![]() Obolensky, Dimitri, The Bogomils : A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism, Twickenham UK, Anthony C. Klibanov, A., “Les mouvements hérétiques en Russie du XIIIe au XVIe siècle,” Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique, vol. Ivanov, Jordan, Livres et légendes bogomiles :aux sources du catharisme, Monette Ribeyrol, tr., Paris, G.-P. Goldfrank, David M., “Burn, Baby, Burn: Popular Culture and Heresy in Late Medieval Russia,” The Journal of Popular Culture, vol. , Les Balkans au Moyen Age : la Bulgarie des Bogomiles aux Turcs, London, Variorum Reprints, 1978. 301.Ĭosmas le prêtre, Le traité contre les bogomiles, Henri-Charles Buech et André Vaillant, trs., Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1945. “Bogomils,” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. What remains certain, no matter the origin of Ὁ ὬΝ in time or in geographic space, is how it is too heavy with theological meaning, especially when inscribed in Christ’s halo, not to confirm the fundamental affirmation of this study: Christian images of the first millennium, and those produced by the Eastern half of Christendom in the second, are highly theological.Īnguélov, Dimitre, Le bogomilisme en Bulgarie, Toulouse, Édouard Privat, Éditeur, 1972. Much depends on dating the images because an image with Ὁ ὬΝ, when taken in isolation, could result from a later modification. The question of the origin of the Ὁ ὬΝ in the image of Christ deserves more study, which we hope to do at a later date. Titos Papamastorakis, in speaking of the image 28 in a chapter of his work, “Our Lady Brephokatousa,” says this: “The inscription Ὁ ὬΝ (He who is) on the halo of Christ is typical of depictions of Him in the 14th century and particularly after the middle of the century, when the Hesychast movement was officially accepted by the Orthodox Church.” It would be interesting to hear the reasoning that brought this author to suggest a link between Hesychast theology and the Ὁ ὬΝ. On the other hand, I found a reference that links the appearance of Ὁ ὬΝ to the Palamite controversies of the mid-14th century. How can Jesus be the Messiah of Israel, announced by the prophets and seen in theophanies by visionary Jews, if Christians, the new Israel, have no link with the Old Israel? And so, what could be a stronger affirmation of the close link between the New and Old Testament as well as of the identity of the God of Israel and the Father of Jesus than putting Ὁ ὬΝ in the cruciform halo of Christ? The theological affirmation becomes obvious: he whom we see in the image, Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified, who died and was raised from the dead, this same person is precisely the same one who told Moses on Mount Sinai that his name was Yahweh (Ὁ ὬΝ). Since Marcion in the first centuries, the Orthodox have always rejected such a doctrine. The Bogomils, among other things, rejected the Old Testament, saying it was the revelation of the evil god, and accepted only the New Testament that revealed the good god, the Father of Jesus. Many historical testimonies (see bibliography) indicate that at that time the Orthodox Church fought ferociously against the Bogomil heresy, a dualist sect that rivaled the established Church. If our hypothesis is well founded, and the Ὁ ὬΝ in Christ’s halo was born in the Balkans or in Russia in the first centuries of the second millennium–having then answered the question “where” and “when”–we can move on to the question of “why”. The Hospitality of Abraham, Monk Paissy, 1484-1485. I began by noticing that during the first millennium, Christ’s halo was sometimes empty and that, more rarely, it was absent. I therefore started searching for the answer to the following questions: when, where and why did Christians add these letters to Christ’s halo? Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible put Yahweh as Ὁ ὬΝ.īefore I began to study this subject, I also thought that these letters had always been part of the image of Christ, but in examining the images that have come down to us from the first millennium, and even after, I noticed that the Ὁ ὬΝ is universally absent, as much in the West as in the East. In Hebrew, he who was speaking said Yahweh, which is also a present participle. These words are the answer Moses received on Mount Sinai when he asked for the name of him to whom he was speaking. A literal translation of Ὁ ὬΝ would be “the being one,” which does not mean much. These letters form the present participle, ὤν, of the Greek verb to be, with a masculine singular definite article, ὁ. The Icon of Christ Entering Jerusalem, Palm Sunday ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |