/

St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

St. Tikhon’s University Review I :94

THEOLOGY

Pylaev Maxim

The image of Luther in liberal and dialectical theology

Pylaev Maxim (2021) "The image of Luther in liberal and dialectical theology ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2021, Iss. 94, pp. 9-20 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202194.9-20
Martin Luther creats a new form of Christianity which is suitable for the person the belongs to the culture of the modern period. His understanding of Christianity does not imply human freedom, the symbolism of the Sacraments, or the mystery of God’s incarnation. This article analyses the advantages and disadvantages of explicating the new image of Christianity, primarily in the liberal and dialectical theology of Protestantism, as well as in the theologically oriented phenomenology of religion in connection with the apology of ancient and mediaeval understanding of religion in the present-day Orthodox and Catholic theology and in Russian religious philosophy. Aware of the scale of the task, we only claim to defi ne attitudes in which it is possible to compare theological traditions scientifi cally and objectively, rather than solve them. We believe that the main direction of Protestant theological thought of the 19th and 20th centuries should be characterised as a consistent dissociation from the ancient and mediaeval understanding of religion and the establishment of a modern religious paradigm. We will try to substantiate this thesis within the framework of the transformation of the image of Luther in the liberal theology of A. Harnack, in the phenomenology of religion of R. Otto and F. Hailer, and in the dialectical theology of K. Barth. The continuity with Luther’s theology of these traditions is determined primarily by the attitude towards the ideal of faith and religion, which, on the one hand, meets the criteria of culture of the modern period and, on the other hand, shapes them. We discover the inner, organic unity and kinship in interpreting Luther’s image in liberal, dialectical theology and in Protestant religious phenomenology. Objecting to Protestant theologians, we believe that it is more relevant to argue that Luther contributed to the transformation of the mediaeval model of Christianity into that of the modern period rather than “reduced” Christianity ot destroyed the “syncretism” of Catholicism.
Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, M. Luther, R. Otto, F. Heiler, K. Barth
  1. Averintsev S. (1997) Poetika rannevizantiiskoi literatury [Poetics of early Byzantine literature]. Moscow: Coda (in Russian).
  2. Balthasar H. (1976) Karl Barth. Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie. Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag.
  3. Beintker M. (1987) Die Dialektik in der “dialektischen Theologie” Karl Barths. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag.
  4. Deianiia Vselenskikh Soborov [Acts of Ecumenical Councils] (1996). Vol. 4. St Petersburg: Voskresenie.
  5. Erikson E. H. (1996) Young Man Luther. Moscow: Medium (Russian translation).
  6. Frank S. (1990) “Nepostizhimoe” [The incomprehensible], in Sochineniia [Works], Moscow: Pravda (in Russian).
  7. Harnack A. (1991) Dogmengeschichte. Tübingen.: J.C.B. Mohr.
  8. Harnack A. (2001) “Dogmengeschichte”, in Rannee khristianstvo [Early Christianity], vol. 2, Moscow: Folio, pp. 87–508 (Russian translation).
  9. Hegel G. (2002) “Christentum und Reformation”, in Martin Luter. 95 tezisov [Martin Luther. 95 Theses], St Petersburg: Roza mira, pp. 267–360 (Russian translation).
  10. Heiler F. (1991) “Luthers religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung”, in Sotsio-Logos, vol. 1, Moscow: Progress, pp. 314–345 (Russian translation).
  11. Luther M. (1986) “De servo arbitrio”, in Erazm Rotterdamskii. Filosofskie proizvedeniia [Erasmus. Philosophical works], Moscow: Nauka, pp. 290–545 (Russian translation).
  12. Luther M. (2011) Tischreden. Odessa: Tiul’pan (Russian translation).
  13. Marion J.-L. (2009) “L’idole et la distance”. Simvol, vol. 56 (Russian translation).
  14. McGrath A. E. (1994) Reformation Thought. An Introduction. Odessa: Bogomyslie (Russian translation).
  15. Otto R. (1997) Das Heilige. Munchen. Beck.
  16. Shestov L. (1993) Sochineniia v 2 tomakh [Works in 2 volumes]. Vol. 2. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian).
  17. Ukolov K. (ed.) (2011) Sravnitel’noe bogoslovie: nemetskii protestantizm XX veka [Comparative theology: 20th century German Protestantism]. Moscow: PSTGU (in Russian).
  18. Uspenskii L. (1997) Bogoslovie ikony pravoslavnoi tserkvi [Theology of icons of the Orthodox Church]. Pereyaslavl: Izdatel’stvo bratstva vo imia sviatogo kniazia Aleksandra Nevskogo (in Russian).

Pylaev Maxim


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Russian State University for the Humanities; 6 Miusskaya Sq., Moscow 125993, GSP-3, Russian Federation;
Post: professor;
ORCID: 0000-0003-0110-8366;
Email: maximpylajew@mail.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44030 “Thinking of Being and Faith of Revelation: Ways of Correlation in German-speaking Protestant Theology and Russian Religious Thought of the 20th Century”.

PHILOSOPHY

Belov Vladimir

Hermann Cohen’s philosophy of religion and western christianity

Belov Vladimir (2021) "Hermann Cohen’s philosophy of religion and western christianity ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2021, Iss. 94, pp. 23-36 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202194.23-36
To indicate the diffi culties in the general description of the philosophy of religion of the founder of Marburg school of neo-Kantianism, a philosopher who strives to unite Judaism and the Kantian tradition of transcendental criticism in a consistent way, the author of the article refers to the presentation of a discussion around this part of the philosophical system of Hermann Cohen of his students, followers and researchers of his work, the beginning which laid the discourse on the philosophy of religion of one of the most famous disciples of the Marburg philosopher Franz Rosenzweig. The main conclusion to which the author comes as a result of the analysis of this discussion is that the philosophy of religion of Cohen is such a part of his philosophical system that introduces into this system an element of ambiguity, uncertainty and inconsistency. The article analyses the attitude of Cohen to Western Christian confessions. Attention is drawn to the fact that liberal Protestantism receives the most positive assessments among these Christian confessions, especially for its theology of tolerance and historical criticism of the Bible. Cohen’s main accusations against Christianity focus around Trinitarian and Christological issues. According to the Marburg philosopher, these dogmatic positions destroy Christianity’s religious monotheism and the independence of the believer. The article provides criticism of the religious and philosophical views of Hermann Cohen by one of the most authoritative Lutheran theologians of the early twentieth century, Wilhelm Herrmann, who believed that the assessment of the German philosopher of Christianity had nothing to do with real Christianity, is extremely subjective and erroneous. Besides, the article proposes the idea of the belief of the Marburg neo-Kantian in the need for a religious dialogue, which presupposes diff erences between the parties entering into the dialogue, but based on the ethical unity of all faiths. This religious unity lies outside the sphere of religion and, according to the philosopher, can be achieved exclusively in the fi eld of culture. Cohen sees the main force of moral culture in tolerance and regards law and justice as its main content.
philosophy of religion, H. Cohen, F. Rosenzweig, neo-Kantianism, Judaism, Protestantism, dialogue of religions
  1. Andriaanse H. Jan (1998) “‘Menschheit’ und ‘Individuum’. Cohen und Herrmann über die Religion”, in Ch. Krijnen, E. W. Orth (eds) Sinn, Geltung, Wert: neukantianische Motive in der modernen Kulturphilosophie, Würzburg, pp. 121–137.
  2. Belov V. (2018) “Filosofi ia religii Germana Kogena i ee otsenka rossiisko-evreiskomi misliteliami” [Philosophy of religion of Hermann Cohen and its assessment by Russian-Jewish thinkers], in J. Dobeshevskii, S. Kraevskii, J. Mach (eds) Poznanie i religiia. Epistemologiia religioznogo opyta v russkoi i evreiskoi filosofskoi mysli XX veka [Cognition and religion. Epistemology of religious experience in Russian and Jewish philosophical thought of the 20th century]. Warsaw, pp. 219–237 (in Russian).
  3. Belov V. (2015) “Religiia v predelakh razuma. K stat’e Germana Kogena ‘Eticheskie i istoricheskie motivy religii’” [Religion within the mind. The article by Hermann Cohen “Ethical and Historical Motives of Religion”]. Judaica Petropolitana. Issledovaniia evreiskoi filosofii i intellektual’nykh tradizii iudaizma. St. Petersburg, Jerusalem, vol. 3, pp. 211–218 (in Russian).
  4. Belov V. (2018) “Avtonomiia razuma i religiia Otkroveniia v fi losofi i religii Germana Kogena” [Autonomy of mind and the religion of revelation in the philosophy of religion of Hermann Cohen]. Filosofiia religii: analiticheskie issledovaniia, vol. 2 (2), pp. 51–64 (in Russian).
  5. Belov V. (2018) “Poniatiie religii v sisteme fi losofi i Germana Kogena” [The concept of religion in the system of philosophy of Hermann Cohen]. Judaica Petropolitana. Issledovaniia evreiskoi filosofii i intellektual’nych traditsii iudaizma, St. Petersburg, Jerusalem, vol. 9, pp. 97–102 (in Russian).
  6. Cohen H. (1924) “Die religiösen Bewegungen der Gegenwart”, in B. Strauß (ed.) Jüdische Schriften. 1. Bd.: Etische und religiose Grundfragen, Berlin, pp. 36–66.
  7. Cohen H. (1924) “Ein Bekenntnis in der Judenfrage”, in B. Strauß (ed.) Jüdische Schriften. 2. Bd.: Zur jüdischen Zeitgeschichte, Berlin, pp. 73–94.
  8. Cohen H. (1924) “Gottesreich”, in B. Strauß (ed.) Jüdische Schriften. 3. Bd.: Zur jüdischen Religionsphilosophie und ihrer Geschichte, Berlin, pp. 169–175.
  9. Cohen H. (1924) “Religion und Sittlichkeit”, in B. Strauß (ed.) Jüdische Schriften. 3. Bd.: Zur jüdischen Religionsphilosophie und ihrer Geschichte, Berlin, pp. 98-168.
  10. Cohen H. (1924) “Was einigt die Konfessionen?”, in B. Strauß (ed.) Jüdische Schriften. 1. Bd.: Etische und religiose Grundfragen, Berlin, pp. 66-86.
  11. Cohen H. (2002) “Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie”, in H. Holzhey (ed.) Werke, Bd. 10. Register, 2., erweiterte Reprintaufl age, Hildesheim, pp. 1–164.
  12. Cohen H. (2012) “Deutschtum und Judentum mit grundlegenden Betrachtungen über Staat und Internationalismus”, in H. Holzhey, J. H. Schoeps, Ch. Schulte (eds) Kleinere Schriften V. 1913–1915. Im Auftrag des Hermann-Cohen-Archivs am Philosophischen Seminar der Universität Zürich und des Moses-Mendelssohn-Zentrums für europäisch-jüdische Studien, Universität Potsdam, 2. unveränderte Neuaufl age, Hildesheim, pp. 467–560.
  13. Dierken J. (2012) “Die “Religion der Vernunft” und die Vernunft der Religion”, in H. M. Dober, M. Morgenstern (eds) Religion aus den Quellen der Vernunft. Hermann Cohen und das evangelische Christentum, Tübingen, pp. 131–146.
  14. Habermas J. (2009) “Die Grenze zwischen Glauben und Wissen: Zur Wirkungsgeschichte und aktuellen Bedeutung von Kants Religionsphilosophie”. Kantovskii sbornik, vol. 2 (30), pp. 31–61 (Russian translation).
  15. Holzhey H. (1986) Cohen und Natorp. Band 2. Der Marburger Neukantianismus in Quellen. Basel; Stuttgart.
  16. Myers D. (2001) “Hermann Cohen and the Quest for Protestant Judaism”. Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, vol. 46, pp. 195–214.
  17. Poma A. (2012) La filosofia critica di Hermann Cohen. Moscow (Russian translation).
  18. Rosenzweig F. (1924) “Einleitung”, in B. Strauß (ed.) H. Cohen. Jüdische Schriften. 1. Bd.: Ethische und religiöse Grundfragen, Berlin, pp. XIII–LXIV.
  19. Schwarzschild S. (1975) “The Tenability of Herman Cohen’s Construction of the Self”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 13, pp. 361–384.
  20. Zank M. (1996) “‘The Individual as I’ in Hermann Cohen’s Jewish Thought”. The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, vol. 5(2), pp. 281–296.

Belov Vladimir


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: The Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; 6, Ul. Mikluho-Maklaya, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation; Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University; 14, Ul. A. Nevskogo, Kaliningrad, 236016, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-003-3833-6505;
Email: belovvn@rambler.ru.

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Folieva Tatiana

«But generally speaking this motion picture is of such a kind that it would better never existed»: the anniversary of anti-religious film "Clouds over Borsk"

Folieva Tatiana (2021) "«But generally speaking this motion picture is of such a kind that it would better never existed»: the anniversary of anti-religious film "Clouds over Borsk" ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2021, Iss. 94, pp. 39-53 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202194.39-53
Forty years ago, in February 1961, the fi lm Clouds over Borsk was released on the screens of cinemas in the Soviet Union. In this article, we do not directly touch upon the filmmaking process; we are more interested in the audience’s reaction to the film. The film Clouds over Borsk is not the fi rst fi ctional work with anti-religious content. Films with a similar theme were made in the 1920s and 1930s, about 35 fi lms were shot, since 1958 about 15 feature fi lms were shot, which was associated with the unfolding Khrushchev’s anti-religious company. The third creative association of the studio Mosfilm decides to stage a fi lm, it is entrusted to the director V.S. Ordynsky, the film was put into production at the end of June 1960, in October there were already views of the material by the Arts Council, in December 1960 the fi lm was fi nished and its preliminary screening began. The fi lm has a “cult” status, a striking example of Khrushchev’s anti-religious propaganda. In the course of our work in the Russian State Archives of Literature and Art, we found twenty-four cases related to the fi lm Clouds over Borsk, of which 19 are related to fi lmmaking, 4 to discussing the fi lm. Before the release of the film on the screens, the members of the fi lm group met with its target audience, i.e. the Komsomol activists of Moscow, workers of the factory named after Sverdlov, scientific and atheistic workers, and colleagues from Lenfi lm studio. As a result, it was reconstructed how anti-religious fi lms were created, the reaction of the audience and the place of the fi lm Clouds over Borsk in the history of Soviet and Russian cinema, its perception in the 1960s and now.
history of religions, religion and cinema, atheistic propaganda, Khrushchev’s anti-religious campaign, Soviet cinema
  1. Arinin E. (2017) “Vtorzhenie religii v sovetskii kinematograf: mezhdu “volshebnym” i “vechnost’yu”” [The invasion of religion into Soviet cinema: between the “magic” and “eternity””]. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A. S. Pushkina, vol. 3, pp. 311–321 (in Russian).
  2. Kliuieva V. (2015) ““V nastoiashchee vremia religiia perezhivaiet ser’ieznyi krizis”: reaktsiia sovetskikh veruiushchikh na antireligioznuiu propaganda” [““At present, religion is going through a serious crisis”: the reaction of Soviet believers to anti-religious propaganda]. Vestnik arkheologii, antropologii i etnografi i, vol. 4 (31), pp. 143–150 (in Russian).
  3. Lungin S. (1966) Tuchi nad Borskom [Clouds over Borsk]. Moscow.
  4. Nikol’skaia T. (2009) Russkii protestantizm i gosudarstvennaia vlast’ v 1905–1991 godakh [Russian Protestantism and state power in 1905–1991]. St. Petersburg: Izdatelst’vo Ievropeiskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge.

Folieva Tatiana


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0001-6631-6022;
Email: tatiana_folieva@yahoo.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.

PUBLICATIONS

Zheltov Michael, priest

The primary redaction of the "Historia Mystagogica Ecclesiastica"

Zheltov Michael (2021) "The primary redaction of the "Historia Mystagogica Ecclesiastica" ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2021, Iss. 94, pp. 57-137 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202194.57-137
This article examines the textual criticism of the most influential Byzantine liturgical commentary, Historia Mystagogica Ecclesiastica (HME). In the current scholarship it is usually taken for granted that this commentary belongs to St. Germanus I of Constantinople. This view was substantiated in detail by R. Bornert in his book, Les commentaires byzantines... (Paris, 1966). My own study of all the oldest extant manuscripts of the HME has led me to the conclusion that Borner’s arguments are insuffi cient, and his typology of redactions of the HME is erroneous and therefore deserves to be revised. I have collated all the 10–12th-century manuscripts of the HME — as well as the early Latin and Slavonic translations of it, — and identifi ed the oldest redactions of the commentary. One of these should be considered to be the primary one, and I put forward the arguments in favor of the very redaction which is witnessed by the oldest manuscripts of the HME and which seems to have been the most widespread in the Middle Byzantine period. All the manuscripts of this primary redaction of the HME attribute its authorship to St. Basil the Great, but the commentary, undoubtedly, does not belong to him. It is a composition by a nameless author of the late 7th or of the first half of the 8th century, who comments on the Liturgy of St. Basil. Such a dating is supported by the presence of some specifi c liturgical and theological features in the HME (these will be studied further in the upcoming articles). Finally, I present my own critical edition of the primary redaction of the HME, accompanied by a new Russian translation.
liturgy, manuscript studies, textual criticism, Eucharist, liturgical commentaries, symbolic interpretation, liturgical history, Byzantine theology, Germanus of Constantinople, Basil the Great, iconoclasm
  1. Alexopoulos S. (2006) “The Influence of Iconoclasm on Liturgy: A Case Study”, in R.R. Ervine (ed.) Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighbouring Christian East. New York, pp. 127–137.
  2. Baranov V. (2008) “Byzantine Doctrines on the Resurrected Body of Christ and Their Parallels in Late Antiquity”. Scrinium, 4, pp. 4–22.
  3. Baranov V. (2010) “The Doctrine of the Icon-Eucharist for the Byzantine Iconoclasts”. Studia Patristica, 44, pp. 41–48.
  4. Beck H.-G. (1959) Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
  5. Bernatsky M., Zheltov M. (2005) “Voprosootvety mitropolita Ilii Kritskogo: Svidetel’stvo ob osobennostiakh soversheniia Bozhestvennoi liturgii v nachale XII v.” [Questions and Answers of Elias, Metropolitan of Crete: A Testimony of Byzantine liturgical practice in the beginning of XIIth c.]. Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie i fi losofiia, 14, pp. 23–53 (in Russian).
  6. Bornert R. (1966) Les commentaires byzantins de la Divine liturgie du VIIe au XVe siècle. Paris.
  7. Ermilov P. (2008) “Eucharistiia: Konstantinopol’skie spory XII v. o bogoslovii E.” [The Eucharist: Constantinopolitan disputes on the Eucharistic theology in the 12th century]. Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 17, pp. 625–629 (in Russian).
  8. Fedwick P. (2000) Bibliotheca Basiliana Vniversalis: A Study of the Manuscript Tradition, Translations and Editions of the Works of Basil of Caesarea, IV, 3: Editions, Liturgical and Canonical Compositions etc. Turnhout.
  9. Gero S. (1975) “The Eucharistic Doctrine of the Byzantine Iconoclasts and its Sources”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 68, pp. 4–22.
  10. Krausmüller D. (1997) “The Real and the Individual: Byzantine concepts of the Resurrection, Part I”. Gouden Hoorn, 5/1 [Online journal].
  11. Krausmüller D. (1997–1998) “Timothy of Antioch: Byzantine concepts of the Resurrection, Part II”. Gouden Hoorn, 5/2 [Online journal].
  12. Krivko R. (2014) “Lingvisticheskie zametki k “Uchitel’nomu Evangeliiu” i “Skazaniiu tserkovnomu”” [Some linguistic notes on the “Uchitel’noe Evangelie” and “Skazanie Tserkovnoe”], in Kirilometodievskata tradicij a i makedonski-ruskite duhovni i kulturni vrski. Skopje, pp. 129–140.
  13. Leroy J. (1974) “Un manuscrit grec de Cefalù”. O Theologos: Cultura cristiana di Sicilia, 1, pp. 109–122.
  14. Lucà S. (2011) “Doroteo di Gaza e Niceta Stetato: A proposito del Neap. gr. 7”, in R. Gentile Messina (ed.) Bisanzio e le periferie dell’impero. Roma, pp. 145–180.
  15. Parenti S. (2001) “La ‘vittoria’ nella chiesa di Costantinopoli della liturgia di Crisostomo sulla liturgia di Basilio”, in R.F. Taft, G. Winkler (eds) Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark. Roma, pp. 907–928.
  16. Pentkovskii A. (2009) ““Ierusalimizatsiia» liturgicheskogo prostranstva v vizantiiskoi traditsii” [“Jerusalemization” of liturgical spaces in the Byzantine tradition], in A.M. Lidov (ed.) “Novye Ierusalimy”: Ierotopiia i ikonografiia sakral’nykh prostranstv [“New Jerusalems”: Hierotopy and iconography of sacred spaces]. Moscow, pp. 58–77 (in Russian).
  17. Prozorov V. (2006) “Real’nost’ ploti voskresshego tela: Spor Grigoriia Velikogo s Konstantinopol’skim patriarkhom Evtikhiem” [The Real Flesh of Resurrected Body. The Argument between Gregory the Great and Patriarch Eutychius], in Eshatologicheskii sbornik [Eschatological collection]. St Peterburg, pp. 109–125.
  18. Zheltov M. (2008) “Eucharistiia: Vizantiiskoe bogoslovie E. v VI–VII vv.; Ikonoborcheskoe bogoslovie E. i ego oproverzhenie” [The Eucharist: Byzantine theology of the E. in the 6–7th centuries; The iconoclastic theology of the E., and its refutation] in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. 17, pp. 596–600, 608–612 (in Russian).
  19. Zheltov M. (2010) “The Moment of Eucharistic Consecration in Byzantine Thought”, in M. E. Johnson (ed.) Issues in Eucharistic Praying. Collegeville (MN), pp. 263–306.
  20. Zheltov M. (2018) ““Otkrovenie sviatogo Grigoriia Bogoslova o liturgii”: issledovaniia, tekst i ego slavianskie perevody” [The Disclosure of Divine Liturgy by Pseudo-Gregory of Nazianz: medieval Slavonic translations and existing scholarly studies of the text]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia III: Filologiia, 54, pp. 9–26 (in Russian).

Zheltov Michael, priest


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Theology;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Moscow Theological Academy; Moscow region, Sergiev Posad 141300, Russian Federation;
Post: associate professor;
ORCID: 0000-0002-4681-999X;
Email: zhmh@inbox.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.

DISCUSSION

Mikhaylov Petr

Patristics in the light of present-day studies

Mikhaylov Petr (2021) "Patristics in the light of present-day studies ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2021, Iss. 94, pp. 141-161 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202194.141-161
This article deals with issues in the current study of ancient Christian theological legacy and uses an extensive material of Russian and foreign historiography. The article proposes a clear-cut typology of the main approaches to the study of patristics. It consists of the three groups which correspond to the specifi c scholarly programmes, i.e. clericalisation of patristics, secularisation of patristics and topicalisation of patristics. The clericalisation programme is reconstructed on the material of the fi rst vloume of the new handbook in patrology edited by A.I. Sidorov (2019); the secularisation programme is extracted from an in-depth analysis of the methodology and main content of A.A. Stoliarov’s monograph Патрология и патристика (‘Patrology and patristics’, 2nd ed., 2004); finally, the topicalisation programme is being built upon the totality of the methodological and conceptual experience in the study of ancient Christian texts achieved in international and interconfessional scholarship up to the present day as well upon the results of its incorporation in the academic and religious context. The article pays particular attention to the fundamental terminology of the subject and explications of the corresponding confessional and academic projections. The analysis carried out in the article shows the specificity of each approach, traces their internal logic, evaluates the achieved results and, finally, makes an attempt at a probabilistic explanation of the choice in favour of a certain programme through certain reasons of both academic and corporate character. The use of a wide range of studies and methodological agendas allows us to make several generalising conclusions, on which basis the article proposes a conceptual model for current studies in patrology that meet the requirements of topicality and eff ective employment of international and interconfessional experience of work in the relevant fi eld. The specifi city of the proposed model is characterised by following the principle of topicality in the study of ancient heritage, which is implemented due to the principle of double contextualisation (“symphony of the Fathers” as a “diachronic and synchronic polyphony”). A signifi cant prerequisite of this model is the event of the patristic renewal in the mid-20th century together with the method of ressourcement formulated as its result and being used in the Russian academic context for the first time.
patristics, patrology, ancient Christian literature, secularisation, theology of ressourcement, patristic renewal, methodology of patristic studies, prosopography, doxography, Christian Platonism, symphony of the Fathers
  1. Bady G. (2007) “Le renouveau patristique, son commencement et sa fi nalité. Aperçu bibliographique”, in «De commencement en commencement». Le renouveau patristique dans la théologie contemporaine, Paris: Bayard, pp. 305‒327.
  2. Behr J. (2020) “Theological Education in the Twenty-First Century”. Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies, vol. 3.1, pp. 1–11.
  3. Blanchard Y.-M. (2007) “La place du théologien bibliste dans le domaine des études patristiques”, in «De commencement en commencement». Le renouveau patristique dans la théologie contemporaine, Paris: Bayard, pp. 265‒273.
  4. Bobrinskoy B. (1997) “Le renouveau actuel de la patristique dans l’Orthodoxie”, in Les Pères de l’Eglise au XXe siècle. Histoire — Littérature — Théologie. «L’aventure des Sources Chrétiennes», Paris: Cerf, pp. 437‒444.
  5. Congar Y. (1967) “Du bon usage de «Denzinger» ”, in Situation et tâches présentes de la théologie, Paris: Cerf, pp. 111‒125.
  6. Drobner H. R. (2011) Lehrbuch der Patrologie. Frankfurt am Main.
  7. Fédou M. (2013) Les Pères de l’Église et la théologie chrétienne. Paris.
  8. Florovsky G. (1937) Puti russkogo bogoslovij a [Ways of Russian theology]. Paris: YMCA-Press (in Russian).
  9. Flynn Gabriel, Murray Paul (2012) Ressourcement. A Mouvement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  10. Fouilloux É. (2011) La collection Sources chrétiennes. Éditer les Pères de l’Église au XXe siécle. Paris.
  11. Hespel R. (1955) Le florilège cyrillien réfuté par Sévère d’Antioche: Étude et édition critique. Louvain.
  12. Hünermann P. (ed.) (2009) Denzinger H. Enchiridion symbolorum, defi nitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Kompendium der Glaugensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen. Freiburg; Basel; Wien: Herder.
  13. Kruzel A. (2010) “Patrologiia i patristicheskoe vozrozhdenie” [Patrology and patristic renaissance], in Nasledie Sviatych Ottsov v XX veke. Itogi issledovanii [Legacy of Saint Fathers in the 20th century. Results of research]. Moscow: PSTGU, pp. 94‒101 (in Russian).
  14. Marinescu A. (2013) “Patrology and Related Studies in Orthodoxy in the 20th Century and the Beginning of the 21st Century. Schools and Research Directions”, in V. Ioniţă (ed.) Orthodox Theology in the 20th Century and Early 21st Century. A Romanian Orthodox Perspective, Bucharest: Basilica, pp. 327‒393.
  15. Markschies C. (2015) “Patristics and Theology: from Concordance and Confl ict to Competition and Collaboration?”, in Patristic Studies in the Twenty-First Century, Turnhout, pp. 367‒388.
  16. Markschies C. (2019) “Polyphonic Theology of the Fathers / polyphone Theologie der Kirchenfäter. Bemerkungen zu einem Konzept und seiner Brauchbarkeit“. Evangelische Theologie, vol. 79 no. 5, pp. 329‒342.
  17. Moreschini Claudio (2011) Storia della filosofia patristica. Moscow: Greko-latinskii cabinet Yu. A. Shichalina (Russian translation).
  18. Pérès J.-N. “Les Pères de l’Église sont-ils aussi les Pères des protestants?”, in «De commencement en commencement». Le renouveau patristique dans la théologie contemporaine, Paris: Bayard, pp. 297‒303.
  19. Perrone L. (ed.) (2015) Origenes. Die neuen Psalmenhomiligen. Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314 (GCS NF. Bd. 19). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  20. Pouderon B. (2016‒2017) Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne des origines à 451. Vol. 1‒3. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
  21. Quasten J. (1986) Patrology. Vol. 1. The Beginnings of Patristic Literature. Westminster; Maryland.
  22. Sidorov A. I. (2001) “Zhiznennyi put’ Origena” [Life of Origen], in Patristika. Novye perevody, stat’i [Patristics. New translations, articles]. Nizhnii Novgorod, pp. 290‒332 (in Russian).
  23. Sidorov A. I. (2013) Sviatootecheskoe nasledie i tserkovnye drevnosti. T. 3. Alexandria i Antiokhia v istorii tserkovnoi pis’mennosti i bogosloviia [Patristics and church antiquities. Vol. 3. Alexandria and Antioch in the history of church scriptures and theology]. Moscow: Sibirskaia blagozvonnitsa (in Russian).
  24. Sidorov A. I., Dobrozvetov P. K., Fokin A. R. (2019) Patrologiia: Uchebnik [Handbook of Patrology]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Poznanie (in Russian).
  25. Stolyarov A. A. (2004) Patrologia i patristika. Kratkoe vvedenie [Patrology and patristics. A brief introduction]. Moscow: Greko-latinskii kabinet Yu.A. Shichalina (in Russian).
  26. Ware K. (2014) “Sur les pas des Pères, les études patristiques ont-elles un avenir?”, in D. Gonnet, M. Stavrou (ed.) Les Pères de l’Église aux sources de l’Europe, Paris: Cerf, pp. 275‒289.

Mikhaylov Petr


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, 127051 Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-3492-5055;
Email: locuspetri@rambler.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.

BOOK REVIEWS

Khangireev Ilya

Breakthrough in Pentateuch textology — Rev. of Kim Hayeon. Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch. The Original Translators of the Pentateuch. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020 (Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible, vol. 4). XIV, 207 p.

Khangireev Ilya (2021) "Breakthrough in Pentateuch textology". Rev. of Kim Hayeon. Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch. The Original Translators of the Pentateuch. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2020 (Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible, vol. 4). XIV, 207 p., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2021, Iss. 94, pp. 165-169 (in Russian).

PDF

Khangireev Ilya


Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Head of Scientific-Administrative department of the Theological faculty;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9590-9046;
Email: khangireev@gmail.com.