/
St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series II: History. Russian Church History
St. Tikhon’s University Review II :78

RESEARCH STUDIES

Korzo Margarita
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201778.9-21
This article deals with the practical manual on the preparation for the sacrament of repentance “Doctrine of the Mystery of the Holy Repentance” (Russ. Наука о тайне Св. Покаяния, Kiev, 1671), which was the fi rst text written in the “simple tongue” (Ukr. проста мова) and addressed to ordinary laymen of the Metropolitanate of Kiev. The emergence of such manuals in the latter half of the 17th century was due to the programme of the comprehensive reform of church life initiated by the Kiev Metropolitan Petr Mogila. The Doctrine served as a certain complement to the treatise Мир с Богом человеку (Kiev, 1669), addressed to the clergy. Both treatises relied heavily on Catholic examples, borrowing from them not only the structure but also the factual material as well as specifi c scholastic terminology. A Polish-language manual of edifi catory and ascetic character Skarb duszny (Cracow, 1582, 1594) served as a source for the Doctrine. The Polish text, in its turn, is a literal translation of Thesaurus Piarum composed by the Jesuit Fr. Coster. Despite the fact that fragments of the Polish text had already been published in Vilna in the 1630s or 1640s, the compilers of the Doctrine addressed directly to the Polish version by Coster, only adding certain local realia and leaving out some of the confession-coloured passages as well as references to certain Western theologians. The Doctrine was widely disseminated not only in print but also in manuscripts, both in the Orthodox world and among Uniates.
sacrament of repentance, manuals for laymen, Orthodox tradition, Metropolitanate of Kiev, Catholic influence
  1. Andriessen J., “Costerus, Franciscus”, in: National Biografisch Woordenboek, Brussel, 1, 1964, 333–341.
  2. Dovga L., “Nauka pro pokutu v ukraïns’kikh tekstakh XVII st.”, in: Innokenty Gizel, Vibrani tvori, 3, Kiev; Lviv, 2010, 167–193.
  3. Fokin A. R., “Bernard Klervosckii”, in: Pravoslavnaia enciclopediia, Moscow, 4, 2002, 670–676.
  4. Kniga Belarusi: 1517–1917. Zvodny katalog, Minsk, 1986.
  5. Korogodina M. V., Ispoved’ v Rossii v XIV– XX vekakh, Issledovaniia i teksty, St. Petersburg, 2006.
  6. Korzo M. A., “Innokenty (Gizel)”, in: Pravoslavnaia enciclopediia, Moscow, 22, 2009, 747–749.
  7. Korzo M. A., “Istoriia odnogo teksta. Pouchenie ob ispovedi v sostave vilenskikh Poluustavov XVII v.”, in: Studi Slavistici, 13, 2016, 43–57.
  8. Korzo M. A., “«Mir z Bogom choloviku» Inokentiia Gizelia v konteksti katolits’koï moral’noï teologiï kintsia XVI – pershoï polovini XVII st.”, in: Innokenty Gizel, Vibrani tvori, 3, Kiev; Lviv, 2010, 195–262.
  9. Korzo M. A., “O nekotorykh izdaniiakh Kievskoi mitropolii v rukopisnom nasledii Evfi miia Chudovskogo”, in: Slavianovedenie, 2, 2014, 89–91.
  10. Kyselyov R., “Terminologichni paraleli vidan’ «Nauka o taini sviatogo pokaianiia» (Kiev, 1671) ta «Mir z Bogom choloviku» (Kiev, 1669)”, in: Kiïvs’ka Akademiia, 7, 2009,141–146.
  11. Polnoe Sobranie Tvorenii Sv. Ioanna Zlatousta, vol. 2, 1, Moscow, 1993.
  12. Sharipova L. V., Latin books and the Eastern Orthodox clerical elite in Kiev, 1632–1780, Manchester, 2006.
  13. Topolska M., „Biblioteki w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w XVI i pierwszej połowie XVII wieku”, in: Pamiętnik Biblioteki Kórnickiej, 20, 1983, 143–183.

Korzo Margarita


Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences; 12/1 Goncharnaia Str., Moscow 109240, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Research Fellow;
E-mail: korzor@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.

Dmitriev Michail
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201778.22-45
A series of Russian and Ruthenian polemical texts of the late XVIth – first half of the XVIIth century, dealing with icons, has been analyzed; is has been established that two sets of notions and meanings were conveying icons cult in Russia and Ruthenia: some were treating icons, like in the Latin West, as images of saints and sacred history; some other texts, unlike the Latin West, were claiming that icons as hypostases of saints as their prototypes and are possible because of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ.
  1. Bezanson A., Zapretnyj obraz. Intellektual’naja istorija ikonoborchestva, Moscow, 1999.
  2. Bel’ting H., Obraz i kul’t. Istorija obraza do jepohi iskusstva, Moscow, 2002.
  3. Bulgakov S. N., “Ikona i ikonopochitanie v pravoslavii”, in: Bulgakov S. N. Pravoslavie. Ocherki uchenij a pravoslavnoj cerkvi, Paris, 1985, 297–307.
  4. Bychkov V. V., Fenomen ikony. Istorija. Bogoslovie. Jestetika. Iskusstvo, Moscow, 2009.
  5. Deljumo Zh., “Istorik i ego religija”, in: Francuzskij ezhegodnik, Moscow, 2004, 56–75.
  6. Dmitriev M. V., “Tema ikonopochitanij a v poslanijah starca Artemija i v «Poslanii protiv ljutorov» (v kontekste processov «pravoslavnoj konfessionalizacii»)”, in: Dmitriev M. V., ed. Pravoslavie Ukrainy i Moskovskoj Rusi v XV–XVII vekah: obshhee i razlichnoe, Moscow, 2012, 40–57.
  7. Evdokimov P., Vvedenie v ikonu. Evdokimov P. Pravoslavie, Moscow, 2002, 307–338.
  8. Zapasko Ia. P., Isaevich Ia. D., Pam’iatki knizhkovogo mistetstva. Katalog starodrukiv, vidanikh na Ukraini. Kn. 1. (1574–1700), L’viv, 1981.
  9. Kalugin V. V., “Artemii”, in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 3, 2001, 458–462.
  10. Klibanov A. I., Dukhovnaia kul’tura srednevekovoi Rusi, Moscow, 1994.
  11. Korzo M. A., Ukrainskaia i belorusskaia katekheticheskaia traditsiia kontsa XVI– XVIII vv.: stanovlenie, evoliutsiia i problema zaimstvovanii, Moscow, 2007.
  12. Kriza A., “Isikhazm i ikonopochitanie. Anagogicheskaia funktsiia ikony v bogoslovskikh trudakh Moskovskoi Rusi i Kievskoi mitropolii v XV–XVI vv.” in: Dmitriev M. V., ed. Pravoslavie Ukrainy i Moskovskoj Rusi v XV–XVII vekah: obshhee i razlichnoe, Moscow, 2012.
  13. Likhachev D. S., Kul’tura Rusi vremeni Andreia Rubleva i Epifaniia Premudrogo (konets XIV – nachalo XV v.), Moscow, Leningrad, 1962.
  14. Losev A. F., “Simvol”, in: Filosofskaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 5, 1970.
  15. Lur’e Ia. S., Russkie sovremenniki Vozrozhdeniia. Knigopisets Efrosin. D’iak Fedor Kuritsyn, Leningrad, 1988.
  16. Lur’e Ia. S., “Elementy Vozrozhdeniia na Rusi v kontse XV – pervoi polovine XVI v.”, in: Literatura epokhi Vozrozhdeniia i problemy vsemirnoi literatury, Moscow,1967.
  17. Ozolin N., “Ikona”, in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 22, 2009, 8–13.
  18. Oparina T. A., Ivan Nasedka i polemicheskoe bogoslovie Kievskoi mitropolii, Novosibirsk, 1998.
  19. Oparina T. A., «Kirillova kniga», in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 34, 2014, 682–684.
  20. Ostrogorskii G. A., “Gnoseologicheskie osnovy vizantiiskogo spora o sv. Ikonakh”, in: Seminarium Kondakovianum, II, Praha, 1928.
  21. Ostrogorskii G. A., “Soedinenie voprosa o sviatykh ikonakh s khristologicheskoi dogmatikoi v sochineniiakh pravoslavnykh apologetov rannego perioda ikonoborchestva”, in: Seminarium Kondakovianum, I, Praha, 1927.
  22. Podobedova O. I., Moskovskaia shkola zhivopisi pri Ivane IV. Raboty v Moskovskom Kremle 40–70-kh gg. XVI v., Moscow, 1972.
  23. Savel’eva N. V., “K voprosu o dopechatnoi traditsii «Knigi o vere» ieromonakha Gedeona, igumena Biziukova monastyria”, in: Staroobriadchestvo v Rossii (XVII–XX vv.), Moscow, 5, 2013, 15–38.
  24. Uspenskii L. A., Bogoslovie ikony Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, Kolomna, 1997.
  25. Chumicheva O. V., Kiev i Moskva v bor’be s protestantskim vliianiem: dve knigi v zashchitu ikonnogo obraza (konets 16 – pervaia polovina 17 v.), in: Dmitriev M. V., ed. Pravoslavie Ukrainy i Moskovskoj Rusi v XV– XVII vekah: obshhee i razlichnoe, Moscow, 2012, 59–65.
  26. Barasch M. Icon. Studies in the History of an Idea, New York, 1992.
  27. Belting H. Bild und Kult. Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst, München, 1990.
  28. Belting, Hans, Likeness and Presence. A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Chicago, London, 1994.
  29. Besançon A. l’Imageinterdite. Une histoire intellectuelle de l’icоnoclasme, Paris, 2000.
  30. Bushkovitch P., Religion and Society in Russia. The 16th and 17th Centuries, New York, Oxford, 1992.
  31. Delumeau J. Le Catholicisme entre Luther et Voltaire, Paris, 1971.
  32. Delumeau J. Un chemin d’histoire. Chrétienté et christianisation, Paris, 1981.
  33. Dmitriev M. Dissidentsrusses. II. Matvej Baskin, le starec Artemij, Baden-Baden, 1999.
  34. Kämpfer F., “«Russland an der Schwelle Neuzeit». Kunst, Ideologie und historisches Bewusstsein unter Ivan Groznyj”, in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 4, 1975, 504–524.
  35. Kriza A., “A középkori orosz képvédö irodalom. I. rész. Bizànci forràsok”, in: Kriza A. Drevnerusskie teksty v zashchitu ikon, Chast’ 1, Budapest, 2011.
  36. Lilienfeld F.v., Nil Sorskij und seine Schriften. Die Krise der tradition im Russland Ivans III, Berlin, 1963.
  37. Miller D. B.,“The Viskovatyi aff aire of 1553– 1554: Offi cial Art, the Emergence of Autocracy, and the Desintegration of Medieval Russian Culture”, in: Russian History, VIII, 1981.
  38. Schulz G., Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Starzen Artemij innerhalb der Bewegung der Besitzlosen in Russland der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts, Erlangen, 1980.
  39. Seebohm T. M. Ratio und Charisma, Ansätze und Ausbildung eines philosophischen und wissenschaftlichen Weltverständnisses im Moskauer Russland, Bonn, 1977.
  40. Stökl G.,“Das Echo von Renaissance und Reformation im Moskauer Russland”, in: Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 1959, Neue Folge, 7.
  41. Stökl G. Der Russische Staat im Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Wiesbaden, 1981.
  42. Wirth J., L’image médiévale. Naissance et développement (Vie–XVe siècles), Paris, 1989.
  43. Wirth J., “Théorie et pratique de l’image sainte à la veille de la Réforme”, in: Bibliothèque d’humanisme et Renaissance, 2, 1986, 319–358.

Dmitriev Michail


Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: Moscow State University; GSP-1, 27 Lomonosovskii prospekt, Moscow 119991, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor in Faculty of History;
E-mail: dmzdtp@gmail.com.

*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.

Lyutko Eugene
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201778.46-64
This article looks at a text dealing with theology as a text dealing with the reality that stands behind this text. Based on examples of three Russian church hierarchs who tried to systematise theology in the 18th and 19th centuries — Archbishop Feofan (Prokopovich), St. Philaret (Drozdov), St. Innocent (Borisov) — the paper reveals and interprets the following issues: gradual penetration of categories of history, administration and church service into the structure of theology; rejection of the socalled natural theology (theologia naturalis), which takes place at the beginning of the 19th century. Proceeding from Foucauld’s methodology, we come to a conclusion about the emergence of confession in the Russian Empire of the fi rst half of the 19th century. This was an integrated and distinct social body, the key category of which was theology. Theology unites the social space of the confession by means of three key narratives: the identity (a complex of historical disciplines), administration (the canon law, or “theologia rectrix”, and pastoral theology), participation practices (liturgics). At the end of the period in question, the category of “Church” emerges within the theological system. On the one hand, this fact refl ects the completion of the process of constructing the confession; on the other hand, it is a sign of the emergence of ecclesiology, the new practice of theological discourse that came to be dominant in the following period.
russian theology, canon law, confessional theology, historical identity, liturgics, church history, ecclesiology
  1. Birkner H. J., “Natürliche Theologie und Off enbarungstheologie. Ein theologiegeschichtlicher Überblick”, in: Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 3(3), 1961, 279–295.
  2. Blaschke O., “Das 19. Jahrhundert: Ein Zweites Konfessionelles Zeitalter?”, in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 26(1), 2000, 38–75.
  3. Collis R., The Petrine Instauration: Religion, Esotericism and Science at the Court of Peter the Great, 1689–1725, Brill, 2011.
  4. Conser W. H., Church and Confession: Сonservative Theologians in Germany, England, and America, 1815–1866, Mercer University Press, 1984.
  5. Esiukov A. I., “Mirovozzrenie russkogo cheloveka «dukhovnogo china»: arkhiepiskop Feofilakt (F. G. Rusanov)”, in: Iazyk i kul’tura Russkogo Severa: k voprosu o regional’noi iazykovoi kartine mira, Arkhangel’sk, 2013, 271–284.
  6. Fuko M., Bezopasnost’, territoriia, naselenie. Kurs lektsii, prochitannykh v Kollezh de Frans v 1977–1978 uchebnom godu, St. Petersburg, 2011.
  7. Fuko M., Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’: rozhdenie tiur’my, Moscow, 1999.
  8. Fuko M., Slova i veshchi. Arkheologiia gumanitarnykh nauk, St. Petersburg, 1994.
  9. Khondzinskii P., “«Pole» konfessionalizatsii: opyt prilozheniia teorii k russkoi dukhovnoi traditsii”, in: Vestnik PSTGU, Seria II, 2(63), 2015, 9–17.
  10. Khondzinskii P., “Razreshenie ekklesiologicheskikh problem russkogo bogosloviia XVIII — nachala XIX V. V trudakh sviatitelia Filareta, mitropolita Moskovskogo”, in: Filaretovskii al’manakh, 6, 2010, 115–120.
  11. Khondzinskii P., Sviatitel’ Filaret Moskovskii: bogoslovskii sintez epokhi, Moscow, 2010.
  12. Letham R., “Amandus Polanus: A Neglected Theologian?”, in: The Sixteenth century journal, 1990, 463–476.
  13. Sukhova N. Iu., “«Dukhovnaia uchenost’» v Rossii v pervoi polovine XIX v.”, in: Filaretovskii al’manakh, 8, 2012, 31–54.
  14. Sukhova N. Iu., “Dukhovno-uchebnyi proekt sviatitelia Innokentiia (Borisova) 1830-kh gg.”, in: Vestnik PSTGU, Seria II, 39, 2011, 18–34.
  15. Sukhova N. Iu., “Sluzhitel’ Slova Bozhiia v nauchno-obrazovatel’nom prostranstve i v zhizni Tserkvi: opyt rossiiskoi dukhovnoi shkoly XIX – nachala XKh vv.”, in: Evangelie v kontekste sovremennoi kul’tury, 1, Belgorod, 2016, 309–317.
  16. Sukhova N. Iu., “Sviashchennoe Pisanie i Predanie v ekklesiologii sviatitelia Filareta (Drozdova)”, in: Materialy XIX Ezhegodnoi Bogoslovskoi konferentsii Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, 1, 2009, 105–110.
  17. Sukhova N. Iu., “Uchastie Sviatitelia Filareta (Drozdova) v razvitii akademicheskogo bogosloviia XIX veka”, in: Filaretovskii al’manakh, 2, 2006, 46–71.
  18. Sukhova N. Iu., “Zapiski sviatitelei Innokentiia (Borisova) i Filareta (Drozdova) o Dukhovnykh shkolakh”, in: Filaretovskii al’manakh, 6, 2010, 43–91.
  19. Sukhova N. Iu., Kontseptsii bogoslovskogo obrazovaniia sviatitelei Filareta (Drozdova) i Innokentiia (Borisova)”, in: Filaretovskii al’manakh, 7, 2011, 231–244.
  20. Uait D. M., “Edinoverie i kontseptsiia konfessionalizatsii: diskursivnye zametki”, in: Quaestio Rossica, 4, 2016, 177–189.
  21. Ukolov K. I., “Vopros o statuse bogosloviia kak nauke v nemetskom protestantizme (Shleiermakher, Trel’ch, Tillikh)”, in: Vestnik PSTGU, Seria I, 2(26), 2009, 39–57.
  22. Ziemann B., “Säkularisierung, Konfessionalisierung, Organisationsbildung. Aspekte der Sozialgeschichte der Religion im langen 19. Jahrhundert”, in: Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 47, 2007, 485–508.

Lyutko Eugene


Status of the Student: Graduate student;
Place of Study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Junior Research Fellow in Research Centre for the History of Theology and Theological Education of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities;
E-mail: e.i.lutjko@gmail.com.
Karamyshev Nikolai
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201778.65-82
This paper is devoted to one of the key moments in liturgical studies in Russian higher church education. This moment was outwardly marked by the introduction of the new term “liturgics” instead of the old term “church antiquities” in the 1840s. The article shows the role of Professor Dolotsky in the development of liturgics as a science and an academic subject. Based on the analysis of survived manuscript documents, lithoprinted lecture notes and papers, we demonstrate that the introduction of the term “liturgics” at Saint-Petersburg Theological Academy in 1849–1853 and its following adoption in higher church education took place with a direct involvement of V. I. Dolotsky. Employing historical approach, Dolotsky signifi cantly broadened the content of his course of lectures, supplementing it with historical data. Dolotsky’s scholarly interests can be identifi ed on the basis of his articles, academic course programmes and lithoprinted lecture notes. They were related, above all, to text analysis of variable parts of church service, particularly holiday service. Besides, Dolotsky expressed interest in the origin of Holy days and their orders in antiquity. Here, by means of the historical approach, Dolotsky made use of the evidence of ancient Holy Fathers and emphasised the importance of employing liturgical sources of heterodox confessions that had common origins with the Orthodox Church. Thus, Dolotsky came to be the first Russian scholar of liturgics and provided a foundation for the further development of historical liturgics in Russian theological science.
history of theology, history of theological education, Statute of Theological Academies of 1869, Saint-Petersburg Theological Academy, historical liturgics, methodology of liturgics, history of liturgical orders, analysis of liturgical texts
  1. Fasmer M., Etimologicheskii slovar’ russkogo iazyka, Moscow, II, 1986, 503.
  2. Glubokovskii N. N., Russkaia bogoslovskaia nauka v ee istoricheskom razvitii i noveishem sostoianii, Moscow, 2002.
  3. Katanskii A. L., Vospominaniia starogo professora s 1847 po 1913 god, N. Novgorod, 2010.
  4. Sove B. I., “Istoriia liturgicheskoi nauki v Rossii”, in: Uchenye zapiski. Pravoslavnyi Universitet ap. Ioanna Bogoslova, 2, 1996, 21–98.
  5. Sudakevich Pavel, ierod., Professor Ivan Danilovich Mansvetov (ego zhizn’ i obzor liturgicheskikh trudov), Zagorsk, mashinopis’, 1965/1966.
  6. Sukhova N. Iu., “Formirovanie liturgiki, kak akademicheskoi distsipliny (1914–1869)”, in: Vestnik Ekaterinburgskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, 2(18), 2017, 71–99.
  7. Sukhova N. Iu., “Prikrovennyi period razvitiia istoricheskikh metodov v liturgike (1810– 1860-e gg.)”, in: Tserkov’ Bogoslovie Istoriia. Materialy V Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno- bogoslovskoi konferentsii (Ekaterinburg. 2–4 fev ralia 2017 g.), 2017, 263–269.
  8. Zheltov M., sviashch., Obzor istorii pravoslavnoi liturgicheskoi nauki do kontsa XX veka, aviaible at: BOGOSLOV. RU. http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/1883125.html (17.09.2011).

Karamyshev Nikolai


Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: karanikt@yandex.ru.
Chumichev Alexey
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201778.83-94
This article deals with an insuffi ciently studied topic in the history of interconfessional relations of the second half of the 19th century, namely the project of the revival of Western Orthodoxy, proposed by Julian Joseph Overbeck, the German theologian who lived in England. Overbeck can be rightfully regarded as a rather obscure and undeservedly forgotten fi gure. At diff erent times, Overbeck represented three Christian denominations: Catholicism, Protestantism, and thereafter Orthodoxy. Overbeck’s project was a unique phenomenon in the history of the Orthodox Church, because it was he who for the fi rst time put forward the idea of using the Western Rite as part of the Orthodox Church, which for many centuries after the Great Schism only practised the Oriental rite. In the 1870s, the plan proposed by Overbeck attracted unprecedented interest followed by support of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church. One of the main areas on which the Synodal Commission worked was the discussion of the rite of the Orthodox Mass (Liturgia Missae Orthodoxo-Catholicae Occidentalis) composed by him. This article addresses the liturgical aspect of Overbeck’s project and examines the work of the Synodal commission on the text of the Orthodox Mass as well as on some other liturgical traditions intended for use in Orthodox communities of the Western rite.
J. J. Overbeck, Western rite in Orthodoxy, liturgy, Orthodox mass, Russian Orthodox Church, Holy Governing Synod of Russia, interconfessional relations, Anglican- Orthodox relations
  1. Abramtcev D., Dr. J. J. Overbeck and his scheme for the Re-establishment of the Orthodox Church in the West, University of Pittsburg, 1959.
  2. Huber P., Jenseits von Ost und West, Berlin, 2006.
  3. Kahle W., Westliche Orthodoxie: Leben und Ziele Julian Joseph Overbecks, Köln, 1968.
  4. Kopylova E. A., “«Delo Overbeka» v zhizni Sankt-Peterburgskogo otdela Obshchestva liubitelei dukhovnogo prosveshcheniia”, in: Vestnik Volzhskogo universiteta imeni V. N. Tatishcheva, 4(14), 2013, vol. ΙΙ, 167–178.

Chumichev Alexey


Status of the Student: Graduate student;
Place of Study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: alecssey@yandex.ru.
Aniskovich Helena
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201778.95-116
The article is devoted to analysis one of the significant but unjustly neglected works in the field of new Testament biblical studies in the second half of the nineteenth century – monograph by F. I. Troitsky. In the center of the considered work is the theme of personal relationships between Ap. Paul and the Twelve apostles, and the problem of correlation of their teachings. The article failed to identify a holistic approach F. I. Troitsky to a number of Central issues in new Testament biblical studies. Main idea of this approach is the concept of faith as a principle of life. The correlation of all the considered in the monograph problems with this concept is the theological method F. I. Troitsky, the use of which is in the process of biblical studies enables him to implement their decision. In this monograph systematically used approach to the test items as time-varying. The hallmark of a theological method F. I. Troitsky is a theological understanding of history, which contains the ideological to solve the problem of correlation of General and sacred history. In this paper, the analysis gives grounds to consider the approach presented in the monograph by F. I. Troitsky as a historical and theological synthesis.
New Testament biblical studies, the apostle of tongues, the apostles of circumcision, a faith, a low, the principle of life, the theological method, historicism
  1. Inuarii (Ivliev), ierom., “Vklad Sankt-Peterburgskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii v russkuiu bibleistiku”, in: Sbornik, posviashchennyi 175-letiiu Leningradskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii, 1986, 192–198.
  2. Kunitsyn B., “Iz istorii biblioteki Kazanskoi dukhovnoi akademii”, in: Gasyrlar avazy (Ekho vekov), 3(4), 2010, avialble at: http://www.archive.gov.tatarstan.ru/magazine/go/anonymous/main/?path=mg:/articles/02 (01.10.2017).
  3. Sukhova N. Iu., “A. A. Dmitrievskii i ucheniki: problema «nauchnoi shkoly» v rossiiskikh dukhovnykh akademiiakh (konets XIX – nachalo XX v.)”, in: Tserkov’. Bogoslovie. Istoriia: Materialy III Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii, Ekaterinburg, 6–7 fevralia 2015 g., Ekaterinburg: Informatsionno-izdatel’skii sovet EDS, 2015, 583–595.
  4. Sukhova N. Iu., Vysshaia dukhovnaia shkola. Problemy i reformy. Vtoraia polovina XIX v., Moscow, 2012.
  5. Porfir’eva I. V., “Biblioteka Kazanskoi dukhovnoi akademii i ee khraniteli”, in: Materialy «kruglogo stola» s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem, posviashchennogo 200-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia V. I. Grigorovicha, Kazan’, 2015.

Aniskovich Helena


Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: lena.aniskovich@mail.ru.
I sincerely thank my scientific adviser N. Sukhova for constant attention to the work, for valuable comments and additions to the article.

PUBLICATIONS

Akishin Sergey
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturII201778.119-138
This article presents results of the study of archival fi les from A. A. Dmitrievsky’s series (Manuscript Department, National Library of Russia) which contain a number of records related to the history of Leningrad Theological Seminary. These records refl ect the fact that on October 18 (Memory day of the Four Holy Hierarchs of Moscow) and December 13 (Memory day of Apostle Andrew) 1926, four public church services in the name of Hieromartyr Isidore of Yurievsk took place with the help of the prominent scientist and liturgist A. A. Dmitrievsky at the Russian-Estonian church in Leningrad. Both the public church services and their preparation were probably employed by A. A. Dmitrievsky as a medium for achieving better results of his students in the process of liturgical study. It was the intention of students of the Theological Seminary and Higher Theological Courses to conduct these public services. A number of manuals were prepared for various categories of participants of the services (clergy, readers, choristers and laymen) in order to conduct the service according to liturgical books. Each of these manuals explained what had to be done at certain moments of the service, who had to interact with each other, etc. The general course of the service was determined by a specifi cally designed document “The Order of Public Worship”, which listed the elements of the service from start to fi nish. These documents are published in modern orthography as a supplement to this article.
A. A. Dmitrievsky, Leningrad Theological Seminary, Higher Theological Courses in Leningrad, Russian-Estonian church in the name of Hieromartyr Isidore of Yurievsk, public worship, liturgics
  1. Akishin S. Yu., “Poslednii period zhizni i sud’ba nauchnogo naslediia professora Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii A. A. Dmitrievskogo”, in: Trudy Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii — Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 15, 2011, 250–267.
  2. Akishin S. Yu., “Prepodavatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ professora A. A. Dmitrievskogo na Vysshikh bogoslovskikh kursakh Leningrada”, in: Trudy Kievskoi dukhovnoi akademii — Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 17, 2012, 251–278.
  3. Gerd L. A., Akishin S. Yu., “Dmitrievsky Aleksey Afanas’evich”, in: Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia, Moscow, 15, 2007, 429–438.
  4. Grigorii (Chukov), mitr., Dnevnik, fragmenty, dokumenty. Arkhiv «Istoriko-bogoslovskoe nasledie mitropolita Grigoriia (Chukova)», © Aleksandrova L. K. Zapis’ ot 18 oktiabria 1926 g.
  5. Ioann (Vendland), mitr., Kniaz’ Fedor (Chernyi); Mitropolit Gurii (Egorov): istoricheskie ocherki, Iaroslavl’, 1999.
  6. Mineia: mesiats Oktiabr’, Moscow, 1997.
  7. Patriarshii kalendar’ na 2016 g., Moscow, Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2015.
  8. Sove B. I., “Russkii Goar i ego shkola”, in: Bogoslovskie trudy — Theological studies, 1968, Issue 4, 39–84.

Akishin Sergey


Status of the Student: Graduate student;
Place of Study: Ural Federal University; 19 Mira street, Ekaterinburg, 620002, Russian Federation;
Post: Research Fellow in Ekaterinburg Theological Seminary;
E-mail: nikomachus@gmail.com.

BOOK REVIEWS

Sukhova Nataliya
PDF

Sukhova Nataliya


Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in History;
Degree: Doctor of Theology;
Rank: Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor of the Department of General and Russian Church History and Canon Law; Head of the Scientific Center for the History of Theology and Theological Education;
E-mail: suhovanat@gmail.com.

*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.

The review is written in 2017 and supported by PSTGU Development Foundation