John, Archbishop of Nicaea

as the divine Spirit proclaimed him, ^A excepting the scriptural history from the argument of total denial and from being led into absolute impiety; and that he might openly declare that for those things which are done by violence and not by an ingrained perversity of mind, there follows by right and merit some measure of indulgence. For that great man Aaron, yielding to the vehemence of the ancient people and performing for them the service of completing the idol, and concurring with them, was indeed reproved by his brother; yet when he pleaded in his defense the violent pressure by which he had been led, he was not rebuked by God at all, nor did he lose the dignity of the high priesthood; because God, who fashioneth the hearts of us all individually, as the great David says, looked toward the true veneration and religion of God itself which is placed in the affection of the mind, and not toward the external rashness.

Since, therefore, the healthy and coherent understanding of our mind, in regard to right discourse and faith, has been shown, with that immediate promptness by which we have condemned those things which were absurdly perpetrated, we establish the dogmas of piety by the confirmation of the aforementioned holy Sixth Synod; embrace us, most honorable ^B brothers. "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so shall you fulfill the law of Christ," the divine Apostle cries out to us with a most magnificent voice; that we may with one mind and one spirit glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Subscription. Farewell in the Lord: pray for us, most holy and most blessed brother.

NOTE.

UNCERTAIN YEAR JOHN OF NICAEA ARCHBISHOP. NOTICE.

At the end of the ninth century, or the beginning of the tenth, sat John, Metropolitan of Nicaea, whose book *On the Nativity of the Lord*, addressed to Zacharias, Metropolitan or Catholicos of Armenia, Combe-

published in Volume III of the *Auctarium Bibliothecae Patrum Graecorum*. Anastasius of Caesarea calls this author [to be identified] in his *Opusculum De jejunio Deiparae*, which was published in Volume I of the *Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*; and furthermore, Nicon of Rhaithu, in two minor works he wrote on this subject and which I have in my notes, refers to John, Metropolitan of Nicaea, writing to Zacharias, the Catholicos of Great Armenia. Nicon lived during the time of the emperors Basil and Constantine, as he himself signifies in his second minor work. Furthermore, from the series of the Catholicoi of Armenia, it will be found that the Zacharias to whom John of Nicaea wrote held office during the time of Photius; there exists, indeed, an epistle of the same Photius to him, which Galanus published in his Armenian works in both Armenian and Latin.

OF JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF NICAEA, ON THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST, TO ZACHARIAS, CATHOLICOS OF GREAT ARMENIA.

^A The divine Apostle once, writing to his renowned disciple Timothy, says: "For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing." To this you have followed, O blessed Zacharias, having become the successor of the great apostle Thaddeus, and a fellow-throne of the holy Gregory, a guide of the house of Togarmah, and overseer of the inhabitants ^B of Ararat, and most learned of the tribes.

NOTES. (1) Those things treated in this epistolary tract concerning the division of the feasts of the Lord’s Nativity and Epiphany, and the occasion and origin thereof, are excellent and new, by which those things are greatly illuminated which Chrysostom has about the new institution of the feast of the Lord’s Nativity in the East, separate from the Epiphany, and [its] custom being derived from the West, where it had already been celebrated from of old, *annouthen*, on the 25th of December. Our John would be of greater antiquity in the faith if he were an equal or peer to Chrysostom, Arcadius, and Honorius; but he seems much younger, since Zacharias the Catholicos, to whom he writes, does not appear in the Catalogue of the Catholicoi of Armenia, which I present from the Royal [Library]: whose author, therefore, might be older than John. He could have obtained these [things] from the monuments of his own Church or that of Constantinople. Isaac the Catholicos, in both his invectives against the Armenians, attacks them bitterly because they celebrate the Lord’s Nativity and Baptism at the same time, nor [will he admit] to another [tradition] that they hold the Lord’s day [of birth] as though these were arguments for their heresy and a denial of the Incarnation. But these are trifles, since the Armenians commit almost nothing else in this regard than what Alexandria, Constantinople, etc., had practiced around the year 400, and Rome itself for some centuries, and up to the time of Julius, as is evidenced by the things narrated by our John: against which hardly anything from more ancient monuments can be opposed. Gretser, in his notes on Codinus, denies to Chrysostom that prayer on the birthday of Christ at that time newly known to the Orientals, because the style seems different; but he is plainly hallucinating, and nowhere could he have found a Chrysostom more like himself. And thus Pantinus, who first edited it rendered in Latin, Ducaeus, Savile, and others consider it truly *gnēsion* (authentic). That it is not by Chrysostom is proven, because [the author] affirms that that celebration was once known and illustrious from Thrace even to Gades: "For...

[I have requested] from the most meager of my intellect, ^A regarding the most excellent of the warriors, the Azat; he who has requested from the lowliness of my mind, most brilliant and inescapable discourses, surpassing my own intellect, concerning the ineffable nativity and appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, the great God and Creator of all things; and for what reason the apostolic ordinance—the composition of James—January" (2) ... who from a very mediocre intellectual capacity makes the most brilliant discourses that instill certain faith—discourses that surpass the power of his intellect—concerning the secret nativity and appearance of the great God and Creator of all things, the Lord Jesus Christ; and for what reason, although the apostolic constitution (3) contains it, it is a composition of James.

NOTES

^B He says, "Constantinople is in Thrace." A good reason, not by which that homily is deservedly rejected as Chrysostom’s, but by which it [is rejected] only as Chrysostom’s the patriarch and bishop. For the very same homily sufficiently indicates that it was delivered at Antioch while the bishop was present, when he says: "But now, having spoken [these things], I shall cease the discourse, having deferred to the common teacher for the greater matters." Where I shall add only one thing, [and then] I shall make an end of speaking; leaving it to the common doctor to speak on what is greater: namely, to Flavian his bishop. And thus, by now, the religion of the Nativity of Christ had already spread for a few years at Antioch, when Chrysostom was serving there as priest and preacher. He could even then, as he had long known of it in Thrace—when even there some, according to the custom of the Occidentals, had begun from the time of Julius to observe it—consider it illustrious. To this, nothing stands in the way, so that it may not have been accepted even when he was now patriarch, by the favor of Arcadius, in Constantinople and everywhere throughout the East: since he wrote with his usual zeal to the elder saint Isaac in Armenia, in whose diocese it seemed to be. But that the *Graecus* [editor/commentator] should take away this homily from Chrysostom, he would also have to take away those illustrious ones against the Jews; since in that [work] he makes open mention of that fifth fast of the Jews, which he argued most diffusely in an inopportune month. And that he might encounter many such censors, hardly anything—even if you wish, by Erasmus—would remain inviolate. [Look at] Homily 1 on Pentecost, which itself was also delivered at Antioch by a non-bishop, since it makes mention of only three feasts, namely the Epiphanies, Pascha, and Pentecost. It indicates not obscurely that the special day of Christ’s Nativity was hardly yet celebrated ^C and known at Antioch, except for the day of Lights, on which alone the churches of the East celebrated everything concerning the appearance of Christ in the flesh. Theorianus, in his Dialogue with the Catholic of the Armenians, presents that homily of Chrysostom, which he says does not exist among his own people: "We do not have this discourse of Chrysostom ourselves." And after other things: "For I have not yet seen the discourse of divine Chrysostom, which dictates when one must celebrate the feast of the Nativity of Christ, to which you yourself have made mention above; nor have I heard that there is a discourse of Chrysostom concerning this; rather, I have heard it to be a discourse of the holy Epiphanius of Cyprus concerning this; but I have not seen that one either. For they say that the divine Epiphanius, being from the Hebrews, confirmed from the Hebrew scripture and from Josephus the Chronicler that the Nativity of the Savior is to be celebrated on December 25th. They say that the writings which Titus brought from Jerusalem to Rome when he captured that city agree with this." Now I, for my part, have not yet seen D. Chrysostom’s oration, in which he teaches when the Nativity of Christ should be celebrated, of which you yourself made mention above. Indeed, I have not even heard that any oration of Chrysostom of this subject exists; I had rather understood it to be a certain oration of the holy Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, concerning this, which I also have not seen. For they say that Saint Epiphanius, being a Hebrew by nation, asserted from the Hebrew records and from the annalist Josephus that the Savior’s day should be celebrated on December 25. They say that those writings which Titus had carried from Jerusalem to Rome, when he captured that city, also agree with this: which indeed, as they argue the Chrysostom oration to be somewhat obscure ^D to the Armenian people, yet indicate it as otherwise known to the Greeks; and at the same time they illustrate the whole argument of this Epistle as clearly consenting to it. Nor is it yet clear that Saint Epiphanius wrote on that argument; and he could have stated his opinion when asked, without any written oration. But whether those things have the truth, it is not so clear: whether the martyrdom of the Nicomedians on the day of the Nativity of Christ refers to December 25, which even then was starting to be treated as particularly famous, or to January 6, which was considered both the day of the Nativity and of Baptism, under the single name of Theophania or Epiphany.

^A Indeed, the Word, who descended from the Father, accomplished three nativities: the one in which He took flesh from the holy Virgin, whom He also honored by coming to the temple after forty days. The second nativity is the baptism He received in the Jordan, when, being tempted by the devil, He overcame him. The third, finally, is the awesome resurrection from the dead. And in a miraculous manner, He conversed in the midst of His disciples for forty days, and from the Mount of Olives He was taken up to the Father. The blessed apostles, therefore, the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ, through the imposition of the Lord’s hands on the Mount of Olives, received the grace ^B that their minds might be opened to understand the Scriptures; and at the coming of the Holy Spirit, they were filled with all knowledge; and they learned the preaching of the Gospel that was to be handed down to the nations, and all things that were to come. However, because of the onslaught of those seven heresies that sprang up from the Jews, they were not able to set forth and ordain the offices of the whole Church in detail and in order. But they did strive solicitously for this one thing: to preach Christ, God from God, who had appeared to the world. Now the names of the seven heresies are these: 1. Scribes; 2. Pharisees; 3. Sadducees; 4. Hemerobaptists; 5. Asiani; 6. Nazareni; 7. Herodians. All these were opposed to the blessed apostles; and with them, the Simonians, ^C Cerinthians, Arians, Sabellians, and Eunomians, who were set in direct opposition to the holy Church. Moreover, for many years the Church celebrated Pascha on the fourteenth day of the moon. For the Church could not then restrain all people, until the time of that peace-loving Constantine, who, by the Nicene synod, stopped every mouth of the heretics and exalted the horn of the Church. From that time forth, therefore, the holy Fathers and the blessed bishops, tracing the footsteps of the holy apostles, separated the holy Pascha from the Jewish [rite], justly and deservedly honoring the holy catholic Church, and gladdening her with psalms, hymns, and spiritual ^D canticles, and they ordained the various festivals, assigning each to its proper day. Further, those apostles who were from the disciples of holy John the Baptist, having heard the testimony that John gave concerning the Lord, believed and followed the Lord; and when they saw the Lord baptized in the Jordan, on that day they established also the festival of the Baptism. [alt-version omitted]

^A James, moreover, the brother of the Lord, having come to Bethlehem at the birth of the Lord, and who also exercised the episcopate in Jerusalem for thirty years, did not forbid those who celebrated the Nativity; rather, he praised them, saying that they celebrated the Nativity in another city. Not that he wrote in opposition, as if those who celebrate it in another city are mistaken. And from the beginning, the apostles established other canons for those who had believed from among the Gentiles, saying to abstain from things strangled, and from fornication, and from blood. But the canons of the present time contain various dogmas and teachings. For the Most High did not ordain the same legislation for every time and season; but for each time He determined a regulation and a law.

^B However, as to the Nativity of the Savior, and how they arranged for it to be celebrated on December 25th, this is what we have found. Cyril once wrote—not the Cyril who wrote the Epistle to Constantius, but he who succeeded to his throne—to Julius, the Bishop of Rome, writing and saying: "Great labor and deprivation occurs during the great and splendid festivals, because they are celebrated on a single day; and the readings and the sequence of both festivals are left half-finished, because we are unable to celebrate both the Nativity and the Baptism of the Lord. For we cannot gather in one day at the place of the baptism; for Bethlehem is three miles south of Jerusalem, and the Jordan is fifteen miles to the east. Therefore, let Your Holiness command a search ^C of all the writings of the Jews which Caesar Titus plundered and carried off from Jerusalem to Rome; perhaps you might find with certainty the day of the birth of Christ and our God."

Then Julius of Rome inquired diligently about this request; and having gathered all the writings of the Jews that had been captured and brought to Rome, he found a certain writing by Josephus the chronicler ^D from... [alt-version omitted]

^A that in the seventh month, at the Feast of Tabernacles [(6)], and on the Day of Atonement, the angel of God appeared, and the priest remained dumb until his wife Elisabeth conceived in her old age.

Now, therefore, according to the months of the Hebrews, the first of the months is Nesan ^B. This is counted, and from it one proceeds to the seventh month in this way: Nesan, Iar, Siban, Tamous, Aph, Eloul, Tesirin. This is the seventh month, in which the annunciation to Zacharias took place; and it is counted up to the Annunciation of the Mother of God, this sixth month being Nesan, that is, March; in this way: Mersan, Chasili, Tapet, Sipat, Atar, Nesan, which is the sixth month from Mersan to Nesan, as it is written: "In the sixth month, the archangel Gabriel was sent to Mary 3"; and from the month of Nesan, in which the annunciation happened, nine months are counted up to the Lord's Nativity, in this way: Iar, Siban, Tamous, Aph, Eloul, Mersan, Tesirin, Chasili, Tapet.

NOTES

[(6)] In the Feast of Tabernacles, and the Day of Atonement. Chrysostom, in his Homily on the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord, when it had begun to be celebrated in the East a little earlier, handed down by the Roman Church, does not recur to this writing of Josephus, but to the census records, from which he thinks the Romans had a certain day for the Lord's Nativity, even though he speaks from mere conjecture. For these things to be certain from Josephus, they would have to have as an authority, including Chrysostom, that John was conceived, not on the very Day of Atonement, and on which Zacharias was made dumb, but some few days later. For not even did Zacharias return home on that very day, but after he had completed his duty, as the sacred text itself hands down. That opinion of Chrysostom, and of many of the ancients, that Zacharias was the high priest, and that he saw the angel only within the Holy of Holies, and the inner sanctuary, where he alone performed the divine rite for his office, is rejected by all, because it is nowhere read that Zacharias was in the catalogue of high priests, and at that time Joazar or Matthias, the son of Theophilus, was the pontiff of the Hebrews: and because Luke puts him down as a priest of such a turn, and [one] who had happened to place incense: "He went out by lot to place incense" (Vulg.). Which lot was far from [being that of] a high priest. Then the high priest entered to bring the blood into the sanctuary, and thereby to atone for it, of which Luke is completely silent, and remembers nothing but the incense, which the lesser priests burned daily, as it fell to each one. So that these things happened to Zacharias around that time, and the next feast of Tabernacles, and thus John being conceived in the month of September, and the Lord being conceived in the sixth month after, the Lord was born at the end of December, about nine months later, and on the 25th day of that month, it is pious to believe, and nothing sufficiently firm is opposed [to this] ^C, either by Scaliger, or by others who contend for a different day of the Savior's birth; and also the writing of Josephus itself, which the author brings forward, is easily argued to be a falsification, so that it only signifies that the event happened at the solemnity of the Tabernacles, which perhaps the note of Josephus had as one thing, so that the words, by the phrase "In the day of Atonement," were added by John from a presumption of the opinion held by that John Chrysostom and others: or if it was on the Day of Atonement, yet not in the solemn and annual atonement by the pontiff, but in the common incense, from which that day also does not seem to have been free. And perhaps that was the reason that Zacharias alone, and no one else, was at that hour of incense in the temple, and in the court of the priests, with the people watching from without, and in the outer court, and indeed a great multitude, as blessed Luke seems to imply: but the other priests were occupied in those things which were the rite of that day, and about the pontiff. But it must also be noted that it is written by Josephus, not the pontiff, but a priest, *hierea*, as if he were saying one of many, not the head of all of them, and high priest. I would wish these things to be said, not to establish absolutely certain faith in the things narrated by John, but to show that there are some things, and those arising not from minimal probability. The great diversity of opinions of the ancients concerning the natal day of the Lord, and that no one remembers those things which our John narrates so clearly, certainly makes the matter difficult. However, so that something new and certain, as if discovered in Rome from more ancient monuments around those times, [might explain] by what day the Lord's Nativity should be celebrated on that day, [and] the Roman Church thus persuaded almost the whole East, it is not an obscure conjecture. For not only Constantinople, but also Egypt and Alexandria, conceded to that rite: and that speech of Paul of Emesa about the faith held at Alexandria on the 29th day of the month of Chiach proves, as it is in the title, which falls on the 23rd of December, when he had been received and admitted by Cyril: for as Baronius well [says] (ann. 432, num. 75), it is declared that it was held on the very day of Christ's Nativity, at its very beginning, where it is said: "It has been granted to us to exhort your religion today in opportunistic fashion, that we might constitute a certain sacred choir, and with the holy angels cry out: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men. For today a child is born to us," etc. It exists in the Council of Ephesus, p. III, c. 31. Baronius doubts in this manner: "Since this is so, one of two things must be said, or the title regarding the certain day of the month is faulty, or the Church of Egypt had left that pristine custom, by which it was accustomed to celebrate the Natal day of the Lord on the 6th of January." I clearly think it changed, [as] the remaining Churches throughout the East followed [the example], when they received that feast with such applause, that Chrysostom himself compares it among the arguments of that true tradition reserved at Rome, and flowing from there into the rest of the world. So that therefore the Churches of the East might receive this feast with such religion, some persuasion was necessary beyond the favor of the Emperors toward it. But in truth, and in what I represent from John, you would scarcely find a more convenient one. ^D

^A Tesirin, Chasili, Tapet. The first new moon of the month of Tesirin falls in the month of September; and from the conception of John until the Annunciation of the Theotokos, it is calculated thus: October, November, December, January, February, March. In total, there are six months. And from the Annunciation until the Nativity, they are counted thus: April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. Now in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, was the day of Atonement, and on the twentieth, the feast of Tabernacles. In that same month, Elizabeth conceived, on the tenth of Tesirin, on the day of Atonement; and on the twenty-third of the month of September was the conception of John. And on the fourth of Nesan, March 25th, was the Annunciation of the Mother of God, the holy Mary; and on the fifth of Tammuz, June 24th, was the birth of the Forerunner; and on the ninth of Sapet, December 25th, was the birth of Christ, our great God, the Word made flesh. And in this way Julius, the patriarch of Rome, arranged the months of the Hebrews and the Romans; from that time the Roman Church began to celebrate with joy the day of the birth of the Savior, December 25th, and handed it down to be celebrated by all the Churches. ^B Saint Basil also wrote in his book of *Ethics* that the day of the birth of the Savior is December 25th; and he directed Gregory the Theologian, at the synod held in Constantinople, to set it forth and to celebrate the Nativity on December 25th, though some did not agree. Therefore, Gregory says to his adversaries: "Again my Jesus, and again a mystery; a mystery neither deceitful, nor unseemly, nor of Hellenic error and drunkenness. We celebrate Christ, we glorify Christ, whether in His birth or in His baptism. ^C We do not celebrate the birth of Poseidon or Apollo, but of the Son of God, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds." Now, because the great Theodosius had established Arcadius as emperor of Byzantium and Honorius at Rome, Honorius came to Byzantium to attend to some business. He told his mother and brother how the Romans celebrate the Nativity on its own day, with perfect readings and many troparia and stichera; and likewise that they celebrate the baptisms on their own day, fully and perfectly, without any omission, adorning them, and that one festival does not detract from the splendor of the other. Furthermore, these words of Honorius were seen before his mother ^D and...

his brother Arcadius, and were received favorably. They demonstrated the power of the undertaking to John Chrysostom, the holy patriarch. He, having received the word with much sagacity and readiness (for he had long desired to celebrate the festival in this way), rejoiced. He summoned the blessed Epiphanius from Cyprus, who, having confirmed the word from the writings of the Hebrews and from Josephus the chronicler of history, fixed the Birth of the Savior on December 25th; for the man was formerly a Jew. Other bishops also, having gathered, ordained that it be celebrated in the royal city on December 25th, just as the great Rome did. They sent a letter to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, and to John, patriarch of Jerusalem, and to Flavian, patriarch of Antioch; and these four patriarchs, having been convinced, followed the Church of Rome. In those times, Anastasius was patriarch of Rome. ^B Thus, the wicked Nestorius did not exist then, nor the impious Eutyches. Since that time, having learned and being instructed through these men regarding the feast of the holy Nativity, all, following in common consent, began to celebrate it: the Aposchists, Nestorians, Jacobites, Julianites, Marians, Gaianites, and Severians, even if they remain divided and in error in other practices. They also wrote a letter to the great Isaac, the prelate of Great Armenia, who was not at his episcopal throne at that time. For he was in the province of Artash, having gone there with the king to the King of the Persians. The lawless Sormak, holding onto the letter, found a way to add strength to his slander; and he said to the impious king that King Artash and the Catholicos had conspired with the Caesar. The King of the Persians, believing this, sent the holy Isaac into exile; for this reason no reply was sent to the Caesar or to the holy John Chrysostom by the holy Isaac.

The holy catholic Church, therefore, when the eleventh of December arrives, and on the Sunday that follows, celebrates the memorial of the holy Fathers who lived before the Law, who were justified by faith, as well as the genealogy according to the law of his parents named according to the flesh, as Luke has it, of him who is the eternal Son of God having truly become man. ^C But on the next Sunday, that is, the one which precedes the Nativity of Christ, it celebrates the memorial of those named according to the flesh as the parents of the incarnate Word, whom the illustrious Matthew enumerates in the genealogy of the Lord, weaving it from the ancestors down to the most recent.

These illustrious and great celebrations, therefore—of the Nativity, of the Baptism, and of the Resurrection—let us not grow weary of celebrating. For these are the things which have made new our nature that had grown old. For this reason, let us always and at all times observe festive gatherings for them, not in the manner of the world, but with the utmost dignity, and in exultation. Furthermore, in the house of someone, when they celebrate on the same day both the birthday and the day of inauguration as king, it is surely not fitting, nor

is it unbecoming. And even if, on account of poverty, he should do this, it is best if he does it on one day—or two. The holy Church, therefore, although at the time of the apostles it lived in poverty, on account of the heresies of those who strove for contention and the insurrections against the right faith, and because of the heathen and faithless kings, and because of the persecutions, and because of the boldness of the Jews—whom she was surrounded by like the waves of the sea—is now rich, since the Gospel has been spread throughout the whole world, and the word of truth has reached the ends of the earth. Since, therefore, after three hundred years they separated the Christian Pascha from the Jewish, for the same reason we also now celebrate the day of the Nativity and the Baptism, each performed on its own proper day, and with complete lessons, troparia, and canons of one and the same Lord of ours, Jesus Christ. And it is not as John the Maurocomite, being deceived, accuses the Church ^B and says foolishly that they subdivided the one solemnity into three because, according to the Nestorian error, they divided Christ into two persons. But we anathematize Nestorius as a worshipper of a man, and Eutyches, and Julian, and the Maurocomite John, his counselor.

^C We confess, however, the Lord as our true God and perfect man, God from God, holy light from eternal light, begotten of the Father before the ages, and having become in time truly man from the holy Virgin. He did not lose what He was (for the Godhead admits of no change, being co-eternal with the Father and sharing the throne with the Holy Spirit), but He assumed what He was not. The Uncontainable was contained; having descended from heaven, He was incarnate from the holy Virgin and was born in the holy cave; He was baptized in the Jordan, was crucified, was buried; having risen, He was taken up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come to judge the world in righteousness. To Him be the glory, with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages. Amen.

NOTICE CONCERNING THE ORATION OF JOHN OF EUBOEA ON THE CONCEPTION OF THE MOTHER OF GOD

§ I–IV. Concerning the codices containing this oration. — § V. Concerning the age and excellence of the author. Allatius’s conjecture is weighed regarding the attribution to the author under the name of Damascene. — § VI. Concerning the nature of the ancient homilies on the Conception of the Mother of God. — § VII. Concerning the history of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin ascribed to James. — § VIII. Whether anything from this detracts from the authority of the Fathers, provided they might have admitted this history as true.

I. Leo Allatius had already prepared for the press the oration of John of Euboea on the Conception of the Mother of God, along with several other minor works to be published in Greek and Latin, the catalog of which may be seen in Michael Le Quien (1). But, as we learn from the same Le Quien, those labors of Allatius perished by an most unjust fate. For he recounts (2) that Allatius had generously sent that collection of minor works to Aubert, who had undertaken the task assigned by the assembly of the French clergy in the year 1636 of editing the Works of St. John of Damascus, so that they might be brought to public light as an Appendix to the writings of the holy Doctor. But while Aubert, busy with other cares, could not bring himself to share the minor works—which had been sent to him by Allatius—with François Combefis, who, with Aubert's approval, had applied his hand to preparing this task; it came about that, as Aubert was approaching his final day, the writings of Allatius perished along with his other papers.

II. Yet two sufficiently long fragments of the homily ^B of John of Euboea remained to us, which the same Allatius had inserted into the prolegomena he had prepared for the Works of the Damascene, which were thereafter edited by Le Quien (3). When I had chanced upon these, I began first to marvel at the most luculent opinion they offered concerning the holy Conception of the Mother of God; then, indeed, to wonder vehemently how it could have happened that so distinguished a testimony—by which both the certainly ancient cult of the Mother of God was demonstrated, and the reason for this same cult was so splendidly set forth—had been silently passed over by almost everyone who, after the Works of the Damascene had already been edited by Le Quien, had ^C written on this subject.

But I was especially inflamed with the ardent desire of obtaining the complete oration, if there were any way this could be done; which, in the end, I did achieve. For after Lambeck, both Jo. Albert Fabricius and William Cave gave notice of a double Greek manuscript codex in which that homily could be read, both of them existing in the Imperial Library at Vienna. And indeed, I easily obtained from the remarkable kindness of His Eminence Cardinal Fornari—to whom, as prefect of the sacred council for the definition of the Mother of God conceived without stain, this matter was of the greatest concern—that a copy transcribed from it should be sent to Rome (4).

III. But if it was a cause for joy that a copy transcribed from the Imperial codex (Theol. no. 247) had finally reached Rome, with the addition of variant readings in the margin from the codex (Hist. eccles. no. 114); there was as much cause for grief when it was found by experience that the codices ^D from which that transcript had been derived overflowed with such a great abundance of errors that you could deservedly compare them to an Augean stable. Hence, when even the efforts of others had been applied, who very often attempted to wipe away so many blemishes by guessing rather than by interpreting, the oration still gaped with many lacunae, where indeed the text was so corrupt that even by divining, it was not permitted to attain any probable sense; I saw that the plan I had previously fostered of publishing the complete oration had to be entirely abandoned, or at least I thought that only certain fragments could be edited.

IV. But at last, the Roman codex brought the hoped-for relief, which in the distinguished Barberini library lay hidden. And in very truth, His Eminence, having found two other homilies—which I had discovered were not yet edited—one by St. Tarasius and the other by John of Thessalonica (which, being merely historical, there is no place to edit here), very lovingly took care that they be transcribed from the codices of the Royal Parisian library.

^A And in truth, there were two things that clearly convinced me that some other codex existed from which Allatius had copied this homily. The first is that Allatius, when speaking about this oration (5), did not lament any abundance of errors at all; the second is that the title prefixed to the oration in the Allatian copy was clearly different from that provided by the Caesarean codex.

Therefore, since the most excellent Prince Barberini, in his kindness, granted me full permission to transcribe and publish the entire text of this codex, which Allatius himself once used, I shall provide it here. This codex is indeed not lacking its own errors, but they are lighter ones, and they do not cast such shadows that the meaning of the oration is entirely lost. Moreover, the Caesarean codices, although very corrupt, were able to provide some help in correcting these errors; I have noted such instances at the bottom for the reader to find. Indeed, I shall not list the almost countless errors of the Caesarean codices as if they were variant readings; however, I will note: 1) when they have contributed anything to removing the errors of the Barberini codex; 2) if, when free of errors, they present some variant reading or sentiment (6).

V. Concerning the author of the oration, John of Euboea, there is very little that can be said. Of him, Guillelmus Cave (*Histor. litterar.*, ad ann. 744) writes: John, a monk and presbyter, who later, it seems, became bishop of Euboea, flourished around the year 744. ^B In agreement with him, or rather preceding him, we have Leo Allatius, who, in the aforementioned prolegomena (§ 68), admits that the orations composed by him are sometimes prefaced as being by a presbyter, sometimes by the bishop of Euboea. He adds, however: "How much authority he possessed in the Church is evidenced by the fact that his orations were held in such high estimation that they were circulated by many under the name of Damascene."

Truly, although I would not wish to detract anything from John’s authority, I do not believe I should conceal what anyone might think of this judgment of Allatius after reading what Michael Le Quien writes about the same John of Euboea (*Oriens Christ.*, tom. II, col. 214). In Greek codices, he says, even those written by hand in ancient times, there occur here and there some orations on the mysteries of the Christian religion and on the solemnities of the saints, inscribed under the name of John Damascene and bishop of Euboea or Chalcis: Ἰωάννου τοῦ Δαμασκηνοῦ καὶ ἐπισκόπου Εὐβοίας. ^C This is Le Quien, concerning whose trustworthiness, as a man diligent in studying ancient manuscripts, there ought to be no place for doubt. Furthermore, if there are truly several codices, and those ancient ones, bearing such an inscription; I do not know if anyone would easily permit Allatius to claim that the orations of John of Euboea were attributed to John Damascene because the nature of those orations, upon inspection by that most celebrated man, persuaded people they should be assigned to him. Certainly, for the conjecture of Allatius to stand, we must assume that the authors of the inscription mentioned by Le Quien (whoever they may have been) were fully persuaded that that celebrated doctor and champion of the faith, John Damascene, had been bishop of Euboea, or Chalcis, or Euripus (for we know that that see was interchangeably designated by these three appellations). And this is surely most certain; for those who called John Damascene the bishop of Euboea, would they not have believed that he was adorned with that dignity and had held that see? Yet that the Greeks—and indeed ancient Greeks, as the age of the manuscripts requires—could have supposed that that John Damascene, who became very well known because of the many labors he endured in defending the Catholic faith, was the same man who was bishop on the island of Euboea, you would rightly say is most arduous to conceive in one’s mind; both because there exists no evidence that this opinion about John Damascene was ever circulated, and no one has handed it down to memory; and because the very famous reputation among the Greeks of the deeds of John Damascene left no room for such an opinion; and finally because the histories that were in everyone’s hands, such as the menologies and menaia, openly contradicted such an opinion.

^D Why then, you will say, did the name of Damascene adhere to John of Euboea? A very obvious answer, I say, stands before us: suppose that this John also was a Damascene by birth; there you have the reason for that appellation readily at hand. Nor does it conflict that there were two Johns who originated from the city of Damascus, one of whom lived as a monk in Palestine, and the other who turned out to be a bishop on the island of Euboea. Nor is it an unusual occurrence for the name of another place to be added to bishops, in addition to the name of their see, for some other reason. Thus, you have the two Anastasiuses, bishops of Antioch, to both of whom the name "Sinaites" adhered, because both had spent a monastic life at Mount Sinai. Thus, Andrew of Crete is also called "Hierosolymitanus," because he had been enrolled in the clergy of that Church before his Cretan episcopacy.

VI. I think a few things should now be added about the nature of the homily, especially for those who have not yet read any of the sermons of the ancients on the Conception of the Mother of God. For from among them there will perhaps be some who, led by a preconceived opinion, will anxiously and avidly peruse the sermon to see whether the Fathers defend that privilege of the Virgin

or whether they provide sound arguments for it, or whether many be found engaged in celebrating and inculcating it, I shall diligently examine.

It must be observed, therefore, that if anyone happens to be so disposed in his mind, he ought to carefully distinguish between the different eras. For both the nature of the thing itself and countless examples confirm that there was one way of treating any given subject before controversies arose, and quite another after they had broken out. Indeed, once questions have been raised, we see it come to pass that in the sermons themselves directed toward the people, all forces are brought to bear to defend some doctrine or to refute the opposing one; nay, for that very reason, we often find the discourse being forcibly drawn in that direction, if the established subject failed to provide room for any particular question. But truly, before these disputes had arisen, it was improper to seek this apologetic, almost combative and contentious style of speaking in the homilies of the Fathers. For there was no cause for fighting where no one was resisting, nor, on the other hand, was there any reason why the Fathers should dwell more pressingly upon just one small detail of the mystery being recounted. Their discourse is therefore wont to roam more freely and widely. And just as in those sermons which survive in greater numbers regarding the Nativity of the Forerunner of the Lord, you would vainly expect to find their strength focused entirely on proving the holiness of that birth; rather, you find that the Fathers spend their time now in pouring out praises for his parents, now in explaining the angel’s announcement, now in illustrating the canticle of Zacharias, now in recounting the life and deeds of the same Forerunner, now in commending the mystery of human redemption, of which that admirable nativity was a certain beginning; think regarding the same—nay, even more so—of the sermons concerning the Conception of the Virgin and her Nativity. ^C

VII. Furthermore, the occasion for more extensive roving was provided to the Fathers not only by the joy of human reparation, of which Mary was the administrator and instrument; not only by the infinite harvest of praises which the dignity of Mary never ceases to provide; but also by a certain series of attendant circumstances either preceding or following her Conception and Nativity, whence it happened that abundant praises poured forth for her parents as well, Joachim and Anne. And indeed, a certain history gave ample material for pursuing the latter argument more diffusely, concerning which I think it worthy of the reader's time to provide a warning, so that he may the more easily grasp the force of those things which occur in sermons of this type. For a narrative, most famous and widely celebrated especially throughout the East, was being spread, inscribed with the title *History of the Nativity of the Most Holy Mother of God*, and ^D naming a certain James as its author, who in some codices is even called an apostle or brother of the Lord; although Jo. Carolus Thilo (Codex apocryph. N. T., vol. I, prolegom. § 4) rightly notes that this must be counted among the additions of a later age. That this history is most ancient cannot be doubted to such an extent that the same Thilo (loc. cit.) does not hesitate to pronounce that the opinion of Combefis (Auctar. vol. I, col. 1224) is not to be rejected, who believes it to be referred to the apostolic age. And indeed, that Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Eustathius of Antioch, Epiphanius, Andrew of Crete, Damascene, Photius, and almost all others thereafter used it, is proven by their writings; nay, scholars generally agree (7) that both Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, and perhaps even Saint Justin Martyr himself, cited it. From which it is also permissible to argue that this history was neither held in low esteem among the ancients, nor regarded as a figment of heretics; whereas on the contrary, we sometimes encounter Fathers who complain bitterly about some corruption introduced into it by heretics.

As far as the present matter is concerned, it was current in that history that Joachim, when he had ascended up to the temple to offer gifts to God according to the custom of his nation, had been rebuked and repelled by someone, either Ruben or a Reubenite, because (which was held as a curse among the Jews) he lacked offspring: wherefore, together with his wife Anne, he poured out his grief before God with prayers and fasting, and the most holy couple bound themselves with a vow to offer to God whatever offspring He might deign to grant them; and that they were then warned by an angel concerning the child soon to be conceived, whom all the tribes of the earth would praise; and when this had come to pass, they had offered Mary to God in the temple at the age of three, etc.

Hence it has come about that the Fathers, while they adhere strictly to this history and explain it now more sparingly, now more abundantly, dwell for the most part upon recounting the deeds of Joachim and Anne and celebrating their virtues; hence those digressions to discourse about the tribes of Judah and of Ruben, pursuing the privileges and excellence of the former, and the disgrace of the latter; of which thing you have a singular specimen in the present oration of our John.

VIII. But, you will say, if the matter is so, and if it is permitted to judge the nature and scope of the celebration from sermons of this kind, then two things clearly follow: firstly, that the feast of the Conception as it was celebrated by the Greeks has nothing in common with the mystery which the Latin Church proposes to be celebrated; then, truly, that whatever the Greek Fathers may put forward concerning the conception of the Virgin, it all belongs to the faith of that history,

namely that it is apocryphal and therefore rests on no authority.

IX. To counter this briefly, it must be noted first of all that one cannot always pass judgment on the nature of a feast from sermons or homilies. Is it not a proverb among us that panegyric sermons are often recited that pass over singular mysteries, while sermons on common themes are usually delivered? He who has perused the sermons of even one, for example, Augustine, knows well enough that examples of this custom are not lacking among the ancients. ^B Furthermore, it is one thing for an oration to wander more widely, and another for it to bear nothing that sufficiently declares the reason for the feast. Indeed, if there is any other, this homily of John’s most especially must be said to wander here and there. Yet, the reason for the Feast of the Conception is proposed so excellently that nothing clearer could be desired. If we celebrate the dedication of churches with a solemn rite, he says at the end of the sermon, how much more is this to be performed when it is not a sacred building being constructed from stones, but, by the good pleasure of God and the cooperation of the most holy and life-giving Spirit, a living temple of the Word of God is built in the womb of Anna? By this brief sentence, the rationale of the feast is indeed proposed most clearly, namely the Conception of Mary itself, and the holiness and purity of that same Conception are expressed with wonderful perspicuity. For just as Bernard, in his celebrated letter on this subject (epist. 174, to the Canons of Lyons), argues from the presence of sin for the absence of the life-giving Holy Spirit, so too, by equal right, while the presence of the holy and life-giving Spirit is proclaimed in the Conception itself, the absence of any sin whatsoever is necessarily inferred. ^C

X. But as far as the other point is concerned, even if you wish—suppose the Fathers said nothing on this matter that could not be seen as derived from that history of James. What, then, would you conclude? Surely, when it is a question of Christian doctrine (and it is indeed a matter of a most grave head of Christian doctrine, when the question is whether all, to a man, were children of Adam, stained by the father’s sin), one must think very poorly of the Fathers who would judge them not only prone to accept histories, but blind in matters touching the deposit of faith. Do we presume so much of ourselves over them? Do we claim so much more love of faith and knowledge of divine things for ourselves than for them, as to suspect that they embraced with no consideration what we, at first glance, judge to be either unworthy of credence or even to be thoroughly repudiated? ^D Therefore, even if traces of that doctrine which exempts the Mother of God from the common stain of the children of Adam were to be found in that history, one would wrongly take from it a reason for despising it. But nothing of this is required. For you will find nothing in that history from which the opinion concerning Mary’s immunity from original sin could be said to have been preformed. And consequently, whatever the case may be regarding the history itself, no one can therefore slander the doctrine of the Virgin’s immaculate conception on the grounds that it appears to have proceeded from an apocryphal book.

XI. As for what seems to be deduced from that history concerning the deeds of Joachim and Anna, it is of no importance to dispute at present. I will not, however, omit the fact that not everything was accepted by everyone without a certain discernment (8); but those things which are commonly accepted regarding the Virgin’s conception, if you consider the substance of the matter, contain nothing absurd or abhorrent from the appearance of truth. ^A Indeed, if an angel was sent from heaven to parents—as the sacred Scriptures bear witness—to promise them the resolution of barrenness and offspring, when dealing with Samson (Judg. xiii, 3) or the Lord’s forerunner (Luke i, 11 ff.), will it be considered absurd that the same thing happened when the Mother of God was concerned? If that ancient Anna obtained her hoped-for fertility through prayers poured out to God (I Reg. i, 14 ff.), why will it be deemed absurd regarding Anna, the mother of the Mother of God? Finally, if it is manifest from the whole series of sacred Scriptures that sterility was not only a reproach to married couples but that they were also considered as smitten by God the avenger, and as it were cursed, if they lacked children; what, I ask, diverges from the appearance of truth that a reproach was cast upon Joachim and Anna for this cause, from which it happened that they fled more fervently to God, the source of all consolation, and at last became possessors of their desire? ^B

Since, therefore, the facts viewed in themselves contain nothing improper, nothing alien to the probable; only this could perhaps be censured: that they were admitted with a certain excessive ease, and before it was confirmed from suitable testimonies that they were certainly true; and that what was in fact a fable, though one constructed with probable colors, was held as true history.

But lest this very accusation be accepted through a hasty judgment, it must be noted that that history was indeed listed among the apocrypha by Nyssen. But it is called apocryphal not as if its authority were entirely null, but because it was not counted among the sacred codices. However, it is manifest that it is not therefore to be numbered among fables just because it has no place among the divinely inspired books. Otherwise, apart from the sacred Scriptures, we would have no history, but mere fables. The matter will therefore be led to the point where it is thus among fables ^C

NOTES. (8) In the beginning of the unpublished historical Oration on the Dormition of the Mother of God, John of Thessalonica has this: *Some of the wicked heretics who rose up later, sowing their own weeds, corrupted what was written before... And do not be surprised when you hear that heretics corrupt the Scriptures.* Some of the wicked, indeed, who later arose, heretics, sowing their own weeds, corrupted what was written before... Do not wonder, while you hear that heretics corrupt writings... John adds later that he will amend what has been depraved.

^A This history is to be estimated, because what kind of man Jacob, the author of the history, was, is unknown. Yet the precepts of critical art teach that in these adjunctive matters, narratives should not instantly be dismissed as fables, but meanwhile one should refrain from a definitive judgment. Furthermore, if the laws of critical art do not permit us—who are separated by such a great interval both from the facts narrated and from the author of the narrative—to bring forth a certain judgment regarding the matter without other aids; yet those same laws at the same time indicate from where some aid can be sought for this purpose. And they do not merely consent, but plainly demand, that we at least interrogate those who were less distant from the matter itself, and examine what they themselves sensed. Furthermore: 1st, since we discover certain facts commonly accepted by those whom we know were nearer to that age; 2nd, since we see that they did not admit the facts themselves without some discernment; 3rd, since it is established that they were sensible men, to whom therefore we ought not gratuitously deny sound judgment of mind—nor do the canons of critical art themselves teach that it is the behavior of a prudent man, but rather of reckless injustice, to reject such facts as fables through some peremptory judgment: especially since some other aid, namely tradition, to which narratives would have to be subjected, could have been available to those ancients in selecting facts. Nor indeed ought it to be thought that those early faithful were entirely destitute of any tradition regarding Christ’s Mother, since the reality would not permit them to be either slothful in inquiring or utterly negligent in keeping what they had heard. ^B I would wish these things to be said in passing, not as if they were necessary for the present purpose, or as if they sufficed for solving such controversies: but so that it may be clear that ears should not be readily lent to those who, as soon as they encounter these matters, rashly and, as the saying goes, "standing on one foot," judge them to be fables, and rashly proclaim them fables.

OF JOHN, MONK AND PRESBYTER OF EUBOEA

DISCOURSE ON THE CONCEPTION OF THE HOLY THEOTOKOS

(Ballerini, op. cit., p. 47.)

Bless, Father.

I. The great Apostle Paul, that interpreter of great divine mysteries, bearing a solicitous care for our salvation, excites us both by teaching, and by arguing, and by rebuking, and by entreating, that (a) in all things we give thanks, and pray without ceasing. And this is indeed permitted to all men; but no one is worthy, not having a purified ^C mind...

VARIOUS READINGS

NOTE

*Discourse on the joyful message of the holy just ones Joachim and Anna, and on the nativity of the most holy, glorious and ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God. Bless, Lord.*

Nothing in this diversity ought to disturb us. For many examples teach that titles are accustomed to be appended or changed by those who transcribe them, especially if they are regarding sermons, according to their own opinion. ^D Moreover, the present title of this discourse sufficiently indicates to us a signal argument for what is to be expected from the judgment of amanuenses. For since, through the carelessness of I know not whom, the first copy of this homily, which had been transmitted from Vienna, was lost, and it was necessary to request another, this second one now reads *on the Gospels* where the first read *on the Annunciation*; and when the first had *of the most holy, glorious*, and in the end, *Bless, Master*, the latter has *of the most... glorious*; and in the end, *blessings*—which series of variant readings indeed constantly occurs during the course of the discourse between one copy and another.

^A entirely beyond my power. But those mysteries, being so far beyond all measure as they are, no one can be judged worthy to touch even from afar, unless he has the vision of his inner man purified; yet I exist as I am—a wretched man ^B bound by the cords of my own transgressions, to whom therefore this one thing remains: that I should daily declare my iniquity and ponder my sin. But when, on the one hand, desire and affection urge me forward, while on the other hand fear holds me back, and my own unworthiness compels me to silence, and my sins have become for me a heavy burden—then I truly do not know what I shall do. Shall I undertake this in my spirit, unworthy as I am? What shall I say? Shall I rebuke myself, shall I lament my own misery, and shall I restrain the praises bursting from my heart for the most holy Virgin Mary, most worthy of all praise, who received God and gave birth to God?

II. But do you yourself help me, O Mother of God, that the benign will of Christ our God, born of you, may be accomplished; that my mind may not, like that of an unworthy man, remain wrapped in its own darkness, but rather, as I set my hand to writing, be present with me, suggesting those very thoughts which present themselves to my mind while I am meditating upon your praises, even when I am not intent upon writing them. For often, while reflecting and becoming tearful at my own unworthiness, I call to mind the words of the eloquent and great-voiced Isaiah. For if that divine man, ^C having been deemed worthy of such a vision, humbled himself to such a degree, what shall I do, who am unworthy even of life itself? For he says: "It came to pass in the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up; and the house was full of his glory. And the seraphim stood around him." And he heard the voice of the thrice-holy ^D calling out: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts." And Isaiah said: "Woe is me, for I am smitten; for being a man and having unclean lips, I dwell in the midst of a people having unclean lips; and I have seen the King, the Lord of hosts, with my eyes." And there was sent to me one from the seraphim, and he had in his hand a coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar; and he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips, and it shall take away your iniquities and shall purge your sins."

But if this great prophet of God thus laments his misery, what should I think must be done by me, who possess a mouth and lips and heart and all the senses unclean

- ^A nisi tu, o entirely immaculate One, reachest out your hand to me? Yet, if I am wholly unequal to celebrating your praises as they deserve, I offer to you prayers for my own insignificance to the God who was incarnate of you (for even if all might be held worthy, yet I am found unworthy), drawn and burning with desire, so that I may be a partaker even of the crumbs from the table of the elect. For it is possible for one to be satisfied even by a multitude of crumbs.

III. Behold, it is now proper to take up the passage of the blessed Paul and to say: "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation." Behold, Judas, who had pity on Joseph, is himself pitied. Behold, Reuben, the son of Jacob, and his descendant, have grieved the descendant of Judah. Behold, the offering of Cain ^B is in no way accepted. Behold, also, the righteous Abel is testified to by God in his gifts; and behold, the request and desire of David has been fulfilled. For he says: "Take away from me reproach and contempt." Behold, from Joachim and Anna prayer ascends, and from God Almighty compassion descends.

IV. Behold, a new ark is prepared by the Creator Himself, which is greater by an infinite interval than that of Noah,

The Conception of the Theotokos

It is a ship ^A traversing the seas and seeking the fruit of the merchandise that is to be consumed. Joachim and Anna sought a fruit in human form, and behold, they received the seedless shell, which brings forth the heavenly and most precious pearl, Christ our God. Behold, Joachim and Anna, the one fasting on the mountain and the other in the garden, beseeching God, received the receptacle of Him who established the mountains and planted the garden. Behold, in the garden are the glad tidings of joy, that the ancient paradise might be restored to men ^B. Behold, mourning has turned into joy, and lamentation into exultation. Behold, sighs and temporary tears have turned into joy ineffable for all ages. Behold, reproach has been removed, and a gift offered to God that cannot be taken away, and one who contained in her womb the God who cannot be contained. Behold, Isaiah is released from the wooden saw, and Jeremiah from the miry pit, and Daniel from the lions; and those great tribulations are remembered, with their true prophecy being fulfilled. For of the blessed Anna, Isaiah himself also ^C cries out: "Rejoice, O barren one who dost not bear" (Is. LIV, 1).

Behold also the rod of Aaron, which budded, hidden in the ark covered on all sides with gold. And behold another rod budding, unhewn and inexplicable. And no man can carry it on his journey; yet she carried Him who carries all things, who "stretches out the heaven like a curtain" (Ps. CIII, 3), whose hands fashioned the dry land (Ps. XCIV, 5).

V. O marvelous wonder! That Judas of old, who once saved Joseph from death and delivered his father and brothers from the dire straits of famine, is himself insulted! But ^D the envy of the brothers promoted Joseph to be king; and the seed of Judah, envied and insulted by the seed of Reuben, brought forth a Virgin queen and an eternal King.

What is it that you are indignant about, O Ruben? You kick against the pricks. For did not God speak to you through the prophet a word of prophecy? Did He not say to Judah alone: "Celebrate, O Judah, your festivals; for he has gone up who breathes into your face"? Who is this, O prophet? The Creator of all things, who breathed into Adam the spirit of life; who breathed into his holy disciples and apostles, and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit."

VI. But let us return to the matter at hand. It is said in the histories of the twelve tribes of Israel: Joachim was very rich, and he offered his gifts in double measure, saying to himself: "That which abounds from my sustenance shall be for all the people, and that which is for the payment of my debt shall be for the Lord my God for my expiation." The solemn day was at hand, and the children of Israel were bringing their gifts. But Ruben ^A stood against him and said: "It is not lawful for you to offer your gift before others, since you have not raised up seed in Israel."

By this reproach Joachim was deeply grieved. You see the sorrow according to God, which, as the blessed Paul taught, brings about life eternal. O ^B the incomparable meekness of the son of David! O the unfeigned innocence of an admirable man! O the mind of a righteous root moved by the divine Spirit! Although he was illustrious in wealth and nobility, and of royal lineage, he did not dwell on vengeance; he did not return insults; he did not run to the court of law; he did not curse; he did not threaten blows. He did not object, saying, "I am descended from a ^C blessed tribe, but you are from an impure father, who defiled the marriage bed of our father Israel." He could certainly have countered Ruben with all these things, but not at all struggling with him in words, the righteous man proceeded with a quick and ready step toward the twelve tribes of Israel. And finding not that which he sought for relief, ^D

^A from his sorrow, he withdrew into the mountain. But what does the righteous man do? He absolutely resumes the song of David and says: "If an enemy had reviled me, I would have endured it; and if he who hates me had made great boasts against me, I would have hidden from him. O Lord Master, do not remain silent regarding my tears." And surely, while reasoning on such ^B things, he says: "If I, in all of Israel, am childless and a reproach, it is better for me to die consumed by hunger and thirst than that another Shimei should painfully cast reproaches upon David."

VII. Why are you moved by such immense wrath, O Ruben, firstborn and harsh? Why do you, who are unblessed, strike out against the blessed one? Why do you, O pauper, judge the king? Did not Jacob, the father of both, while dying, indeed rebuke your foolishness, while blessing Judah? For behold, as he was dying, he said: "Judah, your brethren shall praise you; your hands shall be upon the back of your enemies; and the sons of your father shall worship you. Judah is a lion’s whelp; from the shoot, my son, you went up. You lay down and slept as a lion, and as a lion’s whelp; who shall rouse him? A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until he comes to whom it is laid up, and he is the expectation of the nations. Binding his foal to the vine, and to the tendril the colt of his ass. He shall wash his garment in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape. His eyes are gladdening from wine, and his teeth are white as milk."

In the first place, he brought a reproach upon Ruben; for he says: "Ruben, my firstborn, and the beginning of my children, ^C harsh to be borne, harsh and stubborn; you were insolent as water, do not boil over."

^A For you went up to the bed of your father; then you defiled the couch upon which you ascended. Behold, therefore, Jacob himself in the blessing of his sons prophesies concerning the immortal kingdom about to arise from Judah. And do you drive the righteous man out of the temple? O truly worthy of Reuben’s folly and envy is the deed accomplished by you!

VIII. When, therefore, the righteous Joachim had traversed the twelve tribes of Israel, and had found no other who was childless, he betook himself with grief to the mountain, sincerely entreating God. Anna, meanwhile, remained at home; and both, each apart, persisted in prayers, imitating their father David and crying out that very scriptural oracle which says: *In tribulation you have enlarged me; have mercy on me and hear my prayer.* ^B

Anna then, upon observing the delay of her husband, began to lament with a quiet complaint and to speak to herself, saying: "Whither has my dearest husband gone? Or what is the cause of this delay? For as I see, it is not a good omen. Does he still traverse the sons of Israel, seeking whether we alone are devoid of fruit?" For while he was thus occupied, he was even-tempered and cheerful, and did not abandon himself to excessive sorrow. For besides, God is powerful, who to Sarah, already advanced beyond the time of age, gave Isaac, and to Rebecca, Jacob, and to Rachel, Joseph, and to Anna the wife of Elkanah, the prophet Samuel, and to the wife of Manoah, Samson the Nazirite—God, I say, who looked upon these and heard them, is He not able to grant us our request? But how bitter is the grief that remains for me, if I not only lack offspring, but have also lost my husband? If I had any offshoot, I would not perhaps have to grieve so ^C strongly for the root; but if I had him whom I have desired from my youth now present, I would not yet have abandoned hope concerning a branch. Woe is me, what shall I do, Lord, whom I desired and chose as my spouse? For where are you now? Or how shall I mourn you as dead? But I have not seen your tomb. Shall I wait for you as one who has traveled abroad to a far region? But there is no one to tell me, ^D that they have seen my Lord. Woe is me, who will tell me where is my husband and companion, where is the descendant of Abraham and [the] zealous one, where is he who shared the tent of Isaac, where is the man of Israel...

predicted by prophecy? Where is the root of Jesse? Where is the offspring of David ^A These things occurred in the five thousand four hundred and eighty-third year from the beginning of the creation of the world, in the seventy-fifth generation, as the unerring writer Luke bears witness, beginning from Joseph and running back up to God.

IX. And since the Sun of righteousness was about to rise from Judah, the prophet cries out to him from afar: *Celebrate, O Judah, your festivals; for he who breathes into your face has ascended.* Who is this, O prophet? Tell us. He who bowed the heavens and descended, he is the one, he says, who dwells in the heavens; who is with the Father in heaven, and is enclosed in the womb on earth; who is terrible to the Cherubim, and gentle to men; who descended to the gates of Hades, and bound the one who was once strong; who dissolved the kingdom of death; the good shepherd, who leads his own sheep out of Hades, and goes before them, having called each one of them by name. *He who descended,* the Apostle says, *is the same who also ascended.*

X. What, then, O prophet, are the festivals that you cry out for Judah to keep? The Seer then declares this: *Not legal festivals,* he says, *will Judah celebrate for me, not those which are performed in Sabbaths, and new moons, and trumpets. For it is time to act for the Lord, and to abolish your law.* I say, therefore, that when grace has arrived, ten distinct festivals are to be celebrated.

The first of all the distinct festivals is that in which Joachim and Anna received the good tidings of ^B the generation of the Theotokos Mary.

^A And after this, her all-holy birthday; there the conception, here the birth. After this is another, most venerable and worshipful festival, in which Gabriel, treading the earth with feet unacquainted with matter, proclaimed the "Hail" to the Virgin. Then, the world-saving birth of the King of all, Christ our God, from the Virgin. Then, after this, the ascent to the temple, and the reception in the arms of Simeon. And again, the light-bearing manifestation; and again, the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, and the life-giving passion, the Pascha of the immortal resurrection. And again, the ascension into the heavens, and the sitting at the right hand of the Father in the flesh. And the last day and the great day of the feast, in which the all-holy Spirit descended upon the holy disciples and apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. Celebrate, O Judah, thy festivals. These, then, are the festivals which the prophet bids Judah celebrate. ^B

XI. But as the times were now approaching, all righteousness had to be fulfilled. Whence, while Joachim was pouring out prayers on the mountain, and Anna was lamenting within the walls of her house, she went out from her house and betook herself to her garden, that she might draw some solace for so heavy a grief. And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: "Anna, Anna, the Lord hath heard thy supplication, and thou shalt conceive, and shalt bring forth, and thy seed shall be spoken of in all the earth. Do not be sad, O Anna; thy fruit shall put an end to the sorrow of those who bring forth in anguish. ^C For she herself is the one whom all the prophets proclaimed, expecting salvation through her." O blessed ones, Joachim and Anna! But truly more blessed is she who is born of you! Thus the angel says to them: "Celebrate, O Judah, thy festivals; not in the old testament, but in the new." This, therefore, is the beginning of the new testament; the beginning of the new and God-receptive ark. ^D

^A being constructed in the womb of Anna, she who is of the root of Judah, Jesse, and David. For the prophet says: "And I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and I will build up its ruins" (c). Behold, the tabernacle of David is raised up in the conception and creation of his daughter (29). For she is the one of whom Jacob, prophesying first of all, blessed Judah, saying thus: "Judah, thy brethren shall praise thee" (30)!

Truly blessed are you, Joachim and Anna. For you are of Judah, and Jesse, and David, and she is of you; and of her is the Lawgiver, and the Lord of the prophets, and at the end of the law, the perfecter, Christ the Lord.

XII. These things the angel said to those blessed spouses Joachim and Anna (31); and he added further: ^B "Be of good courage, rejoice, and exult. For the time proclaimed by the prophet is at hand, that from Bethlehem and the land of Judah the great shepherd shall come forth, and he shall shepherd not only Israel, but all the nations."

Truly blessed and thrice-blessed are you, Joachim and Anna; but a myriad times more blessed is the descendant and daughter of David, who proceeds from your loins and womb. For you are earth, but she is heaven. You are of the earth, but through her those of the earth become heavenly (32). Truly blessed are you, since the King of Glory, whom Moses could not see, has desired the beauty of your daughter (d).