/
Search results


Ерошев Е. В. [Review] // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2018. Вып. 78. С. 154-157. — Rev. op.: Die Psalmen bei den Kirchenvätern: Psalm 1–30 / Th. Heither, Ch. Reemts, Hrsg. Münster: Aschendorff , 2017. 483 s.
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.
Ерошев Е. В. Метод типологического (прообразовательного) толкования в западной историографии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2019. Вып. 81. С. 35-49. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201981.35-49
This article gives a brief historical outline of foreign studies in typology from the 18th to the late 20th centuries. In the initial section, it off ers a semantic analysis of key typological terms. This analysis identifi es the problem of translating typological terms into Russian which is subsequently being successfully solved. The article gives an outline of the historical situation that came to be the beginning of typological studies. Step-by-step, it identifi es the central historical fi gures who played an important role in developing typological topics. The authors mentioned in the article are being localised, their ideas being given in concise theses. The main part of the article deals with scholars of the 20th century and discussions around the signifi cance of typology and its place in the range of theological problems. After this, it studies theological works that dealt with the problem of biblical typology in the interdisciplinary domain and evaluates their contribution to the topic in question. In the fi nal section, the article briefl y formulates the way along which the understanding of typology as a separate theological method has been going through centuries, and identifi es the special features of the “resonable” typology which is understood as a necessary component of theology in the post-critical epoch.
typology, allegory, literal sense, hermeneutical methods, exegesis, historiography, biblical studies, patrology, patristics
  1. Barr J. (1966). Old and New in Interpretation. London.
  2. Bienert W. (1972). Allegoria und Anagoge bei Didymos dem Blinden von Alexandria. Berlin.
  3. Blanshar I.-M. (2012). “Opredeliaiushchie printsipy patristicheskoi germenevtiki v svete poslednikh izmenenii v bibleiskoi ekzegeze” [Decisive Principles of Patristic Hermeneutics in the Light of Recent Changes in Biblical Exegesis], in XXII Ezhegodnaia Bogoslovskaia Konferentsiia PSTGU: Materialy, Moscow, vol. 1, pp. 390–396 (in Russian).
  4. Bultmann R. (1950). “Ursprung und Sinn der Typologie als hermeneutischer Methode”. Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1950, bd. 75, ss. 205–212.
  5. Cahill P. (1982). “Hermeneutical Implications of Typology”. Catholic Biblical Quaterly, 1982, vol. 44, pp. 266–281.
  6. Calvin J. (1968). Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and the Ephesians. Grand Rapids.
  7. Danielu Zh. (2013). Tainstvo budushchego: Issledovaniia o proiskhozhdenii bibleiskoi tipologii [Mystery of the Future. Studies in the Origin of Biblical Typology]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Davidson R. (1981). Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures. Berrien Springs (Mich.).
  9. Fabiny T. (2009). “Typology: Pros and Cons in Biblical Hermeneutics and Literary Criticism (from Leonhard Goppelt to Northrop Frye)”. Revista del Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Españolas, 2009, vol. 25, No 1, рp. 138–152.
  10. Goppelt L. (1964). “Apokalyptik und Typologie bei Paulus”. Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1964, bd. 89, ss. 321–344.
  11. Goppelt L. (1939). Typos. Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen. Bertelsmann.
  12. Kannengiesser C. (2006). Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Leiden.
  13. Kattan A. (2003). Verleiblichung und Synergie: Grundzüge der Bibelhermeneutik bei Maximus Confessor. Leiden.
  14. Lampe G. (1957). “The Reasonableness of Typology”, in G. Lampe, K. Woollcombe (eds.) Essays on typology. Naperville, p. 1–3.
  15. Lubac H. de (1959–1964). Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens del’Écriture. Paris.
  16. Lubac H. de. (1966). L’Écriture dans la Tradition. Paris.
  17. Lubac H. de. (1984). Théologies d’occasion. Paris.
  18. Nesterova O. (2006). Allegoria pro typologia. Origen i sud’ba inoskazatel’nykh metodov interpretatsii Sviashchennogo Pisaniia v rannepatristicheskuiu epokhu [Origen and the Fate of Allegorical Method in Interpretation of Scripture in the Early Patristic Epoch]. Moscow (in Russian).
  19. Nevin P. (1981). “The Hermeneutics of Typology”, in Annual Evangelical Theological Society. Toronto, p. 4.
  20. Rad G. von. (2001). “Old Testament theology”. Louisville.
  21. Rad G. von. (1963). “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament”, in C. Westermann (ed.) Essays in Old Testament Interpretation. Richmond, pp. 17–39.
  22. Stek J. (1970). “Biblical Typology Yesterday and Today”. Calvin Theological Journal, 1970, vol. 5, рp. 133–162.
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.
Ерошев Е. В. Библейская типология или языческая аллегореза? К вопросу об особенностях патристической экзегезы книги Бытия по материалам «Шестоднева» прп. Анастасия Синаита // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2020. Вып. 89. С. 48-65. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202089.48-65
This article analyses the spiritual and fi gurative or, as the authors of the critical text describe it, the “mystical” exegesis of the Hexaemeron (CPG 7770) by St. Anastasius Sinaites in the context of discussion about typology and allegory as two methods — externally similar but diff erent in their principles — of the fi gurative explanation of Holy Scripture. The introductory section of the article explains the relevance of typology as a specifi c exegetic method and a specifi c role of the Hexaemeron in this discourse. The main section of the article analyses the exegesis of Hexaemeron in comparison with Origen’s approach to interpretation. Using the scientifi c literature and analysing the relevant loci in Origen’s texts, the article outlines main pronciples of his exegesis and evaluates the infl uence of these principles on the Hexaemeron. The study of this issue in the context of scholarly discussion about typology and allegory allows one to show fundamental diff erences between St. Anastasius’ and Origen’s methods of exegesis. Both authors use the principle of “all-embracing allegory”, but Origen often discards the natural meaning of the interpreted image as fi ctional (this being done in the spirit of pagan allegoreses) and replaces it with an allegorical concept. The author of Hexaemeron, by contrast, deliberately avoids such an approach. St. Anastasius has the “all-embracing interpretation” only on the macrolevel, whereas on the microlevel he follows his own exegetic formula, i.e. “makes use of the analogical interpretation only where it is necessary and only to a necessary degree”. The historicity of the narrative understood in its entirety makes the foundation of spiritual interpretation, i.e. the images incorporated in the system of symbolic and typological correlations do not lose their initial signifi cance. The hermeneutic key for St. Anastasius is the incarnation of God, the central element of the exegesis is Christ, through Whom the author enters the domain of Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology. Due to this, one can argue that the material of the Hexaemeron is the application by its author of the traditional typological explanation and that the method employed by the author cannot be identified with allegory in the sense of pagan allegoreses and with Origen’s method of non-literal interpretation.
typology, allegory, exegesis, Anastasius of Sinai, Anastasios Sinaites, Hexaemeron, Origen, patristics, patrology, hermeneutical methods
  1. Anastasius of Sinai (2003) Selected works. Moscow (Russian translation).
  2. Daniélou J. (1950) Sacramentum Futuri: Etudes sur les origines de la typologie biblique. Paris.
  3. Eroshev E. (2019) “Metod tipologicheskogo (proobrazovatel’nogo) tolkovaniia v zapadnoi istoriografii” [Method of typological hermeneutics in Western historiography]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 81, pp. 35–49 (in Russian).
  4. Kannengiesser C. (2006) Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Vol. 1. Leiden; Boston.
  5. Kattan A. (2003) Verleiblichung und Synergie: Grundzüge der Bibelhermeneutik bei Maximus Confessor. Leiden; Boston.
  6. Kuehn C. (2010) “Anastasius of Sinai: Biblical Scholar”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 103/1, pp. 55–81.
  7. Kuehn C. A., Baggarly J. D. (eds) (2007) Anastasios of Sinai. Hexaemeron. Roma.
  8. Nesterova O. (1998) «Iziasneniie tain» Ilariia Piktaviiskogo. Traditsiia i metod khristianskoi tipologicheskoi ekzegezy [“Tractatus mysteriorum” of Hilarius Pictaviensis. The tradition and method of Christian typological exegesis]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Nesterova O. (2006) Allegoria pro typologia. Origen i sud’ba inoskazatelnykh metodov interpretatsii Sviashchennogo Pisaniia v rannepatristicheskuiu epokhu [Origen and the faith of non-literal methods of interpreting Holy Scripture in the early patristic epoch]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Origenes (2008) Peri Archon. Contra Celsum. St Petersburg: Bibliopolis (Russian translation).
  11. Origenes (2019) Hexaplorum. Genesis. Moscow: ID «Poznaniye» (Russian translation).
  12. Zaganas D. (2019) “The Reception of Origen in the Hexaemeron by Anastasius Sinaita: Between Criticism and Approval”. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 95/3, pp. 415–426.
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.