/
Search results


Малышев А. В. Проблема сознания Христа в русском богословии: Христология свт. Иннокентия (Борисова) и еп. Иоанна (Соколова) // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2018. Вып. 78. С. 57-72. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201878.57-72
This article studies the problem of Christ’s human consciousness in the Christology of two representatives of Russian theological school, namely St. Innokenty (Borisov), archbishop of Cherson and Taurica (1800‒1857) and Ioann (Sokolov), bishop of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh (1818‒1869). Up to now, this sphere of the scholarly studies have not been a subject of special theological research, despite the fact that many scholars mention the similarity of their dogmatic approaches and specifi c features of their Christological concepts. The doctrine of Christ of the two prominent Russian hierarchs stands out noticeably against the habitual “school”, or traditional, approach primarily due to the fact that with regard to Christ they introduce previously non-employed notions and open new fi elds of study for the Christological science. This article studies one of this fi elds, namely Christ’s consciousness. It considers various shades in the use by St. Innokenty and Bishop Ioann of the term “conscioness” (Russ. сознание) as well as associated theological issues. The article also scrutinises the concept of Christ’s self-consciousness both in Bishop’s Ioann Christology and in the context of his doctrine of the consciousness of mankind, reveals the link and continuation in the approaches of St. Innokenty and Bishop Ioann with specifi c paralells in the doctrines as examples. The fi nal section of the article puts forward some hypotheses as to the reception of St. Innokenty’s and Bishop Ioann’s doctrine in the later tradition.
Christology, psychology, bishop Ioann (Sokolov), St. Innocent (Borisov), consciousness, self-consciousness, self-perception, Russian theology
  1. Chernoglazov D. A., Shufrin A. M., Benevich G. I. (eds.) (2014) Prp. Maksim Ispovednik. Bogoslovsko-polemicheskie sochineniia [St. Maximus the Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica]. St Petersburg: Sviataia Gora Afon (in Russian).
  2. Dahlke B. (2016) “Die Christologie in Schleiermachers Glaubenslehre”. Catholica, 2016, vol. 70, pp. 278–299.
  3. Florovskii G. (2009) Puti russkogo bogosloviia [Paths of Russian Theology]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Gavriushin N. K. (2007) “Cherty bogoslovskogo tvorchestva sviatitelia Innokentiia (Borisova)” [“Features of Theological Creative Work of St. Innokenty (Borisov)”]. In Khristianskoe prosveshchenie i russkaia kul’tura: Materialy 10 nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii [Christian Enlightenment and Russian Culture: Proceedings of the 10th Theological Conference]. Yohkar-Ola, pp. 11–20 (in Russian).
  5. Khondzinskii P. V. (2017) “Antropologiia sviatitelia Feofana Zatvornika i zarozhdenie pervykh personalisticheskikh kontseptsii v russkom bogoslovii” [“Anthropology of St. Theophan the Recluse and the Origin of the First Personalistic Concepts in Russian Theology”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2017, vol. 70, pp. 11–27 (in Russian)
  6. Khondzinskii P. V. (2017) “Vospriiatie idei I. Kanta v bogoslovskom nasledii svt. Innokentiia (Borisova)” [“The Perception of Ideas of I. Kant in Theological Heritage of St. Innokenty (Borisov)”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia. II: Istoriia, 2017, vol. 74, pp. 94–102 (in Russian).
  7. Lisovoi N. N. (2002) “Obzor osnovnykh napravlenii russkoi bogoslovskoi akademicheskoi nauki v 19 — nachale 20 stoletiia” [“Outline of the Main Directions of the Russian Theologocal Academic Science in the 19th — Early 20th Centuries”]. In Bogoslovskie trudy [Theological Studies], vol. 37. Moscow, pp. 5–127 (in Russian).
  8. Malyshev A. V. (2015) “Uchenie sviatitelia Innokentiia Khersonskogo o Gefsimanskom molenii Spasitelia v kontekste sviatootecheskoi traditsii” [St. Innokenty of Cherson Doctrine of the Savior’s Gethsemane Prayer in the Context of Patristic Tradition”]. Elektronnyi nauchnobogoslovskii zhurnal studentov i aspirantov Bogoslovskogo fakul’teta, 2015, vol. 7, pp. 33–44 (in Russian).
  9. Malyshev A. V. (2016) “Bogoslovie svt. Innokentiia Khersonskogo na primere ego ucheniia o Khriste” [“St. Innokenty’s of Cherson Theology with his Doctrine of Christ as an Example”]. Moskovskie Eparkhial’nye Vedomosti, 2016, vol. 6, pp. 110–113 (in Russian).
  10. Malyshev A. V. (2016) “Vospriiatie Gefsimanskogo moleniia Khrista F. F. Reingardom i svt. Innokentiem Khersonskim” [“Perception of Christ’s Gethsemane Prayer by F.F. Reingard and St. Innokenty of Cherson]. Elektronnyi nauchno-bogoslovskii zhurnal studentov i aspirantov Bogoslovskogo fakul’teta, 2016, vol. 8, pp. 65–73 (in Russian).
  11. Malyshev A. V. (2016) “Gefsimanskoe molenie Khrista v tolkovaniiakh prp. Maksima Ispovednika i svt. Innokentiia Khersonskogo” [“Christ’s Gethsemane Prayer in Interpretations by St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Innokenty of Cherson”], in Materialy VIII mezhdunarodnoi studencheskoi nauchno-bogoslovskoi konferentsii 18–19 maia 2016 [Proceedings of the 8th International Student Theological Conference, 18‒19 May 2016]. St Petersburg, pp. 84–91 (in Russian).
  12. Zelenina Ia. E., Lopukhina E. V. (2009) “Innokentii (Borisov)”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopedia], vol. 22, pp. 686–707 (in Russian).
Malyshev Artem
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3674-3303;
Email: artema.malishev@gmail.com.
Малышев А. В. От христологии «совершенства» к христологии «уничижения»: христологические дискуссии в русском академическом богословии XIX в. // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2020. Вып. 87. С. 26-46. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202087.26-46
This article gives a historical analysis of the problem of the possibility for Christ to commit a sin as well as those conceptual Christological prerequisites that underlie this problem. It uses as an example Christology of St. Innokentiy (Borisov) and doctrines of theologians of Moscow Academy of the latter half of the 19th century related to the interpretation of temptations of Lord in the desert. The article expounds systematically the Christology of St. Innokentiy (Borisov), researches his original Christological conception of a gradual manifestation of Deity in Christ, analyses his views on the possibility for Christ to commit a sin. The Saint’s Christology has a clearly expressed moral-related and motivating tendency, i.e. Christ is presented as a pinnacle of moral perfection and an example for imitation. The foundation of the Saint’s doctrine is made up by his answer formulated in the conception of a gradual manifestation of Deity in Christ to Kant’s theses accepted as an axiom about the impossibility to imitate Christ without accepting the possibility for him to fall. The Saint agreed in his lectures that Christ was able to sin. The conception of a gradual manifestation of Deity in Christ was developed by archpriest Aleksandr Gorskiy, in whose lectures one can see an interest to the topic of temptations of Christ in the desert. Bishop Mikhail (Luzin), who became rector of Moscow Academy after archpriest Aleksandr, made more prominent the problem of the compatibility of the opinion about the possibility for Christ to experience inner struggle (which, in turn, implied the possibility for Him to fall) with the view about Christ’impeccability. This theological matter also interested Revd. Timofey Butkevich, who, in line with bishop Mikhail, tried to solve it in the exegesis of Christ’s temptation in the desert and followed the same principles as St. Innokentiy. Unlike these authors, M. M. Tareev built his Christological system on diff erent principles, i.e. on the new kenotic Christology. Christ is represented in his works not as an epitome of moral perfection that overcomes the temptations but as an example of religious humility. The article describes systematically his kenotic Christology which is characterised by a deliberate rejection of the doctrine about the possibility for Christ to sin but contains other, no less problematic theses of dogmatic nature.
Christology, self-consciousness, St. Innokentiy of Cherson, archpriest Alexander Gorskiy, bishop Mikhail (Luzin), archpriest Timofey Butkevich, M. M. Tareev
  1. Benevich G. (2014) “Bogoslovsko-polemicheskie sochineniia prp. Maksima Ispovednika i ego polemika protiv monoenergizma i monofelitstva” [Polemical Theological Works of St. Maxim the Confessor and His Polemics against Monoenergism and Monofelitism], in Maksim Ispovednik. Bogoslovsko-polemicheskie sochineniia (Opuscula Theologica et Polemica). Athos; St Petersburg, pp. 11–181 (in Russian).
  2. Breidert М. (1977) Kenotische Christologie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Gütersloh.
  3. Glubokovskii N. (2002) Russkaia bogoslovskaia nauka v ee istoricheskom razvitii i noveishem sostoianii [Russian Theology in its Historical Development and Present-Day Situation]. Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Iulaev K. (transl.) (2005–2006) “Kirill Aleksandriiskii, svt. Dialog o vochelovechenii Edinorodnogo” [Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnationi Unigeniti]. Bogoslovskii vestnik, 5–6, pp. 65– 150 (Russian translation).
  5. Khondzinskii P. (2017) “Vospriiatie idei I. Kanta v bogoslovskom nasledii svt. Innokentiia (Borisova)” [“The Perception of Ideas of I. Kant in Theological Heritage of St. Innokenty (Borisov)”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia, vol. 74, pp. 94–102 (in Russian).
  6. Köber B. (1995) Sündlosigkeit und Menschsein Jesu Christi: ihr Verständnis und ihr Zusammenhang mit der Zweinaturenlehre in der protestantischen Theologie der Gegenwart. Göttingen.
  7. Konsik I. (2005) “Christologie im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert”, in Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Freiburg, pp. 115–145.
  8. Lampe G. (1961) Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford.
  9. Lisovoi N. (2002) “Obzor osnovnykh napravlenii russkoi bogoslovskoi akademicheskoi nauki v XIX — nachale XX stoletiia” [Survey of Main Trends in Russian Theology in 19th — 20th Centuries]. Bogoslovskie trudy, 37, pp. 5–127 (in Russian).
  10. Malyshev A. (2019) “Khristologiia I. Kanta i svt. Innokentiia (Borisova): dogmaticheskii Aspect” [The Christology of I. Kant and of St. Innokenty (Borisov): Dogmatic Aspect], in XII Kantovskie chteniia. Kant i etika Prosveshcheniia: istoricheskie osnovaniia i sovremennoe znachenie: tez. dokl. mezhdunar. nauch. konf. [12th Kant-Readings. Kant and the Ethics of Enlightenment: Historical Roots and Contemporary Relevance]. Kaliningrad, pp. 109–110 (in Russian).
  11. Pawl T. (2016) In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay. Oxford.
  12. Pilipenko E. (2015) Katolitsizm [Catholicism], in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 32, pp. 49–84 (in Russian).
  13. Sil’chenkov N. (1997) Proshchal’naia beseda Spasitelia s uchenikami. Ev. Ioanna XIII, 31 — XVI, 33 (Opyt istolkovaniia) [The Last Talk of the Saviour with Disciples. John’s Gospel 13,31 — 16,33 (an Interpretation)]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  14. Sproul R. (2001) The Glory of Christ. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
  15. Zabolotnyi E., Kalinin M., Feodor (Iulaev) (transl.) (2015) “Kirill Aleksandriiskii, svt. Otvety Tiveriiu diakonu s bratiei” [Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Responsionum ad Tiberium diaconum]. Bogoslovskii vestnik, 18–19 (3–4), pp. 342–379 (in Russian).
Malyshev Artem
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3674-3303;
Email: artema.malishev@gmail.com.
Малышев А. В. Рецепция и развитие идей старой кенотической христологии в русской духовно-академической традиции // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2021. Вып. 95. С. 28-44. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202195.28-44
The article studies the roots of the theory of gradual manifestation of divine Nature of Christ in His human nature, which belongs to St. Innokenty (Borisov). In the initial section, the article provides a short explanation of the origin and development in the Lutheran world of the 16th — 17th centuries of a conception of kenosis of Christ, as his non-use of the divine majesty, i.e. the totality of the divine properties, communicated to His human nature. Having outlined the history of so-called “alte Kenotik”, the article describes its reception by the Russian theological tradition and analyses the conception of kenosis from the theological system of Archbishop Theofan (Prokopovich). The article also compares this conception with the theological views of Johann Quenstedt and the doctrine of St. Innokenty (Smirnov). Then it is shown that Christological theory of St. Innokenty (Borisov) is based on the ideas adopted by the Russian tradition from “alte Kenotik” of Lutheran scholastics. St. Innokenty (Borisov) admitted that kenosis of Christ referred to His deifi cated human nature and implied the limited realisation of divine properties communicated to it. It was also admitted by St. Innokenty (Borisov) that the full realisation of divine properties took place in the state of exaltation of Christ. The article not only demonstrates the integration of the ideas of “alte Kenotik” in the theory of St. Innokenty (Borisov), but also examines the original aspects of the latter. The originality of Christological theory of St. Innokenty (Borisov) is due to the idea that the manifestation of the divine nature in Christ is a process. Using the perception of Christ’s kenosis as a standard adopted in the theological and academic sphere, the Saint attempted to respond to I. Kant’s criticism of the traditional Christology and fill those gaps in Orthodox Christology which appeared due to the achievements of philosophy.
Kenosis, Christology, Lutheranism, Russian theology, Johann Quenstedt, Archbishop Theofan (Prokopovich), St. Innokenty (Smirnov), St. Innokenty (Borisov)
  1. Baur J. (1977) “Auf dem Wege zur klassischen Tübinger Christologie. Einführende Überlegung zur sogenannten Kenosis-Krypsis Streit”, in Theologen und Theologie an der Universität Tübingen: Beitrage zur Geschichte der evangelisch-theologischen Fakultät, Tübingen, pp. 195–269.
  2. Baur J. (2002) “Ubiquität”, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin; New-York, vol. 34, pp. 224–241.
  3. Brandy H. (1991) Die späte Christologie des Johannes Brenz. Tübingen.
  4. Breidert М. (1977) Kenotische Christologie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Gütersloh.
  5. Cross R. (2019) Communicatio Idiomatum: Reformation Christological Debates. Oxford.
  6. Eliott M. (2015) “Christology in the seventeenth century”, in The Oxford handbook of Christology, Oxford, pp. 297–314.
  7. Isaev S. A. (2013) “Quenstedt Iohann Andreas”, in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], Moscow, vol. 32, pp. 255–257 (in Russian).
  8. Khondzinskii P. (2017) “Vospriiatie idei I. Kanta v bogoslovskom nasledii svt. Innokentiia (Borisova)” [The Perception of Ideas of I. Kant in Theological Heritage of St. Innokenty (Borisov)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia, vol. 74, pp. 94–102 (in Russian).
  9. Law D. R. (2017) “Luther’s Legacy and the Origins of Kenotic Christology”. Bulletin of the John Ryland Library, vol. 93, pp. 41–68.
  10. Leonov V. (2013) “Kenosis”, in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], Moscow, vol. 32, pp. 446–453 (in Russian).
  11. Malyshev A. V. (2019) “Dogmaticheskie osobennosti uchenii o Khriste Immanuila Kanta i svt. Innokentij a Khersonskogo” [Dogmatic Features of Christologies of Immanuel Kant and St. Innokenty of Kherson]. Filaretovskii al’manakh, vol. 15, pp. 79–94 (in Russian).
  12. Pelikan J. (1984) The Christian Tradition. Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700). Chicago; London.
  13. Sparn W. (2002) “Jesus Christus V”, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin; New-York, vol. 17, pp. 1–16.
  14. Wiedenroth U. (2011) Krypsis und Kenosis. Studien zu Thema und Genese der Tübinger Christologie in 17. Jahrhundert. Tübingen.
Malyshev Artem
Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-3674-3303;
Email: artema.malishev@gmail.com.
Article is prepared within the “Russian religious academic theology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century: ideas and contexts” project with assistance of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University and Fund “The live Tradition”.