Following US Sanctions on Three Liberian Government Officials, State Minister McGill says he is innocent and welcomes President Weah fight against corruption.
According to a letter published in other news outlets, the Minister of State for Presidential affairs, Hon Nathaniel McGill has denied corruption allegations after he was sanctioned by the United States U.S. Treasury Department along with two senior government Officials for allegedly engaging in “corruption including the misappropriation of state assets, taking private assets for personal gain, or bribery”.
In a letter addressed to the President of Liberia, Minister McGill commended President George M. Weah for the “decision taken” to suspend him and two other senior officials as it demonstrates his unwavering fight against corruption.
The Minister further called on the President to set up an investigative committee with the assistant of foreign partners (The European Union, Africa Union and ECOWAS) as well as other competent Authorities to probe into the grave allegations levied against him by the U.S Department of Treasury to be afforded the opportunity to have his “day in court” as in keeping with the principle of due process, mentioning that he has “great faith in the American system and believe I will be given an opportunity for a review process”.
As per the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of the three officials that are in the United States must be blocked and reported to Treasury, while people who engage in transactions with the officials may be subject to sanctions themselves, the statement said”.
Peace, according to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is revealed as a gift from God to man. God Himself is the God of peace (Gen. 26:4 – 28:14) and His blessing favors man with the gifts and benefits of a peaceful and peaceful existence, happiness and prosperity on earth.
• In the biblical wisdom of the Holy Scriptures, true and lasting peace is seen as the fruit of God’s justice, and Jesus Christ as Savior and Messiah is the “Prince of Peace” (Is. 9:6). The Messianic kingdom of righteousness is the kingdom of God’s peace.
• Peace (Hebrew shalom; Greek eirini Latin pax) is a state that derives from God, but also from justice – from God’s justice and human justice. It is based on the principles of justice, respect and regard for the natural rights of man and his legitimate interests and well-being.
• Violation of peace as a blessed condition in the relations between man and God and between man and other people leads to enmity and injustice, to evils and aggression, to violence and misfortunes for men, for society and for nations.
War as a consequence of the Fall
• War is a fruit of sin and enters the world together with the consequences of sin in man’s relationship with God and the destruction of the bonds of peace with his fellow men.
• War is an evil that is a manifestation, action and state of violation of God’s law of love and God’s justice.
• The war between men begins with Cain’s fratricide and the violence committed against his brother Abel.
• War is the result of enmity and lack of peace and is manifested by aggression and violence, which are enmity against God and neighbor and a violation of God’s law of love for God and neighbor.
THE PEACE OF CHRIST AS A GRACEFUL GIFT OF SALVATION
“Peace I leave you; My peace I give you; Not as the world gives do I give to you” (John 14:27)
• The biblical concept of peace is much broader than the usual political or formal legal understanding of peace as the absence of war or enmity and the absence of conflict in interpersonal relationships.
• Peace is a great gift and blessing from God, which requires benevolence (benevolentia) – “good will” between people (Luke 2:14) and justice in its spiritual-moral, social and legal dimensions, which are the real and permanent basis for everyone true peace.
• lasting and stable peace in human relationships can only exist on the basis of the satisfied requirements of God’s justice and human justice. This applies to social, political and international relations as well as to interpersonal relations and the resolution of moral conflicts.
The Christian View of War and Peace
• Enmity and rivalry, envy and arrogance, trampling on the rights and freedoms, dignity and honor of an individual, or of a community, people and state as one of the parties in interpersonal or contractual-legal relations, regulated by the principles of justice or legality, lead to conflicts, fratricidal wars and international disasters.
• The gospel and the protection of peace on the part of the Church do not completely overlap with the causes of political pacifism, but have a wider value dimension, which in theological science is defined as “Irinism”.
• These principles of Christian ethics derive from the Savior’s words to His disciples: “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give you; Not as the world gives do I give to you” (John 14:27).
Moral problems of peace and war in the history of Christianity and the tradition of the church
• The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments definitely talk about the possibilities of using force for the protection of peace, order or a just cause, and even about the need to defend sacred causes through the legal and morally justified use of force.
• The answer that St. John the Baptist gives to the soldiers who came to be baptized by him and seek spiritual advice about how to act and what to do in order to live righteously and godly in order to achieve salvation does not contain a command to prohibit the weapon and demand that they give up their ministry.
• Saint John the Baptist advised the soldiers not to give up the use of arms, but not to use their arms and power for injustice: “Do not trouble anyone, do not slander and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14).
• war in Christian ethics and for the possibility of moral justification of defensive war and liberation war, which are related to the legitimate use of force to oppose violence, lawlessness and injustice.
The theme of “just war” in Christian ethics and church tradition
• The theme of peace and war, of justice and violence and the just use of force in Christian moral theology, as well as in the theory of international law, is considered in history and in relation to the theory of “just war” (justum bellum).
• Within the Christian ethical tradition, this topic has its historical development and significance for ethics, for the state and law, and for international relations.
• Christian ethical concepts are the result of centuries of discussion, development and improvement of the norms of morality and international law, both in the East and in the West.
• The doctrine of just war (justum bellum) in Christian ethics passes from antiquity and the legacy of the Ancient Church to the Medieval philosophical tradition and Western European culture, and in some aspects it is connected to the moral code of chivalry.
• Augustine’s views on just war were adopted in medieval theology through the writings of Isidore of Seville, who also provided one of the authoritative formulations embedded in the Christian tradition.
Just war and defensive war to repel armed violence with the lawful use of force
Lawful and just use of force
• Based on the examples from the Holy Scriptures and above all by carefully examining the teaching of Jesus Christ, it can be concluded that the use of force, in itself, cannot be qualified as an unconditional evil from a Christian point of view. Although Jesus Christ distinguished himself from his contemporary zealots, and taught about the peaceful change of social injustices and evils, the fair use of force is possible under certain conditions.
Defensive warfare and coverage of an armed attack
• Christianity does not absolutize the New Testament principle of manly bearing of evils and sufferings and not resisting evil and calls everyone to bravely fight against evil and wage a spiritual battle against it, and if it is armed evil and evil that uses weapons of violence and injustice, to use for the purposes of defeating evil and neutralizing its destructive action, and legitimate use of force.
Note: The text was presented within the framework of the international scientific conference organized on May 12, 2022 in Sofia by the “Pokrov Bogorodichen” Foundation on the topic: “The Church and War”, the purpose of which was to present a theological reflection on the topics related to war and peace , from the perspective of Christian tradition, history and anthropology.
In May 1944, the Bulgarian Synod granted the Russian community firstly the church “St. Great Martyr Ekaterina” at the cemetery in Kniazhevo, and after two months – the church “St. Petka Samardzhiyska” on “Maria Luiza” Blvd. in the center of Sofia. The deceased superior was replaced by Archpriest Georgii Golubtsov, well known to the parishioners. A common concern is the purchase of the necessary church utensils and liturgical books to replace the lost ones. From its Svetogorje brothers, the Russian parish received a priceless gift – a large enthroned Gospel and a set of silver Eucharistic vessels. In the small church on “Maria Luisa” Blvd., daily services and regular festive and solemn bishop’s services continue.
During the bombings in the spring of 1944, the “St. Nicholas the Miracle Worker” – the roof collapsed, the southern wing was completely destroyed, part of the frescoes was lost. Since, according to the Soviet-Bulgarian protocol of July 6, 1940, the Soviet side handed over the temple for free use to Bulgaria for 15 years, the costs of its restoration are borne by the Bulgarian government. BGN 8 million was allocated, then the amount increased to BGN 12 million. Repair work began as early as 1944. The damaged zography in the south nave was restored by the Russian émigré artist Mikhail Maletsky, who for the first time cleaned and strengthened all the frescoes. The famous Bulgarian artist Nikola Andonov also participated in the restoration, who 30 years before, as a student, contributed to the iconography of the temple under the guidance of Prof. Perminov.
The changed political conditions after the end of the Second World War lead to serious changes in the life of the Russian emigration in Bulgaria. The Russian clergy began to look for ways to reunite with the mother church in the homeland and to serve it with their experience and knowledge. In April 1945, Archbishop Seraphim appealed to the Russian Patriarch Alexy, declaring his readiness to accept the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. He asks that a patriarchal representative be left in Bulgaria, because he “was related to his flock, to his spiritual children, not only to the Russians, but also to the Bulgarians”. He also begs Moscow to accept under its omophorion all the Russian clergy that he rules in Bulgaria. The opinion of Pskov-Porhov Archbishop (later Lenigrad Metropolitan) Grigoriy, who in April 1945 came to Sofia to celebrate the restoration of full communion with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church after the overthrow of the schism, helped to resolve the issue positively. In his conclusions presented to the patriarch, he characterized Bishop Seraphim as an unconditionally spiritual person, enjoying great respect among the people. The Soviet Embassy also notes that Archbishop Seraphim is not compromised in his past and present activities and has authority among the Bulgarian clergy.
On October 30, 1945, the corresponding decree of the patriarch was issued, confirming the powers of Bishop Seraphim in the management of the seven Russian parishes in Bulgaria as a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the spring of 1946, the Soviet government suspended the protocol granting Bulgaria temporary use of the Russian ambassador’s church and handed over the church to Archbishop Seraphim.
On June 4, 1946, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a decree granting Soviet citizenship to subjects of the former Russian Empire living in Bulgaria. Bishop Seraphim accepted Soviet citizenship, they issued him certificate No. 1 for a Soviet subject living in Bulgaria. Some of the staunchest opponents of Soviet power condemned his decision. But as a true shepherd, Bishop Seraphim is guided above all by concern for the fate of his flock, for its physical survival and salvation from communist persecution, and shows true “meekness of a dove and wisdom of a serpent.” The fact is that all questions related to the fate of the Russian emigration passed at that time from the hands of the Bulgarian government under the control of the Soviet representatives in the Allied Control Commission, who decided them in accordance with class principles and declared all emigrants and non-returnees to be ” enemies of the people”. Those who accepted Soviet citizenship acquire a new status, from “White Guards” they become Soviet citizens, equal in their rights with the citizens of Bulgaria. This means that many restrictions related to the “reactionary” stigma are removed from them, they have equal opportunities to find a job, get housing, can count on social security.
After the state decree of November 17, 1944 liquidated all organizations of Russian émigrés and prohibited any of their public activities, the Russian church is now the last and only place where they can freely profess their faith, communicate and help each other mutually. Archpriest Andrey Liven, who after the death of Archpriest Georgiy Golubtsov, became the head of the temple, has great credit for uniting the parishioners. He is characterized by true Russian hospitality, cordiality, kindness, he does a lot to attract young people to the church, organizes talks on spiritual topics, poetry evenings, at which he often reads his own spiritual poems and magnificent translations.
Courtyard of the Moscow Patriarchate
After the death of Bishop Seraphim, the management of the Russian church communities in Bulgaria was taken over by Archimandrite Panteleimon (Staritsky), who led them in the capacity of bishop’s deputy. In 1951, there were more than twenty priests on the territory of Bulgaria under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.
At the end of May 1952, the Moscow Patriarchate sent Archpriest Sergius Kazansky, a cleric from the Baku Diocese, to Bulgaria as the new episcopal vicar of the Russian Orthodox parishes. On July 3, 1952, in a report to Metropolitan Nikolay of Krutitsa-Kolomna about the state of the episcopal vicarage in Bulgaria, the archpriest reported that the community of the Russian temple in Sofia numbered 500 people, there were two priests, a deacon and a psaltery. According to the opinion of Fr. Sergius Kazansky, only this parish “can be considered normal”, while the rest of the Russian municipalities “do not meet even the most minimal signs of a normal parish”. The “Pokrov Bogorodichen” virgin monastery in Kniazhevo consisted at that time of an abbess, two mantled nuns, four Rasophorian nuns and three novices, three of whom had Soviet citizenship, and seven – Bulgarian.
In his report to Moscow, Archpriest Sergius Kazansky claims that the existence of Russian parishes and priests causes some dissatisfaction among the Bulgarian clergy and incites unnecessary tension. As a result of his talks with the chief secretary of the Bulgarian Synod, Bishop Iona, and with Metropolitan Kiril, the future Bulgarian patriarch, Father Sergiy concluded: “Most of the higher hierarchs of the Bulgarian Church have nothing against the existence of a Russian episcopal vicarage in Bulgaria, but they would very satisfied if the Russian Church handed over the Russian parishes under their rule and left only one court to represent it in Sofia, as is the situation in Moscow…”. Bishop Yona directly stated to him that if Patriarch Alexy found it necessary and expedient to transfer the Russian parishes under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Church, it would be “a great manifestation of love for the Bulgarian Church and the Bulgarian Church will record this act on the tablets of its church annals “.
On November 10, 1952, by decision of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, the existing Russian Orthodox parishes, monasteries, clergy and monks in Bulgaria were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. The Holy Synod decreed “to fraternally ask the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church to extend its love and care to the listed parishes, monasteries and clergy, and to preserve, after accepting it into its jurisdiction, the Russian spiritual order and way of life in the Kokalyansky Monastery, for which his monks are asking… From the moment of the signing of the act of handing over the mentioned parishes, monasteries and clergy under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the episcopal vicarage of the Russian Orthodox communities in Bulgaria should be considered liquidated, while Archpriest S. Kazanski would remain the head of the Russian Orthodox Church “St. Nicholas the Wonderworker” in Sofia, which from now on will be called the courtyard of the Moscow Patriarchate”.
After a long hiatus from the end of 1973, the Moscow Patriarchate again began to send from the USSR superiors of the courtyard temple. In 1973-1975, this position was held by the cleric of the Vladimir Diocese, Archpriest Arkady Tishchuk.
In 1975-1985, the priest of the temple-courtyard was the cleric from the Vilnius-Litovsk diocese, Archimandrite Nikita Yakerovich. During his time, from 1975 to 1977, with the blessing of the Russian Patriarch Pimen and with the assistance of the Bulgarian Patriarch Maxim, cleaning and restoration of the frescoes in the temple took place. The restoration activities are financed by the Bulgarian Synod, the Committee on the Affairs of the Bulgarian Church, the Sofia City Council, from the funds of the temple and are carried out by a team of the Bulgarian National Institute for Cultural Monuments under the leadership of the artist Baeva. Unlike the restoration in 1945-1946, when they were washed with solvents, this time a different technique was used – rubbing with special erasers, which led to a significant fading of the painting. Again, the painting layer was strengthened, using a technique close to the author’s; the wooden elements of the exterior decoration and tiled roofs have been preserved. As early as 1970, with funds from the Moscow Patriarchate, the domes and cornices of the temple were again gilded, and in 1982 the iconostasis was again gilded.
In 1972, 1975, 1977 and 1983, the Russian Patriarch Pimen visited the temple.
After the departure of Archimandrite Nikita on January 25, 1985, a new superior arrived, the cleric of the Simferopol-Crimean Diocese Archpriest Nikolay Dzichkovski, a fourth-generation priest. He, like his predecessors, took care of the improvement of the temple. In the summer of 1987, the tombstone of Bishop Seraphim was lined with multi-colored marble. In the following year, the crypt was completely restored, where rooms for holding parish meetings, choir rehearsals, an office for receiving visitors, and a library were equipped. The temple is painted on the outside. The Bulgarian artist Angel Radushev restored the icons from the iconostasis. Father Nikolay obeyed for 10 years, and it was he who was destined to witness and participate in a new cardinal change in the life of the “St. Nicholas the Wonderworker” in the early 1990s.
On November 8, 1992, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the courtyard, a solemn prayer service was held, which was attended by the Bulgarian Patriarch Maxim, the General Secretary of the Synod of the BOC, Bishop Neofitus of Levki, and also numerous employees of the Russian Embassy headed by Ambassador Avdeev. And this is not just compliance with the diplomatic protocol on the occasion of the round date, but a reflection of qualitative changes in Russian society. Father Nikolay Dzichkovski and Father Simeon Minchev then baptized many adults and children, married both newlyweds and married couples who had lived in a civil marriage for many years. All the great Lord’s and Virgin’s feasts are celebrated together; the temple is full of people. Numerous Russian diplomats, led by Ambassador Avdeev and his wife, gather at these services. People feel a special sense of unity when they gather together to offer prayers for their Fatherland and for all Orthodox Christians.
The number of admirers of Bishop Seraphim among the Russians and Bulgarians, who have known from personal experience the extraordinary power of prayer to him, is increasing significantly. For many, books with his sermons and articles become a real discovery. At the bishop’s grave with the inscription “FROM MY MOTHER YOU ARE MY PROTECTOR” (Ps. 70:6) people bring more and more letters. After consulting with the parishioners, Father Nicholas established a sort of “mail box” near the bishop’s grave.
Thanks to the renewed contacts with the “White Guard” emigrants, the diplomats from the Russian embassy finally paid attention to the Russians living in the disabled home in Knyazhevo, created in the 1920s, to all the lonely, sick, disabled people. Donations are collected at the embassy to buy gifts for Christmas and Easter.
On May 19, 1994, the church solemnly welcomed the Russian Patriarch Alexy II, who arrived in Bulgaria to visit the Bulgarian Patriarch Maxim. The First Hierarchs were accompanied by numerous hierarchs of the Bulgarian Church, who participated in the celebrations in the Russian temple more than once. A funeral litany was celebrated together at the grave of Bishop Seraphim, who loved the Bulgarians and the Bulgarian Church so much. With the blessing of the two patriarchs, it was decided to proceed with the restoration of the Russian church.
By order of the ambassadorial committee, nun artists from the icon-painting studio of the “Pokrov Bogorodichen” Princely Monastery painted the crypt of the temple. Under the guidance of the talented sister Magdalina (Nacheva), they create murals that are astonishing in their beauty and depth. Several plots are united by the topic “Archbishop Seraphim – Patron Saint of Sofia”. With iconographic means, the artists manage to tell about the righteous life of Bishop Seraphim, and about his struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy, and about his boundless love for him. Thanks to the magnificent frescoes, the name of the untimely martyred Sister Magdalene (may God rest her in His heavenly kingdom!) has been united forever with the name of Bishop Seraphim. The restoration of the legendary Samara flag was entrusted to the skilled craftsmen from the Princely Monastery – they breathed new life into the priceless relic, a symbol of the Russian-Bulgarian brotherhood.
A great celebration for the whole parish is the solemn consecration of the Russian temple after the completion of the repair and restoration works. Ambassador Avdeev’s merits were marked with a high award – by decree of Patriarch Alexy II he was awarded the Order of “St. Righteous Prince Daniel of Moscow”.
Archpriest Nikolai was replaced by the energetic Archpriest Sergii Trukhachov, the father of a joint family with many children. During his time, the iconography of the crypt was completed, which, with this finished look, became a true decoration of the temple. The talented conductor Matushka Lyubov successfully leads the choir of the Russian Church, which is traditionally one of the best in Sofia. Father Sergius enjoys great love from the parishioners, he manages to create an amazingly benevolent and cordial atmosphere in the parish.
From 1998 to 2008, the head of the Russian temple was Archpriest Alexander Karyagin, a cleric from the Kostroma Diocese.
From April 2008 to March 2009, the abbot of the courtyard was Isidor (Minaev), a graduate of the Valaam Monastery. The short time of his ministry proved to be very fruitful. The life of the parish becomes both more active and more diverse. In connection with the 130th anniversary of the end of the Russian-Turkish war, the year 2008 has been declared the “year of Russia in Bulgaria”. Solemn religious services, festive events, concerts, artistic and literary exhibitions are organized throughout the country, including a photo exhibition dedicated to the 1020th anniversary of the Conversion of Russia, an exhibition “Temples of Moscow”, a week of Russian spiritual culture. In addition to the festive events, the traditional activities of the parish are not forgotten. A Sunday school is successfully operating, consisting of several classes for children of different ages. In addition to the catechism and church history lessons, there are also classes in church singing and arts and crafts. As part of the cycle “What do we know about Orthodoxy?”, the head of the courtyard gives monthly theological lectures at the Russian Cultural and Information Center.
The yard continues its many years of tradition in providing assistance to the elderly, the disabled and the needy. Constant work is also being done on the beautification and maintenance of the Russian cemeteries.
Since March 2009, Hieromonk Zotik (Gaevski) has been performing the duties of head of the courtyard. For Bulgaria, he is not a new and unknown person – he studied here and often served together with Father Isidore in the church “St. great martyr Panteleimon” at the Russian cemetery in Kniazhevo. The employees of the yard have serious tasks ahead: a new restoration of the Russian temple is ahead, and its centenary is not far away.
From the translator: Hieromonk Zotik managed the courtyard until May 2011, after which Archimandrite Philip (Vasiltsev) was appointed as the head. Archimandrite Philip is a man of extraordinary energy and determination. Despite some initial disagreements and ferments in the parish, Archimandrite Philip’s time will be remembered mostly for one of the most comprehensive restorations of the church “St. Nicholas the Wonderworker” throughout its existence, and also with the canonization of St. Seraphim, the Sofia Wonderworker, carried out in solidarity by the Russian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches in 2016 – a unique event in church history. This canonization has been expected for many years by the faithful people, but only the will and energy of Archimandrite Philip, who organized the collection of numerous testimonies of miracles and prayer help, and put his heart and soul into this process, gave impetus to the canonization procedure.
From March 2018 until today, the head of the courtyard and representative of the Russian Patriarch in Sofia is Archimandrite Vasian (Zmeev). We wish His Eminence Fr. Vasian a successful and fruitful ministry, health, strength and help from above in his works, and may God continue to bless the importance of the Russian temple in Sofia as a unique living bridge and connection between the two brotherly countries and churches.
Will the temple “St. Nicholas the Wonderworker” is just a historical monument or it will continue to be a focus of the Russian Orthodox community in Sofia, called to serve the prayerful unity of the Orthodox people, Russians and Bulgarians, largely depends on us. Well, the church is not just a beautiful building with cubes and icons. It is a living organism, and it is made so by the believing people gathered together in the name of Christ; and that’s all of us.
Publication in Bulgarian: To remain human/History and religions by Olga Reshetnikova – In SVET, Issue 3/2022
In 1947, a Bedouin from the Taamira tribe walked around the Qumran hill, located on the western shore of the Dead Sea, looking for a lost goat from his herd. Since he did not find her, he assumed that she might have entered the cave on the hill. He went down the sheer cliff and decided to throw a stone at it, hoping that it would make the animal come out. However, instead of the noise of a frightened animal, the sound of broken pottery came from the cave, which caught his curiosity and made him enter the cave. There he found 45 clay vessels carefully arranged against the wall. Muhammad al-Dib’s disappointment must have been great when he removed from the jars only a few darkened, glued leather scrolls. Later, in the Bedouin camp, together with his fellows, they examined them carefully, but could not understand anything of the writing. After a few months, the Bedouins managed to sell their find for 250 dollars to the Archbishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church Athanasius (Monophysites). His attempts to read the scrolls are also unsuccessful. After a year, during his meeting with Dr. Trevor, he finds out what he actually acquired, as well as the price of this acquisition – the Israeli government buys the manuscripts for 1 million dollars…
This is how the greatest archaeological discovery of the 20th century was made – the Qumran manuscripts, also known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were found. Over the course of several years, archaeologists discovered 11 caves in which they found over 900 handwritten documents. Documents found at Qumran are mostly written on leather, there are also a few on parchment, but one scroll is completely different from the rest. In 1952, at the bottom of the conditionally named cave number 3, a scroll made entirely of copper was discovered – (the scroll is composed of two separate copper pieces, parts). The Copper Scroll (3Q15 or 3QTreasure) does not fit into any of the other scroll categories. It contained no biblical text, was written in a language not found in any of the other scrolls, and reading it fired the imaginations of thousands of seekers of adventure and lost treasure around the world. Even the most exaggerated tales of the Wolf Lord’s legendary treasures pale in comparison to the contents of this scroll.
The 3Q15 Copper Scroll turns out to be a map listing the world’s greatest hidden treasure. It contains a list of 63 places where for hidden incredible treasures of gold and silver. Due to the specifics of the biblical units of measurement, it is difficult to determine the exact weight of the treasure, but it is probably about tons of precious metals, in monetary terms equal to at least three billion dollars, and in historical terms – priceless. But where did this treasure come from? King Solomon’s mythical legacy?
According to Stephen Pfan, one of the scientists involved in the reading of the manuscripts, it is an inventory of the hidden objects of the Jerusalem Temple before its final destruction: “This is an incredible historical testimony. To have a list of the temple treasures from the 1st century is a real miracle. We have nothing more eloquent than this scroll to tell us what was really there…”
According to him, the copper scroll was the work of the Zealots. This assumption fits perfectly into the historical setting from the beginning of the 1st century AD. in the Holy Land. Zealotism (Hebrew kanai, meaning “zeal for God”) became a political movement and led to the Great Revolt against Rome (AD 66-70). Josephus in his book “Jewish Antiquities” says that the Jewish sects were three – Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The Zealots, known for their intransigence towards Rome, became the fourth such. They appear on the political scene almost immediately after Rome declares Judea a Roman province, defend to the last the Temple and its wealth from the encroachment of the Romans. Before their resistance was finally broken and the Zealots were massacred, they managed to hide a large part of this wealth. The copper scroll map was composed just before the destruction of the temple, according to Stephen Pfan. In it, some of the places with hidden treasure can easily be found: Jericho, the Achor valley – north or south of Jericho, Mount Gerizim, the cave by the fountain of the House of Hakkoz – possibly the site of the second Jerusalem temple, etc.
However, there are also coded places that are difficult to locate such as “Solomon’s Channel” where a large amount of silver coins are hidden, “Milham” where the garments of the high priest are hidden, possibly with the stones “Urim and Thummim” and all the others priceless attributes described in the Bible, (see in detail Exodus 28:2-43). In a place called Mattia, over 600 gold and silver sacred vessels from the Temple are hidden… The instructions in the copperplate manuscript bear a striking resemblance to story lines from Indiana Jones or Lara Croft movies. It speaks of caves, graves, aqueducts, reservoirs, tunnels, etc., which are meant to serve as landmarks, followed by directions for the number of steps to be taken in a certain direction in order to find the hidden part of the treasure. The places are so described that a person must necessarily have been a contemporary of the era in which the objects were hidden to be able to find them today. The description includes details unknown to anyone today. These are local names of localities, buildings, streets, landmarks, which were known in ancient times to a certain group of people, but today they do not give us any idea in which direction to look.
The very language in which the copper scroll was written is a great mystery. Some passages in it are written in a kind of Hebrew (resembling the language of the Mishnah) which itself was in use 800 years earlier than the age of the scroll. Things are made even more confusing by the presence of Greek letters in the text of the scroll, arranged in no logical order. The last few lines of the scroll add further emotion to the confusion. They speak of an even greater treasure “in a dry well at Kohlit”… but unfortunately an explanation of how and where to find the well, as well as directions for discovering the rest of the treasures, is contained in a copy of the copper a scroll. This means that somewhere, perhaps in Kohlit, there is also a second copper scroll hidden, which is a supplement and a key to finding the objects described in the first. Joel Rosenberg believes the second scroll can still be found. According to him, it would also lead to the discovery of the “Ark of the Covenant”, which disappeared without a trace in 621 BC when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem. Interestingly, the “Ark of the Covenant” is missing from the list of items that the Babylonian king took out of Jerusalem. Rosenberg refers to ancient Hebrew texts that indicate the fact that the temple treasures from the first Jerusalem temple and the “Ark of the Covenant” were hidden by the priests before the Babylonian invasion. Clues to where they were hidden were left on a copper tablet, the problem is that no one has any idea where this second tablet might be.
Steven Pfan, however, believes that a large part of the treasure was found and taken away by the Romans. They forced the secret of the copper scroll to be revealed to them, and as proof of this point of his, Pphanes cites the existence of a letter in which the emperor Titus states that the Coliseum at Rome was built with the spoils of Judea. “If any part of the treasure still exists, it will be small pieces left undiscovered by the Romans…”. Bearing in mind, however, the example of the last stronghold of the Zealots, Masada, and the heroic death of its defenders, we could hardly agree with Stephen Pfan’s hypothesis that by the power of the sword the Romans forced the Jews to reveal to them the places where the treasures were hidden. Yes, perhaps some portion, sufficient to build the magnificent edifice of the Colosseum, fell into Roman hands, but the great treasure is probably still waiting for its Indiana Jones.
The article uses materials from the books: “Deciphering the Dead sea scrolls”, “The Bible and The Dead sea scrolls”, “Wealth in The Dead sea scrolls and in The Qumran community”, “Historical perspective: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in the light of The Dead sea scrolls”, “The Dead sea scrolls and the personages of earliest Christianity”, Biblical Archeology Review, from the CBN page, etc.
The famous missionary and theologian Deacon Andrey Kuraev was convicted on 23 August 24, 2022 in the Nikulin District Court in Moscow on a denunciation filed “by the citizen Sergey Chichin” for his anti-war publications.
All requests of his lawyer were rejected and Deacon Andrey Kuraev was sentenced to pay a fine of 30,000 rubles for “discrediting the Russian army”. A second such trial against him threatens him with a real prison sentence.
“I don’t know what the court considered a crime in my article. The reasoned part of the judgment was not read. There are also no specific words or quotes in the case file. Various lawyers are telling me in chorus that it’s time to evacuate: a second trial is already threatening me with a real prison sentence. I’ll be honest: I don’t want to leave. I will try to go on the path of correction. I have already said what I think about what should not be thought and talked about. And I paid the court for my words.
To make it difficult for future whistleblowers to do their noble work, I have deleted my diary for the period from February 23rd to August 1st.’
In the denunciation against deacon Andrey Kuraev, the citizen of Chichin says: “I am asking for an investigation into the fact of dissemination of unverified information by the citizen of the Russian Federation Andrey Vyacheslavovich Kuraev. Being a leader of public opinion (for a certain part of the population) through his blog, A. V. Kuraev regularly conducts open anti-Russian propaganda. In a post dated April 18, 2022 at 12:46 p.m., he wrote: “about the Rubtsov boys sending stolen appliances home.” The author then links to the Medusa site, without mentioning that it is on the “foreign agent” list, and urges it to be read via VPN (quote): “for the biographies of these guys, read the Medusa investigation”. Mr. Kuraev’s version comes out that the Russian military in Ukraine is actively engaged in looting household appliances from the local population and sending them to Russia.”
The repressive wave in the Russian state is becoming stronger and more unscrupulous, resembling the Soviet repressions in the 1930s (which Deacon Andrey Kuraev himself predicted at the beginning of the war – here).
As then, as now, whistleblowing is strongly encouraged in society, and almost all cases of “discrediting the Russian army” begin with a whistleblower – from parishioners (as in the case of a priest John Burdin), colleagues, readers.
Not long ago, the editor-in-chief of the free Orthodox encyclopedia “Drevo” was also convicted of denunciation and forced to take down his anti-war publications, as well as to stop the news column in his project.
The Lord taught in the synagogue of Capernaum, and everyone marveled at His teaching: for He taught them as having authority, and not as scribes (Matthew 7:29). This power is not an imperative tone, but the power of influence on souls and hearts. His Word went inside and subdued the human conscience, indicating that everything is exactly as He said. Such is always the word imbued with Divine power, the word from the Spirit. This was the case with the holy apostles, and after them with all influential teachers, who spoke not from learning, but from the way the Spirit gave them to proclaim. This is a gift of God, acquired by labors not only over the study of the truth, but more over the heart’s vital assimilation of it. Where this happens, the word penetrates with persuasiveness, because it passes from heart to heart; hence the power of the word over souls. Scribes who speak and write from learning are not given such power, because they speak from the head and pour their reasoning into the head. There is no life in the head, but only its tip. Life is in the heart, and only what comes from the heart can influence entire epochs of life. St. Bishop Theophan the Recluse (107, 271-272), (115, 455).
Proud and arrogant Jews, wishing to interrupt the conversation with the disciples, approached Him with the question: “By what authority do You do this?” (Matthew 21:23). Since the Jews could not humiliate His miracles, they blame Him for His action with the merchants in the temple. They asked the Evangelist John a similar question, although not in the same words, but with the same meaning: “By what sign will You prove to us that You have the authority to do this?” (John 2:18). And Christ answered them: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). And here He brings them into extreme difficulty. This shows that the incident described by John was at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, when He had just begun to work miracles, and that described by Matthew was at the end of His ministry. The meaning of the question of the Jews was this: have you received a teaching chair, have you been ordained a priest, that you exercise such authority? Although Christ did nothing that would show pride, but only established good order in the temple, yet, not having anything to say against Jesus, the Jews reproach Him for this. However, because of the miracles, they did not dare to reproach Him at the very time when He drove the merchants out of the temple, but they reproached Him only after they saw Him. What is Christ? He does not directly answer their question, showing by the fact that they could know about His authority if they wanted to, but He Himself asks them: “Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men?” (Luke 20:4). But how is that relevant, you ask? Directly. If they had said, “from heaven,” He would have answered them, “Why did you not believe him?” (Luke 20:5). Because if they had believed John, they would not have asked about it, since John said about Him: With Him “I am not worthy to untie the strap of my shoes” (Luke 3:16). And again: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). And also: “He who comes from above is also above all” (John 3:31). And again: “His shovel is in His hand, and He will clean His threshing floor” (Matthew 3:12). And if the Jews had believed John, it would not have been difficult for them to understand by what authority Christ does this. Since the Jews slyly answered Him: “We do not know” (Lk. 20:7), Christ did not say to them: “Neither do I know.” But what? “And I will not tell you by what authority I do these things” (Luke 20:8). If they really didn’t know, it would be necessary to teach them. But since they acted wickedly, and Christ rightly answered them nothing. Why didn’t the Jews say that the baptism of John was from the people? They were afraid of the people, it is said. Do you see the corrupted heart? God is neglected everywhere, but everything is done for people. For even John was feared for the people, respecting the holy man, not for his own sake, but for the people. For the people, they did not want to believe in Jesus Christ either. That’s where the source of all evil for them! Saint John Chrysostom (116, 371-372).
Power is a big cross
Any power for a Christian is not peace and honor, but a great cross, burdened with great and many labors, worries and constant patience, which no one wishes. For everyone must first make himself worthy of honor and expect God’s calling, by which the election of higher authorities is accomplished (104, 326-327).
Reason and a good conscience are necessary for a Christian leader. Without reason, the leader will, like a blind man, err; without a good conscience, he will ruin, and not build up society. Honor changes human disposition, but rarely for the better. Many would be saints if they were not honored. Think about it, Christian, and do not take on a burden greater than your strength. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk <104, 1200).
Perhaps someone will say that the Apostle Paul did not blaspheme those who wished to be bishops, for he says: if anyone desires the bishopric, he desires a good deed (1 Tim. 3:1); therefore, the desire for episcopacy is not a shameful desire.
He who speaks thus, let him heed the last words of the apostle: “He desires a good deed.” “Deeds” wants, and not power, labor, not honor, worries, not saturation. The apostle praises the desire, for the rank of hierarch was established by the Lord on earth not for peace and pleasure, but so that the saint always bears the greatest labors, caring for the salvation of all … revered by all, but in order to unhypocritically and always be the image of Christ’s humility, to be a champion of the truth, without hesitation, regardless of persons, to always be ready to lay down one’s life for Christ and Christ’s Church. The apostle did not blaspheme those who desired episcopacy precisely because in those apostolic times martyrdom followed episcopacy. And few of the apostles and bishops died a natural death. But many died as martyrs. For the impious tormentors sought first of all the bishops and Christian teachers as leaders. And therefore, if anyone desired episcopacy, he also desired martyrdom, he desired dishonor, spitting, mutilation and wounds, and not proud exaltation and honors; therefore, in those days, he who desired episcopacy desired a good deed. Now, however, the one who seeks the episcopal rank must be afraid that, having taken upon himself the care of the salvation of others, he may not destroy his soul. Saint Demetrius of Rostov (103, 786-787).
Lust for power
Lust for power is a great evil in man and the beginning of all evil… We know that the lawless Herod was not afraid to kill so many thousands of innocent babies, just not to lose his royal power. Oh, great evil – lust for power! Man wants to control others, but he cannot control himself. Flee from this evil so as not to destroy yourself and others. We must first learn to control ourselves, and then take power over others (104, 327).
When you feel anger in your heart against the subordinate, beware of punishing in anger and in word and deed, but wait until the anger is tamed. Since in anger you will not be able to punish like a Christian, but you will do a lot of obscene and indecent things, Christian, which, although you will regret later, you will no longer return what has been done or said. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk (104, 1201).
After the death of the hegumen-priest, the brethren of the monastery wished to elect one elder as hegumen, as a great and charitable man. The elder begged them to give it up. “Leave me, fathers, to mourn my sins. I am not at all the kind to take care of the souls of others. This is the work of great fathers like Abba Anthony, Pachomius, St. Theodore and others.” However, not a day passed without the brethren urging him to accept the abbess. The old man continued to refuse. Finally, seeing that the brethren were persistently asking him, he said: “Leave me to pray for three days. And whatever pleases God, I will do it.” It was Friday then, and on Sunday early in the morning the elder died. Spiritual meadow (75, 13).
Abba Orsisios said: “A damp brick laid in the foundation of a house, not far from the river, will not last even one day, but a burnt brick lies like a stone. So also a person who feeds carnal thoughts and is not imbued, like Joseph, with the fire of God’s fear, is crushed by power as soon as he receives it. For there are many temptations for such people if they live in society. And therefore, knowing the poverty of their strength, it is good to flee from the yoke of the authorities. However, those who are firm in the faith are unshakable. If someone would start talking about the most holy Joseph (Gen. 39), he would say that he was an unearthly person. What temptations he was!… But the God of the fathers was always with him and delivered him from every misfortune, and now he is in the Kingdom of Heaven with his fathers. And so let us begin the feat, having known in advance the measure of our strength: for even at the same time we can hardly escape the judgment of God. Memorable legends… (79, 182).
Archimandrite Zinon (Theodore) is the most famous icon painter of the Russian Orthodox Church and his works – murals, icons, miniatures are known throughout the Orthodox world. In 1992, he worked in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, and in 1993, he led the icon painting activities in the St. Danilov Monastery, related to the 1000th anniversary of the conversion of Russia. In 1995, he was awarded a state prize, thus becoming the first Orthodox painter to receive state recognition in Russia. Then he worked in Pskov, in the New Valaam Monastery, in the Sheveton Monastery in Belgium, in Vienna, in Batumi (Georgia) and in many other places. He writes the temple in the Moscow metro station “Semkhoz”, erected on the place where priest Alexander Men was killed.
In 1994, the Pskov Museum of Local Lore handed over the building of the ancient Spaso-Mirozhki Monastery to the Russian Church, with the condition that an icon-painting school be organized here under the leadership of archim. Zinon. Gradually, the small brotherhood rebuilt the monastery and the school began its activities. The fame of archim. Zinon attracts there icon painters not only from Russia, but also from abroad. In 1997, a group of Italian artists worked at the school, including Catholic priests. Archim. Zinon allowed the guests to celebrate a Catholic mass in one of the chapels of the monastery, which had not yet been consecrated, and at the end of the service he received communion from them. A little later, the case gained publicity and archim. Zenon was placed under interdiction (that is, he had no right to serve) by Pskov Metropolitan Eusebius, and two monks from his monastery were excommunicated. The banning of the famous icon painter caused a violent reaction in Russia – many admirers of his work spoke out in his defense. At that time, Father Zinon’s personality was already iconic in Russian society, and his influence on the theology of the icon considerable. The monastery was closed, the brotherhood dispersed, and some of his works in the Pskov temples and monasteries were destroyed. Archim. Zinon retired to a small village, right on the border with Estonia, where he continued to work actively. In February 2002, the Russian Patriarch Alexy II removed from him all disciplinary prohibitions, and above all the prohibition to work as a priest. In 2006, with the permission of the patriarch, he went to Vienna and worked in the diocese of Bishop Hilarion Alfeev, where he wrote the Nikolaev church until September of that year. At the moment archim. Zinon worked on Mount Athos, where, at the invitation of the Simonopetra monastery, he inscribed one of the monastery’s temples.
Besides icon painter, archim. Zinon is also known for his works in the field of the theology of the icon, and among his most famous books is the “Discourses of the Icon Painter”.
To understand the meaning of Orthodox icon veneration, it is good to see how each icon was born. Invaluable helpers in this endeavor are the lives of the saints. Today it is widely believed that the Church creates an icon of someone only after his canonization. In fact, the first official canonization in Byzantium took place only in the 14th century and it was about St. Gregory Palamas. He was declared a saint by Patriarch Philoteus Kokinos a few years after his death, and of course veneration for him was already a fact in Thessaloniki and the region. Which does not mean that the Church did not glorify saints before, nor that it did not inscribe them on icons. Until then, and for many centuries after, the only criterion for someone’s holiness was the unanimous veneration of the clergy and people, who testified with this unanimity to his orthodoxy and his pious life.
General information about the development of icon painting
Every saint has been subjected, at certain periods of his life, to persecution, challenge and denial, not only by secular authorities or open God-fighters (as perhaps we wish, to make it easier for us to find our way), but also by pious people, by ecclesiastical authority, and sometimes even by other saints.
After the death of the saint, whose sanctity was repeatedly demonstrated by miracles during his life and after his death, tropars for him appeared, included in the church service. The beginning of his ecclesiastical glorification are the so-called panagiri from Greek – great holidays dedicated to a deceased saint, which were annual and sometimes lasted a week… The more beloved the saint was, the more his images were on icons and murals.
There have been cases when a patriarch or other representative of the highest authority tried to ban someone’s veneration as a saint and, accordingly, to ban his icons, but they ended in failure. For example, in the 11th century, a senior official of the Patriarch of Constantinople tried to prohibit St. Simeon the New Theologian from organizing annual church celebrations in memory of his spiritual father, St. Simeon the Studite. The reason is that he considered St. Simeon the Studite to be a sinful man and not a saint. He managed to convince the patriarch and other senior church officials of this, and St. Simeon the New Theologian was subjected to persecution. Church holidays in memory of St. Simeon the Studite were banned, his icons and wall paintings were destroyed, and St. Simeon the New Theologian himself was exiled. They left him only the icon painted by himself, as a memory of his teacher, but deleted the word “saint” from it. After years of exile, when the prayerful reverence for St. Simeon the Studite did not decrease, but on the contrary, increased, St. Simeon the New Theologian was rehabilitated, and the church holidays in honor of his spiritual father were restored in Constantinople with even greater splendor than before .
Most icons were created spontaneously by grateful Christians during the saint’s lifetime or shortly thereafter. Here, for example, St. John Chrysostom, in his eulogy for Meletius, bishop of Antioch, delivered five years after his death, says that the believers in Antioch loved their bishop so much that they baptized their children with his name, Meletius. They invoked him in their prayers as an intercessor before God and thus removed every passion and sinful thought. His name was heard everywhere – in the market, in the square, in the field. But the Christians, continued St. John Chrysostom, loved not only his name, but also his holy body. Therefore they painted his image on the walls of their homes, stamped his face on rings, put his image in various places, so that they not only heard his name, but also comforted themselves with his image because of his sleep.
An example of a saint depicted during his lifetime is St. Simeon the Pillar, who lived in the 5th century in Syria. Theodoret of Kirsky, who wrote his Church History 15 years before the saint’s death (459), says that his fame was so great that people flocked to him from all over Christendom. And the artisans in Rome had hung small icons of him in front of the doors of their workshops to guard and protect them.
St. Simeon Novi lived in the 6th century again in Syria. He was known for his great miracles. Several instances of his depiction of icons are described in his biography. A woman named Theotecna separated from her husband and visited the saint to share her problem with him. Through his prayers, the couple got together again and had a child, which they brought to the saint for a blessing. When she returned home, she hung an icon of the saint in the inner rooms of her home. The biographer does not say whether she commissioned it to be painted or bought it ready-made somewhere. This icon was miraculous and through it many possessed and sick people were healed. Another case from the same life is that of a craftsman from Antioch who suffered for many years from demonic worries. Through the prayers of the saint, he was healed and out of gratitude hung his icon in a prominent place in the agora and above the door of his workshop. However, the saint was not loved in the city, because he had recently denounced its inhabitants for idolatry – therefore a commotion arose and many wanted to destroy his icon. Without explaining the details, the biographer says that the crowd dispersed after “a believing woman, a harlot, who at that hour was filled with the Holy Spirit” denounced them in a loud voice for their impiety and idolatry.
Saint Theodore of Syceot, bishop of Anastasiopolis, died in the early 7th century. Monks from his monastery, together with the abbot, decided to secretly paint his image on an icon in order to have it in their monastery as a memory and blessing. For this purpose, they called an artist, who observed and iconographed the saint through an opening. Before he left, the monks showed Saint Theodore his image. He joked if this was the most valuable thing they found to steal, smiled and blessed the icon.
And so behind the creation of each icon there was a personal story, a personal contact with a certain saint, whose sanctity was witnessed by the love and trust of the people… A woman receives help from a saint and because it is unlikely that she will ever be able to go to him again , orders his image to be painted to take to his home. Somehow, naturally, the prayer contact continued in the home and the believer did not even think that he was praying to the image, and not to the saint, the living memory of which he keeps in his memory… Naturally, everything can be profaned. This also happens with icons – in the later centuries, on the eve of the iconoclastic crisis, many believers began to look at them as amulets, having their power in themselves. The sense of a personal prayerful relationship in love with the depicted person is lost and replaced by a sense of awe at the supernatural powers of the icon as an object. The love between two persons – the person praying and the saint – is replaced by a consumer attitude towards the icon, from which the believer seeks some benefit that he could not naturally receive. This attitude gave birth to various non-Orthodox practices in spirit and, along with other political and cultural reasons, gave rise to the outbreak of iconoclasm disputes.
Immediately after Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit created the Church, a rapid development of the Christian communities began – the Gospel spread, worship developed, theology was clarified, asceticism was revealed as the main way of Christian existence, the administrative structure of the Church unfolded, etc. All this development finds embodiment and expression in Christian architecture. During the first three centuries – until the edicts of Galerius in Serdica (Sofia, 311) and Constantine the Great in Mediolanum (Milan, 313) – Christians were persecuted by the imperial authorities, and no traces of temple construction have been preserved from this period. It is a generally accepted opinion that during these nearly three hundred years the worship took place in private homes,[1] where house churches (domus ecclesiae) were organized, and from the 2nd century the catacombs were also used for such. However, the reports of various authors from this era, testifying to the construction of Christian temples, which during the persecutions were either destroyed or handed over to the local authorities, who used them according to their needs, should not remain without attention.
One of the earliest testimonies to the construction or rather the remodeling of a private home into a Christian temple is given by St. Clement of Rome († 101), probably the first bishop of today’s Sofia.[2] He tells us about a noble Christian from Antioch, named Theophilus, who “sanctified as a church the huge basilica of his home” (ut domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae nomine consecraret) and handed it over to the local ecclesiastical community. The construction of a Christian temple is also mentioned in the time of imp. Commodus († 192). Imp. Septimius Severus († 211), who is known in history for his religious tolerance, personally defended in court the right of Christians to build their temple on purchased, probably public, land. Tertullian († 230) and St. Gregory of Neocaesaria († 270) testify to Christian temples, and the archaeological excavations of the last century and continuing to this day, revealed in Dura – Europe (an ancient city on the banks of the Euphrates , located on the road connecting Damascus with Mesopotamia, now in Syria) a synagogue and a house church with a baptistery, dating from the second quarter of the 3rd century. The house church has interesting frescoes with scenes from the Old and New Testaments, created in the period 232-256.
A similar Christian temple appeared in the 3rd century and in Rome, created from converted private homes; its remains are located in the area of the modern temple of San Martino di Monti. Similar temples, also dated to the 3rd century, exist in Rome and under the foundations of later churches dedicated to St. Clement and St. Anastasia. The basilica-type temple in Eilat (southern Israel), built around 300 AD, was specially built for the needs of Christians. That in the 3rd century Christian temples already existed as special buildings is also evidenced by St. Gregory of Nyssa and especially the father of church history, Eusebius of Caesarea. About the time before and the first years of Diocletian, he writes that the Christians “in all the cities began to build extensive churches from their foundations” (εὐρείας εἰς πληρου ἀνὰ πάσας τὰς πόλεις ἐκ θεμελίων ἀνίστων ἐκκλησίας).
Apparently, this mass construction of Christian temples began to annoy and frighten, and imp. Diocletian issued a special edict against them. The great Christian apologist Lactantius (d. 325) describes the destruction of a Christian temple at the time of Diocletian (d. 305) and Galerius (d. 311). Probably this happened in 302, when the imp. Diocletian issued an order to completely destroy all Christian temples wherever they were located in the empire. The description probably refers to the destruction of the Nicomedia Cathedral Church, in which 20,000 Christians, martyrs for the faith, were burned alive on the feast of the Nativity of Christ. Even if the number is exaggerated, this account certainly attests to the existence of a temple of great size. The temples which for one reason or another survived were handed over to the pagans.
The real flowering of Christian architecture began in the 4th century, with the edict of Constantine the Great in 313. The long-pent up creative energy of Christianity was unleashed in full force. The vast number of Christians who can now profess their faith freely and publicly need their houses of prayer, where they can thank their God undisturbed. In this first free period for the Church, the most suitable building in which the faithful can gather is the basilica. The advantages over the other types of temples that began to appear in parallel with it or at a slightly later stage, when the initial need for temples to accommodate the huge number of believers was satisfied, are indisputable. First of all, its architecture was not commonly associated with that of pagan temples, something that was of great importance to the early Christian community. The basilica has a simple construction, representing a rectangle and less often a square: four walls, with the possibility, depending on the space they surround, of placing several rows of columns to divide the temple into several “naves” (nave)[3 ] in length, a gabled roof with timber construction,[4] which is also quick and easy to implement.
The interior space is maximally simplified, with the possibility of gathering a large number of people – something that is impossible with other types of temples that appeared later with more complex construction, which bet much more on the impact of the believers’ perceptions. The maintenance of the basilica type of temple is also much easier and cheaper compared to temples of more complex construction. Therefore, the most widespread type of temple in the early Christian period turns out to be the basilica, and, as we have already said, parallel to it, temples with a more complex structure appeared, the construction of which was conditioned by various reasons.[5] Such can be the significance of the place and the event with which it is connected – from the life of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the apostles and prophets, the lobular place of a martyr, etc.
In addition to these advantages, we must note that the basilica fully meets the requirements for a Christian temple in the Apostolic Decrees (composed ca. 380, but reflecting postulates, many of which can be traced back to the time of the apostles). According to these requirements, the temple building must be rectangular and oblong, and remind the shape of Noah’s ark, i.e. a ship.
From a royal house to a temple of the “common work” of ἐκκλησία
The basilica (from Greek: βασίλειον, βασιλική – royal house; Latin basilica – royal palace, palace) is not a discovery of Christian architectural thought. It was borrowed and adapted to the needs of the Church from the Hellenistic and Roman periods.[6] As a dwelling, it appeared in the late Neolithic era, which corresponds to the earliest period of the history of Hellas. The collision of the Achaeans (the ancestors of the Greeks) who invaded the territory of present-day Greece with the inhabitants and culture of the island of Crete (approx. 1500 BC) led to a strong influence of the Minoan civilization on all spheres of the Achaeans’ life. including in the field of architecture. Thanks to this influence, the Achaeans learned to build, like the Cretans, royal palaces. The basis of the special type of architecture of the basilica is the so-called megaron – large hall (μέγα – large and ρον – hall). The megaron was a rectangular room, which was divided internally, by means of columns or massive pillars, as a rule, into three parts. It had no windows and the light entered it through the doors.
The works of the great ancient Greek poet Homer contain a detailed description of the house of Basileus, the most numerous being in the Odyssey. Homer informs us that the life of the ruler was very ordinary. According to Homer, the famous ancient Greek hero Odysseus personally participated in the construction and especially in the furnishing of the royal house. The main emphasis in this construction is given to the strengthening and protection against external enemies of the building:
Sigur, Eumeea, this is the wonderful home of Odysseus.
It is easily recognized even among many buildings.
Hall o hall rests, the toothed wall skillfully protects the courtyard,
the double-winged gate is securely locked.
No one would even think of breaking it with violence.
[7]
In the Odyssey, Homer also gives a description of some details of the royal house, such as the presence of columns, thresholds, etc. The house of Basileus was divided into three parts: the prodrome (προδρομος), the megaron (μέγαρον) and the domos (δόμος).
The prodrome, lit. “in front of the house” was an inner courtyard around which guest rooms were located. Here were also rooms for a bath, a mill, warehouses, etc. In the middle of the courtyard was an altar to the ancient Greek god Zeus.
The megaron was an elongated rectangular hall with an entrance located at the end of the building. This is the main or “men’s” hall with two rows of wooden columns that divided the interior space into three parts and also served to support the high ceiling. In the center of the hall was a hearth around which the men gathered for feasts and entertainment. From here it was possible to enter the third part of the home – the female part. According to Homer, Penelope spent most of her time here.
With time and the complication of state administration, the basilica became a public one from a private home. The first archons-vasilevsi rule independently. With the development of the policy and the increase in the volume of administrative cases, they began to need assistants. Thus, in Athens, for example, the college of nine archons appeared, ruling the city for a year. Subsequently, they became members of the council of elders – Areopagites (from Ἄρειος Πάγος – literally hill of Ares). This complication of the administrative apparatus of the polis transformed the basilica from a private home into a building used exclusively as the workplace of the archons.
With the changes in the state administration and with the complicated “bureaucracy”, changes also occur in construction. Depending on the number of columns used, temple construction is divided into several types:
– pardon – presence of four columns in front of the main entrance;
– amphiprostyle – presence of columns supporting a portico in front of the main entrance and on the opposite side of the temple;
– peripter – the temple premises are surrounded by columns on all four sides.
During the time of Pericles, the building of the “Basilica Stoa” was built in Athens. This term, stoa, indicates the presence of columns as a mandatory element of the building. The purpose of the “Basilica Stoa” in Athens was to be a place for judicial sessions – a city court. Until it was built, the archons conducted court cases in the square (ἀγορά), which is why the new building acquired the rectangular shape resembling the agora. To be able to perform his duties, the archon needs a special official place, which appears in the “basilica stoa”, and which is a semicircular niche called an apse.[8] Similar buildings appeared elsewhere in Hellas, in Sparta, in Piraeus, etc. The column system itself also underwent development. They begin to be made of marble, and depending on the shape and ornamentation (mostly on the capital[9] of the column, but also depending on whether the body of the column has a base or not) we distinguish: Doric, Ionic and Corinthian style columns.
The development of trade and especially the expansion of Rome lead to interaction of the Roman Empire with other cultures of the peoples it conquered or with which it had trade relations. According to the famous Roman historian Titus Livius, author of Ab Urbe Condita (“From the Foundation of the City” – a history of the foundation and development of Rome), the influence of other cultures, especially Greek on Roman, began with censorship[10] of Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder (234-149 BC). Cato was a man who had gained enormous experience and impressions from the time when he led the Roman army in Spain, Greece, Carthage. He used this experience to decorate Rome. New construction begins on the Roman Forum with large and beautiful buildings borrowing architectural elements from different cultures. By his order in 184 BC. the first basilica was built in Rome, the construction of which met with serious resistance from the local municipality, since its construction was carried out with public funds, and a number of pavilions and shops were destroyed to clear the ground. It received the name “Basilica of Portia”. After its construction, the basilica in Rome combined judicial, political and commercial functions. Five years after it, a second basilica appeared, named in honor of its builders Fulvius Nobilior and Aemilius Lepidus. Not long after, a third basilica appeared in Rome – Sempronius. It suffered a number of destructions and fires, but was always rebuilt, with its last restoration dated to 377 AD.
A new stage in the construction of basilicas and in general the flowering of architecture in Rome occurred with the reign of Octavian Augustus. According to Suetonius, the face of the imperial capital did not match its grandeur.[11] Rome continued to suffer from floods and fires. To minimize these dangers, Augustus began a massive construction project. Again, in the words of Suetonius, “he took the city in brick and left it in marble”. The author of the famous work on the theory of architecture (De architectura libri decem – “Ten books on architecture”) Marcus Vitruvius Pollio also wrote about the construction of Augustus.[12] In Chapter 1 of Book 5 he gives specific instructions as to where and how the basilica is to be built. Vitruvius draws attention to another important fact, namely that the Romans did not blindly copy the architectural forms from Greece and other countries, but put into them a new, creative content and execution, according to the needs and traditions of Rome.
During the time of imp. Trajan, in AD 112. the grandest Roman forum was built, nearly twice the size of Caesar’s. The central place there is occupied by the Basilica of Ulpia, which is one of the largest to this day, measuring 120 m. long and 60 m. wide. The roof is lined with copper or bronze. There are two apses, and the interior space was divided by four rows of columns.
According to the Russian researcher Voloshinov, from the end of the 2nd century AD. by 476 (the end of the imperial period) between 22 and 29 basilicas were built as public buildings in Rome.[13] Subsequently, some of them were converted into Christian temples.[14] As the most notable in terms of architecture, decoration and size among them, we can point to the basilica of Maxentius and Constantine the Great – the famous Basilica di Massenzio, Basilica Nova.[15]
In addition to the enormous basilicas, built with funds from the state treasury, a number of private ones were also built – in different parts of the empire, which also amaze with their size and architectural appearance. Of the private ones, it is worth mentioning the great basilica in Antioch, belonging to the noble man Theophilus, the basilica in the palace of Alexander Severus, the Sicilian basilica, the Alexandrian basilica, Graziana, Theodosia, etc.[16] This indicates that in the last period of the history of Ancient Rome, the basilica as an architectural type, after passing from the East to Rome, left its borders and spread throughout the vast territory of the empire.
Thus, as a summary of the development of the basilica in Ancient Greece and Rome, we can say that the original “dwelling of the basileus” was transformed into the “basilica of the stoa” and from a private home into a building with public functions. Transferred from Greece to Rome, as a public building, it received its completion.
The New Language of the Christian Basilica
The Edict of Milan of 313 placed Christianity on an equal footing with other cults. It quickly managed to displace them and become a leading, basic confession. We have already said that the most practical, convenient, functional and relatively quick to build is the temple with a basilica plan. Last but not least, the basilica is relatively religiously neutral, i.e. pagan churches of the basilica type are few.[17] In it, of course, Christians bring new elements, understanding, functionality and meaning, conditioned by the needs of worship and Christian symbolism.[18] Every part of it and the building itself acquire a new semiotics. Moreover, in light of the debates that continue today as to the continuity between the basilica of the pagan period and the Christian basilica, or whether the Christian basilica is an entirely new architectural type, perhaps the only indisputable fact is that Christianity borrowed the name of the Roman civil edifice basilica to denote of his worship building.[19] The basilica became the name of the Christian temple, while the temple (templum) became the term with which Christians denoted pagan cult buildings, with the only exception being that the Jerusalem temple was also called that.[20] The word basilica appears in the earliest Christian texts in Latin, such as the 1st-century Lists of the Roman Popes, where Christian buildings of worship are called basilica or ἐκκλησία.[21]
Oriented along its longitudinal axis, the basilica with its elongated shape fully meets the Christian requirement and idea of the temple as a ship of salvation – the path from the entrance to the altar apse is perceived precisely as a path to salvation, as a passage from the earthly to the heavenly, from the created to the uncreated. The external form of the basilica reminds and personifies the mountain. And some of the most important biblical events are connected with the mountain: Moses receives the commandments at Sinai; Noah’s Ark rests on a mountain; The life of Christ is connected with the Mount of Olives; Christ is transfigured on Tabor; he was crucified on the mountain (hill) Golgotha, etc. In Christianity, the mountain acquires a symbolic meaning as a place of divine revelation and deliverance, of faith, of sacrifice and of salvation.
The interior of the basilica is also undergoing changes and receiving a new semantic load. On the eastern side of the basilica appears the apse, whose architectural semicircular shape with the altar located in it symbolizes the cave in which Christ was born and the cave (rock tomb) in which he was buried. The beginning of the new life, of the new Adam, Who with His death defeated death.
With the beginning of permitted Christianity, the great temple building began – in Rome, Constantinople, the Holy Land, etc., associated with Constantine the Great and his mother, Empress Helena. Among the earliest examples of such construction is San Giovanni in Laterno in Rome – a five-nave, single-apsed, highly elongated basilica built in 313-318. Another church from this period is the first dedicated to St. Peter the Apostle in Rome – also five-nave basilica, in the middle of which is the tomb of the apostle: the compositional center of the temple. It was built in the period 320-330.
Often the dimensions of the Christian basilica rival and even surpass those of the pagan. The orientation of the early Christian basilica is often arbitrary, some of the mandatory elements of today are not always present. In many of the earliest examples the apse is oriented not to the east but to the west. Such are the churches of St. Ap. Peter’s, San Giovanni in Laterno, Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, as well as that of the Holy Sepulchre. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (ca. 330) has an octagonal building attached instead of an apse. The basilica in Aquileia has no apse at all.
During these first years of mass construction of Christian temples, the model imposed by the imperial family was imposed, which was the guarantor and founder of many of the most famous and significant religious buildings even today. With its simplicity, functionality and relatively quick and easy construction, the basilica became a major early Christian architectural type. The main elements of its internal division from this period are: a nave or nave, at the end of which the altar part or presbytery is formed, located on a specially raised part called solei.[22] These include the appearance of the atrium,[23] the narthex and the exonarthex[24] to the opposite part of the apse.
In conclusion, we can give the following definition: a basilica is a Christian temple with a rectangular shape, the nave of which is divided longitudinally by columns into three, five or more parts (naves), with the central one being higher. This central (middle) nave is the widest. It is raised at a height above the roofs of the side aisles, and from the windows located there, the whole temple is illuminated. The entrance is on the opposite side of the altar apse. In front of the basilica there is a closed space – a courtyard, an exonarthex. Over time, many parts of the basilica underwent development, new elements were added, corresponding to the liturgical development of the service. Transepts appeared, [25] allowing better organization of the interior space. Over time, the architectural plan of the basilica was constantly refined and complicated. Twelve main compositions or the plan of the basilica appear. Among them we can point out the cruciform one, the one with an external atrium, the one with an additional narthex, etc. The basilica was the main architectural type in temple construction in the 4th-6th century. After the collapse of the empire in the West (476), the construction of large, exquisitely shaped basilicas ceased. In the East, from the middle of the 6th century, the basilica was also gradually displaced by the domed temples. Regardless of the emergence of other types of Christian churches, however, basilica churches continue to be built to this day.
Notes:
[1] The first Christian temple, on which all the others step like a cornerstone, is the Mount of Zion, where the Lord Jesus Christ himself performed the sacrament of the Eucharist together with the apostles.
[2] Karavalchev, V. “St. Clement, Pope of Rome – first bishop of Serdica” – In: Christianity and Culture, 10 (67), 2011, pp. 116-127.
[3] A nave (from French nef; Latin navis – ship) is a room bounded on one or both of its long sides by a row of columns or pillars, separating it from the neighboring rooms. An early Christian temple may have 3 or 5 naves (usually an odd number), with the central nave usually wider and higher.
[4] We should note that in the early, pagan period, the basilica had a mostly flat roof.
[5] Janson, W. Janson’s History of Art: The Western tradition, Upper Saddle River 82011, p. 246-247.
[6] Tomlinson, R. From Mycenae to Constantinople: The Evolution of the Ancient City, London 1992. There are various theories today about the origin of the basilica in antiquity, which became the prototype of the Christian basilica. There are theories that its homeland is not Ancient Greece, but Egypt, Mesopotamia, Ethiopia, etc. Many see the prototype of the Christian basilica in the Jerusalem Temple – a statement that even today can neither be categorically confirmed nor rejected. More on this in: Swift, E. Roman sources of Christian Architecture, New York 1951; Ciampini, J. Vetera monumenta, 1, Roma 1690, p. 22.
[7] Homer, Odyssey, Song 17:265, trans. G. Batakliev – here.
[8] The apse – in some editions it is also found as apsida, from the Greek word ἀψίδα representing a vault, arc, semicircle, Latin absis. In architecture, this is expressed in the form of a convexity of a building with a semicircular, oval or rectangular shape, with a half-dome covered by a conch or a lowered half-vault. Ancient Roman basilicas, baths and temples were built with apses for the first time. An Orthodox church usually has one or several, always an odd number of apses. In the eastern part of the temple is the altar apse – on the opposite side of the main entrance of the Christian temple – and it houses the altar, the holy throne.
[9] Capital – the upper extended part of the column.
[10] Censor – according to Plutarch was the highest honorary position attainable in the state – in this case, Rome.
[11] Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (De vita XII caesarum). Translated into Bulgarian: Guy Suetonius Tranquille, The Twelve Caesars, Sofia: “Riva” 2016.
[12] Vitruvius, The ten books on architecture, trans. M. Morgan, Cambridge 1914.
[13] Voloshinov, A. Mathematics and art, M. 1992, p. 90.
[14] The conversion of pagan temples and public buildings into Christian ones in the first years after the edict of 313 is an interesting phenomenon, which, although not so frequent, was dictated by the great need for places of worship in the first years of the free practice of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Imp. Theodosius II the Younger (401-450), for example, issued a law to purify all pagan temples by placing the sign of the cross, i.e. a sign that they were being converted into Christian temples. Beda the Venerable says that St. Gregory the Great ordered the monk Augustine not to destroy the well-built shrines of the Saxons, but to rebuild them into places of true worship. At imp. Phocas, the pagan sanctuary in Rome called the Pantheon, “temple of all the gods”, was converted into the temple of All Saints. A large number of studies have been published on the matter, including: Pagoulatos, G. “Destruction and conversion of ancient temples to Christian churches during fourth, fifth and sixth centuries” – In: Θεολογία, τ. ΞΕ‘, τευχ. 1, σ. 152-169; Bayliss, R. “From temple to Church: Converting paganism to Christianity in Late Antiquity” – Minerva, September-October, 2005, p. 16-18; From Temple To Church: Destruction And Renewal Of Local Cultic Topography In Late Antiquity (Religions In The Graeco-Roman World), ed. J. Hahn, S. Emmel, U. Gotter, Leiden–Boston, 2008; The Archeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’, ed. L. Lavan, M. Mulryan, Leiden–Boston 2011.
[15] Giavarini, C. The Basilica of Maxentius: The Monument, its Materials, Construction, and Stability, Roma 2005.
[16] See, for example: Pokrovskii, N.V. Ocherki pamjatkov khristianskogo iskusstva, St. Petersburg. 2000, p. 335.
[17] An opposing opinion was expressed in the 15th century by Leon Battista Alberti, the first researcher who defined the basilica as a separate type of building. He is the author of the work: De re aedificatoria libri decem – “Ten books about construction”. According to him, in the pagan period the basilica had a religious purpose and was one of the centers of the pagan cult. This opinion is not supported by modern researchers. About Alberti see more in: Zubov, V. Architectural theory Alberti, St. Petersburg. 2001.
[18] Worthy of attention is the study of one of the first and most prominent connoisseurs and researchers of the basilica, Adolf Zestermann (Zestermann, A. Die antiken und die christlichen Basiliken, nach ihrer Entstehung, Ausbildung und Beziehung zu einander dargestellt, Leipzig 1847), who , comparing the Roman and Christian basilicas, comes to the conclusion that the Christian has no connection with the Roman and is something completely original. This notion is also supported by other researchers.
[19] And here is another theory: that “basilica” became a designation for the Christian temple, coming not from its Greek and Latin equivalent, but from the Hebrew hekhal, meaning home, palace, abode of the king, and together with that, temple, abode of the deity. However, this theory uses as its source a text from the Middle Ages – “Etymology” of Isidore of Seville from the 7th century, which is why it does not stand up to criticism. See: Wilkinson, J. From Synagogue to Church. The Traditional Design. Its Beginning, Its Definition, Its End. London – New York 2002, p. 6.
[20] See: Mohrmann, C. Études sur le latin des chrétiens, 1 Roma, 1961, p. 62.
[21] Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christus natus, ed. P. Jaffé, 1, Lipsiae 1881.
[22] The sole is a raised place from the floor of the naos, located in front of the iconostasis in the Orthodox church. In a later period, there were the thrones of the kings and prefects. In the West, the soleum is called the senatorium, because that is where the senators sit. Today, in some temples, the chancel is surrounded by a railing and contains the singers and the bishop’s throne. The central part of the solea is the pulpit, and the side ones are the kliros. Even today, there is a dispute as to whether the sole begins from the altar partition – the iconostasis, or from the altar itself. The second opinion is more common, with the main argument being that the altar is at the same height as the saltire.
[23] Atrium – a colonnaded courtyard in a Hellenistic or Roman house. In the early Christian temple, this was a courtyard in the western part of the temple complex.
[24] Narthex – also known as the vestibule of the temple – the entrance to the Orthodox temple, vestibule; one of the three main parts of the temple today: narthex, naos (central part) and altar. Some smaller public prayers and sacraments are usually performed there: betrothal, ninth hour, liturgy, cleansing prayers… In ancient times, there was usually a baptistery here as well. The announced and the penitents stand in the porch. The vestibule can be a closed room or an open gallery – a portico, located only to the west or both to the north and to the south. In the presence of a closed and open porch, the second is called external – exonarthex.
[25] Transept (transeptum) – an additional nave, a nave located perpendicular to the central nave of the temple.
Photo: 19th century reconstruction of the 2nd century AD Basilica Ulpia, part of the Trajan’s Forum, Rome / Public Domain
People often misinterpret their own perceptions of people and situations as objective fact, rather than solely their own interpretation.
UCLA psychologist Matthew Lieberman explains why people might see things differently.
Why are we so certain that the way we view people, circumstances, and politics is correct and that the way others see them is erroneous?
According to a recent study by the University of California, Los Angeles psychology professor Matthew Lieberman, the answer resides in a part of the brain he calls the “gestalt cortex,” which helps humans make sense of ambiguous or incomplete information — and dismiss alternative interpretations.
The study, which was based on an analysis of over 400 prior studies, was published in the journal Psychological Review.
People often mistake their own perceptions of other individuals and events for an objective fact as opposed to only being their own interpretation. People who experience this “naive realism” phenomenon think they should have the final word on the world around them.
“We tend to have irrational confidence in our own experiences of the world, and to see others as misinformed, lazy, unreasonable or biased when they fail to see the world the way we do,” Lieberman said. “The evidence from neural data is clear that the gestalt cortex is central to how we construct our version of reality.”
The gestalt cortex is located behind the ear, between the parts of the brain responsible for processing vision, sound and touch. Credit: Matthew Lieberman/UCLA Psychology
He believes that the most overlooked cause of conflict and mistrust between people and organizations is naive realism.
“When others see the world differently than we do, it can serve as an existential threat to our own contact with reality and often leads to anger and suspicion about the others,” Lieberman said. “If we know how a person is seeing the world, their subsequent reactions are much more predictable.”
While the question of how people make sense of the world has been an enduring topic in social psychology, the underlying brain mechanisms have never been fully explained, Lieberman said.
Mental acts that are coherent, effortless, and based on our experiences tend to occur in the gestalt cortex. For example, a person might see someone else smiling and without giving it any apparent thought, perceive that the other person is happy. Because those inferences are immediate and effortless, they typically feel more like “seeing reality” — even though happiness is an internal psychological state — than they do like “thinking,” Lieberman said.
“We believe we have merely witnessed things as they are, which makes it more difficult to appreciate, or even consider, other perspectives,” he said. “The mind accentuates its best answer and discards the rival solutions. The mind may initially process the world like a democracy where every alternative interpretation gets a vote, but it quickly ends up like an authoritarian regime where one interpretation rules with an iron fist and dissent is crushed. In selecting one interpretation, the gestalt cortex literally inhibits others.”
Previous research by Lieberman has shown that when people disagree face to face — for example on a political issue — activity in their gestalt cortices is less similar than it is for people who agree with one another. (That conclusion was supported by a 2018 study in the journal
The gestalt cortex is located behind the ear, and it is situated between the parts of the brain responsible for processing vision, sound and touch; those parts are connected by a structure called the temporoparietal junction, which is part of the gestalt cortex. In the new study, Lieberman proposes that the temporoparietal junction is central to conscious experience and that it helps organize and integrate psychological features of situations that people see so they can make sense of them effortlessly.
The gestalt cortex isn’t the only area of the brain that enables people to quickly process and interpret what they see, he said, but it is an especially important one.
Using neurosurgical recordings to understand the “social brain”
In a separate study, published in April in the journal Nature Communications, Lieberman and colleagues addressed how, given our complex social worlds, we are able to socialize with relative ease.
Using the first mass-scale neurosurgical recordings of the “social brain,” Lieberman, UCLA psychology graduate student Kevin Tan and colleagues at Stanford University showed that humans have a specialized neural pathway for social thinking.
Lieberman, author of the bestselling book “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect,” said humans are social by nature and have an exceptional capacity for assessing the mental states of others. That ability requires the brain to process a large number of inferences from a vast array of idiosyncratic cues. So why does that process often feel so effortless compared to simple tasks like basic arithmetic?
Clear answers have been elusive for those who study social neuroscience. One culprit could be scientists’ reliance on functional magnetic resonance imaging, which is effective at scanning where brain activity occurs, but less effective at capturing the timing of that activity.
Researchers employed a technique called electrocorticography to record brain activity at millisecond and millimeter scales using thousands of neurosurgical electrodes. They found that a neurocognitive pathway that extends from the back to the front of the brain is especially active in areas closer to the front when people think about the mental states of others.
Their findings suggest that the temporoparietal junction may create a fast, effortless understanding of other people’s mental states, and that another region, the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, may be more involved in thinking things through more slowly and carefully.
References: “Seeing minds, matter, and meaning: The CEEing model of pre-reflective subjective construal” by Matthew D. Lieberman, July 2022, Psychological Review. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000362
“Similar neural responses predict friendship” by Carolyn Parkinson, Adam M. Kleinbaum and Thalia Wheatley, 30 January 2018, Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02722-7
“Electrocorticographic evidence of a common neurocognitive sequence for mentalizing about the self and others” by Kevin M. Tan, Amy L. Daitch, Pedro Pinheiro-Chagas, Kieran C. R. Fox, Josef Parvizi and Matthew D. Lieberman, 8 April 2022, Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-29510-2
It didn’t involve any killer clowns, haunted hotels, or avenging, telekinetic high schoolers, but this summer, author Stephen King began telling a new scary story: the precarious state of the US book industry in 2022.
The author, who has written numerous horror bestsellers since the 1970s like The Shining and Carrie, testfied this month on behalf of the Biden administration in the Department of Justice’s effort to stop the proposed $2.2bn merger of Penguin Random House, America’s largest publisher, and Simon & Schuster, another of the “Big Five” companies that dominate the US book industry.
In November of last year, the federal government sued to stop the deal, arguing the tie-up would give the companies “unprecedented control” over who gets their voices heard in American cultural life, a development that “would result in substantial harm to authors”.
Over the course of three weeks of arguments this August, the trial dug down into the opaque world of big-money author advances and industry consolidation, exposing deep disagreements about how the deal would impact the book business, and by consequence, what the future of America’s literary culture looked like for writers and readers alike. The unprecedented case has been dubbed the publishing trial of the century.
For his part, Mr King, one of the most successful and well-paid writers of his generation, was willing to testify against his own regular publisher, Scribner, part of Simon & Schuster, to argue against more consolidation in the book industry.
“My name is Stephen King. I’m a freelance writer,” he began cheekily, before railing against market conditions that have pushed many writers “below the poverty line”.
“I came because I think that consolidation is bad for competition,” he testified. “It becomes tougher and tougher for writers to find money to live on.”
“It’s a tough world out there now. That’s why I came,” he added. “There comes a point where, if you are fortunate, you can stop following your bank account and start following your heart.”
The clash with Mr King is one of many twists in the trial, which wrapped closing arguments on Friday (19 August).
Though the case hinges on technical issues like the dynamics of author contracts, the definition of monopoly power, and the merits of various supply chain arrangements, everyone in the book world is watching for when a decision comes down this fall.
Readers might want to pay attention, too. The case not only impacts how people consume books, and at what price. Like any good story, this one also has plenty of drama and gossip to go around.
“This is a huge deal,” Michael Cader, founder of the Publishers Lunch newsletter, told The Independent. “The trial was probably attended by a few dozen people, but was riveting to the entire industry. Both the potential consequences of the deal itself as well as simply the theatre of having peers and people in your industry on the stand discussing business details in granular fashion for three weeks was pretty compelling for a lot of people.”
The main argument in the case revolved around the big whales of the publishing industry, books where authors earned more than $250,000 on their advances for titles expected to top bestseller lists.
The DOJ claimed that a potential Penguin Random House – Simon & Schuster juggernaut would control half the market of such blockbuster books in the US.
“They are the only firms with the capital, reputations, editorial capacity, marketing, publicity, sales, and distribution resources to regularly acquire anticipated top-selling books,” DOJ lawyers said in a court filing.
The merger hopefuls, meanwhile, told the court in Washington, DC, that readers and writers had nothing to fear if the government allowed the Big Five to become the Big Four.
“It’s a good deal for all involved, including authors,” Stephen Fishbein, an attorney for Simon & Schuster, said in his closing statement.
Top leaders at Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster said the book market was far more expansive and competitive than the slice the government was choosing to focus on, which covers about 1,200 books a year, or two per cent of the US commercial market, the companies argued in a pretrial brief.
Overall, in 2021, about half of the books sold in the US came from publishers outside the Big Five, Penguin Random House CEO Markus Dohle testified. The company also noted it had actually lost market share since the 2013 merger between Penguin and Random House.
More than that, the companies argued the process of acquiring books was a mix of expertise and gambling, where even publishing giants can’t guarantee a big-money purchase will translate to big sales and massive cultural reach, or predict when an upstart author’s book will become a breakout hit.
“These are not widgets we’re producing,” Madeline McIntosh, chief executive of Penguin Random House, said in testimony. “The evaluation is a highly subjective process.”
Claiming to predict a book’s bestselling future was like “taking credit for the weather,” added Simon & Schuster CEO Jonathan Karp.
This unpredictable process would remain de-centralised even after the merger, the companies went on, because Simon & Schuster and Penguin Random House editors would still be allowed to bid against each other for future titles.
Even to a fantasy author, however, this premise struck Stephen King as a bit out-there.
“You might as well say you are going to have a husband and wife bidding against each other for a house,” the writer testified. “It’s a little bit ridiculous.”
Amy Thomas, owner of Pegasus Books, which has stores in Solano, Berkeley, and Oakland, California, said the consolidation might also cancel out who gets published in the first place, leading to a potential diminishment in which new and important voices get heard.
The most important books aren’t necessarily ones that start out as instant profit-makers, but mergers often invite searches for quick places to cut costs. What’s more, she said, salespeople representing the massive combined catalogues of a merged Simon & Schuster and Penguin Random House might not have the time to champion all of their titles the way a smaller publishing house would.
“Things will get dropped. Lines will get dropped. There’s just too much,” she told The Independent. “There’s a lot of books. Not all of them work. And a lot of them are worth it anyway.”
Bigger companies may also have less incentive or ability to offer booksellers good terms, given the gargantuan scale of the proposed company’s operations.
Beyond the more technical questions about how a Simon & Schuster – Penguin Random House deal would affect author payouts and bookstores, there was also the slightly dishier matter of which authors got paid the big bucks and why.
On this question, the trial became a kind of literary Page Six, with mentions of Big Five publisher Hachette’s list of “the ones that got away”, and reported seven-figure paychecks for figures like actor Jamie Foxx and New Yorker magazine writer Jiayang Fan.
The publisher of Simon & Schuster imprint Gallery even testified that they paid “millions” for a book by comedian Amy Schumer, even though sales estimates suggested the book might not merit such a whopping payout.
The case also described how the collective $65m advance Barack and Michelle Obama got for their books neared a $75m threshold where Penguin Random House editors would’ve needed permission from their corporate parent, Germany’s Bertelsmann, to move ahead.
But the focus on these marquee names was more than just publishing industry gossip. The trial shined a spotlight on just how much a tiny proportion of hit books prop up the rest of the publishing industry.
Penguin Random House executives said that just over a third of their books turn a profit, with just four per cent of books in that category accounting for 60 per cent of the earnings. In 2021, according to data from BookScan, fewer than one per cent of the 3.2 million titles it tracked sold over 5,000 copies.
Given this state of affairs, the big publishers argued their merger would create corporate efficiencies, allowing them to pass these savings on so more authors got a bigger piece of the pie.
However, Judge Florence Y Pan seemed to strike down this line of thinking, refusing to admit Penguin Random House’s evidence to support this claim, arguing it wasn’t independently verified.
“The judge thoroughly and completely rejected the defence’s argument for accepting that evidence,” Mr Cader, of Publishers Lunch, said.
So did Stephen King.
“There were literally hundreds of imprints and some of them were run by people who had extremely idiosyncratic tastes,” he said. “Those businesses, one by one, were either subsumed by other publishers or they went out of business.”
His own publishing history tells the story of an industry increasingly controlled by a few companies. Carrie was published by Doubleday, which eventually merged with Knopf, which is now part of Penguin Random House. Viking Press, which put out other King titles, was a part of Penguin, which became Penguin Random House in 2013.
David Enyeart, the manager of St Paul, Minnesota’s independent Next Chapter Booksellers, says the industry’s long march towards consolidation makes it harder for new voices to emerge and reach readers in stores because smaller publishers simply can’t compete.
“They’re able to make more independent decisions about who they’re going to publish, but they aren’t as able to spread the word as powerfully as a deep-pocketed company. That really affects what consumers are able to read,” he said. “That’s a real impact that everybody sees.”
Others say the story is a bit more complicated than corporate consolidation stomping out all variation and diversity in the business. It’s the best of times and the worst of times in the book industry. It just depends on your perspective, according to Mike Shatzkin, CEO of publishing consultancy The Idea Logical Company.
”The book business as measured in titles has been exploding for 20 years,” he told The Independent. “The book business as measured in dollars has been growing for 20 years.”
He estimates that about 40 times more titles are available than the half a million or so books in print in 1990. It’s just that publishers and bookstores now face competition from self-publishers using services like Amazon’s Kindle Direct, as well as upstarts who, thanks to the internet, now have cheaper access to the same printing and storage supply chains that used to only be affordable to major publishing houses.
Someone looking to sell books doesn’t even need much physical infrastructure at all. They can accept payment for a book, then pass along the printing and shipping order to distributors like Ingram, without ever touching a book themselves.
Even a pandemic couldn’t tank sales, according to Penguin Random House’s Mr Dohle. Print book sales grew by more than 20 per cent between 2012 and 2019—then another 20 per cent between 2019 and 2021.
To make a profit in a world where, Mr Shatzkin estimates, about 80 per cent of books are sold online, in an essentially limitless variety, with nearly instantaneous printing and shipping, big publishers can only survive, he argues, by consolidating and monetising reliable books already in print from their back catalogues. These books don’t need publishers to shell out lots of money scoring a promising new author and promoting their work.
“The world that we’re in, which we have been in for 20 years, is that the state of the business that belongs to commercial publishers is shrinking, and the ability of publishers to establish a new book as profitable is shrinking, drastically,” he said. “What has grown is the ability to monetise deep backlists that might have never been monetizable in the old days.”
Looming in the background of the merger trial is Amazon, which controls, by some counts, an estimated two-thirds of the market for new and used books in the US, and Ingram, the distributor, a company which controls the majority of independent book distribution between publishers and readers.
By law, mergers present the opportunity for the government to weigh in on whether a proposed company risks becoming anti-competitive, but Amazon has been able to use its numerous different business lines to fund a roaring books business built on titles offered at low prices.
“This particular suit is like chasing something that has escaped a long time ago,” Paul Yamazaki, the book buyer at San Francisco institution City Lights Bookstore, told The Independent, sitting on a sunny porch covered in stacks of books. “If the Justice Department was going to really look at this, and look on behalf of the readers and writers, then they should look at Amazon.”
Barring exceptions like the breakup of Standard Oil and the Bell System companies, the government rarely elects to break up monopolies outside of mergers.
Even with advances in self-publishing, e-commerce, and a flourishing of indie bookstores in recent years, many owned by an increasingly diverse group of industry newcomers and people of colour, the e-commercification of publishing has made it hard for small presses to have their books reach readers in stores, Mr Yamazaki said.
“So many of the presses—City Lights, New Direction, Copper Canyon, Coffeehouse—all started out as these kind of homegrown projects with somebody that had a wonderful idea and just only had sweat equity and a typewriter,” he said. “We need the whole ecology to prosper.”
In the present ecology, however, according to Next Chapter’s David Enyeart, the big fish seem to be getting bigger, with few benefits to everyone else down the food chain over the long term. He couldn’t think of a single positive about the merger.
“What we’ll see in the long run is less diversity in offerings, less reason for them to offer better discounts and to generally make room for independent bookstores and the sort of books that we want to promote. That’s really sort of the issue. It’s a long-term sort of thing. It won’t change anything day-to-day,” he said.
Recommended
“It’s the sort of thing where we’ll wake up in several years, and there’s only two publishers left, and they’re squeezing us hard.”
This article was amended on 23 August 2022. It previously stated that the ex-publisher of Simon & Schuster imprint Gallery Books testified during the merger trial. However, the testimony came from Gallery’s current publisher, Jennifer Bergstrom.
