Steven Avery
Administrator
WIP
Athanasius - Quaestiones Aliae
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Quaestiones Aliae (circa 350-499 AD)
HITS:
● [Quaestiones Aliae 4 : “in heaven” “in earth”] ...And, again, you should answer this way: On the sun the disk,
the ray and the light are inseparable; they are not separated from each other, and for this reason is said that God
is one and not three; because they are not separated the three persons (lit. faces)—Father’s, Son’s and Holy
Spirit’s— of the one God from each other. In the way that the solar disk begets the ray and sends out (or,
proceeds) the light, the same also the God and Father begets the Son and proceeds (or, sends out) the holy
Spirit. And see intelligibly: in the way that sun’s ray comes down from heaven on earth and neither is
separated from the solar disk nor is missing from heaven and also from earth, but it is [in the same time]
at the solar disk and at heaven and on earth and everywhere, and is not missing neither from the things
above nor at the things below; the same also the Son and Word of God came down to earth, and he was
not missing from the Father, neither from heaven nor from earth; but he was [in the same time] at Father’s
bosom unseparated, and up and down and everywhere; and he was not missing from anyone. And in the
way the solar light is [in the same time] at the solar disk and at the ray and also at heaven and earth and gets
into the houses and everywhere and illuminates;
(Quaestiones Aliae 4; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 3)
○ Greek: Καὶ πάλιν εἰπὲ οὕτως· Ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀχώριστος ὁ δίσκος, καὶ ἡ ἀκτὶς, καὶ τὸ φῶς· οὐ γὰρ
χωρίζονται ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται καὶ εἷς Θεὸς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς· διότι οὐ χωρίζονται τὰ τρία
πρόσωπα, τοῦ τε Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, τοῦ ἑνὸς Θεοῦ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων. Καὶ
ὥσπερ ὁ δίσκος ὁ ἡλιακὸς γεννᾷ τὴν ἀκτῖνα, καὶ ἐκπορεύει τὸ φῶς· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ γεννᾷ τὸν
Υἱὸν καὶ ἐκπορεύει καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Βλέπε συνετῶς· Ὥσπερ ἡ ἀκτὶς τοῦ ἡλίου καταβαίνει ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ πρὸς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οὔτε τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ δίσκου χωρίζεται, οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λείπει, οὔτε
ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, ἀλλ’ ἔστι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡλιακῷ δίσκῳ, καὶ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, καὶ πανταχοῦ, καὶ
οὔτε τῶν ἄνω λείπει, οὔτε τῶν κάτω· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ κατῆλθε πρὸς τὴν γῆν,
καὶ οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἔλειπε, οὔτε ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὔτε ἐκ τῆς γῆς· ἀλλ’ ἦν καὶ ἐν τοῖς κόλποις
τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀχώριστος, καὶ ἄνω καὶ κάτω, καὶ πανταχοῦ· καὶ οὐδ’ ἔκ τινος ἔλειπε. Καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ
ἡλιακὸν φῶς ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῷ δίσκῳ τῷ ἡλιακῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀκτῖνι, καὶ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, καὶ
εἰσέρχεται ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις καὶ πανταχοῦ, καὶ φωτίζει· (Quaestiones Aliae 4; Migne Graeca, PG 28.775)
● [Quaestiones Aliae 4] And just as the soul is invisible, the same way is also God invisible. And you when you
doubt in your mind this way by saying ‘how is God one and is he is also tri-hypostatic? you should remember your
soul and say: ”Just as my soul is one but also tri-hypostatic — soul, logos and breath; so also God is one but is
also tri-hypostatic — Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.” And say in your mind that”if the soul, the creature of God,
and similarly, the sun, is tri-hypostatic and their nature is one, how much more God, the creator of them?”Isn’t to
be admitted that it is so, so that he is one as regards his nature and tri-hypostatic as regards his persons? And it
is truly admitted so. Just as the soul, logos and breath are three persons and the nature of the soul is one and not
three souls; the same way Father, Word and Holy Spirit are three persons, but one God as regards the
nature, not three gods. If you always think this way, you will never blaspheme about the holy Trinity.
(Quaestiones Aliae 4; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s
Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 5-6)
○ Greek: Καὶ καθάπερ ἀόρατος ἡ ψυχὴ, οὕτως ἀόρατος καὶ ὁ Θεός. Καὶ οὕτως ὅταν διστάζεις ἐν τῷ νοΐ
σου, καὶ λέγεις, πῶς ἔνι ὁ Θεὸς εἷς, καὶ ἔνι καὶ τρισυπόστατος; ἐνθυμοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς σου, καὶ λέγε· Ὥσπερ
ἡ ψυχή μου (20) μία ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρισυπόστατος, ψυχὴ, λόγος, καὶ πνοή· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν,
ἀλλ’ ἔστι καὶ τρισυπόστατος, Πατὴρ, Λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Καὶ λέγε ἐν τῷ νοΐ σου, ὅτι, ἐὰν ἡ
ψυχὴ, τὸ ποίημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ ἥλιος, ἐστὶ τρισυπόστατος, ἡ δὲ (25) φύσις αὐτῶν μία· πόσῳ
μᾶλλον ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιητὴς τούτων! Οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τὸ εἶναι οὕτως, ὥστε εἶναι αὐτὸν ἕνα τῇ φύσει, καὶ
τρισυπόστατον τοῖς προσώποις; καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐνδέχεται. Ὡς γὰρ ψυχὴ, λόγος καὶ πνοὴ τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ
μία φύσις ψυχῆς, καὶ (30) οὐ τρεῖς ψυχαί· οὕτω Πατὴρ, Λόγος καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ
εἷς τῇ φύσει Θεὸς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς θεοί. Οὕτως ἐὰν συλλογίζῃ πάντοτε, οὐ μὴ βλασφημήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας
Τριάδος. (Quaestiones Aliae 4; Migne Graeca, PG 28.780)
Quaestiones Aliae :”Question & Answer Genre”[Erotapokriseis]
• [Papadoyannakis : Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis] In this contribution I would like to discuss and
problematize the literary process of instruction by question and answer. This process is integral to a very littlestudied
body of literature, that of the question-and-answer or otherwise known as erotapokriseis in late antiquity
but also to the literary form of dialogue. Despite its enormous popularity in late antiquity there is—with few exceptions
[1] —no recent, systematic discussion of this literature and more importantly of the literary process that informs it. To say nothing of the fact that some important texts have neither been properly edited much less translated into any modern language. This is all the more surprising since in the late antique and Byzantine literature the question and answer collections became one of the most preferred means of organizing and imparting knowledge in a number of such fields as: medicine [2], grammar, philosophy, theology, law. ...The literary form of erotapokriseis was adopted and adapted at a fairly early stage by Christians. Origen and Eusebius—to name but a few—made extensive use of this form. [13] The loose structure and the add-on nature of this literary form account, in part, for the diverse material that they include. Ps. Justin’s Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos (hereafter QRO) is a case in point. [14] In contrast to earlier collections, the QRO are concerned not with the continuous exposition of a single text, but with relatively short and selfcontained sections of argument which need to be put in their context in ancient discussions generally. ...Rather than aiming to ‘breathe some life into tiresome, pedantic patristic florilegia of proof-texts’ we have to see the erotapokriseis and dialogue literature as a”discursive matrix”[34] intimately associated with—but not confined to—the rhetorical exercises and the schoolroom. As such it allows the discussion of a broad array of questions which are given different degrees of focus.
...From the discussion above, it has become apparent that the process of instruction by question and answer was used
not only to refute but also to convey knowledge organized in various degrees of complexity. On account of this it is worth asking how this didacticism affects and is affected by the wider phenomenon of the organization of different types of knowledge in late antiquity and Byzantium as in many cases later collections compile and recompile questions (aporiai) giving different answers adding, modifying or giving new answers.
(Papadoyannakis, “Instruction by Question and
Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis", chs.harvard.edu. Accessed: 25 January 2020.)
• From the New Testament to the Council of Ephesus 430 AD. John Chrysostom, writing before the Council of
Ephesus and generally innocent of pious devotion to Mary, nevertheless coached his congregation in a series of
similar argumentative stances: When the Jews ask you, 'How did the Virgin give birth?' Say to him...”[PAGE 279] The value of these intriguing proposals... (fn. 19. ...Ps.-Athanasius, Quaestiones Aliae, 19 who finds an analogy for the virgin birth in the notion that the 'eyes of certain molluscs,' when 'illuminated by flashes of lightning,' are subsequently
'transformed into pearls' PG 28.792A)
(Proclus, and Nicholas Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity, 2003, p. 278, 279)
Quaestiones Aliae Quoted and Ascribed to Athanasius in Eastern Orthdox Confession of 1643 AD
• The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church [124] was originally drawn up about the
year 1640 by Peter Mogilas (or Mogila), Metropolitan of Kieff, and father of Russian theology (died 1647), in the form of a Catechism for the benefit of the Russian Church. [125] It was revised and adopted by a Provincial Synod at Kieff for
Russia, then again corrected and purged by a Synod of the Greek and Russian clergy at Jassy, in 1643, where it received
its present shape by Meletius Syriga, or Striga, the Metropolitan of Nicæa, and exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
As thus improved, it was sent to, and signed by, the four Eastern Patriarchs. The Synod of Jerusalem gave it a new
sanction in 1672 (declaring it a homologia, hen edexato kai dechetai hapaxaplos pasa he anatolike ekklesia). In
this way it became the Creed of the entire Greek and Russian Church. It has been the basis of several later
Catechisms prepared by Russian divines. The Orthodox Confession was a defensive measure against Romanism and
Protestantism. It is directed, first, against the Jesuits who, under the protection of the French ambassadors in
Constantinople, labored to reconcile the Greek Church with the Pope; and, secondly, against the Calvinistic movement,
headed by Cyril Lucar, and continued after his death. [126] It is preceded by a historical account of its composition
and publication, a pastoral letter of Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, dated Nov.20, 1662; and by a letter of
endorsement of the Greek text from Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated March 11, 1643, [127] followed
by the signatures of twenty-six Patriarchs and prelates of the Eastern Church.
("The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church. A.D. 1643”in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol 1, 1877, p. 58-59)
● Question 69. What is the eighth Article of the Faith? Answer. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of
Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who
spake by the Prophets.
● Question 71. What is the second Thing taught in this Article? Answer. That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the
Father Only, as from the Fountain and Original of his Divinity; as our Saviour himself teacheth us (John xv. 26),
When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father; the Spirit of Truth, which Proceedeth
from the Father. The same Doctrine St. Athanasius lays down in his Creed,”The Holy Ghost is of the Father,
not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”And elsewhere in his works (Holy Questions, vol. ii.
43, &c.),”God and Father, he only is the Cause of the other two, and unbegotten. The Son, begotten, and
sprung from the Father only, the Cause of his Origin. The Holy Ghost himself also springs and proceeds
only from the Father, as his Cause, and by the Son was sent into the World.”[See: Quaestiones Aliae 4;
Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae,
2019, p. 4] And Gregory the Divine sayeth (Homily V. of Divinity and of the Holy Ghost), “The Holy Ghost, who
proceedeth from the Father, is uncreated, as being Proceeding ; as being unbegotten, he is not the Son ; but as
being between unbegotten and begotten, he is God.”We have already treated of this Matter at large in the First
Article. Let it, therefore, suffice us that we hold what Christ himself taught ; what the Catholic and Orthodox
Eastern Church believeth and altogether professed in the Second General Council ; and let us hold the Faith
without Addition, and from the Son, as the Church hath commanded. Nay, not only the Orthodox and Catholic
Eastern Church hath passed a heavy censure on those who add these Words, but also the Western Roman
Church. This is evident from the two Silver Tables, on one of which the Creed was engraved in Greek, and on
the other in Latin, without this Addition,”And from The Son"; which Tables were, by order of Leo the Third, Pope
of Boine, affixt up in St. Peters Church, in the Year of our Lord 809, as Baronius confesseth. Whosoever,
therefore, continues firm and constant in this Faith, he may have undoubting Hope of his Salvation, as one who
turneth not aside from the Doctrine of the Church.
(Mohyla, The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and apostolic Eastern Church; Translated by J.J. Overbeck, 1898, p. 58-59)
○ Greek:
■ Ἐρώτησις ξθʹ. Πῶς εἶναι τὸ ὄγδοον ἄρθρον τῆς πίστεως; Ἀπ. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα, τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ
κύρον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον· τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ
συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν Προφητῶν.
■ Ἐρώτησις οά. Ποῖον εἶναι τὸ δεύτερον, ὅπου διδάσκει τὸ ἄρθρον τοῦτο; Ὰπ. Διδάσκει πῶς τὸ
Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς πηγῆς καὶ ἀρχῆς τῆς θεότητος · διὰ τὸ
ὁποῖον ὁ αὐτὸς Σωτὴρ μᾶς διδάσκει (Ἰωαν. ιέ. κςʹ.) λέγων · ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ Παράκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ
πέμψω ὐμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. Τὴν
διδασκαλίαν ταύτην τὴν ἐρμηνεύει ὁ ἱερὸς Ἀθανάσιος εἰς τὸ σύμβολόν του· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ
ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐ πεποιημένον, οὔτε δεδημιουργημένον, οὔτε γεγεννημένον· ἀλλ᾿
ἐκπορευτόν. Ὁ Θεὸς (ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀθανάς. ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἐρωτήσεσι. δʹ.) καὶ Πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μόνος
ἐστὶν αἴτιος τοῖς δυσὶ καὶ ἀγέννητος· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸς, καὶ
γεννητός· καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸν καὶ ἐκπορευτὸν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ
Υἱοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἀποστελλόμενον. [Quaestiones Aliae; Migne Graeca PG 28.777C] Καὶ ὁ
θεολόγος Γρηγόριος (λόγ. έ. περὶ θεολογίας) οὕτω φησί· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς
ἐκπορεύεται, ὃ καθ᾿ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ οὐ γεννητὸν, οὐχ
Υἱὸς · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, Θεός. Περὶ τούτου εἴρηται πλατύτερον εἰς τὸ
πρῶτον ἄρθρον · φθάνει λοιπὸν τῶρα νὰ κρατοῦμεν βέβαιον καὶ νὰ πιστεύωμεν ἐκεῖνο, ὅπου ὁ
Χριστὸς μᾶς ἐδίδαξε, καὶ ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ὀρθόδοξος πιστεύει, καὶ
ὡμολόγησεν εἰς τὴν δευτέραν οἰκουμενικὴν σύνοδον καὶ ἐκύρωσε τὸ σύμβολον χωρὶς τῆς
προσθήκης· καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καὶ ἐναντίον ἐκείνων, ὅπου ἐπροσθέσασι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον καὶ ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἔκαμεν ἐπιτίμησιν, ὄχι μόνον ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ ὀρθόδοξος καὶ καθολικὴ, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἡ δυτικὴ τῆς Ῥώμης· τὸ ὁποῖον διαμαρτύρονται δύο πίνακαις ἀργυραῖ, εἰς τὰς ὁποίας ᾖτον
γεγραμμένον τὸ ἱερὸν σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως Ἑλληνιστὶ εἰς τὴν μίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Λατινιστὶ,
χωρὶς τὴν πρόσθεσιν τούτου τοῦ μέρους καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ· αἱ ὁποῖαι μὲ πρόσταγμα τοῦ Πάπα
Ῥώμης Λέοντος τρίτου ἐκρέμαντο εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου, ἐν ἔτει Χριστοῦ ωθʹ. ὡς
φησὶ βαρώνιος. Διὰ τοῦτο ὅποιος στέκεται σταθερὸς καὶ βέβαιος εἰς τὴν πίστιν τούτην, ἔχει
βεβαίαν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας του, διατὶ δὲν παρεκκλίνει καθόλου ἀπὸ τὴν κοινὴν γνώμην τῆς
ἐκκλησίας.
("The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church. A.D. 1643”in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol 2, 1877, p. 349-350)
Quaestiones Aliae : Athanasian Trinitarian simile of the fire and light
• [Serle] ...Christ, according to the Nicene Creed, Is”Light of Light, of one substance with the Father.”Many of the fathers
who flourished when the Arian heresy was principally agitated, i.e. about the fourth century, frequently illustrated
the argument upon the Trinity by a similitude, sometimes taken from fire, and sometimes from the material sun.
Leontius Episcopus urged, that as (πῦρ, ἀπαύγασμα, φῶς) fire, splendour, light, were all essentially one in nature, though distinguishable into three several properties; so Father, Son, and Spirit, are three Persons in one indivisible Essence. Athnnasius, Ephreem Syrus, Cyril, and others, represented, that as the orb, light, and heat, make but one sun; so Father, Son, and Spirit, are but one God: and that, as the light and heat are coeval and coessential with the solar orb, yet easily distinguishable though indivisible from it; so the Son and Spirit are essentially and eternally, though not personally, One with the Father, forming an individual unity of Godhead. The Latin translator of Ephreem Syrus from the Syriac says, that Athanasius and others borrowed this simile from Theognostus [of Alexandria 210-270 AD], an ancient writer, who flourished before him. See much of these illustrations, collected by Suicerus, in his Thes. Eccles. in verb, τριας, ἀπανγασμα, ἡλιος. And also Asseman. Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. Tom. i. c. vi. Eait. Rom. 1719. (Serle, Horae Solitariae,
1842, p. 114)
• [Tzamalikos] Christians were of course always at pains to adumbrate [represent] Godhead as both one and threefold.
The theme of ἀμέριστος τριάς [impartible three : unable to separate the three persons], however, is an all too rare one. An unknown writer uses the same vocabulary, in order to adumbrate [represent] the Trinity as the Father (=sun) with
the Son (=beam) and the Holy Spirit (=light), who is”light from light".(fn. 338. Quaestiones Aliae, p. 777) Although
the Persons are spoken of as three, they actually make up one nature.
(Tzamalikos, A newly discovered Greek Father, 2012, p. 500)
• The simile occurs in the genuine Athanasian writing De decretis Nicaenae Synodi 23-24, ed. H.G. OPITZ,
Athanasius Werke, Vol. 2,1, Berlin 1940, pp. 19,10-20,29 = PG 27: 456C-457B). Cf. PS.-ATHANASIUS OF
ALEXANDRIA’s Quaestiones aliae (PG 28: 776B-777C). This is a simile ultimately inspired by Hebr. 3,2.
Quaestiones Aliae : Temptation of Satan : God deceived Satan with the Incarnation of the Son
• [Constas] A remarkable number of Greek patristic thinkers gave expression to the theory that Satan was
deceived by Christ, who exploited his adversary's mistaken belief that the object of his desires were mere man
and not the deity incarnate. Driven by an insatiable hunger for human bodies, the demonic appetite was inexorably
drawn to devour the seemingly mortal flesh of Jesus. That flesh, however, was but a seductive lure concealing the power
of divinity that brought Satan's downfall and even (in some traditions) his salvation. (p. 139) ...the notion of”divine
deception”is perhaps best known through the work of the fourth century bishop and theologian Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 AD), whose metaphor of the fishhook represents a decisive moment in his dramatic theory of atonement. According to this theory, Satan was initially deceived by the apparent ordinariness of Christ's humanity and unwittingly consumed his moral body in death. He [Satan] soon discovered, however, that he had been duped into biting off more than he could chew: Christ is divine, and therefore immortal, and the unexpected presence of the deity in the bowels of the underworld signaled the liberation of the dead from the forces of death and decay. (p. 143) ...the image of the fishhook baited with the flesh of Christ was used by dozens of writers from the mid-fourth century through the seventh centuries and beyond, including such notables as Athanasius, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and Maximus the
Confessor, to mention only a few. (p. 146) ...Another Pseudo-Athanasian text [Quaestiones Aliae], surrendering
unreservedly to the vertiginous [the feeling that everything is spinning around] currents of these typological
associations, hazards the following account of the divine strategy. ...In this stunning typological juxtaposition,
the devil becomes a serpent, coiled around a tree, in order to seduce Eve, in response to which the deity
becomes a worm writhing on the cross [Psalm 22:6”I am a worm and not a man”(LXX)], the tree of life, in order to
seduce the devil.
(Constas, The Last Temptation of Satan, 2004, p. 139, 143, 146, 155)
● [Quaestiones Aliae 20] ...God having again foreknowledge that the humanity could not alone by itself to prevail
without the divinity, it was hidden the divinity in this flesh, so that the devil, seeing the flesh and without knowing
that the divinity was hidden in this flesh, come and struggle with Christ and this way be defeated by the hidden
divinity. Which indeed happened. The way that the fisherman, willing to hunt a fish, does not put the hook
bare [i.e. without bait] in the sea, but clothes the hook with a worm from without by deception [lit. using a bait],
and this way he throws it, that is wearing the worm, to the sea; and the fish, seeing only the worm, and not
knowing that inside the worm there is a hook, but thinking that the worm is totally alone without a hook, deceived
he is caught by the hook; the same way Christ acted. As he was willing to hunt the poisonous fish that is dwelling
in the limitless waters of the abyss, or rather a great dragon the devil, he did not bring forth his divinity to the devil,
but by deception [lit. as a bait] the worm [that is,] his most holy flesh, which he wore without intermixing by the
Ever-virgin Mary, the most holy earth, according to what was said by the divine David:”I am a worm and not a
man,”he covered the most sacred hook his world-saving cross, that he was affixed to it, and by means of it to
keep unnoticed his own divinity, by which after this poisonous and biting-like-a-snake fish was deceived and
conquered, the great dragon the devil, the one who expelled from the paradise and killed the man, perished after
being defeated. This way the divinity is a type of the hook, while the humanity is a type of the worm. And
the Devil having seen from without what was human and having not understand that inside it was hidden
the divinity, he was deceived, and coming forth to the humanity, he was conquered by the incomparable
and invincible hook of the divinity; and this way the great dragon the devil was defeated.
(Quaestiones Aliae 20; Migne Graeca, PG 28.793; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of
Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae, 2019,p. 17-18)
Quaestiones Aliae : Unique Trinity Simile : Adam, Eve, Seth
• [Siecienski] The verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι ("to proceed out of") is used both in Scripture (Jn 15:26) and the Greek version of
the creed to speak about the coming forth of the Spirit (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται). In other contexts it is used to
signify a”coming out”or even a”going away”whereby the subject of the verb appears to leave its point of origin as a distinct entity. This might apply to a word coming forth from the mouth (Pr 3: 16), demons coming out of the possessed (Acts 19: 12) or water coming forth from the temple (Ez 47: 1, 8, 12). Although in Greek patristic thought it is usually reserved to the procession of the Holy Spirit, Pseudo-Athanasius [quaestiones Aliae 15, PG 28.785] and John of Damascus (650-754 AD) [De Fide orthodoxa, PG 94.817] also applied it to the creation of Eve, who came forth out of Adam's rib [Εὔα ἐκπορευτή]. (Siecienski, The Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor's Letter to Marinus, 2007, p. 214)
Quaestiones Aliae : Virgin Mary Conception Through Her Ear : Source Protoevangelium of James (145 AD)
• [Terian] The notion of Mary's conception through the ear is common in late antique and medieval sources,
whether Syriac, Greek, or Latin. Its origin, however, seems to be of Syriac derivation, as suggested by Frederick
C. Conybeare,”Protevangelium Iacobi. [From an Armenian Manuscript in the Library of Mechitarists in Venice]",
American Journal of Theology, 1 (1897), 424-442, and Robert Murray,”Mary, the Second Eve in the Early Syriac Fathers",
Eastern Churches Review, 3 (1971), 372-384.
(Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, 2008, p. 25, fn. 99)
• [Protoevangelium Iacobi] Conception through Mary's Ear from the Protoevangelium of James [dated] 145 AD
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James>
• [Glessner] The notion of Mary’s conception through her ear (the conceptio per aurem) is common in late
antiquity and medieval sources, whether Syriac, Greek, or Latin. Cf. Armenian Gospel of the Infancy 5.9:”At that very
moment when this word was spoken, as the holy Virgin consented, God the Word penetrated through her ear...And she
became a holy and undefiled temple and a dwelling place for his divinity. And at the same time began the pregnancy of
Mary.”Translation by Abraham Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with Three Early Versions of the
Protoevangelium of James. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
(Glessner, The Makings of an Average Joe Gender, 2017, p. 164, fn. 53)
• [Terian] Another good witness to early Syriac Infancy traditions known in Armenian is the “Panegyric Recited on
the Birth of Christ” by Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373), which survives in Armenian translation only. (fn. 45. Srboyn
Ep'remi Matenagrut'iwnk'“The Works of Saint Ephrem", 4 vols. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1836, iv. 9-34.) A substantial part of
this panegyrical homily, like some of Ephrem's”Hymns on the Nativity", (fn. 46. Kathleen E. McVey tr., Ephrem the Syrian:
Hymns, Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1989, 63-217.) follows the rubrics of the Infancy
Gospel: the prolonged dialogue between Mary and the angel at the time of annunciation (pp. 14-18); the notion that the
conception of Mary was through her ear, as of the moment she consented to the divine will (p. 19); Joseph's protracted
suspicion of Mary's pregnancy (pp. 22-25); and the joint adoration of the infant Christ by the shepherds and the angels in the cave (pp. 30-31). Conybeare dwells on the notion of the”conceptio per aurem”[conception by way of ear] in
Ephrem's panegyrical homily as evidence of the Syriac origin of our gospel. (fn. 47. Though the notion of the
Virgin's conception through her ear was probably of Syriac origin, it was known also among the Greek Fathers,
as Conybeare goes on to refer to two instances in Pseudo-Athanasius Quaestiones Aliae Migne PG, 28.789... )
That the notion is - in all likelihood - of Syriac derivation, is suggested also by Murray. (fn. 48. Robert Murray, Mary, the
Second Eve in the Early Syriac Fathers, Eastern Churches Review, 3, 1971, 372-384.) There must have been a rich
Syriac tradition of Marian or Infancy narratives out of which cycle derives the various Arabic Infancy Gospels as well,
hence the occasionally observed affinities between these and the Armenian version. (Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the
Infancy, 2008, p. xxv.)
● [Quaestiones Aliae : Question 18] But listen to another mystery related to this. In the way that a house, shut in
on all sides, has towards the east a small window of pure and thin glass, and when the sun is rising its rays are
penetrating the glass and they are getting into the whole house and are lighting it up; and again when the sun is
leaving and of his rays coming out, the glass does not get broken, bur remains unhurt by their impact as they
pass in and out, the [PAGE 14] same way you should understand about the ever-virgin Mary. She herself
wholly pure [or, chaste], like a house shut up all round, the Son and Word of God like a divine ray
descended from the Sun of Justice, the Father, and entered in through the small glass window of her
ears, and lighted up her most holy house [or, abode], and again as he knows, he went out without her virginity
having been in the least impaired; but as before the birth, so during the birth and after the birth he preserved her
pure [or, chaste] virgin.
(Quaestiones Aliae. 18; Migne Graeca, PG 28.789; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’ Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 14-15)
Quaestiones Aliae : Quote from an Early Syriac Liturgy : “As it is written: ‘where God so wills the order of nature is
overcome.’” (Greek: Θεοῦ δέ· ὅπου γὰρ βούλεται Θεὸς, νικᾶται φύσεως τάξις·)
● [Quaestiones Aliae : Question 19] And how is it possible for a virgin to give birth to flesh and still remain a
virgin? This seems wonderful and wholly remarkable to us; we beg you to teach us about it. Answer: Even though
we consider it wonderful, it isn’t a man’s work, but God’s; and in whatever God is willing, the natural order is
overcome;
(Quaestiones Aliae. 19; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of
Pseudo-Athanasius’ Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 14)
○ Greek: Ἐρώτ. ιθʹ. Καὶ πῶς ἦν δυνατὸν σάρκα παρθένον (10) γεννῆσαι, καὶ πάλιν μένειν παρθένον; καὶ
τοῦτο θαυμαστὸν ἡμῖν καὶ πάνυ ἐξαίσιον φαίνεται· δίδαξον ἡμᾶς καὶ περὶ τούτου, δεόμεθα. Ἀπόκ. Εἰ καὶ
θαυμαστὸν ἡμῖν δοκεῖ τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἔργον, Θεοῦ δέ· ὅπου γὰρ βούλεται (15) Θεὸς,
νικᾶται φύσεως τάξις· (Quaestiones Aliae. XIX; Migne Graeca, PG 28.790)
• [Translator Archimandrite Ephrem Lash] This sentence [for wherever God wills...] is frequent in the liturgical texts.
In the second Kathisma for Christmas Matins it is given as a quotation,”But as it is written: ‘where God so wills
the order of nature is overcome.’”But what is the source? It occurs in inauthentic texts attributed to St Athanasios (296-
373 AD) and St John Chrysostom (349-407 AD) and in St John Damascene’s (676-749 AD) Sacra Parallela. Athanasios
Quaestiones aliae [spur.], Response 19 [PG 28:792, line 15-16]. Cf. Sermon on the Nativity [Sp.], [PG 28: 960, line 28].
Chrysostom On the Nativity [dub.], [PG 56: 385, line 33]. John Damascene Sacra Parallela, [PG 95:1265, line 19]. In the
first passage from Athanasios the text appears to be a citation.
(fn. 5, St. Ephraim the Syrian, On the Holy
Transfiguration; Translated by Archimandrite Ephrem Lash. <www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/08/homily-ontransfiguration-of-christ-st_6.html>)
• Archimandrite Ephrem Lash (1933 - March 14, 2016) was
HITS:
● [Quaestiones Aliae 4 : “in heaven” “in earth”] ...And, again, you should answer this way: On the sun the disk,
the ray and the light are inseparable; they are not separated from each other, and for this reason is said that God
is one and not three; because they are not separated the three persons (lit. faces)—Father’s, Son’s and Holy
Spirit’s— of the one God from each other. In the way that the solar disk begets the ray and sends out (or,
proceeds) the light, the same also the God and Father begets the Son and proceeds (or, sends out) the holy
Spirit. And see intelligibly: in the way that sun’s ray comes down from heaven on earth and neither is
separated from the solar disk nor is missing from heaven and also from earth, but it is [in the same time]
at the solar disk and at heaven and on earth and everywhere, and is not missing neither from the things
above nor at the things below; the same also the Son and Word of God came down to earth, and he was
not missing from the Father, neither from heaven nor from earth; but he was [in the same time] at Father’s
bosom unseparated, and up and down and everywhere; and he was not missing from anyone. And in the
way the solar light is [in the same time] at the solar disk and at the ray and also at heaven and earth and gets
into the houses and everywhere and illuminates;
(Quaestiones Aliae 4; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 3)
○ Greek: Καὶ πάλιν εἰπὲ οὕτως· Ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀχώριστος ὁ δίσκος, καὶ ἡ ἀκτὶς, καὶ τὸ φῶς· οὐ γὰρ
χωρίζονται ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων, διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται καὶ εἷς Θεὸς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς· διότι οὐ χωρίζονται τὰ τρία
πρόσωπα, τοῦ τε Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, τοῦ ἑνὸς Θεοῦ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων. Καὶ
ὥσπερ ὁ δίσκος ὁ ἡλιακὸς γεννᾷ τὴν ἀκτῖνα, καὶ ἐκπορεύει τὸ φῶς· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ γεννᾷ τὸν
Υἱὸν καὶ ἐκπορεύει καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Βλέπε συνετῶς· Ὥσπερ ἡ ἀκτὶς τοῦ ἡλίου καταβαίνει ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ πρὸς τὴν γῆν, καὶ οὔτε τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ δίσκου χωρίζεται, οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ λείπει, οὔτε
ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, ἀλλ’ ἔστι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἡλιακῷ δίσκῳ, καὶ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, καὶ πανταχοῦ, καὶ
οὔτε τῶν ἄνω λείπει, οὔτε τῶν κάτω· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ κατῆλθε πρὸς τὴν γῆν,
καὶ οὔτε ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἔλειπε, οὔτε ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὔτε ἐκ τῆς γῆς· ἀλλ’ ἦν καὶ ἐν τοῖς κόλποις
τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀχώριστος, καὶ ἄνω καὶ κάτω, καὶ πανταχοῦ· καὶ οὐδ’ ἔκ τινος ἔλειπε. Καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ
ἡλιακὸν φῶς ἐστι καὶ ἐν τῷ δίσκῳ τῷ ἡλιακῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀκτῖνι, καὶ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, καὶ
εἰσέρχεται ἐν ταῖς οἰκίαις καὶ πανταχοῦ, καὶ φωτίζει· (Quaestiones Aliae 4; Migne Graeca, PG 28.775)
● [Quaestiones Aliae 4] And just as the soul is invisible, the same way is also God invisible. And you when you
doubt in your mind this way by saying ‘how is God one and is he is also tri-hypostatic? you should remember your
soul and say: ”Just as my soul is one but also tri-hypostatic — soul, logos and breath; so also God is one but is
also tri-hypostatic — Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.” And say in your mind that”if the soul, the creature of God,
and similarly, the sun, is tri-hypostatic and their nature is one, how much more God, the creator of them?”Isn’t to
be admitted that it is so, so that he is one as regards his nature and tri-hypostatic as regards his persons? And it
is truly admitted so. Just as the soul, logos and breath are three persons and the nature of the soul is one and not
three souls; the same way Father, Word and Holy Spirit are three persons, but one God as regards the
nature, not three gods. If you always think this way, you will never blaspheme about the holy Trinity.
(Quaestiones Aliae 4; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s
Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 5-6)
○ Greek: Καὶ καθάπερ ἀόρατος ἡ ψυχὴ, οὕτως ἀόρατος καὶ ὁ Θεός. Καὶ οὕτως ὅταν διστάζεις ἐν τῷ νοΐ
σου, καὶ λέγεις, πῶς ἔνι ὁ Θεὸς εἷς, καὶ ἔνι καὶ τρισυπόστατος; ἐνθυμοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς σου, καὶ λέγε· Ὥσπερ
ἡ ψυχή μου (20) μία ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρισυπόστατος, ψυχὴ, λόγος, καὶ πνοή· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν,
ἀλλ’ ἔστι καὶ τρισυπόστατος, Πατὴρ, Λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Καὶ λέγε ἐν τῷ νοΐ σου, ὅτι, ἐὰν ἡ
ψυχὴ, τὸ ποίημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ ἥλιος, ἐστὶ τρισυπόστατος, ἡ δὲ (25) φύσις αὐτῶν μία· πόσῳ
μᾶλλον ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ποιητὴς τούτων! Οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τὸ εἶναι οὕτως, ὥστε εἶναι αὐτὸν ἕνα τῇ φύσει, καὶ
τρισυπόστατον τοῖς προσώποις; καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐνδέχεται. Ὡς γὰρ ψυχὴ, λόγος καὶ πνοὴ τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ
μία φύσις ψυχῆς, καὶ (30) οὐ τρεῖς ψυχαί· οὕτω Πατὴρ, Λόγος καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ
εἷς τῇ φύσει Θεὸς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς θεοί. Οὕτως ἐὰν συλλογίζῃ πάντοτε, οὐ μὴ βλασφημήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας
Τριάδος. (Quaestiones Aliae 4; Migne Graeca, PG 28.780)
Quaestiones Aliae :”Question & Answer Genre”[Erotapokriseis]
• [Papadoyannakis : Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis] In this contribution I would like to discuss and
problematize the literary process of instruction by question and answer. This process is integral to a very littlestudied
body of literature, that of the question-and-answer or otherwise known as erotapokriseis in late antiquity
but also to the literary form of dialogue. Despite its enormous popularity in late antiquity there is—with few exceptions
[1] —no recent, systematic discussion of this literature and more importantly of the literary process that informs it. To say nothing of the fact that some important texts have neither been properly edited much less translated into any modern language. This is all the more surprising since in the late antique and Byzantine literature the question and answer collections became one of the most preferred means of organizing and imparting knowledge in a number of such fields as: medicine [2], grammar, philosophy, theology, law. ...The literary form of erotapokriseis was adopted and adapted at a fairly early stage by Christians. Origen and Eusebius—to name but a few—made extensive use of this form. [13] The loose structure and the add-on nature of this literary form account, in part, for the diverse material that they include. Ps. Justin’s Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos (hereafter QRO) is a case in point. [14] In contrast to earlier collections, the QRO are concerned not with the continuous exposition of a single text, but with relatively short and selfcontained sections of argument which need to be put in their context in ancient discussions generally. ...Rather than aiming to ‘breathe some life into tiresome, pedantic patristic florilegia of proof-texts’ we have to see the erotapokriseis and dialogue literature as a”discursive matrix”[34] intimately associated with—but not confined to—the rhetorical exercises and the schoolroom. As such it allows the discussion of a broad array of questions which are given different degrees of focus.
...From the discussion above, it has become apparent that the process of instruction by question and answer was used
not only to refute but also to convey knowledge organized in various degrees of complexity. On account of this it is worth asking how this didacticism affects and is affected by the wider phenomenon of the organization of different types of knowledge in late antiquity and Byzantium as in many cases later collections compile and recompile questions (aporiai) giving different answers adding, modifying or giving new answers.
(Papadoyannakis, “Instruction by Question and
Answer: The Case of Late Antique and Byzantine Erotapokriseis", chs.harvard.edu. Accessed: 25 January 2020.)
• From the New Testament to the Council of Ephesus 430 AD. John Chrysostom, writing before the Council of
Ephesus and generally innocent of pious devotion to Mary, nevertheless coached his congregation in a series of
similar argumentative stances: When the Jews ask you, 'How did the Virgin give birth?' Say to him...”[PAGE 279] The value of these intriguing proposals... (fn. 19. ...Ps.-Athanasius, Quaestiones Aliae, 19 who finds an analogy for the virgin birth in the notion that the 'eyes of certain molluscs,' when 'illuminated by flashes of lightning,' are subsequently
'transformed into pearls' PG 28.792A)
(Proclus, and Nicholas Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity, 2003, p. 278, 279)
Quaestiones Aliae Quoted and Ascribed to Athanasius in Eastern Orthdox Confession of 1643 AD
• The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church [124] was originally drawn up about the
year 1640 by Peter Mogilas (or Mogila), Metropolitan of Kieff, and father of Russian theology (died 1647), in the form of a Catechism for the benefit of the Russian Church. [125] It was revised and adopted by a Provincial Synod at Kieff for
Russia, then again corrected and purged by a Synod of the Greek and Russian clergy at Jassy, in 1643, where it received
its present shape by Meletius Syriga, or Striga, the Metropolitan of Nicæa, and exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
As thus improved, it was sent to, and signed by, the four Eastern Patriarchs. The Synod of Jerusalem gave it a new
sanction in 1672 (declaring it a homologia, hen edexato kai dechetai hapaxaplos pasa he anatolike ekklesia). In
this way it became the Creed of the entire Greek and Russian Church. It has been the basis of several later
Catechisms prepared by Russian divines. The Orthodox Confession was a defensive measure against Romanism and
Protestantism. It is directed, first, against the Jesuits who, under the protection of the French ambassadors in
Constantinople, labored to reconcile the Greek Church with the Pope; and, secondly, against the Calvinistic movement,
headed by Cyril Lucar, and continued after his death. [126] It is preceded by a historical account of its composition
and publication, a pastoral letter of Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, dated Nov.20, 1662; and by a letter of
endorsement of the Greek text from Parthenius, Patriarch of Constantinople, dated March 11, 1643, [127] followed
by the signatures of twenty-six Patriarchs and prelates of the Eastern Church.
("The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church. A.D. 1643”in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol 1, 1877, p. 58-59)
● Question 69. What is the eighth Article of the Faith? Answer. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of
Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who
spake by the Prophets.
● Question 71. What is the second Thing taught in this Article? Answer. That the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the
Father Only, as from the Fountain and Original of his Divinity; as our Saviour himself teacheth us (John xv. 26),
When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father; the Spirit of Truth, which Proceedeth
from the Father. The same Doctrine St. Athanasius lays down in his Creed,”The Holy Ghost is of the Father,
not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”And elsewhere in his works (Holy Questions, vol. ii.
43, &c.),”God and Father, he only is the Cause of the other two, and unbegotten. The Son, begotten, and
sprung from the Father only, the Cause of his Origin. The Holy Ghost himself also springs and proceeds
only from the Father, as his Cause, and by the Son was sent into the World.”[See: Quaestiones Aliae 4;
Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae,
2019, p. 4] And Gregory the Divine sayeth (Homily V. of Divinity and of the Holy Ghost), “The Holy Ghost, who
proceedeth from the Father, is uncreated, as being Proceeding ; as being unbegotten, he is not the Son ; but as
being between unbegotten and begotten, he is God.”We have already treated of this Matter at large in the First
Article. Let it, therefore, suffice us that we hold what Christ himself taught ; what the Catholic and Orthodox
Eastern Church believeth and altogether professed in the Second General Council ; and let us hold the Faith
without Addition, and from the Son, as the Church hath commanded. Nay, not only the Orthodox and Catholic
Eastern Church hath passed a heavy censure on those who add these Words, but also the Western Roman
Church. This is evident from the two Silver Tables, on one of which the Creed was engraved in Greek, and on
the other in Latin, without this Addition,”And from The Son"; which Tables were, by order of Leo the Third, Pope
of Boine, affixt up in St. Peters Church, in the Year of our Lord 809, as Baronius confesseth. Whosoever,
therefore, continues firm and constant in this Faith, he may have undoubting Hope of his Salvation, as one who
turneth not aside from the Doctrine of the Church.
(Mohyla, The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and apostolic Eastern Church; Translated by J.J. Overbeck, 1898, p. 58-59)
○ Greek:
■ Ἐρώτησις ξθʹ. Πῶς εἶναι τὸ ὄγδοον ἄρθρον τῆς πίστεως; Ἀπ. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα, τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ
κύρον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον· τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ
συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν Προφητῶν.
■ Ἐρώτησις οά. Ποῖον εἶναι τὸ δεύτερον, ὅπου διδάσκει τὸ ἄρθρον τοῦτο; Ὰπ. Διδάσκει πῶς τὸ
Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς πηγῆς καὶ ἀρχῆς τῆς θεότητος · διὰ τὸ
ὁποῖον ὁ αὐτὸς Σωτὴρ μᾶς διδάσκει (Ἰωαν. ιέ. κςʹ.) λέγων · ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ Παράκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ
πέμψω ὐμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. Τὴν
διδασκαλίαν ταύτην τὴν ἐρμηνεύει ὁ ἱερὸς Ἀθανάσιος εἰς τὸ σύμβολόν του· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ
ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐ πεποιημένον, οὔτε δεδημιουργημένον, οὔτε γεγεννημένον· ἀλλ᾿
ἐκπορευτόν. Ὁ Θεὸς (ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀθανάς. ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἐρωτήσεσι. δʹ.) καὶ Πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μόνος
ἐστὶν αἴτιος τοῖς δυσὶ καὶ ἀγέννητος· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸς, καὶ
γεννητός· καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸν καὶ ἐκπορευτὸν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ
Υἱοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἀποστελλόμενον. [Quaestiones Aliae; Migne Graeca PG 28.777C] Καὶ ὁ
θεολόγος Γρηγόριος (λόγ. έ. περὶ θεολογίας) οὕτω φησί· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς
ἐκπορεύεται, ὃ καθ᾿ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ οὐ γεννητὸν, οὐχ
Υἱὸς · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, Θεός. Περὶ τούτου εἴρηται πλατύτερον εἰς τὸ
πρῶτον ἄρθρον · φθάνει λοιπὸν τῶρα νὰ κρατοῦμεν βέβαιον καὶ νὰ πιστεύωμεν ἐκεῖνο, ὅπου ὁ
Χριστὸς μᾶς ἐδίδαξε, καὶ ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ὀρθόδοξος πιστεύει, καὶ
ὡμολόγησεν εἰς τὴν δευτέραν οἰκουμενικὴν σύνοδον καὶ ἐκύρωσε τὸ σύμβολον χωρὶς τῆς
προσθήκης· καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καὶ ἐναντίον ἐκείνων, ὅπου ἐπροσθέσασι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον καὶ ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἔκαμεν ἐπιτίμησιν, ὄχι μόνον ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ ὀρθόδοξος καὶ καθολικὴ, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἡ δυτικὴ τῆς Ῥώμης· τὸ ὁποῖον διαμαρτύρονται δύο πίνακαις ἀργυραῖ, εἰς τὰς ὁποίας ᾖτον
γεγραμμένον τὸ ἱερὸν σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως Ἑλληνιστὶ εἰς τὴν μίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Λατινιστὶ,
χωρὶς τὴν πρόσθεσιν τούτου τοῦ μέρους καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ· αἱ ὁποῖαι μὲ πρόσταγμα τοῦ Πάπα
Ῥώμης Λέοντος τρίτου ἐκρέμαντο εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου, ἐν ἔτει Χριστοῦ ωθʹ. ὡς
φησὶ βαρώνιος. Διὰ τοῦτο ὅποιος στέκεται σταθερὸς καὶ βέβαιος εἰς τὴν πίστιν τούτην, ἔχει
βεβαίαν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας του, διατὶ δὲν παρεκκλίνει καθόλου ἀπὸ τὴν κοινὴν γνώμην τῆς
ἐκκλησίας.
("The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church. A.D. 1643”in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol 2, 1877, p. 349-350)
Quaestiones Aliae : Athanasian Trinitarian simile of the fire and light
• [Serle] ...Christ, according to the Nicene Creed, Is”Light of Light, of one substance with the Father.”Many of the fathers
who flourished when the Arian heresy was principally agitated, i.e. about the fourth century, frequently illustrated
the argument upon the Trinity by a similitude, sometimes taken from fire, and sometimes from the material sun.
Leontius Episcopus urged, that as (πῦρ, ἀπαύγασμα, φῶς) fire, splendour, light, were all essentially one in nature, though distinguishable into three several properties; so Father, Son, and Spirit, are three Persons in one indivisible Essence. Athnnasius, Ephreem Syrus, Cyril, and others, represented, that as the orb, light, and heat, make but one sun; so Father, Son, and Spirit, are but one God: and that, as the light and heat are coeval and coessential with the solar orb, yet easily distinguishable though indivisible from it; so the Son and Spirit are essentially and eternally, though not personally, One with the Father, forming an individual unity of Godhead. The Latin translator of Ephreem Syrus from the Syriac says, that Athanasius and others borrowed this simile from Theognostus [of Alexandria 210-270 AD], an ancient writer, who flourished before him. See much of these illustrations, collected by Suicerus, in his Thes. Eccles. in verb, τριας, ἀπανγασμα, ἡλιος. And also Asseman. Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. Tom. i. c. vi. Eait. Rom. 1719. (Serle, Horae Solitariae,
1842, p. 114)
• [Tzamalikos] Christians were of course always at pains to adumbrate [represent] Godhead as both one and threefold.
The theme of ἀμέριστος τριάς [impartible three : unable to separate the three persons], however, is an all too rare one. An unknown writer uses the same vocabulary, in order to adumbrate [represent] the Trinity as the Father (=sun) with
the Son (=beam) and the Holy Spirit (=light), who is”light from light".(fn. 338. Quaestiones Aliae, p. 777) Although
the Persons are spoken of as three, they actually make up one nature.
(Tzamalikos, A newly discovered Greek Father, 2012, p. 500)
• The simile occurs in the genuine Athanasian writing De decretis Nicaenae Synodi 23-24, ed. H.G. OPITZ,
Athanasius Werke, Vol. 2,1, Berlin 1940, pp. 19,10-20,29 = PG 27: 456C-457B). Cf. PS.-ATHANASIUS OF
ALEXANDRIA’s Quaestiones aliae (PG 28: 776B-777C). This is a simile ultimately inspired by Hebr. 3,2.
Quaestiones Aliae : Temptation of Satan : God deceived Satan with the Incarnation of the Son
• [Constas] A remarkable number of Greek patristic thinkers gave expression to the theory that Satan was
deceived by Christ, who exploited his adversary's mistaken belief that the object of his desires were mere man
and not the deity incarnate. Driven by an insatiable hunger for human bodies, the demonic appetite was inexorably
drawn to devour the seemingly mortal flesh of Jesus. That flesh, however, was but a seductive lure concealing the power
of divinity that brought Satan's downfall and even (in some traditions) his salvation. (p. 139) ...the notion of”divine
deception”is perhaps best known through the work of the fourth century bishop and theologian Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 AD), whose metaphor of the fishhook represents a decisive moment in his dramatic theory of atonement. According to this theory, Satan was initially deceived by the apparent ordinariness of Christ's humanity and unwittingly consumed his moral body in death. He [Satan] soon discovered, however, that he had been duped into biting off more than he could chew: Christ is divine, and therefore immortal, and the unexpected presence of the deity in the bowels of the underworld signaled the liberation of the dead from the forces of death and decay. (p. 143) ...the image of the fishhook baited with the flesh of Christ was used by dozens of writers from the mid-fourth century through the seventh centuries and beyond, including such notables as Athanasius, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and Maximus the
Confessor, to mention only a few. (p. 146) ...Another Pseudo-Athanasian text [Quaestiones Aliae], surrendering
unreservedly to the vertiginous [the feeling that everything is spinning around] currents of these typological
associations, hazards the following account of the divine strategy. ...In this stunning typological juxtaposition,
the devil becomes a serpent, coiled around a tree, in order to seduce Eve, in response to which the deity
becomes a worm writhing on the cross [Psalm 22:6”I am a worm and not a man”(LXX)], the tree of life, in order to
seduce the devil.
(Constas, The Last Temptation of Satan, 2004, p. 139, 143, 146, 155)
● [Quaestiones Aliae 20] ...God having again foreknowledge that the humanity could not alone by itself to prevail
without the divinity, it was hidden the divinity in this flesh, so that the devil, seeing the flesh and without knowing
that the divinity was hidden in this flesh, come and struggle with Christ and this way be defeated by the hidden
divinity. Which indeed happened. The way that the fisherman, willing to hunt a fish, does not put the hook
bare [i.e. without bait] in the sea, but clothes the hook with a worm from without by deception [lit. using a bait],
and this way he throws it, that is wearing the worm, to the sea; and the fish, seeing only the worm, and not
knowing that inside the worm there is a hook, but thinking that the worm is totally alone without a hook, deceived
he is caught by the hook; the same way Christ acted. As he was willing to hunt the poisonous fish that is dwelling
in the limitless waters of the abyss, or rather a great dragon the devil, he did not bring forth his divinity to the devil,
but by deception [lit. as a bait] the worm [that is,] his most holy flesh, which he wore without intermixing by the
Ever-virgin Mary, the most holy earth, according to what was said by the divine David:”I am a worm and not a
man,”he covered the most sacred hook his world-saving cross, that he was affixed to it, and by means of it to
keep unnoticed his own divinity, by which after this poisonous and biting-like-a-snake fish was deceived and
conquered, the great dragon the devil, the one who expelled from the paradise and killed the man, perished after
being defeated. This way the divinity is a type of the hook, while the humanity is a type of the worm. And
the Devil having seen from without what was human and having not understand that inside it was hidden
the divinity, he was deceived, and coming forth to the humanity, he was conquered by the incomparable
and invincible hook of the divinity; and this way the great dragon the devil was defeated.
(Quaestiones Aliae 20; Migne Graeca, PG 28.793; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of
Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae, 2019,p. 17-18)
Quaestiones Aliae : Unique Trinity Simile : Adam, Eve, Seth
• [Siecienski] The verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι ("to proceed out of") is used both in Scripture (Jn 15:26) and the Greek version of
the creed to speak about the coming forth of the Spirit (ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται). In other contexts it is used to
signify a”coming out”or even a”going away”whereby the subject of the verb appears to leave its point of origin as a distinct entity. This might apply to a word coming forth from the mouth (Pr 3: 16), demons coming out of the possessed (Acts 19: 12) or water coming forth from the temple (Ez 47: 1, 8, 12). Although in Greek patristic thought it is usually reserved to the procession of the Holy Spirit, Pseudo-Athanasius [quaestiones Aliae 15, PG 28.785] and John of Damascus (650-754 AD) [De Fide orthodoxa, PG 94.817] also applied it to the creation of Eve, who came forth out of Adam's rib [Εὔα ἐκπορευτή]. (Siecienski, The Authenticity of Maximus the Confessor's Letter to Marinus, 2007, p. 214)
Quaestiones Aliae : Virgin Mary Conception Through Her Ear : Source Protoevangelium of James (145 AD)
• [Terian] The notion of Mary's conception through the ear is common in late antique and medieval sources,
whether Syriac, Greek, or Latin. Its origin, however, seems to be of Syriac derivation, as suggested by Frederick
C. Conybeare,”Protevangelium Iacobi. [From an Armenian Manuscript in the Library of Mechitarists in Venice]",
American Journal of Theology, 1 (1897), 424-442, and Robert Murray,”Mary, the Second Eve in the Early Syriac Fathers",
Eastern Churches Review, 3 (1971), 372-384.
(Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy, 2008, p. 25, fn. 99)
• [Protoevangelium Iacobi] Conception through Mary's Ear from the Protoevangelium of James [dated] 145 AD
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James>
• [Glessner] The notion of Mary’s conception through her ear (the conceptio per aurem) is common in late
antiquity and medieval sources, whether Syriac, Greek, or Latin. Cf. Armenian Gospel of the Infancy 5.9:”At that very
moment when this word was spoken, as the holy Virgin consented, God the Word penetrated through her ear...And she
became a holy and undefiled temple and a dwelling place for his divinity. And at the same time began the pregnancy of
Mary.”Translation by Abraham Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the Infancy with Three Early Versions of the
Protoevangelium of James. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
(Glessner, The Makings of an Average Joe Gender, 2017, p. 164, fn. 53)
• [Terian] Another good witness to early Syriac Infancy traditions known in Armenian is the “Panegyric Recited on
the Birth of Christ” by Ephrem the Syrian (d. 373), which survives in Armenian translation only. (fn. 45. Srboyn
Ep'remi Matenagrut'iwnk'“The Works of Saint Ephrem", 4 vols. Venice: S. Ghazar, 1836, iv. 9-34.) A substantial part of
this panegyrical homily, like some of Ephrem's”Hymns on the Nativity", (fn. 46. Kathleen E. McVey tr., Ephrem the Syrian:
Hymns, Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1989, 63-217.) follows the rubrics of the Infancy
Gospel: the prolonged dialogue between Mary and the angel at the time of annunciation (pp. 14-18); the notion that the
conception of Mary was through her ear, as of the moment she consented to the divine will (p. 19); Joseph's protracted
suspicion of Mary's pregnancy (pp. 22-25); and the joint adoration of the infant Christ by the shepherds and the angels in the cave (pp. 30-31). Conybeare dwells on the notion of the”conceptio per aurem”[conception by way of ear] in
Ephrem's panegyrical homily as evidence of the Syriac origin of our gospel. (fn. 47. Though the notion of the
Virgin's conception through her ear was probably of Syriac origin, it was known also among the Greek Fathers,
as Conybeare goes on to refer to two instances in Pseudo-Athanasius Quaestiones Aliae Migne PG, 28.789... )
That the notion is - in all likelihood - of Syriac derivation, is suggested also by Murray. (fn. 48. Robert Murray, Mary, the
Second Eve in the Early Syriac Fathers, Eastern Churches Review, 3, 1971, 372-384.) There must have been a rich
Syriac tradition of Marian or Infancy narratives out of which cycle derives the various Arabic Infancy Gospels as well,
hence the occasionally observed affinities between these and the Armenian version. (Terian, The Armenian Gospel of the
Infancy, 2008, p. xxv.)
● [Quaestiones Aliae : Question 18] But listen to another mystery related to this. In the way that a house, shut in
on all sides, has towards the east a small window of pure and thin glass, and when the sun is rising its rays are
penetrating the glass and they are getting into the whole house and are lighting it up; and again when the sun is
leaving and of his rays coming out, the glass does not get broken, bur remains unhurt by their impact as they
pass in and out, the [PAGE 14] same way you should understand about the ever-virgin Mary. She herself
wholly pure [or, chaste], like a house shut up all round, the Son and Word of God like a divine ray
descended from the Sun of Justice, the Father, and entered in through the small glass window of her
ears, and lighted up her most holy house [or, abode], and again as he knows, he went out without her virginity
having been in the least impaired; but as before the birth, so during the birth and after the birth he preserved her
pure [or, chaste] virgin.
(Quaestiones Aliae. 18; Migne Graeca, PG 28.789; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’ Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 14-15)
Quaestiones Aliae : Quote from an Early Syriac Liturgy : “As it is written: ‘where God so wills the order of nature is
overcome.’” (Greek: Θεοῦ δέ· ὅπου γὰρ βούλεται Θεὸς, νικᾶται φύσεως τάξις·)
● [Quaestiones Aliae : Question 19] And how is it possible for a virgin to give birth to flesh and still remain a
virgin? This seems wonderful and wholly remarkable to us; we beg you to teach us about it. Answer: Even though
we consider it wonderful, it isn’t a man’s work, but God’s; and in whatever God is willing, the natural order is
overcome;
(Quaestiones Aliae. 19; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of
Pseudo-Athanasius’ Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 14)
○ Greek: Ἐρώτ. ιθʹ. Καὶ πῶς ἦν δυνατὸν σάρκα παρθένον (10) γεννῆσαι, καὶ πάλιν μένειν παρθένον; καὶ
τοῦτο θαυμαστὸν ἡμῖν καὶ πάνυ ἐξαίσιον φαίνεται· δίδαξον ἡμᾶς καὶ περὶ τούτου, δεόμεθα. Ἀπόκ. Εἰ καὶ
θαυμαστὸν ἡμῖν δοκεῖ τοῦτο, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἔργον, Θεοῦ δέ· ὅπου γὰρ βούλεται (15) Θεὸς,
νικᾶται φύσεως τάξις· (Quaestiones Aliae. XIX; Migne Graeca, PG 28.790)
• [Translator Archimandrite Ephrem Lash] This sentence [for wherever God wills...] is frequent in the liturgical texts.
In the second Kathisma for Christmas Matins it is given as a quotation,”But as it is written: ‘where God so wills
the order of nature is overcome.’”But what is the source? It occurs in inauthentic texts attributed to St Athanasios (296-
373 AD) and St John Chrysostom (349-407 AD) and in St John Damascene’s (676-749 AD) Sacra Parallela. Athanasios
Quaestiones aliae [spur.], Response 19 [PG 28:792, line 15-16]. Cf. Sermon on the Nativity [Sp.], [PG 28: 960, line 28].
Chrysostom On the Nativity [dub.], [PG 56: 385, line 33]. John Damascene Sacra Parallela, [PG 95:1265, line 19]. In the
first passage from Athanasios the text appears to be a citation.
(fn. 5, St. Ephraim the Syrian, On the Holy
Transfiguration; Translated by Archimandrite Ephrem Lash. <www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/08/homily-ontransfiguration-of-christ-st_6.html>)
• Archimandrite Ephrem Lash (1933 - March 14, 2016) was
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Quaestiones Aliae : PAmherst 199 : Papyrus fragment from 6th or 7th century
• [Grenfell & Hunt] The following fragments of theological works, which we have been unable to identify, were all brought together with 191, 192, 193. …[Papyrus 199] CXCIX. Three fragments, the largest measuring 8 x 13.1 cm.,
containing on the recto some effaced cursive writing and on the verso parts of several lines in a large uncial
hand of the sixth or seventh century A.D.
(Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, 1900, vol 2, p. 203-204)
The Witness of God is Greater
Mike Ferrando Page 100
• [Robert Kraft : The Amherst Papyri] PAmherst 199 may include a proverbial saying found also in Athanasius,
John Chrysostom, and John of Damascus, to the effect that”Where God wills, the order of nature conquers.”(fn.
17. See (ps-)Athanasius, Quaestiones aliae [TLG 081 = MPG 28] 789.15)
(Kraft, The Amherst Papryi Revisited, 2002
<ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//amherstpap/info/PAmhInt.html> <ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//amherstpap/images/PAmh199.JPG>)
Quaestiones Aliae in Macarius Notaras of Corinth (1731-1805 AD)
• St. Macarius was born Michael Notaras in 1731 in Corinth, Greece, into the wealthy and influential family of
George Notaras of Corinth that traced itself back to the Senate of the Eastern Roman empire. He was educated in
sacred letters and Greek learning and, from his youth, showed signs that he did not incline towards worldly things and
lived with great piety, attended church services, and shunned activities of vanity. In 1764, upon the death of Abp.
Parthenios of Corinth, the people of Corinth recognized his holiness and elected him as their hierarch. Michael was
ordained into the Holy Orders wearing the clothing of a monk and was given the name Macarius, He was then
consecrated Archbishop of Corinth by Patr. Samuel I in Constantinople. In 1768, the Russo-Turkish War forced Abp.
Macarius to flee Corinth with his family and by the time he returned the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate had assigned a new archbishop for Corinth for diplomatic reasons. The Synod, however, gave to Abp. Macarius the right to serve anywhere he liked unhindered. He wandered to Chios and then Mount Athos where he became involved in the
Kollyvades movement, taking a strict stand on keeping the early Christian practices and ridding the Church of bad
innovations such as memorial services for the dead on Sundays. Finding the upheaval at Athos disappointing, Abp.
Macarius left for Chios and then Patmos. On Patmos, Macarius was attracted by the Holy Cave of the Revelation and
the Godly guarded Monastery of St. Christodoulos. There in 1782, with the permission of the Monastery of Saint
John, Abp. Macarius founded a hermitage with a small church to honor All the Saints on Mount of Koumana and
spent the next ten years. There he met Niphon of Chios, Gregory of Nisyros, and Athanasius of Armenia. In his
isolation, Macarius began copying, by hand, the codices and wrote a biography of St. Christodoulos. Finding
works of the Fathers of the Church in the monastery library, Macarius selected from them material for the
Philokalia that, later, he gave to St. Nicodemus the Athonite. (Macarius Notaras of Corinth. Orthodoxwiki.
<orthodoxwiki.org/Macarius_Notaras_of_Corinth>.)
● [Macarius Quotes Quaestiones Aliae] Who could give us an example that we can grasp with our senses so that
our dark mind is found in an adoration of this mystery. The Eastern Church fathers left to us many writings
like Athanasius:”listen about various and clear symbols regarding the Virgin who gave birth; remember that
Adam was a virgin when he begot [lit., gave birth] Eve; and he remained virgin, as he was beforehand. And in the
way that the virgin Adam begot and remained a virgin, this way also Virgin Mary, while virgin, gave birth to Christ,
and all the same she remained virgin.”
(Quaestions Aliae 19; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English Translation, 2019, p. 14)
○ Greek: Ποῖος νὰ μᾶς ἔδιδε σήμερον ἕνα παράδειγμα παχυλὸν καὶ αἰθητὸν διὰ νὰ ἕυρῃ τὸν σκοτεινόν μας
νοῦν καὶ πολυαμάρτητον, εἰς μίαν εὐλαβητικῲ προσκ́νησιν τούτου τοῦ μυστηρίου; μῦς ἄφησαν παλλὰ
γεγραμμένα οἱ θεόσοφοι διδάσκαλοι της Ἀνατολικῆς μας Ἐκκλησίας, καθὼς εἶναι καὶ ὁ πολύτλας
Ἀθανάσιος. ὁ ὁποῖος πρὶ τούτου τοῦ Μυστηρίου γράφες. «ἄκουσον περὶ τῆς γεννησάσης Παρθένου
ποικίλα καὶ ἐναργέστατα σύμβολα· μνήσθητι, ὅτι παρθένος ὢν ὁ Ἀδὰμ τὴν Εὔαν ἐγέννησε· καὶ πάλιν
παρθένος διέμεινε, καθάπερ τὸ πρότερον. Καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀδὰμ παρθένος ἐγέννησε καὶ παρθένος διέμεινε,
οὕτω καὶ ἡ Θεοτόκος Μαρία, παρθένος οὖσα, ἔτεκε τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ πάλιν παρθένος
διέμεινε.”
[Quaestiones Aliae 19; Migne Graeca PG 28.789B-C] (Macarius Notaras of Corinth,”Εὐαγγελική Σάλπιγξ”Gospel Trumpet, 1765, p. 141)
Quaestiones Aliae in an Unpublished Report to the Synod (1289 AD)
• [The Synod of 1289] At the very end of Codex Atheniensis 1217 (13th century), fol. 174r-176v, there is a document
addressed to the synod [of 1288] (fol. 174r) apparently connected with this controversy [“and through the Son”: Filioque
clause added to the Nicene creed] that in part was responsible for the later resignation of Gregory II of Cyprus (1289).
Although the document ["report"] bears no name and the end is missing, it is doubtless the work of the monk Mark, as the internal evidence indicates. (Papadakis, Gregory II of Cyprus and an Unpublished Report to the Synod, 1975, p. 234)
• Mark's “report” was a written personal retraction of his [previously condemned] commentary [on the
procession of the Holy Spirit] and a denunciation of his teacher the patriarch [Gregory II of Cyprus]. The text [of
the”report"] is clearly addressed to the bishops...”But, since the divine and holy synod has proscribed [condemned] the
commentary, I am first, to reject it with all my heart, and will give such proof of my rejection as you wish it to have.”[Mark's Report to the Synod, Section 2, 2002, Appendix II, p. 231] The bishops, in other words, demanded not only a retraction of the”commentary”but also proof of its rejection. The “report” is this proof. Since Gregory II of Cyprus is still referred to as”patriarch”in the text, it would appear that the synod's request and the writing of the”report”occurred before Gregory's resignation in June 1289. (Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium, 2002, p. 170)
● [Mark’s report] For the phrase”the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son”plainly denotes the unity
(conjoining) and equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the two casualties. But if someone said that the Father's
being Projector of the Holy Spirit through the Son is equivalent to procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father
through the Son, he would clearly teach that the unity and equality of the Son and Projector amounts to two
causes. For if “through the Son” is added to the causality, that is, the Holy Spirit, it clearly represents the
unity and equality of the two causalities;
[Quaestiones Aliae 11; Migne Graeca, PG 28.784] (Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium, 2002, p. 233).
○ Greek: ὅτι τὸ”διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον", τὸ συνημμένον καὶ ὁμότιμον
τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, τῶν δύο αἰτιατῶν, ἐναργῶς παριστάνει. εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἶναι τὸ διὰ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, πάντως τὸ συνημμένον καὶ ὁμότιμον τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ
τοῦ προβολέως ὡς δύο αἰτίων ἀριδήλως εἶναι διδάσκει. τὸ γὰρ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, εἰ μὲν προστεθῆ τῷ
αἰτιατῷ, ἤγουν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ, τὸ συνημμένον καὶ ὁμότιμον τῶν δύο αἰτιατῶν σαφῶς
παριστάνει.
(Papadakis, Gregory II of Cyprus and an Unpublished Report to the Synod, 1975, p. 239)
● Quaetiones Aliae : Question 11: About God, how many causes [lit. it-causes]? Answer: I speak about one
cause regarding God, and this is the Father. The Father himself gives birth to [or generates] the Son, and
proceeds also the Spirit. Thus, get to know that only the Father is cause [lit. he-cause]; but the Son is not
cause but the effect [or, the product of the cause]. Therefore, there is only one cause the Father, but there
are two effects: the Son and the Spirit.
(Quaestiones Aliae 11; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 10)
○ Greek: Ἐρώτ. ιαʹ. Ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πόσα αἴτια; Ἀπόκ. Ἓν αἴτιον ἐπὶ Θεοῦ λέγω, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ Πατήρ.
Αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Πατὴρ γεννᾷ τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ ἐκπορεύει καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα. Λοιπὸν γίνωσκε, ὅτι ὁ Πατὴρ μόνος
ἐστὶν αἴτιος· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς οὐκ ἔστιν αἴτιος, ἀλλ’ αἰτιατός. Ὥστε μὲν αἴτιός ἐστι μόνος ὁ Πατήρ· τὰ δὲ
αἰτιατὰ δύο, ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα.
(Quaestiones Aliae 11; Migne Graeca, PG 28.784)
• [Grenfell & Hunt] The following fragments of theological works, which we have been unable to identify, were all brought together with 191, 192, 193. …[Papyrus 199] CXCIX. Three fragments, the largest measuring 8 x 13.1 cm.,
containing on the recto some effaced cursive writing and on the verso parts of several lines in a large uncial
hand of the sixth or seventh century A.D.
(Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst Papyri, 1900, vol 2, p. 203-204)
The Witness of God is Greater
Mike Ferrando Page 100
• [Robert Kraft : The Amherst Papyri] PAmherst 199 may include a proverbial saying found also in Athanasius,
John Chrysostom, and John of Damascus, to the effect that”Where God wills, the order of nature conquers.”(fn.
17. See (ps-)Athanasius, Quaestiones aliae [TLG 081 = MPG 28] 789.15)
(Kraft, The Amherst Papryi Revisited, 2002
<ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//amherstpap/info/PAmhInt.html> <ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//amherstpap/images/PAmh199.JPG>)
Quaestiones Aliae in Macarius Notaras of Corinth (1731-1805 AD)
• St. Macarius was born Michael Notaras in 1731 in Corinth, Greece, into the wealthy and influential family of
George Notaras of Corinth that traced itself back to the Senate of the Eastern Roman empire. He was educated in
sacred letters and Greek learning and, from his youth, showed signs that he did not incline towards worldly things and
lived with great piety, attended church services, and shunned activities of vanity. In 1764, upon the death of Abp.
Parthenios of Corinth, the people of Corinth recognized his holiness and elected him as their hierarch. Michael was
ordained into the Holy Orders wearing the clothing of a monk and was given the name Macarius, He was then
consecrated Archbishop of Corinth by Patr. Samuel I in Constantinople. In 1768, the Russo-Turkish War forced Abp.
Macarius to flee Corinth with his family and by the time he returned the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Patriarchate had assigned a new archbishop for Corinth for diplomatic reasons. The Synod, however, gave to Abp. Macarius the right to serve anywhere he liked unhindered. He wandered to Chios and then Mount Athos where he became involved in the
Kollyvades movement, taking a strict stand on keeping the early Christian practices and ridding the Church of bad
innovations such as memorial services for the dead on Sundays. Finding the upheaval at Athos disappointing, Abp.
Macarius left for Chios and then Patmos. On Patmos, Macarius was attracted by the Holy Cave of the Revelation and
the Godly guarded Monastery of St. Christodoulos. There in 1782, with the permission of the Monastery of Saint
John, Abp. Macarius founded a hermitage with a small church to honor All the Saints on Mount of Koumana and
spent the next ten years. There he met Niphon of Chios, Gregory of Nisyros, and Athanasius of Armenia. In his
isolation, Macarius began copying, by hand, the codices and wrote a biography of St. Christodoulos. Finding
works of the Fathers of the Church in the monastery library, Macarius selected from them material for the
Philokalia that, later, he gave to St. Nicodemus the Athonite. (Macarius Notaras of Corinth. Orthodoxwiki.
<orthodoxwiki.org/Macarius_Notaras_of_Corinth>.)
● [Macarius Quotes Quaestiones Aliae] Who could give us an example that we can grasp with our senses so that
our dark mind is found in an adoration of this mystery. The Eastern Church fathers left to us many writings
like Athanasius:”listen about various and clear symbols regarding the Virgin who gave birth; remember that
Adam was a virgin when he begot [lit., gave birth] Eve; and he remained virgin, as he was beforehand. And in the
way that the virgin Adam begot and remained a virgin, this way also Virgin Mary, while virgin, gave birth to Christ,
and all the same she remained virgin.”
(Quaestions Aliae 19; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English Translation, 2019, p. 14)
○ Greek: Ποῖος νὰ μᾶς ἔδιδε σήμερον ἕνα παράδειγμα παχυλὸν καὶ αἰθητὸν διὰ νὰ ἕυρῃ τὸν σκοτεινόν μας
νοῦν καὶ πολυαμάρτητον, εἰς μίαν εὐλαβητικῲ προσκ́νησιν τούτου τοῦ μυστηρίου; μῦς ἄφησαν παλλὰ
γεγραμμένα οἱ θεόσοφοι διδάσκαλοι της Ἀνατολικῆς μας Ἐκκλησίας, καθὼς εἶναι καὶ ὁ πολύτλας
Ἀθανάσιος. ὁ ὁποῖος πρὶ τούτου τοῦ Μυστηρίου γράφες. «ἄκουσον περὶ τῆς γεννησάσης Παρθένου
ποικίλα καὶ ἐναργέστατα σύμβολα· μνήσθητι, ὅτι παρθένος ὢν ὁ Ἀδὰμ τὴν Εὔαν ἐγέννησε· καὶ πάλιν
παρθένος διέμεινε, καθάπερ τὸ πρότερον. Καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀδὰμ παρθένος ἐγέννησε καὶ παρθένος διέμεινε,
οὕτω καὶ ἡ Θεοτόκος Μαρία, παρθένος οὖσα, ἔτεκε τὸν Χριστὸν, καὶ πάλιν παρθένος
διέμεινε.”
[Quaestiones Aliae 19; Migne Graeca PG 28.789B-C] (Macarius Notaras of Corinth,”Εὐαγγελική Σάλπιγξ”Gospel Trumpet, 1765, p. 141)
Quaestiones Aliae in an Unpublished Report to the Synod (1289 AD)
• [The Synod of 1289] At the very end of Codex Atheniensis 1217 (13th century), fol. 174r-176v, there is a document
addressed to the synod [of 1288] (fol. 174r) apparently connected with this controversy [“and through the Son”: Filioque
clause added to the Nicene creed] that in part was responsible for the later resignation of Gregory II of Cyprus (1289).
Although the document ["report"] bears no name and the end is missing, it is doubtless the work of the monk Mark, as the internal evidence indicates. (Papadakis, Gregory II of Cyprus and an Unpublished Report to the Synod, 1975, p. 234)
• Mark's “report” was a written personal retraction of his [previously condemned] commentary [on the
procession of the Holy Spirit] and a denunciation of his teacher the patriarch [Gregory II of Cyprus]. The text [of
the”report"] is clearly addressed to the bishops...”But, since the divine and holy synod has proscribed [condemned] the
commentary, I am first, to reject it with all my heart, and will give such proof of my rejection as you wish it to have.”[Mark's Report to the Synod, Section 2, 2002, Appendix II, p. 231] The bishops, in other words, demanded not only a retraction of the”commentary”but also proof of its rejection. The “report” is this proof. Since Gregory II of Cyprus is still referred to as”patriarch”in the text, it would appear that the synod's request and the writing of the”report”occurred before Gregory's resignation in June 1289. (Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium, 2002, p. 170)
● [Mark’s report] For the phrase”the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son”plainly denotes the unity
(conjoining) and equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the two casualties. But if someone said that the Father's
being Projector of the Holy Spirit through the Son is equivalent to procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father
through the Son, he would clearly teach that the unity and equality of the Son and Projector amounts to two
causes. For if “through the Son” is added to the causality, that is, the Holy Spirit, it clearly represents the
unity and equality of the two causalities;
[Quaestiones Aliae 11; Migne Graeca, PG 28.784] (Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium, 2002, p. 233).
○ Greek: ὅτι τὸ”διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον", τὸ συνημμένον καὶ ὁμότιμον
τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, τῶν δύο αἰτιατῶν, ἐναργῶς παριστάνει. εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ εἶναι τὸ διὰ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, πάντως τὸ συνημμένον καὶ ὁμότιμον τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ
τοῦ προβολέως ὡς δύο αἰτίων ἀριδήλως εἶναι διδάσκει. τὸ γὰρ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, εἰ μὲν προστεθῆ τῷ
αἰτιατῷ, ἤγουν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ, τὸ συνημμένον καὶ ὁμότιμον τῶν δύο αἰτιατῶν σαφῶς
παριστάνει.
(Papadakis, Gregory II of Cyprus and an Unpublished Report to the Synod, 1975, p. 239)
● Quaetiones Aliae : Question 11: About God, how many causes [lit. it-causes]? Answer: I speak about one
cause regarding God, and this is the Father. The Father himself gives birth to [or generates] the Son, and
proceeds also the Spirit. Thus, get to know that only the Father is cause [lit. he-cause]; but the Son is not
cause but the effect [or, the product of the cause]. Therefore, there is only one cause the Father, but there
are two effects: the Son and the Spirit.
(Quaestiones Aliae 11; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 10)
○ Greek: Ἐρώτ. ιαʹ. Ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ πόσα αἴτια; Ἀπόκ. Ἓν αἴτιον ἐπὶ Θεοῦ λέγω, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ Πατήρ.
Αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ Πατὴρ γεννᾷ τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ ἐκπορεύει καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα. Λοιπὸν γίνωσκε, ὅτι ὁ Πατὴρ μόνος
ἐστὶν αἴτιος· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς οὐκ ἔστιν αἴτιος, ἀλλ’ αἰτιατός. Ὥστε μὲν αἴτιός ἐστι μόνος ὁ Πατήρ· τὰ δὲ
αἰτιατὰ δύο, ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα.
(Quaestiones Aliae 11; Migne Graeca, PG 28.784)
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Quaestiones Aliae 4 : Quoted In Confession & Ascribed to Athanasius
● Question 69. What is the eighth Article of the Faith? Answer. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord
and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets.
● Question 71. What is the second Thing taught in this Article? Answer. That the Holy Ghost
proceedeth from the Father Only, as from the Fountain and Original of his Divinity; as our Saviour
himself teacheth us (John xv. 26), When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father; the Spirit of Truth, which Proceedeth from the Father. The same Doctrine St. Athanasius
lays down in his Creed,”The Holy Ghost is of the Father, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding.”And elsewhere in his works (Holy Questions, vol. ii. 43, &c.),”God and Father, he
only is the Cause of the other two, and unbegotten. The Son, begotten, and sprung from the
Father only, the Cause of his Origin. The Holy Ghost himself also springs and proceeds only
from the Father, as his Cause, and by the Son was sent into the World.”[See: Quaestiones Aliae
4; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s
Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 4] And Gregory the Divine sayeth (Homily V. of Divinity and of the Holy
Ghost), ”The Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father, is uncreated, as being Proceeding ; as
being unbegotten, he is not the Son ; but as being between unbegotten and begotten, he is God.”We
have already treated of this Matter at large in the First Article. Let it, therefore, suffice us that we hold
what Christ himself taught ; what the Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Church believeth and altogether
professed in the Second General Council ; and let us hold the Faith without Addition, and from the
Son, as the Church hath commanded. Nay, not only the Orthodox and Catholic Eastern Church hath
passed a heavy censure on those who add these Words, but also the Western Roman Church. This is
evident from the two Silver Tables, on one of which the Creed was engraved in Greek, and on the
other in Latin, without this Addition,”And from The Son"; which Tables were, by order of Leo the Third,
Pope of Boine, affixt up in St. Peters Church, in the Year of our Lord 809, as Baronius confesseth.
Whosoever, therefore, continues firm and constant in this Faith, he may have undoubting Hope of his
Salvation, as one who turneth not aside from the Doctrine of the Church. (Mohyla, The Orthodox
Confession of the Catholic and apostolic Eastern Church; Translated by J.J. Overbeck, 1898, p. 58-59)
○ Greek:
■ Ἐρώτησις ξθʹ. Πῶς εἶναι τὸ ὄγδοον ἄρθρον τῆς πίστεως; Ἀπ. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα, τὸ
ἅγιον, τὸ κύρον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον· τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ
συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν Προφητῶν.
■ Ἐρώτησις οά. Ποῖον εἶναι τὸ δεύτερον, ὅπου διδάσκει τὸ ἄρθρον τοῦτο; Ὰπ. Διδάσκει
πῶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς πηγῆς καὶ ἀρχῆς τῆς
θεότητος · διὰ τὸ ὁποῖον ὁ αὐτὸς Σωτὴρ μᾶς διδάσκει (Ἰωαν. ιέ. κςʹ.) λέγων · ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ
Παράκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὐμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρὰ
τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. Τὴν διδασκαλίαν ταύτην τὴν ἐρμηνεύει ὁ ἱερὸς Ἀθανάσιος
εἰς τὸ σύμβολόν του· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐ πεποιημένον, οὔτε
δεδημιουργημένον, οὔτε γεγεννημένον· ἀλλ᾿ ἐκπορευτόν. Ὁ Θεὸς (ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀθανάς. ἐν
ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἐρωτήσεσι. δʹ.) καὶ Πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μόνος ἐστὶν αἴτιος τοῖς δυσὶ καὶ
ἀγέννητος· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸς, καὶ γεννητός· καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ
Πνεῦμα ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸν καὶ ἐκπορευτὸν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν τῷ
κόσμῳ ἀποστελλόμενον. [Quaestiones Aliae; Migne Graeca PG 28.777C] Καὶ ὁ
θεολόγος Γρηγόριος (λόγ. έ. περὶ θεολογίας) οὕτω φησί· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ
Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ὃ καθ᾿ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ οὐ
γεννητὸν, οὐχ Υἱὸς · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, Θεός. Περὶ τούτου
εἴρηται πλατύτερον εἰς τὸ πρῶτον ἄρθρον · φθάνει λοιπὸν τῶρα νὰ κρατοῦμεν βέβαιον
καὶ νὰ πιστεύωμεν ἐκεῖνο, ὅπου ὁ Χριστὸς μᾶς ἐδίδαξε, καὶ ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ
καθολικὴ καὶ ὀρθόδοξος πιστεύει, καὶ ὡμολόγησεν εἰς τὴν δευτέραν οἰκουμενικὴν
σύνοδον καὶ ἐκύρωσε τὸ σύμβολον χωρὶς τῆς προσθήκης· καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καὶ ἐναντίον
ἐκείνων, ὅπου ἐπροσθέσασι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἔκαμεν ἐπιτίμησιν, ὄχι
μόνον ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ ὀρθόδοξος καὶ καθολικὴ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ δυτικὴ τῆς Ῥώμης· τὸ
ὁποῖον διαμαρτύρονται δύο πίνακαις ἀργυραῖ, εἰς τὰς ὁποίας ᾖτον γεγραμμένον τὸ ἱερὸν
σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως Ἑλληνιστὶ εἰς τὴν μίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Λατινιστὶ, χωρὶς τὴν
πρόσθεσιν τούτου τοῦ μέρους καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ· αἱ ὁποῖαι μὲ πρόσταγμα τοῦ Πάπα
Ῥώμης Λέοντος τρίτου ἐκρέμαντο εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου, ἐν ἔτει Χριστοῦ
ωθʹ. ὡς φησὶ βαρώνιος. Διὰ τοῦτο ὅποιος στέκεται σταθερὸς καὶ βέβαιος εἰς τὴν πίστιν
τούτην, ἔχει βεβαίαν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας του, διατὶ δὲν παρεκκλίνει καθόλου ἀπὸ τὴν
κοινὴν γνώμην τῆς ἐκκλησίας.
("The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church. A.D. 1643”in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol 2, 1877, p. 349-350)
Panoplia
● Question 69. What is the eighth Article of the Faith? Answer. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord
and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified, who spake by the Prophets.
● Question 71. What is the second Thing taught in this Article? Answer. That the Holy Ghost
proceedeth from the Father Only, as from the Fountain and Original of his Divinity; as our Saviour
himself teacheth us (John xv. 26), When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father; the Spirit of Truth, which Proceedeth from the Father. The same Doctrine St. Athanasius
lays down in his Creed,”The Holy Ghost is of the Father, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but
proceeding.”And elsewhere in his works (Holy Questions, vol. ii. 43, &c.),”God and Father, he
only is the Cause of the other two, and unbegotten. The Son, begotten, and sprung from the
Father only, the Cause of his Origin. The Holy Ghost himself also springs and proceeds only
from the Father, as his Cause, and by the Son was sent into the World.”[See: Quaestiones Aliae
4; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Preliminary English translation of Pseudo-Athanasius’s
Quaestiones aliae, 2019, p. 4] And Gregory the Divine sayeth (Homily V. of Divinity and of the Holy
Ghost), ”The Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father, is uncreated, as being Proceeding ; as
being unbegotten, he is not the Son ; but as being between unbegotten and begotten, he is God.”We
have already treated of this Matter at large in the First Article. Let it, therefore, suffice us that we hold
what Christ himself taught ; what the Catholic and Orthodox Eastern Church believeth and altogether
professed in the Second General Council ; and let us hold the Faith without Addition, and from the
Son, as the Church hath commanded. Nay, not only the Orthodox and Catholic Eastern Church hath
passed a heavy censure on those who add these Words, but also the Western Roman Church. This is
evident from the two Silver Tables, on one of which the Creed was engraved in Greek, and on the
other in Latin, without this Addition,”And from The Son"; which Tables were, by order of Leo the Third,
Pope of Boine, affixt up in St. Peters Church, in the Year of our Lord 809, as Baronius confesseth.
Whosoever, therefore, continues firm and constant in this Faith, he may have undoubting Hope of his
Salvation, as one who turneth not aside from the Doctrine of the Church. (Mohyla, The Orthodox
Confession of the Catholic and apostolic Eastern Church; Translated by J.J. Overbeck, 1898, p. 58-59)
○ Greek:
■ Ἐρώτησις ξθʹ. Πῶς εἶναι τὸ ὄγδοον ἄρθρον τῆς πίστεως; Ἀπ. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα, τὸ
ἅγιον, τὸ κύρον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον· τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ
συμπροσκυνούμενον, καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν Προφητῶν.
■ Ἐρώτησις οά. Ποῖον εἶναι τὸ δεύτερον, ὅπου διδάσκει τὸ ἄρθρον τοῦτο; Ὰπ. Διδάσκει
πῶς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς πηγῆς καὶ ἀρχῆς τῆς
θεότητος · διὰ τὸ ὁποῖον ὁ αὐτὸς Σωτὴρ μᾶς διδάσκει (Ἰωαν. ιέ. κςʹ.) λέγων · ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ
Παράκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὐμῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρὰ
τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. Τὴν διδασκαλίαν ταύτην τὴν ἐρμηνεύει ὁ ἱερὸς Ἀθανάσιος
εἰς τὸ σύμβολόν του· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, οὐ πεποιημένον, οὔτε
δεδημιουργημένον, οὔτε γεγεννημένον· ἀλλ᾿ ἐκπορευτόν. Ὁ Θεὸς (ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀθανάς. ἐν
ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἐρωτήσεσι. δʹ.) καὶ Πατὴρ, αὐτὸς μόνος ἐστὶν αἴτιος τοῖς δυσὶ καὶ
ἀγέννητος· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸς, καὶ γεννητός· καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ
Πνεῦμα ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτιατὸν καὶ ἐκπορευτὸν, διὰ δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἐν τῷ
κόσμῳ ἀποστελλόμενον. [Quaestiones Aliae; Migne Graeca PG 28.777C] Καὶ ὁ
θεολόγος Γρηγόριος (λόγ. έ. περὶ θεολογίας) οὕτω φησί· τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ
Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ὃ καθ᾿ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ οὐ
γεννητὸν, οὐχ Υἱὸς · καθ᾿ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, Θεός. Περὶ τούτου
εἴρηται πλατύτερον εἰς τὸ πρῶτον ἄρθρον · φθάνει λοιπὸν τῶρα νὰ κρατοῦμεν βέβαιον
καὶ νὰ πιστεύωμεν ἐκεῖνο, ὅπου ὁ Χριστὸς μᾶς ἐδίδαξε, καὶ ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ
καθολικὴ καὶ ὀρθόδοξος πιστεύει, καὶ ὡμολόγησεν εἰς τὴν δευτέραν οἰκουμενικὴν
σύνοδον καὶ ἐκύρωσε τὸ σύμβολον χωρὶς τῆς προσθήκης· καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Καὶ ἐναντίον
ἐκείνων, ὅπου ἐπροσθέσασι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, ἔκαμεν ἐπιτίμησιν, ὄχι
μόνον ἡ ἀνατολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἡ ὀρθόδοξος καὶ καθολικὴ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ δυτικὴ τῆς Ῥώμης· τὸ
ὁποῖον διαμαρτύρονται δύο πίνακαις ἀργυραῖ, εἰς τὰς ὁποίας ᾖτον γεγραμμένον τὸ ἱερὸν
σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως Ἑλληνιστὶ εἰς τὴν μίαν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἄλλην Λατινιστὶ, χωρὶς τὴν
πρόσθεσιν τούτου τοῦ μέρους καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ· αἱ ὁποῖαι μὲ πρόσταγμα τοῦ Πάπα
Ῥώμης Λέοντος τρίτου ἐκρέμαντο εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ ἁγίου Πέτρου, ἐν ἔτει Χριστοῦ
ωθʹ. ὡς φησὶ βαρώνιος. Διὰ τοῦτο ὅποιος στέκεται σταθερὸς καὶ βέβαιος εἰς τὴν πίστιν
τούτην, ἔχει βεβαίαν ἐλπίδα τῆς σωτηρίας του, διατὶ δὲν παρεκκλίνει καθόλου ἀπὸ τὴν
κοινὴν γνώμην τῆς ἐκκλησίας.
("The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church. A.D. 1643”in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol 2, 1877, p. 349-350)
Panoplia
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
● [Quaestiones Aliae 4] And just as the soul is invisible, the same way is also God invisible. And you when you
doubt in your mind this way by saying ‘how is God one and is he is also tri-hypostatic? you should remember your
soul and say: ”Just as my soul is one but also tri-hypostatic — soul, logos and breath; so also God is one but is
also tri-hypostatic — Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.” And say in your mind that”if the soul, the creature of God,
and similarly, the sun, is tri-hypostatic and their nature is one, how much more God, the creator of them?”
Quaestiones Aliae "Even as my soul is one, but a triune soul, reason, and breath; so also God is one, but is also triune, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost.... For as soul, reason and breath are three features, and in substance one soul, and not three souls; so Father, Word and Holy Ghost, [are] three persons, and one God in substance, and not three gods." (Translation by KJV Today)
doubt in your mind this way by saying ‘how is God one and is he is also tri-hypostatic? you should remember your
soul and say: ”Just as my soul is one but also tri-hypostatic — soul, logos and breath; so also God is one but is
also tri-hypostatic — Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.” And say in your mind that”if the soul, the creature of God,
and similarly, the sun, is tri-hypostatic and their nature is one, how much more God, the creator of them?”
Quaestiones Aliae "Even as my soul is one, but a triune soul, reason, and breath; so also God is one, but is also triune, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost.... For as soul, reason and breath are three features, and in substance one soul, and not three souls; so Father, Word and Holy Ghost, [are] three persons, and one God in substance, and not three gods." (Translation by KJV Today)