/

St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

St. Tikhon’s University Review I :78

THEOLOGY

Kurdybaylo Dmitry

On symbols and symbolism in Eusebius’ of Caesarea ‘Demonstartio Evangelica’

Kurdybaylo Dmitry (2018) "On symbols and symbolism in Eusebius’ of Caesarea ‘Demonstartio Evangelica’ ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 11-27 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.11-27
Demonstratio Evangelica can be distinguished among other works by Eusebius of Caesarea due to the high occurrence of the term symbol (σuμβολον). Most of the usage cases are found in important exegetical or theological passages. The follower of Origen, Eusebius inherits Alexandrian symbolism in its various kinds. This research is based on the context analysis of the notion “symbol” in Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica. All the usage cases of symbolon and several related terms have been classifi ed according to the semantics of their contexts. Eusebius introduces a signifi cant change in the meaning of symbol related to establishing the New Testament, which substitutes the regulations of the Old Testament. Two important features of Eusebian thought are highlighted. Firstly, it is his inclination to the Trinitarian subordinatism of Origen and, secondly, the view at the incarnation of Logos as the central point of human history splitting it into the Old Testament and New Testament periods, distinguished by the substantial diff erence in relations between God and mankind. The context analysis allowed us to classify Eusebian symbols into the following categories: exegetical symbols (symbolic interpretation of particular places in the Scripture), Old Testament liturgical symbols (according to Eusebius, all the details of worship established by Moses have certain symbolic meaning), anthropological symbol (the Old Testament anointing the high priest with the unguent makes him a symbol of Christ), and Eucharistic symbol (Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist are called symbols). Eusebian symbolism reveals one intrinsic contradiction: on the one hand, Eusebius states that the New Testament opens the intelligible truth to be perceived without any mediation of material symbols, which pertain to the Old Testament only. On the other hand, he uses symbols for the interpretations of the New Testament texts; moreover, he applies the term symbol to the Eucharist. A possible solution for this antinomy is suggested. It is necessary to distinguish two levels of the Eusebian symbol, with the one related to the manifestative function of symbol and the other being the ground for likening man to Christ as mediator between God the Father and the created world. Finally, some observations are made to show how Eusebian symbolism in Demonstratio Evangelica might have infl uenced the image of Constantine the Great in the late writings by Eusebius of Caesarea.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, symbol, exegetics, Moses, Old Testament, Eucharistic symbolism
  1. Barnes T. D. (1981) Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, London.
  2. Barnes T. D. (2014) Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire.
  3. Benveniste É. (1974) “Semanticheskie problemy rekonstruktsii” [“Semantic Problems in Reconstruction”], in Benveniste É. Obshchaia lingvistika [General Linguistics]. Moscow, 1974, 331–349 (Russian translation).
  4. Berkeley D. S. (1978) “Some Misapprehensions of Christian Typology in Recent Literary Scholarship”. Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, 1978, vol. 18 (1), pp. 3–12.
  5. Crouzel H. Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène. Aubier, Éditions Montaigne, 1956.
  6. DelCogliano M. (2006) “Eusebian Theologies of the Son as the Image of God before 341”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2006, vol. 14 (4), pp. 459–484.
  7. Des Places E. (1975) “Numénius et Eusèbe de Césarée”. Studia Patristica, 1975, vol. 13 (2), pp. 19–28.
  8. Drake H. A. (1976) In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Orations. Berkeley.
  9. Eusèbe de Césarée. (1974–1991) Préparation évangélique. Sources Chrétiennes, 206, 228, 262, 266, 215, 369, 292, 307, 338. Paris.
  10. Ferrar W. J. (ed.) (1920) The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea. London, New York.
  11. Florovsky G. (1950) “Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy”. Church History, 1950, vol. 19 (2), pp. 77–96.
  12. Heil G., Ritter A. M. (eds.) (2012) Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulæ. Berlin, Boston.
  13. Iastrebov A. O. (2002) “11 kniga «Evangel’skogo prigotovleniia»” [“11th Book of Praeparatio Evangelica]. Tserkov’ i vremia, 2002, vol. 3 (20), pp. 105–192 (in Russian).
  14. Kannengiesser Ch. (2006) Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Leiden, Boston.
  15. Kurdybaylo D. S. (2016) “O simvole i simvolizme v traktate Origena «Protiv Kel’sa»” [“On Symbol and Symbolism in Origen’s Treatise Contra Celsum”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato- Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2016, vol. 1 (63), pp. 53–68 (in Russian).
  16. Kurdybaylo D. S., Gerasimov, I. A. (2016) “O nekotorykh osobennostiakh simvolizma v sochineniiakh Klimenta Aleksandriiskogo” [“On Certain Features of Symbolism in Works of Climent of Alexandria”]. Schole. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 2016, vol. 10 (2), pp. 592–607 (in Russian).
  17. Kurdybaylo D. S., Kurdybaylo I. P. (2016) “O pereosmyslenii mifa o kolesnitse dushi iz «Fedra» Platona v «Pokhval’nom slove Konstantinu» Evseviia Kesariiskogo” [“On Reconsidering the Myth of Chariot of Soul in Plato’s Phaedrus and Eusebius’ Laudes Constantini”]. Solov’ëvskie issledovaniia, 2015, vol. 3 (47), pp. 49–66 (in Russian).
  18. Lampe G. W. H. (1961) A Patristic Greek lexicon. Oxford. Perczel I. (2015) “Dionysius the Areopagite”, in K. Parry (ed.) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Patristics, pp. 211–225.
  19. Petroff V. V. (2010) “«Real’nyi» simvol v neoplatonizme i v khristianskoi traditsii (v Areopagitskom korpuse i u Karla Ranera)” [“«Real» Symbol in Neoplatonism and Christian Tradition”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2010, vol. 3 (31), pp. 36–52 (in Russian).
  20. Ramelli I. L. E. (2009) “Origen, Patristic Philosophy, and Christian Platonism: Re-thinking the Christianisation of Hellenism”. Vigiliae Christianae, 2009, vol. 63 (3), pp. 217–263.
  21. Robertson J. M. (2007) Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria. Oxford.
  22. Takho-Godi A. A. (1999) “Termin «simvol» v drevnegrecheskoi literature” [“The Term Symbol in Ancient Greek Literature”], in Takho-Godi A. A., Losev A. F. Grecheskaia kul’tura v mifakh, simvolakh i terminakh [Greek Literature in Myths, Symbols, and Terms]. St Petersburg, pp. 329–361 (in Russian).
  23. Winkelmann F. (ed.) (1975) Eusebius Werke. Berlin, vol. 1.1.

Kurdybaylo Dmitry


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities; 15 Naberezhnaya reki Fontanki, St. Petersburg, 191011, Russian Federation;
Post: research fellow, Information projects department;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0571-1704;
Email: theoreo@yandex.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The research was carried out at Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities (St Petersburg) with the fi nancial support of Russian Science Foundation, project 17-78-10061.
Fokin Alexey

«Intellegentia simplicitatis»: the Doctrine of Divine simplicity in Marius Victorinus: its philosophical Sources and theological Significance

Fokin Alexey (2018) "«Intellegentia simplicitatis»: the Doctrine of Divine simplicity in Marius Victorinus: its philosophical Sources and theological Significance ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 28-46 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.28-46
In this article the author examines Gaius Marius Victorinus’ contribution to the development of the doctrine of divine simplicity, which occupies the central place in his philosophical and theological doctrine. Although this doctrine was developed by Victorinus in the context of Arian controversy and his apology of the principle of consubstantiality contained in the Nicaean Creed, its origins go back to the Neoplatonic metaphysics, with its opposition between "here" and "there", that is two worlds with their own logics. In connection with this, the doctrine of Plotinus on the simplicity of the One, the Mind and intelligible essences is briefly reviewed. The basic principles of the doctrine of Divine simplicity are the coincidence of substance and existence in God, so that the very substance of God is His being; the inapplicability of the opposition "substance – accidents" to God, in connection with the fact that God is a substance without accidents and that in Him "to have" is identically "to be"; the identity of all Divine attributes with the Divine substance, such as action, movement, will, form, truth, etc., and, as a consequence, the identity of all attributes to each other. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the attributes of existence, life and thought, on the example of which the principles of unity and distinction of the Divine names and attributes are uncovered, which include synonyms, common and proper acts, potential and actual being, hiddenness and manifestation, as well as the doctrine of the "implication and predominance" of the attributes as an anticipation of the medieval theory of appropriation. In conclusion it is mentioned that Marius Victorinus for the first time in the history of Christianity brought Neoplatonic doctrine of Divine simplicity into Christian theology, applying it to explaining such basic Christian dogmata as God’s existence, substance and attributes, consubstantiality of Divine hypostases, discretion of hypostatic differences. The author also poses a question of the influence of Victorinus’s doctrine on the formation of the subsequent Western Christian theological tradition and its basic differences from the Eastern Christian tradition.
ancient philosophy, metaphysics, substance, accidence, potency, act, Neoplatonism, Christian theology, Patristics, trinitarian doctrine, Marius Victorinus, St Augustine
  1. Ayres L. (2004) Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth Century Trinitarian Theology. New York.
  2. Bolotov V. V. (1994) Lektsii po istorii Drevnei Tserkvi [Lectures on the History of Ancient Church]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Bradshaw D. (2004) Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Russian translation 2012).
  4. Courcelle P. (1948) Les letters grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore. Paris.
  5. Flint Th., Rea M. (eds.) (2009) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Russian translation 2013).
  6. Fokin A. R. (2007) Khristianskii platonizm Mariia Viktorina [Marius Victorinus’ Christian Platonism]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Fokin A. R. (2011) “Uchenie ob «umopostigaemoi triade» v neoplatonizme i patristike” [“The Doctrine of the “Intelligible Triad” in Neoplatonism and Patristics”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2011, vol. 37, pp. 7–22; 2011, vol. 38, pp. 7–29 (in Russian).
  8. Fokin A. R. (2016) “Aristotelevskie kategorii v latinskoi trinitarnoi teologii (Marii Viktorin, Avgustin, Boetsii)” [“Aristotle’s Categories in Latin Trinitarian Theology (Marius Victorinus, Augustine, Boethius)”]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 2016, vol. 9, pp. 106–108, 112–113 (in Russian).
  9. Fokin A. R. (2016) “Modusy sushchego i ne sushchego u Mariia Viktorina” [“Marius Victorinus’ Modes of Being and Non-Being”]. Platonovskie issledovaniia, 2016, vol. 4, pp. 148–152 (in Russian).
  10. Fokin A. R. (2017) Formirovanie trinitarnoi doktriny v latinskoi patristike [Formation of Trinitarian Doctrine in Latin Patricistics]. Moscow (in Russian).
  11. Hadot P. (1960) “Commentaire”. Marius Victorinus. Traités théologiques sur la Trinité. Paris.
  12. Hadot P. (1968) Porphyre et Victorinus. Paris.
  13. Hadot P. (1971) Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres. Paris.
  14. Hanson R. P. C. (1988) Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy, 318–381. Edinbourgh.
  15. Henry P. (1934) Plotin et l’Occident: Firmicus Maternus, Marius Victorinus, Saint Augustine and Macrobe. Louvain.
  16. Henry P. (1950) “The “Adversus Arium” of Marius Victorinus: the First Systematic Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity”. Journal of Theological Studies. New Series, 1950, vol. 1, pp. 49– 50, 52–53.
  17. Moreschini C. (2004) Storia della filosofia patristica. Brescia.
  18. Saffrey D., Westerink L. G. (eds.) (1968‒1987) Proclus. Theologie platonicienne. Paris.
  19. Sennett J. F. (ed.) (1998) The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (Russian translation 2014).
  20. Simonetti M. (1975) La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Rome.

Fokin Alexey


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0001-5411-6437;
Email: al-fokin@yandex.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Spitsyn Dmitry

The interpretation of Holy Scripture in hymnography and its connection with the patristic tradition with the troparion of the midwives in the Great canon of repentance as an example

Spitsyn Dmitry (2018) "The interpretation of Holy Scripture in hymnography and its connection with the patristic tradition with the troparion of the midwives in the Great canon of repentance as an example ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 47-56 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.47-56
This article deals with one of several possible ways of using Holy Scripture — alongside citing and paraphrasing — in hymnography, namely with the interpretation of events or characters. When studying liturgical texts that contain possible interpretations of the Bible, their comparison with the church tradition is necessary. Such a placement in the patristic context allows us to identify possible sources, the degree of dependence on patristic writing, as well as the level of the exegetical independence of the writer, which in turn helps us understand the meaning of the interpretation presented in the hymn. This idea is illustrated by studying the 8th troparion of Ode 5 of the Great Canon “Thou hast heard, wretched soul, of the midwives”. It is based on the fi rst two chapters of the Book of Exodus: the order of the Egyptian Pharaoh to kill Israeli male infants and the story of Moses. In this troparion, the Biblical story is violated: unlike the story in the Scriptures, the midwives kill the male infants in the troparion. With the help of philological analysis, the phrase aνηβον… την aρρενωπόν… της σωφροσύνης πρÅξιν is explained. To understand the meaning of this interpretation, the church exegesis of the corresponding place of the Bible was analysed. It goes back to Philo of Alexandria, was introduced to the church by Origen, and then was maintained in the writings by St. Methodius of Patara, Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Alexandria. These writers proceeded from the opposition of the male virtuous principle to the female vicious principle found in Plato’s texts. The article also establishes the proximity of the troparion to texts of Origen, St. Methodius of Patara and Gregory of Nyssa in a number of exegetical details.
Great Canon, Andrew of Crete, Moses, midwives, Book of Exodus, hymnography, Philo of Alexandria, Origen, Methodius of Patara, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria
  1. Amidon Ph. R., O’Keefe J. J. (eds.) (2013). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters 1‒12. Washington.
  2. Desnitskiy Andrey S. (2016) Khristianstvo. Nastoiashchee (Rossiia, XXI vek) [Christianity. The Present (Russia, 21st Century)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  3. Dvoretskii I. Kh. (1958) Drevnegrechesko-russkii slovar’ [Ancient Greek-Russian Dictionary]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Giannouli Antonia (2007) Die beiden byzantinischen Kommentare zum Großen Kanon des Andreas von Kreta. Wien.
  5. Heinep R. E. (ed.) (2002). Origen. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. Washington.
  6. Jaeger W., Langerbeck H. (eds.) (1964). Gregorii Nysseni. Opera, vol. VII, pars I. Leiden.
  7. Mondésert C. (ed.) (1962). Philon d′Alexandrie. Legum Allegoriae. Paris.
  8. Musurilo H., Debidour V.-H. (eds.) (1963) Méthode d’Olympe. Le Banquet. Paris.
  9. Nesterova Ol’ga E. (2006) Allegoria pro typologia. Origen i sud’ba inoskazatel’nykh metodov interpretatsii Sviashchennogo Pisaniia v rannepatristicheskuiu epokhu [Allegoria pro Typologia. Origen and the Fate of Allegorical Methods of Interpretation of Scripture in Early Patristic Era]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Nikiforova Aleksandra Yu. (2008) “Poeticheskii stroi vizantiiskoi gimnografi i i Sviashchennoe Pisanie” [“Poetic Structure of Byzantine Hymnography and Holy Scripture”], in Rannekhristianskaia i vizantiiskaia ekzegetika [Early Christian and Byzantine Exegesis]. Moscow: IMLI RAN, pp. 212-243. (in Russian).
  11. Sedakova Ol’ga A. (2008) Slovar’ trudnykh slov iz bogosluzheniia: Tserkovnoslaviano-russkie paronimy [Dictionary of Difficult Words Used in Worship: Church Slavonic‒Russian Paronyms]. Moscow (in Russian).
  12. Simeon (Durasov), hieromonk. Velikii kanon svt. Andreia Kritskogo, available at: http://www.posad.1gb.ru/default.aspx?ti=1&hti=51 (17.05.2018).
  13. Sluzhby Velikogo posta [Services for Great Lent] (2010). Moscow (in Russian).
  14. Tvoreniia Kirilla, episkopa Aleksandriiskogo [Works of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria] (2001). Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Wewers J. W. (ed.) (1991). Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientarium Gottingensis editum. Göttingen, vol. II,1.

Spitsyn Dmitry


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Petersburg Theological Academy; 17 Naberezhnaya Obvodnogo Kanala, St Petersburg 191167, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3611-5833;
Email: dmitrij.spitsin@yandex.ru.
Malyshev Artem

Problem of the consciousness of Christ in russian theology: christology of St. Innokenty (Borisov) and bishop Ioann (Sokolov)

Malyshev Artem (2018) "Problem of the consciousness of Christ in russian theology: christology of St. Innokenty (Borisov) and bishop Ioann (Sokolov) ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 57-72 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.57-72
This article studies the problem of Christ’s human consciousness in the Christology of two representatives of Russian theological school, namely St. Innokenty (Borisov), archbishop of Cherson and Taurica (1800‒1857) and Ioann (Sokolov), bishop of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh (1818‒1869). Up to now, this sphere of the scholarly studies have not been a subject of special theological research, despite the fact that many scholars mention the similarity of their dogmatic approaches and specifi c features of their Christological concepts. The doctrine of Christ of the two prominent Russian hierarchs stands out noticeably against the habitual “school”, or traditional, approach primarily due to the fact that with regard to Christ they introduce previously non-employed notions and open new fi elds of study for the Christological science. This article studies one of this fi elds, namely Christ’s consciousness. It considers various shades in the use by St. Innokenty and Bishop Ioann of the term “conscioness” (Russ. сознание) as well as associated theological issues. The article also scrutinises the concept of Christ’s self-consciousness both in Bishop’s Ioann Christology and in the context of his doctrine of the consciousness of mankind, reveals the link and continuation in the approaches of St. Innokenty and Bishop Ioann with specifi c paralells in the doctrines as examples. The fi nal section of the article puts forward some hypotheses as to the reception of St. Innokenty’s and Bishop Ioann’s doctrine in the later tradition.
Christology, psychology, bishop Ioann (Sokolov), St. Innocent (Borisov), consciousness, self-consciousness, self-perception, Russian theology
  1. Chernoglazov D. A., Shufrin A. M., Benevich G. I. (eds.) (2014) Prp. Maksim Ispovednik. Bogoslovsko-polemicheskie sochineniia [St. Maximus the Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica]. St Petersburg: Sviataia Gora Afon (in Russian).
  2. Dahlke B. (2016) “Die Christologie in Schleiermachers Glaubenslehre”. Catholica, 2016, vol. 70, pp. 278–299.
  3. Florovskii G. (2009) Puti russkogo bogosloviia [Paths of Russian Theology]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Gavriushin N. K. (2007) “Cherty bogoslovskogo tvorchestva sviatitelia Innokentiia (Borisova)” [“Features of Theological Creative Work of St. Innokenty (Borisov)”]. In Khristianskoe prosveshchenie i russkaia kul’tura: Materialy 10 nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii [Christian Enlightenment and Russian Culture: Proceedings of the 10th Theological Conference]. Yohkar-Ola, pp. 11–20 (in Russian).
  5. Khondzinskii P. V. (2017) “Antropologiia sviatitelia Feofana Zatvornika i zarozhdenie pervykh personalisticheskikh kontseptsii v russkom bogoslovii” [“Anthropology of St. Theophan the Recluse and the Origin of the First Personalistic Concepts in Russian Theology”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2017, vol. 70, pp. 11–27 (in Russian)
  6. Khondzinskii P. V. (2017) “Vospriiatie idei I. Kanta v bogoslovskom nasledii svt. Innokentiia (Borisova)” [“The Perception of Ideas of I. Kant in Theological Heritage of St. Innokenty (Borisov)”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia. II: Istoriia, 2017, vol. 74, pp. 94–102 (in Russian).
  7. Lisovoi N. N. (2002) “Obzor osnovnykh napravlenii russkoi bogoslovskoi akademicheskoi nauki v 19 — nachale 20 stoletiia” [“Outline of the Main Directions of the Russian Theologocal Academic Science in the 19th — Early 20th Centuries”]. In Bogoslovskie trudy [Theological Studies], vol. 37. Moscow, pp. 5–127 (in Russian).
  8. Malyshev A. V. (2015) “Uchenie sviatitelia Innokentiia Khersonskogo o Gefsimanskom molenii Spasitelia v kontekste sviatootecheskoi traditsii” [St. Innokenty of Cherson Doctrine of the Savior’s Gethsemane Prayer in the Context of Patristic Tradition”]. Elektronnyi nauchnobogoslovskii zhurnal studentov i aspirantov Bogoslovskogo fakul’teta, 2015, vol. 7, pp. 33–44 (in Russian).
  9. Malyshev A. V. (2016) “Bogoslovie svt. Innokentiia Khersonskogo na primere ego ucheniia o Khriste” [“St. Innokenty’s of Cherson Theology with his Doctrine of Christ as an Example”]. Moskovskie Eparkhial’nye Vedomosti, 2016, vol. 6, pp. 110–113 (in Russian).
  10. Malyshev A. V. (2016) “Vospriiatie Gefsimanskogo moleniia Khrista F. F. Reingardom i svt. Innokentiem Khersonskim” [“Perception of Christ’s Gethsemane Prayer by F.F. Reingard and St. Innokenty of Cherson]. Elektronnyi nauchno-bogoslovskii zhurnal studentov i aspirantov Bogoslovskogo fakul’teta, 2016, vol. 8, pp. 65–73 (in Russian).
  11. Malyshev A. V. (2016) “Gefsimanskoe molenie Khrista v tolkovaniiakh prp. Maksima Ispovednika i svt. Innokentiia Khersonskogo” [“Christ’s Gethsemane Prayer in Interpretations by St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Innokenty of Cherson”], in Materialy VIII mezhdunarodnoi studencheskoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii 18–19 maia 2016 [Proceedings of the 8th International Student Theological Conference, 18‒19 May 2016]. St Petersburg, pp. 84–91 (in Russian).
  12. Zelenina Ia. E., Lopukhina E. V. (2009) “Innokentii (Borisov)”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia], vol. 22, pp. 686–707 (in Russian).

Malyshev Artem


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3674-3303;
Email: artema.malishev@gmail.com.

PHILOSOPHY

Pavliuchenkov Nikolai

“Hellenic religion of suffering God” in the “Philosophy of cult” of priest Pavel Florensky: formulating the problem

Pavliuchenkov Nikolai (2018) "“Hellenic religion of suffering God” in the “Philosophy of cult” of priest Pavel Florensky: formulating the problem ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 75-91 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.75-91
This article points out the presence of common themes and directions of research in the religious and philosophical legacy of priest Pavel Florensky and Vyacheslav Ivanov, particularly the concept of religious cult put forward in Ivanov’s work “Hellenic Religion of the Suff ering God (Religion of Dionysus)” (Russ. Эллинская религия страдающего бога (Религия Диониса)) and in Florensky’s lectures in the “Philosophy of Cult” (Философии культа). The article draws attention to the fact that Florensky’s lectures, at least in their main part, contain elements of theological research and are essentialy an attempt at a theological interpretation of Ivanov’s concept. The article also emphasises the lack of theological criticism of this aspect in Florensky’s legacy and gives a brief outline of critical observations contained in philosophical works by S. Khoruzhy and N. Bonetskaya. Studying this issue, I consider it necessary, in the fi rst hand, to identify the reasons why Vyach. Ivanov’s texts attracted Florensky’s attention. In my opinion, this is both thinkers’ aim of the apology of Christianity employing F. Nietzsche’s works and Vladimir Solovyev’s metaphysics of unity. Ivanov attempted to develop Solovyev’s theurgy and “complement” his metaphysics by means of religious experience that would correspond this metaphysics. Overall, Ivanov’s views on the essential role of religious cult and sacred rites in man’s life fully corresponded Florensky’s beliefs.
Florensky, Vyacheslav Ivanov, Solovyev, religion of Dionysus, religious cult, sacraments, theology
  1. Andronik (Trubachev), hieromonk (1998). Teoditseia i antropoditseia v tvorchestve sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo [Theodicy and Anthropodicy in Works of Priest Pavel Florensky]. Tomsk (in Russian).
  2. Bonetskaia N. K. (2017) “Antichnaia shkola u monastyrskikh sten” [“Classical Ancient School by Monastery Walls”]. Zvezda, 2017, vol 9 (in Russian).
  3. Buzhor E. S. (2016) “Filosofi ia simvola Viacheslava Ivanova i Pavla Florenskogo” [“Viacheslav Ivanov’s and Pavel Florensky’s Philosophy of Symbol”]. Vestnik RUDN. Ser. Filosofiia, 2016, vol. 4, pp. 70–77 (in Russian).
  4. Florenskii P., priest (1977) “Iz bogoslovskogo naslediia” [“From the Theological Legacy”], in Bogoslovskie trudy [Studies in Theology], vol. 17. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Florenskii P. A. (1990) Sochineniia. T. 1 (1). Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny [Collected Works. Vol. 1 (1). The Pillar and Ground of the Truth]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Florenskii P., priest (1994) Sochineniia: V 4 t. [Collected Works. In 4 Vols.]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Florenskii P., priest (1996) Izbrannye stat’i po iskusstvu [Selected Articles on Art]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Florenskii P., priest (2006) Sviashchennoe pereimenovanie [Sacred Renaming]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Florenskii P., priest (2004) Filosofiia kul’ta (Opyt pravoslavnoi antropoditsei) [Philosophy of Cult (Attempt at Orthodox Theodicy)]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Florovskii G., priest (1991). Puti russkogo bogosloviia [Paths of Russian Theology]. Vilnius (in Russian).
  11. Gogotishvili L. A., Kazaryan A. T. (eds.) Viacheslav Ivanov. Arkhivnye materialy i issledovaniia [Viacheslav Ivanov. Archival Materials and Studies]. Moscow, 1999 (in Russian).
  12. Ivanov V. (1974) Sobranie sochinenii v 4 t. [Collected Works, in 4 vols.]. Brussels (in Russian).
  13. Ivanov V. (1994) Dionis i pradionisiistvo [Dionysus and Early Dionysianism]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  14. Ivanova L. (1992) Vospominaniia. Kniga ob ottse [Memoirs. Book about My Father]. Moscow (in Russian).
  15. Isupova K. G., Shishkina A. B. (eds.) Viacheslav Ivanov: Pro et contra. Lichnost’ i tvorchestvo Viacheslava Ivanova v otsenke zarubezhnykh myslitelei i issledovatelei: Antologiia [Viacheslav Ivanov: Pro et contra. Personality and Creative Work of Viacheslav Ivanov in Assessments of Foreign Thinkers and Scholars: Anthology]. St Petersburg, 2016 (in Russian).
  16. Khoruzhii S. S. (1999) Mirosozertsanie Florenskogo [Florensky’s World Outlook]. Tomsk (in Russian).
  17. Khoruzhii S. S. (1988) “Filosofskii simvolizm Florenskogo i ego zhiznennye istoki” [“Florensky’s Philosophical Symbolism and its Origins in Life”], in Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik [Historical and Philosophical Yearly]. Moscow, pp. 180–201.
  18. Marchenko O. V. (2012) “Simvolika serdtsa v razmyshleniiakh Viacheslava Ivanova, V. Erna i o. P. Florenskogo: nekotorye zamechaniia” [“Symbolism of Heart in Viacheslav Ivanov’s, V. Ern’s and Priest P. Florensky’s Speculations: Some Observations”]. Rossica Lublinensia, 2012, vol. 7, pp. 49–61 (in Russian).
  19. Nikitin V. (1988) “Khramovoe deistvo kak sintez iskusstv” [“Temple Act as Synthesis of Arts”]. Simvol, 1988, vol. 20 (in Russian).
  20. Obretaia put’. Pavel Florenskii v universitetskie gody: V 2 t. [Acquiring the Path. Pavel Florensky’s University Years. In 2 Vols.]. Moscow, 2011 (in Russian).
  21. Pavliuchenkov N. N. (ed.) (2014) Perepiska P. A. Florenskogo i V. F. Erna, in Russkoe bogoslovie: issledovaniia i materialy [Russian Theology: Studies and Materials]. Moscow, pp. 199–231 (in Russian).
  22. Pavliuchenkov N. N. (ed.) (2015) Perepiska P. A. Florenskogo i V. F. Erna, in Russkoe bogoslovie: issledovaniia i materialy [Russian Theology: Studies and Materials]. Moscow, pp. 173–203 (in Russian).
  23. Pavliuchenkov N. N. (ed.) (2016) Perepiska V. F. Erna i P. A. Florenskogo (1900–1911), in Russkoe bogoslovie: issledovaniia i materialy [Russian Theology: Studies and Materials]. Moscow, pp. 145–198 (in Russian).
  24. “Perepiska V. Briusova s Viach. Ivanovym” [V. Briusov’s Letters to Viach. Ivanov]. Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 1976, vol. 85, pp. 428–545 (in Russian).
  25. Shishkin A. (1990) “O granitsakh iskusstva u Viach. Ivanova i o. Pavla Florenskogo” [“Viach. Ivanov and Pavel Florensky on the Limits of Art”]. Vestnik RKhD, 1990, vol. 160 (in Russian).
  26. Solov’ev V. S. (1988) Sochineniia: V 2 t. [Collected Works. In 2 Vols.]. Moscow (in Russian). (1989) Storia della letteratura russa. Torino, vol. 3.
  27. Trubachev S. (1988) “Muzykal’nyi mir P. A. Florenskogo” [“P. Florensky’s Musical World”]. Sovetskaia muzyka, 1988, vol. 8, pp. 81–89; vol 9, pp. 99–103 (in Russian).
  28. Trubetskoi S. N. (2003) Metafizika v Drevnei Gretsii [Metaphysics in Ancient Greece]. Moscow (in Russian).
  29. Vaganova N. A. (2010) “Dionisiistvo kak pervokhristianstvo v knige Viach. Ivanova «Dionis i pradionisiistvo»” [“Dionysianism as Primordial Chrisianity in V. Ivanov’s Book Dionysus and Early Dionysianism”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2010, vol. 32, pp. 63–70 (in Russian).
  30. Zhukovskaia T. N. (ed.) (2002) Sestry Gertsyk. Pis’ma [The Gertsyk Sisters. Letters]. St Petersburg, Moscow (in Russian).

Pavliuchenkov Nikolai


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Theology;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-7778-139X;
Email: npavl905@mail.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Vdovina Galina

The Concept of Good in Francisco Suárez’ Metaphysical Disputations

Vdovina Galina (2018) "The Concept of Good in Francisco Suárez’ Metaphysical Disputations ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 93-106 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.93-106
The concept of Good (bonum) is one of the most complicated and multifaceted concepts in the philosophical and theological European tradition. Disputationes Metaphysicae by Francisco Suá rez (1548‒1617) treat it strictly from the point of view of the First Philosophy, namely as one of the transcendental, i.e. supracategorical, attributes of Being as such. Therefore, the problem of Good in Suá rez’ view is elevated from the level of practical philosophy (ethics) to a higher level of contemplative philosophy (metaphysics). Suá rez attempts, fi rstly, to reveal the nature of Good as such; secondly, to relate all kinds of Good — despite their apparent heterogeneity — to the transcendental Good as the highest and primordial form of bonum; thirdly, to explain the mututal convertibility of Good and Being. Suá rez solves this task through the conceptual analysis of the particular kinds of Good and through identifi cation of analogical relations between them.
The concept of good in Francisco Sua rez’ Disputationes Metaphysicae
  1. Augustine of Hippo (1995) De doctrina Сhristiana. Oxford.
  2. Burlando G. (2016) “Bien trascendental: salvación y comunidad fuerte en F. Suárez”. Teología y vida, 2016, vol. 57 (3), pp. 309–333.
  3. Darge R. (2014) “Zum historischen Hintergrund der Transzendentalienlehre in den Disputationes Metaphysicae”, in Novák L. (ed.) Suárez’s Metaphysics in its Historical and Systematic Context, Berlin, vol. 2, pp. 39–62.
  4. Esposito C. (2004) “Ens, essentia, bonum en la metafísica de Francisco Suárez”. Azafea. Revista de Filosofía, 2004, vol. 6, pp. 29–47.
  5. Fokin A. R. (2009) “Blago v zapadnom srednevekovom bogoslovii” [“Good in Western Medieval Theology”]. In Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia], Moscow, 2009, vol. 5. pp. 239–243 (in Russian).
  6. Honnefelder L. (1987) “Der zweite Anfang der Metaphysik: Voraussetzungen, Ansätze und Folgen der Wiederbegründung der Metaphysik im 13./14. Jahrhundert”, in Beckmann J. P., Honnefelder L., Schrimpf G., Wieland G. (eds.) Philosophie im Mittelalter. Entwicklungslinien und Paradigmen. Hamburg, pp. 165–186.
  7. Suárez F. Disputationes Metaphysicae. Available at: http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Michael.Renemann/suarez/suarez_dm10.html (30. 04. 2018).
  8. Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae. Available at: http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1003.html (23. 04. 2018).

Vdovina Galina


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0003-3220-924X;
Email: galvd1@yandex.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Karpov Kirill

Privationist theodicy and the doctrine of transcendentals: Francisco Suarez on goodness and evil

Karpov Kirill (2018) "Privationist theodicy and the doctrine of transcendentals: Francisco Suarez on goodness and evil ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 107-118 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.107-118
The article attempts to discover the natural boundaries of the privationist theodicy (privatio boni) in the light of the criticism against it in recent Russian periodical literature, that evil cannot be considered as pure non-being, since it exits within real being. I show that this criticism was known in the Western philosophical tradition and trace one of the most interesting answer to it, proposed by Francisco Suárez. Suárez gives parallel classifi cations of good and evil (division into good/evil in itself and good/evil for the other), the key role in which plays the concept of ‘agreeability’ (convenientia). Since Suárez gives no explicable notion of ‘agreeability’, I propose my contextual interpretation of it. Then I discuss two hypotheses why Suárez does not use the concept of ‘disagreeability’ (disconvenientia) in his defi nition of evil in itself. After this I demonstrate connections between the medieval doctrine of transcendentals (more specifi cally, the thesis of the convertibility of being and goodness) and privationist theodicy. This makes it possible to defi ne the scope of applicability of the privationist theodicy and to identify a possible place for it in the contemporary controversy on the problem of evil.
being, goodness, evil, privationist theodicy, transcendentals, Francisco Suárez
  1. Alston W. (1996) “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from Evil”, in D. Howard-Snyder (ed.) The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 311‒332.
  2. Gracia J. J. E. (1991) “Evil and the Transcendentality of Goodness: Suárez’s Solution to the Problem of Positive Evils”, in Scott MacDonald (ed.) Being and Goodness. The Concept of the Good in Metaphysics and Philosophical Theology. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, pp. 151‒176.
  3. Howard-Snyder D. (2009) “Epistemic Humility, Arguments from Evil, and Moral Skepticism”, in J. Kvanvig (ed.) Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 2, pp. 17‒57.
  4. Mackie John L. (1955) “Evil and Omnipotence”. Mind, 1955, vol. 64, no. 254, pp. 200‒212.
  5. Rowe William L. (1979) “The Problem of Evil and some Varieties of Atheism”. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1979, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 335‒341.
  6. Shokhin Vladimir K. (2016) “Problema zla: teoditseia i apologiia” [“Problem of Evil: Theodicy and Argumentation”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2016, vol. 5 (67), pp. 47‒58 (in Russian).

Karpov Kirill


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; Goncharnaya Str. 12/1, Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0223-7410;
Email: kirill.karpov@gmail.com.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Samarina Tatiana

Designer project of phenomenological understanding of religion: F. Max Mueller’s comparativism

Samarina Tatiana (2018) "Designer project of phenomenological understanding of religion: F. Max Mueller’s comparativism ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 121-131 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.121-131
This article provides grounds for the idea that the comparativist project of F. Max Mueller had laid the foundations of phenomenology of religion. Max Mueller formalised the general principles of the new science of religion, having taken away the straightforward apologetic content from the comparative principle and defending the idea of existence of religious studies as an independent discipline, the subject of which is religion itself, the task of a religious scholar being to see religion through the eyes of a believer. In all religions, Max Mueller saw a certain hidden unity; it is the presence of this unity that had been making possible the translation from the language of one culture into the language of another. Max Mueller follows Schleiermacher asserting the existence of the primordial sense of the Infi nite that underlies any religion. According to Mueller, religious comparativism should serve the purpose of updating Christianity; the latter should not be the dominant religion but a new religion expressing all religions of mankind simultaneously. It is the comparativism that came to be the methodological ground for phenomenology of religion. The article draws the conclusion that the comparativist project of F. Max Mueller contained the main features of the future phenomenology of religion, namely empathy, the idea of deep unity of religious traditions, the practice of religious comparative studies, hidden theological background.
Friedrich Max Mueller, Friedrich Schleiermacher, phenomenology of religion, comparative religious studies, empathy, intention
  1. Allen D. (2010) “Phenomenology of religion”, in: The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion: 2nd Edition, 2010, pp. 203–224.
  2. Chaudhuri N.C. (1974) Scholar Extraordinary: The Life of Professor the Rt. Hon. Frederick Max Müller. London.
  3. Heiler F. (1921) Das Gebet: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und religionspsychologische Untersuchung. München.
  4. Heiler F. (1926) Christlicher Glaube und Indisches Geistesleben: Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya, Sadhu Sundar Singh München.
  5. Heiler F. (1967) “Meine ökumenischen Begegnungen“, in Vom Werden der Ökumene: Beiheft zur Ökumenische Rundschau, no. 6.
  6. Krasnikov A. N. (2007) Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedeniia [Methodological Problems of Religious Studies]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Kristensen W. B. (1960) The Meaning of Religion. The Hague.
  8. Leeuw G. (1933) Religion in Essence & Manifestation: A Study in Phenomenology. New York.
  9. Molendij k A. L. (2016) Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East. New York.
  10. Müller F. M. (2017) “The Comparative Study or Religion”, in Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion: Aims, Methods, and Theories of Research. Introduction and Anthology: 2nd Edition. Berlin, pp. 87–93.
  11. Paden W. E. (2010) “Comparative Religion”, in The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion: 2nd Edition, pp. 225–242.
  12. Roscoe P. (2009) “The Comparative Method”, in The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. New York, pp. 25–46.
  13. Ryba T. (2006) “Phenomenology of Religion”, in The Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion. New York.
  14. Samarina T. S. (2017) “Fenomenologiia religii i filosofskaia fenomenologiia” [Phenomenology of Religion and Philosophical Phenomenology”]. Voprosy filosofii, 2017, vol. 4, pp. 61–71 (in Russian).
  15. Sharpe E. J. (1965) Not to Destroy but to Fulfil: The Contribution of J. N. Farquhar to Protestant Missionary Thought in India before 1914. Uppsala.
  16. Shokhin V. K. (2016) Filosofskaia teologiia: dizainerskie fasety [Philosophical Theology: Designers’ Facets]. Moscow (in Russian).
  17. Strenski I. (2015) Understanding Theories of Religion: An Introduction. 2nd Edition. New York.

Samarina Tatiana


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia, 109240 Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-9888-0872;
Email: t_s_samarina@bk.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

PUBLICATIONS

Vorontsova Elena

Programmes of concrete-sociological studies of religiosity of population by A. I. Klibanov and A. I. Demyanov

Vorontsova Elena (2018) "Programmes of concrete-sociological studies of religiosity of population by A. I. Klibanov and A. I. Demyanov ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 135-145 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI201878.135-145
This article makes public an important source for the history of sociology and psychology of religion in the USSR, namely two fi eldwork questionnaires that were employed by the Soviet and Russian historian, religion scholar, source critic A. I. Klibanov (1910‒1994) together with his research group in expeditions of 1959‒1961, as well as by his student — sociologist and religion scholar — A. I. Demyanov (born 1942) during his fi eldwork of 1966‒1972. These documents were revealed in archives of A. I. Klibanov. The publication of the sources is preceded by a biographical sketch and a commentary on the content of the questionnaires.
A. I. Klibanov, A. I. Demyanov, history of religious studies in USSR, concretesociological expeditions
  1. Adrianov N. P., Lopatkin R. A., Pavlyuk V. V. (1966) Osobennosti sovremennogo religioznogo soznaniya [Features of modern religious consciousness]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Dem’yanov A. I. (1977) Istinno-pravoslavnoe hristianstvo: kritika ideologii i deyatel’nosti [True Orthodox Christianity: Criticism of ideology and activity]. Voronezh (in Russian).
  3. Hun U. (2018) “Rozhdenie etnografi i iz duha ateizma? Issledovaniya «sovremennogo sektantstva» v kontekste antireligioznyh kompanij N. S. Hrushcheva” [“The birth of ethnography from the spirit of atheism? Studies of “modern sectarianism” in the context of anti-religious N. Khrushchev’s companies”]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie, 2018, vol. 2, pp. 110–112 (in Russian).
  4. Kurochkin P. K. (ed.) (1970) K obshchestvu, svobodnomu ot religii: Process sekulyarizacii v usloviyah soc. obshchestva: Sbornik statej [To a society that is free from religion: The process of secularization in condition of socialistic society: collected articles]. Moscow (in Russian).
  5. Klibanov A. I. (1973) Religioznoe sektantstvo v proshlom i nastoyashchem [Religious sectarianism in the past and present]. Moscow (in Russian).
  6. Shahnovich M. M., Chumakova T. V. (2012) “N. M. Matorin i ego programma izucheniya narodnoj religioznosti” [“N. M. Matorin and his program to study popular religiosity”]. Religiovedenie, 2012, vol. 4, pp. 191–202 (in Russian).
  7. (1961) “Sovremennoe sektantstvo i ego preodolenie. Po materialam ekspedicii v Tambovskuyuoblast’ v 1959 g.” [“Modern sectarianism and its overcoming. Based on the materials of theexpedition to the Tambov Region in 1959”]. Voprosy istorii religii i ateizma, Moscow, 1961, vol. 9 (in Russian).

Vorontsova Elena


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-1292-4580;
Email: lendail@yandex.ru.

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The work was supported by the grant of the RSCI "Psychology of Religion in Russia: XIX - early XXXI century" (16-03-00799).

BOOK REVIEWS

Kharitonova Yuliya

Rev. of Hughes J. Votive body parts in Greek and Roman religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (Cambridge classical studies). 234 p.

Kharitonova Yuliya (2018) Rev. of Hughes J. Votive body parts in Greek and Roman religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (Cambridge classical studies). 234 p., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 149-154 (in Russian).

PDF

Kharitonova Yuliya


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-2998-7836;
Email: skriptorika@gmail.com.
Eroshev Evgeny

Rev. of Die Psalmen bei den Kirchenvätern: Psalm 1–30 / Th. Heither, Ch. Reemts, Hrsg. Münster: Aschendorff , 2017. 483 s.

Eroshev Evgeny (2018) Rev. of Die Psalmen bei den Kirchenvätern: Psalm 1–30 / Th. Heither, Ch. Reemts, Hrsg. Münster: Aschendorff , 2017. 483 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, Iss. 78, pp. 154-157 (in Russian).

PDF

Eroshev Evgeny


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-2424-1012;
Email: acheronex@yandex.ru.