The Third Eothinon
Two Sermons
|
RESTORE
By
Minister James Snapp, Jr. (2011)
http://www.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/MarkOne.htm
Mark
16:9-20 is supported by over 1,700 Greek manuscripts. It is also supported by
widespread evidence from writers in the early church, including writers who
wrote before the time when the earliest existing manuscripts of Mark 16 were
produced. But although the support for
including Mark 16:9-20 is abundant, widespread, and ancient, some
commentators have rejected these 12 verses, mainly because the text of Mark
16 ends at verse 8 in two important Greek manuscripts (Vaticanus from c. 325
and Sinaiticus from c. 350). This is due in part to a remarkably high level
of misinformation that has been spread about the passage. Very many
commentators, when writing about Mark 16:9-20, have basically repeated the
statements made by Dr Bruce Metzger in his 1971 book A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament. In the course
of rephrasing Metzger's statements, commentators have made all kinds of
distortions, exaggerations, and careless mistakes, with the result that their
readers have been seriously misinformed. For example, the ESV currently has a
heading-note before Mark 16:9 which says, “Some of the earliest manuscripts
do not include 16:9-20,” and a footnote says, “Some manuscripts end the book
with 16-.8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8.” Readers
should be aware that in that sentence, as far as the Greek evidence is
concerned, ‘Some' consists of just two manusccripts, and the 'Others’ consist
of over 1,700 manuscripts. The ESVs footnote is so vague that it is
misleading; readers would receive a very different impression if its wording
was more precise. Unfortunately, the vaguenesss that is in the ESV’s footnote
is also found in other major Bible translations, some of which also present
the “Shorter Ending” without mentioning that the Greek manuscript-support for
the Shorter Ending consists of only six manuscripts, all six of which also
contain at least part of the usual 12 verses. Many commentators, scholars,
and translators have overlooked important evidence pertaining to Mark
16:9-20, and have relied upon Metzger instead of looking into the evidence
for themselves. Because of this there is a real danger that they will remove
these verses from the text of the Gospel of Mark in the future. This has been
done previously: the first edition of the Revised Standard Version ended the
text of Mark at 16:8, and only retained verses 9-20 in a footnote. Dr. Daniel
Wallace (a Dallas Theological Seminary professor and a translator of the NET)
has suggested that the best policy would be to place the passage in a
footnote. Dr. Craig Blomberg (a Denver Seminary professor and a translator of
the NW) has conveyed that the passage has been kept in the text simply to
avoid a firestorm of protest. The external evidence against Mark 16:9-20 is
not as impressive as some Bible-footnotes make it seem. The two Greek
manuscripts in which Mark 16:8 is followed by nothing but the closing-title are
Codex Vaticanus (from c. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (from c. 350). These are
two heavyweight copies. But at the end of Mark they both contain unusual
features (completely unmentioned by Metzger) that lighten their usual weight.
Codex Vaticanus (B) does not contain Mark 16:9-20, but following Mark 16:8
and preceding Luke 1:1, it contains a prolonged blank space, including an
entire blank column. No other blank columns appear in the entire New
Testament in this manuscript. (Three prolonged blank spaces occur in the Old
Testament portion but, contrary to what has been claimed by Dr Wallace, all
three are accounted for by factors involved is the production of the
manuscript; they were not created thoughtfully, as is the case here at the
end of Mark.) The blank space after Mark 16:8 is not quite long enough to
contain verses 9-20 in the copyist's normal handwriting, but if a copyist
were to use compressed lettering, the entire passage would fit. It appears
that the copyist of Codex Vaticanus was copying from an exemplar
(master-copy) which did not contain verses 9-20, but he recollected them and
attempted to reserve space for those verses, in case the eventual owner of
the manuscript wished to include them. In Codex Sinaiticus (K), the four
pages that contain Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 were not written by the sante copyist
who produced the surrounding pages. All four of these pages, including the
page on which Mark ends, were made by someone else -probably the supervisor
proofreader at the place where the manuscript was made -before the pages were
sewn together. The pages that had been made by the main copyist were removed,
and new pages, beginning and ending at the same points, were added. Why’
Almost certainty, the four replaced pages made by the main copyist did not contain
Mark 16:9-20: each page of Mark in K has four columns; 16 columns on four
pages would not have been enough to contain Mark 14:54-16:20 and Luke 1:1-56
in the copyist's normal handwriting, and he would have had no obvious reason
to compress his lettering. Possibly the main copyist accidentally skipped
from the end of Luke 1:4 to the beginning of Luke 1:8, omitting verses 5-7,
and the supervisor decided that the best way to fix this mistake was to
replace the entire four-page sheet. But we can't know for certain. What we
can deduce, though, is very significant: the individual who made Sinaiticus’
replacement-pages was one of the copyists who made
|
PROCLAIM
By
Fr. Richard Demetrius Andrews (2010)
Two weeks ago, we began our series on the
Eleven Eothina, also known as the
Morning Orthros Gospel Readings. These Eleven gospel readings occur in
succession, one each Sunday, through a series of eleven weeks, and then the
cycle starts over again. All eleven are accounts of Jesus after He had risen
from the dead. Today’s Sunday Orthros gospel reading is the Third Eothinon, Mark 16:9-20. We must strive
to be daily readers of scripture. The bible should be the most worn,
well-remembered book on our shelf, bedside and/or altar at home. If we are
not, this passage may be unfamiliar to us. Besides being read about four or
fives times per year in the Sunday Orthros, the only other time this passage
is read in the liturgical services of the Orthodox Church is at the Orthros
of the Ascension of our Lord, forty days after Pascha/Easter. Non-Orthodox,
who know the Scriptures well, may not be familiar with this passage because
it does not appear in some recently discovered ancient manuscripts. Therefore
it has been excluded from some recent editions of the Bible. However, for the
Orthodox and most of Christendom the past 2,000 years, this passage is part
of the Canon of Scripture, recognized and blessed by the Church. Let’s take a
closer look at this passage and some of its messages to us. First, the
passage with Now when He rose. ‘He’
is Jesus and He rose on a Sunday. Sundays, not Mondays, were considered the
first day of the week. He appears first to Mary Magdalene. It is significant
that the first witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a woman. Why?
Because it was the women, not the men, who stayed with and followed Christ
throughout His arrest, trial, torture, and death on the Cross. It was the
women, not the Apostles, who went to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus. It
was the women who were faithful and courageous while the men hid because they
were afraid. Thus, Mary Magdalene represents all, not just women, who remain
strong in the faith despite the threat of ridicule and persecution. Secondly,
what is the first thing Mary Magdalene does after she sees the risen Christ?
She goes and tells the Apostles, the guys who were His closest followers,
associates and friends. Jesus then appears to two of them as they walked into
the country. These two were surely Cleopas and another disciple on the road
to Emmaeus. What is the first thing they do? They go and tell the Apostles.
So, we understand from these two examples that our experience of Christ is to
be shared. Whenever Christ reveals Himself to us, we are not to hide it. We
are not supposed to keep it to ourselves. We are to evangelize and share our
faith. A faith that is not lived and shared is a dead faith. Thirdly, what do
the Apostles do when they hear from Mary Magdalene and the two other
disciples? It says that they did not believe them. How often do we hear from
others about their experience of God appearing and working in their life? How
do we respond? ‘They’ve gone a little overboard. Yeah, when did they become
Jesus freaks?’ I was a little sad to hear that some people were dismayed with
KC Wolf, the Kansas City Chiefs mascot, who gave an inspirational speech to
the attendees of last week’s basketball tournament. Although different from
our own spiritual style, his talk was a sincere witness to Christ working in
and changing his life. I think we Orthodox have something to learn from our
Protestant Evangelical brethren. We are called to believe as others have seen
and believed in the risen Lord. Fourth and in conclusion, surprisingly, after
Jesus’ rebuke of the Eleven, He does not banish them to the outer darkness. The
Lord, after correction and admonishment, is willing to work with us. We don’t
have to be perfect to follow Christ. We can have a tainted past and still do
the Lord’s bidding, following, as best we can, His commandments. If we do
this, Jesus will work with us and confirm our words. He will not abandon us,
leaving us all alone, to do His work. In fact, Christ is always with us. At
times, we may think He has left us, but that is because we have turned our
backs on Him. This happens when we do not believe in His appearances, even as
witnessed by other people. We say I don’t see Him and therefore I don’t
believe He’s working in my life. Sometimes, others will tell us they have
seen Christ. At other times, He will appear directly to us. Either way, we
are called to believe in Him as our Lord and Savior. Amen!
Codex
Vaticanus. The handwriting, the distinctive spelling, the ornamental
decoration, and other features on the replacement-pages in K are remarkably
similar to the same features in B. So the evidence from Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, while ancient and valuable, shows us only one narrow channel of
the text's transmission, and in the case of the ending of Mark, their
testimony represents one individual copyist who worked at Caesarea
in the 300s. Although a scholarly consensus has developed in favor of the
view that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the original text of Mark, no scholarly
consensus can be considered valid if its advocates have used false statements
as stepping-stones toward their conclusions. Widespread errors about Mark
16:9-20 in popular and influential commentaries indicate that this is the
case.
|
This insert is a
gift from our Byzantine
School. We invite you to join us on the last Thursday
of each month at 6 pm, as we explore the selection of liturgy “specials” for
each week, and other issues related to the liturgical services of our Church.
Next mtg – 2/23/17! Please consult the Sunday Bulletin for our regular
announcements, or contact Tasos, ioanniam@yahoo.com or (937)232-9665.
|
Dear Eugenia and Polychronius,
To add further to the discussion on St. Kassiana, I am contributing the
following translation and personal thoughts.
Here is an excerpt translated from *A Historical Survey of the Hymnographers
& Hymnography of the Greek Church*, by the renowned hagiologist and church
historian Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) of Chernigov (St. Petersburg:
Tuzov Press, 1902), pp. 272-275:
Kassia, Kassiana, Eikasia. In manner of life a pious nun; by education, a
learned woman; by birth, a noble virgin. She lived at the beginning of the
9th century, during the reign of Emperor Theophilus and his successor.
Kodinus, describing the antiquities of Constantinople, mentions the
monastery of Eikasia, which was founded by this virgin nun. ³The Monastery
of Eikasia,² he writes, ³was built by the virgin Eikasia, a pious nun,
beautiful of face and of mind.² Zonaras describes the circumstances which
led to Cassia¹s forsaking the world and building the monastery.
³Theophilus,² he writes, ³intending to choose a consort for himself,
summoned eleven beautiful virgins, among whom was the virgin Kassia, who
surpassed the others in beauty, and was as learned as she was nobly born.
Theophilus examined them, holding in his hand a golden apple which he would
give to the one who pleased him most. When he came to Eikasia he said,
marveling at her beauty: ŒAll that is evil hath come from a woman.¹
Eikasia, meekly, her cheeks blushing red with chastity, replied: ŒBut from a
woman all that is more sublime hath come.¹ Defeated by the words of the
virgin, Theophilus walked away and gave the golden apple to Theodora, a
native of Paphlagonia. Not having gained a royal marriage, Eikasia
established the monastery which bears her name, in which she lived for
herself and for the Lord. Excelling in her education, she wrote letters in
which there is no trace of pedantry or pleasantry. Thus did she reach the
end of her life, having betrothed herself to the heavenly King instead of an
earthly king, and having inherited the heavenly kingdom instead of an
earthly kingdom.² Leo Grammaticus records the same incident in his history
of Theophilus.
Kodinus says that during the reigns of Theophilus and his son, Michael,
Kassia composed many canons, stichera and other works, which are quite
marvelous. The same is said by the early 11th century anonymous author who
describes events of the past.
In the services of the Church we no longer see canons ascribed to Kassia,
except for one canon only, that of Great Saturday, which, however, was
reworked by Mark, Bishop of Otranto. This is what Theodore Prodromos writes
of the latter circumstance in his explanation of the canon of Great
Saturday: ³Through Ode V, this canon is the work of Mark, Bishop of Otranto;
but Odes VI through IX are by the great hymnographer Cosmas [of Maiuma];
furthermore, as we know from unwritten tradition, long before [Mark of
Otranto] a certain wise and chaste virgin, Kassia, was the composer of these
hymns, i.e. Odes I through V, i.e. she completed the canon. Later men who
edited the canons, considering it improper to attach to the hymns of a woman
odes of that ascetic Cosmas, commissioned Mark to compose troparia, while
retaining the former irmoi. This tradition is quite plausible. For Mark
did not incorporate the initial letters of the irmoi in his acrostic,
although to do so would have been to his advantage. For the initial letter
Œkappa¹ of the irmos Œkymati thalasses¹ [ŒVolnoyu morskoyu¹] and the letter
Œsigma¹ of the next irmos, ŒSe ton epi ydatOn¹ [ŒTebe na vodakh¹] are taken
from the acrostic; but he, setting the irmoi aside as the work of another
and not of himself, wrote the troparia from Œkappa¹ ŒKyrie Thee mou¹
[ŒGospodi Bozhe moi¹], and from Œsigma¹ ŒSymbola tes taphes sou¹ [ŒThe
tokens of Thy burial¹].² It is hence evident that the canon (i.e, through
Ode V) and the irmoi are not the work of Mark. Moreover, one can see this
from the fact that the words ³but we like the maidens² are included in the
irmos of Ode I. That the subject of this verse is a maiden clearly
indicates that the ode belongs not to a man, but to a woman. Since there
were two choirs during the exodus of the Israelites who originally sang this
ode--one consisting of men, the other of women--she, leaving aside the choir
of men, since she is a woman, said, ³we sing like the maidens². Yea, and
the very acrostic of the canon is dual, and, so to say, like twin-peaked
Parnassus. For the canon of Great Saturday was once a tetradion [a four-ode
hymnic composition]: its acrostic was comprised of only part of an iamb,
i.e., ³prosabbaton the, sabbaton melpO mega²--²The pre-Saturday. I hymn the
Great Saturday.² Half of its iamb applies to Great Friday, i.e. the
pre-Saturday, and the rest applies to Saturday, i.e. I hymn the Great
Saturday. But when the canon was continued and a full canon was made out of
the tetradion, the acrostic was also extended, and instead of the incomplete
iamb a complete one was made, i.e. ³kai simeron de sabbaton melpO mega². In
the Slavonic Triodion, one reads in the superscription of the canon: ³The
canon of Great Saturday, from Ode I to Ode VI, is the work of Mark, Bishop
of Hydrous. The irmoi are the work of a certain woman named Cassia. The
Odes from VI to the end are the work of kyr Cosmas.² Thus, in our present
canon of the work of Cassia only the irmoi remain.
As regards other canons, following Prodromos we must admit that it is
probable that certain portions of them, as is the case with the canon of
Great Saturday, are retained in our present canons, undetected by later
readers.
Among the stichera of Cassia, we find the following in the divine services:
1) for the Nativity of Christ, ³When Augustus reigned alone upon the
earth...²; 2) on Great and Holy Wednesday, ³O Lord, the woman who had fallen
into many sins...²; 3) feast of the martyrs Gurius, Salmonas & Habib,
November 15th (not attributed in the Slavonic Menaion, but attributed in the
Greek) ³Edessa rejoiceth...²; feast of the Nativity of the Forerunner, June
24th (³Today is fulfilled the saying of Isaiah...²; and for the feast of the
martyrs Eustratius & companions, December 13th (Let us hymn and piously
praise the God-bearing martyrs...²).
Having said that Kassia composed many stichera, Kodinus adds: ³such are
those of the harlot and the ointment, for all of these belong to her.² The
words of Kodinus indicate that he knew of many stichera written by Kassia
for the penitent woman, and not merely the one which has come down to us.
As regards the worth of the stichera reliably attributed to Kassia, one
must admit that the first two [above] truly deserve our admiration: as much
as the former is solemn and triumphal, so much is the latter full of a
profound sense of contrition. In the latter, Kassia has quite faithfully
expressed the feelings which filled the soul of the penitent sinful woman
who washed the Savior¹s feet with tears; to express such feelings of one who
greatly loved the Lord, Who was rejected by others, Kassia had to sense in
her own soul the fullness of bitter contrition over the corruption of our
soul, she herself had to be filled with that trusting love for the Savior of
sinners, for which men condemned both the sinful woman and the Savior of
sinners. ³Accept my fountains of tears. O Thou Who pourest forth the
waters from the clouds of the sea, bend Thine ear to the sighs of my heart;
O Thou who bowed down the heavens in Thine ineffable abasement, permit me to
kiss and wipe with the hairs of my head Thine all-pure feet, the noise
whereof Eve heard at noonday, and hid herself in fear. My sins are
many...but who can fathom the depths of Thy judgments? O Savior of souls,
my Savior, Who hast infinite mercy, reject me not, thy handmaid.² One must
say that there are not many who are capable of such profound contrition.
The entry on Kassia in *The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium* also includes
the information that Kassiane is identical to Kassia and Eikasia: ³KASSIA,
also Kassiane, Eikasia, and other forms of the name, poet....² The entry
cites an article by E. Catafygiotu Topping, which appeared in the "Greek
Orthodox Theological Review", Vol. 26 (1981), pp. 201-209, which someone
may
have easy access to, and may contain more information of interest to our
group.
The only Greek-language Church calendar of the saints I have in my library,
the *Agioreitikos Epitrapezios Imerodeiktis, Etous 1977*, by the Monk
Dorotheos of the Skete of Xenophontos (published for Mount Athos in
Thessalonica), confirms the date of commemoration for St. Kassiane as 7
September (O.S.): ³Kassianes tes poietrias,...osia.² (The commemoration of
Kassiana the poetess,...monastic saint.)
Some years ago, I was able to consult St. Justin (Popovich¹s) Lives of the
Saints (in Serbian) concerning this saint. When I am able, I will do so
again. If memory serves, he also confirms the sanctity of St. Kassiana and
the date of her commemoration.
As to the variable forms of the name, it is my opinion the Kassia (a name
quite possibly derived from a plant mentioned in the Old Testament--Ex. 30:
24; Ps. 44: 8; Eze. 27: 19) was the saint¹s lay name, under which she earned
her reputation for erudition and as a poetess. Since it is a common
practice in convents to give nuns male names with female endings (e.g., the
abbess of our Mount of Olives Convent is named Moisea), it may well have
been that at her tonsure Cassia was given a female form of Cassian (i.e.,
Cassiana), after St. John Cassian.
I hope to contribute more on this topic as time and access to sources
permit.
Sincerely,
Isaac Lambertsen. Dear Eugenia and Polychronius,
To add further to the discussion on St. Kassiana, I am contributing the
following translation and personal thoughts.
Here is an excerpt translated from *A Historical Survey of the Hymnographers
& Hymnography of the Greek Church*, by the renowned hagiologist and church
historian Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) of Chernigov (St. Petersburg:
Tuzov Press, 1902), pp. 272-275:
Kassia, Kassiana, Eikasia. In manner of life a pious nun; by education, a
learned woman; by birth, a noble virgin. She lived at the beginning of the
9th century, during the reign of Emperor Theophilus and his successor.
Kodinus, describing the antiquities of Constantinople, mentions the
monastery of Eikasia, which was founded by this virgin nun. ³The Monastery
of Eikasia,² he writes, ³was built by the virgin Eikasia, a pious nun,
beautiful of face and of mind.² Zonaras describes the circumstances which
led to Cassia¹s forsaking the world and building the monastery.
³Theophilus,² he writes, ³intending to choose a consort for himself,
summoned eleven beautiful virgins, among whom was the virgin Kassia, who
surpassed the others in beauty, and was as learned as she was nobly born.
Theophilus examined them, holding in his hand a golden apple which he would
give to the one who pleased him most. When he came to Eikasia he said,
marveling at her beauty: ŒAll that is evil hath come from a woman.¹
Eikasia, meekly, her cheeks blushing red with chastity, replied: ŒBut from a
woman all that is more sublime hath come.¹ Defeated by the words of the
virgin, Theophilus walked away and gave the golden apple to Theodora, a
native of Paphlagonia. Not having gained a royal marriage, Eikasia
established the monastery which bears her name, in which she lived for
herself and for the Lord. Excelling in her education, she wrote letters in
which there is no trace of pedantry or pleasantry. Thus did she reach the
end of her life, having betrothed herself to the heavenly King instead of an
earthly king, and having inherited the heavenly kingdom instead of an
earthly kingdom.² Leo Grammaticus records the same incident in his history
of Theophilus.
Kodinus says that during the reigns of Theophilus and his son, Michael,
Kassia composed many canons, stichera and other works, which are quite
marvelous. The same is said by the early 11th century anonymous author who
describes events of the past.
In the services of the Church we no longer see canons ascribed to Kassia,
except for one canon only, that of Great Saturday, which, however, was
reworked by Mark, Bishop of Otranto. This is what Theodore Prodromos writes
of the latter circumstance in his explanation of the canon of Great
Saturday: ³Through Ode V, this canon is the work of Mark, Bishop of Otranto;
but Odes VI through IX are by the great hymnographer Cosmas [of Maiuma];
furthermore, as we know from unwritten tradition, long before [Mark of
Otranto] a certain wise and chaste virgin, Kassia, was the composer of these
hymns, i.e. Odes I through V, i.e. she completed the canon. Later men who
edited the canons, considering it improper to attach to the hymns of a woman
odes of that ascetic Cosmas, commissioned Mark to compose troparia, while
retaining the former irmoi. This tradition is quite plausible. For Mark
did not incorporate the initial letters of the irmoi in his acrostic,
although to do so would have been to his advantage. For the initial letter
Œkappa¹ of the irmos Œkymati thalasses¹ [ŒVolnoyu morskoyu¹] and the letter
Œsigma¹ of the next irmos, ŒSe ton epi ydatOn¹ [ŒTebe na vodakh¹] are taken
from the acrostic; but he, setting the irmoi aside as the work of another
and not of himself, wrote the troparia from Œkappa¹ ŒKyrie Thee mou¹
[ŒGospodi Bozhe moi¹], and from Œsigma¹ ŒSymbola tes taphes sou¹ [ŒThe
tokens of Thy burial¹].² It is hence evident that the canon (i.e, through
Ode V) and the irmoi are not the work of Mark. Moreover, one can see this
from the fact that the words ³but we like the maidens² are included in the
irmos of Ode I. That the subject of this verse is a maiden clearly
indicates that the ode belongs not to a man, but to a woman. Since there
were two choirs during the exodus of the Israelites who originally sang this
ode--one consisting of men, the other of women--she, leaving aside the choir
of men, since she is a woman, said, ³we sing like the maidens². Yea, and
the very acrostic of the canon is dual, and, so to say, like twin-peaked
Parnassus. For the canon of Great Saturday was once a tetradion [a four-ode
hymnic composition]: its acrostic was comprised of only part of an iamb,
i.e., ³prosabbaton the, sabbaton melpO mega²--²The pre-Saturday. I hymn the
Great Saturday.² Half of its iamb applies to Great Friday, i.e. the
pre-Saturday, and the rest applies to Saturday, i.e. I hymn the Great
Saturday. But when the canon was continued and a full canon was made out of
the tetradion, the acrostic was also extended, and instead of the incomplete
iamb a complete one was made, i.e. ³kai simeron de sabbaton melpO mega². In
the Slavonic Triodion, one reads in the superscription of the canon: ³The
canon of Great Saturday, from Ode I to Ode VI, is the work of Mark, Bishop
of Hydrous. The irmoi are the work of a certain woman named Cassia. The
Odes from VI to the end are the work of kyr Cosmas.² Thus, in our present
canon of the work of Cassia only the irmoi remain.
As regards other canons, following Prodromos we must admit that it is
probable that certain portions of them, as is the case with the canon of
Great Saturday, are retained in our present canons, undetected by later
readers.
Among the stichera of Cassia, we find the following in the divine services:
1) for the Nativity of Christ, ³When Augustus reigned alone upon the
earth...²; 2) on Great and Holy Wednesday, ³O Lord, the woman who had fallen
into many sins...²; 3) feast of the martyrs Gurius, Salmonas & Habib,
November 15th (not attributed in the Slavonic Menaion, but attributed in the
Greek) ³Edessa rejoiceth...²; feast of the Nativity of the Forerunner, June
24th (³Today is fulfilled the saying of Isaiah...²; and for the feast of the
martyrs Eustratius & companions, December 13th (Let us hymn and piously
praise the God-bearing martyrs...²).
Having said that Kassia composed many stichera, Kodinus adds: ³such are
those of the harlot and the ointment, for all of these belong to her.² The
words of Kodinus indicate that he knew of many stichera written by Kassia
for the penitent woman, and not merely the one which has come down to us.
As regards the worth of the stichera reliably attributed to Kassia, one
must admit that the first two [above] truly deserve our admiration: as much
as the former is solemn and triumphal, so much is the latter full of a
profound sense of contrition. In the latter, Kassia has quite faithfully
expressed the feelings which filled the soul of the penitent sinful woman
who washed the Savior¹s feet with tears; to express such feelings of one who
greatly loved the Lord, Who was rejected by others, Kassia had to sense in
her own soul the fullness of bitter contrition over the corruption of our
soul, she herself had to be filled with that trusting love for the Savior of
sinners, for which men condemned both the sinful woman and the Savior of
sinners. ³Accept my fountains of tears. O Thou Who pourest forth the
waters from the clouds of the sea, bend Thine ear to the sighs of my heart;
O Thou who bowed down the heavens in Thine ineffable abasement, permit me to
kiss and wipe with the hairs of my head Thine all-pure feet, the noise
whereof Eve heard at noonday, and hid herself in fear. My sins are
many...but who can fathom the depths of Thy judgments? O Savior of souls,
my Savior, Who hast infinite mercy, reject me not, thy handmaid.² One must
say that there are not many who are capable of such profound contrition.
The entry on Kassia in *The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium* also includes
the information that Kassiane is identical to Kassia and Eikasia: ³KASSIA,
also Kassiane, Eikasia, and other forms of the name, poet....² The entry
cites an article by E. Catafygiotu Topping, which appeared in the "Greek
Orthodox Theological Review", Vol. 26 (1981), pp. 201-209, which someone
may
have easy access to, and may contain more information of interest to our
group.
The only Greek-language Church calendar of the saints I have in my library,
the *Agioreitikos Epitrapezios Imerodeiktis, Etous 1977*, by the Monk
Dorotheos of the Skete of Xenophontos (published for Mount Athos in
Thessalonica), confirms the date of commemoration for St. Kassiane as 7
September (O.S.): ³Kassianes tes poietrias,...osia.² (The commemoration of
Kassiana the poetess,...monastic saint.)
Some years ago, I was able to consult St. Justin (Popovich¹s) Lives of the
Saints (in Serbian) concerning this saint. When I am able, I will do so
again. If memory serves, he also confirms the sanctity of St. Kassiana and
the date of her commemoration.
As to the variable forms of the name, it is my opinion the Kassia (a name
quite possibly derived from a plant mentioned in the Old Testament--Ex. 30:
24; Ps. 44: 8; Eze. 27: 19) was the saint¹s lay name, under which she earned
her reputation for erudition and as a poetess. Since it is a common
practice in convents to give nuns male names with female endings (e.g., the
abbess of our Mount of Olives Convent is named Moisea), it may well have
been that at her tonsure Cassia was given a female form of Cassian (i.e.,
Cassiana), after St. John Cassian.
I hope to contribute more on this topic as time and access to sources
permit.
Sincerely,
Isaac Lambertsen.
No comments:
Post a Comment