Lucian of Antioch and his theological legacy

Apostolate and discipleship

In the early days of Christianity, the assimilation of a particular kind of knowledge (in this case, knowledge revealed by God) presented a major challenge for the Holy Apostles, since the Lord Jesus Christ drew near to them precisely as a Teacher to show them the way to salvation from sin and, later, to reveal His divinity at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. The Apostles themselves call Him ‘Teacher’ (rabbi). In fact, the ministry of the Apostles is closely linked to the teaching ministry, which is later passed on to the bishops. The Church’s preaching is often expressed through teaching, in a process of transmitting and receiving knowledge. Nevertheless, for the first generations of Christians, issues relating to the systematic organisation of education and scholarship were not of paramount importance. Over time, however, as the number of believers and of those wishing to receive the Holy Sacrament of Baptism grew, the need arose to establish organised church schools to provide catechesis for those wishing to become Christians and, subsequently, to educate the clergy. It was on the basis of this activity that the foundations were laid for the scholarly exposition of doctrine and the missionary work of the local Churches. The latter later even began to enjoy state support within the Christianised Roman Empire, owing to the particular nature of its state structure, and its schools became part of the empire’s educational system 1.

The Catechetical School of Antioch

For example, the famous School of Theology in Alexandria originated precisely as a catechetical school. It is highly likely that the Antiochian School of Theology (if such a unified institution ever existed) began its existence on the same principle, but in a less organised and institutionalised form. In the second half of the third century and the first half of the fourth century, the city of Antioch, although its population was almost half that of Alexandria, was nevertheless comparable in economic and cultural importance to the latter: its population ranged between 350,000 and 500,000 permanent residents, implying a well-developed urban life with its fundamental institutions, including schools and universities 2. Unlike the Alexandrian school, however, the Antiochian school is shrouded in far greater mystery, and entire periods of its existence remain unknown to us due to a lack of historical evidence. In fact, there is no concrete historical evidence anywhere that Antioch had a specific centre for the systematic teaching and scientific study of Scripture, as the theological school in Alexandria did. From the information we have about individual authors who are considered to belong to the so-called ‘Antiochene School’, we conclude that this designation probably refers to several scholars of the Church who lived in the city and its surroundings and who upheld the same tradition of preaching the teachings of Christ – a view first expressed by the Ukrainian scholar H. Fetisov regarding the theologians of Antioch in the 4th century. This perspective is now gradually gaining widespread acceptance in academic circles 3. Young people, driven by a burning desire to study the Scriptures, would gather around these teachers, most likely in churches, or even in private homes in the city that had been donated to the Church 4.

The modern researcher, often guided more by his or her own contemporary ideas, sometimes exaggerates the institutional importance of catechetical schools and schools in general during that era. It is highly likely that the role of the teacher’s individual personality was far more significant than that of the school as an institution.

Modern researchers, often guided more by their own contemporary ideas, sometimes exaggerate the institutional importance of catechetical schools and schools in general from that era. It is highly likely that the role of the teacher’s individual character was far more important than the school as an institution, especially as each of the teachers in this tradition was also distinguished by a life of consummate asceticism, which was closely linked to their teaching activities. They appear to have been regarded not merely as teachers (such as those in secular schools of rhetoric), but as spiritual elders, wise men, who shared their spiritual experience in the study and understanding of the Holy Scriptures 5. It is likely that, to a certain extent, the same can be said of the school in Alexandria, although we must note a significant difference between the two schools. We have clear evidence that the school in Alexandria was open to non-Christians interested in the Holy Scriptures, whereas the same cannot be said of Antioch. On the contrary, admission to Diodorus’s Antiochian circle in the mid-fourth century required a probationary period before one could join, so that it bore a closer resemblance to the later monastic communities 6.

The common element, however, seems to have been precisely the importance of the figure of the ‘teacher’ within the school. This assumption becomes evident if we look back at the philosophical schools of late antiquity (about which we have a vast and illuminating body of information) and try to imagine what a Christian school must have been like in that era; it cannot have had nothing in common with secular schools, nor can it have been a faithful copy of them; rather, it offered a certain alternative way of life and education for young people 7. What we call the ‘Antiochian School’ (and the same is likely true of the Alexandrian School) seems to have been linked, as a phenomenon, to the specific trends of Mediterranean society at that time (especially in the East). The need to institutionalise and systematise the teaching of Scripture under the Church’s control is no coincidence.

Following a series of Gnostic teachers who claimed to be ‘true Christians’… and following the Montanist wave of itinerant vagabonds who also claimed to be preachers…, a more active role for the Church in catechesis—precisely as a methodological process of instruction—became clearly necessary.

Following a series of Gnostic teachers who claimed to be ‘true Christians’ in the second century, and following the Montanist wave of itinerant vagabonds who also claimed to be preachers—‘the only believers in the Spirit’— a more active role for the Church in catechesis—precisely as a methodological process of instruction—clearly emerged.

On the other hand, although we have no evidence of such a systematic concern for the teaching of Scripture in Antioch before the mid-third century, we can link this impetus towards a synthesised presentation of the Teaching in church schools to the broader developments in the Mediterranean world of the time. At the end of the second century and the beginning of the third century, a synthesis of the Hellenic cultural heritage took place, giving rise to the classical tradition that endured into the Middle Ages. The era of the Antonine emperors was this fruitful period, during which intellectual life flourished, the encyclopaedias used centuries later were compiled, textbooks on medicine and the natural sciences appeared, and literary tastes and a political rhetoric were formed that would remain landmarks even in late Byzantium.

…education increasingly became the means that best legitimised an individual’s place in the upper classes. Its importance grew in inverse proportion to the decline in the influence of the hereditary aristocracy within the army and the empire’s governing bodies.

Linked to these processes is the general development of education and cultural life. Furthermore, education increasingly became the means by which an individual could best establish their standing within the upper classes. Its importance grew in inverse proportion to the decline in the influence of the hereditary aristocracy within the army and the empire’s governing bodies. This process was also significant in shaping the state’s attitude towards Christianity. The new ‘men of note’ of the Roman Empire, who came from the army and had made their mark on the strength of their qualities rather than their aristocratic origins, found it much easier to-reassess their views and were no longer so closely associated with the old conservatism of the Roman aristocracy (and the corresponding ancient pagan cults), the principal enemy of Christianity in the early centuries 8.

This was the period when the centre of political life and economic opportunities in the Roman Empire gradually shifted towards the East. Rome itself was now completely dependent on grain supplies from Egypt. The culmination of this long-term process was the relocation of the capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople) by Constantine the Great in 330. The oligarchic elites of the Hellenistic cities in the East had already adopted a Roman identity, whilst the Latin West had long since embraced the classical heritage of Greece. Furthermore, the growing importance of the East was reflected in the imperial focus shifting towards the eastern provinces, against the backdrop of the resurgence of Persia in the 1520s and the three campaigns waged by the Persian king Shapur I in Syria, Cilicia and Cappadocia between 252 and 260 9.

These events can be linked to the intensification and implementation by the Church of Antioch of large-scale educational programmes. Thus, by the middle of the third century, the picture painted by the sources gradually begins to reveal the existence in Antioch of a school for the study of the Scriptures.

Saint Lucian the Martyr, his work and writings

The first representative of the Antiochian school is usually considered to be the martyr Lucian 10. Suidas’ Byzantine Lexicon states that Lucian founded a ‘school’ (διδασκαλεῖον) in Antioch 11. He was probably an elder of the city who devoted himself to the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures and to the detailed grammatical and historical study of their texts. He was born in the Syrian city of Samosata, around the year 240, to parents of noble birth, and studied the Holy Scriptures in the neighbouring city of Edessa under the guidance of a certain Macarius 12. The synodal tradition of the Church has preserved the testimony that the martyr Lucian corrected and purified the manuscripts of the entire Scriptures of heretical, probably Gnostic, interpolations. In the Luminanda of 15 October, when the Orthodox Church commemorates him, the following is sung13:

In this instance, the reference to ‘the delusion of the Greeks’ (πλάνην τῶν Ἑλλήνων) refers to the idolatry of the pagans, against which Lucian evidently wrote or preached, whilst ‘knowledge bearing a false name’ (ψευδώνυμον γνώσιν) most likely refers precisely to the Gnostic sects, which frequently attacked the text of Scripture, using it for their own purposes and, in so doing, made their own additions and interpretations to certain passages therein. This is particularly true of the Christian Gnostics – the Marcionites and Basilidians 14. On the other hand, anti-Gnostic Christian literature concerning the Gnostics comments on their claim to possess ‘true knowledge’ in ironic terms, asserting that, in fact, it is a matter of ‘false knowledge’ (ψευδώνυμος γνώσις), namely that it replaces the true meanings of the names in Scripture, attempting to incorporate them into a different religious discourse; it runs counter to the apostolic tradition preserved in the conciliar consciousness of the Church (this is what the expression ‘the multitudes of the Orthodox’ – Ὀρθοδόξων τὰ πλήθη – means)15.

Similar information is found in the Byzantine lexicon Suidas, where it is stated that the martyr Lucian was compelled to correct the biblical text because it had been corrupted over time by “the most cunning of men, who sought to distort certain meanings in the books and thus sowed the seeds of many lies”12.

We find the same information in The Life of Saint Luchian 16. Let us not forget that several renowned Gnostics were active in Antioch during the second century, and a generation before Lucian, the Armenian Vardesan lived there—a celebrated Gnostic known for having founded a school for the study of Scripture. Among other things, this involved altering the biblical text to bring it into line with the ideas of the Vardesian school. It is, however, highly likely that his work left a significant mark on Antioch by the time Lucian began his work there 17.

The work of the martyr Lucian is the so-called ‘Lucian’s Review of Holy Scripture’, a text which became the generally accepted liturgical text from Antioch to Constantinople 18 and which was probably used by all subsequent representatives of the Church of Constantinople and even by the Holy Brothers Cyril and Methodius in their translation of the Holy Scriptures into Church Slavonic, carried out by them in the 60s of the 9th century 19. The Old Testament text in this version is based on Theodotus’s revision of the Septuagint (‘The Seventy Translators’), collated with the Hebrew manuscripts which the martyr possessed in Antioch. According to Suidas’s Lexicon, he ‘corrected all the books, revising them in accordance with the Hebrew language, which he knew perfectly’20.

It is highly likely that this text was established as the basis for the Byzantine version as early as the time of Saint John Chrysostom’s archbishopric of Constantinople 21. We may consider that the school of the martyr Lucian was under the immediate supervision of the Church precisely because he was deeply committed to establishing within the Church of Antioch the textus receptus upon which its liturgical life is founded 22.

At no point in history has the Church engaged in textual criticism for its own sake (as we see in the Gnostic sects), and work on the text of Scripture is always conditioned by the liturgical needs – the living and grace-filled liturgical life – of the Church. Thus, the authenticity of the holy books is guaranteed by the collective conscience and authority of the Church 23.

Unfortunately, however, none of Saint Lucian’s exegetical works have survived 24. It may be assumed that extracts from his letter, referring to the martyrdom of Bishop Antimus, constitute the epilogue to an epistle from Nicomedia to the people of Antioch, which is found in the Paschal Chronicle (Πασχάλιον Χρονικόν)25. This document also provides the valuable information that the martyr’s tomb is located in the city of Drepanon in Bithynia (the birthplace of Saint Helena and later named after her, Elenopolis), where a church dedicated to him was later built and to which Emperor Constantine made a pilgrimage before his death. Here, in Nicomedia, he suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Emperor Maximinus in 311 or 312, probably on 7 January 26. And the ecclesiastical historian Philostorgius testified that Emperor Constantine’s mother, Saint Helena, founded a city bearing her name at the mouth of the Gulf of Nicomedia, because it was there that a dolphin miraculously brought the martyr’s lifeless body ashore after he had been killed not far from there, in Nicomedia 27.

Blessed Jerome, in his work On Illustrious Men, testifies that the martyr Lucian wrote short letters and a small Book on the Faith 28. It is far more likely that this refers to the text of the creed submitted by the Arian bishops at the Council of Antioch in 341, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia 29. It is this text that establishes the most direct link between the martyr Lucian and the Arians. The church historian Sozomen testifies that the bishops gathered there declared that ‘this is the faith of Lucian’30. This council was the most important in a series of anti-Nicene councils held in the mid-fourth century 31. It was attended by Emperor Constantius and other high-ranking magistrates 32. The synod issued four dogmatic definitions, the second of which is said to be the work of the martyr Lucian.

The association of the martyr with the activities of the Synod was one of the means by which those who took part in the Synod distanced themselves as far as possible from Arius, who had already been condemned at Nicaea…

The association of the martyr with the Council’s proceedings was one of the ways in which those who took part in the Councildistanced themselves as far as possible from the person of Arius, who had already been condemned at Nicaea 33 and to demonstrate the antiquity of their faith in opposition to those who upheld ‘consubstantiality’ (τὸ ὁμοούσιον), that is, the Nicene doctrine.

Despite the doubts expressed by Sozomen (under whose influence, along with that of a number of modern scholars 34), this symbol appears to form part of an anti-Sabellian and anti-Monarchian polemic, which was a topical issue in Antioch and beyond during the time of the martyr Lucian. This theme would be addressed in the writings of the Antiochian Fathers, teachers and writers for a long period of time – even into the fifth century. Although nothing positive can be said about this ‘symbol’, A. Sidorov and G. Bardi accept the authenticity of the text. According to them, it is no coincidence that the adherents of the omiousious formula were those who later embraced it, being conservative regarding the notion of ‘consubstantial’, yet also anti-Arian, having realised the entirely erroneous foundations of this heresy 35. Nevertheless, both Sidorov and Bardi assess the content of the symbol not as heretical, but as anachronistic within the context of the triadological controversy. Nevertheless, it is firmly rooted in tradition and can hardly be considered ‘wrong’; on the contrary, its invocation within the controversy represents a well-considered move on the part of Eusebius of Nicomedia and those around him 36.

Another work bearing his signature is the Apologia, published by Rufinus of Aquileia in his Latin translation of Eusebius’s Church History 37. It is highly unlikely that this is Lucian’s text, at least as it has come down to us. Gustave Bardy provides a detailed analysis of dozens of expressions in this Latin translation that correspond to Latin apologetic literature from the 2nd–3rd centuries. It is interesting to note that, although this is a translation of a work by Lucian, it is rendered very freely and makes use of a number of ‘clichés’ borrowed from the Latin apologetic writings of the period. On the other hand, a number of elements in this apologia coincide with details from the Life of Saint Lucian, which are found in Philostorgius’s Ecclesiastical History, so that the text cannot in any way be separated from the tradition associated with the name of the Antiochian teacher38. What is particularly important in this text, if indeed it contains the thoughts of the martyr Luchian, is the way in which it describes the purpose of the Incarnation. According to the text, God sends All-Wisdom in the flesh to humankind to show them the way to God and to teach them who the Creator of all that exists is. At the same time, right at the beginning of the text, it is emphasised that God is utterly inaccessible and unknowable:

‘This absolute Majesty cannot under any circumstances be apprehended by the faculties of the human mind, unless it is revealed [in the sense of being revealed, but through condescension] by the grace of His Spirit, or through the revelations of His Word or His Wisdom… That true and almighty God, whom our hands have not fashioned [like pagan idols], having mercy on lost mankind, sent His Wisdom into this world clothed in the flesh, to teach us about God, who created heaven and earth; who is to be sought not in things made by human hands [idols], but in the eternal and unseen. He has given us laws for life and commandments for instruction – that we should be temperate, rejoice in poverty, value gentleness, be peacemakers, embrace purity of heart, and have long-sufferingpatience [cf. The Beatitudes – Matthew 5:3–11]… After this, and finally that He Himself, who was immortal – namely, the Word and Wisdom of God – gave Himself up to death, through which He was incarnated to set us an example of long-suffering. Yet He did not deceive us by His death, but rose again on the third day… but blameless, spotless and pure, He endured death only to overcome it through the resurrection”39].

Another supposed writing of his, or the work of one of his disciples, is the brief commentary on the dialogue between the righteous Job and his wife, attributed to ‘some who listened to Lucian’ and found in Julian of Halicarnassus’s Commentary on the Book of Job 40.

Scholars of the works of the martyr Lucian have concluded that he followed Origen in his approach to and methodology regarding the text, and that his revision of the Old Testament follows the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla, which has not survived, but which we know was the text of the ‘Septuagint’ that Origen revised 41. However, this fact does not make Lucian a disciple of Origen. There is no evidence anywhere that the two ever met. Gustave Bardy believes that, from a purely chronological point of view, there is no possibility that Lucian could have attended Origen’s lectures 42.

Doubts concerning the martyr Luchian

Nevertheless, Blessed Jerome, in the works of his cited above, in which he mentions the martyr Lucian’s work in the field of biblical criticism, is not particularly complimentary in his assessments, which is most likely due to doubts concerning the circle of clergy who were adherents of the Arian heresy and who called themselves ‘companions of Luchian’43 This assessment cannot be accepted uncritically, as Blessed Jerome is not always objective regarding Eastern teachers.

In modern times, the German scholar Adolf Harnack did not hesitate to call Lucian ‘Arius before Arius’44, putting forward the thesis that the martyr was the true initiator of the Arian heresy, building upon the heretical views of Paul of Samosata. Harnack outlines a simple, seemingly obvious scheme which, however, we find nowhere in the sources. It places Paul of Samosata, Lucian and Arius in a line of succession – each successor learning from the previous one, whilst the priest Arius exposes ‘Lucian’s wickedness’. This position has been adopted by the entire German Protestant school to this day 45 and has exerted a significant influence on a considerable number of contemporary Orthodox historical-dogmatic studies addressing the issue of Arianism 46.

Such a statement, of course, puzzles us, as the name of Lucian remains in the Church’s consciousness as that of a martyr and a saint. In the icon of 15 October, he is praised as being ‘enlightened by the Holy Spirit, … a shining sword, which unfailingly cuts down all weeds – the foreign teachings of heretics, … a preacher of the truth’47. And Suda’s Byzantine Lexicon praises him as a model of the perfected ascetic life 12.

…it is the duty of the Orthodox scholar to study his memory within the context of Tradition, as that of a Saint and not of a heretic. His name would not have remained untainted in the conciliar consciousness of the Church had he truly been linked to the heresy that shook the Church throughout the fourth century.

As early as the beginning of the 20th century, Father Dmitrii Lebedev anticipated the development of the controversy surrounding the personality and memory of Saint Luchian in academic circles and stated that it is the duty of the Orthodox scholar to study his memory within the context of Tradition, as that of a Saint and not of a heretic. His name would not have remained untainted in the conciliar consciousness of the Church had he truly been linked to the heresy that shook the Church throughout the fourth century—48

Among the sources that mention the name of Lucian, the priest of Antioch, two strands can be distinguished: one identifies him as the teacher under whom the first generation of Arians studied, and whose followers included Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Asterius of Cappadocia, Theognis of Nicomedia, Leontius of Antioch, etc. 49 Furthermore, at the pro-Arian Synod of Antioch in 341, the second creed, which at first glance gives the impression of having an Arian influence, and to which the adherents of the ‘homiousios’ formula remained faithful, was attributed by them, as I have mentioned, precisely to the martyr Lucian. As for its text, the creed remained a subject of debate at the Council of Caria in 367 50. However, let us remember that the supporters of ‘homoiousios’ are, rather, Orthodox Christians who are concerned about the term ‘consubstantial’ (ὁμοούσιος), since, in their view, it could lead to a Sabellian conflation of the three persons of the Trinity; yet, in fact, they condemned the heresy of Arius. Furthermore, according to modern research into Arius, there is no conclusive evidence, apart from that already cited, that Arius studied under Lucian. Moreover, following the discovery in the 20th century of a number of fragments attributed to Paul of Samosata, Lucian and Arius, the theory that there was a direct link between the three has receded into the background. On the contrary, we can now state with certainty that there is no direct relationship between Paul of Samosata and Lucian 51. However, Arius belongs rather to a tradition which clarified its doctrines in opposition to Paul of Samosata in the 60s of the third century 52.

He is associated, in a letter by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, dated 321, with the heretic Paul of Samosata, it being noted that, due to his heresy, he remained outside communion with the Church during the time of the three bishops who ascended to the episcopal see of Antioch following the condemnation of the heretical Bishop Paul of Samosata in 268–269. However, this epistle states that Lucian was the successor (διάδοχος) to Paul of Samosata, but does not specify whether this refers to his views or to the episcopal throne 53. It is entirely logical that this refers to a succession to the episcopal see, since Paul was deposed and excommunicated from the Church by the Council of Antioch in 268/269.

The second clue we find in the sources concerning the commemoration of the martyr Lucian Eusebius of Caesarea describes him as ‘a man perfect in every respect, moderate in his way of life and highly learned in the sacred sciences’54.

He is praised by Saint John Chrysostom 55 for his consummate orthodox teaching. The same martyr Luchian is referred to as a saint, an ascetic and a great martyr in the Synopsis, a work attributed to the greatest fighter against the Arian heresy, Saint Athanasius the Great 56. Of particular importance to us are the liturgical texts, where his commemoration is preserved unaltered and he is honoured as a great martyr 57.

Whatever tradition we associate with the name of the martyr Lucian, as Otto Bardenhever quite rightly points out, the indisputable fragments of his work that have come down to us do not allow us to confirm the accusations of heresy, whether those of Paul of Samosata, Arius or any other heretics who followed 58.

From this perspective, contrary to the majority of scholars in the field of contemporary dogmatic history, authors who have studied the martyr’s life in depth, such as Friedrich Loofs 59, Gustav Bardi 60, Dimitris Balanos 61, and Panayiotis Christou 62, in order to resolve the dispute surrounding the name of Lucian, assume the existence of two individuals bearing this name in Antioch, who were active in the second half of the third century, one from the circle of Paul of Samosata and born around the year 230, the other at least twenty years younger and, more likely, associated with the martyrdom at Nicomedia in 311–312. The latter, according to them, is also considered to have been Arius’s teacher; he was also the leading figure in the early development of the Antioch school of theology 63. The first, according to D. Balanos and P. Christou, would have been old enough to travel, at the age of around 80, to Nicomedia, where he suffered martyrdom. This argument, in itself, carries little weight, being entirely hypothetical.

One of D. Balanos’s arguments for maintaining that the martyr Lucian is not the same person as the disciple and successor of Paul of Samosata portrayed in the Epistle of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria is that Bishop Alexander testifies that, following the condemnation of Paul of Samosata, Lucian ‘remained outside communion with the Church, under three bishops, for a considerable number of years’64 Balanos believes that, in this situation, Lucian could not have become a martyr of the Church, as he was in disobedience, but simply that the Arians, needing an authority figure to commit to upholding their doctrine, deliberately confused the accounts concerning the two distinct individuals bearing this name and hailing from Antioch. However, as P. Christou also observes 65, he fails to take into account the fact that the text refers to a limited period – under three bishops, for ‘many years’, not ‘indefinite periods of time’. This means that the martyr Luchian, too, was in a state of temporary disobedience, was later reinstated, and indeed appears to have taught in the Church until the end of his life. In fact, Saint Alexander of Alexandria states that this refers to a limited period – under three bishops, namely Domnus (from 268 to 270–1?), Timeus (270–271? to 279–280?) and Cyril (from 279–80? to 303)66, that is, until 303.

However, this remains a well-constructed hypothesis, which has not been substantiated in any way by the historical evidence at our disposal. For this reason, it is rejected by the contemporary Greek patrologist Stylianos Papadopoulos 67.

Conclusion

We may therefore say that, despite the doubts expressed by several ecclesiastical writers, the memory of this martyr for the faith is preserved unaltered within the Church, and the liturgical texts concerning him clearly indicate that his personality is quite distinctly associated with his biblical teachings and studies. Nevertheless, in the fields of church history and patristics, his work is often underestimated, though without serious justification. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the biblical text he produced became the primary liturgical text of the Church of Constantinople and, thereby subsequently exerted a significant influence on numerous translations, the earliest of which, however, was the Slavonic translation by Saints Cyril and Methodius. As such, he exerted a significant influence on the very formation of the Bulgarian language.

• 1

  See Fr. Winkelmann, A History of Early Christianity, trans. G. Kapriev, Sofia, 19; H. Hunger, The Empire at a New Centre: The Christian Spirit in Byzantine Culture, trans. G. Indjieva, Sofia.

• 2

  Between 350,000 and 500,000 people, according to A. Festugière, Antioche païenne et chrétienne, Paris 1959, p. 24; A. Guillou estimates approximately 300,000 people, Ὁ Βυζαντινός Πολιτισμός. Trans. P. Odorico, ed. Tsochantariou, 2nd ed., Athens 1998, p. 345.

• 3

  See N. Fetisov, Diodorus of Tarsus. An Attempt at an Ecclesiastical-Historical Study of His Life and Work, Kyiv 1915, pp. 56 ff. and the reception of this thesis in A. Sidorov, Blessed Feodorit of Kirsk – Archbishop, Monk, Theologian. His Significance in the History of the Early Christian Church and Orthodox Theology – in: Bl. Feodorit of Kirsk, History of the God-Lovers. Moscow: Palomnik, 1996, pp. 3–135. The latter also refers to the specialist literature on this subject.

• 4

  Interesting facts about the life of the Church of Antioch between the end of the first century and the beginning of the third century. In: G. Downey, Ancient Antioch. Princeton, New Jersey: PU Press 1963, pp. 120–142; D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 1–66; Papadopoulos, Chrysostomos, Archbishop of Athens, History of the Church of Antioch. Alexandria 1951, pp. 3–128.

• 5

  See B. Nasif’s interesting remarks on this subject, ‘Spiritual Exegesis in the School of Antioch’ – in: B. Nasif (ed.), New Perspectives on Historical Theology. Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff. Grand Rapids, Michigan–Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996, pp. 343–377.

• 6

  See the section on this point in: Behr, J. The Formation of Christian Theology. Vol. 1: The Way to Nicaea. New York: SVS Press, 2001, pp. 263 ff.

• 7

  See C. Roberts, Manuscript and Belief in Early Christian Egypt. London 1977, p. 54; John Dillon, The Academy in the Middle Platonic Period. Dionysus 3, 1979, pp. 63–77, and, in Bulgarian, a competent account of standard education in that period in: P. Brown, Vlast i ubejdenie v kăsnata anticinost. Trans. D. Iliev, Sofia: Lik 2004, pp. 61–110.

• 8

  See P. Braun, Svetăt na kăsnata antichnost (150–750 AD). Translated by St. Gjaurov, Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo, 1999, pp. 17, 27–30.

• 9

  Ibid., p. 20.

• 10

  Although the sources do not provide a definitive view regarding a specific founder of the so-called Antiochene school, the following authors, who deal with the Antiochene tradition, identify the Martyr Lucian as the first Antiochene teacher or the founder of this school: A. Buonaiuti, Luciano martire, la sua dottrina e la sua scuola. RSCST 4 (1908), pp. 833–834, n. 3; Stokes, G. Lucianus, priest of Antioch. DCB, Vol. III, London 1889, p. 748; G. Bardy, Recherches sur Saint Lucien d’Antiochie et son école, Paris: Études de Théologie Historique 1936, pp. 78–79; Sellers, R. *Two Ancient Christologies. A Study in the Christological Thought of the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch in the Early History of Christian Doctrine. London: SPCK 1940, 107; G. Downey, Op. cit., p. 141; D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Op. cit., p. 30 ff. A. Sidorov takes the opposite view, namely that the Martyr Lucian cannot be regarded as the first representative of this specific theological trend: Svjatoj Lukian Antiohijskij i ego ucheniki. AO 2 /49/, 2007, p. 57. The latter proposes Saint Eustathius of Antioch as the first teacher of this school.

• 11

  Suidas, s.v. (PG 117, 1289B) in Latin translation.

• 12a12b12c

  Suidas, s.v. (PG 117, 1289B).

• 13

  The October Menaios, containing the entire service pertaining to it, together with the addition of the Typikon. Athens: Apostolic Ministry 1991, p. 157.

• 14

  See H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginning of Christianity, 3rd ed., Boston 1992, pp. 130–146; 174–205.

• 15

  See Il. Conevski, ‘The Teaching of St Irenaeus of Lyons on the Person and Redemptive Work of Jesus Christ’. GDA 15, 1965, 153–170; Jevtich, Bishop Athanasius, The Teaching of St Irenaeus of Lyons on the Church, Orthodoxy and the Eucharist. In: Church, Orthodoxy, Eucharist – A Short Anthology of Contemporary Serbian Theology. Trans. M. Stoyadinov, Part I, Sofia 1999, pp. 35 ff.; N. Brox, Revelation, Gnosis and Gnostic Myth in Irenaeus of Lyons (On the Characteristics of the Systems), Munich 1966, pp. 169–200. On the influence of the Encratite and Valentinian Gnostics on the School of Alexandria and in Syria, see C. Roberts, Op. cit., pp. 49–60.

• 16

  A short passage included in Philostorgius’s Life of Emperor Constantine, Hist. eccl. II, 12–14 (PG 65, 476b–477b).

• 17

  For details on the Antiochian Gnostic Bardesanes, see A. Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes – der letzte Gnostiker. Leipzig 1864.

• 18

  Papadopoulos, S., Patrology. Volume II. The Fourth Century (East and West). Athens 1990, p. 76. Blessed Jerome testifies that the martyr Lucian compiled commentaries on the ‘Septuagint’, the New Testament and other minor texts: De viris illustribus 77 (PL 23, 723); Epist. ad Damasum (PL 29, 527); Praef. ad Paralip. (PL 29, 423–425).

• 19

  B. Piperov, ‘A Critical Review of the Biblical Text and the Translation by Saints Cyril and Methodius’. GDA 18 /44/, 1971, pp. 883–896.

• 20

  Suidas, p. v. (PG 117, 1289B). Another important figure of the Antioch school from the same period was the presbyter Dorotheus (B. Piperov, op. cit., p. 288). Boyan Piperov acknowledges that he collaborated with the martyr Lucian on the so-called ‘Lucian’s Recension’. We have very little information about him. It is known that he was a scholar of the Hebrew language and was very familiar with the Scriptures and Jewish interpretative tradition (Eusebius Caesar, Hist. eccl. VII, 32. PG 20, 721B; G. Bardy, Recherches sur Saint Lucien d’Antiochie… pp. 43–44). Eusebius also mentions that he was an ascetic by example (Eusebius Caesar, Hist. Eccl., VII, 32 (PG 20, 721B): ‘This Philocalus, having become… in matters pertaining to the divine… but by nature a eunuch, having been so from birth). The height of his activity was around the year 275, during the episcopate of Timothy and Cyril in Antioch (Christou, P. Op. cit., p. 946). It is likely that, like the holy martyr Lucian, he ended his earthly life as a martyr during the persecutions of Diocletian (Eusebius Caesar, Hist. eccl. VII, 6. PG 20, 752B). Later sources refer to him as ‘an elderly man, bishop of Tyre, a man of spiritual depth, who suffered martyrdom under the emperors Licinius and Constantine’ and cite his exegetical writings such as On the Prophets*, On the Twelve Apostles, and On the Seventy Apostles (Chronicon Paschale, Bonn, 2, 120–138, PG 92, 1072).

• 21

  This argument is also supported by Papadopoulos, St., op. cit., p. 76.

• 22

  See Papadopoulos, Chrysostomos, Archbishop of Athens, Op. cit., p. 118. Cf. Jerome, De vil. Ill. 77 (PL 23, 723).

• 23

  See Em. Traicev, ‘Some Questions Concerning the Typological Interpretation of Sveshh’. Pisanie in: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference ‘Religion, Education and Society for a Single Peaceful World’, Kardjali, 2003, p. 121.

• 24

  For theories regarding his alleged lost writings, see G. Bardy, Op. cit., pp. 82–180.

• 25

  See Chronicon Paschale for the year 327 (PG 92, 689).

• 26

  To this day, Roman Catholics continue to celebrate him on this day. The sources attesting to his martyrdom are: Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica, VIII, 13; IX, 6 (PG 20, 773C; 808D–809A); Jerome, De viris illustribus 77 (PL 23, 723); Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica, II, 13 (PG 65, 476BC); John Chrysostom, In sanctum Lucianum martyrem (PG 50, 519–526); Symeon Metaphrastes, Martyrium S. Luciani (PG 114, 401).

• 27

  Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica, II, 12 (PG 65, 476BC).

• 28

  De viris illustribus 77 (PL 23, 723).

• 29

  Socrates Scholasticus, Hist. eccl. II, 10 (PG 67, 201–204C). Almost the same text, with very minor differences, is preserved in Athanasius of Alexandria, Epistola de Synodis 23 (PG 26, 721–724); We also have a Latin translation in Hilarius Pictus’s Liber de Synodis seu de fide orientalium 29 (PL 10, 502–504). See Hermias Sozomenus, Hist. eccl. III, 5 (PG 67, 1041–1045A), who does not reproduce the text but casts doubt on whether it was written by Lucian.

• 30

  Hermias Sozomenus, Ibid: ‘They said that Lucian, who was martyred in Nicomedia, had found this creed in its complete form.’

• 31

  See Koev, The Dogmatic Formulations of the First Four Ecumenical Councils. Sofia: Synodal Publishing House, 1968, pp. 58 ff.

• 32

  A. Sidorov, Saint Lucian of Antioch…, 41. See the subchapter on the Council: Socrates Scholasticus, Hist. eccl. II, 8. (PG 67, 196A–197B) and Hermias Sozomenus, Hist. eccl. III, 5 (PG 67, 1041A–1045A).

• 33

  A. Sidorov, Saint Lucian of Antioch…, pp. 42–43.

• 34

  See A. Spaski, The History of Dogmatic Movements in the Era of the Ecumenical Councils (in Relation to the Philosophical Teachings of that Time). 2nd ed., Moscow 1995, p. 230; A. Kartashov, Ecumenical Councils. Second edition, Moscow 1994, p. 66; R. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh 1988, p. 290.

• 35

  See A. Sidorov, Saint Lucian of Antioch…, pp. 44–45; G. Bardy, Op. cit., pp. 130–132.

• 36

  A. Sidorov, Ibid., p. 45; Bardy, G. Op. cit., p. 132.

• 37

  Rufinus, Hist. eccl. IX, 6. Gustave Bardi published a critical edition of the text in his study on Lucian: Op. cit., pp. 134–149.

• 38

  Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History II, 14 (PG 65, 476C–477A).

• 39

  Bardy, G. Op. cit., p. 138: For that sublime majesty cannot be conveyed to the senses of the human mind unless it is either conveyed by the power of the Spirit Himself, or revealed through the interpretations of His word and wisdom… Yet that almighty Lord, whom we did not conceive in our own images, but of whom it was fitting for us to form an image, taking pity on human error, sent his wisdom into this world clothed in flesh, that it might teach us to seek the God who made heaven and earth, not in created things, but in the eternal and invisible. He also established for us the laws of life and the precepts of discipline: to practise frugality, to rejoice in poverty, to cultivate meekness, to strive for peace, to embrace purity of heart, and to maintain patience… Hence, finally, He Himself—who was immortal, being the Word and Wisdom of God—surrendered Himself to death so that, having been placed in the flesh among us, He might set an example of patience for us. Yet he did not deceive us by his death, for on the third day he rose again… but, being innocent, spotless and pure, he endured death for this sole purpose: to conquer it by rising again…

• 40

  Bardy, G. Op. cit., p. 42.

• 41

  Bardy, G. Op. cit., pp. 42–44; Piperov, B. Op. cit., p. 294.

• 42

  See Bardy, G., op. cit., pp. 42 ff.

• 43

  B. Piperov, Op. cit., p. 292.

• 44

  See Harnak, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Volume 1: Die Entstehung des Kirchlichen Dogmas. Darmstadt 1893, pp. 526–532, 731–732; ibid., Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Volume 2, Darmstadt, 1964, p. 187; ibid., The Chronology of Early Christian Literature up to Eusebius. Volume 2, Leipzig 1904, pp. 138–146; E. Bounaiuti, ‘Lucian the Martyr. His Doctrine and His School’. Rivista storico-critica delle scienze teologiche, 4 (1908), pp. 830–837; 909–923.

• 45

  Prominent representatives who share Harnack’s view include: Fr. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte. Halle⁴ 1906, p. 234; R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Volume Two: Die Dogmenbildung in der Alten Kirche. Erlangen 1923³, pp. 21–22; B. Altaner, Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter. Freiburg-Basel-Vienna 1966, p. 214.

• 46

  See Koev, Op. cit., 12–18; A. Dvorkin, Essays on the History of the Orthodox Church. Nizhny Novgorod, 2003, 150; Ioan Romanidis, A Brief Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics. Sofia: Ruenski Monastery, 2007, p. 39 ff.

• 47

  October issue, p. 154: Emboldened by divine knowledge, and with his mind ablaze with divine glory, O Athlete, enlightened by the Spirit, you were seen as a polished sword, cutting down all weeds at the root, gloriously destroying the heretical doctrines of the heretics; and as a herald of the truth, granting life to all, delivering those who approach you with piety from dangers and afflictions. We pray that you will never cease to intercede for all of us.

• 48

  This view is held by D. Lebedev, Evsevi Nikomidiski and Lukian (On the Question of the Origins of Arianism). (VB, 1912, April, 722–734; May, 180–189). Bolotov also subscribed to this view: V. Lectures on the History of the Early Church. IV. The History of the Church during the Period of the Ecumenical Councils. 3. The History of Theological Thought. Moscow 1994, 3.

• 49

  Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica, II, 14 (PG 65, 476D–477A); Epiphanius, Adversus haereses, 43, 1; 69, 6 (PG 41, 817–820; 42, 209C–213A); the same author, Ancoratus, 33, 4 (PG 43, 77AC).

• 50

  Christou, P. Hellenic Patrology, Vol. II (The Period of Persecution). Thessaloniki 1978, p. 952. The text itself is preserved in Hermias Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica, III, 5; VI, 12 (PG 67, 1041A–1045A; 1321B–1328A). However, Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus, when referring to this text, is cautious about accepting it as an authentic work by the martyr Lucian; see Adv. haer. 43, 1 (PG 41, 817–820).

• 51

  See G. Bardy, Paul of Samosata. A Historical Study. Leuven–Paris 1923, 58–59, 400 ff.; Loofs, Paulus von Samosata. A Study of Early Christian Literary and Dogmatic History. Leipzig 1924, 185–186; Williams, R. Arius. Heresy and Tradition. London 2001, pp. 162–163.

• 52

  See J. Behr, The Nicene Faith: Formation of Christian Theology, Vol. 2, Part 1. New York: SVS Press, 2004, pp. 21 ff.

• 53

  The letter has been preserved in Theodoretus of Cyrene, Historia ecclesiastica I, 3 (PG, 82, 900D–901A).

• 54

  Eusebius Caesar, Hist. eccl., IX, 6 (PG, 20, 808D–809A).

• 55

  Panegyric Homily on St Lucian the Martyr. PG 50, 519–526. It is interesting to note that, at the same time, we have very clear evidence that St John Chrysostom was aware of the heresy of Paul of Samosata and its dogmatic implications. His words are: ‘Let those who have accepted the folly of Paul of Samosata be put to shame, for they oppose such an obvious truth!’ – Hom. in Joannem, 17, 2 (PG 59, 109B).

• 56

  Athanasius of Alexandria, Brevis divinae Scripturae Veteris ac Novi Testamenti Synopsis, id est Compendium 77 (PG 28, 436).

• 57

  October issue, pp. 150–157.

• 58

  Otto Bardenhewer, Op. cit., Vol. 2, Darmstadt 1962, p. 433.

• 59

  Fr. Loofs, The Confession of Lucian the Martyr. Proceedings of the Prussian Academy, 1915, pp. 576–603.

• 60

  G. Bardy, ‘The Apologetic Discourse of St Lucian of Antioch’. RHE 22 (1926), pp. 487–512, and his later book, based entirely on this thesis: Recherches sur Saint Lucien d’Antiochie et son école. Paris: Études de Théologie Historique, 1936.

• 61

  Balanos, D. ‘Lucian the Martyr and Lucian the Excommunicated’. Proceedings of the Academy of Athens 7, 1932, pp. 306–311.

• 62

  Christou, P., Op. cit., p. 951.

• 63

  This thesis is accepted uncritically by A. Sidorov, Sviato Lukian Antiohiski i ego uceniki. AO 1, /48/, 2007, p. 38, and has formed the basis for the development of his entire work on Lucian. A 1 /48/, 2007, pp. 36–50; 2 /49/, 2007, pp. 38–57.

• 64

  Theodoretus of Cyrene, Historia ecclesiastica I, 3 (PG, 82, 900D–901A): The synod remained in session for many years under three bishops.

• 65

  Christou, P. Op. cit., p. 950.

• 66

  See the chronology of the bishops of Antioch, as established by the accounts of Eusebius of Caesarea in R. Devreesse, Le Patriarchat d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’Église jusqu’à la conquête arabe. Paris, 1945, pp. 115 ff.

• 67

  Papadopoulos, S. Op. cit., p. 76.