Life of our Venerable Father John of Damascus

John of Damascus, Mansur
(late VII - c. 777-780 [1]), reverend. Byzantine theologian, philosopher, poet, systematizer of Greek patristics, one of the fathers of the Eastern Church. Leading ideological opponent of iconoclasm. Author of chants that contributed to the development of the Byzantine system of osmoglasia. Memory 4 December

John was originally from Damascus and bore the hereditary nickname Mansura (which means “victorious”). The year of his birth is uncertain; it was the end of the 7th century. John's father, named Sergius (Ibn-Serjun), was a Christian, served at the court of the caliph, with the rank of “great logothete,” i.e. tax collector (or rather, tax farmer or tax collector). Taking advantage of his high position, he ransomed captured Christians, delivered them from the death threat and provided the necessary assistance. He was subsequently replaced by John himself.

Service with the Caliph

John received a good education. According to legend, he studied together with his adoptive brother Cosma (later Mayumsky) from a certain captive monk from Calabria (also named Cosma). His theological interests awoke very early.

When the heresy of iconoclasm, supported by Emperor Leo III the Isaurian (717–741), arose and quickly spread in Byzantium, the Monk John stood up in defense of Orthodox icon veneration and wrote three treatises “Against those who condemn holy icons.” Proving the dogma of icon veneration, he cited the words of St. Basil the Great, who taught that the veneration of an icon goes back to its Prototype. The wise, inspired writings of St. John and their influence on the consciousness of people infuriated the emperor. But, since their author was not a Byzantine subject, he could neither be imprisoned nor executed. The emperor resorted to slander. On his orders, a forged letter was drawn up on behalf of John, in which the latter allegedly offered the emperor his assistance in conquering the Syrian capital. Emperor Leo the Isaurian sent this letter to the caliph. The caliph, not suspecting a forgery, ordered John to be removed from office, his right hand to be cut off and hanged in the center of the city for everyone to see. In the evening, at the request of Saint John, the caliph ordered the severed hand to be returned to him. Having applied it to the joint, the monk began to pray before the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, asking the Mother of God to heal the right hand, which wrote in defense of Orthodoxy, and vowed to use this hand to create creations for the glory of the Lady. Exhausted, he dozed off while praying and saw the Mother of God. The Most Pure One said that his hand was healthy and ordered him to work diligently with it for the glory of God. Waking up, Saint John felt his hand and saw it healed. In memory of this wondrous miracle, the Monk John wore a scarf on his head, with which his severed hand was entwined, and for the rest of his life he sang with gratitude and love the Most Pure Mother of God in his works. In memory of the miracle, he attached to the lower part of the icon an image of his right hand, cast in silver. Since then, such a right hand has been drawn on all copies of the miraculous image, called “Three-Handed” (see).

Monasticism

Having learned about the miracle, the caliph realized that Saint John was not guilty, asked him for forgiveness and wanted to return him to his previous position.
But the monk gave away his wealth and, together with his adopted brother Cosmas, went to Jerusalem. They were accepted by simple novices into the Lavra of St. Savva the Sanctified. Prot. G. Florovsky writes: “We do not know exactly when John withdrew from the court and secluded himself in the monastery of Saint Sava. It can be assumed that already before the start of the iconoclastic unrest.” None of the monastic brethren, knowing that the novice John was a wise and noble man, agreed to be his spiritual mentor. Only one simple elder agreed to this, who began to strictly instill in the student the spirit of obedience and humility. He forbade Saint John to write and instructed him to forget all worldly sciences. One day the elder collected many baskets made by the monks of the monastery and sent the monk to Damascus to sell them at an excessively high price. Having made a painful journey under the sultry sun, the former nobleman, dressed in poor clothes, walked through the market of Damascus. Those who wanted to buy the baskets, hearing their price, scolded and insulted John. The monk was recognized by his former servant, was surprised by his beggarly appearance and humility, and bought all the baskets at the appointed price. After some time, one of the monks died in the monastery.
His brother asked the Monk John to write a funeral hymn for consolation. The Monk John refused for a long time, fearing to violate the elder’s prohibition, but out of mercy he yielded to the requests and wrote his famous funeral troparia: “What kind of worldly sweetness is not associated with sadness ...”; “I cry and sob when I think about death...” and others. For disobedience, the elder expelled the Monk John from his cell, but the monks began to ask for him. Then the elder imposed a heavy penance on the Monk John: to clean out all the latrines in the monastery. The monk diligently fulfilled this obedience; even the stern mentor was surprised at such humility. A few days later, the Most Holy Theotokos appeared to the elder in a night vision and said: “Why have you blocked a spring that can flow with sweet and abundant water... Do not prevent the spring from flowing... it will flow and water the entire universe...”
From that time on, Saint John began to freely write church hymns and spiritual books, of which the following are especially famous: “The Source of Knowledge” (“On heresies”, “On the right faith and on the incarnation of the Eternal Word”, “An accurate presentation of the Orthodox faith”), Easter service, canons for the Nativity of Christ, for Epiphany, for the Ascension Lord's and others. In these labors the monk was encouraged and helped by his adoptive brother Cosmas, who was later installed as Bishop of Mayum by Patriarch John of Jerusalem. The same patriarch ordained the Monk John as a priest and appointed him as a preacher at his see no later than 734. But Saint John soon returned to the Lavra of Saint Sava, where he worked until the end of his days.

Demise

According to the Menaion, Saint John at the Council of Constantinople in 753-754 denounced iconoclasm. He was subjected to imprisonment and torture, which Saint John steadfastly endured and, by the grace of God, remained alive, reposing around 780 at the age of 104 and being buried in the Lavra of Saint Sava [2]. Saint Demetrius of Rostov in his Lives indicates the same age and time of death around 777. However, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky says that:

“We do not know the year of the saint’s death. One might think that he died before the Iconoclastic Council of 753

.

Burial place

In the Lavra of Sava the Sanctified, the cave-cell of St. John of Damascus and the chapel of St. John the Baptist have been preserved.
It is located north of the Archangel Church, above the latter. Professor Yosef Patrich from the Institute of Archeology at the University of Jerusalem indicates that the chapel was built in the cell of John of Damascus after his death and was consecrated in his honor [3]. Bishop Methodius (Kulman) claims [4] that the chapel was built by John of Damascus himself over his cell and consecrated in the name of the heavenly patron of John of Damascus - John the Baptist [5]. In the chapel is the tomb of St. John of Damascus with the inscription reading “Ὁ τάφος τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ” - “The Tomb of St. John of Damascus.” Above the entrance to the chapel is an icon depicting the monk with a red scar across his wrist (in memory of the miraculous healing of the hand cut off from John of Damascus by order of the Damascus Caliph).

JOHN OF DAMASCUS

These primarily include 8 treatises, devoted mainly to issues of Christology. Of these, 2 are directed against the Nestorian teaching: “The Word of Faith, against the Nestorians” and “The Word against the Nestorians”; 3 - against Monophysitism: “Against the Jacobites”, “Message on the Trisagion Song”; “On complex nature against acephalous”; and one each against monothelitism, Manichaeism and Islam: “On two wills in Christ”; "Against the Manichaeans" and "The Dispute between the Christian and the Saracen." Three words “Against those who condemn holy icons” can also be classified as polemical works, although the third is almost devoid of signs of polemic and is more reminiscent of a dogmatic treatise.

Extant Greek The manuscripts of these works date back to the 9th-18th centuries, while most of them date back to the 13th-16th centuries. The amount of available evidence for individual treatises is uneven. Without taking into account the fragments, the most well-preserved works are “On the Two Wills in Christ” (39 manuscripts), “Epistle on the Trisagion Song” (38) and “Against the Acephalos” (29). "The Word Against the Nestorians", "Against the Manichaeans", "The Controversy between the Christian and the Saracen" and "Against the Jacobites" are represented by 18, 12, 9 and 8 manuscripts respectively. The treatise “The Word of Faith, Against the Nestorians” is known from only 1 manuscript (for a complete register of manuscripts, see: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 71-86).

1. “The Word of Faith, Against the Nestorians” (Λόγος περ πίστεως κατὰ Νεστοριανῶν; De fide contra Nestorianos; CPG, N 8054; ed.: Diekamp. 1901; Kotter. 1969- 1988. Bd. 4. S. 238-254; Russian translation: John of Damascus, St. The Word of Faith, Against the Nestorians / Translation: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 140-153), the treatise was preserved only in 1 manuscript of the 13th century. (Vat. gr. 1672). Nothing is known about the time and circumstances of writing. In the manuscript of the treatise, its author is named I.D.; in the research literature this attribution is not questioned.

Greek the text of the treatise was first published by F. Diekamp in 1901 (Diekamp. 1901), then republished in 1981 by Kotter. The division into 54 chapters was introduced in Diekamp's edition. Later, a cargo unknown to either Diekamp or Cotter and not accounted for by them was discovered. version of the text (Čantladze. 1997; Outtier. 2001. P. 218-219).

The treatise is a presentation of the Orthodox Church. teachings about Jesus Christ. Particular attention is paid to the interpretation and differentiation of the concepts of “hypostasis”, “person”, “nature” and “essence”; explanation of individual expressions of the Holy. Scriptures and dogmatic statements; consideration of the teachings about the flesh of Jesus Christ and about the Mother of God, as well as the question in what sense the suffering of the Word of God is spoken of.

2. “The Word against the Nestorians” (Λόγος κατὰ Νεστοριανῶν; Adversus Nestorianos; CPG, N 8053; ed.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 262-288; Russian translation: John of Damascus, St. .word against the Nestorians / Trans.: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 119-139), polemical essay in the form of dialogue. The authorship of I.D. is beyond doubt. Nothing is known about the time and circumstances of writing.

St. John of Damascus. Miniature from the manuscript "Sacra parallela". Ser. 9th century (Paris. gr. 923. Fol. 146r) St. John of Damascus. Miniature from the manuscript "Sacra parallela". Ser. 9th century (Paris. gr. 923. Fol. 146r)

The Greek text is preserved in 18 manuscripts from the 14th to 17th centuries. In the X-XI centuries. the work was translated into Arabic twice, and into Georgian in XI; translated into Latin by F. Torres (1603), F. Combefis (XVII century, not published), M. Lequien (P., 1712). Greek the text was first published by Lequien in 1712 in Paris.

In the treatise, I. D. refutes the Nestorian teaching about Jesus Christ as the Son of God by grace, contrasting it with Orthodoxy. the doctrine of the union of two natures in one Hypostasis of God the Word. He then emphasizes the incorrectness of those who claim that the Son of God became flesh (cf. John 1.14) in the same sense as sin (cf. 2 Cor. 5.21) and a curse (cf. Gal. 3. 13); based on the Holy The Scriptures demonstrate that Christ is the Son of God by nature, and affirm the identity of the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin; dwells on various aspects of the doctrine of the union of natures in Christ; explains in what sense in St. Scripture speaks of the suffering of the Word; In conclusion, I.D. once again briefly outlines the Orthodox Church. doctrine of the Trinity and Christ.

3. “On complex nature against acephalos” (Περ συνθέτου φύσεως κατὰ ἀκεφάλων; De natura composita sive Contra acephalos; CPG, N 8051; ed.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd 4. S. 409-418; Russian translation .: Like our holy father John of Damascus On complex nature against acephalous / Translated by: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 194-201). “Acephali”, which is mentioned in the title of the work, in the 5th century. called the Monophysites who were under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria Peter Mong and who interrupted communication with him due to the fact that he accepted the “Henotikon” imp. Zinona. By the time of I.D., this word began to be used in relation to Monophysites as a whole (see Art. Akefala). In most manuscripts, I.D. is named as the author of the work; in scientific literature this attribution is not questioned. Nothing is known about the time and circumstances of the creation of the work.

Greek the text of the work is preserved in 29 manuscripts. There is an anonymous translation into Arabic. language. The earliest known lat. a translation, also anonymous, was published in 1575. Then the treatise was translated into Latin by J. Bill (1577 and others) and Lequien (P., 1712). Greek the text was first published in 1575. Accepted today. The division of the work into chapters dates back to the edition of Lequien.

The work, based on various arguments, refutes the heretical teaching about the unification of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy is given. interpretation of the expression St. widely used by Monophysites. Cyril of Alexandria “the one nature of God the Word incarnate.” Then to the Orthodox Church. key, the basic concepts of Christology are explained and on this basis the objections of the Monophysites to the doctrine of two natures in Christ are refuted, which is confirmed by pointing out the essential differences - createdness and uncreatedness, passion and impassibility - incompatible in one nature, but equally present in Christ and, consequently, suggesting the presence of two natures, with which they are invariably connected. The miracle of the Incarnation, which united the divine and human natures in Christ, also presupposes the existence of these two natures. But one Hypostasis of one simple nature was not and was not called Christ before the Incarnation. In conclusion, the Orthodox teaching about Christ is expounded once again.

St. John of Damascus. Painting c. St. Nicholas in Veria, Greece. 1526

St. John of Damascus. Painting c. St. Nicholas in Veria, Greece. 1526

4. “Against the Jacobites” (Contra Jacobitas; CPG, N 8047; ed.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 109-154; Russian translation: John of Damascus, Venerable. Message as if from the person of His Holiness Peter, Bishop of Damascus, false bishop of Dara, Jacobite / Translation: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 154-193). In the manuscript tradition, the treatise has 2 titles. According to one of them (ἐκ τῶν πονημάτων ᾿Ιωάννου κατὰ ᾿Ιακοβητῶν), it was drawn up by I.D. against the Jacobites; according to another, more extensive one ? ῦ Δαραίας τὸν ᾿Ιακωβίτην), written by I. D. on behalf of Peter II, Metropolitan. Damascus, and addressed to the unnamed Jacobite bishop of Dara. This city, located 29 km from Nisibin and was called Anastasiopolis and Nov. at different periods of history. Justinian, was the location of the metropolitan see, which dates back to the 6th century. occupied by the Jacobites (Fedalto. Hierarchia. 75. 18. 17). According to the chronicler Feofan, Peter II, bishop. Damascus, suffered martyrdom under the Caliph al-Walid ibn Yazid, whose reign was in 743-744. (Theoph. Chron. P. 416. 18-24). The earliest mention of this treatise dates back to the 2nd half. VIII or to the beginning 9th century It is contained in what is written in sire. language of the epistle of a certain Elijah, a Monophysite, possibly a bishop, to Leo, Bishop Syncellus. Harransky. Elijah points out: “And this John wrote in the treatise that he compiled it in the name of Peter, his bishop, against us” - and cites several. quotes from the treatise “Against the Jacobites” translated into Syriac. According to these data, the treatise should have been written no later than 744 and, probably, before the time when I. D. left Damascus to become a monk in Palestine, since, according to Elijah, he calls Peter II “ your bishop." At the same time, the exact date of I.D.’s departure from Damascus is unknown, and, as researchers note, he, being a native of Damascus, could continue to call Peter II “his bishop” even after he became a monk in Palestine (see: Kotter . 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 100-101).

The treatise begins with the argument that most erroneous opinions in the field of triadology and Christology stem primarily from an insufficiently clear distinction between the concepts of nature (φύσις) and hypostasis (Ioan. Damasc. Contr. Jacob. 2-7), I. D. gives his own definition of hypostasis (Ibid. 8). Monophysites, according to him, although they do not completely confuse these concepts, teach about “private nature” (φύσις μερική) (Ibid. 9). The consequence of this teaching is the presence in the Trinity of 3 more essences in addition to the one, and thus - 4 hypostases (Ibid. 10). Although nature and hypostasis cannot exist separately, they are not the same thing; one should also distinguish between essence and enusion (realized), hypostasis and hypostatic. “...Essence is not identical with the realized and hypostasis with the hypostatic, for that which is in something is one thing, and that in which it is located is another.” The Flesh of the Lord (ἡ σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου), as the hypostatic, resides in His beginningless Hypostasis (Ibid. 11), and the divine nature is known as the hypostatic in the three Divine Hypostases (Ibid. 12). The central part of the treatise is devoted to the substantiation of Orthodoxy. the doctrine of two natures in Christ by contrasting it with the teaching of the Monophysites (Ibid. 13-51). Next, the Christological formulas “one incarnate nature of God the Word”, the one nature “in union” and “after union” are explained, as well as those cases when the term “nature” used in relation to the Word should be understood in the sense of “hypostasis” (Ibid. 45, 52). This is followed by a summary of what has been said (Ibid. 53-81); quotes from the Holy Scriptures are given. Scriptures confirming the doctrine of two natures (Ibid. 82); this teaching is presented in connection with the doctrine of the Mother of God (Ibid. 83-84), after which an interpretation of the Trisagion hymn is given (Ibid. 85-87). In the remaining chapters (Ibid. 88-129), quotations from the writings of the Church Fathers are given in support of the stated teaching. The selection consists of 34 excerpts, 22 of which coincide with the “Teaching of the Fathers”, 13 with the florilegium from the 1st book. “Against the Nestorians and Eutychians” by Leontius of Byzantium. According to Kotter, the similarity of this section with the “Teaching of the Fathers” may indicate the use of this source by I. D., or at least the existence of a common prototype for these texts.

In the manuscript tradition, the treatise does not have a stable division into chapters. In Lequien's edition the first 88 chapters are numbered sequentially, followed by a selection of quotations from the works of St. fathers is divided into chapters without numbers in accordance with the authors and works. In Cotter's edition, Lequien's numbering is continued and covers the entire text, thus consisting of 129 chapters.

In addition to the Greek of the text of the treatise, its ancient translations into Sire have been preserved. (VIII-IX centuries), Arabic. (X century), cargo. (XI century) and Armenian. (time unknown) languages. In lat. The language of the treatise was translated by F. Turrian (Ingolstadt, 1603) and Lequien (P., 1712).

5. “Message on the Trisagion Song” CPG, N 8049; ed.: Kotter 1969-1988 Bd. 4. S. 304-332 ; Russian translation: Epistle of Blessed John the monk and presbyter, written to Archimandrite Jordan, about the Trisagion Song / Translation: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 202-222), addressed to a certain archimandrite. Jordan and is devoted to the question of the expression “crucified for us,” added to the Trisagion Song by the Patriarch of Antioch Peter Gnatheus. Greek the text of the work has been preserved in many manuscripts, the oldest dating back to the 9th century. The attribution of I. D.’s work is reliably attested in the manuscript tradition.

The Message describes in detail the situation that gave rise to its creation. Through Abba Job, the author received a letter from Abba Sergius, in which he informed him that Abba Anastasius, rector of the monastery of St. Euphemia, known to the author as Orthodox. and a pious man, compiled a certain collection of sayings of St. fathers, where the words of the Trisagion Song refer only to the Son. In addition, according to Sergius, Anastasius claimed that both the author himself and John, “patriarch of the Holy City,” were of the same mind with him. And since this opinion is unacceptable for the author of the “Message on the Trisagion Song,” he is forced to explain his position in detail. In the final part of the Epistle, the author speaks of Patriarch John as his already deceased teacher and calls him a “calf” (μόσχος). Since Jordan, Job, Sergius and Anastasius are unknown from other sources, only the mention of the name of Patriarch John provides some basis for dating the Epistle. In research literature, attempts have been made to interpret the word μόσχος as a proper name, etc. identify this John with John Moschus († 619), and consider the latter’s disciple, St., as the author of the Epistle. Sophronius of Jerusalem. But this word can also be understood as a metaphorical reference to John’s selfless service, which allows for the preservation of traditions. attribution of the Message. In this case, we are talking about John V, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who died in 735, and the Epistle could not have been written earlier than this date (see: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 290-292).

Having outlined the reasons that led to the writing of the Epistle, I. D. proceeds to the interpretation of the Trisagion Song and the disclosure of the teaching contained in it. He emphasizes that in the text from the Book of Prophets. In Isaiah (Isaiah 6.3), which served as the basis for this hymn, the word “Holy” is used three times, and the word “Lord” only once, which should be understood as indicating three Persons and a single essence of the Divine (Ioan. Damasc. Ep. de hymn Trisag 2). Due to the indivisible unity of the Hypostases, praise should be sent to the entire Trinity. A hymn to the Son is possible only if it mentions the attributes of only His Hypostasis, but “Holy” can refer to each of the Hypostases, therefore the Trisagion canticle is addressed to the entire Trinity. “Holy God” is sung about the Father, “Holy Mighty” - about the Son, “Holy Immortal” - about the Holy Spirit, but each of these expressions can be equally attributed to each of the Hypostases (Ibid. 3). The word “trisagion” in the title of the song implies the three Persons of the Trinity and indicates the holiness of each of Them. The attribution of this word to one of the Hypostases would lead to the “tripling” of the essences or hypostases in It, and the song of the entire Trinity should be called “nine-holy” (Idem. 4). This song also cannot refer to one of the Hypostases, because each of Them is not three times, but infinitely holy, since a certain number is not applicable to the infinite. And in Baptism three immersions are performed - one in the name of each of the Hypostases, otherwise the person being baptized should have been immersed nine times (Ibid. 5). A pious church custom that allows the words “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” to be pronounced after the words “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, which concludes the cl. the chant of troparia relating only to the Son does not contradict what was said above, since in liturgical practice troparia rarely have an unambiguous semantic connection with the sayings they follow. When “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” is pronounced not as a final speech, but separately, adding words about one of the Hypostases is unacceptable. The Trisagion is the naming of the three Persons of one God, to Whom the words “have mercy on us” apply, as well as the words “Holy” and “Lord” pronounced by the seraphim (Isa. 6.3). Just as the Trinity cannot be called one Hypostasis, so one Hypostasis cannot be called the Trinity, as evidenced by St. fathers and the miracle of the revelation of the Trisagion Song, which occurred under the K-Polish archbishop. St. Procles (Ibid. 6). Just as statements about one of the Hypostases cannot be transferred to others, so statements about the entire Trinity cannot be attributed to one of the Hypostases. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are one God, with three Persons. And each of them is God and Lord and Holy (Ibid. 7).

Then the quotations from the works of St. given by supporters of the addition of the words “crucified for us” are considered. fathers (St. Athanasius I the Great, St. Basil the Great, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Proclus of Poland). Confirming the authenticity of the quotes, I.D. interprets them in accordance with Orthodoxy. teaching (Ibid. 8-25) and once again asks Abba Jordan to read his Epistle to the clergy and flock, and also to appeal to Abba Anastasius (Ibid. 26). The final chapters 27-28 are an addition that thematically continues the main part of the Epistle. Features of these chapters include the use of expressions not found in other works of I.D.: “the hypostatic generation [of the Father]” (γέννημα ἐνυπόστατον) in relation to the Son and “the hypostatic procession and deposition (ἐνυπόστατον ἐκπό ρευμα κα πρόβλημα) from the Father" in relation to Holy Spirit.

To the evidence of the text of the “Epistle on the Trisagion Song”, in addition to several dozen Greek. manuscripts include his anonymous translations into Arabic, Georgian. languages. Presumably there is also an Armenian. 13th century version Simeon (Simon) Plindzakhanetsi. To the glory. language The message was translated in the 16th century. book A. M. Kurbsky. In lat. language the work was translated in the 13th century. Grosseteste (Cologne, 1546) and Peryon (P., 1548), the translation of which was improved first by J. Bill (1577), and then by Lequien, who first published the Greek. text (P., 1712). The division of the text into 28 chapters also dates back to the latest edition.

St. John of Damascus. Miniature from Papadika. 1759. (Ath. Xeropot. 380. Fol 9v)

St. John of Damascus. Miniature from Papadika. 1759. (Ath. Xeropot. 380. Fol 9v)

6. “About two wills in Christ” ? De duabus in Christo voluntatibus; CPG , N 8052; ed.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 173-231; Russian translation: John of Damascus, St. About the properties of two natures in one Christ our Lord, and incidentally about two wills and actions and one Hypostasis / Translation: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 82-118).

The treatise has two titles: “Blessed John the Monk of Damascus on the properties in one Christ our Lord of two natures, and at the same time about two wills and actions and about one hypostasis,” which more accurately conveys its content than the more common short one: “On two wills in Christ." Nothing is known about the addressee, time and circumstances of the creation of the essay. The manuscript tradition clearly assimilates its I.D.; analysis of the content gives no reason to doubt the attribution.

Thematically, the essay is divided into 4 main parts. In the 1st, the concepts of “nature”, “hypostasis”, “natural properties” and “hypostatic properties” are explained (Ioan. Damasc. De duab. volunt. 1-7). The 2nd sets out the doctrine of two natures and a single complex Hypostasis of Christ. At the same time, the properties of each of the natures and the Divine Hypostasis are discussed in detail (Ibid. 8, 10-14), and the teachings about one complex nature (Ibid. and about two hypostases (Ibid. 9) are criticized). In the 3rd part, the the concept of human will (Ibid. 15-25), the doctrine of two wills in Christ is expounded and the formula of a single hypostatic will is refuted (Ibid. 26-33).The 4th, final, part is devoted to an explanation of the doctrine of two actions in Christ and formulas “divine action” (Ibid. 34-44).

There are 2 known translations of this treatise on cargo. language - rev. Euthymius of Svyatogorets (c. 1000) and Arseny of Ikaltoy; 2 arm. translation - anonymous and Simeon (Simon) Plindzakhanetsi (XIII); glory the translation was completed in the 16th century. book A. M. Kurbsky; in lat. This work was translated in the 13th century. Grosseteste (ed. 1546) and in the 16th century. Peryon (ed. 1544), the translation of which became the basis for all subsequent editions. In the 17th century it was significantly revised by Combefis (ed. 1648), for its translation later. relied on Lequien in his edition (ed. 1712, 1748). In the manuscript tradition, the text is not divided into chapters; for the first time it appears in printed publications. Accepted today The division into chapters dates back to the publication of Combefis.

7. “Against the Manichaeans” ῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ κατὰ Μανιχαίων; Сontra Manichaeos; CPG, N 8048; ed.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 351-398; rus. transl.: Like our holy father John of Damascus, monk and presbyter, against the Manichaeans / Transl.: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 30-74), a polemical essay written in the form of a dialogue between a Christian and a Manichaean . The text has been preserved in a small number (12) of fairly late (XIII-XVII) manuscripts (Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 345). Researchers associate the poverty of the manuscript tradition with the fact that for the Byzantines. Christian contemporaries of I.D., the main theme of the work - dualism - in terms of relevance, receded into the background in comparison with Christological problematics and issues of icon veneration (Ibid. S. 334). At the same time, in the caliphate during the reign of the Umayyads and the first years of the Abbasids, adherents of Mani’s ideas were not only not persecuted, but were actively engaged in literature. activities and even entered into open polemics with the defenders of Islam (Daniel EL Manicheanism // Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. NY ea, 2004. P. 428-429; Paret R. The Qur'an-I // Arabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period. Camb., 1983. P. 212; Surdel D., Surdel J. The Civilization of Classical Islam. Ekaterinburg, 2006. pp. 159-161). Apparently, during this period, within the caliphate, polemics with Manichaeism were relevant for Christians (cf.: Lieu. 1992. P. 10), as evidenced by the dialogue “Against the Manichaeans” (cf.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 334). The manuscript tradition indicates I.D. as the author of the work. Attempts to cast doubt on the attribution (see: Hoeck. 1951. S. 23. Anm. 5) did not find support among researchers.

Medieval. translations of the work into other languages ​​are unknown. In the XVI-XVIII centuries. it is several was once translated into Latin. Greek the text was first published in 1575 by M. Hopper in Basel (see: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 4. S. 345). In manuscripts the text is not divided into chapters. Division of the text used in modern. editions of the text and translations, goes back to the 1712 edition of Lequien.

The work sets out in detail (Ioan. Damasc. Contr. Manich. 2, 28-29, 39, 61, 67) and deeply criticizes the Manichaean doctrine. Particular attention is paid to the consideration of the problem of the origin of evil and related issues of predestination and foreknowledge of God and human free will (Ibid. 31-41, 68-87). Researchers note the high degree of independence of this work (Kotter. Bd. 4. S. 343).

8. “Defensive words against those who condemn holy icons” όνας; Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes; CPG, N 8045; ed.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 65-200; russian Transl.: St. John of Damascus, St. Three words in defense of icon veneration / Transl.: A. Bronzov. St. Petersburg, 2001), 3 treatises against iconoclasts; the most famous of the polemical works of I. D. The titles of treatises on manuscripts have significant differences, which does not allow them to be considered part of the author’s text (Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 4-5).

St. John of Damascus. Painting c. righteous Joachim and Anna (Kraleva c.) in the Studenica monastery, Serbia. 1314

St. John of Damascus. Painting c. righteous Joachim and Anna (Kraleva c.) in the Studenica monastery, Serbia. 1314

The handwritten tradition of “Defensive Words...” in comparison with other works by I. D. is small - 27 manuscripts were used in preparing the critical text. According to the publisher, this feature can be explained by the following reasons: during the period of iconoclasm, when the “Defensive Words ...” were compiled, the storage and distribution of any texts in defense of icon veneration was associated with a significant risk, especially this concerned the writings of I. D. after his conviction Council of Hieria 754; revival of iconoclasm in the beginning. 9th century led to the emergence of a new, more sophisticated literature in defense of icon veneration (St. Nikephoros I, Patriarch of Poland and St. Theodore the Studite); for an apology for icon veneration in Muslim conditions. state "Protective words...", created in response to the Byzantine Empire. iconoclasm were of little use; the same applies to the West. Europe, where the polemics associated with icon veneration had its own specifics, different from Byzantine ones (see: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 39).

Arabic is known from the ancient translations of “Protective Words...” translation of a fragment of the 1st word (Ioan. Damasc. De imag. I 18. 6-23. 22), completed in the end. X century, and 2 cargo. translation of the 11th century In lat. language “Protective words...” were first translated only in the 16th century: independently by P. F. Zini (Venice, 1554) and G. Thielmann (P., 1555). On their basis the armor was made. translation in Lequien's edition (P., 1712). Slav. the translation of “Protective Words” was first published. in the appendix to the Moscow edition of “Confession” of St. Petra (Grave) in 1696

A comparison of the text of the treatises shows that they are not 3 independent works, but 3 editions of one text. The place in the chronological sequence is indisputably established only for the second of them, in which the author says that he wrote it at the request of certain children of the Church, since the previous treatise was not clear enough for most readers (Ioan. Damasc. De imag. II 1. 27-29). Also, in one early manuscript containing only this of the 3 "Words of Defence...", it is designated as "the second". Regarding the 2 other words, there are no absolute grounds for establishing the order in which they are written. However, an analysis of their content shows that this order most likely corresponds to that accepted in the manuscript tradition in modern times. editions of the sequence. Moreover, while working on the 2nd word, the author shortened or simplified the theoretical calculations and updated the text of the 1st, supplementing it with direct references and allusions to modern times. him events, and when creating the 3rd word, on the contrary, the material of the 1st and 2nd was critically processed in order to avoid any mention of specific historical events or personalities, and to give the presentation a harmonious and consistent character of an abstract theoretical treatise (Kotter . 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 5-7, 23-24).

For absolute dating, some grounds are available in the text of only the 1st and 2nd treatises. These data suggest that the first word was composed shortly after the promulgation of the iconoclastic edict of the emperor. Leo III the Isaurian (Jan. 730), 2nd - soon after 1st, i.e. back in 730 or in the beginning. 731, the 3rd may be dated to the 30s. VIII century, and the last years of I.D.’s life (see: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 7).

“Defensive Words...” are devoted to refuting iconoclastic arguments and detailing the theological foundations of icon veneration. For this purpose, I. D. turns first of all to an explanation of the concepts of “image” (εἰκών) and “veneration” (προσκύνησις). Talking about the “image”, he gives its definition (Ioan. Damasc. De imag. I 9. 3-6; III 16. 2-5), indicates the purpose of its existence (Ibid. III 17, 25) and identifies 6 of its types : natural (φυσική) image (Ibid. III 18); Divine plan (ἔννοια), in accordance with which all things were created (Ibid. III 19); man as the image of God (Ibid. III 20); visible signs of invisible things (Ibid. III 21); Old Testament prototypes of New Testament events (Ibid. III 22) and reminders of the past (Ibid. III 23). In addition, I. D. explains what can be depicted and what cannot be depicted and how depiction is possible (Ibid. III 23 sqq.). Turning to the concept of “veneration” (προσκύνησις - in Russian translations usually “worship”), I. D. identifies its special type - veneration with worship (κατὰ λατρείαν), - befitting God alone (Ibid. III 28. 2-4) and different from the various ways of venerating created beings and things (Ibid. III 33-40), and indicates the need to strictly distinguish between these 2 types of veneration (Ibid. I 4. 4-6, 37-45; I 8. 76-87; I 14; III 41. 16-54). An important point dividing the positions of iconoclasts and icon-worshipers was the understanding by both of them of the nature of the relationship of the image to the prototype. I. D. clarifies this issue, pointing out the close connection of one with the other (Ibid. I 36. 1-4) and the resulting possibility of worshiping the image of the One who is worthy of worship (Ibid. I 16. 4 sqq.; II 21. 5 sqq.; III 16. 5 sqq.), as well as the presence in the image of the power and grace of the One who is depicted in it (Ibid. I 36. 4-6; 47. 19 sqq.; II 14. 20, 34; III 55, 90-91, 113).

Turning to the arguments of the iconoclasts, which they put forward against icon veneration, I. D. examines and refutes the demand for a spiritual, non-material cult, based on John 4. 24 (Ibid. I 36. 7-31; 11, 12. 23-35, 21, 25); the thesis about the inimaginability of the Divine as a basis for refusing icon veneration (Ibid. I 4. 62-85; 51. 1-3; 55; 67. 16-19; II 5; 10. 12-77; 19. 7-9); an indication of the Old Testament prohibition on making images (Ibid. I 12; 15. 17-30; 21. 79-93; II 14. 35-45; 20. 15-16, 19-23, 31-36; III 4-9; 11. 10-19; 23. 8-10; 26. 2-18; 36. 3-7) and worship them (Ibid. I 8. 76-84; 14. 7-19; 27. 3-18; II 12. 2-19; ​​14. 22; 22. 1-4; III 10. 35-39; 26. 2-45; 34. 28-32; 36. 4-7; 37-39); the idea of ​​icon veneration as an “innovation” that supposedly has no basis in the Holy Scriptures. Traditions (Ibid. I 21, 23, 25, 33, 60; II 6, 7, 10, 16, 18, 20; III 11, 41, 68), and the statement that icon veneration is a revival of pagan traditions (Ibid. II 10 48-92).

Criticizing the position of the iconoclasts, I. D. emphasizes that the refusal to venerate icons and the removal of images from churches returns the Church to the cult norms characteristic of the Old Testament and denies the changes in the relationship between God and man, which occurred due to the saving feat of Christ (cf. .: Ibid. I 20; II 15. 17-30); deprives believers of the opportunity not only to hear the words of the Gospel, but also to contemplate the events of the history of salvation (Ibid. I 17, 47; II 47; III 12; 107-108); like any false teaching, it comes from the devil and is contrary to God’s plan for the salvation of man (Ibid. I 1, 36, 47; II 2, 4, 6, 11, 24; III 13). Particular attention in the “Defensive Words...” is paid to the apology of the cult of saints, which was attacked by the iconoclasts (Ibid. I 19-21, 36-37; II 10-11; III 10, 26, 33, 37, 41), as well as the theological understanding imp. power (Ibid. I 21, 66; II 6, 12, 16, 18; III 41). A significant part of the text is an extensive selection of patristic testimonies, provided with comments by the author (Ibid. I 28-65; II 24-68; III 43-138; see: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 24-33).

9. “Conversation of a Saracen with a Christian” (Διάλεξις Σαρακηνοῦ κα Χριστιανοῦ; Disceptatio Christiani et Saraceni; CPG, N 8075; ed.: Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 427-438; Russian translation: John of Damascus , St. Conversation between a Saracen and a Christian / Translated by: D. E. Afinogenov // Creations. 1997. pp. 75-81), polemical essay in the form of dialogue. Preserved in 9 manuscripts, none of them contain direct indications of the authorship of I.D. The conversation has parallels, including literal ones, with one of the works of Theodore Abu-Kurra, written, as indicated in the title, “from the words "(διὰ φωνῆς) I. D. (PG. 94. Col. 1596; see: Beck. 1959. S. 478; Kotter. 1969-1988. Bd. 3. S. 420-421). The essay discusses issues related to the theological understanding of the omnipotence of God, the origin of good and evil, freedom of human will, predestination and the Providence of God (Ioan. Damasc. Dial. christ. et sarac. 1, 10), the sacrament of Baptism (Ibid. 2, 11 ), communion with God (Ibid. 3-4), various aspects of Christological teaching (Ibid. 5-8), Dormition of the Virgin Mary (Ibid. 9).

Reverence

Despite the great significance of his works, we know little about the life of St. John, since his lives known to us were compiled in the century, and it is not easy to identify what is indisputable and reliable in them.
Under the Byzantine Emperor Andronikos II (1282–1328), the holy relics of St. John were transferred to Constantinople.

Currently, the relics of St. John are known to be found in the Lavra of Saint Sava, the Monastery of St. George Alamana (Cyprus), the Monastery of St. John the Evangelist on Patmos (Greece) and in the Church of San Giorgio dei Greci (Venice). Some of the relics are also located in the Kazan Church of the Novodevichy Convent in St. Petersburg.

On September 18, 2013, the ark with the shuitsa (left hand) of St. John of Damascus was transferred to the St. Petersburg Resurrection Novodevichy Convent [6].

John was born into a Christian family

The Monk John of Damascus was born around 680 in Muslim Damascus, into a Christian family. By that time there were few Christians left in the city; they were oppressed and persecuted. This influenced the saint’s biography, because he grew up in a place where it was difficult to become a Christian.

The grandfather and father of the future saint served at the court of the supreme ruler, the caliph.

But they never betrayed their Christian faith and raised John in the traditions of true Christianity.

For a long time, John’s father searched for a worthy teacher and mentor for his son.

680

year of birth of St. John of Damascus

He wanted the mentor to convey to the boy the wisdom and depth of the Holy Scriptures, so that the Christian faith would become the life-giving source from which the son would draw strength, compassion and love.

Finally, a monk from Italy, who had extensive knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and the exact sciences, brought the captive from the slave market to the house.

He became a mentor and teacher to John and his adopted brother Cosmas.

The Lord endowed John of Damascus with extraordinary abilities, so the youth easily comprehended theology, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and poetry.

Venerable John of Damascus with his adopted brother Cosmas, Bishop of Mayum

Prayers

Troparion, tone 8

Teacher of Orthodoxy, / piety to the teacher and purity, / lamp of the universe, / God-inspired fertilizer for the monastics, John the Wise, / with your teachings you have enlightened all things, O spiritual treasure, / / ​​pray to Christ God to save our souls

.

Troparion, tone 3

(from the Greek Menaion) [7].

To the Church the divine organ,/ the sign of the blessed fear of God/ appeared thou, O John of all valor:/ also the lights of the world, the ends/ of thy wise teachings shining:/ Reverend Father, / Pray to Christ God // to grant us great mercy

.

Kontakion, tone 4

Let us sing to the hymn-writer and the honorable God-speaker,/ to the Church, punisher and teacher,/ and to the enemies of the opponent John:/ for a weapon for all is the Cross of the Lord,/ all the repulsion of heresies is charming,/ and like thee a fervent representative to God // grants forgiveness to everyone for their sins

.

Literature

• Menaea - December
  , vol. 1, ed. Moscow Patriarchate, 1982, 144–145.
• Florovsky, G., prot., Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII centuries
  .
• Denis Turansky, “Reverend John of Damascus” / Local Churches // project of the portal Pravoslavie.Ru
  , October 3, 2001:
• “John of Damascus” // Brief biographical information on the portal Bogoslov.Ru
  :
• Louth Andrew, priest O. N. A., S. A. Moiseeva, Makarov E. E., Gerasimenko N. V., Oretskaya I. A. “John of Damascus” // Orthodox Encyclopedia
  , T. 24, pp. 27-66:
• Boroday T.Yu., “John of Damascus” // Electronic library of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences “New Philosophical Encyclopedia”:
• St. John of Damascus and polemics with Islam // Proceedings of the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. 2016. Issue 14, pp.489-505:
• Priest Andrew Louth. “John of Damascus” // Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 24, p. 27-66

They pray to St. John of Damascus for strengthening faith and health

In Russia, the icon of St. John of Damascus is kept in the Conception Convent in Moscow, and the image of the saint is also in the Armenian church of Rostov-on-Don.

The icon of John of Damascus helps in strengthening faith and spirituality; the saint is also asked to heal diseases and injuries of the hands and feet

Prayer to John of Damascus

O sacred head, reverend father, most blessed Abbot John! Do not forget your poor to the end, but always remember us in holy and auspicious prayers to God:

remember your flock, which you yourself shepherded, and do not forget to visit your children, pray for us, holy father, for your spiritual children, as if you have boldness towards the Heavenly King:

do not keep silent to the Lord for us, and do not despise us, who honor you with faith and love:

remember us unworthy at the Throne of the Almighty, and do not stop praying for us to Christ God, for the grace has been given to you to pray for us.

We do not imagine that you are dead: even though you passed away from us in body, but remained alive even after death, do not depart from us in spirit, preserving us from the arrows of the enemy and all the charms of the demonic and the snares of the devil, our good shepherd.

Even though your relics are always visible before our eyes, but your holy soul with the angelic hosts, with the disembodied faces, with the heavenly powers, standing at the throne of the Almighty, worthily rejoices, leading you in truth

and after death the being is alive, we fall down to you and we pray to you: pray for us

To the Almighty God, for the benefit of our souls, and ask us time for repentance, so that we may pass from earth to heaven without restraint, from the bitter ordeals of the demons of the air princes

and may we be delivered from eternal torment, and may we be heirs of the Heavenly Kingdom with all the righteous who have pleased our Lord Jesus Christ from all eternity:

To Him belongs all glory, honor and worship, with His Originless Father, and with His Most Holy and Good and Life-Giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

By leaving a comment, you accept the user agreement