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

The article considers on the material of the “Homilies on the Psalms” of Origen and saint Basil of Caesarea the use of vocabulary of visual sense in an epistemological context, including the concept of “contemplation”, which goes back to the ancient philosophical tradition. Thus, the aim of the paper is to explain the philosophical meaning of this concept as the highest stage on the path of knowledge as well as its place in the epistemological systems of both authors. On the basis of the description of cognitive processes by early Christian writers we discovered a number of patterns in the composition of the semantic field of vision as the sense that participates in the act of knowledge. At the same time, our study demonstrates that the use of both the concept of “contemplation” and the vocabulary of visual sense partially fits into the philosophical division of the neoplatonic curriculum: while the study by bodily vision of the sensuous world created by God is associated with physics, the contemplation as a study of the supersensuous world by supersensory vision is associated with epoptics. However, in the explanations we have examined, these three steps are never mentioned in a row, in contrast to other texts where Origen and saint Basil follow the scheme of ethics-physics-epoptics. As texts that serves as the basis for comparing the Christian reception of the vocabulary of visual sense in patristic literature of the 3rd and 4th centuries AD we choosed not only the exegetic sermons of individual psalms by Origen and saint Basil of Caesarea, but also a selection of other texts of the same authors representing relevant parallels in their use of vocabulary of visual sense. From the point of view of its scientific relevance, this study is also important because it shows the dependence of the “Homilies on the Psalms” by saint Basil of Caesarea upon the “Homilies on the Psalms” by Origen discovered in 2012 in the Codex Monacensis Graecus 314.

epistemology, late antique philosophy, neoplatonism, patristic philosophy, saint Basil of Caesarea, contemplation, explanations on the Psalms

1. Alieva O. (2019) “Moses in the Wilderness: Basil of Caesarea on Formation of the Prophet”. Scrinium, vol. 15, pp. 133–142.
2. Alieva O. (ed.) (2016) Svyatitel’ Vasiliy Velikiy. Beseda na slova “Vnemli sebe” [Saint Basil the Great. Homily on the Words “Give Heed to Thyself”]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Borret S. (ed.) (1968) Origène. Contre Celse. Livres VII et VIII. Paris.
4. Brésard L., Fédou M. (eds) (2009) Origène. Commentaire sur l’épître aux Romains. Tome I, livres I–II. Paris.
5. Chantraine P. (1968) Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots. Paris.
6. Coakley S. (2011) “Gregory of Nyssa”, in P. L. Gavrilyuk, S. Coakley (eds) The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in Western Christianity, Cambridge, pp. 36–55.
7. Colson F. H., Whitaker G. H. (eds) (1929) Philo. On the Creation. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3. Cambridge (Mass.).
8. Colson F. H., Whitaker G. H. (eds) (1932) On the Confusion of Tongues. On the Migration of Abraham. Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? On Mating with the Preliminary Studies. Cambridge (Mass.).
9. Crouzel H. (1961) Origène et la “connaissance mystique”. Paris.
10. Crouzel H., Simonetti M. (eds) (1978) Origène. Traité des principes, tome I. Livres I et II. Paris.
11. Dawson D. (2002) Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity. Berkeley.
12. DelCogliano M. (2012) “Tradition and Polemic in Basil of Caesarea’s Homily on the Theophany”. Vigilia Christiana, vol. 66 (1), pp. 30−55.
13. Giet S. (ed.) (1968) Basile de Césarée. Homélies sur l’Hexaéméron. Paris.
14. Girardi M. (2014) “Origene in Cappadocia. Basilio e l’esegesi ‘alessandrina’ dei Salmi”. Adamantius, vol. 20, pp. 160−172.
15. Grünbeck E. (1994) Christologische Schriftargumentation und Bildersprache. Leiden.
16. Grünert A. (2019) “Zritel’naya leksika v kontekste fi losofi i poznaniya Vasiliya Velikogo na primere zykla ‘Besedy na shestodnev’” [The Visual Vоcabulary in the Context of St. Basil Epistemology: the Case of the Hexaemeron]. Philosophy. The Journal of the Higher School of Economics, vol. 3 (1), pp. 121−144 (in Russian).
17. Grünert A. (trans.) (2022) “Origen. Besedy III and IV na Ps. 36. Chast’ 2” [Origen. Homilies I and II on Psalm 36. Part 2]. Bible and Christian Antiquity, vol. 13 (1), pp. 1−49 (Russian translation).
18. Hadot I. (1989) “Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens”, in I. Hadot (ed.) Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories, vol. 1, Leiden, pp. 19–47.
19. Hildebrand S. (2014) Basil of Caesarea. London.
20. James M. R. (2021) Learning the Language of Scripture: Origen, Wisdom, and the Logic of Interpretation. Leiden.
21. Junod É. (1994) “En quoi les homélies d’Origène se distinguent-elles de ses commentaires?”, in H. Mottou, P. A. Bettex (eds) Le défi homilétique. L’exégèse au service de la predication, Génève, pp. 137–170.
22. Junod É. (1972) “Remarques sur la composition de la ‘Philocalie’ d’Origène par Basile de Césarée et Grégoire de Nazianze”. Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 149–156.
23. Koller H. (1957) “Theoros und Theōria”. Glotta, vol. 36, pp. 273–286.
24. Louth A. (2022) “The Transmission of Origen From Athanasius to the Cappadocians”, in R. E. Heine, K. J. Torjesen (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Origen, Oxford, pp. 429–444.
25. Markschies C. (1995) “Die Platonische Metapher vom ‘Inneren Menschen’: Eine Brücke Zwischen Antiker Philosophie und Altchristlicher Theologie”. International Journal of the Classical Tradition, vol. 1 (3), pp. 3–18.
26. McInroy M. J. (2011) “Origen of Alexandria”, in P. L. Gavrilyuk, S. Coakley (eds) The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in Western Christianity, Cambridge, pp. 20–35.
27. Minio-Paluello L. (ed.) (1949) Aristotle. Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatione. Oxford.
28. Nightingale A. (2009) Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy. Cambridge.
29. Paddle A. G. (2004) “Contemplation”, in J. A. McGuckin (ed.) The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Louisville; London, pp. 81–83.
30. Perrone L., Molin Pradel M. (eds.) (2015) Origenes. Die neuen Psalmenhomilien. Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314. Berlin.
31. Rahner K. (1932) “Le début d’une doctrine des cinq sens spirituels chez Origène”. Revue d’Ascétique et de Mystique, vol. 13, pp. 113–145.
32. Saint Basil the Great (2009) Tvoreniya v dvukh tomakh [Works in two Volumes]. Moscow (Russian translation).
33. Scherer J. (ed.) (1960) Origène. Entretien avec Héraclide. Paris.
34. Trigg J. (ed.) (2020) Origen. Homilies on the Psalms: Codex Monacensis Graecus 314. Washington (D.C.).
35. Vasiliu A. (2010) Eikôn. L’image dans le discours des trois Cappadociens. Paris.

Grünert Anna

In 1933 the Catholic scholar Emile Mersch published his work “The Mystical Body of Christ” (Le Corps mystique du Christ), in which the concept of the “mystical body” was traced from early Christian times to the beginning of the 20th century. Having paid tribute to Eastern fathers, Mersch believed that this concept reaches its final synthesis in the works of the “French school” authors in the 17th century, where the concept of personal mystical unity with Christ, dating back to the Rhine mystics, is combined with the idea of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Hilary of Pictavia of the “natural” unity of the Church in the Eucharist. Mersch considered this synthesis to be a complete expression of St. Augustine’s teachings of the Church as the “total Christ” (the whole Christ) - totus Christus. Some authors of the diaspora paid their attention to the Mersch’s monography. M. Lot-Borodina wrote a review to this work. Fr. Sergey Bulgakov used this work as a source of the references to blessed Augustine. But it was Fr. Georges Florovsky who treated this work most thoughtfully. In the description of his response to the Mersch’s work, we need to remember that initially Fr. Georges based on the position, which was formed in Russian theology by representatives of “new theology” at the beginning of the 20th century, first of all – the position of metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky). This position was characterized by the constitution of the unity of the Church on the moral rather than Eucharistic level. The moral level was regarded, because of the personalistic concept of the mutual transparency of persons, as a natural unity. The article traces the gradual evolution of Fr. Georges’s views from the above concept, through an attempt to combine the teaching of totus Christus with the teaching of metropolitan Anthony, to the unambiguously expressed Christological emphasis in ecclesiology. As a result, Florovsky's late ecclesiology reveals a certain closeness to the ecclesiology of the French school, and hence to Mersch’s general conceptual conclusions.

E.Mersch, father Georges Florovsky, metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, blessed Augustine, French school of the 17th century, cardinal Berulle, ecclesiology, Christology, totus Christus

1. Antonii (Khrapovitskii) (2007) Izbrannye trudy. Pis′ma. Materialy [Selected works. Letters. Materials]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Bulgakov S. (2000) Agnets Bozhii [Lamb of God]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Bulgakov S. (2005) Nevesta Agntsa [The Lamb’s Bride]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Congar Y. (1971) “La personne ‘Église’”. Revue Tomiste, vol. 71, pp. 613–640.
5. Feofan Zatvornik (2004) Tolkovanie poslaniia apostola Pavla k Efesianam [Interpretation of the Epistle of Apostle Paul to the Ephesians]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Florovsky G. (1972–1989) The Collected Works. Belmont, vols 1–14.
7. Florovsky G. (2002) Vera i kul′tura [Faith and culture]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
8. Franz E. (1956) Totus Christus: Studien über Christus und die Kirche bei Augustin. Bonn.
9. Ilarion (Troitskii) (2004) Tvoreniia [Works]. Moscow, vols 1–3 (in Russian).
10. Journet Ch. (1969) “De la personalité de l’Église”. Revue Thomiste, LXIX, pp. 192–200.
11. Larchet J.-K. (2019) “En suivant les Pères…” La vie et l’oevre du Père Georges Florovsky. Genève.
12. Losskii V. (1991) Ocherk misticheskogo bogosloviya Vostochnoi Tserkvi. Dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie [An essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic theology]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Lot-Borodine M. (1934) “Émile Mersch”. Put′, no. 42, pp. 93–95 (in Russian).
14. Lot-Borodine M. (1932) “La doctrine de la ‘déifi cation’ dans l’Église grecque jusqu’au XI-e siècle”. Revue de l’histoire des religions, vol. 105, pp. 5–43.
15. Mersch É. (1929) “Incarnation et doctrine spirituelle”. Revue d’ascétique et de mystique, pp. 337–367.
16. Mersch É. (1933) Le Corps mystique du Christ. Louvain, t. 1–2.
17. Mikhail (Gribanovskii) (2011) Trudy. Pis′ma. Materialy [Works. Letters. Materials]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Ward R. (2020) “The Christology of the French School”, in G. Westhaver, R. Vince (eds) Christ Unabridged: Knowing and Loving the Son of man, London, pp. 149–157.

Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

Funding: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 21-011-44125\21 "Latin Ecclesiastical Tradition of the 4th - 7th centuries in the Modern Scientific and Theological Context".

The author tries to reconstruct the philosophical dialogue between B. P. Vysheslavtsev and L. N. Tolstoy. Since the beliefs of these thinkers on philosophical, legal, religious and socio-economic issues are at first glance opposite, the article examines both their differences and their similarities. The author examines the texts in which Tolstoy is mentioned, analyzes the context and identifies a number of ideas that could help in studying the worldview of both philosophers and the problems they raise. At first glance, Vysheslavtsev's Tolstoy themes are collected in the field of philosophy of law, but a deeper discussion allows us to see that these themes have religious motives. The significance of the figure of P. I. Novgorodtsev in the formation of Vysheslavtsev as a dialectic. The philosopher draws a monumental image of Tolstoy, at the same time noting the naivety of his decisions and trying to comprehend the objective reasons for his rebellion. In this regard, the reasons for the uprising of Vysheslavtsev himself, who actively opposed all kinds of totalitarianism and violent social actions, become more understandable and justified. In his opinion, power can only be justified by a transition to a completely different existential state, that is, into a state of relative anarchy. Such a state of socio-political structures is "law" and "democracy" (a phenomenon opposite to "dictatorship"). Vysheslavtsev reflects on the antinomy of the absolute and the relative and comes to the conclusion, that the absolute can only be realized in relative forms in the relative. However, the absolute is not only an idea that drives a person on the path of self-improvement and social development, but also the Highest element of human nature, on the basis of which, according to the Christian promise, the divine dispensation of life is formed. The realization of the idea of personal morality requires a properly organized state. Such a state, in his opinion, is quite possible. However, analyzing the complexity of Moderna, summing up the results of the last period of the development of industrial culture (the 50s of the XX century), the philosopher declares a very disappointing result, which, however, does not deprive him of optimism about the ways to find new constructive solutions.

Vysheslavtsev, Tolstoy, Novgorodtsev, antinomy, law, power, Christian anarchism

1. Evlampiev I. (2018) “‘Anarkhizm’ L. N. Tolstogo i ego vozmozhnye fi losofskie osnovaniia” [“Anarchism” of L. N. Tolstoy and its possible philosophical foundations], in Russkaia literatura i filosofiia: puti vzaimodeistviia [Russian literature and philosophy: ways of interaction], Moscow, pp. 180–195 (in Russian).
2. Solntseva N. (2017) “Vysheslavtsev Boris Petrovich”, in A. Kling, A. Kholikov (eds) Russkie lite raturovedy XX veka: biobibliografi cheskii slovar′ [Russian literary critics of the 20th century: biobibliographical dictionary], vol. 1: A–L, Moscow; St. Petersburg, pp. 212–213 (in Russian).
3. Tabakov A. (2017) “‘Spravedlivost′’ i pravo: nekotorye aspekty sootnosheniia v russkoi fi losofi i prava vtoroi poloviny XIX — pervoi poloviny XX veka” [“Justice” and law: some aspects of the correlation in the Russian philosophy of law of the second half of the 19th — fi rst half of the 20th centuries]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 11: Pravo, no. 3, pp. 88–97 (in Russian).
4. Vysheslavtsev B. (1929) Khristianstvo i sotsial′nyi vopros [Christianity and the social issue]. Paris; Warsaw (in Russian).
5. Vysheslavtsev B. (1923) Russkaia stikhiia u Dostoevskogo [The Russian element in Dostoevsky]. Berlin (in Russian).
6. Vysheslavtsev B. (1924) “Religiia i bezreligioznost′” [Religion and irreligiousness], in Problemy russkogo religioznogo soznaniia. Sbornik statei [Issues in Russian religious consciousness. Collection of articles], Berlin, pp. 7–52 (in Russian).
7. Vysheslavtsev B. (1926) “Dva puti sotsial′nogo dvizheniia” [Two ways of social movement]. Put′, no. 4, pp. 127–138 (in Russian).
8. Vysheslavtsev B. (1928) “Lev Tolstoy”, in A. Cherny, V. Zenkovsky (eds) Russkaia zemlia: al′manakh dlia iunoshestva [Land of Russia: an almanac for young people], Paris, pp. 91–95 (in Russian).
9. Vysheslavtsev B. (1934) “Problema vlasti i ee religioznyi smysl” [The problem of power and its religious meaning]. Put′, no. 42, pp. 3–21 (in Russian).
10. Vysheslavtsev B. (1938) “Obraz Bozhii v grekhopadenii” [The image of God in the fall of man]. Put′, no. 55, pp. 24–40 (in Russian).
11. Vysheslavtsev B. (1940) “Bogoostavlennost′” [Godforsakenness]. Put′, no. 61, pp. 15–21 (in Russian).
12. Vysheslavtsev B. (1994) Etika preobrazhennogo Erosa [Ethics of the transformed Eros]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Vysheslavtsev B. (1994) Vechnoe v russkoi filosofii [The eternal in Russian philosophy]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Vysheslavtsev B. (1995) “Krizis industrial′noi kul′tury” [Crisis of industrial culture], in V. Sapov (ed.) Sochineniia [Works], Moscow, pp. 181–434 (in Russian).
15. Vysheslavtsev B. (1995) “Russkii natsional′nyi kharakter” [Russian national character]. Voprosy filosofii, no. 6, pp. 111–122 (in Russian).

Grishina Elena

In the richest manuscript heritage of Russian freemasons, who lived two centuries ago, there are numerous descriptions of various mystical experiences. These are visions and mystical dreams in which beings from the other world appeared, as well as deliberately evoked mystical states by which an adept attempts to penetrate into the other world. For censorship reasons, this aspect of the activities of Russian brothers practically did not go beyond the narrow circle of initiates. The article will attempt to present the main types of mystical experience reflected in the manuscripts of Russian freemasons – mostly diaries and correspondence. The most valuable information of this kind is contained in so-called “Masonic dreams”. These stories constitute a special genre of Masonic literature and preserved in a significant number of manuscripts. They were based on the idea of a special inner, spiritual vision, which has an adept and which allows him to achieve clairvoyance. Masonic dreams contain a significant amount of details related both to the Masonic ritual and symbolic decoration of the premises of Masonic lodges, and to those practices of moral self-improvement that are important for the Masonic path. Russian freemasons paid considerable attention to the problem of evaluating such experience – is it a gift from the divine essences or a temptation sent by demonic forces? The question of the significance of such an experience was also important: is it an accidental consequence of Masonic work, a hindrance on the way, or, on the contrary, a kind of confirmation of progress in following the Masonic path? The Orthodox Church, to which the Russian freemasons belonged, is extremely negative about such forms of mysticism. Therefore, they were forced to seek explanations for such phenomena in Catholic and Protestant mysticism, as well as in the European esoteric tradition. The article attempts to answer these questions, based on the analysis of a wide range of Masonic manuscripts of the 18th - early 19th centuries, preserved in the families of Russian Masons and today located in the Moscow archives.

dreams, dream records, psychology, Russian freemasonry, Masonic ritual, visions, predictions, paranormal states of consciousness

1. Aristotle (1931) The Works of Aristotle. Vol. III. Oxford.
2. Arseniev V. (2005) Vospominaniya. Dnevnik. Materialy semeinogo arkhiva. Genealogiya roda Arsen′evykh [Memoirs. Diary. Materials of the family archive. Genealogy of the Arsenyev family], ed. by A. Serkov, M. Reyzin. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Black J., Green A. (1992) Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin.
4. Emel′ianov V. (2003) Ritual v Drevnei Mesopotamii [Ritual in ancient Mesopotamia]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
5. Faggionato R. (2005) A Rosicrucian Utopia in Eighteenth-Century Russia. The Masonic Circle of N. I. Novikov. Dordrecht.
6. Hall C., Van de Castle R. (1966) The Content Analysis of Dreams. New York.
7. Khalturin Iu. (2013) “Misticheskii opyt i misticheskie praktiki v svidetel′stvakh rossiiskikh rozenkreitserov XVIII–XIX vv.” [Mystical experience and mystical practices in the testimonies of Russian Rosicrucians of the 18th — 19th centuries]. Vestnik PSTGU. I: Theology. Philosophy, no. 5 (49), pp. 60–75 (in Russian).
8. Khalturin Iu. (2013b) “Obshchenie s dukhami v rossiiskom masonstve (po materialam ‘Sbornika snov i videnii’)” [Communication with spirits in Russian Freemasonry. Materials from the “Collection of Dreams and Visions”]. Aliter, no. 1, pp. 95–112 (in Russian).
9. Magee G. (ed.) (2016) The Cambridge Handbook of Western Mysticism and Esotericism. Cambridge.
10. Maikova K. (1986) “Sobranie V. S. Arsen′eva” [Collection of V. S. Arseniev], in Rukopisnye sobraniia Gosudarstvennoi biblioteki im. V. I. Lenina. Ukazatel′ [Manuscript collections of Lenin State Library: a catalogue], Moscow, vol. 1/2, pp. 187–199 (in Russian).
11. Serkov A. (2019–2020) Rossiiskie masony. 1721–2019. Biografi cheskii slovar′ [Russian Freemasons. 1721–2019. Biographical dictionary]. 10 vols. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Shelekhov I., Belozerova G. (2016) “Istoriia i issledovaniia snovidenii: ot arkhaicheskikh predstavlenii do sovremennykh nauchnykh kontseptsii” [History and studies of dreams: from archaic ideas to modern scientifi c concepts]. Praxema, no. 1, pp. 47–71 (in Russian).
13. Stavish M. (2008) Between the Gates: Lucid Dreaming, Astral Projection, and the Body of Light in Western Esotericism. San Francisco.
14. Woofenden W. R. (ed.) (1977) Swedenborg’s Journal of Dreams. New York.

Burmistrov Konstantin

*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 article considers humility as one of the key categories in the practical ethos of Russian Orthodoxy. Sociological and theological problems related to this category are discussed and formulated. The main emphasis is on the analysis of the relationship in the pair "the one who humbles - the one who gives humility". The formulation of the problem of humility in this form is not obligatory, but it is precisely this problem that has received a certain spread in Orthodox discourse today. The reduction of the fullness of the problem to such a configuration of relations leaves many important subjects out of consideration, but at the same time allows us to concentrate on one problematic point noted in modern Orthodox discourse.To discuss the logic of the ethics of humility was chosen the following text - "Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching" by S. Zarin. On its basis, the dominant interpretation is described – "humility as acceptance of humiliation." Relying on texts discussing humility both inside and outside the Church, the author shows that one of the central virtues of Russian Orthodoxy is embodied in such a practice, which has a number of "ambiguous" consequences.At the same time, the author points out the deep rootedness of the category of humility in Orthodox ethics and suggests turning to the texts of the New Testament in search of a nuance in the understanding of humility and suggestions for the embodiment of this virtue in practice, capable of minimizing these ambiguous consequences. This nuance – mutuality – the author finds in the Epistles of the st. Paul. By analyzing the meaning of humility and the use of this concept in the text of the epistles of the apostle, the importance of recmutuality of actors entering into interaction is shown.In conclusion, the presence of such an interpretation in the Russian Orthodox tradition, namely in the texts of Theophanes the Recluse, is discussed. Thus, the assumption is substantiated that such an interpretation is not alien to the Orthodox worldview. The author suggests that the emphasis on mutuality in understanding and practicing humility could help to remove a number of negative effects that are fixed today (and were fixed earlier) both inside and outside the Church.

Apostle Paul, Orthodox ethics, humility, mutuality, reciprocity, social relations, S. Zarin, Theophan the Recluse

1. Adnès P. (1969) “Humilité”, in M. Viller et al. (eds) Dictionnaire de Spiritualité Ascétique et Mystique, vol. 7, pp. 1136–1187.
2. Alfano M., et al. (eds) (2020) The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Humility. Abingdon; NY.
3. Banks R. J. (1994) Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their Cultural Setting. Peabody.
4. Barclay J. M. G. (2015) Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids.
5. Becker E.-M. (2016) Der Begriff der Demut bei Paulus. Tübingen.
6. Biriukova M. (2013) Uchebnik radosti. O knigakh Nikolaia Pestova [A textbook of joy. On Nikolai Pestov’s books]. Pravoslavnaya vera, vol. 6 (482), available at http://www.eparhia-saratov.ru/Articles/2013-03-31-23-17-34-uchebnik (in Russian; accessed 20.08.2022).
7. Blanton T. R. IV (2017) A Spiritual Economy: Gift Exchange in the Letters of Paul of Tarsus. New Haven.
8. Blanton T. R. IV, Pickett R. (eds) (2017) Paul and Economics: A Handbook. Minneapolis.
9. Bogdanova T., Dobrotsvetov P. (2008) “K. Zarin”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox Encyclopaedia], vol. 19, Moscow, pp. 650–657 (in Russian).
10. Bonheim G., Regehly T. (2013) Mystik und Totalitarismus. Berlin.
11. Briones D. (2010) “Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study in 2 Corinthians 1.3-11”. New Testament Studies, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 536–556.
12. Bromley G. W. (1979) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Volume II. Grand Rapids, Mich.
13. Bulgakov S. (1997) “Geroizm i podvizhnichestvo” [Heroism and asceticism], in S. Bulgakov. Dva grada. Issledovaniia o prirode obshchestvennykh idealov [Two cities. Studies in the nature of public ideals], St. Petersburg, pp. 275–299 (in Russian).
14. Burke T. J. (2003) Family Matters: A Socio-Historical Study of Kinship Metaphors in 1 Thessalonians. Edinburgh.
15. Chirkov V., Knorre B. (2015) “Russian Orthodoxy and Human Motivation: The Categories of ‘Sin’, ‘Humility’, and ‘Obedience’ in the Context of Human Agency and Autonomy”. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, no. 1, pp. 26–40.
16. Conze W. (2004) “Beruf”, in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politischsozialen Sprache in Deutschland, vol. 1: A-D, Stuttgart, pp. 490–507.
17. Dihle A. (1937) “Demut”, in F. J. Dölger et al. (eds) Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Sachwörterbuch zur Auseinandersetzung des Christentums mit der antiken Welt, vol. III, pp. 735–78.
18. Dik B. J. et al. (2016) “Humility in Career Development”, in E. L. Worthington et al. (eds) Handbook of Humility: Theory, Research, and Applications, Abingdon; NY, pp. 207–220.
19. Downs D. J. (2008) The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in Its Chronological, Cultural, and Cultic Contexts. Tübingen.
20. Dunnington K. (2018) Humility, Pride, and Christian Virtue Theory. Oxford.
21. Ehrensperger K. (2007) Paul and the dynamics of power: Communication and interaction in the early Christ-movement. London.
22. Feldmeier R. (2012) Macht-Dienst-Demut: Ein Neutestamentlicher Beitrag Zur Ethik. Tübingen.
23. Feofan Zatvornik (2005) Tolkovanie Poslanii apostola Pavla k Kolossianam, k Filippiitsam [Commentary on Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philippians]. Moscow (in Russian).
24. Feofan Zatvornik (2010) Nachertanie khristianskogo nravoucheniia [An outline of Christian morals]. Moscow (in Russian).
25. Florovskii G. (1983) Puti russkogo bogosloviia [Ways of Russian theology]. Paris (in Russian).
26. Foulcher J. (2015) Reclaiming Humility: Four Studies in the Monastic Tradition. Collegeville.
27. Georgii (Tertyshnikov) (1999) Svyatitel′ Feofan Zatvornik i ego uchenie o spasenii [St. Feofan the Recluse and his teachings on salvation]. Moscow, available at https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/ Georgij _Tertyshnikov/svjatitel-feofan-zatvornik-i-ego-uchenie-o-spasenii/1_16 (in Russian; accessed 17.02.2022).
28. Gromacki G. (2015) “Paul’s Ecclesiology Of Ephesians”. Journal of Ministry and Theology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 81–115.
29. Harhordin O. (2002) Oblichat′ i litsemerit′: genealogiia rossiiskoi lichnosti [To denounce and being hypocrite: genealogy of the Russian personality]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
30. Harland Ph. A. (2005) “Familial Dimensions of Group Identity: ‘Brothers’ (ΑΔΕΛΦΟΙ) in Associations of the Greek East”. Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 491–513.
31. Hitrov M. I. (1992) Preosviashchennyi Feofan, Zatvornik Vyshenskii [St. Feofan, the Recluse of Vyshensky]. Moscow (in Russian).
32. Holl K. (1965) Gesammelte Aufsätze Zur Kirchengeschichte. Bd. 3 (Der Westen). Darmstadt.
33. Horrell D. (1995) “Paul’s Collection: Resources for a Materialist Theology”. Epworth Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 74–83.
34. Horrell D. (2015) Solidarity and Diff erence: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. London; New York.
35. Hughes J. T. (2019) Ecclesial Solidarity in the Pauline Corpus: Relationships Between Churches in Paul’s Letters. Eugene.
36. Joubert S. J. (1995) “Managing the Household. Paul as Paterfamilias of the Christian Household Group in Corinth”, in P. Esler (ed.) Modelling Early Christianity: Social-Scientifi c Studies of the New Testament in Its Context, Abingdon; New York, pp. 213–223.
37. Joubert S. J. (2000) Paul as Benefactor: Reciprocity, Strategy and Theological Refl ection in Paul’s Collection. Tübingen.
38. Kikot′ M. (2017) Ispoved′ byvshei poslushnitsy [Confessions of a former novice]. Moscow (in Russian).
39. Kliment (metropolitan) (2017) “Sluzhenie sviatitelia Feofana Zatvornika (Vyshenskogo) v Palestine v pervom sostave Russkoi dukhovnoi missii (1847–1853 gg.)” [The work of St. Feofan the Recluse (Vyshensky) in Palestine in the First Russian Spiritual Mission (1847–1853)], in Feofanovskie chteniia. Sbornik nauchnykh statei [Feofan readings. Collection of articles], Ryazan (in Russian).
40. Knorre B., Murashova A. (2019) “Retsiproknost′ ‘po blagosloveniiu’: diskussionnye voprosy daroobmena v tserkovnom social′nom prostranstve” [Reciprocity “by blessing”: debatable issues of giftexchange in he church community]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie, vol. 18 (4), pp. 186–211 (in Russian).
41. Konovalenko T. (2014) “Smirenie kak kliuchevoi kontsept pravoslavnoi iazykovoi kartiny mira” [Humility as a key concept in the Orthodox language picture of the world]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, vol. 37 (7), pp. 101–104 (in Russian).
42. Kravets S. (2019) “My delaem entsiklopediiu silami vsego pravoslavnogo mira” [“We are making an encyclopaedia with eff orts of the whole Orthodox world”]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarkhii, vol. 6, available at http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/5465100.html (in Russian; accessed 17.02.2022).
43. Lanczkowski G. et al. (1980) “Beruf”, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 5, Berlin; New York, pp. 654–676.
44. Lizgunov P. (2018) “Poniatie smireniia: istoriia i sovremennye interpretatsii” [The concept of humility: history and contemporary interpretations]. Provintsial′nye nauchnye zapiski, vol. 1 (7), pp. 86–91 (in Russian).
45. Lizgunov P. (2019) “Poniatie smireniia u muzhei apostol′skikh i rannikh apologetov” [The concept of humility in the Apostolic Men and early apologists]. Bogoslovskii vestnik, vol. 1 (32), pp. 172–191 (in Russian).
46. Lopukhin A. (2018) Tolkovaia Bibliia. Rukovodstvo k bibleiskoi istorii Vetkhogo i Novogo Zaveta [The explanatory Bible. A guide to the Biblical history of the Old and New Testaments]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
47. Massinelli G. (2021) For Your Sake He Became Poor: Ideology and Practice of Gift Exchange between Early Christian Groups. Berlin; Boston.
48. Meeks W. A. (2019) The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven.
49. Meggitt J. J. (1998) Paul, Poverty and Survival. London.
50. Ogereau J. M. (2012) “The Jerusalem Collection as Κοινωνία: Paul’s Global Politics of Socio- Economic Equality and Solidarity”. New Testament Studies, vol. 58, no. 3, July, pp. 350–378.
51. Ogereau J. M. (2014) “Paul’s Κοινωνία with the Philippians: Societas as a Missionary Funding Strategy”. New Testament Studies, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 360–378.
52. Ogereau J. M. (2015) “A Survey of Κοινωνία and Its Cognates in Documentary Sources”. Novum Testamentum, vol. 57, no. 3, June, pp. 275–294.
53. Peterman G. W. (1994) “Romans 15.26: Make a Contribution or Establish Fellowship?”. New Testament Studies, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 457–463.
54. Peterman G. W. (1997) Paul’s Gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving. Cambridge University Press.
55. Popova T. (2010) “Lestvitsa Ioanna Sinaiskogo v literature i kul′ture Rusi” [The Ladder of John of Sinai in the literature and culture of Russia”]. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A. S. Pushkina, vol. 1 (4), pp. 7–16 (in Russian).
56. Popova T. (2011) Lestvitsa Ioanna Sinaiskogo v slavianskoi knizhnosti [The Ladder of John of Sinai in Slavonic booklore]. Saarbruecken (in Russian).
57. Popova T. (2016) “Russkie rukopisi ‘Lestvitsy’ Ioanna Sinaiskogo” [Russian manuscripts of the Ladder of John of Sinai]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriya III: Filologiia, vol. 1 (46), pp. 93–101 (in Russian).
58. Sandnes K. O. (1994) A New Family: Conversion and Ecclesiology in the Early Church with Cross- Cultural Comparisons. Bern.
59. Schäfer K. (1990) Gemeinde als ‘Bruderschaft’: Ein Beitrag zum Kirchenverständnis des Paulus. Frankfurt.
60. Selwyn E. G. (1955) The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Essays. London.
61. Semenova N. (2012) “Leksika samootsenki v istorii russkogo iazyka: pokornost′” [The vocabulary of self-evaluation in the history of the Russian language: Obedience]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Rossiiskaia i zarubezhnaia filologiya, vol. 1, pp. 25–32 (in Russian).
62. Sergei (Sokolov) (1997) Ot vneshnego k vnutrennemu. Zhizneopisanie N. E. Pestova [From the external to the internal. Biography of N. E. Pestov], available at http://www.orthedu.ru/knigi/pestov/main.htm (in Russian; accessed 17.02.2022).
63. Shul′cheva-Dzharman O. (2015) “Khamstvo v Tserkvi, ili ‘Vas batiushka tozhe smiril?’” [Rudeness at church, or “Has the priest humbled you too?”], available at https://www.pravmir.ru/hamstvo-v-tserkvi-ili-vas-batyushka-tozhe-smiril/ (in Russian; accessed 17.02.2022).
64. Sidorov A. (1996) “Monumental′nyi trud po sviatootecheskoi asketike S. M. Zarina” [A monumental work on the ascetics of the Holy Fathers by S. M. Zarin], in S. Zarin. Asketizm po pravoslavno-khristianskomu ucheniiu: Etiko-bogoslovskoe issledovanie [Asceticism according to the Orthodox Christian teaching: an ethical and theological study]. Moscow, pp. III–XXXII (in Russian).
65. Tangney J. (2000) “Humility: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Findings and Directions for Future Research”. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, vol. 19, Mar., pp. 70–82.
66. Thiessen J. (2015) “Demut als christliche Lebensweise. Eine Studie zu den Paulusbriefen in ihrem hellenistischen und biblischen Kontext”. European Journal of Theology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5–18.
67. Tucker J. B. (2014) “The Jerusalem Collection, Economic Inequality, and Human Flourishing: Is Paul’s Concern the Redistribution of Wealth, or a Relationship of Mutuality (or Both)?”. Canadian Theological Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 52–70.
68. Uminskii A., Danilova A. (2015) “Smirilsia sam — smiri i drugogo” [If you’ve humbled yourself, humble your friend too], available at https://www.pravmir.ru/smirilsya-sam-smiri-i-drugogo/ (in Russian; accessed 17.02.2022).
69. Vassiliadis P. (1992) “Equality and Justice in Classical Antiquity and in Paul: The Social Implications of the Pauline Collection”. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, vol. 32, pp. 51–59.
70. Venter D. (2014) “The Implicit Obligations of Brothers, Debtors and Sons (Romans 8:12-17)”. Neotestamentica, vol. 48, no. 2, Jan., pp. 283–302.
71. Weaver T. M. (2019) Paul, Community, Economy: Thinking Communitas through the Biblical Paul. University of Kent.
72. Welborn L. L. (2013) “‘That There May Be Equality’: The Contexts and Consequences of a Pauline Ideal”. New Testament Studies, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 73–90.
73. Welborn L. L. (2017) “Paul’s Place in a First-Century Revival of the Discourse of ‘Equality’”. Harvard Theological Review, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 541–562.
74. Wengst K. (1987) Demut-Solidarität der Gedemütigten: Wandlungen eines Begriff es und seines sozialen Bezugs in griechisch-römischer, alttestamentlich-jüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition. München.
75. Whiteford R. A.-O. (2018) Friendship and Gift in 2 Corinthians 8–9: Social Relations and Conventions in the Jerusalem Collection. Clayton (Missoury).
76. Wright J. C. et al. (2017) “The Psychological Signifi cance of Humility”. The Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3–12.
77. Zabaev I. (2012) Osnovnye kategorii khoziaistvennoi etiki sovremennogo russkogo pravoslaviia: sotsiologicheskii analiz [Main categories of the economic ethics in the contemporary Russian Orthodoxy: a sociological study]. Moscow (in Russian).
78. Zabaev I. (2018) “Smirenie v khoziaistvennoi etike Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi ispol′zovanie sotsiologii religii Maksa Vebera dlia analiza sovremennogo russkogo pravoslaviia” [Humility in the economic ethics of the Russian Orthodox Church. The use of Max Weber’s sociology of religion for the analysis of the contemporary Russian Orthodoxy]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 36 (4), pp. 175–202 (in Russian).
79. Zabaev I., Kostrova E. (2020) “Etos vs. gabitus: eticheskii komponent v ‘Protestantskoi etike’ M. Vebera [Ethos vs. Habitus: the ethical component in Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]. Sotsiologiia vlasti, vol. 4 (32), pp. 45–67 (in Russian).

Zabaev Ivan

*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.

Draft document, currently stored in a single copy in the personal fund of A.I. Klibanov in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is published in the article. The document consists of 31 sheets of typewritten text, prepared in June 1966 by a group of scientists (A.I. Klibanov, P.K. Kurochkin, L.N. Mitrokhin, E.G. Filimonov and G.S. Lyalina) for the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Central Committee of the Soviet Union Communist Party. The authors analyze a lot of material, on the basis of which the first part of the document gives an assessment of the internal schism taking place in the Soviet Baptist Church. A special narrative is given to the activities of Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (CC ECB) and its May protest action, held in the center of Moscow, in which several hundred believers took part. Emphasizing the anti-Soviet sentiments among the followers of the SC ECB, the authors of the document refer to this religious organization first as a «militant church», and later clarify this name in the form «militant Baptism». In the final part, the document contains nine constructive proposals to suppress the conflict between the CC ECB and the state, as well as to normalize interaction between the authorities and various religious organizations. The surviving copy of the document has several losses that could not be replenished. Attempts to find a complete document in various archives and personal funds did not bring any result. Parts of the published document have become the basis for a number of books, pamphlets and articles written by members of the research group who prepared the document. The May protest action and the document published in this article played an important role in the publication of the entire popular science publishing series «Library “Modern Religions”».

Baptism, Council of Churches of Evangelical Christian Baptists, 1966 May 16–17, Klibanov Alexander Ilyich, Kurochkin Pavel Konstantinovich, Mitrokhin Lev Nikolaevich, Filimonov Eduard Gennadievich, Lyalina Galina Sergeevna

1. Bartoshevich E. (1969) Svideteli Iegovy [Jehovah’s witnesses]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Belenkii M. (1966) Iudaizm [Judaism]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Belov A. (1968) Adventizm [Adventism]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Danilenko S. (1972) Uniaty [Uniates]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Dashkovskii P., Dvorianchikova N. (2017) “Polozhenie khristianskikh obshchin v Altaiskom krae v seredine 1960-kh — seredine 1970-kh gg.” [The situation of Christian communities in the Altai Territory in the mid-1960s — mid-1970s]. Religiovedenie, no. 1, pp. 31–40 (in Russian).
6. Dobson M. (2011) “The First Dissidents? Discussion of Legality in the 1960s”, in 105 let legalizacii russkogo baptizma: materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii (5–7 aprelia 2011 g.) [105 years of legalisation of Russian Baptism: conference proceedings], Moscow, pp.198–203.
7. Enisherlov M., Lukachevskii A., Mitin M. (eds) (1932) Voinstvuiushchee bezbozhie v SSSR za 15 let. 1917–1932 [Militant atheism in the USSR over 15 years. 1917–1932]. Moscow (in Russian).
8. Etkin I. (1963) S pozitsii voinstvuyushchego ateizma [From the point of view of militant atheism]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Filimonov E. (1968) Baptizm i gumanizm [Baptism and humanism]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Garadzha V. (1971) Protestantizm [Protestantism]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Glushaev A. (2020) “Ispovedal′nye praktiki ‘ochishcheniia’ v dvizhenii baptistov-initsiativnikov (1960-e — nachalo 1980-kh godov): istoriko-kul′turnye aspekty” [Confessional practices of ablution in the movement of Baptists-“initsiativniki” (1960s — early 1980s): historical and cultural aspects]. Tekhnologos, no. 1, pp. 47–56 (in Russian).
12. Glushaev A. (2017) “Raskol v baptizme: ‘initsiativniki’ i ‘religioznyi ekstremizm’ v interpretatsiiakh sovetskoi ateisticheskoi literatury 1960–1980-kh gg” [Disunity in the Baptists’ church: “initsiativniki” and “religious extremism” in interpretations of the Soviet atheistic literature of 1960–1980]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tixonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, no. 71, pp. 104–118 (in Russian).
13. Katunski A. (1972) Staroobriadchestvo [Old believers]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Klibanov A., Mitrokhin L. (1967) Krizisnye iavleniia v sovremennom baptizme [Crisis phenomena in modern Baptism]. Moscow (in Russian).
15. Klibanov A., Mitrokhin L. (1967) “Raskol v sovremennom baptizme” [Disunity in modern Baptism]. Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, vol. 3, pp. 84–110 (in Russian).
16. Kochetov A. (1968) Buddizm [Buddhism]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Krest′ianinov V. (1967) Mennonity [Mennonites]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. “Kto takie ‘initsiativniki’ u evangel′skikh khristian-baptistov” (1966) [Who are the “initsiativniki” among Evangelical Christians-Baptists]. Nauka i religiia, no. 7, pp. 24–25 (in Russian).
19. Kuroedov V. (1969) O sovremennom sostoianii religii v SSSR i zadachakh usileniia kontrolia za sobliudeniem zakonodatelstva o religioznykh kul′takh [On the current state of religions in the USSR and the tasks of strengthening control over compliance with the legislation on religious cults]. Moscow (in Russian).
20. Kuroedov V. (ed.) (1971) Zakonodatel′stvo o religioznykh kultakh: sbornik materialov i dokumentov [Legislation on religious cults: Collection of materials and documents]. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Lukachevskii A. (1933) Marksizm-leninizm kak voinstvuiushhii ateizm [Marxism-Leninism as militant atheism]. Moscow (in Russian).
22. Lukachevskii A., Murav′ev E., Shokhor V. (eds) (1931) Za voinstvuiushhee bezbozhie: Metodicheskoe posobie dlia agitatorov [For the militant atheism: agitators’ handbook]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russian).
23. Lialina G. (1977) Baptizm: illiuzii i real′nost′ [Baptism: illusions and reality]. Moscow (in Russian).
24. Lialina G. (1979) Novye tendentsii v ideologii baptizma [New trends in the ideology of Baptism]. Moscow (in Russian).
25. Malakhova I. (1970) Dukhovnye khristiane [Spiritual Christians]. Moscow (in Russian).
26. Mavliutov R. (1969) Islam. Moscow (in Russian).
27. Mchedlov M. (1970) Katolitsizm. Moscow (in Russian).
28. Mitrokhin L. (1966) Baptizm. Moscow (in Russian).
29. Mitrokhin L. (1974) Baptizm. 2nd ed. Moscow (in Russian).
30. Moskalenko A. (1966) Piatidesyatniki [Pentecostals]. Moscow (in Russian).
31. Nikolskaia T. (2008) Russkii protestantizm i gosudarstvennaia vlast′ v 1905–1991 godax [Russian Protestantism and state power in 1905–1991]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
32. Savin A. (2016) “‘Mnogie dazhe ne dopuskaiut mysli, chto sektant mozhet byt′ chestnym chelovekom’: ‘brezhnevskii’ povorot v antireligioznoi politike i rossiiskii protestantizm (1964– 1966 gg.)” [“Many doesn’t even consider the possibility that the cultist could be an honest man”. Brezhnev’s turn in anti-religious policy, and the Russian protestantism (1964–1966)]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Istoriia, no. 4, pp. 59–75 (in Russian).
33. Savinskii S. (2001) Istoriia evangel′skikh khristian-baptistov Ukrainy, Rossii, Belorussii [History of Evangelical Christian Baptists in the Ukraine, Russia, White Russia]. Pt. 2: 1917–1967. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
34. Titov V. (1967) Pravoslavie. Moscow (in Russian).

Kolmakova Maria

*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 reported study was funded by RFBR, project number № 19–311–60008 "The science of religion in the USSR in the 70-80s. of ХХ century : historical bibliographic research"