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

The Book of Revelation is well-known by its extensive use of the Old Testament. This use is accomplished not by means of exact citation but through allusions. The measure of nearness of these allusions to the primary text, which they refer to, is diff erent. There are several allusions to Psalm 2 in the text of the Apocalypse, some of which are very close to the text of the Psalm and could be characterized as «quotation-like». The examination of these allusions is of great interest because of the fact that Ps 2 as an utter messianic text drew to itself attention of both Jewish and early Christian authors. The analysis of how Ps 2 is used in Book of Revelation may uncover the singularity of the Apocalypse in comparison with intertestamental Jewish and New Testament books. It is shown in the article that, unlike the Gospels, Acts and the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Seer is focused on the verse Ps 2. 9 which tells us about the victory of the Anointed One over the rebelling nations. In this respect the Apocalypse seems to be closer to the Jewish Psalm of Solomon 17 where through allusions to Ps 2 the military triumph of the Messiah is depicted. The Christian singularity of the Apocalypse is manifested, however, in the identifi cation of the Warrior-Messiah with the Lamb and the One like the Son of Man. In the article is also shown that the allusions of the Apocalypse to the Ps 2 are close to the text of the Septuagint. The presence of allusions to Ps 2 in all greater parts of the Book of Revelation and their extraordinary significance in the presentation of the image of Christ in the Apocalypse make this Psalm one of the «basic» texts of the last book of the Bible.

Revelation of John, Apocalypse, Psalm 2, Old Testament, Psalm of Solomon 17, Use of the Old Testament in the Apocalypse, Messiah, Christ, Son of God, Christological Titles, Kings of the Earth, Inhabitants of the Earth, Nations, Iron Rod, Church, Kingdom

1. Bauckham R. The Climax of Prophecy, Edinburgh, 1993.
2. Beale G. K. John’s Use of the Old Testament in the Revelation, Sheffield, 1998.
3. Beale G. K. The Book of Revelation. A Commentary on the Greek Text, Cambridge, 1999.
4. Biguzzi G. Apocalisse. Nuova versione, introduzione e comment, Milano, 2005.
5. Dittmar W. Vetus Testamentum in Novo, Göttingen, 1903.
6. Farkas P. La «donna» dell’Apocalisse 12. Storia, bilancia, nuove prospettive, Roma, 1997.
7. Giesen H. Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Regensburg, 1997.
8. Haefner G. 2005 “Die «Sonnenfrau» im Himmel und ihr Kind (Offb 12): Ein altes Raetsel neu bedacht“, in Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift, 2005, vol. 56, pp. 113–133.
9. Herms R. An Apocalypse for the Church and for the World, Berlin, 2006.
10. Huber K. 2003 “Psalm 2 in der Offenbarung des Johannes“, in Horizonte biblischer Texte. FS für Joseph M. Oesch zum 60 Geburtstag, Göttingen, 2003, pp. 247–274.
11. Hühn E. Die alttestamentlichen Citate und Reminiscenzen im Neuen Testament, Tübingen, 1900.
12. Janse S. «You are My Son». The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism and the Early Church, Leuven, 2009.
13. Kowalski B. Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes, Stuttgart, 2004.
14. Maiberger P. 1988 “Das Verständnis von Psalm 2 in der Septuaginta, im Targum in Qumran, im frühen Judentum und in Neuen Testament“, in Schreiner J. (ed.) Beiträge zur Psalmenforschung; Psalm 2 und 22, Würzburg, 1988, pp. 85–151.
15. Minear P. I Saw a New Earth, Washington, 1969.
16. Monge García J. L. 1976/1977 “Los Salmos en el Apocalipsis”, in Cistercium, 1976/1977, vol. 28/29, pp. 269–278; 19–48.
17. Moyise S. 2003 “The Language of the Psalms in the Book of Revelation”, in Neotestamentica, 2003, vol. 37, pp. 68–85.
18. Moyise S. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, Sheffield, 1995.
19. Moyise S. 2004 “The Psalms in the Book of Revelation”, in Moyise S. Menken M. (eds.) The Psalms in the New Testament, London, 2004, pp. 231–246.
20. Perez Marquez R. A. L’antico testamento nell’Apocalisse, Assisi, 2009.
21. Pisano O. La radice e la stirpe di David. Salmi davidici nel libro dell’Apocalisse, Roma, 2002.
22. Prigent P. Apocalypse 12, Histoire de l’exégèse, Tübingen, 1959.
23. Prigent P. Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, Tübingen, 2001.
24. Schüssler-Fiorenza E. 1974 “Redemption as Liberation: Apoc 1. 5f and 5. 9f “, in Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1974, vol. 36, pp. 220–232.
25. Vanhoye A. 1962 “L’utilisation du livre d’Ezechiel dans l’Apocalypse“, in Biblica, 1962, vol. 43, pp. 436–476.
26. Witetschek S. 2006 “Der Lieblingspsalm des Sehers. Die Verwendung von Ps2 in der Johannesapokalypse”, in Knibb M. A. (ed.) The Septuagint and Messianism, Leuven, 2006, pp. 487–502.

Nyebolszin Antal

By its location in the Septuagint canon, Psalm 151 takes up a place of a certain epilogue of the whole Psalter. Due to its isolation in the Greek text and non-canonicity from the masoretic point of view, as well as to its apparent simplicity and triviality, the Psalm was not often attracting attention of the biblical scholars. Only after discovering of a longer Hebrew version of the Psalm in Qumran the situation began to change. Now the Greek Ps 151 has being engaged into comparative study, but generally remaining in the shadow of the Qumran text. This article deals principally with Septuagint version of the Psalm, that underlies the Slavonic and others recensions adopted in the Christian tradition. A through thematical analysis, beginning with the presumption of the texts meaningfulness, will allow then to compare it with the longer Qumran version, the latter to be found poetical interpretation of the former. The analysis reveals David of the Ps 151 to be very much archetypical than historical personality. This is enough to explain the almost complete withdrawal of the emotional «colours», though not depriving the Psalm of its poetical expressiveness. The hero of Ps 151 is a silhouette with some trates of the Anoited One that cometh. This conclusion leads us to the proper estimation of the significance of the Psalm in the history of religious ideas: by the examination of this text we can determine more exactly, what kind of characteristics of the Psalters David collected in its ‘epilogue’ were perceived by the readers as protomessianic: the stainless moral purity, the unfamiliarity to the world, the mysterious conversation with God, the natural possession of power as a mode of the direct divine activity, and the readiness to became a ransomer for the people.

Bible, Old Testament, Septuagint, Psalter, Psalm 151, Qumran, David, Messiah

1. Arzhanov Ju. N. Sirijskie vethozavetnye psevdojepigrafy (Syriac Old Testament Pseudoepigrapha), Saint-Petersburg, 2011.
2. Vevjurko I. S. Septuaginta: drevnegrecheskij tekst Vethogo Zaveta v istorii religioznoj mysli (Septuagint: Old Greek Text of the Old Testament in History of Religious Thought), Moscow, 2013.
3. Kugel Dzh. V dome Potifara. Biblejskij tekst i ego perevoploshhenie (In House of Potiphar. Bible Text and Its Reincarnation), Moscow, 2010.
4. Meletinskij E. M. Geroj volshebnoj skazki (Hero of Fairy Tale), Moscow, 2005.
5. Shifman I. Sh. 1987 “Psalom 151 (opyt tekstologicheskogo issledovanija)” (Psalm 151 (Experience of Textual Study)), in Pis'mennye pamjatniki Vostoka. Ezhegodnik (1978–1979), Moscow, 1987, pp. 146–155.
6. Dimant D. 2014 “David’s Youth in the Qumran Context”, in Dimant D. History, Ideology and Bible Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Tübingen, 2014, pp. 473–487.
7. Fernández-Markos N. 2001 “David the Adolescent: On Psalm 151”, in The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma, Sheffield, 2001, pp. 205–217.
8. Haran M. 1988 “The Two Text-Forms of Psalm 151”, in Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods, 1988, vol. 39, pp. 171–182.
9. Jacobson H. A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin Text and English Translation, Leiden, 1996, vol. 1–2.
10. Muraoka T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Louvaine, 2009.
11. Sanders J. A. “1963 Ps 151 in 11QPss“, in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1963, vol. 75, pp. 73–86.
12. Sanders J. A. 1965 “The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11”, in Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan, Oxford, 1965, vol. 4, pp. 54–64.
13. Segal M. 2002 “The Literary Development of Psalm 151: A New Look at the Septuagint Version”, in Textus, 2002, vol. 21, pp. 139–158.
14. Schenker A. 2003 “Junge Garden oder akrobatische Tänzer?”, in Schenker A. (ed.) The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible, Atlanta, 2003, pp. 17–34.
15. Schenker A. 2005 “Le Psautier à la lumière du Ps 151“, in Die Architektur der Wolken. Zyklisierung in der europäischen Lyrik des 19. Jahrhunderts, Bern, 2005, pp. 21–27.
16. Storfjel J. B. 1987 “The Chiastic Structure of Psalm 151”, in Andrews University Seminary Studies, 1987, vol. 25, pp. 97–106.
17. Swete H. B. An Introduction in the Old Testament in Greek, Peabody, 1989.
18. Talmon S. 1989 “Extra-Canonical Hebrew Psalms from Qumran — Psalm 151”, in The World of Qumran from Within: Collected Studies, Jerusalem, 1989, pp. 244–272.

Veviurko Il'ia

Victor Nesmelov was a Russian philosopher and theologian at the turn of the 19th and 20th century. In his work “Science of a man” he elaborated the original anthropological concept by which he tried to justify the traditional Christian doctrine. This concept was a development of the ideas of V. Snegirev who was the teacher of Nesmelov while he was in the Kazan ecclesiastical academy. At the same time the fi rst important work of Nesmelov is a book dedicated to the teaching of the St. Gregory of Nyssa, who often perceived as a authority in the theological anthropology. In this article author tries to understand the nature of the interconnection between these two directions of the Nesmelov’s study. By an example of how Nesmelov presents the teaching of Apollinaris of Laodicea (the opponent of St. Gregory) author shows that this psychological approach was characteristic for Nesmelov from the very beggining of his academic way. In his “Science of a man” Nesmelov wants to develop new answers to Apollinaris’ heretical teaching — those answers which St. Gregory wasn’t able (according to Nesmelov) to propose it his time. The main theme in this new anthropological answer was the statement that human personality has a particular nature, which is not identical to the nature of each human individual. In this article author tries to analyze the doctrinal contradictions and complexities caused by the intellectual realization of the Nesmelov’s idea

V. Nesmelov, V. Snegirev, St. Gregory of Nyssa, “Science of a man”, Personalism, Psychology, Nature of the Personality, Russian Theology.

1. Baur F. Ch. Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Tübingen, 1841.
2. Vevjurko I. S. 2011 “«Nauka o cheloveke» V. I. Nesmelova: filosofija religii kak antropologija” (“Human Science” of V. I. Nesmelov: Religion Philosophy as Anthropology), in Voprosy religii i religiovedenija, Moscow, 2011, vol. 2/2, p. 314.
3. Mihail (Gribanovskij), ep. Sochinenija. Pis'ma. Zhizneopisanie (Works. Letters. Biography), Moscow, 2011.
4. Snegirev V. A. Psihologija (Psychology), Saint-Petersburg, 2008.

Khondzinskii Pavel, archpriest

The article describes a context analysis of terms σUμβολον and τUπος in Origen’s treatise Contra Celsum. The Christian, Gnostic and pagan types of symbolism are distinguished as they are introduced by Origen and his opponent. Each type has its specifi c understanding of symbol in the ontological area, which then is projected onto exegesis of authoritative texts of each tradition. Christian symbolism is traced through various examples of Origen’s commentaries on the Bible to distinguish σUμβολον from τUπος, which are treated as representing “vertical” and “horizontal” relations between referent and denotation. Pagan symbolism is built up from concepts of pagan gods’ veneration and theurgy, with the latter related to the theory of universal sympathy. Gnostic conception of symbols is based on the metaphysical goal of human souls to escape from the fallen universe using symbols (extracted primarily from the text of New Testament and authoritative Gnostic texts) as a ‘key’ or ‘password’ for not to be seized by guarding spirits. Finally, a more subtle distinction is proposed to underline ontologic difference between symbol and allegory as they are based on different types of referent– denotation link. As a result, a generalized outline of Origen’s symbolism is formulated as a series of features distinguishing it from concurrent types of symbolism as well as from typology and allegory in Christian discourse.

Origen, Celsus, Symbol, Type, Typology, Allegory, Tropology, Exegetics, Hermeneutics, School of Alexandria, Patristics, Bible studies, Semiotics

1. Afonasin E. V. Filosofija Klimenta Aleksandrijskogo (Philosophy of Clemens of Alexandria), Novosibirsk, 1997.
2. Butorina M. I. Traktovka simvola v rannehristianskoj mysli: Dis. … kand. filos. nauk (Symbol Interpretation in Early Christian Thought: Dissertation), Saint-Petersburg, 2005.
3. Danielu Zh. 2005 “Bogoslovie Slova” (Theology of Word), in Bogoslovskij sbornik, Moscow, 2005, vol. 13, pp. 5–29.
4. Ivanov Vjach. Vs. 1999 “Ocherki po predystorii i istorii semiotiki” (Essays on Prehistory and History of Semiotics), in Ego zhe. Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kul'tury, Moscow, 1999, vol. 1, pp. 605–811.
5. Kuliev O. I. 2015 “Origen protiv Gerakleona. Spor dvuh jekzegetov“ (Origen vs Herakleon. Dispute of Two Exegetes), in Universum platonovskoj mysli: Korpus tekstov Platona v istorii ego interpretacij: Materialy XXII mezhdunarodnoj konferencii, Saint-Petersburg, 2015, pp. 133–138.
6. Kurdybajlo D. S. 2015 “Uchenie Plotina o simpaticheskih svjazjah v kosmologii «Jennead»” (Plotin’s Teacing about Sympathetic Connections in Cosmology of “Enneada”), in Universum platonovskoj mysli: Korpus tekstov Platona v istorii ego interpretacij: Materialy XXII mezhdunarodnoj konferencii, Saint-Petersburg, 2015, pp. 117–123.
7. Losev A. F. Istorija antichnoj jestetiki (History of Antique Esthetics), Moscow, 2000, vol. 8/1.
8. Petrov A. V. Fenomen teurgii (Theourgy Phenomenon), Saint-Petersburg, 2003.
9. Petrov V. V. 2010 “Myslitel'nyj gimn i vozvodjashhaja molitva u Dionisija Areopagita i ego predshestvennikov-neoplatonikov” (Thought Hymn and Elevating Prayer by Dionysius Areopagite and His Forerunners-Neoplatonians), in Kosmos i dusha, Moscow, 2010, vol. 2, pp. 210–239.
10. Svetlov R. V. Gnozis i jekzegetika (Gnosis and Exegetics), Saint-Petersburg, 1998.
11. Svetlov R. V. 2000 “Jamvlih Halkidskij. Metafizika. Kommentarii“ (Iamblichus Chalcidensis. Metaphysics. Commentaries), in Jamvlih Halkidskij. Kommentarii na dialogi Platona, Saint-Petersburg, 2000, pp. 5–32.
12. Serjogin A. V. 2015 “Traktat Origena «O nachalah»” (Origen’s Treatise “De Principiis”), in Filosofskij zhurnal, 2015, vol. 8/2, pp. 44–55.
13. Berkeley D. S. 1978 “Some Misapprehensions of Christian Typology in Recent Literary Scholarship”, in Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, 1978, vol. 18/1, pp. 3–12.
14. Florovsky G. 1950 “Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy”, in Church History, 1950, vol. 19/2, pp. 77–96.
15. Liddell H. G., Scott R. (eds.) A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1996.
16. Mitchell M. M. 2005 “Patristic Rhetoric on Allegory: Origen and Eustathius Put 1 Samuel 28 on Trial”, in The Journal of Religion, 2005, vol. 85/3, pp. 414–445.
17. Quispel G. 1974 “Origen and Valentinian Gnosis”, in Vigilae Christianae, 1974, vol. 28/1, pp. 29–42.
18. Ramelli I. 2011 “The Philosophical Stance of Allegory in Stoicism and its Reception in Platonism, Pagan and Christian: Origen in Dialogue with the Stoics and Plato”, in International Journal of the Classical Tradition, 2011, vol. 18/3, pp. 335–371.

Kurdybailo Dmitrii

The present article is devoted to research in genesis and evolution of views of medieval thinker Ahmad b. al-Ha’it (d. 847). Being a unique figure for his time, Ibn al-Ha’it played a significant role in the formation of Arabic philosophy, which, unfortunately, is ignored to this day by specialists-medievalists: so, for the first time in the history of intellectual thought of the medieval Middle East, the Mu’tazilli philosopher made an attempt of an exit from a strict theologism of Kalam to the tradition, which was issued in Falsafah. Justification of the reincarnation theory within the Islamic theological field which is initially constructed on postulates of singularity and an extremity of any terrestrial human life became a separate merit of Ahmad. Along with it, the thinker attracted the arianistic doctrine, which allowed by him to develop his own Christology and ontology in neoplatonic paradigmatics. Thereby, the pupil of a great Basrian thinker Ibrahim b. Sayyar an-Nazzam anticipated the great synthesis of Kalam and Arabic peripatetizm realized by late Ash’arites — al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111), Fakhruddin ar-Razi (d. 606/1210) and ʻUdud ad-Din al-Iji (d. 756/1355).

Islam, Neoplatonism, Arabic Peripatetism, Ahmad b. al-Ha’it, an-Nazzam, Reincarnation, Kalam, Mu’tazilism, Arianism, Classical Arabic Philosophy.

1. ʻAbd al-Dzhabbār, al-ḳāḍī. Sharḥ al-uṣūl al-ẖamsa, Kair, 1996.
2. Aflōṭīn ʻind al-ʻarab, Kair, 1955.
3. Al-ʻAsḳalānī, Ibn Ḥadzhar. Lisān al-mīzān, Bejrut, 2002.
4. Al-ʼAshʻarī, ʼAbū al-Ḥasan. Maḳālāt al-islāmijjīn va iẖtilāf al-muṣallīn, Kair, 2000.
5. Badavī, ʻA. Min tārīẖ al-ilḥād fī al-islām, Kair, 1993.
6. Al-Bag̣dādī, ʻAbdulḳāhir. Al-Farḳ bajn al-firaḳ, Kair, 1988.
7. Al-Buẖārī, Muḥammad. Ṣaḥīḥ, Bejrut, 1996.
8. Al-Dzhāḥiẓ, ʻAmr. Kitāb al-ḥajavān, Kair, 1966.
9. Ibn al-Malāhimi ̣ ̄. Tuḥfat al-mutakallimīn fī ar-radd ʻalā al-falāsifa, Teheran, 2008.
10. Ibn Ṭufajl. Ḥajj b. Jaḳẓān, Doha, 2014.
11. Ibn Ḥazm. Al-Fiṣal fī al-milal va al-ahvāʼ va an-niḥal, Kair, 1321 Hidzra Year.
12. Al-Kindī. Ar-Rasāʼil al-falsafijja, Kair, 1955.
13. Al-Kulajnī, Muḥammad. Al-ʼUṣūl min al-Kāfī, Bejrut, 2005.
14. Al-Maḳrīzī, ʼAbū al-ʻAbbās. Al-H̱uṭaṭ, Kair, 1987.
15. Nofal F. Mu ʻammar b. ʻAbbād as-Sulamī va ārāʼu-hu al-kalāmijja al-falsafijja, Bejrut, 2015.
16. As-Samʻānī, ʼAbū Saʻd. Al-Ansāb, Bejrut, 1988.
17. Aṣ-Ṣafadī. Al-Vāfī bi-l-vafijjāt, Bejrut, 2000.
18. Aṭ-Ṭabarānī, as-Sulajmān. Al-Muʻdzham al-avsaṭ, Er-Rijad, 1985.
19. Al-H̱ajjāṭ, ʻAbdurraḥīm. Al-Intiṣār va ar-radd ʻalā Ibn ar-Rāvandī al-mulḥid, Kair, 1925.
20. Ash-Shahrastānī, ʼAbū al-Fatḥ. Kitāb al-milal va an-niḥal, Bejrut, 1992.
21. Efremova N. V. 1998 “Noologija vostochnyh peripatetikov” (Noology of Eastern Peripatetics), in Frolova A. (ed.) Srednevekovaja arabskaja filosofija: problemy i reshenija, 1998.
22. Nofal F. Ibrahim ibn Sajjar an-Nazzam, Moscow, 2015.
23. Florovskij G. V. Vostochnye otcy IV veka: Iz chtenij v Pravoslavnom Bogoslovskom institute v Parizhe (Eastern Fathers of IV Century: From Readings in Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris), Paris, 1931.
24. Crown P. The Nativist Prophets of Early Islamic Iran: Rural Revolt and Local Zoroastrianism, Cambridge, 2014.
25. Guthrie W. К. С. Orpheus and Greek Religion, New York, 1966.
26. Pellat Ch. 1986 “Ahmad b. Ḥābiṭ”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Leiden, 1986, vol. 1, p. 272.

Nofal Faris

In the article some problems concerned an application of standard conception of reference to the word “God” are considered in tradition of analytic philosophy. The author engages in a discussion with R. Swinburne and W. Alston. According to conception mentioned above proper names denote particular things. But an interpretation of such expressions in accord with the standard view presupposes that proper referents should be assigned to them, and those to be found in a world the utterance of the name is about. But in order to do this an interpreter has to be able to identify the referent. Meanwhile even those things which we can immediately interact with, are structurally complex and susceptible to changes, including differences in presentations to subjects. This makes their givennes and identification quite a problem. Yet more problematic looks an assignment of a standard reference to a name which is supposed to designate something unable to be immediately given to any competent language speaker, like historic object, event or person, or God. This paper analyses different accounts of interpretation of proper names. It proposes a model of interpretation according to which proper names may be assigned standard references without the referents to be somehow given an agent of an utterance, based on a Kripkean historical account coupled with an understanding of proper names as anaphors. Its application to conventional uses of the name «God» in monotheistic discourses is critically analyzed.

Proper Name, Reference, Particular Thing, Interpretation, Utterance, Discourse, Anaphora, Definite Description, Direct Reference, Theme, Usual Talk.

1. Nikiforov A. L. 2012 “Ontologicheskij status imen sobstvennyh” (Ontological Status of Personal Names), in Jepistemologija i filosofija nauki, 2012, vol. 32/2.
2. Rikkert G. Granicy estestvennonauchnogo obrazovanija ponjatij (Borders of Ideas’ Formation in Natural Science), Saint-Petersburg, 1997.
3. Frege G. Izbrannye raboty (Selected Works), Moscow, 1997.
4. Alston W. P. 1988 “Referring to God”, in Philosophy of Religion, 1988, vol. 24, pp. 114–115, 117–118.
5. Barwise J., Cooper R. 1981 “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language”, in Linguistics and Philosophy, 1981, vol. 4/2, pp. 159–219.
6. Burge T. 1973 “Reference and Proper Names”, in Journal of Philosophy, 1973, vol. 70/14, pp. 425–439.
7. Donnellan K. S. 1972 “Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions”, in Davidson D., Harman G. (eds.) The Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht, 1972.
8. Heim I. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Amherst, 1982.
9. Kamp H. A. 1981 “Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation”, in Groenendijk A. G., Janssen T. M. V., Stokhof M. B. J. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Amsterdam, 1981, pp. 277–322.
10. Kamp H., Reyle U. From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, 1993.
11. Kripke S. A. Naming and Necessity, Cambridge (MA), 1980.
12. Maier E. 2009 “Proper Names and Indexicals Trigger Rigid Presuppositions”, in Journal of Semantics, 2009, vol. 26, pp. 253–315.
13. Mill J. S. A System of Logic, London, 1867.
14. Montague R. 1974 “The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English. Formal Philosophy”, in Selected Papers of Richard Montague, London, 1974, pp. 17–34.
15. Putnam H. Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Cambridge, 1975.
16. Russell B. A. W. 1983 “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description”, in Idem. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, 1983, vol. 6, pp. 148–161.
17 Russell B. A. W. 1905 “On Denoting”, in Idem. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, 1905, vol. 4, pp. 415–427.
18. Russell B. The Problems of Philosophy, New York, 1997.
19. Searle J. 1958 “Proper Names”, in Mind, 1958, vol. 67, pp. 166–173.
20. Strawson P. F. Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London, 1959.
21. Swinburne R. The Coherence of Theism, Oxford, Clarendon, 1993.
22. Van der Sandt R. 1992 “Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution”, in Journal of Semantics, 1992, vol. 9, pp. 333–377.

Cherniak Aleksei

One of the important aspects of institutionalization of the religious studies in 1870– 1910s was the publishing of the fi rst handbooks on history of religion and comparative religion. The aim of the paper is to analyze methods and approaches of religious studies, as they described in these handbooks. The main characteristic of religion for the historians of religion was its universality. The most important methods, according to them, were historical approach, comparative approach, using of the notion «development». It is important, that we deal foremost with the «history of religion» in these handbooks, not with the «history of religions». Primitive religions were usually excluded from these handbooks, because they «have not history». First handbooks on history of religion often were edited in the series of theological handbooks, that’s why Christianity was described in them quite often as «higher» religion. Researches on comparative religion were based upon the history of religion. One of the main principles of comparative religion was that it should not deal with religious values, but only with a comparison of facts. The author concludes that scholars of religion nowadays should not only collect the facts, but also realize projects on the general history (theory) of religion.

History of Religion, Comparative Religion, Religious Studies, Universality of Religion, Development of Religion, Methods of Religious Studies, Historical Method, Anthropology of Religion, Christianity

1. Antonov K. M. 2011 “Istoricheskoe izuchenie religii v duhovno-akademicheskoj tradicii v dorevoljucionnoj Rossii” (Historical Study of Religion in Spiritual-Academic Tradition in Russia before Revolution), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2011, vol. 1/33, pp. 39–55.
2. Antonov K. M. 2011 “Kn. S. N. Trubeckoj i ego programma issledovanija religii v kontekste istorii otechestvennogo religiovedenija” (Prince S. N. Trubeckoj and His Religion Study Program in Context of History of Russian Religion Studies), in Tochki-Puncta, 2011, vol. 1–2/10, pp. 17–26.
3. Antonov K. M. Filosofija religii v russkoj metafizike XIX — nachala XX veka (Religion Philosophy in Russian Metaphysics of XIX — Begin of XX Century), Moscow, 2009.
5. 2006 “Istorija religii”, in Zabijako A. P., Krasnikov A. N., Zabijako E., Jelbakjan A. P. S. (eds.) Religiovedenie, Moscow, 2006, pp. 437–438.
6. Zabijako A. P. 2006 “Sravnitel'noe religiovedenie” (Comparative Religion Studies), in Religiovedenie, Moscow, 2006, pp. 1010–1012.
7. Zabijako A. P. 1991 “Sravnitel'noe religiovedenie: problemy i perspektivy”, in Vestnik MGU. Serija 7: Filosofija, 1991, vol. 2, pp. 35–42.
8. Krasnikov A. N. Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedenija (Methodological Problems of Religious Studies), Moscow, 2007.
9. Antonov K. M. (ed.) «Nauka o religii», «Nauchnyj ateizm», «Religiovedenie»: aktual'nye problemy nauchnogo izuchenija religii v Rossii XX — nachala XXI v. (“Religion Science”, “Scientific Atheism”, “Religion Studies”: Actual Problems of Scientific Religion Study in Russia in XX — Begin of XXI Cent.), Moscow, 2014.
10. Rahmanin A. Ju. 2013 “Istorija religii kak nauchnaja ideologija: k voprosu o nachal'nom jetape razvitija religiovedenija” (Religion History as Scientific Ideology: to Question about Primary Stage of Religion Studies Development), in Vestnik Russkoj hristianskoj gumanitarnoj akademii, 2013, vol. 14/2, pp. 85–94.
11. Shahnovich M. M. 2012 “L. Ja. Shternberg i «nauka o religii»” (L. Ja. Shternberg and “Religion Science“), in Lev Shternberg — grazhdanin, uchenyj, pedagog: K 150-letiju so dnja rozhdenija, Saint-Petersburg, 2012, pp. 190–199.
12. Shahnovich M. M. Ocherki po istorii religiovedenija (Essays on Religion Studies History), Saint-Petersburg, 2006.
13. Shternberg L. Ja. Pervobytnaja religija v svete jetnografii: Issledovanija, stat'i, lekcii (Primitive Religion in Light of Ethnography: Studies, Texts, Lectures), Moscow, 2012.
14. Jablokov I. N. 2011 “Religiovedenie i istorija religiovedenija: Diskussii v otechestvennoj literature“ (Religion Studies and Their History: Discussions in Russian Literature), in Religiovedenie, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 127–140.
15. Girardot N. J. 2002 “Max Müller’s Sacred Books and the Nineteenth-Century Production of the Comparative Science of Religion”, in History of Religions, 2002, vol. 41, pp. 213–250.
16. Sharpe E. J. Comparative Religion: A History, London, 1975.
17. Stausberg M. 2007 “The Study of Religion(s) in Western Europe (I): Prehistory and History until World War II”, in Religion, 2007, vol. 37, pp. 294–318.
18. Vasileva E. N. 2014 “Problems and Difficulties of Classifying Religions on the Basis of Confessional Differences”, in European Journal of Science and Theology, 2014, vol. 10/6, pp. 37–46.

Barashkov Viktor