/
Search results


Курдыбайло Д. С. О символе и символизме в трактате Оригена «Против Кельса» // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2016. Вып. 1 (63). С. 53-68. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201663.53-68
The article describes a context analysis of terms σUμβολον and τUπος in Origen’s treatise Contra Celsum. The Christian, Gnostic and pagan types of symbolism are distinguished as they are introduced by Origen and his opponent. Each type has its specifi c understanding of symbol in the ontological area, which then is projected onto exegesis of authoritative texts of each tradition. Christian symbolism is traced through various examples of Origen’s commentaries on the Bible to distinguish σUμβολον from τUπος, which are treated as representing “vertical” and “horizontal” relations between referent and denotation. Pagan symbolism is built up from concepts of pagan gods’ veneration and theurgy, with the latter related to the theory of universal sympathy. Gnostic conception of symbols is based on the metaphysical goal of human souls to escape from the fallen universe using symbols (extracted primarily from the text of New Testament and authoritative Gnostic texts) as a ‘key’ or ‘password’ for not to be seized by guarding spirits. Finally, a more subtle distinction is proposed to underline ontologic difference between symbol and allegory as they are based on different types of referent– denotation link. As a result, a generalized outline of Origen’s symbolism is formulated as a series of features distinguishing it from concurrent types of symbolism as well as from typology and allegory in Christian discourse.
Origen, Celsus, Symbol, Type, Typology, Allegory, Tropology, Exegetics, Hermeneutics, School of Alexandria, Patristics, Bible studies, Semiotics

1. Afonasin E. V. Filosofija Klimenta Aleksandrijskogo (Philosophy of Clemens of Alexandria), Novosibirsk, 1997.
2. Butorina M. I. Traktovka simvola v rannehristianskoj mysli: Dis. … kand. filos. nauk (Symbol Interpretation in Early Christian Thought: Dissertation), Saint-Petersburg, 2005.
3. Danielu Zh. 2005 “Bogoslovie Slova” (Theology of Word), in Bogoslovskij sbornik, Moscow, 2005, vol. 13, pp. 5–29.
4. Ivanov Vjach. Vs. 1999 “Ocherki po predystorii i istorii semiotiki” (Essays on Prehistory and History of Semiotics), in Ego zhe. Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kul'tury, Moscow, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 605–811.
5. Kuliev O. I. 2015 “Origen protiv Gerakleona. Spor dvuh jekzegetov“ (Origen vs Herakleon. Dispute of Two Exegetes), in Universum platonovskoj mysli: Korpus tekstov Platona v istorii ego interpretacij: Materialy XXII mezhdunarodnoj konferencii, Saint-Petersburg, 2015, pp. 133–138.
6. Kurdybajlo D. S. 2015 “Uchenie Plotina o simpaticheskih svjazjah v kosmologii «Jennead»” (Plotin’s Teacing about Sympathetic Connections in Cosmology of “Enneada”), in Universum platonovskoj mysli: Korpus tekstov Platona v istorii ego interpretacij: Materialy XXII mezhdunarodnoj konferencii, Saint-Petersburg, 2015, pp. 117–123.
7. Losev A. F. Istorija antichnoj jestetiki (History of Antique Esthetics), Moscow, 2000, vol. 8/1.
8. Petrov A. V. Fenomen teurgii (Theourgy Phenomenon), Saint-Petersburg, 2003.
9. Petrov V. V. 2010 “Myslitel'nyj gimn i vozvodjashhaja molitva u Dionisija Areopagita i ego predshestvennikov-neoplatonikov” (Thought Hymn and Elevating Prayer by Dionysius Areopagite and His Forerunners-Neoplatonians), in Kosmos i dusha, Moscow, 2010, vol. 2, pp. 210–239.
10. Svetlov R. V. Gnozis i jekzegetika (Gnosis and Exegetics), Saint-Petersburg, 1998.
11. Svetlov R. V. 2000 “Jamvlih Halkidskij. Metafizika. Kommentarii“ (Iamblichus Chalcidensis. Metaphysics. Commentaries), in Jamvlih Halkidskij. Kommentarii na dialogi Platona, Saint-Petersburg, 2000, pp. 5–32.
12. Serjogin A. V. 2015 “Traktat Origena «O nachalah»” (Origen’s Treatise “De Principiis”), in Filosofskij zhurnal, 2015, vol. 8/2, pp. 44–55.
13. Berkeley D. S. 1978 “Some Misapprehensions of Christian Typology in Recent Literary Scholarship”, in Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, 1978, vol. 18/1, pp. 3–12.
14. Florovsky G. 1950 “Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy”, in Church History, 1950, vol. 19/2, pp. 77–96.
15. Liddell H. G., Scott R. (eds.) A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1996.
16. Mitchell M. M. 2005 “Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put 1 Samuel 28 on Trial”, in The Journal of Religion, 2005, vol. 85/3, pp. 414–445.
17. Quispel G. 1974 “Origen and Valentinian Gnosis”, in Vigilae Christianae, 1974, vol. 28/1, pp. 29–42.
18. Ramelli I. 2011 “The Philosophical Stance of Allegory in Stoicism and its Reception in Platonism, Pagan and Christian: Origen in Dialogue with the Stoics and Plato”, in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 2011, vol. 18/3, pp. 335–371.
Курдыбайло Д. С. О стратегиях патристической экзегезы фрагмента Быт 3. 22 // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2017. Вып. 69. С. 11-29. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201769.11-29
The study covers patristic (primarily Greek) comments on the fragment of Gen 3. 22 “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”, which can be grouped in three main patterns. The first and the most widespread one (from Justin Martyr to Maximus the Confessor) suggests reading Gen 3. 22 as an example of God’s irony employed to show Adam that the serpent’s promise to “be as gods” was false and to urge him to repentance. Armenian and Antiochian versions of this pattern are described with some of its features indicating possible dependence on Pseudo-Clementine tradition. The second pattern was elaborated by the Alexandrian exegetes (Origen and Didymus the Blind) and interprets “one of us” as the “one of” the primordial unity of God and intelligible beings, i.e. the devil, who fell away from God and who was followed by Adam. The third pattern was developed in the context of the 4th and 6th Ecumenical councils’ Christological theology (Cyril of Alexandria and Anastasius of Sinai) and is based on Christological analogy: “one of us” is God’s Word as the second Hypostasis of Holy Trinity, and Adam’s likeness to God is understood using the fundamental analogy between Christ as the second Adam and the fi rst, old Adam. The reasoning of each of these three patterns was examined to show their internal logic consistency and the difficulties arising when they are externally compared one with another.
exegesis, patrology, Old Testament, the Genesis, Adam, the Fall, irony, Christology, Origen, Didymus the Blind, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, Anastasius of Sinai

Adrian (Pashin), hieromonk. Grekhopadenie, kozhanye rizy. Chast’ 1 [The Fall, coats of skins. Part 1], available at: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/2995.html (20.01.2017)
Agat’angeghos. 2003. Patmowt’iwn Hayoc [The History of Armenia]. Matenagirq Hayoc [Armenian Classical Authors], 2, 1309–1735.Antelias (Lebanon).
Albl M. C. (ed.) 2004. Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa: Testimonies Against the Jews. Atlanta.
Bandstra B. L. 2008. Genesis 1–11 : A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Waco (Texas).
Blazhennyi Avgustin. 2000. Tvoreniia [Collected works], 2. Saint Petersburg, Kiev.
Blazhennyi Feodorit Kirskii. 2003. Iziasnenie trudnykh mest Bozhestvennogo Pisaniia [Commentary on ambiguities of Holy Scripture], 1. Moscow.
Nautin P., Doutreleau L. (eds.) 1976. Didymus Caecus. In Genesim, Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur la Genese, 1. Paris.
Dobrotsvetov P. K. 2008. Efrem Antiokhiiskii. Sochineniia [Ephraim of Antioch. Works] Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedy], 19. Moscow, 27-32.
Efrem Sirin St. 2014. Tvoreniia [Works], 6. Moscow.
Eidel’kind Ia. D. 2010. Kniga proroka Iony [Book of Jonah] Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedy], 25. Moscow, 373-383.
Epifanovich S. L., Sidorov A. I. (transl.) 1994. Tvoreniia prepodobnogo Maksima Ispovednika [Works of St Maxim the Confessor], 2. Moscow.
Eslinger L. 2006. The Enigmatic Plurals like “One of Us” (Genesis I 26, III 22, and XI 7) in Hyperchronic Perspective. Vetus Testamentum, 56, fasc. 2, 171-184.
Freedman H., Simon M. (tr., ed.) 1961R. Midrash Rabbah. 1. London.
Holl K. (hrsg.) 1915–1933. Epiphanius. 1-3. Leipzig.
Kurdybaylo D. S., Shahinyan A.K. 2016. O nekotorykh osobennostiakh rannesrednevekovoi armianskoi bibleiskoi ekzegezy v «Uchenii sviatogo Grigora» [On Some Features of the Early Medieval Armenian Bible Exegesis in “The Teaching of Saint Gregory”]. Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, 17. 2, 25-39.
Laga C., Steel C. (eds.) 1980. Maximi Confessoris quaestiones ad Thalassium. I. Quaestiones I-LV. Turnhout.
Oden Th. C. et al. (ed.) 2004. Bibleiskie kommentarii ottsov Tserkvi i drugikh avtorov I–VIII vekov. Vetkhii Zavet. Tom I: Kniga Bytiia 1–11 [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament I: Genesis 1–11]. Tver’.
Pisarev, L. (transl.) 2008. Origen. O nachalakh. Protiv Tsel’sa [Origen. On fi rst principles. Against Celsus]. Saint Petersburg.
Preobrazhenskii P. (ed., transl.) 1995R Sochineniia sviatogo Iustina Filosofa i muchenika [The works of St Justin the Philosopher and Martyr]. Moscow.
Rehm B., Irmscher J., Paschke F. (hrsg.) 1969. Ps.-Clemens Romanus. Homiliae. Die Pseudoklementinen I. Homilien. Berlin.
Sidorov A. I. (transl.) 2003. Prepodobnyi Anastasii Sinait: Izbrannye tvoreniia [St Anastasius of Sinai: Selected works]. Moscow.
Sumner P. The Genesis Plurals, available at: http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/monotheism/genesis-plurals.html (20.01.2017)
Tantlevskii I. R. 2000. Vvedenie v Piatiknizhie [Introduction to the Pentateuch]. Moscow.
Ter-Davtian K. S., Areshvatian S. S. (transl.) 2004. Agatangelos. Istoriia Armenii [Agat’angelos. The History of Armenia]. Yerevan.
Fernandez Marcos N., Saenz-Badillos A. (eds.) 1979. Theodoretus Cyrensis. Quaestiones in Genesim. Theodoreti Cyrensis quaestiones in Octateuchum. Madrid, 3-99.
Thomson R. W. (trans.) 1970. The teaching of Saint Gregory: An early Armenian catechism. Cambridge (Mass.)
Uthemann K.-H. (hrsg.) 1985. Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas. Turnhout-Leuven.
Kurdybailo Dmitrii
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: Russian Christian Academy for Humanities 15, liter A, Fontanka river embankment, Saint Petersburg 191023, Russia;
Email: 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.
Работа подготовлена в Санкт-Петербургском государственном университете при поддержке РНФ, проект No 15-18-00062 «Формирование культуры в диаспоре (на примере еврейской, армянской и греческой диаспор)» Автор благодарит проф И Р Тантлевского, д ист н А К Шагиняна и канд филос наук прот Максима Приходько за консультации по ряду обсуждаемых в статье вопросов, а также канд филос наук О И Кулиева за любезно предоставленный перевод фрагмента комментария Оригена на Евангелие от Иоанна и ценные замечания по его интерпретации
Курдыбайло Д. С. О понятии «символ» в «Евангельском доказательстве» Евсевия Кесарийского // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2018. Вып. 78. С. 11-27. DOI: 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.