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

This Article is an attempt to shed light on a few texts of the acts of the Apostles and of the epistles which are viewed as sources documenting the life and activity of Saint Paul. The author attempts to settle a number of questions regarding the authenticity of sources illustrating the life of Saint Paul. Similar questions are often raised by those who write and publish guides and textbooks for the teaching of the Pauline corpus. The author agrees with the overwhelming positive judgment of the academic world regarding the authenticity of the pastoral epistles, but at the same time he notes a number of objections to their authenticity proposed by the same forum: inconsistencies within the vocabulary of the texts themselves, their linguistic style, and their theological argumentation. The author concludes that these objections are inconclusive and the features enumerated by those who object constitute in reality only minor exceptions, inconsequential when taking into account the entire Pauline corpus. The author also examines the authenticity and historical accuracy of the account of the life of Saint Paul as given in the Acts of the Apostles. A few Biblicists claim that the account in Acts is merely legendary and is to be regarded as a type of early Christian folklore. The author disagrees with this opinion, backing up his position with the evidence that both the Acts of the Apostles and the Pastoral Epistles agree in historical detail and background. The author concludes with a further consideration regarding the correct method guiding biblical research on Saint Paul. He opines that such research must view the biblical texts in a correct historical perspective.

New Testament, Gospel, Apostle Paul, Epistles, Acts of the Apostles, Missionary Journeys, Preaching the Gospel, Biblical Canon, Authorship, Biblical Interpretation, Early Christian Theology

1. Dunn J. D. G. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to St Paul. Cambridge, 2003
2. Wischmeyer O. (Hrsg.) Paulus. Leben – Umwelt – Werk – Briefe. Tubingen, 2006
3. Matlock R. B. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Pauline Studies. Oxford, 2012
4. Stuckenbruck L. T. 2003. Colossians and Philemon. The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, pp. 116–132
5. Lincoln A. 2003. Ephesians. The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, pp. 133–40;
6. Hultgren A. J. 2003. Ephesians. The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, pp. 141–55.
7. Hoff meier J. K., Magary D. R. (eds.) The Bible and the Academy: Critical Scholarship and the Evangelical Understanding of Scripture in the 21st Century. Wheaton, 2011.
8. Holtzmann H. J. Die Pastoralbriefe kritisch und exegetisch bearbeitet. Leipzig, 1880
9. Roloff J. Der erste Brief an Timotheus. Zurich, 1988
10. Merz A. Die fi ktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus. Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe. Gottingen, 2004
11. Johnson L. T. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. New York, 2001
12. Meade D. G. Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition. Tubingen, 1986
13. Schenk W. 1987. Die Briefe an Timotheus I und II und an Titus (Pastoralbriefe) in der neueren Forschung (1945–1985). Haase W. (hrsg.) Aufstieg und Niedergang der Roemischen Welt II. 25. 4, pp. 3404–3438.
14. De Silva D. A. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, 2004.
15. Achtemeier P. J., Green J. B., Thompson M. M. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids, 2001
16. Porter S. E. 1995. Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon. Bulletin for Biblical Research, no. 5, pp. 105–123
17. Porter S. E. 1996. Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Response to R. W. Wall’s Response. Bulletin for Biblical Research, no. 6. pp. 133–138
18. Harrison P. N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Oxford, 1921
19. Grayston K., Herdan G. 1959. The Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Linguistic Statistics. New Testament Studies, no. 6, pp. 1–15
20. Mealand D. L. 1989. Positional Stylometry Reassessed: Testing a Seven Epistle Theory of Pauline Authorship. New Testament Studies, no. 35, pp. 266–286
21. Neumann K. J. The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis.Atlanta, 1990
22. Fiore B. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. Rome, 1986
23. Donelson L. R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Tubingen, 1986
24. Mounce W. D. Pastoral Epistles. Nashville, 2000
25. Carson D. A., Moo D. J. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, 2005
26. Towner Ph. H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids. 2006
27. Witherington B. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. Downers Grove, 2006
28. Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge, 1987
29. Liddell H. G, Scott R., Jones H. S. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, 1996
30. Bird A. E. 1997. The Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles: Quantifying Literary Style. Reformed Theological Review, no. 56, pp. 118–137
31. Kennedy G. A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Atlanta, 2003
32. Baum A. D. 2008. Semantic Variation within the Corpus Paulinum: Linguistic Considerations Concerning the Richer Vocabulary of the Pastoral Epistles. Tyndale Bulletin, no. 59, pp. 271–292
33. Reiser M. 2001. Paulus als Stilist. Svensk exegetisk arsbok, no. 22, pp. 151–165
34. Marshall I. H. The Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh, 1999
35. Dibelius M., Conzelmann H. The Pastoral Epistles. Philadelphia, 1972
36. Mutschler B. Glaube in den Pastoralbriefen. Pistis als Mitte christlicher Existenz. Tubingen, 2010.
37. Hanson A. T. The Pastoral Epistles. London, 1982.
38. Barrett C. K. The Acts of the Apostles. Edinburgh, 1994–1998
39. Thornton C.-J. Der Zeuge des Zeugen. Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen. Tubingen, 1991
40. Hemer C. J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tubingen, 2001
41. Palmer D. W. 1993. Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph. Winter B. W., Clarke A. D. (eds.) The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, pp. 1–29
42. Talbert Ch. H. Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts. Missoula, 1974.
43. Plumacher E. 2004. Die Apostelgeschichte als historische Monographie [1978]. Schroter J., Brucker R. (Hrsg.) Geschichte und Geschichten. Aufsatze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten, pp. 1–13
44. Alexander L. C. A. Acts in its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles. London, 2005
45. Dormeyer D. 2009. Die Gattung der Apostelgeschichte. Frey J., Rothschild C. K., Schroeter J., (Hrsg.) Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und fruhchristlicher Historiographie, pp. 437–475
46. Molthagen J. 2009. Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsverstaendnis in der Apostelgeschichte im Vergleich mit Herodot, Thukydides und Polybios. Frey J., Rothschild C. K., Schroeter J., (Hrsg.) Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und fruhchristlicher Historiographie, pp. 159–181
47. Spencer F. S. The Portrait of Philip in Acts: A Study of Roles and Relations. Sheffi eld, 1992
48. Porter S. E. 1999. The «We» Passages in Acts as a Source Regarding Paul [1994]. The Paul of Acts: Essays in Literary Criticism, Rhetoric and Theology, pp. 10–46
49. Koch D.-A. 1999. Kollektenbericht, «Wir»-Bericht und Itinerar. Neue (?) Uberlegungen zu einem alten Problem. New Testament Studies, no. 45, pp. 367–390.
50. Droge A. J. 2009. Did «Luke» Write Anonymously? Lingering at the Threshold. Frey J.,Rothschild C. K., Schroeter J., (Hrsg.) Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und fruhchristlicher Historiographie, pp. 495–517.
51. Heininger B. 2006. Die Rezeption des Paulus im 1. Ja. Wischmeyer O. (Hrsg.) Paulus. Leben – Umwelt – Werk – Briefe, pp. 329–335
52. Heininger B. 2007. Das Paulusbild der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Biographie. Erler M., Schorn S. (Hrsg.) Griechische Biographie in hellenistischer Zeit (Akten des internationalen Kongresses vom 26.–29. Juli 2006 in Wurzburg), pp. 407–429.
53. Plumacher E. 1978. Apostelgeschichte. Theologische Realenzyklopaedie, no. 3, pp. 483–528
54. Kollmann B. 2009. Paulus als Wundertäter. Schnelle U., Soding T. (Hrsg.) Paulinische Christologie. Exegetische Beitrage (FS Hans Hubner), pp. 76–96
55. Heininger B. 2005. Im Dunstkreis der Magie: Paulus als Wundertäter nach der Apostelgeschichte. Becker E. M., Pilhofer P. (Hrsg.) Biographie und Personlichkeit des Paulus, pp. 271–91.
56. Twelftree G. H. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians. Grand Rapids, 2007.
57. Klauck H.-J. Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis, 2003
58. Jervell J. Die Apostelgeschichte. Goettingen, 1998.
59. Avemarie F. 2009. Acta Jesu Christi. Zum christologischen Sinn der Wundermotive in der Apostelgeschichte. Frey J., Rothschild C. K., Schroeter J., (Hrsg.) Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und fruhchristlicher Historiographie, pp. 539–62
60. Buckwalter H. D. 1998. The Divine Saviour. Marshall I. H., Peterson D. (eds.) Witness to the Gospel. The Theology of Acts, pp. 107–123
61. Hurtado L. W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, 2003
62. Spencer F. S. Journeying Through Acts: A Literary-Cultural Reading. Peabody, 2004
63. Winter B. W. (ed.) The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Grand Rapids, 1993–1996
64. Neyrey J. H. (ed.) The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Peabody, 1993
65. Neyrey J. H., Stewart E. C. (eds.) The Social World of the New Testament: Insights and Models. Peabody, 2008
66. Bovon F. Luke the Theologian: Fifty-Five Years of Research (1950–2005). Waco, 2006
67. Haenchen E. The Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia, 1971
68. Dibelius M. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. New York, 1956
69. Seul P. Rettung fur alle. Die Romreise des Paulus nach Apg 27. 1–28. 16. Berlin, 2003
70. MacDonald D. R. 1999. The Shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul. New Testament Studies, no. 45, pp. 88–107
71. Pervo R. I. Acts. Philadelphia, 2008
72. Reiser M. 2001. Von Caesarea nach Malta: Literarischer Charakter und historische Glaubwürdigkeit von Act 27. Horn F. W. (Hrsg.) Das Ende des Paulus: Historische, theologische und literaturgeschichtliche Aspekte, pp. 49–74.
73. Kratz R. G. Rettungswunder. Motiv-, traditions- und formkritische Aufarbeitung einer biblischen Gattung. Frankfurt, 1979
74. Witherington B. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, 1998
75. Johnson L. T. The Acts of the Apostles. Collegeville, 1992
76. Dunn J. D. G. Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, 2009
77. Reynier Ch. Paul de Tarse en Mediterranee: Recherches autour de la navigation dans l’Antiquite (Ac 27–28. 16). Paris, 2006.
78. Green J. 2005. Learning Theological Interpretation and Luke. Bartholomew C. G., Green J. B., Thiselton A. C. (eds.) Reading Luke: Interpretation, Refl ection, Formation, pp. 55–78
79. Byrskog S. 2003. History or Story in Acts — A Middle Way? The «We» Passages, Historical Intertexture, and Oral History. Penner T. C., Vander Stichele C. (eds.) Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, pp. 257–283
80. Tannehill R. C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. Philadelphia, 1994.
81. Schnabel E. J. Early Christian Mission. Downers Grove, 2004
82. Schnabel E. J. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Wuppertal, 2010.
83. Winter B. W. Philo and Paul among the Sophists. Cambridge, 1997
84. Hillard T., Nobbs A., Winter B. The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Grand Rapids, 1993
85. Gleason M. W. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, 1995.

Schnabel Ekkhard

This article analyses the use of the term Nature as employed in the polemics of the supporters of the council of Chalcedon against their opponents, as exemplified in the controversy between John of Caesarea and Severus of Antioch. Severus could not accept the use of the word Nature as referring to Christ’s humanity after the incarnation and insisted on a different use of the word in the theology of the Trinity and in Christology. John of Caesarea, who accepted the Council of Chalcedon, insisted on the use of the term Nature as a vital component of ecclesial tradition and accused Severus of grave error. But at the same time, both theologians base their arguments on tradition, and use the works of gregory the theologian as those of the Capadocian Fathers to prove their point. Both theologians employ vocabulary developed by the Capadocian School especially the distinction setting apart the concepts of the common and the particular (nature and hypostasis). A particularly relevant proof text is found in one of the epistles of Gregory the Theologian entitled To Cledonius the Presbyter. Here, Gregory was in the midst of a polemic with Apollinaris of Laodicea and defined the distinction between subject (hypostasis) and predicate (nature). This Gave Gregory the opportunity to discuss the ideas of unity and duality in Christ. John of Casesarea pointed to this passage as a proof text for the teaching of Chalcedon. Severus, on the other hand, disagreed, refused to recognize such a distinction, and insisted that Gregory did not refer to the humanity of Christ after his incarnation as his nature. John further referred to other texts of Gregory which he claimed would refute the second point of the teaching of Severus regarding the difference of the application of the term nature in Christology and, on the other hand, in the Theology of the Trinity. John refused to admit such a distinction and continued to follow the teaching of Chalcedon. After an examination of the relevant texts, the author of the article concludes that Severus misunderstood Gregory since the latter did not teach a distinction in his understanding of the term nature whether in its application to Christ or to the trinity. Severus had referred to the passage where Gregory spoke about a unique nature and action of Christ after his incarnation, and used this as a proof text for his own position. On the contrary, this text actually demonstrates the doctrine of the two natures and two actions in Christ, a position which clearly opposes that of Severus. We may conclude that John of Caesarea accurately pinpointed all the theological subtleties of the passages in question and underlined the importance of distinguishing the term nature from that of hypostasis.

terminology, nature, substance, hypostasis, Christology, Council of Chalcedon

1. Mejendorf I., protopresv. Iisus Hristos v Vostochnom pravoslavnom bogoslovii (Jesus Christ in Oriental Orthodox Theology). Moscow, 2000.
2. Steppa J.-E. John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonian Culture. New Jersey, 2002
3. Nau F. (ed.) Plerophories, temoignages et revelations contre le concile de Chalcedoine. Paris, 1912.
4. Grillmeier A. Gesu Cristo nella fede della Chiesa. Brescia, 1999.
5. Moeller C. 1944–1945. Un représentant de la christologie néochalcédonienne au début du VI s. en Orient: Naphalius d’Alexandrie. Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, no. 40, pp. 73–140
6. Lebon J. (ed.) Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum. Louvain, 1938.
7. Brooks E. W. (ed.) A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch. Paris, 1915
8. Lebon J. Le Monophysisme seveverien: e tude historique, litte raire et the ologique sur la re sistance monophysite au concile de Chalce doine jusqu’a la constitution de l’E glise jacobite. Louvain, 1909.
9. Gallay P. (ed.) Gregoire de Nazianze. Lettres Theologique. Paris, 1974
10. Uthemann K.-H. 1997. Defi nitionen und Paradigmen in der Rezeption des Dogmas von Chalkedon bis in die Zeit Kaiser Justinians. Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualitat. Studien zur Rezeption der Christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, pp. 54–122
11. Spasskij A. Istorij a dogmaticheskih dvizhenij v jepohu Vselenskih soborov (v svjazi s fi losofskimi uchenij ami togo vremeni) (The History of dogmatic trends in the age of the Ecumenical Councils). Sergiyev Posad, 1914.
12. Bolotov V. V. Lekcii po istorii drevnej Cerkvi (Lectures on Early Church History). Moscow, 1994
13. Vasilij (Krivoshein), arhiep. 1975. Prostota Bozhestvennoj prirody i razlichija v Boge po sv. Grigoriju Nisskomu (The Simplicity of the Divine Nature and the Distinction in God in Gregory of Nazianz’s Thought). Vestnik Russkogo Zapadno–Evropejskogo Patriarshego Jekzarhata, no. 91–92, pp. 133–158
14. Quasten J. Patrology. Westminster, 1986.
15. Drecoll V. H. Die Entwicklung der Trinitatslehre des Basilius von Casarea, Sein Weg von Homousianer zum Neonizaner. Gottingen, 1996
16. Robertson D. G. 1998. Stoic and Aristotelian notins of Substance in Basil of Caesarea. Vigiliae Christianae, no. 52, pp. 393–417
17. Turcescu L. 1997. Prosopon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea’s «Against Eunomius» and the Epistles». Vigiliae Christianae, no. 51, pp. 374–395.
18. Courtonne Y. (ed.) St. Basile. Lettres. Paris, 1957.
19. Sidorov A. I. (ed.) Svt. Vasilij Velikij . Tvorenija (St. Basil the Great. Writings). Мoscow, 2009
20. Richard M. (Hrsg.) Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera quae supersunt. Turnhout, 1977
21. Schwarz E. (Hrsg.) Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Berlin, 1914–1984
22. Lebon J. (ed.). Severi Antiocheni ac Sergii Grammatici: Epistulae Mutuae. Louvain, 1949

Kozhukhov Sergei

This article discusses the rise of a philosophy of religion in antiquity. The author points out the only effective method of defining a philosophy of religion — an intuitive judgment of its components together with the elimination of all elements which do not pertain to the subject. The works of Proclus and Plato, especially the latter’s Dialogue on Parmenides are taken as the author’s starting point. Religion exists as the object of reflection not only on a philosophical level but also on lower levels where it appears as religious phenomena which are unable however to reveal their common molecular origin. Thus, Metaphysics first of all attempts to give a meaning to religion and later becomes its concomitant. Metaphysics itself traces its origin in religious principles, at the same time interpreting these same principles for the human mind. This is apparent from the history of the interpretation of religion in antiquity of which the Poem of Parmenides serves as an eminent example. The author concludes that for the ancient Greeks, religion and religious phenomena were so tightly linked with the concept of truth, that truth was itself viewed as sacred knowledge, available only to initiates

Plato, Proclus, Hegel, Parmenides, Habermas ◆ Religion, Philosophy of Religion, Ancient Philosophy

1. Arinin E. I. Religiovedenie (Religious Studies). Мoscow, 2004
2. Shahnovich M. M. Ocherki po istorii religiovedenija (The History of the Religious Studies). Saint Petersburg, 2006.
3. Jablokov I. N. (red.) Osnovy religiovedenija (Foundation of the Religious Studies). Мoscow, 1994
4. Shohin V. K. Filosofija religii i ee istoricheskie formy (Religious Studies and its historical Forms). Мoscow, 2010
5. Nagl-Dochekal G. 2009. «Mnozhestvo form nepublichnogo rassudka»? Religioznoe raznoobrazie v liberal'nyh demokratijah («The Multictude of Forms of the Non-public Reason» Religious Variety in Liberal Democraties). Voprosy filosofii, no. 9, pp. 12–21.
6. Gegel’ G. F. V. Filosofija religii (Religious Studies). Мoscow, 1976
7. Gusserl’ J. Kartezianskie meditacii (Cartesian Meditations). Мoscow, 2010.
8. Sjomushkin A. V. U istokov evropejskojracional’nosti. Nachalo drevnegrecheskojfilosofii (At the origins of the Europian Rationality. The Beginning of ancient greek Philosophy). Мoscow, 1996.
9. Riedweg Ch. Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien. Berlin, 1987.
10. Lukomskij L. Ju. 2006. Prokl. Kommentarij k «Parmenidu» Platona (Proclus. Commentary on the Plato’s «Parmenides»), pp. 694–721
11. Antonov K. M. 2006. Religioznoe obrashhenie v antichnoj filosofii (Religious Conversion in the Ancient Philosophy). Religiovedenie, no. 1, pp. 102–120
12. Toporov V. N. 1972. Indijskaja kul’tura i buddizm (Culture of the India and the Biddhism), pp. 51–68
13. Rassel B. Istorij a zapadnoj filosofii (History of the Western Philosophy). Novosibirsk, 2001
14. Cox H. The Secular City. New York, 1965.
15. Dodds Je. R. Greki i irracional’noe (The Greeks and Irrational). Saint Petersburg, 2000
16. Fragmenty rannih grecheskih filosofov (Fragments of Early Greek Philosophers). Мoscow, 1989
17. Latyshev V. V. Ocherk grecheskih drevnostej(The greek Antiquity). Saint Petersburg, 1899
18. Kassirer Je. Filosofija simvolicheskih form (The Philosophy of symbolic Forms). Мoscow, 2011
19. Losev A. F. Istorij a antichnojjestetiki. Itogi tysjacheletnego razvitija (History of antique aesthetics. The Results of the one thousand Development). Мoscow, 2000
20. Kulakovskij J. A. Jeshatologij a i jepikureizm v antichnom mire (Eschatology and epicureanism in the World). Saint Petersburg, 2000.
21. Fisher K. Gegel’ (Hegel). Мoscow, 1933

Veviurko Il'ia

This article examines one of the major problems in the ontology of L. P. Karsavin. It is closely related to his conception of the symphonic personality. Karsavin began to deal with the problem of temporality when he turned his attention to solving problems connected with the methodology of history. He worked on these problems throughout his whole life, beginning with his time in Saint Petersburg (1919) and ending with the works which he wrote while held in a prison camp (1949–1952). Throughout this time, he attempted to delineate grounding principles for a methodology of history. The author of this article analyses the problem of time in an ontological context, examining the specific points of Karsavin’s understanding of the Trinity, the creation of the world, his understanding of Styazhennost’ (Contraction?) as a basic ontological principle, as well as his anthropology. The article further discusses Karsavin’s dialectic of consciousness as well as his theory of symphonic personality. The Article highlights several fundamental problems of Karsavin’s philosophy: the concepts of Sverkhvremmenost’ (PreterTime), universal temporality, as well as Ontic and Empirical Time. The author of the article concludes that Karsavin saw the solution of many of these problems in Neo- Platonic philosophy (the idea of temporal, living eternity), in Saint Augustines’s theory of time as an extension of the soul as well as in Schelling’s concept of world epochs. All this induced Karsavin to define time as the extended reflection of eternity, an extension of contracted (svernutoy) divine eternity.

L. P. Karsavin, Universal Time, Ontic and Empirical Time, Consciousness, Symphonic Personality

1. Vaneev A. A. Dve goda v Abezi. V pamjat’ o L. P. Karsavine (Two years in Abesi. In memory of L. P. Carsavin). Brussels, 1990.
2. Shtejnberg A. Z. Druz’ja moih rannih let (1911–1928) (Nivat G. (ed.) Friends of early years (1911–1928)). Paris, 1991.
3. Shtejnberg A. Z. Filosofskie sochinenija (Philosophical Writings). Saint Petersburg, 2011.
4. Belous V. G. Vol’fi la, ili Krizis kul’tury v zerkale obshhestvennogo samosoznanija («Free Philosophical Association» or Crisis in the mirror of social self-consciousness). Saint Petersburg, 2007.
5. Karsavin L. P. 1922. Rec. na: Frank S. L. Ocherk metodologii obshhestvennyh nauk. M., 1922 (Review on: S. Frank. Essay on Methodology of the Social Sciences). Mysl’, no. 2, pp. 112–114.
6. Mihajlov I. N. Rannij Hajdegger (Early Heidegger). Мoscow, 1999.
7. Karsavin L. P. 1996. Vvedenie v istoriju (Introduction into the History). Voprosy istorii, no. 8, pp. 101–127.
8. Dil’tej V. Sobranie sochinenij (Collected works). Мoscow, 2004
9. Karsavin L. P. 1922. O svobode (On Freedom). Mysl’, no. 1, pp. 55–88.
10. Karsavin L. P. 1994. Pis'mo A. Vetteru. 16 aprelja 1940 (The Letter to A. Vetter 6 April 1940). Simvol, no. 31, pp. 97–169.
11. Karsavin L. P. Sochinenija (Writings). Saint Petersburg, 1994
12. Shelling G. V. F. Sistema mirovyh jepoh (System of world epochs). Tomsk, 1999
13. Shelling G. V. F. Filosofija otkrovenija (Philosophy of Revelation). Saint Petersburg, 2000.
14. Karsavin L. P. Malye sochinenija (Minor Works). Saint Petersburg, 1994
15. Karsavin L. P. Filosofija istorii (Philosophy of History). Saint Petersburg, 1993
16. Gajdenko P. P. Istorija novoevropejskoj filosofii v ee svjazi s naukoj (History of New European Philosophy). Мoscow, 2011
17. Melih Ju. B. Personalizm L. P. Karsavina i evropejskaja filosofija (Carsavin’s Personalism and European Philosophy). Мoscow, 1993
18. Horuzhij S. S. Poslepereryva. Puti russkoj filosofii (After a break. Ways of Russian hilosophy). Saint Petersburg, 1994
19. Gajdenko P. P., Petrov V. V. (red.) Filosofija prirody v antichnosti i v Srednie veka (Philosophy of Nature in Antiquity and Middle Ages). Мoscow, 2000
20. Ivinskij P. I. (sost.) Arhiv L. P. Karsavina (L. P. Carsavin’s Archive). Vilnius, 2002, no. 1
21. Mesjac S. V. Gajdenko P. P., Petrov V. V. (red.) Kosmos i dusha. Uchenija o vselennoj i cheloveke v Antichnosti i v Srednie veka (issledovanija i perevody) (Gajdenko P. P., Petrov V. V. (eds.) Cosmos and Soul. Teachings on the Universe and Human in Antiquity and Middle Ages (Studies and Translations)). Мoscow, 2005. С. 844.
22. Karsavin L. P. Religiozno-filosofskie sochinenija (Religious-Philosophical Writings). Мoscow, 1992.
23. Solov’ev V. S. Rossija i Vselenskaja Cerkov’ (Russia and Ecumenical Church). Мoscow, 1911
24. Bergson A. Sobranie sochinenij (Collected Works). Мoscow, 1992
25. Dobrohotov A. L. 2009. Bergsonianskie motivy v rabote L. P. Karsavina «O svobode» (Some Bergson’s Motives in L. Karsavin’s Work «On Freedom»). Logos, no. 3. (71), pp. 115–121
26. Losev A. F. 2003. Taho-Godi A. A., Taho-Godi E. A., Troickij V. P. A. (izd.) F. Losev — filosof i pisatel’ (Taho-Godi A. A., Taho-Godi E. A., Troickij V. P. (eds.) A. F. Losev — Philosopher and Writer), pp. 326–345
27. Nikolaj Kuzanskij . Sochinenija (Writings). Мoscow, 1980.
28. Shlejermaher F. Rechi o religii k obrazovannym ljudjam ee prezirajushhim. Monologi (Orations on Religion to Educated People Who didain it). Saint Petersburg, 1994.
29. Florenskij P. A. Sochinenija (Writings). Мoscow, 1994.
30. Brilliantov A. I. 2002. Svetlova R. V., Seliverstova V. L. (sost.) Avgustin: pro et contra Svetlova R. V., Seliverstova V. L. (eds.) Aurelius Augustinus: Pro et contra), pp. 151–192

Rezvykh Tat'iana

This article is an attempt to analyze and classify the sources for the study of the philosophy of Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) (1826-1890). Archbishop Nikanor is little known as a philosopher, in spite of the fact that he was the author of one of the first Russian philosophical systems. This is unfortunately due to the diffi culties involved with accessing the works of Nikanor as well as to the fact that the texts themselves are very obscure and complicated. Thus it falls to the author of this article to provide an analysis of the content of the archive of Nikanor, to fix the date of the writing of certain of his more important philosophical texts, to reveal the existence of unpublished texts, to explore the meaning of Nikanor’s theological works and teachings, as well as to reconstruct his biographical material. The article is based on a scrupulous analysis of all available archival material as well as on a painstaking selection of published books from hard to access sources.The author of the article sets out to evaluate the philosophical output of nikanor comparing it with that of his contemporaries as well as with the work of later philosophers. He underscores the problems connected with research on Nikanor especially those stemming from the lack of accessibility of his work. Special attention is given to the most important source for students of his philosophy — Nikanor’s personal archive conserved in Odessa. The author concludes that it is without a doubt necessary to close the gap in Russian philosophy by restoring Nikanor, one of its brightest fi gures, to his rightful place in its history.

Archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich), Positivistic Philosophy and Super- Sensible Being, Archival Fund of Archbishop Nikanor

1. Zen’kovskij V. V., prot. Istorija russkoj filosofii (History of Russian Philosophy). Rostov-on- Don, 1999
2. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. Pozitivnaja filosofija i sverhchuvstvennoe bytie (Positive Philosophy and extrasensory Being). Saint Petersburg, 1876
3. Solov’ev V. S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij i pisem (Coplete Works and Letters). Мoscow, 2000.
4. Solov’ev A. P. 2012. Metodologicheskij seminar BAGSU pri Prezidente RB: Sbornik materialov, no. 1.
5. Kolubovskij Ja. N. 1891. Materialy dlja istorii filosofii v Rossii. X. Arhiepiskop Nikanor (Materials for the History of Philosophy in Russia). Voprosy filosofii i psihologii, no. 4, pp. 122– 133.
6. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhim. Razbor rimskogo uchenija o vidimom (papskom) glavenstve v cerkvi, sdelannyj na osnovanii Svjashhennogo Pisanija i Predanija pervyh vekov hristianstva do I vselenskogo sobora (Analysis of Roman-Catholic Doctrine of papal Primacy in the Church, made on the ground of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition in the first Centuries of Christianity before fi rst Ecumenical Council). Kazan, 1871.
7. Znamenskij P. V. Istorija Kazanskoj Duhovnoj Akademii za pervyj (doreformacionnyj) period ee sushhestvovanija (1842–1870 gody) (History of Kazan Seminary in the first Period (before the Reform) of its Exostence (1842–1870)). Kazan, 1892
8. Zefirov E. A. 1893. Moi vospominanija o preosvjashhennom Nikanore za vremja ego rebyvanija na Ufimskoj kafedre (1877–1884) (My Memories about Archbishop Nikanor during my stay on Cathedra of Ufa (1877–1884)). Strannik, no. 2.8, pp. 450–467; no. 3, pp. 112–138; 304–320; 507–524; 717–725.
9. Jurkevich M., svjashh. Iz dnevnika prihodskogo pastyrja. Cerkovnaja disciplina, tipikon i ustavnost’ (From parish Priest’s Diary. Church Discipline, Typicon and ustavnost’). Saint Petersburg, 1901
10. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. Biograficheskie materialy (Biographical Materials). Odessa, 1900
11. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. 1908. Moja hirotonija (My Chirotony). Russkij arhiv, no 2, pp. 145–248.
12. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. 1886. Napravlenie i znachenie filosofii Nikolaja Grota (Tendency and Meaning of N. Grot’s Philosophy). Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, no. 10, pp. 271–320.
13. Grot N. Ja. 1886. O napravlenii i zadachah moej filosofii. Po povodu stat'i arhiepiskopa Nikanora (On the Tendency and Meaning of my Philosophy. Concerning the Article of Archbishop Nicanor). Pravoslavnoe obozrenie, no. 12, pp. 792–809.
14. Nikol’skij A. A. 1901. Filosofskie vozzrenija Nikanora (Brovkovicha), arhiepiskopa Hersonskogo (Philosophical views of Nicanor ( Brovkovich ), Archbishop of Kherson). Vera i razum, no. 16, 17, 19, 20.
15. Nikanor (Brovkovich), arhiep. Minuvshaja zhizn’. Iz byta belogo i monashestvujushhego duhovenstva vtoroj poloviny XIX-go veka (Past Life. From everyday Life of secular and regular Clergy in the second half of XIX century). Odessa, 1913.

Solov'ev Artem

This article deals with the anthropological principles of the philosophy of religion which served as the basis of the early thought of N. A. Berdyaev. The author’s aim is to investigate this little known period in the work of Berdyaev during the decade from 1900 to 1910. Several problems are resolved through a study of the source material examined by the author of this article: 1) The principle phases of the evolution of Berdyaev’s thought are traced which brought the philosopher from Marxism to becoming a follower of Kant, and from idealistic metaphysics to religious philosophy; 2) This early period is examined to determine its importance in the formation of Berdyaev as an independent and original thinker; 3) The problem of the rapport between universality and individuality is studied in all of its aspects (both social and aesthetic) in the early thought of Berdyaev as well as Berdyaev’s understanding of the chuvstvo lichnosti (sense of personality?). As a result we can demarcate several phases of the thought of Berdyaev during his early period which differ from one another in their thematic outlook: an enthusiasm for Marxism and later Neo-Kantism, a transition to spiritualism, a conversion to a new religious consciousness, and a finally a more moderate view of all these perceptions. The author concludes that it is necessary to question the accepted theses of the relevant literature which irrevocably claims that Berdyaev rejected Orthodox asceticism and was thus the creator of an anthropocentric and amoral philosophy.

Nikolay Berdyaev, Philosophy of Religion, Anthropology, Individuality, Universality, P. P. Gaydenko, Personality

1. Berdjaev N. A. Sub specie aeternitatis. Opyty filosofskie, social’nye i literaturnye (Sub specie aeternitatis. Philosophical, social and literary experiences). Saint Petersburg, 1907
2. Berdjaev N. A. Duhovnyj krizis intelligencii (Spiritual crisis of the intellectuals). Saint Petersburg, 1909
3. Berdjaev N. A. Novoe religioznoe soznanie i obshhestvennost’ (Nee religious consciousness and comunity). Saint Petersburg, 1907
4. Berdjaev N. A. 1910. Russkij soblazn (Po povodu «Serebrjanogo golubja» A. Belogo) (Russian Temptation (For the A. Bely’s «Silver Dove»)). Russkaja mysl’, no. 11, pp. 104–115.
5. Berdjaev N. A. Sub’ektivizm i individualizm v obshhestvennoj filosofii (Subjectivity and individualism in social philosophy). Saint Petersburg, 1901
6. Bulgakov S. N. Religij a chelovekobozhestva u L. Fejerbaha (L. Feierbach’s Religion of the Human-Divine). Мoscow, 1906.
7. Vzyskujushhie grada: hronika chastnoj zhizni russkih religioznyh filosofov v pis’mah i dnevnikah (Seekings for a city: the Chronicle of the life of Russian philosophers of religion according to their letters and diaries). Мoscow, 1997.
8. Evlampiev I. I. Istorija russkoj metafiziki v XIX–XX vekah. Russkaja filosofija v poiskah Absoljuta (The History of the Russian Metaphysics in XIX–XX centyrie. The Russian Philosophy in search of Absolut). Saint Petersburg, 2000
9. Maslin M. A. (Ed.). Istorija russkoj filosofii (The History of the Russian Philosophy). Moscow, 2001.
10. Losskij N. O. Istorija russkoj filosofii (The History of the Russian Philosophy). Moscow, 2007.
11. Motroshilova N. V. Mysliteli Rossii i filosofija Zapada (Russian Thinkers and Western Philosophy). Moscow, 2007.
12. Poltoracky N. P. Berdjaev i Rossija (Filosofija istorii Rossii u N. A. Berdjaeva) (Berdjaev’s views of Russian history). New York, 1987.
13. Tareev M. M. 1909. Novoe religioznoe soznanie i obshhestvennost' (The New Religious Consciousness and the Public). Bogoslovskij vestnik, no. 2. 6, pp. 229–259; no. 2. 7, pp. 424–461.
14. Titarenko S. A. Specifika religioznoj filosofii N. A. Berdjaeva (Specifi cs of Berdyaev’s philosophy of Religion). Rostov-on-Don, 2006
15. Shestov L. 2002. Sub specie aeternitatis. Opyty filosofskie, social’nye i literaturnye (Sub specie aeternitatis. Philosophical, social and literary experiences). pp. 491–586.

Boldareva Viktoriia