OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 07:04:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Who are the Notable Orthodox of Jewish Origin?  (Read 3786 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 03, 2012, 01:12:07 PM »

Dear minasoliman,

You asked:

I thought I might add this question to this thread.  Which rite today that's considered the closest to an ancient Jewish liturgy?  Is it the Syriac rite?  Did Jerusalem used to have its own rite before the Byzantinization?
I think your question is outside the scope of the topic question, which asks to namethe Notable Orthodox individuals of Jewish origin, that your question is a separate topic.
But it is an interesting and important question.

By rite today  I assume you mean liturgies currently used, since I vaguely remember hearing "rite" refer to a type of liturgy and you asked which one is closest to an ancient Jewish liturgy.

My understanding is the the liturgy of St James is the liturgy that is the most original to Jerusalem. For example, it prays about Zion, the religious name for the Holy Land. It also reads from the Old Testament. So I think it is the closest to an ancient Jewish liturgy. In the Russian Orthodox Church it is used on St James' Day and one other day, maybe around New Years'- I forget which day is the other one.

The Syrian Oriental Orthodox Church uses the Liturgy of St. James, and it seems to me what you might be referring to as the Syriac Rite, as it exists in the Aramaic/Syriac language and is used by the Syriac O.O. Church.

I am not sure Jerusalem had its own rite before the Byzantization, that is, before Christianity in Jerisalem became accepted as official by the Roman empire and heavily influenced by the official culture in the Eastern Roman empire, i.e. Byzantium. I am not sure it had its own rite because it seems that the Christians would've spread the same basic rituals among themselves as part of Christianity beyond Jerusalem. Even if certain huge portions of the Roman Empire- like the Eastern and Western halves had some different styles, it still seems that Jerusalem would do the rituals similarly enough to the ways other places did the rituals, that the rituals in Jerusalem wouldn't be "their own" as opposed to others'.

From the New Testament, it appears the early Christians in the first century did have rituals that form basic parts of our liturgy, such as the Eucharist and the Lord's prayer. But I don't have serious sense how deeply systematized these rituals were into a Liturgy at that point. From the 1st to 4th centuries, I expect they developed a liturgy for their services, and expect it was similar to synagogue services, as ours are today in a general way. But I don't remember information detailing how it was before St. James' Liturgy, which I assume incorporated elements of it.

You asked:
So I can imagine the Jerusalem rite was THE Jewish rite, but in a Christian setting?
Yes, I think that you can imagine this. My understanding from reading different scholarly articles is that the early Christians in Jerusalem took the Jewish rite and then added Christian elements to it, making it the Jewish Rite in a Christian setting. However, the additions, like the Eucharist, are strong enough that I am not sure our statement is correct. It seems that the Eucharist goes beyond merely a Christian setting- that is, a Christian background theme, and makes the rite itself Christian with a jewish layout and major basis.

It was funny when you asked:
I thought I might add this question to this thread.  Which rite today that's considered the closest to an ancient Jewish liturgy?  Is it the Syriac rite?  Did Jerusalem used to have its own rite before the Byzantinization?

Which ancient Jewish liturgy (temple cult, synagogue service?) and in what time period?

I don't know.  I'm the one with the questions here  Wink
It is funny because you asked the question about the Jewish liturgy and then say you don't know which category of Jewish service you are talking about! In fact, the answer to the question- since you don't know which category- is apparently either one in any time period before the Byzantinization, because you did not specify the time period except to add that you were interested in the situation before the Byzantinization. And in any case, "ancient times", as I vaguely understand it, refers to a period before the time of Constantine.

You asked: "Is there a good book to read about ancient rites and liturgies?"
I assume there are many considering the importance of the ancient rites and liturgies to Orthodoxy. Offhand, I found one by Concilliar Press, which impresses me as generally a printer of good quality books: "Let Us Attend! A Journey Through the Orthodox Divine Liturgy" by Fr. Lawrence. (http://www.conciliarpress.com/products/Let-Us-Attend!-A-Journey-Through-the-Orthodox-Divine-Liturgy.html)

The description says:
Quote
Fr. Lawrence guides everyday believers in a devotional and historical walk through the Orthodox liturgy. Examining the Liturgy section by section, he provides both historical explanations of how the liturgy evolved, and devotional insights aimed at helping us pray the liturgy in the way the Fathers intended.
I assume this book will discuss ancient rites and liturgies based on the fact that it describes the history of Orthodox liturgy.

Naturally, "Searching in amazon for Brightman, [you] noticed he wrote a couple of volumes of "Liturgies, Eastern and Western," but you did not find anything named "Liturgical Archaeology."

FatherHLL wrote: "Brightman's collection is very helpful in "liturgical archaeology."" Here, "liturgical archeology" isn't capitalised, so it isn't a title, but a subject. And further, it would be strange to say that the "collection" of books is helpful in just one of its books, as in "Brown's collection is helpful in volume 4", since then it isn't the whole collection that is helpful but just one part of it. And in that case it would make more sense to just say "Volume 4 of Brown's collection" is helpful. Thus, FatherHLL naturally responded: "What I was saying was that this work is helpful in "liturgical archaology.""

When you write: "I will say though that if a list of recommended writings starting from an introduction to this study to the deepest would suffice :-) I assume you mean "I will say though that a list of recommended writings starting from an introduction to this study to the deepest writing would suffice :-)", since the word "if" doesn't make sense to me here, because it would make the sentence only the first part of an "if - then" statement. And plus, you are mentioning the deepest writing, because you are describing a list of writings. In any case, it seems you are right of course, because you are sensibly describing what would be good for an answer, and it is you who posed the question of what literature would be good in the first place. :-)
Hehe.

And naturally, such a list of recommended writings ranging from an introduction to the deepest writing would include a good book on the subject.

I expect you are right you about the way you say you feel, and what you say when you write:
I almost hate to break it to you but two things I found out searching for this book online:

1.  "Eastern Liturgies" seems to be the same thing as "Liturgies:  Eastern and Western--Volume 1"
2.  Number 1 wasn't really the part I really hate to tell you, but it also turns out that google books has both volumes of that book, Brightman and Hammond, for free.

Thank you for the recommendation though   angel

http://books.google.com/books?id=_7haWYT-KH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=liturgies+eastern+and+western&hl=en&ei=4SOJTayMNomE0QHKvLHzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=_7haWYT-KH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=liturgies+eastern+and+western&hl=en&ei=4SOJTayMNomE0QHKvLHzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Naturally, since FatherHLL has just said he paid $80 for what is practically a volume that is free online, part of you hates or almost hates - I foresee that you can feel both ways at different moments- to reveal to him in point "2." that the volume is free. That's because it means that his $80 could have been a waste or partly a waste, because he could have preferred to have waited until he found the book posted online for free, had he known that it would be.

Further, you are right about point "1." in your response: the two books you mention in point 1 have the same chapters listed in their Tables of Contents.

However, there is a big exception to my agreement with your quote above: namely, it strongly appears to me that Google Books lacks Volume Two of the collection you mentioned. Although you gave two links, in fact the links are in content the same link repeated in a row. When I did a Google Book Search myself, it only showed Volume 1 of the series.

In any case it's a good recommendation: the Table of Contents has chapters with interesting titles for the topic of the liturgy, dealing with Syrian and Byzantine liturgies, for example. And I am glad to see you are pleased with this recommendation. Smiley

Peace.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2012, 01:14:28 PM »

Dear ialmisry,

When you say:

I thought I might add this question to this thread.  Which rite today that's considered the closest to an ancient Jewish liturgy?  Is it the Syriac rite?  Did Jerusalem used to have its own rite before the Byzantinization?
Yes (but not by very much), and yes.
I am not sure if you mean the Syriac rite is (a)not close by very much to an ancient Jewish liturgy, or (b), not very much closer than others to the ancient Jewish liturgy.
I agree with you in one sense: it was not very close because it has lots of ideas about the New Testament, has the Eurcharist, and many other Christian elements of that naturally didn't exist in the pre-Christian liturgies. But I disagree in a basic sense: the St James' liturgy and ancient Jewish liturgy share a similar overall scheme, with introductory prayers, more prayers, a reading and sermon, more prayers, and a benediction.

I agree with your interesting and informative response when you wrote:
Quote
Quote
So I can imagine the Jerusalem rite was THE Jewish rite, but in a Christian setting?
Yes, that was the case everywhere.  The Church had first grown in the synagogues throughout the empire and beyond.
Except that I think the "case" mentioned above is the Jerusalem rite being a Christian rite created with the Jewish rite as its major basis, rather than the Jewish rite merely being in a Christian setting, like with Christian themes. To me, the ritutal of the Eucharist- Christ's body and blood- is significantly different from the Jewish rite of Passover-the lamb, although it is a changed continuation of it. So I am not certain how best to characterize it, but I think it goes beyond a mere Christian setting to actual Christian elements, which are a transformation of elements of the Jewish rite.

You also made a good explanation of how it is that the case with the Jerusalen rite was the case everywhere. Naturally, the rites practiced by the early Christians would have spread from their foundation location in Jerusalem as the Christian communities themselves spread abroad. And as you correctly pointed out, the Church first grew in the synagogues throughout the empire, as for example in Acts Paul is recorded as preaching in Antioch's synagogue, which was in the eastern edge of the Roman empire. And the church also apparently spread beyond the empire at that time, as there are stories of Christianity spreading early on farther east than the empire, as in Iraq and India. This is foreseeable because of the commandment to spread Christianity around the world in Acts 1.

I am confused when you write:
Quote
Hence how every DL has a Liturgy of the Word, which was the synagouge service incorporated with the Liturgy of the Eucharist which had been done in homes, and which replaced the cult in the Temple.
Naturally, your previous sentence explains why every liturgy would have the basic elements of the synagogue service combined with the Eucharist. Namely, these two important elements naturally began as Christianity itself began and then spread throughout the empire. These elements of the service are very basic and thus are expected to have spread with Christianity itself.

However, when you say the "DL has a Liturgy of the Word, which was the synagouge service incorporated with the Liturgy of the Eucharist", grammatically it sounds like you mean the Liturgy of the Word included both the synagogue service and the Eucharist, since the words "which was" are directly preceded by the term "Liturgy of the Word", suggesting it is the Liturgy of the Word that includes both of those two elements. Yet it seems more likely to me that you mean the Divine Liturgy includes both the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, since I know the DL has the Eucharist, but I assume the Liturgy of the Word refers to the synagogue service alone, since I assume "the Word" refers to reading from the Bible and is different from the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which you described next as the replacement of the cult of the Temple.

The Temple cult, as Hebrews 9 explains, was similar to our idea of Christ in the Eucharist as the Passover lamb, which was part of the Temple Cult. And I also remember hearing that the Eucharist was celebrated in the homes. Thus it makes more sense to me that you were distinguishing the Liturgy of the Eucharist associated with the Temple Cult with another Liturgy associated with the synagogue- the Liturgy of the Word, because then you would have named two liturgies associated with two different Jewish rites.

It's nice writing with you. You know alot and have insights.

Kind Regards.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2012, 01:16:32 PM »

GregoryLA,

I am not sure about your words:
Quote
I'm certainly no expert but I think most academics (if you trust academics) don't think there's any evidence for a single rite to begin with but rather see a large amount of diversity from the earliest layers of the historical record.
It makes sense that the early Christians would have had a diversity of religious practices, as for example I somewhat remember St Paul instructing Christians about right and wrong ways of making religious observances. From this it's to be expected that there were different practices among Christians.

But at the same time, it seems to me that there may be a single liturgy at the beginning, and this could have been simply the Jewish synagogue liturgy with some Christian additions. Naturally, this depends on how one defines liturgy. It seems to me that simply breaking bread and sharing the Eucharist isn't enough to make a liturgy, which I associate with a set of prayers and Bible reading. However, if the Eucharist is enough to make a liturgy, then I assume there was an initital liturgy in the form of the Eucharist when it was first begun.

Another possibility I can see is that the Eucharist was one form of initial liturgy, and another initial liturgy was the Synagogue service, with Christian elements. Thus there could have been two liturgies that formed an initial set of rituals, making a single rite.

I assume academics take different viewpoints on this question, but revolve around part or all of these ideas I mentioned, because they seem natural to me.

You asked Minasoliman: "Which ancient Jewish liturgy (temple cult, synagogue service?) and in what time period?"

It appears he means a time period before Christianity became an official religion in the Roman Empire, the eastern half of which became known as Byzantium, as he asked in part: "Did Jerusalem used to have its own rite before the Byzantinization?"

However, he did not specify the time period or type of Jewish liturgy he was asking about. And it appears he didn't have a specific one of either in mind as he responded to you only by saying that he was the one asking the questions on this topic.

But to explain the question better: he said "an" ancient Jewish liturgy, which leaves open which liturgy could be the one to which the current liturgy is closest to. So for example, a current liturgy that is closer to either the Temple service or synagogue service in any time period would be the correct answer so long as it was closer than any other current liturgy to either one of those Jewish services in any time period.

I agree with you when you say: "It's also possible that an extant rite based off the ancient Jerusalem rite(s) has maintained a more archaic form in some places than a rite that has had a more direct evolution from the ancient Jerusalem rite."
For example, I imagine that a western rite could have a more direct evolution from the ancient Jerusalem rite. The ancient rite could have been simpler than the present Liturgy of St James due to the small size and beginning nature of the early Church at the time the ancient rite was made. In this case, it could be that this western rite copied this simpler ancient rite, and then passed it down such that the major alterations made to the liturgy occurred, say, a few centuries later. The Liturgy of St James, on the other hand, could have a more indirect evolution from the ancient rite, in that stronger innovations could have been made in different times and places before its current structure. After all, the Liturgy of St James is long, compared to the standard liturgy used in the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches- the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. And yet since the liturgy of St James is from at least the 2nd to 5th centuries AD, it could be more archaic than such a western liturgy that could have a later date with fewer significant changes.

Thanks for sharing "the recommendations [you] got from a professor of liturgics at the University of Oslo".

I am not sure the professor is right when he suggests:"Bradshaw's elementary introduction, "Early Christian Worship" (1996), is a good place to start, and also return to later even when one has learned more - sober and basic.
This is because I am not sure about how good Bradshaw's book is because one of the reviews on Amazon says:
Quote
Bradshaw consistently questions Biblical record when they are not consistent with his extrabiblical findings, even if those extrabiblical findings rely on many assumptions and guesses. For example, a number of times he casts doubt on the reliability of Matthew 28:18-20 (The Great Commission) as being added to the text later when there is absolutely no textual evidence of this. According to the Metzger's Textual Commentary, there is no question among the textual critics that the rendering that we have for these verses is autographic. Yet, Bradshaw in true redaction form, flippantly, as if it were common knowledge that these were added, blows them off as not being acceptable as a true saying of Jesus. From this example and others with which I am familiar, I fear for the accuracy and trustworthiness of Bradshaw's conclusions. Therefore, I cannot recommend this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Worship-Introduction-Practice/dp/0814624294
But it does sound like a sober and basic book as the review also says: "The book is very accessible. The scholar may wish for some more detail and probably more thorough documentation. However for the lay reader who is interested in the subject, the format makes it a very easy read."

I agree with the recommendation of Marcel Metzger's "History of the Liturgy". One review says positively:
Quote
"This little volume is written by a Roman Catholic from a Roman point of view but will be of interest to anyone interested in the development of Christian liturgy. It does no go over much into a description of the conduct of the rites themselves but instead describes their context, what prompted various practices and how those practices changed over time."
http://www.amazon.com/History-Liturgy-Stages-Marcel-Metzger/dp/0814624332

I am not sure the professor is right when he says: "Concerning the Eucharist, Bradshaw's 'Eucharistic Origins' is standard." After all, the Book Description on Amazon presents it as if the book takes a different view than the standard one:
Quote
Origins of the Eucharist explored in a new way which questions traditional opinion A different picture of the origins of the eucharist from the traditionally received one. The author argues that the Last Supper did not play as important a part in the formulation of the Eucharist as is popularly thought.
http://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Origins-Paul-Bradshaw/dp/0281056153

I agree with the recommendation "Baptism: Maxwell Johnson, "The Rites of Christian Initiation" ". One review of the book on Amazon says:
Quote
This is an excellent text for serious students of Christian History and Liturgists. The content is comprehensive and well sourced. It may be a challenging read for those not familiar with the subject matter. I do highly recommend it for those interested in the study of the Liturgy, particularly the rites of Christian initiation. http://www.amazon.com/Rites-Christian-Initiation-Evolution-Interpretation/dp/0814660118

I agree with the recommendation "Concerning the Daily Office: Robert Taft, "The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West"", as a review on Amazon explains:
Quote
Taft is one of the world's leading liturgical experts, and here he demonstrates his mastery of how the Church "redeemed the time". I really appreciate not only his style of writing, but the way he integrates primary sources into the text without feeling disjointed.

While highly technical, and not something that could be used for devotional material per se (see the excellent duo For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy or Hymn of Entry: Liturgy and Life in the Orthodox Church (Contemporary Greek Theologians Series , No 1) for that), Taft does cover every historical detail in an organized manner, beginning with the Jewish background to prayer as practiced in the New Testament moving chronologically forward. Both Eastern (Byzantine, Coptic, African, Armenian etc) and Western theologies and practices (Roman and Reformed) are covered in detail.
http://www.amazon.com/Liturgy-Hours-East-West/dp/0814614051

I also agree with your recommendation "Church Year: Thomas Talley, "Origins of the Church Year"..." since the website "Academic" (http://universalium.academic.ru/262986/church_year) recommends it, saying: "Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (1986), is a fresh reading of the early evidence."

Since I also read favorable reviews of Sanders' book, and besides your opinion you state straightforward facts describing it, I agree with you when you recommend: "E.P. Sanders "Judaism: Practice and Belief 66 BCE- 63 CE" is a good intro. to Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity as well. It covers all parts of Jewish life though, not just liturgics."
However, I am confused why you begin your mention of his book with the term "Edit:":
Quote
Edit: E.P. Sanders "Judaism: Practice and Belief 66 BCE- 63 CE" is a good intro. to Judaism at the time of the birth of Christianity as well. It covers all parts of Jewish life though, not just liturgics.
After all, the Amazon page for the book describes him as the author rather than the editor, and it seemed to me you might have been referring to him as an editor when you wrote "Edit". Another possibility I thought of is that you meant you were editing in a postcript recommendation into your message, but I don't see a strong reason for you  to point out that this would have been a later "edit" of your message.

Your avatar is kind of neat.

Health and Happiness to you!
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 01:18:50 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 03, 2012, 01:24:45 PM »

Dear FatherHLL,

I am not sure about your answer

Quote
Quote
Is there a good book to read about ancient rites and liturgies?
Depends upon how deep you want to go.
If he wants to go to a level in the ancient rites and liturgies that is so extremely deep a book of this depth hasn't been written, it seems there is naturally no good book on the topic for him, in that it won't satisfy his desire. But perhaps some book could still be good in the sense of meeting most people's desires and expectations for a book on the topic, as after all it is an important topic for Orthodoxy and many books have been written on the subject.

I trust you are right as a matter of straightforward facts when you say:
Quote
Brightman's collection is very helpful in "liturgical archaeology." However, it is rather expensive. When I purchased it years back it was $80. Also, with this source, only some of the liturgies are translated into English, so you have to know your Greek.
After all, if the works are in a collection about liturgies, as Minasoliman mentioned in his reply, and even are produced in the Greek language- then it makes sense that it is very helpful in "liturgical archaeology", a term one site explains as follows:
Quote
"When they rebuilt the altar, they did so on foundations that were already there. This is a principle we should remember today. Designing worship requires some “liturgical archeology”—seeking for the best of what has gone before, and using it in service to today"
http://tomtrinidad.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/11-20-11-laying-the-foundations-ezra-3-sermon-outline
Because the collection goes so much into the description of the old liturgies, it makes sense that it would be very helpful in looking for the best of those old liturgies and using them in service today, which would be a straightforward application of the term described above. Plus, since you purchased it for such a high price, you would have a pretty good memory of the price, although I allow that you could be giving a round number here for the sake of conversation- but maybe not. Smiley
And yes, that is expensive, considering some Bibles for example can be purchased for $6-$25.
And yes the reader would need to know his/her Greek to understand the liturgies in the book, since you say your book gives them sometimes only in Greek.

Of course "The Brightman work to which [you were] referring is called Eastern Liturgies by Gorgias press", since I expect you would know what book by Brightman you were referring to only about 7 hours earlier.

And such a book exists:

I am glad to see your response to Minasoliman's words that the book was online and he was thankful for your recommendation:
Quote
Very good! I have made much use of the book between the time that I had it and the time that it came out in googlebooks, so no need to feel bad about the good news.
Yes, his response is very good because it suggests you apparently answered his important question OK. Plus, it's very good that the book is online for free, because a wider number of people will view it, since the $80 price for the hysical book would deter some prospective readers from reading it.
Plus, I am glad that you have found so much use for the book before it came out on Google Books that you conclude "no need to feel bad about" it. And naturally if you have used the book to a large enough extent in that period, the purchase was not waste of $80. Plus, there are advantages to having the book in physical form, like being able to read it in places where you would have a much harder time reading it online, like on a bus.

You wrote:
Quote
Quote
So far as I can tell, the rite of Jerusalem was the prototype form of the Liturgy of Saint James, and that the Liturgy of Antioch became highly based off of it. I suppose this would mean that the West Syrian rite is probably the most similar remaining rite to that of the ancient Jerusalem.
I would disagree with this. All local rites, whether Chalcedonian or not, went through a period of standardization giving us what we have today. The west Syrian rite has been "standardized" and trimmed to a point in which you can hardly tell the difference in about 8 different anaphoras. Whereas the "Byzantine" standardization was to basically leave the anaphoras themselves alone, but to make uniform prescribed litanies (for example, the prothesis litany belonged originally to the Caesarean liturgy, i.e. St. Basil, and was added later to the "liturgy of the Apostles" aka St. John Chrysostom, and the triple litany ektenia to both at a later time), the west Syrian rite amended the anaphoras of various liturgies to make them of standard length and replaced certain distinctive elements with uniform clauses. The Byzantine standardization let the anaphoras (Jerusalemite, Syrian and Caesarean; i.e. James, Chrysostom and Basil) remain essentially "as is" in length and substance, with only the intro, mentioning of the diocesan hierarch, and the elevation being standardized, not seeing the need to shorten one or lengthen another to conform to the rest, but added "conforming litanies" to the rest of the liturgy, the standard antiphonal intro before the entrance, etc. However, the current Syrian usage does allow us to see elements of the Ante-Caesarian rite, for example, although shortened from their original form.

I am not sure I agree with you and your reasoning when you conclude that you disagree with deusveritasest's statement above. He stated that Jerusalem's rite was the protoype of St James' liturgy, and your basis for disagreeing is that all local rites- such as the Antiochene rite to which the Liturgy of St James belongs- underwent standardization. You also give examples of litanies being added to the liturgies to give examples of such standardizations. Nonetheless, I doubt that this prevents the rite of Jerusalem being the prototype of St James' liturgy, or even the Liturgy of Antioch being highly based on it. For example, if I buy a car and then make some secondary changes to it(like the changes to the early Christian Jerusalem liturgy that made it St James' liturgy), the car is still based on its original makeup. And if I then take the changed car and add significant pieces to it (like St James' liturgy incorporated litanies during the standardization), then the current car's prototype is still the original car. If you take your car to the car shop and make lots of changes and additions, the car's prototype, or previous model, is still the original car.

If the changes were very strong to the Antiochene Liturgy during the standardization, then I am not sure whether this means the Antiochene Liturgy is any longer highly based on the earlier form. After all, if you get lots of tune-up additions to your car- eg. better wheels, better windshield, better paint, better steering etc.- it isn't clear if the car is still highly based on its original form. On one hand, it seems that the core of the car, or a big portion of most of its most basic, important parts are the same and this the car is highly based on its original form. On the other hand, since many important changes have been made it seems that perhaps the car isn't "highly based" on its original form either. I can see either way on this.

However, I believe you as a matter of straightforward facts when you write:
Quote
All local rites, whether Chalcedonian or not, went through a period of standardization giving us what we have today. The west Syrian rite has been "standardized" and trimmed to a point in which you can hardly tell the difference in about 8 different anaphoras. Whereas the "Byzantine" standardization was to basically leave the anaphoras themselves alone, but to make uniform prescribed litanies (for example, the prothesis litany belonged originally to the Caesarean liturgy, i.e. St. Basil, and was added later to the "liturgy of the Apostles" aka St. John Chrysostom, and the triple litany ektenia to both at a later time), the west Syrian rite amended the anaphoras of various liturgies to make them of standard length and replaced certain distinctive elements with uniform clauses. The Byzantine standardization let the anaphoras (Jerusalemite, Syrian and Caesarean; i.e. James, Chrysostom and Basil) remain essentially "as is" in length and substance, with only the intro, mentioning of the diocesan hierarch, and the elevation being standardized, not seeing the need to shorten one or lengthen another to conform to the rest, but added "conforming litanies" to the rest of the liturgy, the standard antiphonal intro before the entrance, etc. However, the current Syrian usage does allow us to see elements of the Ante-Caesarian rite, for example, although shortened from their original form.
Except I am not sure when you write: "the prothesis litany belonged originally to the Caesarean liturgy, i.e. St. Basil, and was added later to the "liturgy of the Apostles" aka St. John Chrysostom". This is because I read in Google Books that: "The normal form of the Caesarean Litgurgy is that of S. Basil. This on the one hand branches out into that of S. Chrysostom; on the other, into the Armenian." (http://books.google.com/books?id=IOwkpIAXAGoC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=basil+liturgy+cesarean&source=bl&ots=muPqxY32LB&sig=Hc7to5GtTVdtipeTLezmDjaArgo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=40tST-38MdHq0QHb5KjqBw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=basil%20liturgy%20cesarean&f=false)

And Wikipedia says:
"The various extant anaphoras attributed to St. Basil in the various Eastern Christian rites may may be classified into two families: Caesarian (or Byzantine) and the Alexandrian (or Coptic)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_Saint_Basil


So, it appears that St John Chrysostom's liturgy is one form of the Caesarean liturgy and thus it doesn't make sense to say it was part of the Caesarean liturgy and then was added into St Chrysostom's liturgy, since one is part of the other. But perhaps you meant that the prothesis litany was part of St Basil's liturgy and then was added to St Chrysostom's liturgy, which would make sense because they are separate liturgies.

Your response shows alot of knowledge about liturgical development on your part! It makes sense that there was such standardization, as Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and naturally standardization made it easier and simpler for many people across the big empire to serve the liturgies. And naturally, the current Syrian usage allows us to see elements of the Ante-Caesarian rite, and by "Caesarian rite" you apparently mean the rite's form at the time Christianity became the officially recognized religion and the rites were standardized during this period. The current Syrian usage allows us to see those elements because naturally it retains some elements, because of course it was not completely replaced during the standardization, or else it wouldn't have kept the same name of the rite at all. Had it been completely replaced, it would have just an absolutely "standard", non-unique name, since everything unique in it would have been standardized away! And we can see the prior elements you mentioned, I suppose, by comparing the current rite with other standardized liturgies and contrasting the standard elements with the unique ones, with the unique elements being those of the Ante-Caesarian rite.

Still, I am alittle confused. Here you contrast the Byzantine Standarization with the amendment to the liturgies made by the west Syrian rite. Consequently, it seems to me that you are talking of a Byzantine Standardization as separate from a West Syrian one. You also specify that the standardization in the west Syrian rite amounted to strongly trimming and standardizing the 8 different anaphoras, but that is all you mention of its standardization. This doesn't clarify to me that the West Syrian rite underwent the Byzantine Standardization. And in fact since the standardizations appear separate, it sounds likely that the West Syrian rite didn't undergo the Byzantine standardization. Furthermore, although the anaphoras are important, they do not make up most of the liturgy. So in that case, it appears that St James' liturgy in its west Syrian form would still have the ancient Jerusalem rite as its prototype, and the west Syrian form of the Antiochene Rite would be highly based on the ancient Jerusalem rite, since the Antiocene rite includes St James' liturgy.

God give you many years. Smiley
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 01:36:05 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #49 on: March 03, 2012, 01:34:23 PM »

Jesus' disciples, to name a few...
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,239


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #50 on: March 03, 2012, 01:42:57 PM »

As one who converted to Christianity (Eastern Catholicism) from Judaism and still consider myself as a Jew, I fail to see how this thread furthers the stated purpose of this sub-forum, i.e. "discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome".  Not that it's not interesting in and of itself because it is, I'm just thinking this might not be the most appropriate place for it.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 03, 2012, 01:47:28 PM »

As one who converted to Christianity (Eastern Catholicism) from Judaism and still consider myself as a Jew, I fail to see how this thread furthers the stated purpose of this sub-forum, i.e. "discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome".  Not that it's not interesting in and of itself because it is, I'm just thinking this might not be the most appropriate place for it.

J. Michael,

Yes, the question itself "Who are the Notable Orthodox of Jewish Origin?" isn't focused on Catholicism. But how I got to this question, and the opening post, are to a large extent.

The opening post is about the Hebrew Catholic group and a long list of Catholics of Jewish origin, and my question is about analogies in the Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 01:51:32 PM by rakovsky » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,239


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #52 on: March 03, 2012, 01:56:44 PM »

As one who converted to Christianity (Eastern Catholicism) from Judaism and still consider myself as a Jew, I fail to see how this thread furthers the stated purpose of this sub-forum, i.e. "discussion of issues which unite and divide the Orthodox Church and the Roman/Eastern Catholic churches (in Communion with Rome".  Not that it's not interesting in and of itself because it is, I'm just thinking this might not be the most appropriate place for it.

J. Michael,

The opening post is about the Hebrew Catholic group and my question is about whether there is an analogy in the Orthodox Church.

Okay, I can see that.  And the word "Catholic" appears in your post about 6 times.  But the last sentence of your post "Is there a list of Notable Christians from before the Schism, and Orthodox afterwards, of Jewish Origin, especially in the HolyLand/Israel/Palestine?", and the one which obviously set the tone for the whole rest of the discussion, not to mention the very title of the thread,  speak otherwise.  Nowhere else in this thread, other than your op is there any discussion of any issues which unite and divide Orthodoxy and Catholicism.  I have *no* objection* whatsoever to the thread or what's being discussed in it--just its location.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
IreneOlinyk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox (EP)
Posts: 203


« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2012, 02:14:05 PM »

Believe it or not, there actually are and have been Russians who decided that communion with Rome was important, most notably Nicholas Tolstoy, who entered into that communion entirely of his own volition.
Which Nicholas Tolstoy do you mean?  The British historian?  If so his mother is English and his parents divorced when he was 4 years old.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2012, 02:53:21 PM »

J Michael,

About the topic, I think this is arguable either way. The topic basically notes something in Catholicism and asks for an analogy in Orthodox. But the focus of the analogy in Orthodoxy is of course something in Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism.

It is interesting for me that you came to Christianity from Judaism. Would you be able to say alittle bit about this?

And would you happen to know of some prominent Orthodox from Jewish backgrounds, or a similar group in Orthodoxy to the Hebrew Catholics?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:23:57 PM by rakovsky » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,239


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2012, 03:04:02 PM »

J Michael,

About the topic, I think this is arguable either way. The topic basically notes something in Catholicism and asks for an analogy in Orthodox. But the focus of the analogy in Orthodoxy is of course something in Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism.

It is interesting for me that you came to Christianity from Judaism. Would you be able to say alittle bit about this?

And would you happen to know of some prominent Orthodox from Jewish backgrounds, or a similar group to the Hebrew Catholics?


Dear Rakovsky,

The Readers Digest version of my conversion: My wife is ByzCath raised in the Roman church. I was(am) a Jew, though raised in a totally secular household.  I lived in Israel for 5 years. Approximately 13 years ago, I went here: http://www.emmitsburg.net/grotto/ one day, stood in front of a statue of the Theotokos, and that was that! Converted to Catholicism in the Ruthenian Rite. Spent some time in the "desert" of Orthodoxy  Grin, and then came back "home" to the Catholic Church. We now worship in a Roman Catholic parish. I feel equally at home there as in a ByzCath parish, and love them both immensely. Go figure!   Wink

I no longer have any particular interest in Orthodox from Jewish backgrounds, and can't think of any others off the top of my head apart from those already mentioned.

I know of no other groups similar to the Hebrew Catholics.  But then, I haven't searched them out, either.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:06:06 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2012, 03:57:41 PM »

My friend is a convert from Judaism.  She's not famous but she's awesome.
Logged

Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,955



« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2012, 04:21:16 PM »

Brother Nathanael
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,722


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2012, 05:18:58 PM »

Brother Nathanael
Roll Eyes
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,891


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2012, 06:11:35 PM »

Wasn't St. John Chrysostom born and raised a Jew before coming to Christianity?
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,719



WWW
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2012, 07:35:59 PM »

Wasn't St. John Chrysostom born and raised a Jew before coming to Christianity?
Apparently no- Greek-Syrian and pagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

Quote
John was born in Antioch in 349 to Greco-Syrian parents. Different scholars describe his mother Anthusa as a pagan[10] or as a Christian, and his father was a high ranking military officer.[11] John's father died soon after his birth and he was raised by his mother.

He was baptised in 368 or 373 and tonsured as a reader (one of the minor orders of the Church).[12] As a result of his mother's influential connections in the city, John began his education under the pagan teacher Libanius. From Libanius, John acquired the skills for a career in rhetoric, as well as a love of the Greek language and literature.[13]

As he grew older, however, he became more deeply committed to Christianity and went on to study theology under Diodore of Tarsus, founder of the re-constituted School of Antioch. According to the Christian historian Sozomen, Libanius was supposed to have said on his deathbed that John would have been his successor "if the Christians had not taken him from us".

The Aramaic speaking Christians in the Holy Land were referred to by the Crusaders as "Syrians" based on their language and thus I think the term Syrian could be given in a linguistic or broad sense to Christians of Jewish background (and perhaps even nonChristian Jews) who spoke Syrian (Aramaic). Nonetheless his mother- even if she was the syrian in his background- chose for him to study from a pagan.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 07:39:20 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,316


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #61 on: March 05, 2012, 01:39:49 PM »


I spoke with Met Hilarion about him.

He said he is just a novice Monk and he is not connected to ROCOR.

He told me that he had aggressively attacked union with Moscow but later changed his mind and took all the attacks on ROCOR off his web page and sent an  apology
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,448



« Reply #62 on: March 05, 2012, 02:01:13 PM »

Boris Pasternak, the author of Doctor Zhivago, was a Jewish convert to the Russian Orthodox Church.
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
Tags: Jews 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.136 seconds with 47 queries.