/
Search results


Щукин Т. А. Апостол Павел против Аристотеля: полемика с античной философской традицией в «Путеводителе» Анастасия Синаита // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. Религиоведение. 2020. Вып. 90. С. 9-27. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202090.9-27
This article discusses the views of Anastasius of Sinai concerning the place that Classical Ancient philosophical legacy should occupy in dogmatics and dogmatic polemics with his main Christological work Viae Dux used as a source of the material. The article analyses the introductory section of the treatise where Anastasius of Sinai compares certain points of philosophical knowledge with points of the Christian faith and comes to the conclusion about the irrelevance of terminology and concepts of philosophy to Christology and Triadology. He proposes similar views throughout the treatise and emphasises that all major heretic mistakes are rooted in fondness for pagan philosophy. Particularly negative infl uence on the Christian thought had Aristotle with his doctrine of identity of nature and hypostasis. It is this doctrine, he believes, that underlies Monophysitism. It is shown that Anastasious of Sinai was insuffi ciently familiar with texts of Ancient philosophers. In most cases, when he refers to a certain philosophical statement, his source can be established only approximately. The article suggests that the sources of his views about philosophy were probably Christian adaptations of commentaries on Aristotle of the Neoplatonic school of Alexandria. The article also raises the question of the reasons for such a negative attitude of Anastasius of Sinai to Ancient philosophy; this attitude implies not only cautious interaction with it, which is typical, for example, of Leontius of Byzantium, Theodore of Raithu, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, but also a radical critique of philosophical knowledge. Preliminary explanation is that the reason for this is the fact that the Monophysite theological tradition of the 6th — 7th centuries was to a greater extent dependent on Aristotle than Chalcedonian. In any case, the place of Viae Dux by Anastasius of Sinai in the late East-Christian theological tradition is unique. It is characterised by a desire to minimise the infl uence of the Ancient philosophical tradition on Christian theology. He proposes a system of work with theological concepts that would be independent of the “Hellenic” tradition.
Anastasius of Sinai, Ammonius of Alexandria, Aristotle, commentaries on Aristotle of Neoplatonic school of Alexandria, Neo-Chalcedonism, Monophysitism, Christology
  1. Chase M. (2010) “La subsistence néoplatonicienne: De Porphyre à Théodore de Raithu”. Chôra: Revue d’Études Anciennes et Médiévales, 7–8, p. 37–52.
  2. Diekamp F. (ed.) (1938) Analecta Patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik. Roma.
  3. Ebied К. Y., Van Roey A., Wickham L. К. (eds.) (1994–2003) Petri Callinicensis Patriarchae Antiocheni Tractatus Contra Damianum, vol. 1–4. Turnhout; Leuven.
  4. Grillmeier A. (1986) Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche. Band 2/1. Das Konzil von Chalcedon (451): Rezeption und Widerspruch (451–518). Freiburg; Basel; Wien.
  5. Hoek A. W. van den (1988) Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis: An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model. Leiden.
  6. Hovorun C. (2019) “Anastasius of Sinai and His Participation in the Monothelite Controversy”. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 95, 3, p. 505–527.
  7. Janssens B. (ed.) (2002) Maximi Confessoris Ambigua ad Thomam una cum Epistula secunda ad eundem. Turnhout, Leuven.
  8. King D. (2015) “Logic in the Service of Ancient Eastern Christianity: An Exploration of Motives”. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 97, p. 1–33.
  9. Kozlov M., Afi nogenov D. (eds) (1997) Tvoreniia Prepodobnogo Ioanna Damaskina. Khristologicheskie i polemicheskie traktaty. Slova na bogorodichnye prazdniki [Works of St. John of Damascus. Christological and polemical treatises. Orations on Virgin’s Holidays]. Moscow (in Russian).
  10. Krausmüller D. (2015) “Responding to John Philoponus: Hypostases, Particular Substances, and Perichoresis in the Trinity”. Journal of Late Ancient Religion and Culture, 9, p. 13–28.
  11. Krausmüller D. (2019) “The Problem of Universals in Late Patristic Theology”. Journal of Applied Logics — IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 6, 6, p. 1125–1142.
  12. Lampe G. W. H. (1961) A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford.
  13. Lourié B. (2019) “What Means ‘Tri-’ in ‘Trinity’? An Eastern Patristic Approach to the ‘Quasi- Ordinals’”. Journal of Applied Logics — IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 6, 6, p. 1093–1108.
  14. Mariev S. (2017) “Neoplatonic Philosophy in Byzantium. Introduction”, in Mariev S. (ed.) Byzantium Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism, Boston, p. 1–22.
  15. Morlet S. (2019) “Un fragment méconnu des Stromates (de Clément ou d’Origène?) chez Anastase le Sinaïte”, in Bady G., Cuny D. (eds.) Les polémiques religieuses du Ier au IVe siècle de notre ère, Hommage à Bernard Pouderon, Paris, p. 329–345.
  16. Pashin A. V. (2018) Glavnoe khristologicheskoe proizvedenie prepodobnogo Anastasiia Sinaita “Putevoditel”: monografiia [The main Christological work of St. Anastasius of Sinai ‘Viae Dux’: monography]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  17. Piret P. (1981) Le Christ et la Trinité selon Maxime le Confesseur. Paris.
  18. Roueche M. (1971) “Notes on a Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides”. Greek, Roman and Byzantine studies, 12, p. 553–556.
  19. Roueche M. (1974) “Byzantine Philosophical Texts of the Seventh Century”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 23, p. 61–76.
  20. Roueche M. (1980) “A Middle Byzantine Handbook of Logic Terminology”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 29, p. 71–98.
  21. Roueche M. (1990) “The Defi nitions of Philosophy and a New Fragment of Stephanus the Philosopher”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 40, p. 107–128.
  22. Roueche M. (1999) “Did Medical Students Study Philosophy in Alexandria?” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 43, p. 153–169.
  23. Roueche M. (2002) “Why the Monad is Not a Number: John Philoponus and In De Anima 3”. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 52, p. 95–133.
  24. Shchukin T. (2019) “‘Chto skazhete ob etoi ploti?’: ‘sushchnost’’ i ‘priroda’ v traktate Leontiia Vizantiiskogo ‘Protiv nestorian i evtikhian’” [“What will you say about this fl esh?”: “substance” and “nature” in the treatise “Against the Nestorians and Eutychians” by Leontius of Byzantium]. ESSE. Filosofskie i teologicheskie issledovaniia, 4, 1, p. 213-227 (in Russian).
  25. Shchukin T., Nogovitsin O. (2019) “Difficulties in Particular: Theological and Historical Context of the Anonymous Treatise ‘On the Common Nature and the Trinity’”. Scrinium. Journal of Patrology, Critical Hagiography, and Ecclesiastical History, 15, p. 218–238.
  26. Shchukin T., Nogovitsin O. (2019) “Leontii Vizantiiskii i ego traktat ‘Oproverzhenie sillogizmov Sevira’” [Leontius of Byzantium and his treatise ‘Refutation of syllogisms of Severus’]. ESSE. Filosofskie i teologicheskie issledovaniia, 4, 2, p. 159‒184 (in Russian).
  27. Shchukin T. (2017) “Myslitel, kotoryi ozhivil fi losofi iu: znachenie Mikhaila Psella dlia vizantiiskoj intellektualnoi traditsii” [The thinker who revived philosophy: the signifi cance of Michael Psellus for the Byzantine intellectual tradition]. ESSE. Filosofskie i teologicheskie issledovaniia, 2, 1/2, p. 428–447 (in Russian).
  28. Shchukin T. (2018) “Vizantiiskie korni spora Ignatiia Brianchaninova i Feofana Zatvornika o prirode dushi: istoriia i tipologiia” [Byzantine roots of the dispute between Ignatiy Brianchaninov and Feofan Zatvornik about the nature of soul: history and typology], in Nauchnaia sessiia GUAP. Sbornik dokladov [Papers of Scientifi c Session of GUAP. Collection of articles], 1–3, St. Petersburg, p. 79–81 (in Russian).
  29. Shchukin T. (2019) “Ierarkhiia v terminakh: razlichie mezhdu «sushchnost’iu» i «prirodoi» v sochineniiakh Mikhaila Psella” [Hierarchy in terms: the diff erence between ‘essence’ and ‘nature’ in writings of Michael Psellus”]. Aktualnye problemy iazyka i kultury. Trudy Vtoroi mezhvuzovskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii so vserossiiskim uchastiem (Ekaterinburg, 31 oktiabria 2018 goda). Nauchnyi vestnik Uralskoi gosudarstvennoi konservatorii, 1 (19), p. 105–116 (in Russian)
  30. Shchukin T. (2020) “Bog — forma, chelovek — materiia. Poniatiia ‘sushchnosti’ i ‘prirody’ v fi zike i khristologii Mikhaila Psella” [God is form, man is matter. The concepts of ‘essence’ and ‘nature’ in physics and Christology by Michael Psellus]. Khristianskoe chtenie, 1, p. 26–42 (in Russian).
  31. Spáčil S. (1922–1923) “La teologia di S. Anastasio Sinaita”. Bessarione, 38, p. 157–178; 39, p. 15–44.
  32. Stählin O., Früchtel L. and Treu U. (eds) (1970) Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. 3. Berlin.
  33. Stoliarov A. (ed.) (1999) Fragmenty rannikh stoikov. Tom II. Khrisipp iz Sol. Chast I. Logicheskie i fizicheskie fragmenty. Fr. 1–521 [Fragments of the Early Stoics. Volume II. Chrysippus of Soli. Part I. Logical and physical fragments. Fr. 1–521]. Moscow (in Russian).
  34. Uthemann K.-H. (2015) Anastasios Sinaites: Byzantinisches Christentum in den ersten Jahrzehnten unter arabischer Herrschaft. Berlin; Boston.
  35. Uthemann K.-H. (2017) Studien zu Anastasios Sinaites: Mit einem Anhang zu Anastasios I. von Antiochien. Berlin.
  36. Uthemann K.-H. (ed.) (1981) Anastasiae Sinaitae opera Viae Dux (Corpus christianorum. Series Graeca, 8). Brepols; Turnhout.
  37. Watt J. W. (2013) “The Syriac Aristotle between Alexandria and Baghdad”. Journal of Late Ancient Religion and Culture, 7, p. 26–50.
  38. Zachhuber J. (2020) “Aristotle in Theodore of Raïthu and Pamphilus the Theologian”, in Mazzanti A. M. (ed.) Un metodo per il dialogo fra le culture. La chrêsis patristica (Supplementi Adamantius, vol. IX). Brescia, p. 125-138.
Shchukin Timur
Place of work: Herzen State Pedagogical University; 48 Naberezhnaya reki Moyki, St. Petersburg 191186, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000–0001–7513–9873;
Email: tim_ibif@mail.ru.
The author expresses gratitude to The Russian Foundation for Basic Research for the support provided in writing this paper