Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 12

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Didymus the Blind
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Vox Patrum
|
2008
|
vol. 52
|
issue 2
827-841
IT
II presente articolo e una breve presentazione dei nuovi elementi scoperti nella dissertazione dottorale: Christi anima apud Didymum Caecum, scritta interamente in latino nella Facolta di Lettere dell’Universita Pontificia Salesiana, nelPanno 2007. La novita della tesi e costituita da 4 punti fondamentali. Anzitutto la dottrina didimiana sull’anima del Salvatore e studiata alla luce di tutte le sue opere auten- tiche, inclusi i frammenti catenari. Poi la tesi tratta la questione della scienza umana di Cristo - argomento quasi mai finora studiato in Didimo. In terzo luogo viene criticamente discussa la tesi di R. Layton sulfambiguita didimiana nella valutazione della propatheia. Infine sono approfondite alcune questioni teologiche concernenti il nostro argomento: la funzione soteriologica delPanima di Cristo, 1’unita del Verbo Incarnato, la discesa di Gesil agli inferi. La dissertazione diventa cos! un contributo non solo alla storia della letteratura cristiana antica, ma anche alla storia del dogma cristologico.
EN
The article presents Didymus the Blind’s teaching on the Holy Spirit. It is to be noticed that continues and develops the principles of Saint Athanasius’ pneu­matology. Didymus rejects the opinion of the tropiko… that the Holy Spirit be­longs to the created beings. Didymus underlines that the Spirit is equal to the Son and the Father, and consequently He belongs to the Holy Trinity. The Spirit is holy, but He did not receive His holiness; He has wisdom, but he did not receive it from anybody; He knows everything without learning. There is no change in the nature of the Holy Spirit. Holiness and wisdom and other qualities belong to His nature. He possesses them eternally and He cannot lose them. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit possess the same substance within the Trinity, but their missions are different. The three Divine Persons operate together ad extra, i.e. outside of the Trinity for the salvation of the people.
FR
Artykuł przedstawia nauczanie Dydyma Ślepego o Duchu Świętym. Daje się zauważyć, że kontynuuje on i rozwija główne punkty pneumatologii św. Atanazego. Dydym odrzuca opinie tropików jakoby Duch Święty należał do stwo­rzenia i podkreśla, że jest On równy Ojcu i Synowi, i dlatego należy do Trójcy Świętej. Duch jest święty, ale nie otrzymał on świętości; posiada On wiedzę, ale jej nie otrzymał od nikogo, On wszystko wie, ale nie musiał niczego się uczyć. W naturze Ducha Świętego nie ma zmian. Świętość, wiedza i inne przymioty na­leżą do Jego natury; On posiada je odwiecznie i nie może ich utracić. Ojciec, Syn i Duch Święty posiadają tę samą substancję w Trójcy Świętej, ale każda z Osób ma inną misję do spełnienia. Trzy Osoby Boskie działają wspólnie ad extra, czyli na zewnątrz Trójcy Świętej dla zbawienia ludzi.
EN
The article presents the proper operation of the Holy Spirit within the Holy Trinity according to Didyme the Blind; because he lived and worked in Alexandria he is called sometimes Didyme of Alexandria. We have his treatise De Spiritu Sancto in Latin translation by Saint Jerome who adapted author’s terminology to the post-Nicaean theology. That diminishes its theological value. Didyme shows the operation of the Holy Spirit in the time of the Old Testament; he gave inspi­ration to the prophets, even if they ignored his existence as an individual being. When the prophets say: “the Lord said to me” they mean: the Holy Spirit. Didyme quoted some passages from the Bible concerning David and Isaiah as the men inspired by the Holy Spirit. Didyme of Alexandria underlines than the Holy Spirit helps to understand the Word of God; he completes the teaching of Christ; he grants wisdom to the faith­ful. The people enlightened by the Holy Spirit are able to understand the things with are not possible to understand only with purely human intellect. Following Origen, Didyme stresses that moral purity is required for receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit because he does not operate in the souls of the sinners. The Holy Spirit introduces the faithful into the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit not only makes the Christians able to understand God’s mysteries, but also he gives strength in difficult situations, as we can see it, for example in the life of Saint Stephen; he had wisdom for discussing with his adversaries and courage to die for Christ’s sake.
FR
Niniejszy artykuł dotyczy własnego działania Ducha Świętego, będącego w jedności z Ojcem i Synem. Dydym z Aleksandrii wykazuje na podstawie Pisma Świętego, że Duch Święty dawał natchnienie prorokom Starego Testamentu, na­wet, jeśli oni nie wiedzieli o Jego istnieniu jako indywidualnej istoty. Duch Święty udziela światła do lepszego zrozumienia Słowa Bożego, w tym sensie dopełnia On dzieła Chrystusa. Tych, którzy są odpowiednio przygotowani wewnętrznie Duch Święty wprowadza w tajemnicę Trójcy Świętej. Daje On także moc w trud­nych sytuacjach, jak to widzimy na przykładzie św. Szczepana, który posiadał dar mądrości w dyskusji z przeciwnikami oraz męstwo w złożeniu świadectwa wiary poprzez śmierć męczeńską.
EN
The article presents how three great Alexandrian writers (Clemens, Origen and Didymus the Blind) estimated possession of material wealth. The first of them in Quis dives salvetur? assures Alexandria’s rich Christians that they also can achieve salvation, although under certain circumstances. Clemens explains Jesus’ words to the rich young man: „Sell everything you have, and give to the poor” (Mk 10, 21) allegorically. This order means that the wealthy should remove from the heart attachment to material goods and extirpate all passions which are bound up with them. The author wonders rhetorically: Who will help the poor, if we all will be devoid of material goods? Clemens regards earthly riches as things which are in themselves indifferent (adiafora). Christians should use them in moderation and for God’s glory. Besides, they must look for the poor and help them. Origen, in his turn, first interprets literally the pericope of the rich young man (Mt 19, 16-26). Considering the question from the ascetic perspective, the great writer thinks that it’s impossible to reconcile riches with Christian perfec­tion. Origen accepts also the allegorical interpretation, according to which „pos­sessions” symbolize evil passions and deeds. However to him such explanation seems to be overdone. Besides, in his opinion, the man who didn’t give up his riches, will never be able to free himself from evil passions. Therefore, according to Origen, it’s hard for the wealthy to achieve salvation. That will be possible only thanks to God’s omnipotence. So Origen’s words could infuse worry and uncer­tainty into the rich. Didymus, the last teacher of the Alexandrian school, following the Stoics and Clemens, defines material goods as adiafora. He adds also that these aren’t goods in the proper sense. Moreover, the author admits that riches are a secondary gift of God. Obviously they are that, if one uses them as far as they are necessary. But the most important aspect is that Didymus emphasizes resolutely a positive potential of material wealth. By means of it one may help other people, includ­ing for example the support of the sage. Riches if used right – asserts the author following the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition – can contribute to moral virtue of their owner. This way material goods become an instrument through which one may merit eternal life. Surely with such rhetoric Didymus could impress the rich. We must admit that his stance was due to the historical context as well, since Christianity became in the IV century the official state religion. Its new condition certainly contributed to a more mature look at social and economic questions.
Vox Patrum
|
2008
|
vol. 52
|
issue 1
109-122
PL
Dydym w swoim biblijnym komentarzu do Zachariasza dość często mówi o Kościele. Aspekty, zgodnie z którymi zazwyczaj widzi Kościół, są następujące: 1. Jest to zgromadzenie Żydów, pogan i ludzi powołanych do jedności; 2. Kościół jest ciałem Chrystusa, który jest jego Głową; 3. Nazywa się ją Oblubienicą Chrystusa, bez plam i zmarszczek, jak powiedział św. Paweł; 4. Wreszcie Kościół według Dydyma jest olśniewającym Jeruzalem, w którym żyjemy i gdzie będziemy żyć.
EN
Wenn Origenes von der Existenz eines Geistes im Menschen spricht, der ais ein aus drei Elementen zusammengesetztes Wesen verstanden wird, begreift er ihn ais eine Gottes Gabe, ein góttliches Element, frei von Emotionseinflussen, das keiner Beurteilung und Strafe unterliegt. Ein Element, das sich von der Seele lóst, wenn diese das Bose veriibt. Es ist eine Quelle menschlichen Handelns, die ununterbro- chen eine Opposition zu der anderen Quelle menschlicher Aktivitat bildet, namlich zu dem Kórper.
EN
The subject of analysis are two biblical commentaries to the Book of the pro­phet Zechariah. First commentary is written by Didymus of Alexandria. The se­cond is the fruit of saint Jerome’s thought, prince of exegetes. Analysis of these two comments leads us to the conclusion of a very high resemblance of these works. Numerous fragments of a saint Jerome’s comment are convergent with those writ­ten by Didymus or are complementary to his interpretation. We get the impression, that Didymus determines the way, after which Jerome goes. Honestly speaking, despite some borrowings from Didymus, Jerome maintains a certain independence even in appreciation of literal interpretation of Scripture. Moreover, in many places he uses philological explanations or just supplements Didymus. We cannot forget, that Jerome asked Dydimus to write this commentary to the Zechariah prophet, and probably that’s why he allowed himself to use it, as he wished to.
EN
Das „da Sein in Ahnlichkeit Gottes" versteht Didymus ais Schritt in Richtung der Vollkommenheit. Seiner Meinung nach die „Ahnlichkeit", fur die das Bildnis „den Anfang bedeutet und der Einstieg ist", stellt das grósste Bild dar, das vom Bildnis viel genauer sei.
EN
The purpose of this paper is to present the content of the ancient commentaries on the Second and Third Epistles of Saint John the Apostle. These two short letters are some of the least read and commented on in the New Testament. The same, though perhaps even more so, can be said of the few ancient commentaries of these letters. Reading the works of Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, Bede the Venerable, Oecumenius or Hilary of Arles we notice that when commenting the Second and the Third Epistles of John they focused primarily on the circumstances of their creation and enquire as to the identity to whom the Epistles were addressed, and the identity of the other people mentioned in the text. However, their comments also include theological themes. Sometimes starting from seemingly unrelated theological passages in the Epistles, they dealt with theological themes more appropriate to their own time rather than to the apostolic time. Among such topics we can mention the parousia of Christ, the reality of His incarnation and the relationship of the Son of God with God the Father. Within this circle also remains the exegetes’ interest in the necessity of preserving the true faith and of dissociating themselves from heretics who distort it.
PL
Celem niniejszej pracy jest prezentacja oraz omówienie treści starożytnych komentarzy do Drugiego i Trzeciego Listu św. Jana. Te dwa krótkie listy należą do najrzadziej czytanych i komentowanych ksiąg Nowego Testamentu. To samo, choć może nawet w jeszcze większym stopniu można powiedzieć o nielicznych starożytnych komentarzach do tych listów. Czytając dzieła Klemensa Aleksandryjskiego, Dydyma Ślepego, Bedy Czcigodnego, Ekumeniusza czy też Hilarego z Arles, można zauważyć, że komentując Drugi i Trzeci List Janowy koncentrowali się oni przede wszystkim na okolicznościach ich powstania i dociekali, kto dokładnie jest ich adresatem oraz co można ustalić na temat tożsamości wymienionych w nich osób. W ich komentarzach nie brakuje jednak również tematów teologicznych. Wychodząc od czasem pozornie nie związanych w teologią fragmentów listów, poruszali tematy teologiczne właściwe bardziej ich czasom niż czasom apostolskim. Wśród takich tematów można wymienić paruzję Chrystusa, realność Jego wcielenia lub relację Syna Bożego i Boga Ojca. W kręgu zainteresowania egzegetów pozostaje również konieczność zachowywania prawdziwej wiary oraz odcięcia się od heretyków, którzy ją zniekształcają.
Verbum Vitae
|
2019
|
vol. 35
345-372
EN
From among the early Christian exegetical works treating the Book of Ecclesiastes, several  manuscripts, some of them fragmentary, have been preserved. These include: a few fragments of Origen’s commentary; a large part of the commentary written by Didymus the Blind; homilies of St Gregory of Nyssa; a short literary comment attributed to St John Chrysostom; a moderately allegorical commentary of St Jerome; and the commentary of Gregory of Agrigentum, bishop of Sicily from the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries. Analysis of the commentaries on Qoh 3:1-8 contained in the above-mentioned works reveals the dualistic character of patristic exegesis of the biblical passus in question, specifically its use of both universal and individual approaches. On the one hand, the authors refer the text of Qoh 1–3 to a universal understanding of time, i.e. the whole of salvation history and the related activities of Divine Providence guiding the course of the historical process. On the other hand, they interpret this passage in relation to the spiritual life of every Christian, his deep relationship with God, the process of internal improvement, the fight against vices and the acquisition of virtues. The two  dimensions of time interpenetrate each other: the individual path of man to perfection is at the same time part of God’s planned history of the salvation of humanity. Thus every action, both in the individual and the universal dimension, has its proper timing assigned by God.
PL
Z wczesnochrześcijańskich dzieł egezegetycznych dotyczących Księgi Eklezjastesa zachowały się nieliczne fragmenty komentarza Orygenesa, obszerna część komentarza Dydyma Ślepego, homilie św. Grzegorza z Nyssy, krótki komentarz literalny przypisywany św. Janowi Chryzostomowi, komentarz o charakterze umiarkowanie alegorycznym św. Hieronima i komentarz Grzegorza z Agrigentum, biskupa Sycylii z przełomu VI i VII wieku. Analiza zawartego w powyższych dziełach komentarza do wersetów Koh 3, 1-8 ujawnia dwojaki charakter patrystycznej egzegezy tego biblijnego tekstu: uniwersalny i indywidualny. Z jednej strony autorzy odnoszą tekst Koh 1-3 do czasu w wymiarze powszechnym, obejmującego historię zbawienia ludzkości i związanego z działalnością Opatrzności Bożej, czuwającej nad przebiegiem procesu dziejowego. Z drugiej strony interpretują ten passus w odniesieniu do życia duchowego każdego chrześcijanina, jego głębokiej relacji do Boga, procesu doskonalenia wewnętrznego, walki z wadami i nabywania cnót. Oba wymiary czasowe się przenikają: indywidualna droga człowieka do doskonałości wpisuje się w zaplanowane przez Boga dzieje zbawienia ludzkości. Każda czynność, zarówno w wymiarze indywidualnym, jak i uniwersalnym, ma swój właściwy czas wyznaczony przez Boga.
EN
Hoc in articulo de significatu vocabuiorum to soma, he sarks in anthropołogia Didymi Alexandrini in eiusdem Commentario in Genesin proposita tractatur
PL
Hoc in articulo de significatu vocabuiorum to soma, he sarks in anthropołogia Didymi Alexandrini in eiusdem Commentario in Genesin proposita tractatur.
EN
It is true that the Fathers of the Church before Augustine did not use the term „original sin”. However, in the writings of very many of them, both in the East and in the West, we do find a belief in the solidarity of all people with Adam or even in the unity of entire humanity in Adam. Talking about the first sin the Fathers use the expression „our” sin; they claim that „we” offended God in Adam, they admit that „we all” were in Adam’s loins when he committed the sin, and finally they straightforwardly claim that „all people” sinned in Adam. Some of them feel personally responsible for the offence committed in Paradise. Most of the Fathers, and perhaps even all of them, were convinced of real unity of entire humanity and they considered participation of all people in Adam’s sin as one of the aspects of that unity. The fall of the first man separated not only himself, but also all people from the communion with God, because every man somehow participated in that fall. And that is, after all, the very essence of the original sin.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.