Academic literature on the topic 'Orthodox Eastern Church $x Doctrines'

In June 2018 the Texan philosopher and distinguished bioethicist Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. crossed the great divide to meet his maker, as he would probably put it. His work remains till now the most systematic effort to fully revise Bioethics based on the doctrines of the Orthodox Christian theology, while it is also apreciseaccount ofEthics and Bioethics in the “after God” era. Engelhardt was anexcellent master of ancient Greek, medieval, western and eastern philosophy, and after heconverted from the Roman Catholic to the Eastern Orthodox Church – officially the Orthodox Catholic Church – he indulged in the works of the Holy Fathers andbecame greatly influenced by them. This is clearlymanifest in his views and continuous reference to Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers. His conversion crucially influenced not only his bioethical views, but also his entire philosophical system. This magnificent journey obviously turned the Texan philosopher into a true Theologist – not in the academic sense, but in the one the Orthodox Catholic Church accepts, according to which “a Theologist is a person of God, from God, before God and speaks to praise God”. Engelhardt was not the first to deal with bioethical issues under the spectrum of Orthodox Theology, but he was the first to unravel both secular and Western-Church Bioethics and suggest a totally different version of Bioethicsbased on the principles of Orthodox ethics, the ceremonial and esoteric life of the Orthodox Church, having previously made himself a true communicant of both the paternal tradition and dogmatic teaching.

In the year 1294/95, in the church of the Virgin Peribleptos in Ohrid, figures of the apostles Peter and Andrew were painted in the bottom register of wall paintings of the south wall, in front of the altar space (fig. 1), while those of St. Clement of Ohrid and St. Constantine Kabasilas appeared on the opposite, north wall (fig. 2). Their choice and placement on such a conspicuous location have already been the subject of interest of scholars who attempted to explain their iconography and unveil the reasons behind their appearance in this Ohrid church. The image of apostle Peter is related to the text of Mt. 16, 18 and this apostle is thus represented as carrying a church on his back while trampling on Hades who, at the same time, is being pierced by an angel bearing a lance. From above, Christ, shown in bust, addresses St. Peter with the gospel text written out in fresco above his image. This rare representation could be interpreted as an image referring to the founding of the church on earth by Christ. The gospel text which inspired it was one of the main arguments in the primacy doctrine of the Roman church. In Byzantium, on the other hand, the equality of all apostles was underlined, and Peter shared his place of honor with Paul and, at times, Andrew. This can explain the presence of the latter by Peter's side in the mentioned Ohrid church. On the opposite wall we find figures of saints who held in particular reverence in the Ohrid area, namely those of Clement and Constantine Kabasilas. St. Clement (whose relics were treasured in Ohrid) was a bishop in nearby Velika in the X century, and his cult developed shortly after his death. On the other hand, at the end of his lifetime Constantine Kabasilas, an archbishop of Ohrid from the middle of the XIII century, was very devoted to the emperor Michael VIII and that seems to have decisively contributed to the early development of his cult. We can basically except the opinion of those among the scholars who associated the images of the mentioned saints with Christ's founding of the church on earth and the spreading of Christianity among the Slavs. However, since the archbishopric of Ohrid had no direct apostolic origins, and since even St. Clement was actually its founder, the wall paintings of the Virgin Peribleptos should be viewed in a somewhat different light. It is well known that the Archbishopric was founded by emperor Basil II who, in the second sigillium (1020), associated it with the earlier existing Bulgarian archbishopric. However, in the XII century, if not already at an earlier date, the archbishopric of Ohrid began to be associated also with Justiniana Prima, the archbishopric founded by emperor Justinian in 535. The first to include it in his title was the archbishop of Ohrid John Komnenos, in 1157, and many of his successors followed his example. Formulas such as Bulgarian and Prima Justiniana which appear in their titles were of a legal and canonic nature and were used in defending the autocephalos rights of the Archbishopric from both the Roman and the Constantinopolitan church. This prompts us to explain the wall paintings of the eastern part of the naos of the Virgin Peribleptos as a result of intentions of the archbishops of Ohrid to underline the ties of their church with Justiniana Prima and the Bulgarian archbishopric. The image of the founding of the church upon St. Peter is not only a universal image of Christ's founding of the church on earth but also a reminder that the archbishopric of Ohrid was formed on the territory of ancient Illyricum which once belonged to Rome and was handed over as a result of an agreement between pope Vigilius and emperor Justinian for the purpose of founding the autocephalos church of Justiniana Prima. Supposedly, the independence and high rank of the archbishopric of Ohrid found justification in those facts. In his letter to patriarch Germanos II (from the 1220's), the archbishop of Ohrid Demetrios Chomatenos goes on to say that the emperor Justinian, in establishing the hierarchy of the most ancient and great patriarchal sees, called the pope of old Rome the first among priests, the patriarch of Constantinople the second and directly after him made mention of the see of the Bulgarian archbishopric, i.e. Ohrid. In the fresco decoration of the Virgin Peribleptos these references to the Roman and Constantinopolitan church were substituted by images of their founders, a common procedure in Byzantine iconography. Just as it did in Chomatenos's letter, the presence of the apostle Andrew was there to point out that the church of Ohrid belonged to the Orthodox world. The second argument upholding the ancient origins and independence of the church of Ohrid - reflected by both the title of its prelates and the wall paintings of the Peribleptos - is based on its ties with the ancient archbishopric of Bulgaria. That is why its archbishops strove to develop the cults of "Bulgarian" saints, primarily that of St. Clement. The text of his vita (XII century), ascribed to Theophylaktos of Ohrid, celebrates him as the most commendable missionary of the Bulgarian people, and in the Catalogue of Bulgarian archbishops (from the same century) he is mentioned in such a manner that one gets the impression that Clement was the first prelate of the territory of the future archbishopric of Ohrid. Such a calculated treatment of St. Clement was especially intensified in the XIII century, as attested in particular by his synaxarion vita and service, in which he is referred to as the thirteenth apostle. A similar phenomenon developed also in the decoration of the church of the Virgin Peribleptos in which Clement plays the role of the first prelate of Ohrid and the perpetuator of the activities of the apostles painted on the wall opposite his image. In order to express clearly and most thoroughly the idea of the origins and the nature of the Archbishopric, it was also necessary to include in this group an image of one archbishop of Ohrid and so the choice fell on Constantine Kabasilas, whose memory was still alive and who, moreover, was the only actually canonized archbishop of Ohrid. Finally, we should also inquire why this ideologically colored fresco decoration appeared in 1294/95 in the church of the Virgin Peribleptos. The theory of the supposed origins of the archbishopric of Ohrid greatly gained in importance in the course of the events related to the Union of Lyon. This time it was suitably used in an attempt to abolish the Serbian archbishopric and the Bulgarian (Trnovo) patriarchate, founded at a somewhat earlier date and for the most part on the one-time territory of the archbishopric of Ohrid. Such pretensions appeared openly in the charter issued by emperor Michael VIII to the archbishopric of Ohrid (1272) and in his memorandum to the pope, read at the Council of Lyon in 1274. Moreover, in 1282 the Serbian king Milutin conquered vast Byzantine territories so that certain administrative units of the archbishopric of Ohrid were not only dislocated within a different state but also became a part of a different, Serbian church. So while the Byzantine emperor attempted to recapture these territories by military force, the archbishop of Ohrid, Makarios, strove to demonstrate visually on the walls of the church of the Virgin Peribleptos the supposed origins of his archbishopric and thus also to claim its rights, through the images of the apostles Peter and Andrew and saints Clement and Constantine Kabasilas. Because of its political engagement, this painted decoration remained unique in medieval art and should thus find explanation in particular ideological and political motives.

The relation ship of the state to the Church in the course of history has always been problematic. This is true especially in Eastern Europe. This article presents the most significant historical events which influenced the relations between the state and the churches in Russia from Russia’s baptism in 10th century till the October Revolution of 1917. The text reveals the gradual emergence of cesaropapism, imported from Byzance and aiming at the full subordination of the churches to the state authorities. Several historical periods can be traced to this development. The first period begins at the end of the first millennium when Russia of Kiev was baptized, and lasts till the 14th century when Russia of Moscow arose. This time is marked by the building up of the church organization and its laws which developed from the beginning in close connection with the state law. The second period embraces the church history in the Moscow Russia, i.e. under Russia tsars, from the 14th till the 17th century. The state authority and the church authority seem to have a certain tendency to be balanced. Later on, however, as the Russian state is strengthened, the tsar began to have a decisive voice as well in church and religions matters. In the third period (18th cent. - 1903) there exists a system of severe control and supervision over the churches in Russia by the absolutist monarchy. The Russian imperium devided all confessions into three categories: the orthodox one, dominant and looked upon as loyal to the state; foreign confessions, Christian including (catholic and protestant) or non-Christian were tolerated. But sects of the orthodox origin were persecuted. The law regarded these sects as dangerous and harmful and a betrayal of the orthodox faith, and prohibited public worship, the faithful were deprived of their civil rights. As late as the end of 19th century, the idea of religious tolerance and freedom was unknown in the Russian law. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russian confessional law made a great step forward when acts guaranteeing religious freedom appeared. This development during the years 1903-1917 is characteristic of the fourth period. For the first time in Russia’s history, freedom of conscience and freedom of confession were stated by the law. The intolerance which ruled in the 17th – 19th centuries was transformed into tolerance of all confessions; even of those which were earlier persecuted. Nevertheless, the Temporary Government of Russia supported the dominant position and privileges of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Brest Union marks a turning point in the history of the Kyivan Church. Since the time of Vladimir and the introduction of Christianity in at the end of X century. The Kyivan Metropolitanate was the daughter of the Church of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Formation of the Metropolitanate under the care of Byzantium - the most important institutional feature of the official entry of Kievan Rus in the Christian world. During the XI-XIII centuries. Kievan Metropolitanate gradually embraced all the eastern Slavic lands, introducing them into the church orbit of Byzantium. Hierarchically subordinated and spiritually obliged, dependent on the cultural and united in ceremonial plans, the Kievan Metropolitanate became an integral part of the wider Byzantine Orthodox world.

IntroductionThere are two types of Africa. The first is a place where people and cultures live. The second is the image of Africa that has been invented through colonial knowledge and power. The colonial image of Africa, as the Other of Europe, a land “enveloped in the dark mantle of night” was supported by western states as it justified their colonial practices (Hegel 91). Any evidence that challenged the myth of the Dark Continent was destroyed, removed or ignored. While the looting of African natural resources has been studied, the looting of African knowledges hasn’t received as much attention, partly based on the assumption that Africans did not produce knowledge that could be stolen. This article invalidates this myth by examining the legacy of Ethiopia’s indigenous Ge’ez literature, and its looting and abduction by powerful western agents. The article argues that this has resulted in epistemic violence, where students of the Ethiopian indigenous education system do not have access to their books, while European orientalists use them to interpret Ethiopian history and philosophy using a foreign lens. The analysis is based on interviews with teachers and students of ten Ge’ez schools in Ethiopia, and trips to the Ethiopian manuscript collections in The British Library, The Princeton Library, the Institute of Ethiopian Studies and The National Archives in Addis Ababa.The Context of Ethiopian Indigenous KnowledgesGe’ez is one of the ancient languages of Africa. According to Professor Ephraim Isaac, “about 10,000 years ago, one single nation or community of a single linguistic group existed in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Horn of Africa” (The Habesha). The language of this group is known as Proto-Afroasiatic or Afrasian languages. It is the ancestor of the Semitic, Cushitic, Nilotic, Omotic and other languages that are currently spoken in Ethiopia by its 80 ethnic groups, and the neighbouring countries (Diakonoff). Ethiopians developed the Ge’ez language as their lingua franca with its own writing system some 2000 years ago. Currently, Ge’ez is the language of academic scholarship, studied through the traditional education system (Isaac, The Ethiopian). Since the fourth century, an estimated 1 million Ge’ez manuscripts have been written, covering religious, historical, mathematical, medicinal, and philosophical texts.One of the most famous Ge’ez manuscripts is the Kebra Nagast, a foundational text that embodied the indigenous conception of nationhood in Ethiopia. The philosophical, political and religious themes in this book, which craft Ethiopia as God’s country and the home of the Ark of the Covenant, contributed to the country’s success in defending itself from European colonialism. The production of books like the Kebra Nagast went hand in hand with a robust indigenous education system that trained poets, scribes, judges, artists, administrators and priests. Achieving the highest stages of learning requires about 30 years after which the scholar would be given the rare title Arat-Ayina, which means “four eyed”, a person with the ability to see the past as well as the future. Today, there are around 50,000 Ge’ez schools across the country, most of which are in rural villages and churches.Ge’ez manuscripts are important textbooks and reference materials for students. They are carefully prepared from vellum “to make them last forever” (interview, 3 Oct. 2019). Some of the religious books are regarded as “holy persons who breathe wisdom that gives light and food to the human soul”. Other manuscripts, often prepared as scrolls are used for medicinal purposes. Each manuscript is uniquely prepared reflecting inherited wisdom on contemporary lives using the method called Tirguamme, the act of giving meaning to sacred texts. Preparation of books is costly. Smaller manuscript require the skins of 50-70 goats/sheep and large manuscript needed 100-120 goats/sheep (Tefera).The Loss of Ethiopian ManuscriptsSince the 18th century, a large quantity of these manuscripts have been stolen, looted, or smuggled out of the country by travellers who came to the country as explorers, diplomats and scientists. The total number of Ethiopian manuscripts taken is still unknown. Amsalu Tefera counted 6928 Ethiopian manuscripts currently held in foreign libraries and museums. This figure does not include privately held or unofficial collections (41).Looting and smuggling were sponsored by western governments, institutions, and notable individuals. For example, in 1868, The British Museum Acting Director Richard Holms joined the British army which was sent to ‘rescue’ British hostages at Maqdala, the capital of Emperor Tewodros. Holms’ mission was to bring treasures for the Museum. Before the battle, Tewodros had established the Medhanialem library with more than 1000 manuscripts as part of Ethiopia’s “industrial revolution”. When Tewodros lost the war and committed suicide, British soldiers looted the capital, including the treasury and the library. They needed 200 mules and 15 elephants to transport the loot and “set fire to all buildings so that no trace was left of the edifices which once housed the manuscripts” (Rita Pankhurst 224). Richard Holmes collected 356 manuscripts for the Museum. A wealthy British woman called Lady Meux acquired some of the most illuminated manuscripts. In her will, she bequeathed them to be returned to Ethiopia. However, her will was reversed by court due to a campaign from the British press (Richard Pankhurst). In 2018, the V&A Museum in London displayed some of the treasures by incorporating Maqdala into the imperial narrative of Britain (Woldeyes, Reflections).Britain is by no means the only country to seek Ethiopian manuscripts for their collections. Smuggling occurred in the name of science, an act of collecting manuscripts for study. Looting involved local collaborators and powerful foreign sponsors from places like France, Germany and the Vatican. Like Maqdala, this was often sponsored by governments or powerful financers. For example, the French government sponsored the Dakar-Djibouti Mission led by Marcel Griaule, which “brought back about 350 manuscripts and scrolls from Gondar” (Wion 2). It was often claimed that these manuscripts were purchased, rather than looted. Johannes Flemming of Germany was said to have purchased 70 manuscripts and ten scrolls for the Royal Library of Berlin in 1905. However, there was no local market for buying manuscripts. Ge’ez manuscripts were, and still are, written to serve spiritual and secular life in Ethiopia, not for buying and selling. There are countless other examples, but space limits how many can be provided in this article. What is important to note is that museums and libraries have accrued impressive collections without emphasising how those collections were first obtained. The loss of the intellectual heritage of Ethiopians to western collectors has had an enormous impact on the country.Knowledge Grabbing: The Denial of Access to KnowledgeWith so many manuscripts lost, European collectors became the narrators of Ethiopian knowledge and history. Edward Ullendorff, a known orientalist in Ethiopian studies, refers to James Bruce as “the explorer of Abyssinia” (114). Ullendorff commented on the significance of Bruce’s travel to Ethiopia asperhaps the most important aspect of Bruce’s travels was the collection of Ethiopic manuscripts… . They opened up entirely new vistas for the study of Ethiopian languages and placed this branch of Oriental scholarship on a much more secure basis. It is not known how many MSS. reached Europe through his endeavours, but the present writer is aware of at least twenty-seven, all of which are exquisite examples of Ethiopian manuscript art. (133)This quote encompasses three major ways in which epistemic violence occurs: denial of access to knowledge, Eurocentric interpretation of Ethiopian manuscripts, and the handling of Ge’ez manuscripts as artefacts from the past. These will be discussed below.Western ‘travellers’, such as Bruce, did not fully disclose how many manuscripts they took or how they acquired them. The abundance of Ethiopian manuscripts in western institutions can be compared to the scarcity of such materials among traditional schools in Ethiopia. In this research, I have visited ten indigenous schools in Wollo (Lalibela, Neakutoleab, Asheten, Wadla), in Gondar (Bahita, Kuskwam, Menbere Mengist), and Gojam (Bahirdar, Selam Argiew Maryam, Giorgis). In all of the schools, there is lack of Ge’ez manuscripts. Students often come from rural villages and do not receive any government support. The scarcity of Ge’ez manuscripts, and the lack of funding which might allow for the purchasing of books, means the students depend mainly on memorising Ge’ez texts told to them from the mouth of their teacher. Although this method of learning is not new, it currently is the only way for passing indigenous knowledges across generations.The absence of manuscripts is most strongly felt in the advanced schools. For instance, in the school of Qene, poetic literature is created through an in-depth study of the vocabulary and grammar of Ge’ez. A Qene student is required to develop a deep knowledge of Ge’ez in order to understand ancient and medieval Ge’ez texts which are used to produce poetry with multiple meanings. Without Ge’ez manuscripts, students cannot draw their creative works from the broad intellectual tradition of their ancestors. When asked how students gain access to textbooks, one student commented:we don’t have access to Birana books (Ge’ez manuscripts written on vellum). We cannot learn the ancient wisdom of painting, writing, and computing developed by our ancestors. We simply buy paper books such as Dawit (Psalms), Sewasew (grammar) or Degwa (book of songs with notations) and depend on our teachers to teach us the rest. We also lend these books to each other as many students cannot afford to buy them. Without textbooks, we expect to spend double the amount of time it would take if we had textbooks. (Interview, 3 Sep. 2019)Many students interrupt their studies and work as labourers to save up and buy paper textbooks, but they still don’t have access to the finest works taken to Europe. Most Ge’ez manuscripts remaining in Ethiopia are locked away in monasteries, church stores or other places to prevent further looting. The manuscripts in Addis Ababa University and the National Archives are available for researchers but not to the students of the indigenous system, creating a condition of internal knowledge grabbing.While the absence of Ge’ez manuscripts denied, and continues to deny, Ethiopians the chance to enrich their indigenous education, it benefited western orientalists to garner intellectual authority on the field of Ethiopian studies. In 1981, British Museum Director John Wilson said, “our Abyssinian holdings are more important than our Indian collection” (Bell 231). In reaction, Richard Pankhurst, the Director of Ethiopian Studies in Addis Ababa, responded that the collection was acquired through plunder. Defending the retaining of Maqdala manuscripts in Europe, Ullendorff wrote:neither Dr. Pankhurst nor the Ethiopian and western scholars who have worked on this collection (and indeed on others in Europe) could have contributed so significantly to the elucidation of Ethiopian history without the rich resources available in this country. Had they remained insitu, none of this would have been possible. (Qtd. in Bell 234)The manuscripts are therefore valued based on their contribution to western scholarship only. This is a continuation of epistemic violence whereby local knowledges are used as raw materials to produce Eurocentric knowledge, which in turn is used to teach Africans as though they had no prior knowledge. Scholars are defined as those western educated persons who can speak European languages and can travel to modern institutions to access the manuscripts. Knowledge grabbing regards previous owners as inexistent or irrelevant for the use of the grabbed knowledges.Knowledge grabbing also means indigenous scholars are deprived of critical resources to produce new knowledge based on their intellectual heritage. A Qene teacher commented: our students could not devote their time and energy to produce new knowledges in the same way our ancestors did. We have the tradition of Madeladel, Kimera, Kuteta, Mielad, Qene and tirguamme where students develop their own system of remembering, reinterpreting, practicing, and rewriting previous manuscripts and current ones. Without access to older manuscripts, we increasingly depend on preserving what is being taught orally by elders. (Interview, 4 Sep. 2019)This point is important as it relates to the common myth that indigenous knowledges are artefacts belonging to the past, not the present. There are millions of people who still use these knowledges, but the conditions necessary for their reproduction and improvement is denied through knowledge grabbing. The view of Ge’ez manuscripts as artefacts dismisses the Ethiopian view that Birana manuscripts are living persons. As a scholar told me in Gondar, “they are creations of Egziabher (God), like all of us. Keeping them in institutions is like keeping living bodies in graveyards” (interview, 5 Oct. 2019).Recently, the collection of Ethiopian manuscripts by western institutions has also been conducted digitally. Thousands of manuscripts have been microfilmed or digitised. For example, the EU funded Ethio-SPaRe project resulted in the digital collection of 2000 Ethiopian manuscripts (Nosnitsin). While digitisation promises better access for people who may not be able to visit institutions to see physical copies, online manuscripts are not accessible to indigenous school students in Ethiopia. They simply do not have computer or internet access and the manuscripts are catalogued in European languages. Both physical and digital knowledge grabbing results in the robbing of Ethiopian intellectual heritage, and denies the possibility of such manuscripts being used to inform local scholarship. Epistemic Violence: The European as ExpertWhen considered in relation to stolen or appropriated manuscripts, epistemic violence is the way in which local knowledge is interpreted using a foreign epistemology and gained dominance over indigenous worldviews. European scholars have monopolised the field of Ethiopian Studies by producing books, encyclopaedias and digital archives based on Ethiopian manuscripts, almost exclusively in European languages. The contributions of their work for western scholarship is undeniable. However, Kebede argues that one of the detrimental effects of this orientalist literature is the thesis of Semiticisation, the designation of the origin of Ethiopian civilisation to the arrival of Middle Eastern colonisers rather than indigenous sources.The thesis is invented to make the history of Ethiopia consistent with the Hegelian western view that Africa is a Dark Continent devoid of a civilisation of its own. “In light of the dominant belief that black peoples are incapable of great achievements, the existence of an early and highly advanced civilization constitutes a serious anomaly in the Eurocentric construction of the world” (Kebede 4). To address this anomaly, orientalists like Ludolph attributed the origin of Ethiopia’s writing system, agriculture, literature, and civilisation to the arrival of South Arabian settlers. For example, in his translation of the Kebra Nagast, Budge wrote: “the SEMITES found them [indigenous Ethiopians] negro savages, and taught them civilization and culture and the whole scriptures on which their whole literature is based” (x).In line with the above thesis, Dillman wrote that “the Abyssinians borrowed their Numerical Signs from the Greeks” (33). The views of these orientalist scholars have been challenged. For instance, leading scholar of Semitic languages Professor Ephraim Isaac considers the thesis of the Arabian origin of Ethiopian civilization “a Hegelian Eurocentric philosophical perspective of history” (2). Isaac shows that there is historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence that suggest Ethiopia to be more advanced than South Arabia from pre-historic times. Various Ethiopian sources including the Kebra Nagast, the works of historian Asres Yenesew, and Ethiopian linguist Girma Demeke provide evidence for the indigenous origin of Ethiopian civilisation and languages.The epistemic violence of the Semeticisation thesis lies in how this Eurocentric ideological construction is the dominant narrative in the field of Ethiopian history and the education system. Unlike the indigenous view, the orientalist view is backed by strong institutional power both in Ethiopia and abroad. The orientalists control the field of Ethiopian studies and have access to Ge’ez manuscripts. Their publications are the only references for Ethiopian students. Due to Native Colonialism, a system of power run by native elites through the use of colonial ideas and practices (Woldeyes), the education system is the imitation of western curricula, including English as a medium of instruction from high school onwards. Students study the west more than Ethiopia. Indigenous sources are generally excluded as unscientific. Only the Eurocentric interpretation of Ethiopian manuscripts is regarded as scientific and objective.ConclusionEthiopia is the only African country never to be colonised. In its history it produced a large quantity of manuscripts in the Ge’ez language through an indigenous education system that involves the study of these manuscripts. Since the 19th century, there has been an ongoing loss of these manuscripts. European travellers who came to Ethiopia as discoverers, missionaries and scholars took a large number of manuscripts. The Battle of Maqdala involved the looting of the intellectual products of Ethiopia that were collected at the capital. With the introduction of western education and use of English as a medium of instruction, the state disregarded indigenous schools whose students have little access to the manuscripts. This article brings the issue of knowledge grapping, a situation whereby European institutions and scholars accumulate Ethiopia manuscripts without providing the students in Ethiopia to have access to those collections.Items such as manuscripts that are held in western institutions are not dead artefacts of the past to be preserved for prosperity. They are living sources of knowledge that should be put to use in their intended contexts. Local Ethiopian scholars cannot study ancient and medieval Ethiopia without travelling and gaining access to western institutions. This lack of access and resources has made European Ethiopianists almost the sole producers of knowledge about Ethiopian history and culture. For example, indigenous sources and critical research that challenge the Semeticisation thesis are rarely available to Ethiopian students. Here we see epistemic violence in action. Western control over knowledge production has the detrimental effect of inventing new identities, subjectivities and histories that translate into material effects in the lives of African people. In this way, Ethiopians and people all over Africa internalise western understandings of themselves and their history as primitive and in need of development or outside intervention. African’s intellectual and cultural heritage, these living bodies locked away in graveyards, must be put back into the hands of Africans.AcknowledgementThe author acknowledges the support of the Australian Academy of the Humanities' 2019 Humanities Travelling Fellowship Award in conducting this research.ReferencesBell, Stephen. “Cultural Treasures Looted from Maqdala: A Summary of Correspondence in British National Newspapers since 1981.” Kasa and Kasa. Eds. Tadesse Beyene, Richard Pankhurst, and Shifereraw Bekele. Addis Ababa: Ababa University Book Centre, 1990. 231-246.Budge, Wallis. A History of Ethiopia, Nubia and Abyssinia. London: Methuen and Co, 1982.Demeke, Girma Awgichew. The Origin of Amharic. Trenton: Red Sea Press, 2013.Diakonoff, Igor M. Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.Dillmann, August. Ethiopic Grammar. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2005.Hegel, Georg W.F. The Philosophy of History. New York: Dover, 1956.Isaac, Ephraim. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church. New Jersey: Red Sea Press, 2013.———. “An Open Letter to an Inquisitive Ethiopian Sister.” The Habesha, 2013. 1 Feb. 2020 <http://www.zehabesha.com/an-open-letter-to-an-inquisitive-young-ethiopian-sister-ethiopian-history-is-not-three-thousand-years/>.Kebra Nagast. "The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelik I." Trans. Wallis Budge. London: Oxford UP, 1932.Pankhurst, Richard. "The Napier Expedition and the Loot Form Maqdala." Presence Africaine 133-4 (1985): 233-40.Pankhurst, Rita. "The Maqdala Library of Tewodros." Kasa and Kasa. Eds. Tadesse Beyene, Richard Pankhurst, and Shifereraw Bekele. Addis Ababa: Ababa University Book Centre, 1990. 223-230.Tefera, Amsalu. ነቅዐ መጻህፍት ከ መቶ በላይ በግዕዝ የተጻፉ የእኢትዮጵያ መጻህፍት ዝርዝር ከማብራሪያ ጋር።. Addis Ababa: Jajaw, 2019.Nosnitsin, Denis. "Ethio-Spare Cultural Heritage of Christian Ethiopia: Salvation, Preservation and Research." 2010. 5 Jan. 2019 <https://www.aai.uni-hamburg.de/en/ethiostudies/research/ethiospare/missions/pdf/report2010-1.pdf>. Ullendorff, Edward. "James Bruce of Kinnaird." The Scottish Historical Review 32.114, part 2 (1953): 128-43.Wion, Anaïs. "Collecting Manuscripts and Scrolls in Ethiopia: The Missions of Johannes Flemming (1905) and Enno Littmann (1906)." 2012. 5 Jan. 2019 <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00524382/document>. Woldeyes, Yirga Gelaw. Native Colonialism: Education and the Economy of Violence against Traditions in Ethiopia. Trenton: Red Sea Press, 2017.———. “Reflections on Ethiopia’s Stolen Treasures on Display in a London Museum.” The Conversation. 2018. 5 June 2018 <https://theconversation.com/reflections-on-ethiopias-stolen-treasures-on-display-in-a-london-museum-97346>.Yenesew, Asres. ትቤ፡አክሱም፡መኑ፡ አንተ? Addis Ababa: Nigid Printing House, 1959 [1951 EC].

This thesis will investigate the significance of the Eastern Orthodox perspective of theosis, for the bioethical principle of autonomy, specifically with regard to its respect for the elderly. Theosis is a central doctrine of the Orthodox Church which pertains to the salvation of human persons and their free and cooperative response to God's grace, and as such, has an intimate relationship with the Eastern Orthodox understanding of personhood.<br>On the one hand there are a number of areas of mutual concern or overlap between the concept of respect for autonomy and the Orthodox understanding of personhood and the goal of theosis. There are, however, significant differences which prevent them from being viewed as synonymous or even as totally compatible.<br>There are complementary aspects, some of which will be identified in this initial study. It is hoped that such an investigation can help to further develop Eastern Orthodox thinking with regard to bioethical issues and be of value when dealing with the complex issues related to the elderly. This topic will also be of interest to a wider audience involved in bioethical reflection from both Christian and secular perspectives.

由於歷史和神學的複雜原因，自二十世紀後半葉至今的數十年時間里，正教神學經歷了一場十分可觀的復興，使得正教神學在國際學術界得到廣泛重視和熱烈的討論，其中尤為引人注目的是一嚮被視作正教特有的古老教義──成神論。它一經現代學者關注，便迅速發展成為普世教會對話的重要論題，為更多來自西方基督教傳統的神學家所研究。而現時，關於成神論的一個研究熱點就是發掘西方傳統中重要神學家思想中的成神論因素，或是探討其思想與成神論的關係。本研究關注的正是巴特（Karl Barth, 1886-1968）與成神論的關係。<br>現有對於巴特神學與成神論進行比較研究的文獻數量極少，而且存在著一個重要問題，即沒有能夠展現一個在規模上和深度上相當的成神論綜述，作為與巴特神學進行比較的參照。為解決這一問題本文選擇了洛斯基（VladimirLossky, 1903-1958）、茲茲奧拉斯（John Zizioulas）與斯塔尼萊（Dumitru Stăniloae,1903-1993）三位現代正教神學大家為代表，通過他們三人的神學來展現正教成神論的一個較為全面的風貌。<br>在這三位神學家中，洛斯基的神學主要繼承了聖帕拉瑪（St. Palamas,1296-1359）的思想，著力闡發上帝的神聖能力與神聖本質相區分的傳統教義，以此為進路通嚮成神論；茲茲奧拉斯則是以卡帕多西亞教父的論述的"位格"概念為核心，逐漸擺脫了神聖能力與神聖本質相區分的既定格局，發展出一種通過人與上帝的位格相遇而實現的成神論；斯塔尼萊作為一位集大成的正教神學家，在其巨著《正教教義神學》中系統展現了正教神學的全貌，說明了以人論、基督論、拯救論為主要支點的成神論，其實是正教教義神學的終極歸宿和總目標。<br>在考察過三位正教神學家的成神論思想后，轉入巴特的神學。針對與成神論關係密切相關的論題，著重考察巴特的基督論、人論，以及基於這二者的救贖論，並與東正教相對應問題的比較。通過比較最終發現，雖然兩者間在某些論題確實存在著難以抹殺的分歧，但巴特神學以基督論為基礎建構起的人論則與東正教傳統有著顯著的親和力，尤其在對罪觀的闡述上，已然突破了東西傳統之間的壁壘，形成了具有普世意義的教義理論，說明巴特的拯救觀已然超出了傳統西方的救贖論模式，與正教成神論有趨同之勢。<br>最後，在對整個研究做出總結的基礎上，闡明本研究的內在動機和現實意義，即進一步推進漢語學界對東正教神學的了解和認識，進而改善因了解的片面性造成的、在漢語學界仍然存在的對基督宗教的成見。並通過說明東正教神學思想與中國傳統思想的親和性，展現東正教神學研究對於建構漢語神學的積極意義。<br>Due to both historical and theological reasons, the Orthodox theological tradition underwent a significant revival during the past several decades. Some themes in the Orthodox tradition drew the attention of international academia. Among them, the ancient doctrine of deification is unquestionable the most attractive one, which quickly became an important topic in the ecumenical dialogue. Nowadays, one of the hot issues concerning the study of deification is the comparison between the Orthodox and Western understandings of theosis or deification. In this thesis, the relation between Karl Barth(1886-1968)'s theology and the Orthodox doctrine of deification will be explored.<br>There are only a small number of existing studies dedicated to the comparison between Barth and the Orthodox doctrine of deification, and they focused rather exclusively on Christology. In order to give a comprehensive and extensive comparison between Barth and the Orthodox doctrine of deification, this thesis choose three masters of modern Orthodox theology as the reference points for comparison, and they are V. Lossky(1903-1958), John Zizioulas, and D.Stăniloae(1903-1993).<br>Following St. Palamas(1296-1359), Lossky based his theology of deification on the distinction between divine energy and essence. Zizioulas inherited Cappadocian Fathers' thought, and explained deification in terms of personal encounter. Staniloae articulated a comprehensive Orthodox dogmatic theology with deification as the centre or key of the whole system, and took theological anthropology, Christology, and Soteriology as the three pillars of the doctrine of deification.<br>After exploring these three orthodox theologians' thought, the discussion will turn to Barth’s theology, especially his Christology, anthropology, and doctrine of salvation. We will find that Barth’s theological anthropology, which is oriented by his Christology, shows certain similarities to the anthropology in Eastern Orthodox theology, and they share similar understanding of unio hypostatica and communicatio idiomatum. Furthermore, Barth’s understanding of sin together with salvation is not only quite far away from the hamartiology prevalent in western theological tradition, which is focused on original sin and its redemption, but also comes closer to the Orthodox theological tradition. Though there are undeniable differences between Barth and Orthodox theology, there are also significant affinities between them on the issue of deification.<br>To the end of this study, this thesis will discuss the significance of the studies of Orthodox theology for the Chinese academica. It is foreseeable that a careful study of Orthodox theology will clear some of the misunderstandings of or even biases against Christianity prevalent in the Chinese-speaking world. Meanwhile, the studies of Orthodox theology can also contribute a lot to the construction of Sino-Christian Theology due to the similarities between Orthodox theology and traditional Chinese religious-philosophical thought.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>張少博.<br>Parallel title from added title page.<br>Thesis (Ph.D.) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2015.<br>Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-137).<br>Abstracts also in English.<br>Zhang Shaobo.

The thesis addresses the monuments of Great Moravian church architecture and is based on the material accumulated during the past century. It analyzes the influence of different architectural styles, the hypotheses by different scholars and the existing contradictions between them. The thesis covers a selection of church buildings many of which possess a special spiritual value. Special attention is paid to the hypothesis of the construction date and architectural sources of Ste. Catherine church in Tamovice. Of special interest are the interviews and consultations with leading Czech and German researchers, historians and archeologists carried out while working on the thesis.

The Russian Evangelical Soteriology as a phenomenon was evaluated in the dissertation. The original Russian Evangelical confessions of faith and some other historical documents of the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries are used to present the following hypothesis. The historic fluidity of Soteriology of Russian Evangelica1s may only be understood in the light of their consistent adherence to the principles of Sola Scriptura and the Priesthood of all believers. We come to conclusion that the existence of Russian Evangelical Soteriology is not a question to be discussed, but a clear historical fact. We show that it has its past and present, a well-defended subject of study with clear presuppositions, rather developed vision, and it is unique as a phenomenon. The major principles of this theology strictly devoted to the Scripture and a flexible formulation of doctrines. We strongly insist that it is impossible without being eclectic combine the Evangelical Soteriology of Scripture with the Orthodox Soteriology of Tradition. The additional result of the study is the attempt to evaluate the possibility for a reconstruction of Russian Evangelical Soteriology as a part of a self-identification process.<br>Systematic Theology and Theological Ethics<br>M. Th. (Systematic Theology)