Creating an »Orthodox« Past: Georgian Hagiography and the Construction of a Denominational Identity (original) (raw)
AI-generated Abstract
This paper explores the role of hagiographical literature in the construction of Georgian denominational identity during the transition to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy in the seventh and eighth centuries. It examines how these devotional texts were manipulated to reflect ecclesiastical politics rather than serving solely as accounts of holy men. By detailing the historical context surrounding the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the study reveals how these pivotal events informed the narrative of Georgian Christian identity, particularly through the lens of the Thirteen Syrian Fathers.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
The promotion of miaenergism as a challenge to identity of non-Chalcedonian christianity
Vox Patrum
The article discusses the question of interrelation between the promotion of Miaenergism and its influence on the sense of religious identity of non-Chalcedonian Christians. The purpose of the article if to point that the promotion of Miaenergism was perceived by Miaphysites as an challenge for their religious identity formed in the period after the Council of Chalcedon (451) on the basis of refutation of Chalcedon, absolute loyalty to the teachings of their Patriarchs, especially to Christological notions of Cyril of Alexandria. The promotion of Miaenergism became the stimulus that caused the crystallization of a sense of religious identity of the Miaphysites. The promotion of Miaenergism strongly influenced a sense of the Miaphysite political identity, opposite to Byzantine government.
In this paper I will try to emphasise the genesis and the development of the phrase: “the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions”, by finding how this highly controversial formulation emerged and who were its promoters. Surprisingly, the direct promoter of this formulation of the final document of the Third Pre-conciliar Pan-orthodox Conference is none other than Theodoros Zisis, at that time a consultant member of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The main question that we have addressed is the following: is there in the patristic, synodal and canonical Tradition of the Church any example where certain heterodox communities were called “Churches” without recognizing their ecclesiality or an ecclesial status? I have emphasised the diachronic development of the use of the word “church/ἐκκλησία” applied to other Christian communities in some synodal decisions and works of the Holy Fathers in order to designate certain communities that ceased the communion with the Orthodox Church and departed from it, but by the use of the word “Church” they did not give an ontological ecclesial status to other Christian communities.
2022
The present short paper is devoted to the analysis of the mentioned paper of Theodor Yulaev, and considers not all the points and the conclusions of the author, but certain important inaccuracies, which could influence the general conclusions of the author. The present paper is a translation of my previous article 2 from Russian; the viewpoints of the author are quite characteristic for a considerable part of modern and historical Chalcedonian theologians, that is why I decided to concentrate on them in this short paper and publish it in English, hoping that it would be useful for the scholars who are interested in the course of dialogue between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches. It should be noted briefly that among the general conclusions of the author is that, according to his opinion, in the Joint Commission for the Dialogue between Eastern Orthodox & Oriental Orthodox Churches (1990) number of statements are absent from the Communiqué, such as 'two natural wills' and 'two natural energies' of Christ, expression 'composite hypostasis', 'unconditional dogmatic authority of Chalcedonian and further Ecumenical Councils' etc; on the basis of these and other arguments, Yulaev concludes that the Communiqué could not be considered as sufficient, and its use is not advisable as the basis of theological discussions with non-Chalcedonian Churches. Let us consider some of the Theodor Yulaev's arguments, by which he substantiates his views. In the beginning of his paper the author writes: 'Let us note as a beginning the inaccuracy in the translation of the English text of the Communiqué of the formula «µία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωµένη». The correct translation is not "one nature of the incarnate Logos" but "one incarnate nature of the Logos". Similar incorrect translation is met in the text of patriarch Shenouda III: "One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos." One can infer a conclusion that this inaccuracy is intentional. It directly gives unambiguous interpretation of the formula according to which there is one nature of the incarnate Logos, that is, of Christ. But in the formula, strictly speaking, one nature of God the Word is considered, which has incarnated, i.e. united with the human nature, which does not contradict the dyophysite interpretation.' 3 The idea that St. Cyril does not have the formula 'one nature of the incarnate Logos', most probably comes from John of Damascus (VIII AD), from his opus 'About the composite nature against acephalous (De natura composita contra Acephalos).' 4 1
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.