Papers by Marta Przyszychowska
VOX PATRUM 91 (2024) 541-562, 2024
In 2009, Federico Fatti published a hypothesis that Eustathius the Philosopher, described by Euna... more In 2009, Federico Fatti published a hypothesis that Eustathius the Philosopher, described by Eunapius, converted to Christianity and became bishop of Sebastea and master to Basil the Great. In my article, I present Fatti's hypothesis and solve three important problems that he left unclear: the place of birth of two Eustathiuses, the problem of Letter 35 by Julian and the mystery of the year 358, when Eustathius of Sebastea was already bishop and Eustathius the Philosopher is believed to have been sent by the emperor to Persia despite his Hellenic faith. When those issues that could challenge Fatti's thesis have been clarified, his claim, I think, gains plausibility close to certainty. The identification of two Eustathiuses helps explain certain mysteries in the life of Eustathius the Philosopher and some peculiar features of the ascetic movement initiated by Eustathius of Sebastea. It is also a milestone in understanding the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers as it provides us with a direct link between them and Neoplatonism and more specifically its Syrian branch initiated by Iamblichus.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
eds. Theresia Hainthaler, Franz Mali, Gregor Emmenegger, Alexey Morozov
In my paper, I shall show that Gregory of Nyssa considered the first sin to have been a sin of hu... more In my paper, I shall show that Gregory of Nyssa considered the first sin to have been a sin of human nature rather than of an individual. I take Gregory's statements that human nature sinned literally and follow a consistent concept of the first sin in all of his writings from supposedly the first De virginitate to the last In Canticum Canticorum. He usually uses the image of nature that committed the sin and put on the garments of skin symbolizing the consequences of the fall. In De opificio hominis, he uses a metaphor of double creation to express a similar concept. Those images are parallel and must not be confused. I claim that Gregory could have been influenced by authors from his native Asia Minor such as Irenaeus, Methodius of Olympus, Alexander of Aphrodisias and others, but also by Plotinus whose writings he certainly knew.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Rzeczy Piękne. Jak na dłoni, red. M. Wrześniak, N. Mojżyn, Warszawa 2024, 15-31, 2024
In Antiquity, the question of hands was a philosophical problem, which appears in the preserved l... more In Antiquity, the question of hands was a philosophical problem, which appears in the preserved literature for the first time in Xenophon, then in Aristotle, in the Stoics, and finally in Galen, who devoted the first two books of his De usu partium to hands. Gregory of Nyssa recognizes, after Galen, that hands are a characteristic feature of the rational nature because they are correlated with reason although Gregory emphasizes the ability to speak as the basic manifestation of rationality to which hands are somehow subordinated and for which they were created. Gregory of Nyssa was the only Father of the Church to address the issue of the purpose of human hands. He is the author of the first Christian anthropological treatise De opificio hominis (On the Creation of Man), in which he combines philosophical considerations about the soul and physiological/medical issues with biblical exegesis and theological issues, thus intending to create a compendium of knowledge about man, covering the whole of anthropology. This unique project was written having in mind the disciples of Eustathius of Sebastea, a Neoplatonic philosopher who had converted to Christianity, was bishop of Sebastea in the years 357-379, an ascetic and creator of hospices where the seriously ill, including lepers, were treated. After Eustathius, Gregory’s younger brother, Peter, became bishop of Sebastea; De opificio hominis was intended to meet the needs of the Eustathians, who were interested in philosophy and medicine, and at the same time to convince them that the resurrection of bodies (unacceptable for pagan philosophy) was not improbable.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Jews in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa (in Polish)
The article analyses Gregory of Nyssa’s refe... more Jews in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa (in Polish)
The article analyses Gregory of Nyssa’s references to Jews, starting with undermining the authorship of the homily from which comes the most often quoted anti-Jewish fragment attributed to Gregory. That the text is apocryphal is also confirmed by the analysis of texts of certain authorship. Although clearly negative statements could be found there, Gregory usually speaks about Jews neutrally in the denominational or ethnic sense, sometimes interchangeably with the term “Hebrews”. Most of the references to Jews appear in Gregory in the context of polemics with Anomeans and Macedonians; there are traces of Gregory’s personal experiences with Jews, and we also know that he knew groups of Christians that adopted some Jewish customs. In view of vaguely defined orthodoxy and great attractiveness of other religious groups, there was a pressing need to emphasize the identity of Christians and to shape their self-awareness. Therefore, Gregory placed great emphasis on the fact that neither the Jews nor other groups that denied the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit had the right to be called “Christians”; he referred to such other beliefs as error, unbelief or heresy. Only when the anti-Trinitarian movements lost their importance under Theodosius and the need to defend his position disappeared, Gregory in his (probably) last work called Jews brothers of believing pagans.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
A lot of scholars claim that Basil and Eustathius remained close friends until Eustathius became ... more A lot of scholars claim that Basil and Eustathius remained close friends until Eustathius became a Pneumatomachian. But, the only source that testifies Eustathius’ inclination to that heresy is Basil. What is important – late Basil. Apparently, Basil shared Homoiousian ideas with Eustathius as well as ascetical ones and his charges might have had political background. Doctrinal issues could have been only appearances and the real cause of the conflict might have been different. It seems to be a fight for power, specifically for jurisdiction and right to ordain bishops in Armenia.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2022
The discussion about the date of the Council of Gangra began in 1703 and has never reached the po... more The discussion about the date of the Council of Gangra began in 1703 and has never reached the point of certainty and general agreement. Scholars have proposed dates between 340 and 376. I propose the year 358 for the Council of Gangra on the basis of the following assumptions: Eustathius of Sebastea came from Caesarea of Cappadocia, just as Basil did; he started to practice his unique asceticism in the early 340s; the deposition by his father Eulalius was the first one based on the charges connected to his asceticism; it was only after Eustathius became bishop of Sebastea (357) that his habits riveted the attention of the bishops of Pontus. In 358, three councils in the diocese of Pontus examined his asceticism, namely those of Melitene, Neocaesarea, and Gangra. Sozomen states that Eustathius was deposed from the bishopric in Gangra. Since Eustathius came from Caesarea in Cappadocia and was ordained priest there, the fact that the synodical letter of bishops gathered in Gangra was addressed specifically to the clergy of Armenia proves that at the time of the Council of Gangra, Eustathius was already bishop of Sebastea (since 357). The Council of Gangra must have been held before the Council of Constantinople (359/360) as it appears in the charges brought against Eustathius during the latter.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
the first Polish translation of the Syntagmation by Aetius
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Imago Dei. Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens. Studientagung L’viv, 12.-14. September 2019 “Imago Dei”, ed. Th. Hainthaler, F. Mali, G. Emmenegger, A. Morozov, Tyrolia Verlag, 2021
Gregory of Nyssa is absolutely clear that the present human body is something alien to human natu... more Gregory of Nyssa is absolutely clear that the present human body is something alien to human nature and definitely is not part of the image of God. At the beginning there was human nature as such, as an indivisible monad, the unity without any corporal or bodily dimension. Already because of the sin (the concept of dual creation and the garments of skin differ in applying the time of diversification) individual human beings started to exist. Every individual human being was planned at the very moment of creation of human nature and would come into existence anyway. If it were not for the sin the anticipated number of people would come to the world in the angelical (mysterious) way. My question is whether the individualization of nature (both human and angelic) does necessarily involve any kind of body or could have been purely spiritual. It is not a theoretical divagation but absolutely crucial issue if we remember that at the moment of resurrection and apokatastasis human nature will return to its beginning.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Studia Patristica 101, 2021
The problem with Gregory of Nyssa is that at first glance his thought takes two incongruous ways:... more The problem with Gregory of Nyssa is that at first glance his thought takes two incongruous ways: one way is his teaching about human nature as an ontic unity; about its creation as a unity yet before individual human beings were created; about its fall as a unity, about its deification thanks to the fact that God’s Son took on the entire human nature understood as a unity; finally, about its restoration as a unity at the moment of resurrection, that is about apokatastasis, a return to the beginning. This part of Gregory’s teaching is coherent and logical, but unfortunately seems hardly reconcilable with the other, no less
essential current in his thought: Gregory speaks equally clearly about man’s freedom, his free will, his right to make free choices, and about consequences of such choices, which may as well be eternal damnation. In order to understand that Gregory’s teaching about apokatastasis does not stand in contradiction to his conviction about free will and possible damnation we have to remember his teaching about grace. He thinks that human nature is not so much oriented to God as that it contains grace in itself. A man was created in such a way that grace constitutes a part of his nature. Human nature will be restored, but there are people who will not take part in that restoration because out of the original sin in which they were born or out of their own evil choices they do not partake in human nature.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Polish Journal of Political Science 5/3, 2019
The notion of fatherland (πατρίς) in the writings of Basil of Caesarea is not so obvious as it se... more The notion of fatherland (πατρίς) in the writings of Basil of Caesarea is not so obvious as it seems at a first glance. The term πατρίς acquires different meanings depending on whether it is used without or with the article. The textual analysis of his own writings reveals what Basil considered as his own fatherland. In the writings of certain authorship, Basil uses the noun πατρίς 72 times: without the article πατρίς means a fatherland in general, with the article πατρίς means Cappadocia for Basil. The effect of the research is of major importance for reconstructing the life of Basil and the persons whom he addresses in his letters – among them Eustathius of Sebastea, the famous ascetic of the 4th-century Asia Minor and Basil’s mentor.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
E-Patrologos, 2019
O definicjach (Liber de definitionibus) na pewno nie jest dziełem Atanazego z Aleksandrii. Przeds... more O definicjach (Liber de definitionibus) na pewno nie jest dziełem Atanazego z Aleksandrii. Przedstawione zestawienie tłumaczeń pokazuje, że dzieło to wykazuje zaskakujące podobieństwo do II rozdziału Przewodnika (Viae dux) Anastazego z Synaju. Być może podobieństwo imion sprawiło, że ów rozdział dostał się do tomu z pismami Atanazego. Jednak nie przypadkiem został on wydany jako samodzielna publikacja. O wiele częściej niż całe dzieło Viae dux kopiowano część zawierającą definicje. Można stąd wysnuć wniosek, że ta właśnie część Przewodnika funkcjonowała często jako samodzielne dzieło. W artykule przedstawiłam różne teorie na temat daty powstania i autorstwa Przewodnika oraz II rozdziału zawierającego definicje. Mimo powielanych w podręcznikach i encyklopediach informacji, jakoby autorem całego Przewodnika (łącznie z rozdziałem II) był Anastazy z Synaju zmarły ok. roku 700, uważam, że nie się na podstawie obecnie dostępnych źródeł ustalić z całą pewnością, który ze znanych nam Anastazych rzeczywiście napisał to dzieło i czy na pewno nie było ono kompilacją.
It is certain that Athanasius of Alexandria did not write On definitions (Liber de definitionibus). The juxtaposition of the translated texts shows that it is surprisingly similar to the second chapter of Hodegos (Viae dux) by Anastasius of Sinai. Maybe it was the similarity of names that caused attributing On definitions to Athanasius. But it was not without reason that it was published as a separate writing. The part with definitions was published much more often than the entire Hodegos. In my paper, I have presented different theories on the dating and authorship of Hodegos and its second chapter. Although it is commonly assumed that it was Anastasius who died around 700 that wrote Hodegos (together with its second chapter), I think we cannot state with certainty which Anastasius was the author of Hodegos. Neither can we be sure that Hodegos is not a compilation of various writings.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Pronoia. The Providence of God-Die Vorsehung Gottes, 2019
Gregory of Nyssa uses many different terms as synonyms to describe Divine Providence. The article... more Gregory of Nyssa uses many different terms as synonyms to describe Divine Providence. The article focuses on one of five meanings of providence that Gregory associates with God i.e. the Divine foreknowledge. In the first creation entire human nature was created. The cause of the second creation was the first sin that had been foreknown by God before it was committed. In the second act of creation God had foreknown the first sin of man and that is why he created an individual human being with a specific gender. The question is whether the divine prevision is determinative. Although the sin had been foreknown by God, it does not mean it was necessary or determined by God. I am convinced that it was the concept of transcendent human nature that allowed Gregory to speak about dual creation that was foreseen but not determined by God. On the same basis he can simultanously speak of apokatastasis understood as a return to the beginning and about the eternal damnation of sinners. Apokatastasis concerns human nature as an indivisible monad and it does not mean that all human individuals will be saved. Human free will remains unchanged.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Scholars usually treat writings about Macrina the Younger as sources of
information about histori... more Scholars usually treat writings about Macrina the Younger as sources of
information about historical events and persons. In my opinion, all four sources about Macrina were written according to the rules of literary genres that do not have as their objective to report history but have other purposes such as edification, polemics or honouring somebody. In addition to that, Macrina did not appear in many other sources in which she should have been mentioned if she had been an inspirer and leader of monasticism in Pontus. I think that Macrina, as described by Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, was invented by them in order to substitute the true inspirer and leader of asceticism in Pontus – Eustathius of Sebastea.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gregory of Nyssa wrote the treatise "In illud: tunc et ipse Filius" during his polemics with Euno... more Gregory of Nyssa wrote the treatise "In illud: tunc et ipse Filius" during his polemics with Eunomius, after the first book of Contra Eunomium, where he claimed that a separate analysis of that verse was needed, i.e. after 380. The issue of subjection of the Son returns in Refutatio confessionis Eunomii, written around 383; here it seems to be a summary of the writing In illud: tunc et ipse Filius. So, it is probable that the latter was written between 380 and 383. Its aim was to prove that 1Cor 15:28 does not affirm ontic inferiority of the Son with regard to the Father as it was interpreted by the Arians and the Eunomians. According to Gregory the subjection of the Son means his Incarnation. Contrary to the opinion of some scholars, the treatise does not concern the eschatology but the very Incarnation that became – is becoming – will become the salvation of human nature; as in Gregory’s interpretation the past, the present and the future are mutually intertwined. The root of such a concept is his physical (mystical) theory of Redemption. That theory is based on an idea of the unity of human nature illustrated by the concept of dual creation: in the act of the first creation God created human nature understood as an indivisible monad, and only in the second act the first individual human being – Adam. Therefore, in the Incarnation the Word united Himself with the entire human nature. According to Gregory it was the Incarnation thanks to which human nature was deified as an entity. Thanks to the unity of human nature taken on by Christ all who participate in it participate in the Divine nature.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum, 2017
The concept of human nature constitutes a basis for entire Gregory of Nyssa’s anthropology. He co... more The concept of human nature constitutes a basis for entire Gregory of Nyssa’s anthropology. He considered human nature to be an indivisible monad created by God in the first act of creation before He created the first human being – Adam. It is human nature as a unity that constitutes the image of God and that image has been perfect from the very beginning. Gregory claims that nothing that was created can be indefinite (ἀόριστον). So also human nature has its own plenitude (πλήρωμα) recognized by God at the very moment of its creation. That plenitude will be realized when all human individuals are born. The accomplishment of the plenitude of human nature will determine the end of time, resurrection and apokatastasis, upon which human nature will return to its primordial state. I am convinced that Gregory thought of human nature as of the reality transcendent to individuals and that concept explains how he could speak simultaneously about the apokatastasis and damnation of the sinners.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The eschatology of Gregory of Nyssa is almost automatically associated with apokatastasis. But th... more The eschatology of Gregory of Nyssa is almost automatically associated with apokatastasis. But there is another very interesting aspect of his teaching about man’s fate after death. He distinguishes three possible states after death: “The first state applies to the meritorious and just, the second one to those who merited neither praise nor punishment, the third one to those, who are being punished for their misdeeds”. In my paper, I am trying to answer the question whether those states are temporary or eternal.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
During the debate between Eunomius and Gregory of Nyssa as a basic and irrefutable argument both ... more During the debate between Eunomius and Gregory of Nyssa as a basic and irrefutable argument both parties to the conflict used the statement that the theses they promoted were commonly accepted. Both of them defined the commonly accepted statement with the Greek term τὸ ὁμολογούμενον which in the philosophical tradition derived from Aristotle meant true and reliable premiss that led to absolute knowledge. In such a meaning that term – interchangeably with the expression κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι – was used not only in philosophy but also in rhetoric.
The methods used by Eunomius and Gregory of Nyssa show that their dispute was not what we would today call a religious issue, but a truly scientific/philosophical debate conducted in accordance with the commonly accepted (nomen omen!) rules.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The problem with Gregory of Nyssa is that at the first glance his thought takes two incongruous w... more The problem with Gregory of Nyssa is that at the first glance his thought takes two incongruous ways: one way is his teaching about human nature as an ontic unity; about its creation as a unity yet before individual human beings were created; about its fall as a unity, about its deification thanks to the fact that God’s Son took on the entire human nature understood as a unity; finally, about its restoration as a unity at the moment of resurrection, that is about apokatastasis, a return to the beginning. This part of Gregory’s teaching is coherent and logical, but unfortunately seems hardly reconcilable with the other, no less essential current in his thought: Gregory speaks equally clearly about man’s freedom, his free will, his right to make free choices, and about consequences of such choices, which may as well be eternal damnation. I think there is a missing piece of the puzzle that allows Gregory to think about those two parts simultaneously. The piece missed by us, not him, of course. The relationship between human nature and individual man. I think that according to Gregory of Nyssa human nature will be restored, but there are people who will not take part in that restoration because out of the original sin in which they were born or out of their own evil choices they do not partake in human nature.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Tłumaczenie tekstu, zwłaszcza z języka starożytnego, wymaga nie tylko znajomości gramatyki, ale t... more Tłumaczenie tekstu, zwłaszcza z języka starożytnego, wymaga nie tylko znajomości gramatyki, ale także wiedzy na temat autora, okoliczności powstania dzieła, specyfiki języka używanego w danym czasie i miejscu oraz wpływu innych autorów/dzieł/koncepcji filozoficznych na tłumaczony utwór. Każdy przekład jest dobrą lub złą interpretacją oryginału. A zatem każdy przekład jest w sensie ścisłym hermeneutyką rozumianą jako sztuka interpretowania tekstu. W swoim artykule przeanalizowałam fragment dialogu De anima et resurrectione, w którym Grzegorz (rzekomo) mówi o zbawieniu szatana, w oryginale oraz w dziesięciu tłumaczeniach na języki: łaciński, polski, włoski, francuski, angielski i niemiecki. Różnice w przekładach są ogromne; chwilami można odnieść wrażenie, że podstawą dla niektórych tłumaczy był jakiś inny tekst grecki. Na tym przykładzie widać jak na dłoni, że tłumaczenie jest sztuką niebagatelną, wymagającą ogromnej wiedzy i talentu. Jako takie powinno być uznane za pełnoprawną pracę naukową, więcej, za podstawę i punkt wyjścia dla innych badań prowadzonych na tekstach.
Translating a text, especially from any ancient language, requires not only the knowledge of grammar, but also some information about the author, the circumstances in which the text was written, specifics of the language used at that time and place, influence of other authors/texts/philosophical ideas. Every translation is an interpretation - a good or a bad one. So every translation is in the strict sense hermeneutics understood as an art of interpreting texts. In my article I have analyzed an excerpt from the dialog De anima et resurrectione, where Gregory (allegedly) speaks about the salvation of Satan, in the Greek original and ten translations into Latin, Polish, Italian, French, English and German. The differences between the translations are enormous; I had an impression at times that some translators used different Greek texts. That example prooves that translating is an art of no small importance; it requires ample amounts of knowledge and talent. As such it must be recognized as a real scientific work, what is more - as a basis and a point of departure for other research work.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Marta Przyszychowska
The article analyses Gregory of Nyssa’s references to Jews, starting with undermining the authorship of the homily from which comes the most often quoted anti-Jewish fragment attributed to Gregory. That the text is apocryphal is also confirmed by the analysis of texts of certain authorship. Although clearly negative statements could be found there, Gregory usually speaks about Jews neutrally in the denominational or ethnic sense, sometimes interchangeably with the term “Hebrews”. Most of the references to Jews appear in Gregory in the context of polemics with Anomeans and Macedonians; there are traces of Gregory’s personal experiences with Jews, and we also know that he knew groups of Christians that adopted some Jewish customs. In view of vaguely defined orthodoxy and great attractiveness of other religious groups, there was a pressing need to emphasize the identity of Christians and to shape their self-awareness. Therefore, Gregory placed great emphasis on the fact that neither the Jews nor other groups that denied the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit had the right to be called “Christians”; he referred to such other beliefs as error, unbelief or heresy. Only when the anti-Trinitarian movements lost their importance under Theodosius and the need to defend his position disappeared, Gregory in his (probably) last work called Jews brothers of believing pagans.
essential current in his thought: Gregory speaks equally clearly about man’s freedom, his free will, his right to make free choices, and about consequences of such choices, which may as well be eternal damnation. In order to understand that Gregory’s teaching about apokatastasis does not stand in contradiction to his conviction about free will and possible damnation we have to remember his teaching about grace. He thinks that human nature is not so much oriented to God as that it contains grace in itself. A man was created in such a way that grace constitutes a part of his nature. Human nature will be restored, but there are people who will not take part in that restoration because out of the original sin in which they were born or out of their own evil choices they do not partake in human nature.
It is certain that Athanasius of Alexandria did not write On definitions (Liber de definitionibus). The juxtaposition of the translated texts shows that it is surprisingly similar to the second chapter of Hodegos (Viae dux) by Anastasius of Sinai. Maybe it was the similarity of names that caused attributing On definitions to Athanasius. But it was not without reason that it was published as a separate writing. The part with definitions was published much more often than the entire Hodegos. In my paper, I have presented different theories on the dating and authorship of Hodegos and its second chapter. Although it is commonly assumed that it was Anastasius who died around 700 that wrote Hodegos (together with its second chapter), I think we cannot state with certainty which Anastasius was the author of Hodegos. Neither can we be sure that Hodegos is not a compilation of various writings.
information about historical events and persons. In my opinion, all four sources about Macrina were written according to the rules of literary genres that do not have as their objective to report history but have other purposes such as edification, polemics or honouring somebody. In addition to that, Macrina did not appear in many other sources in which she should have been mentioned if she had been an inspirer and leader of monasticism in Pontus. I think that Macrina, as described by Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, was invented by them in order to substitute the true inspirer and leader of asceticism in Pontus – Eustathius of Sebastea.
The methods used by Eunomius and Gregory of Nyssa show that their dispute was not what we would today call a religious issue, but a truly scientific/philosophical debate conducted in accordance with the commonly accepted (nomen omen!) rules.
Translating a text, especially from any ancient language, requires not only the knowledge of grammar, but also some information about the author, the circumstances in which the text was written, specifics of the language used at that time and place, influence of other authors/texts/philosophical ideas. Every translation is an interpretation - a good or a bad one. So every translation is in the strict sense hermeneutics understood as an art of interpreting texts. In my article I have analyzed an excerpt from the dialog De anima et resurrectione, where Gregory (allegedly) speaks about the salvation of Satan, in the Greek original and ten translations into Latin, Polish, Italian, French, English and German. The differences between the translations are enormous; I had an impression at times that some translators used different Greek texts. That example prooves that translating is an art of no small importance; it requires ample amounts of knowledge and talent. As such it must be recognized as a real scientific work, what is more - as a basis and a point of departure for other research work.
The article analyses Gregory of Nyssa’s references to Jews, starting with undermining the authorship of the homily from which comes the most often quoted anti-Jewish fragment attributed to Gregory. That the text is apocryphal is also confirmed by the analysis of texts of certain authorship. Although clearly negative statements could be found there, Gregory usually speaks about Jews neutrally in the denominational or ethnic sense, sometimes interchangeably with the term “Hebrews”. Most of the references to Jews appear in Gregory in the context of polemics with Anomeans and Macedonians; there are traces of Gregory’s personal experiences with Jews, and we also know that he knew groups of Christians that adopted some Jewish customs. In view of vaguely defined orthodoxy and great attractiveness of other religious groups, there was a pressing need to emphasize the identity of Christians and to shape their self-awareness. Therefore, Gregory placed great emphasis on the fact that neither the Jews nor other groups that denied the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit had the right to be called “Christians”; he referred to such other beliefs as error, unbelief or heresy. Only when the anti-Trinitarian movements lost their importance under Theodosius and the need to defend his position disappeared, Gregory in his (probably) last work called Jews brothers of believing pagans.
essential current in his thought: Gregory speaks equally clearly about man’s freedom, his free will, his right to make free choices, and about consequences of such choices, which may as well be eternal damnation. In order to understand that Gregory’s teaching about apokatastasis does not stand in contradiction to his conviction about free will and possible damnation we have to remember his teaching about grace. He thinks that human nature is not so much oriented to God as that it contains grace in itself. A man was created in such a way that grace constitutes a part of his nature. Human nature will be restored, but there are people who will not take part in that restoration because out of the original sin in which they were born or out of their own evil choices they do not partake in human nature.
It is certain that Athanasius of Alexandria did not write On definitions (Liber de definitionibus). The juxtaposition of the translated texts shows that it is surprisingly similar to the second chapter of Hodegos (Viae dux) by Anastasius of Sinai. Maybe it was the similarity of names that caused attributing On definitions to Athanasius. But it was not without reason that it was published as a separate writing. The part with definitions was published much more often than the entire Hodegos. In my paper, I have presented different theories on the dating and authorship of Hodegos and its second chapter. Although it is commonly assumed that it was Anastasius who died around 700 that wrote Hodegos (together with its second chapter), I think we cannot state with certainty which Anastasius was the author of Hodegos. Neither can we be sure that Hodegos is not a compilation of various writings.
information about historical events and persons. In my opinion, all four sources about Macrina were written according to the rules of literary genres that do not have as their objective to report history but have other purposes such as edification, polemics or honouring somebody. In addition to that, Macrina did not appear in many other sources in which she should have been mentioned if she had been an inspirer and leader of monasticism in Pontus. I think that Macrina, as described by Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, was invented by them in order to substitute the true inspirer and leader of asceticism in Pontus – Eustathius of Sebastea.
The methods used by Eunomius and Gregory of Nyssa show that their dispute was not what we would today call a religious issue, but a truly scientific/philosophical debate conducted in accordance with the commonly accepted (nomen omen!) rules.
Translating a text, especially from any ancient language, requires not only the knowledge of grammar, but also some information about the author, the circumstances in which the text was written, specifics of the language used at that time and place, influence of other authors/texts/philosophical ideas. Every translation is an interpretation - a good or a bad one. So every translation is in the strict sense hermeneutics understood as an art of interpreting texts. In my article I have analyzed an excerpt from the dialog De anima et resurrectione, where Gregory (allegedly) speaks about the salvation of Satan, in the Greek original and ten translations into Latin, Polish, Italian, French, English and German. The differences between the translations are enormous; I had an impression at times that some translators used different Greek texts. That example prooves that translating is an art of no small importance; it requires ample amounts of knowledge and talent. As such it must be recognized as a real scientific work, what is more - as a basis and a point of departure for other research work.
wrote De anima et resurrectione in the form of a dialogue – one of the two
dialogues in his entire literary legacy? Second, why did he write a dialogue
with Macrina rather than with his great, saint brother Basil? Those two questions led me to the large-scale research concerning the literary
genres of Macrina writings, the life of Eustathius of Seabastea, the
relationships between Basil and Eustathius on one hand and Basil and
Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus on the other, the administrative issues of the Church in Asia Minor, and many others problems.