Giving Spring) at Baloukli

The Theotokos of Zoodochos Pege (Feast Day - Bright Friday)

One of the most famous shrines of Constantinople, the Zoodochos Pege, is located outside the land walls to the west of the city, at the site now known as Balikli. Two versions of a very old tradition provide information on the origins of this ancient shrine.

According to the first, related by the historian Procopius, Justinian (527-565), while hunting in a beautiful verdant part of the land with many trees and much water, had the vision of a small chapel with a large crowd of people and a priest in front of a spring. "It is the spring of miracles", he was told, whereupon the Emperor built a monastery at the site using surplus materials from the church of Hagia Sophia. Cedrenus records that the monastery was built in 560.

The second version, narrated by the chronicler Nicephoros Callistos, says that the Emperor Leo I (457-474), when still a simple soldier, met at the Golden Gate a blind man who asked him for a drink of water. As he looked around for water, a voice directed him to the spring and enjoined him to build a church on the site when he would become emperor. Callistos describes this great church in detail ("Description of the Holy Church of the Pege Erected by Leo", P.G. Migne, vol. 147, 73-77), but the description agrees more with the church built by Justinian. It is historically confirmed that Zenon, Hegumen "of the house of the most holy and glorious Virgin Mary and Mother of God at Pege", participated in the Council of Constantinople, convened by the Patriarch Menas (536-552) in 536.

A chronological list of the most important events associated with the Zoodochos Pege is not without interest:

626 Invasion of the Avars. The Byzantines save the shrine of the hagiasma (spring of holy water).

790 Pseudo-Codinus mentions that the Empress Irene repaired the church after serious damages caused by an earthquake.

869 Nicephoros Callistos records that after another earthquake the church was repaired a new by Basil I the Macedonian (867-886).

924 During a Bulgar campaign, Tsar Simeon burned the church. It was, however, restored immediately, for it is in this church that the marriage of Peter, son and successor of Simeon, to Maria Lecapena, granddaughter of Emperor Romanus I Lecapenus, was celebrated in 927.

966 The description of an official ceremony on Ascension Day, in the presence of the Emperor Nicephoros II Phocas (963-969) and of the whole court, has come down to us. The procession sailed to the Golden Gate and from there rode to the shrine, while the crowd cheered and offered flowers and crosses. The Patriarch met and embraced the Emperor, and they entered the church together. The Emperor attended the Liturgy from a platform set up in the sanctuary, and the feast ended with the Emperor inviting the Patriarch to an official banquet.

1078 The monastery of the Pege is considered a place of banishment and it is here that George Monomachus is isolated.

1084 Alexius I Comnenus (1081-1118) confined to the monastery the philosopher John Italus (a supporter of Neo-Platonism) to put an end to the unrest caused by his teachings.

1204-1261 The shrine of the Pege is in the possession of the Latins.

1328 Young Andronicus III Palaeologus (1328-1341) uses the monastery as a base of operations to forge his way into Constantinople.

1330 At the town of Didymotichus, the moribund Emperor Andronicus III is given to drink water from the shrine of the Pege and recovers.

1341 A priest of the Pege, by the name of George, is witness to a notarial deed.

1347 The daughter of John Cantacuzenus, Helena, is presented wearing full imperial regalia to her future husband, John V Palaeologus (1341-1391), in the precinct of the shrine. According to an old custom, when a future empress reached the Capital by land, her meeting with the emperor took place at the Monastery of the Zoodochos Pege.

1422 During the siege of Constantinople by Murad II, the Sultan used the church as his living-quarters.

1547 Petrus Gyllius notes in 1547 that the church no longer exists, but ailing people continued to visit the spring of holy water.

1727 Nicodemus Metropolitan of Derkon built a small church and revived worship. The Armenians claimed participation in the shrine but long tradition and firmans issued by the Sultans recognized it as property of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

1833 With the Sultan's permission the Patriarch Constantius I (1830-1834) built the present-day church, consecrated in 1835 on Bright Friday.

The feastday of the Zoodochos Pege is celebrated on Friday of Bright Week. Today, in addition to the large church, the compound includes the underground shrine of the Zoodochos Pege with the holy spring and the fish.

Nicephoros Callistos writing in the 14th century about the hagiasma quotes from various sources a total of 63 miracles, of which 15 in his own time. According to Callistos's description, the church was of rectangular plan, with entrances at each of the four sides. Part of the church was built underground and two marble stairways, with 25 steps each, led down to the holy spring. The richly decorated church had a gilded ceiling, fine wall paintings and icons. Of the wall paintings, Callistos mentions the Presentation of Christ in the Temple, the Transfiguration, the Crucifixion, and the Appearance of Christ to the Holy Women, the Ascension and Pentecost. He also refers to two icons depicting miracles, probably with scenes from the main subject of the Zoodochos Pege.

The chronicler gives even the names of the painters: Ignatius and the hieromonk Gabriel. Near the church three parecclesia were erected honouring St. Eustratius, St. Anne and the Theotokos.

A number of epigrams express awe, veneration and enthusiasm for the hagiasma and the miracles associated with it. Preserved to our day are six by Manuel Philes, another six by the Magister Ignatius, one by John Mauropous and others.

The icon of Zoodochos Pege: Zoodochos Pege (i.e. Life-giving Fount) is an epithet of the Holy Virgin and Her representation as Zoodochos Pege is related to the sacred spring. It soon became very popular and this type of icon spread throughout the Orthodox world, particularly in places where a spring was believed to be hagiasma.

In the 9th century, Joseph the Hymnographer gave for the first time the title "Zoodochos Pege" to a hymn for the Mother of God.

A marble fountain, from which water flows, occupies the centre of the icon. Above, the Theotokos is holding Christ who makes the sign of blessing. Two angels hovering over Her head carry a scroll inscribed with the verse: «Hail! That you bear. Hail! That you are». Around the fountain the emperor and many ailing people are shown, in a variety of postures, being sprinkled with Holy Water. According to the tradition, a small pond with fish is painted to the side. Actually, it is the fish that have given its present name to the locality, for Balikli in Turkish means "a place with fish".

The Zoodochos Pege type of icon is found in many variations in all the Orthodox regions. Miniatures, mosaics, icons, woodcuts, copperplates have been in great demand these last centuries.

The north arch of the esonarthex of St. Saviour in Chora, one of the monasteries nearest to the shrine of the Pege, has preserved the upper part of a composition snowing the Virgin-Zoodochos Pege and Christ.

Apolytikion in the Third Tone
As a life-giving fount, thou didst conceive the Dew that is transcendent in essence, O Virgin Maid, and thou hast welled forth for our sakes the nectar of joy eternal, which doth pour forth from thy fount with the water that springeth up unto everlasting life in unending and mighty streams; wherein, taking delight, we all cry out: Rejoice, O thou Spring of life for all men.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone
O Lady graced by God, you reward me by letting gush forth, beyond reason, the ever-flowing waters of your grace from your perpetual Spring. I entreat you, who bore the Logos, in a manner beyond comprehension, to refresh me in your grace that I may cry out, "Hail redemptive waters."

Source

Tweet

Share on Tumblr