St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series III: Philology
St. Tikhon’s University Review III :52


Anatoly Alexeev
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.11-35
This paper deals with prefaces to the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John. From the point of view of their genre, the fi rst two are the midrash, i.e. an interpretation based on written sources and the oral tradition of Judaism. Their aim is to relate the knowledge about Jesus that was obtained from Mark to the conception of the Messiah, in accordance with which these two Evangelists interpret the borrowed data. The historical and biographical design of both prefaces refl ects the cultural environment of the Hellenistic epoch, whereas their content and literary form are a traditional response to exclusively theological inquiries. John, in turn, draws not only on Mark but also on certain other sources or on his personal experience and goes beyond the conception of the Messiah, evaluating Jesus as a messenger (shaliah) of God or God Himself (drawing no diff erence between the one who sends and the one who is sent is characteristic of ancient cultural traditions). With all its signifi cance, the conception of the Messiah off ered only limited opportunities for the interpretation of the fi gure of the historical Jesus in the light of religious gnoseology (which was given much importance by the Evangelist John), as well as in the light of soteriology, as it came to be evident later, in the period of the second rebellion and acknowledging Simon bar Kokhba as the Messiah. The preface to the gospel of John aims to explain the meaning of Creation and the corresponding anthropology, which was necessary for the formation of the new concept of personal God, and, furthermore, gives an outline of the main issues of the entire gospel. Another way of development of the early Christian thought from messiology to theology was liturgical practice and corresponding word usage. In the fi nal part of the paper, the author points to the inadequacy of the term “Christology” for the circle of problems that make up the base of the Christian theology.
midrash, gospel, preface, prologue, epitome, messiah, messenger, biography, Christology, theology, historism
  1. Alekseev A. A. Bibliia v bogosluzhenii. Vizantiisko-slavianskii lektsionarii. St Petersburg, 2008.
  2. Alekseev A. A. Iz istorii novozavetnoi terminologii. Grech. APOSTOLOS «apostol», in:  Vestnik PSTGU III: Filologiia, 2016, 3 (48), 9–21.
  3. Alekseev A. A. Kommunikativnyi konflikt kak stilisticheskii priem v Evangelii ot Ioanna, in: Khristianskii Vostok,  6 (XII), 2013, 327–336.
  4. Alekseev A. A. Pritchi Iisusa: Ioann protiv Sinoptikov, in: Vestnik PSTGU III: Filologiia, 1 (46), 2016, 48–66.
  5. Alekseev A. A. SEMEION i DOXA v Evangelii ot Ioanna, in:  XLII Mezhdunarodnaia filologicheskaia konferentsiia. St Petersburg, 2014, 11–39.
  6. Ashton J. The Gospel of John and Christian Origins. Minneapolis, 2014.
  7. Ashton J. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. 2d ed. Oxford, 2007.
  8. Aune D. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia, 1987.
  9. Barrett C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, 1978.
  10. Baumstark A. Liturgie comparée. Chevetogne, 1953.
  11. Blass F., Debrunner A. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Bearb. von F. Rehkopf. 17. Auflage. Göttingen, 1990.
  12. Bloch R. Midrash, in: Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément, 5. Paris, 1957, col. 1263-1280.
  13. Boismard M. E. Le Prologue de Saint Jean. Paris, 1953.
  14. Borgen P. God’s Agent in the Fourth Gospel, in: Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough, ed. J. Neusner. Leiden, 1968, 137–148.
  15. Borgen P. Observations on the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John, in: New Testament Studies, 16, 1970, 288-295.
  16. Bousset W. Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Göttingen, 1913.
  17. Boyarin D. The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John, in: The Harvard Theological Review,  94, 2001, 243-284.
  18. Brown R. E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. New updated edition. New York, 1993.
  19. Brown R. E. The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave, 1. Yale University Press, 1998.
  20. Brown R. E. The Gospel according to John (I-XII). New York et. al., 1966.
  21. Bultmann R. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Göttingen, 1941.
  22. Bultmann R. Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannesevangelium, in: Eucharisterion. Festschrift H. Gunkel. 2te Bd. Göttingen, 1923, 3–26.
  23. Charlesworth J. H. From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects, in: The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis, 1992, 3–35.
  24. Chilton B. Typologies of memra and the Fourth Gospel, in: Targum Studies,  2. Textual and Contextual Studies in the Pentateuchal Targums, ed. P. V. M. Flesher. Atlanta, 1992, 89–100.
  25. Coloe M. L. Sources in the Shadows: John 13 and the Johannine Community, in: New Currents through John. A Global Perspective, ed. F. Lozada Jr. and T. Thatcher. Atlanta, 2006, 69–82.
  26. Crossan J. D. The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative. San Francisco, 1988.
  27. Cullmann O. The Christology of the New Testament, trans. by S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall. Philadelphia, 1963.
  28. Culpepper R. A. Mark. Macon, 2007.
  29. Culpepper R. A. The Gospel and Letters of John. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville, 1998.
  30. Culpepper R. A. The Prologue as Theological Prolegomenon to the Gospel of John, in: Papers read at the Colloquium Ioanneum 2013, ed. J. G. van der Watt, R. A. Culpepper and U. Schnelle. Tübingen, 2016, 3–26.
  31. Culpepper R. A. The Theology of the Gospel of John // Review and Expositor. An International Baptist Journal. Vol. 85. 1988. P. 417–432.
  32. Dunn J. G. D. Christology in the Making. A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. London, 1980; 2nd ed., 1989.
  33. Dunn J. D. G. John and the Synoptics as a Theological Question // Exploring the Gospel of John. In honor of D. M. Smith / Ed. R. A. Culpepper and C. C. Black. Louisville, 1996. P. 301–316.
  34. Dunn J. D. G. Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History, in: The Messiah. Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis, 1992, 365–381.
  35. Dunn J. D. G. Was Christianity a Monotheistic Faith from the Beginning? in: Scottish Journal of Theology, 36, 1982, 303–336.
  36. Evans C. A. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John's Prologue. Sheffield, 1993.
  37. Freedman D. N. (ed).  The Anchor Bible Dictionary,  1–6. New York et al., 1992.
  38. Goulder M. D. Midrash and Lection in Matthew. Eugene, OR. 2004.
  39. Harris M. J. Jesus as God: the New Testament use of theos in reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids, 1992.
  40. Hengel M. Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia, 1981.
  41. Horbury W. Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ. London, 1998.
  42. Hurtado L. W. How on earth did Jesus become a God? Historical questions about earliest devotion to Jesus. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2005.
  43. Hurtado L. W. Lord Jesus Christ: devotion to Jesus in earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge,  2003.
  44. Keener C. S. The Gospel of John. A Commentary. Grand Rapids, 2003.
  45. Kinlaw P. E. The Christ is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession and Johannine Christology. Atlanta, 2005.
  46. Koester H. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. Philadelphia, 1990.
  47. Lampe G. W. H. (ed.). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961.
  48. Lucass S. The Concept of the Messiah in the Scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. Sheffield, 2011.
  49. McGrath J. F. John's Apologetic Christology. Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  50. McNamara M. Targum and New Testament. Collected Papers. Tübingen, 2011.
  51. McNamara M., Hayward R. and M. Maher. Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus. Collegeville, 1994.
  52. Menken M. J. J. Observations on the Significance of the Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel, in: Neotestamentica, 33, 1999, 125-143.
  53. Metzger B. M. A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament. Suttgart, 1975.
  54. Mor M. The second Jewish revolt: the Bar Kokhba War, 132–136 CE. Leiden; Boston, 2016.
  55. Neusner J. What is Midrash? Philadelphia, 1987.
  56. Neusner J., Avery A. J. Peck (eds). Encyclopaedia of Midrash. Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism.  Leiden; Boston, 2005.
  57. Porton G. G. Rabbibic Midrash, in: A History of Biblical Interpretation. Vol. 1. The Ancient Period, ed. by A. J. Hauser and D. F. Watson. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2003, 198–224.
  58. Price R. M. New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash, in: Encyclopedia of Midrash, 534–574.
  59. Rainbow P. A. Johannine Theology: the Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. Downers Grove, IL, 2014.
  60. Ridderbos H. N. The Gospel according to John. A Theological Commentary, transl. by J. Vriend. Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, 1992.
  61. Robinson J. A. T. The Human Face of God. Philadelphia, 1973.
  62. Robinson J. A. T. The Priority of John. London, 1985.
  63. Ronning J. The Jewish Targums and John's Logos Theology. Peabody, 2011.
  64. Roth D. T. The Text of Marcion’s Gospel. Leiden; Boston, 2015.
  65. Ruddick C. T. Jr. Birth Narratives in Genesis and Luke, in: Novum Testamentum,  12. 1970, 343–348.
  66. Sanders E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE – 66 CE. London, 1992.
  67. Sanders J. T. The New Testament Christological Hymns. Their Historical-Religious Background. Cambridge, 1971.
  68. Schnackenburg R. The Gospel According to St. John. Vol. 1. Freiburg, 1968.
  69. Seebohm T. M. Hermeneutics. Method and Methodology. Dordrecht; Boston; London, 2004.
  70. Silva M. Approaching the Fourth Gospel, in: Criswell Theological Review, 3, 1988,  17–29.
  71. Strack H. L., Stemberger G. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Glasgow, 1996.
  72. Streeter B. H. The Four Gospels. London, 1924.
  73. Turner N. Syntax, in: A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3. Edinburgh, 1963.
  74. Van Iersel B. M. F. The Finding of Jesus in the Temple, in: Novum Testamentum, 4. 1960, 161–173.
  75. Weren W. J. C. Studies in Matthew’s Gospel: Literary Design, Intertextuality, and Social Setting. Leiden; Boston, 2014.
  76. Westcott B. F., Hort F. J. A. Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek: With Notes on Selected Readings. London, 1882.
  77. Williams C. H. I am He: The Interpretation of ‘Ani Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Tübingen, 2000.
  78. Williams C. H. (Not) Seeing God in the Prologue and Body of John’s Gospel, in: Papers read at the Colloquium Ioanneum 2013, ed. J. G. van der Watt, R. A. Culpepper and U. Schnelle. Tübingen, 2016, 79–98.
  79. Wills L. M. The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John, and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. London; New York, 1997.
  80. Wright B. J. Jesus as Θεός: A Textual Examination, in: Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence.  Grand Rapids, MI, 2011, 229–261.
  81. Zunz L. Gottesdienstliche Vorträge der Juden. Berlin, 1832.

Anatoly Alexeev

Degree: Doctor of Philology;
E-mail: alexeev.anatoly@gmail.com.
Bessonov Igor
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.36-47
This article deals with the disscusion of Daniel 9.25, where the author foresees the coming of the “anointed prince”. The problem in question is the term after which this event will occur. In masoretic version the sentence is rendered in such a manner that the term from ”the going forth of the commandment” to rebuild Jerusalem to the anointed prince will be 7 weeks and 62 weeks will be the term of the rebuilding of the city. According to the Theodotion's translation the anointed prince will come after 62 weeks and 7 weeks. In our opinion the whole passage can be estimated according to the syntax of the verse without any regard to later Masoretic punctuation. The usage of conjunction waw in the verse 9.25 strongly advocates masoretic interpretation of the passage. On the other hand, the text of Theodotion's translation enables us to reconstruct Hebrew Vorlage with the alternative application of waw conjunctions. Following grammatical criteria we can suggest that the extant masoretic rendering was indeed the original one and later Theodotion's version emerged as a result of misunderstanding of the prophecy. We can suppose that the scribe, who produced Theodotion's protograph, in line with a tradition of the day, treated different messianic and royal figures from Dan 9. 24-27 as the same person, what resulted in alteration of the syntax of the passage.
Old Testament, Book of Daniel, seventy weeks, prophecy of seventy weeks, Theodotion's translation, ancient Hebrew syntax, Proto-Masoretic text, Septuagint, Late Biblical Hebrew, early exegesis of the book of Daniel, pre-Christian exegesis of the book of Daniel
  1. Adler W. “The Apocalyptic Survey of History Adapted by Christians: Daniel’s Prophecy of 70 weeks”, in: J. C. VanderKam, W. Adler, eds. The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity. Minneapolis, 1996, 201–238.
  2. Albertz R. “The Social Setting of the Aramaic and Hebrew Book of Daniel”, in: The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception, vol. 1. Boston; Leiden, 2002, 171–204.
  3. Arnold B. T., Choi J. N. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge, 2003.
  4. Beckwith R. T. “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation”, in: Revue de Qumrân, vol. 10, № 4 (40), 1981, 521–542 .
  5. Bruce E. F. “The Earliest Old Testament Interpretation”, in: The Witness of Tradition: Papers Read at the Joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference Held at Woudschoten. Leiden, 1970.
  6. Casey M. “Porphyry and the Origins of the Book of Daniel”, in: Journal of Theological Studies, 27, 1976, 15–33.
  7. Collins J. J. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis, 1993.
  8. Di Lella A. A. “The Textual History of Septuagint - Daniel and Thedotion-Daniel”, in: The Book of Daniel. Composition and Reception, vol. 2. Boston; Leiden, 2002, 586–607.
  9. Hartman L. F., Di Lella A. A. The Book of Daniel. New-York, 1978.
  10. Jeansonne S. P. The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12. Washington, 1988.
  11. Kelly F. T. “The Imperfect with Simple Waw in Hebrew”, in: Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 39, № 1/2, 1920, 1–23.
  12. Kutscher E. Y. The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll: I QIsaTM. Leiden, 1974.
  13. Lacocque A. The Book of Daniel. London, 1979.
  14. Lambdin T. O. Uchebnik drevneevreiskogo iazyka. Moscow, 2000.
  15. McLay T. “The Old Greek Translation of Daniel IV–VI and the Formation of the Book of Daniel”, in: Vetus Testamentum, vol. 55, fasc. 3, 2005, 304–323.
  16. McLay T. “Daniel”, in: A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford, 2009, 991– 1022.
  17. Meek T. J. “The Syntax of the Sentence in Hebrew”, in: Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 64, 1, 1945, 1–13.
  18. Montgomery J. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Book of Daniel. Edinburgh; New York, 1959.
  19. Prokopenko A. V. Obzor sintaksisa drevneevreiskogo iazyka: uchebnoe posobie, available at: www.propovedi.ru/resource/hebrew-syntax-2013/download-pdf (03.03.2017).
  20. Tanner J. P. “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? (Pt. 1)”, in: Bibliotheca Sacra, 166, 2009, 181–200.

Bessonov Igor

E-mail: himins@yandex.ru.
Головнина Наталья; Frangulian Liliia
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.48-61
This article deals with the legend of the Emperor Diocletian drawing on the material of hagiographic texts called “cycles” (mid-7th — mid-8th cc.) developed in Coptic literature. Its comparison with data of Greek and Latin historians (Eusebius Pamphilus, Lactantius, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius) allows us to speak about the consistent transformation of the historical image in accordance with the principles of the development and existence of martyria and vitae, the peculiar feature being the fact that the hero is an antagonist. Even fantastic or non-historical narratives from Diocletian’s life are not a random fi gment of imagination, but systematic work within the framework of already developed canonical schemes (primarily related to martyrdom) and of ideal images (primarily of the ruler). The technique of antithesis is also applied: the features missing in the historical description are recreated as the opposite of the accepted ideal. Features most fully appropriate to the created character are chosen from the historical material, i.e. the authors are interested in the truthfulness of the image, as they understand it, rather than the reliability of the factual data. Those plots that are constructed by analogy with biblical narratives or in the light of the exegetical tradition are perceived as legitimate and acceptable. An interesting phenomenon is the consistent perception of hagiographic plots as a source of credible information.
Coptic hagiography, literature of cycles, legend about Diocletian, Emperor Constantine, Emperor Julian, fi ction as means of structural construction, transformation of plots, Antioch, Coptic martyrs, betrayal of the bishop
  1. Barns J. W. B., Reymonds E. A. E. Introduction // Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices / J. W. B. Barns, E. A. E. Reymonds, eds., transl., introd., comm. Oxford, 1973. P. 1–21.
  2. Baumeister Th. Martyr Invictus: der Martyrer als Sinnbild der Erlö sung in der Legende und im Kult der frü hen koptischen Kirche. Münster, 1972.
  3. Bell N. D. Introduction to the historical background // Mena of Nikiou: The Life of Isaac of Alexandria and the Martyrdom of Saint Macrobius / N. D. Bell, transl., introd., comm. Kalamazoo, 1988. P. 103–118.
  4. Berg-Onstwedder G., van den. Diocletian in the Coptic Trаdition // Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte. Cairo, 1990. Vol. 29. P. 87–122.
  5. Bowman A. K. Diocletian and the fi rst tetrarchy, a.d. 284–305 // The Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 12: The Crisis of Empire, AD 193–337 / A. K. Bowman, P. Garnsy, A. Cameron, eds. Cambridge, 2005. P. 67–89.
  6. Buzi P., Bausi A. Tradizioni ecclesiastiche e letterarie copte ed etiopiche // Costantino I. Una enciclopedia sulla fi gura, il mito, la critica e la funzione dell’imperatore del cosiddetto editto di Milano, 313. Roma, 2013. Vol. 2. P. 401–423.
  7. Delehaye H. Les Martyrs de l’Égypte // Analecta bollandiana. Brussels, 1923. Vol. 40.
  8. Donchenko A. I., Vysokii M. F., Khor’kov M. L. “Poslednie istoriki velikoi imperii”, in: Rimskie istoriki IV veka. Moscow, 1997, 297–318.
  9. Elanskaia A. I., trans. Izrecheniia egipetskikh ottsov. St Petersburg, 2001.
  10. Frangulian L. R. “Mesto agiografi cheskikh tsiklov (VII–VIII vv.) v koptskoi literature”, in: Vestnik PSTGU. III: Filologiia, 35, 2013, 86–96.
  11. Golovnina N. G., trans. “Shenute. Gomiliia na Rozhdestvo”, in: Literaturnye traditsii khristianskogo Egipta. Moscow, 2008, 153–157.
  12. Godron G., ed., trans. Textes coptes relatifs à saint Claude d’Antioche. Four Coptic Texts, with French Translations, from the Coptic Manuscript no. 587 in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York. Turnhout, 1970.
  13. Lefort L. Th. Catéchèse Christologique de Chenute // Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. 1955. № 80. Р. 40–55.
  14. Orlandi T. Coptic literature // The Roots of Egyptian Christianity. Philadelfi a, 1986. P. 51–81.
  15. Orlandi T. Le fonti copte della Storia dei patriarchi di Alessandria // Studi Copti. Milano, 1968. P. 89–138 (Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichittà; 22).
  16. Orlandi T. Hagiography, Coptic // Coptic Encyclopedia. N.Y., 1991. Vol. 4. Р. 1191–1197.
  17. Orlandi T. Passione e miracoli di S. Mercurio. Milan, 1976.
  18. Orlandi T., Pearson B. A., Drake H. A. Eudoxia and the Holy Sepulchre. A Constantin Legend in Coptic. Milano, 1980.
  19. Papaconstantinou A. Historiography, hagiography, and the making of the Coptic «Church of the Martyrs» in early Islamic Egypt // Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 2006. № 60. P. 65–86.
  20. Papaconstantinou A. Le culte des saints en Égypte des Byzantins aux Abbassides. L’apport des inscriptions et des papyrus grecs et coptes. P., 2001.
  21. Rogozhina A. A. “Diokletian i Apollon v Antiokhiiskom tsikle. Istochniki i metody koptskikh agiografov”, in: Vestnik PSTGU. III: Filologiia, 40, 2014, 78–88.
  22. Tiulenev V. M., trans. Laktantsii i ego De mortibus persecutorum. St Petersburg, 1998, 5–50.
  23. White C. The Emergence of Christianity: Classical Traditions in Contemporary Perspective. Minneapolis, 2010. P. 83–88.

Головнина Наталья

E-mail: n_golovnina@list.ru.

Frangulian Liliia

E-mail: 8liya8@gmail.com.
The article is written within the framework of the project № 06-0416/КИП 2 supported by PSTGU Development Foundation
Vdovichenko Andrey
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.62-75
This article deals with practices of writing and reading, which demonstrate notable features of the natural verbal process. In comparison with “language”, communicative action — the main feature of natural speaking — appears to be a more effective theoretical frame for explaining the production of meaning, the source of which in verbal and nonverbal semiotic acts is individual consciousness. The widespread explanation of writing and reading allows too little space to the communicative production of meaning and too large to the correlation between the sound and a grapheme. Chinese hieroglyphs cannot be explained by such a simplistic model, as well as European phonological orthography. This article shows that between the Chinese and the Europeans there exists a fundamental similarity of writing and reading processes, which allows us to give a non-contradictory explanation of what happens in any case of the graphic recording of verbal (and non-verbal) data. Both the Chinese and the Europeans are able to write and read due to the aprioristic possession of communicative typology (including forms of oral communication), rather than due to the “exact and strict correlation between the sound and the written character”. “Signs” represent hints on already known forms of acts of communication, making these acts recognisable. Members of linguocultural communities do not speak with hieroglyphs or letters. By means of hieroglyphs or letters they only depict (force to retrieve from memory) the “corporal” part of communicative syntagmas. Due to this part, their initial cognitive integrity (the desired integrated act of communication) can be potentially recreated and then interpreted as a semiotic act. The alphabetic or hieroglyphic way of recording becomes a formality and comes down to a question of which of them is more effective and more convenient in certain conditions of communication. The separation of signs from a personal semiotic act (making them a special system, or “language”) disorients the theory of communication (including the verbal communication) because it depicts the communication process as a simplified scheme “sign-meaning”
reading and writing, communicative action, language, semiotic act, letter, hieroglyph, Chinese and European reading or writing process, communicative typology
  1. Aristov V. V., Arshinov V. I., Borodai S. Iu., Ivanov V. P., Ivanov Viach. Vs., Kriukov A. N., Kuskova S. M., Lysenko V. G., Mamchur E. A., Vdovichenko A. V. “Ato mizm i kontinualizm v gumanitarnom znanii i sovremennaia nauka. Materialy kruglogo stola (Institut fi losofi i RAN, 17.06.2015)”, in: Voprosy filosofii, 10, 2016, 125–141.
  2. Iguan C. “Moderznizatsiia kitaiskogo iazyka i pis’mennosti”, in: Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike, 22, 1989, 376–398.
  3. Kobzev A. I. Uchenie o simvolakh i chislakh. Moscow, 1994.
  4. Vdovichenko A. V. Rasstavanie s “iazykom”. Kriticheskaia retrospektiva lingvisticheskogo znaniia. Moscow, 2008.
  5. Vitgenshtein L. Filosofskie raboty, 1. Moscow, 1994.

Vdovichenko Andrey

Degree: Doctor of Philology;
Place of work: ведущий научный сотрудник, профессор;
E-mail: an1vdo@mail.ru.
The article is written within the framework of the project "The development of a communication model of a verbal process in the conditions of crisis of the language model" supported by RSF Foundation and The Institute of linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Fedotova Marina
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.76-111
The Menologion, or the Book of Lives of Saints is one of the most signifi cant works by St. Dimitry, Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl, which was published in four volumes in Kiev within his lifetime (1689–1705) and republished many times after his death. The Martyrology belongs to the hagiographic genre as well as the Menologion (full Russian title: Мартиролог или мученикословие, житиа святых по мѣсяцех и числах въкратцѣ собранныя, в себѣ содержащое). The work on this text began when St. Dimitry was in the Ukraine, in the Monastery of the Savior in Novgorod Seversky, in 1700. This was the period during which, on one hand the writing and publication of the Menologion was in progress, and, on the other hand, it was the period directly preceding St. Dimitry’s move from the Ukraine to Russia. However, for a number of reasons, Dimitry Rostovsky did not complete this opus and only wrote brief Lives for September. The present paper exposes this work by Dimitry Rostovsky to the scientifi c community. It has been critically analysed and prepared for publication. The paper also raises the problem of unresearched and unpublished works by the Rostov Metropolitan that are being discovered in manuscript collections. These unpublished texts include several sermons given by the Metropolitan in the Ukraine, in Moscow, and in Rostov, as well as plays, poems, letters, hymnographic (services, canons) and chronographic texts, etc. The Martyrology only exists in one authored copy kept at the State Historical Museum (Synodal collection, 811), among unedited non-classifi ed materials collected in Rostov in 1704. When Dimitry of Rostov began to work on the Martyrology, he aimed to make its contents accesible to the general public. This was necessary, because the complete Menologion would be unaff ordable to the majority of people. Moreover, the texts within the Menologion, as opposed to brief lives of saints, were lengthy and detailed, which made them cumbersome to read. In contrast to the Menologion, the goal of the Martyrology was to cover all commemorations of each day to provide the reader with the opportunity to know and commemorate all saints. The monthly list of the Martyrology was clearly based on the Menologion, but it has its particular features. Dimitry curtailed the texts and tried to make the texts not only instructive, but also engaging.
Saint Limitry of Rostov, hagiograhpy, Menaion, Martyrology, source criticism, unpublished text
  1. Fedotova M. A. Epistoliarnoe nasledie Dimitriia Rostovskogo: Issledovanie i teksty. Moscow, 2005.
  2. Fedotova M. A. “K istorii Chet’ikh Minei Dimitriia Rostovskogo: rukopisnye materialy”, in: Vestnik NGU. Istoriia, filologiia, 11 (Filologiia), 2012, 123–133.
  3. Fedotova M. A. “Ob odnoi rukopisi iz sobraniia Petra I: k istorii Chet’ikh minei Dimitriia Rostovskogo”, in: Materialy i soobshcheniia po fondam Otdela rukopisei BAN. St Petersburg, 2013, 187–194.
  4. Fedotova M. A. “O neizdannykh sochine niiakh sviatitelia Dimitriia Rostovskogo: k postanovke problemy”, in: Vestnik PSTGU. III: Filologiia, 36, 2014, 47–64.
  5. Kruming A. A. “Chet’i Minei sviatogo Dimitriia Rostovskogo: Ocherk istorii izdaniia”, in: L. A. Iankovskoi, ed. Filevskie chteniia, 9. Sviatoi Dimitrii, mitropolit Rostovskii: Issledovaniia i materialy. Moscow, 1994, 5–52.
  6. Protas’eva T. N. Opisanie rukopisei Sinodal’nogo sobraniia (ne voshedshikh v opisanie A. V. Gorskogo i K. N. Nevostrueva). Moscow, 1970.

Fedotova Marina

Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: Institute of Russian Literature (the Pushkin House), Russian Academy of Sciences;
Post: fedotova_m@mail.ru;
E-mail: fedotova_m@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.

The article is written in 2017 within the framework of the project "The works of Dimitry of Rostov: the unknown texts. Study and publication" supported by RFBR Foundation


Materova Elizaveta; Nyebolszin Antal Gergely
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.115-130
This paper presents a translation of the commentary of donatist theologian Tyconius on the fourth and fifth chapter of the Book of Revelation with introduction and notes. This work of Tyconius did not survive as a whole text, but was recently reconstructed on the basis of the numerous quotations in the works of later authors. The commentary is of great interest because of its original ecclesiological ideas. Its influence on the later Latin tradition of interpretation of the Apocalypse was enormous. The work is translated into Russian for the first time.
Tyconius, Apocalypse, Revelation of John, eschatology, ecclesiology, donatism, early Christian exegesis
  1. Androsova V. “Kniga, zapechatannaia sem’iu pechatiami (Otkr 5. 1): tri iarkikh sviatootecheskikh tolkovaniia”, in: Vestnik PSTGU. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 1, 2013, 71–87.
  2. Androsova V. Nebesnye knigi v Apokalipsise Ioanna Bogoslova. Мoscow, 2013.
  3. Aune D. E. Revelation 1–5. Dallas, 1997.
  4. Bogaert P. M. “Les Quatre Vivants, l’Évangile et les évangiles”. Revue théologique de Louvain, 32, 2001, 457–478.
  5. Bogaert P. M. “Ordres anciens des évangiles et tétraévangile dans un seul codex”, in: Revue théologique de Louvain, 30, 1999, 297–314.
  6. Dulaey M. “La sixième Règle de Tyconius et son résumé dans le De doctrina Christiana”, in: Revue des études augustiniennes et patristiques, 35, 1989, 83–103.
  7. Schimanowski G. Die himmlische Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes. Die frühjüdischen Traditionen in Offenbarung 4–5 unter Einschluß der Hekhalotliteratur. Tübingen, 2002.
  8. Tavo F. Woman, Mother and Bride. An Exegetical Investigation into the “Ecclesial” Notions of the Apocalypse. Leuven, 2007.
  9. Tavo F. “The Outer Court and Holy City in Rev 11:1–2: Arguing for a Positive Appraisal”, in: Australian Biblical Review, 54, 2006, 56–72.

Materova Elizaveta

Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University; 6 Likhov per., Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: materowa@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.

Nyebolszin Antal Gergely

Degree: Doctor of Theology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
E-mail: gyula@mail.ru.
The article is written within the framework of the project "Latin commentaries on Revelation in patristic period. Annotated translation" supported by PSTGU Development Foundation
Mankov Alexander
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.131-138
This paper presents new material for the dictionary of the present-day dialect of Staroshvedkoye (Gammalsvenskby), the only Scandinavian dialect on the territory of the former Soviet Union. The present-day state of this dialect has not been described in linguistic literature. The only source of data on Gammalsvenskby is fi eldwork with speakers of the dialect. The main objective of this work is to present material recorded in the interviews in the most complete way possible and to describe the state of the vocabulary and infl ection in the dialect. The entries include the following information: type of infl ection; translation; phrases, sentences and short texts illustrating the usage (with initials of the informants). In many cases full paradigms are given as well. They include all phonetic and morphological forms that have occurred in the interviews.
language documentation, documentary linguistics, field linguistics, endangered language, Swedish dialects, Swedish dialects of Estonia, Gammalsvenskby, dialect dictionary

Mankov Alexander

Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
E-mail: mankov2017@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.

The article is written in 2017 within the framework of the project "The dialect of Gammalsvenskby: vocabulary learning and the compilation of a dictionary" supported by PSTGU Development Foundation
Davydenkova Maria; _Kaluzhnina _Nadezhda; Strievskaya Olga; Mazurina Natalia; Strievskaya Maria
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.139-147
This publication continues the edition of the dictionary and contains entries beginning with the letter м. Special features of this edition of the Dictionary, a list of sources, a list of abbreviations as well as explanatory notes were set out in detail in the preceding issues of St. Tikhon’s University Review. All previously published parts of the Dictionary together with the accompanying materials are available at http://pstgu.ru/faculties/philological/science/slov_Nevostr/
  1. Atanasii (Bonchev), Rechnik na tsеrkovnoslavianskiia ezik, Sofia, 1, 2002.
  2. Dvoretskii I., Drevnegrechesko-russkii slovar’, Moscow, 1, 1958.
  3. Kaluzhnina N., “O podgotovke k izdaniiu slovaria tserkovnoslavianskogo iazyka prot. A. I. Nevostrueva”, in: Vestnik PSTGU. III: Filologiia, 3 (9), 2007, 173–179.

Davydenkova Maria

Place of work: St. Tikhon Orthodox University of Humanities; 6 Likhov per., Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
E-mail: mdavydenkova@yandex.ru.

_Kaluzhnina _Nadezhda

Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: St Tikhon's Orthodox University;
E-mail: nkaluzhnina@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.

Strievskaya Olga

Place of work: St. Tikhon's University for the Humanities; 6 Likhov per., Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
E-mail: okstr1966@gmail.com.

Mazurina Natalia

Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: St George Orthodox Gymnasium; 4/2 Raitsentr st., Krasnogorsk 143406, Russian Federation;
Post: teacher;
E-mail: nat-mazurina07@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.

Strievskaya Maria

E-mail: strievskaya_maria@mail.ru.



Tolmatchoff Vasily
DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturIII201752.159-166
This paper paper is dedicated to «Napoleon» (1927), a book by Merezhkovsky which earlier has not been analyzed in detail. This work, in V. M. Tolmatchoff’s estimation, most important in understanding of Merezhkovsky’s emigre period of creative life, synthesizes all the previous key ideas of the writer. Also it corresponds a theme of Napoleon with the Russian history of XX, the European reality of 1920-ies, a vision in Napoleon a religious figure which unwillingly performed a religious mission of world scale, transformed revolution into counter-revolution, sacrificed himself for the future. Imagery of the book is based on the symbolist metaphors, dualisms: in Napoleon Merezhkovsky reveals features of other great heroes as well as of the gods; Napoleon is a contemporary of Stalin and Mussolini. In Merezhkovsky’s view Napoleon is transforming the usual oppostions — a republican in him in a very natural way is becoming a monarch, an atheist appears as a saint of the church of the future. In Merezhkovsky’s view Napoleon is transforming the usual oppostions — a republican in him in a very natural way is becoming a monarch, an atheist appears as a saint of the church of the future.
Merezhkovsky, Napoleon, theme of Napoleon in the work of Merezhkovsky, symbolist interpretation of the image of Napoleon, Napoleon in context of the Russian postrevolutionary history, composition of ''Napoleon'', religious idea of the book, Napoleon as a new saint

Tolmatchoff Vasily

Degree: Doctor of Philology;
Rank: Professor;
Place of work: MGU, Faculty of Philology; PSTGU, Faculty of Philology;
Post: full professor-chairman;full professor;
E-mail: tolmatchoff@hotmail.com.