Faut-il voir trois personnages en Grégoire le Thaumaturge? A propos du "Remerciement à Origène" et de la "Lettre à Grégoire"
It has generally been thought, on the basis of the Apologia for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius, according to the information given by the historian Socrates, and on the basis of the Historia Ecclesiastica of the same Eusebius, that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus, famous...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | French |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Ed. Pontificia Univ. Gregoriana
1979
|
| In: |
Gregorianum
Year: 1979, Volume: 60, Issue: 2, Pages: 287-320 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | It has generally been thought, on the basis of the Apologia for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius, according to the information given by the historian Socrates, and on the basis of the Historia Ecclesiastica of the same Eusebius, that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus, famous for the many miracles attributed to him, was a disciple of Origen, that he delivered the extant Discourse of Thanks in honor of his teacher, and that he received from Origen a letter which is preserved in the Philocalia of Origen. In a recent book, P. Nautin has tried to prove that the author of the Discourse of Thanks, the addressee of the Letter, and the Bishop of Neocaesarea were three different people. But, as far as the Discourse is concerned, his proof is based on a very questionable personal reconstruction of the information which the orator gives about himself: a reconstruction which seems to us in contradiction to clear details of the text itself, and seems to misinterpret or exaggerate certain other points. In order to find in the Letter to Gregory biographical data which seem to him to contradict the data in the Discourse, he draws on allegorical interpretation. Now, to draw conclusions of the historical order from allegorical interpretation is contrary not only to the practise of Origen, but to his explicit theory as well. The present article likewise refutes other arguments advanced to show that the author of the Discourse, the addressee of the Letter, and the Bishop of Neocaesarea were three different persons. It is astonishing that P. Nautin has not even mentioned the Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus attributed to Gregory of Nyssa. In spite of the legendary material it contains, this work has always been thought to provide a certain amount of historical data, coming from traditions of Cappadocia and Pontus. Now, the Panegyric not only tells us explicitly that Gregory was a disciple of Origen, but also the account which it gives of his education shows, by a series of parallels, that it is influenced by the Discourse of Thanks and the Letter to Gregory. To contradict a statement of Eusebius, whom P. Nautin himself considers to be an honest historian, one needs to have solid reasons. The reasons advanced in this book do not seem solid; on the contrary, they seem based on questionable presuppositions and exaggerations. There are better reasons for thinking that Pamphilus and Eusebius were correctly informed. |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Gregorianum
|