Cyprian u Tymoteusza. Odwołania do decyzji synodalnych Cypriana z Kartaginy w polemice w Kościele Orientalnym w VIII wieku
Loading...
Date
2019
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Wydawnictwo KUL
Abstract
Analizowane teksty zaczerpnięte z Listów Tymoteusza I, patriarchy Bagdadu dotyczące jego sporu z Salomonem, biskupem Hedaty, o uznanie ważności chrztu udzielonego we wspólnotach niepozostających w łączności z Asyryjskim Kościołem Wschodu (sewerianie i melkici w starszej terminologii to monofizyci i ortodoksi), nie dają podstaw do mówienia o bliskich kontaktach chrześcijan orientalnych z chrześcijanami w Afryce. Znajomość kontrowersji, z którymi borykali się Afrykańczycy, jak i pism powstałych w tym kontekście w Afryce Prokonsularnej na Bliskim i Środkowym Wschodzie też nie dają podstaw do formułowania kategorycznych sądów. Jest faktem odwołanie do orzeczeń pochodzących zdaniem adwersarzy z Kartaginy. Prezentowane cytaty mogą jednak równie dobrze pochodzić z kolekcji prawnych, w których zbierano orzeczenia synodów bez wnikania w kontekst ich powstania, często mieszając kanony. Ten rodzaj zbiorów był rozpowszechniony w tym czasie i wiemy, że obaj, Tymoteusz i Salomon, mieli do nich dostęp. Zachowane kolekcje syryjskie z tego okresu nie mówią o analizowanych rozstrzygnięciach. Jedno jest pewne, dla obu dyskutantów, Tymoteusza i Salomona, mieszkających na terenie Mezopotamii w VIII wieku dziedzictwo synodów afrykańskich z III wieku jest dla nich ważne, a podjęte tam rozstrzygnięcia ich obowiązują. Czy odwołują się do rzeczywistych decyzji czy tylko tak uważają, może pozostawać kwestią dyskusji. Jednak świadomość wspólnej tradycji i łączności jest aksjomatem w toczonym sporze, jak i aksjomatem używanej argumentacji.
The analyzed texts, taken from the Letters of Timothy I, the patriarch of Baghdad, concerning his dispute with Solomon, the Bishop of Hedegaard, for the recognition of the validity of the baptism given in the communities not connected with the Assyrian Church of the East (Severians and Melkites, that is, in older terminology, monophysicists and orthodox), do not give grounds to talk about the close contacts of Oriental Christians with Christians in Africa. Knowledge of the controversies faced by Africans and the writings written in this context in pro-consular Africa in the Middle East and the Middle East does not give grounds to formulate the categorical judgments. It is a fact that there is a reference to the judgments of the Carthage Adversaries. However, the quotations presented here may well come from the legal collections where the decisions of synods were collected without going into the context of their origin, often mixing the canons. This kind of collection was widespread at that time and we know that both Timothy and Salamon had access to it. The preserved Syrian collections from that period do not mention the analyzed decisions. One thing is certain: for the two discussants, Timothy and Solomon, living in Mesopotamia in the 8th century, the legacy of the 3rd century African synods is their legacy, and the decisions made there are binding upon them. Whether they appeal to the real decisions, or whether they only think so, may remain a matter of discussion. However, the awareness of common tradition and communication is the axiom in the dispute and the axiom of the argumentation used.
The analyzed texts, taken from the Letters of Timothy I, the patriarch of Baghdad, concerning his dispute with Solomon, the Bishop of Hedegaard, for the recognition of the validity of the baptism given in the communities not connected with the Assyrian Church of the East (Severians and Melkites, that is, in older terminology, monophysicists and orthodox), do not give grounds to talk about the close contacts of Oriental Christians with Christians in Africa. Knowledge of the controversies faced by Africans and the writings written in this context in pro-consular Africa in the Middle East and the Middle East does not give grounds to formulate the categorical judgments. It is a fact that there is a reference to the judgments of the Carthage Adversaries. However, the quotations presented here may well come from the legal collections where the decisions of synods were collected without going into the context of their origin, often mixing the canons. This kind of collection was widespread at that time and we know that both Timothy and Salamon had access to it. The preserved Syrian collections from that period do not mention the analyzed decisions. One thing is certain: for the two discussants, Timothy and Solomon, living in Mesopotamia in the 8th century, the legacy of the 3rd century African synods is their legacy, and the decisions made there are binding upon them. Whether they appeal to the real decisions, or whether they only think so, may remain a matter of discussion. However, the awareness of common tradition and communication is the axiom in the dispute and the axiom of the argumentation used.
Description
Keywords
Tymoteusz I, Cyprian, synod w Kartaginie, synod w Laodycei, chrzest, Timoty I, Cyprian, synod of Carthage, synod of Laodicea, baptism
Citation
"Vox Patrum" 72 (2019), s. 121-130