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

This article deals with the historical Jesus as an object of biblical studies. It shows that, beginning with Reimarus, who is considered to be the founder of the “Quest for the Historical Jesus”, up to the middle of the 20th century, the participants of the “Quest...” had believed that they were reconstructing the life, teaching, and personality of the “real” Jesus of Nazareth. The article demonstrates that such understanding of the object of study gave rise to the controversy between the participants of the “Quest...” and the majority of traditional theologians who believed that the attempt to change the image of Christ attested in the Gospels undermines the very foundations of the faith. In the second half of the 20th century, J. Robinson and J. Meyer proposed to rethink the object of the “Quest...”. Both scholars argued that the programme of the “Quest for the Historical Jesus” requires changes in its paradigm. This is caused by the new understanding of historical science that had developed by the middle of the 20th century, and is also due to the very small amount of scientifi cally verifiable material in the Gospels. Robinson and Meyer claimed that in the modern context, the “historical Jesus” can no longer be understood as the “real” Jesus of Nazareth; the designation “historical Jesus” should become a specifi c term referring to a fragmented theoretical construct based on current methods of historical science. The article discusses the arguments of Robinson and Meyer, and shows how a paradigmatic rethinking of the concept of “historical Jesus” can infl uence the relationship between confessional theology and the project of the “Quest…”.

Bible, New Testament, Jesus Christ, historical Jesus, Biblical Studies, Quest for the Historical Jesus, historical science, theology, John Meyer, James Robinson

1. Alfeev Ilarion, metropolitan (2016–2018) Iisus Khristos. Zhizn’ i uchenie [Jesus Christ. Life and Teaching], vols. 1–6. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Buchanan G. (1970) The Consequence of the Covenant. Leiden.
3. Bultmann R. (2009) “Jesus”, in Zagadka Khrista. Dve epokhal’nye raboty ob Iisuse [The Mystery of Christ. Two Ground-Breaking Works on Jesus], Moscow, pp. 219–458 (Russian translation).
4. Crossan J. (1991) The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. San Francisco.
5. Deines R. (2009) “Can the “Real” Jesus be Identifi ed with the Historical Jesus? A Review of the Pope’s Challenge to Biblical Scholarship and the Various Reactions it Provoked”. DIDASKALIA, 2009, vol. 39, pp. 11–46.
6. Dibelius M. (1965) From Tradition to Gospel. New York.
7. Ehrman B. (2012) Did Jesus Exist: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Moscow (Russian translation).
8. Evans C. (2011) Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Moscow (Russian translation).
9. Farnell D. (2012) “Three Searches for the Historical Jesus”. Master’s Seminary Journal, 2012, vol. 1 (23), pp. 7–42.
10. Funk R. and the Jesus Seminar (1998) The Acts of Jesus. What Did Jesus Really Do? San Francisco.
11. Funk R., Hoover R. and the Jesus Seminar (1993) The Five Gospels. What Did Jesus Really Say? New York.
12. Habermas G. (2013) The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Simferopol (Russian translation).
13. Harnack A. (2010) Das Wesen des Christentums. Moscow (Russian translation).
14. Johnson L. (1997) The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco.
15. Longenecker R. (2004) “Literary Criteria in Life of Jesus Research: An Evolution and Proposal”, in C. Evans (ed.) The Historical Jesus. Critical Concepts in Religious Studies. Vol. I, New York, pp. 451–464.
16. Ludemann G. (2001) Jesus after 2000 Years: What He Really Said and Did. New York.
17. Martin R. (1999) The Elusive Messiah. A Philosophical Quest for the Historical Jesus. Oxford.
18. McKnight E. (1969) What Is Form Criticism? Philadelphia.
19. Meier J. (2011) “Basic Methodology in the Quest for the Historical Jesus”, in T. Holmén, S. Porter (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Vol. I, Boston, pp. 291–331.
20. Meier J. (1991) A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. I: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. New York.
21. Oakman D. (2012) The Political Aims of Jesus. Minneapolis.
22. Porter S. (2011) “The Criteria of Authenticity”, in T. Holmén, S. Porter (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Vol. I, Boston, pp. 695–714.
23. Postmodern Bible (1997). New York.
24. Ratzinger J. (2009) Jesus von Nazareth. Band 1: Von der Taufe im Jordan bis zur Verklärung. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
25. Ratzinger J. (2014) Jesus von Nazareth. Band 2: Vom Einzug in Jerusalem bis zur Auferstehung. Moscow (Russian translation).
26. Ratzinger J. (2015) Jesus von Nazareth. Prolog. Die Kindheitsgeschichten. Moscow (Russian translation).
27. Reimarus H. (1970) “Concerning the Intention of Jesus and His Teaching”, in H. S. Reimarus Fragments, Philadelphia, pp. 59–269.
28. Robinson J. (1970) A New Quest for the Historical Jesus. London.
29. Schillebeeckx E. (1989) Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. New York.
30. Schlosser J. (2011) “Scholarly Rigor and Intuition in Historical Research into Jesus” in T. Holmén, S. Porter (eds.) Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Vol. I, Boston, pp. 475–508.
31. Sravnitel’noe bogoslovie. Nemetskii protestantizm XX veka. Teksty s kommentariiami (2009) [Comparative Theology. German Protestantism of the 20th Century. Texts with Commentaries]. Moscow (in Russian).
32. Swales J. (2008) Historical Jesus: Quest, Methods and Criteria. Bristol.
33. Tatum B. (2009) Jesus. A Brief History. Oxford.
34. Walter K. (2005) Jesus the Christ. Moscow (Russian translation).
35. Wright N. T. (2013) The New Testament and the People of God. Cherkasy (Russian translation).

Andreyev Alexey, priest

This article deals with the theological thought of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (ca. 550–638/39) concerning the holy places of Palestine, which is expressed in a specific fashion of the genres of homily and anacreontic poetry. It is claimed that Sophronius’ theology of holy places has to do with apologetics (polemic against pagan philosophy and gnoseology), Christology, soteriology and immediate communication with God, biblical exegesis. Several theological topics are highlighted: (1) the holyplaces as a means of knowledge of God; (2) the holy places as an argument confi rming the reality of the human nature of Christ in the context of metachoresis, or metabasis of God, who fi lls everything and cannot be comprehended, and, at the same time, due to His incarnation, is proceeding from one place to another (this topic is signifi cant for Sophronius’ anti-monoenergist polemic); (3) the veneration of the holy places; (4) the proximity of veneration of the holy places in its theological content and function to the veneration of the Holy Cross and the icon of Christ; (5) the holy places and the contemplation of sacred events as a mystical experience; (6) the holy places and the divine grace; (7) love for the holy places expressed in joy, awe, surprise, gratitude, memory, longing for them, as well as sadness and pain from their loss. The article also studies the pragmatic, sacral and mystical role of the holy places, in which one can identify the functions of revelation, veneration and worship of God, as well as polemical and apologetic, gnoseological, anagogical, and charismatic functions. It is shown that this love is refl ected in the sphere of biblical exegesis: the archetypes of longing for the holy places are Adam (Gen. 3. 23–24), Moses (Deut. 34. 1‒5), David (2 Kings 23. 8‒17) and all the righteous who desired to see God’s salvation (Mt. 13. 17; 1 Pet. 1. 8‒12).

holy places of Palestine, theology of holy places, pilgrimage, Sophronius of Jerusalem, anacreontic poetry

1. Allen P. (2010) Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and Other Documents. New York.
2. Amvrosii (Pogodin), archimandrite (1988) Propovedi Sviatitelia Sofroniia, patriarkha Ierusalimskago [Sermons of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem]. Jordanville (in Russian).
3. Bychkov V. (2009) Fenomen ikony. Istoriia. Bogoslovie. Estetika. Iskusstvo [Phenomenon of the Icon. History. Theology. Aesthetics. Art]. Мoscow (in Russian).
4. Booth P. (2013) “Sophronius of Jerusalem and the End of Roman History”, in P. Wood (ed.) History and Indentity in the Late Antique Near East. Oxford; New York, pp. 1–27.
5. Booth P. (2014) Crisis of Empire. Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London.
6. Donner H. (1981) Die Anakreontischen Gedichte Nr. 19 und Nr. 20 des Patriarchen Sophronius von Jerusalem. Heidelberg.
7. Catherine (Elena Kopyl), nun (2019) “Bogoslovie sviatykh mest prp. Ioanna Damaskina: osnovnye temy” [St. John Damascene’s Theology of the Holy Places: Main Themes]. Theological Herald, 2019, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 146–177 (in Russian).
8. Ekaterina (Elena Kopyl), nun (2018) “Retseptsiia vzgliadov svt. Grigoriia Nisskogo i blzh. Ieronima na sviatye mesta Palestiny: Ierusalimskii patriarkh Khrisanf Notara” [Reception of Views of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Jerome on Holy Places of Palestine: Chrysanthos Notaras, Patriarch of Jerusalem]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 2018, vol. 84, pp. 56–76 (in Russian).
9. Gigante M. (1957) Sophronii Anacreontica. Accedunt testimonia de Anacreonteis et index verborum. Roma.
10. Hovorun C. (2008) Will, Action and Freedom. Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century. Leiden; Boston.
11. Hunger H. (1978) Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. Bd. 1–2. München.
12. Kashchuk O. (2018) “Sophronius, a Monk of Palestine, and Miaenergism. The Tension Between Exactness and Ambiguity”. Vox patrum, 2018, vol. 38/70, pp. 259–280.
13. Markesinis B. (2015) “Les débuts du monoénergisme: rectifications concernant ce qui s’est passé entre Cyrus d’Alexandrie, Serge de Constantinople et S. Sophrone de Jérusalem”. Analecta Bollandiana, 2015, vol. 133, pp. 5–22.
14. Nissen T. (1940) Die byzantinischen Anacreonteen. München.
15. Palamarenko E. (2016) “O formirovanii kontseptsii pravoslavnogo palomnichestva v Sviatuiu Zemliu” [On the Formation of the Concept of Orthodox Pilgrimage to the Holy Land]. Kazachestvo, 2016, vol. 24 (11), pp. 92–97 (in Russian).
16. Piccirillo M. (2008) La Palestina Cristiana I–VIII secolo. Bologna.
17. Riedinger R. (1990, 1992) Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. R. 2. Bd. 2. Pars 1–2. Berlin.
18. Rosenmeyer P. (2006) The Poetics of Imitation. Anacreon and the Anacreontic Tradition. Cambridge.
19. Schönborn C. von (1972) Sophrone de Jerusalem: Vie monastique et confession dogmatique. Paris.
20. Sidorov A. (1986) “Nekotoryie zamechaniia k biografi i Maksima Ispovednika” [Some Notes to Maximos the Confessor’s Biography”]. Vizantiyskiy Vremennik, vol. 47, pp. 109–124 (in Russian).
21. Vakh K. (ed.) (2007) Smysl Palomnichestva [The Meaning of Pilgrimage]. Мoscow (in Russian).
22. Wilken R. (1992) The Land Called Holy: Palestine in Christian History and Thought. New Haven; London.
23. Wilken R. (1999) “Loving the Jerusalem Below: The Monks of Palestine”, in L. Levine (ed.) Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York, pp. 240–250.
24. Wilkinson J. (2002) Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster.

Nun Ekaterina (Kopyl E.)

The aim of this article is to study the moral and philosophical principles of F. M. Dostoevsky in his attitude to Catholicism. The chronological borders of the article comprise the period when the brothers Dostoevsky edited the journals Vremya (“Time”, 1861–1863) and Epokha (“Epoch”, 1864‒1865). Dostoevsky’s interest in Catholic issues, which occupies such an important place in the writer’s historiosophical system, is associated during this period with a key topic, which in the relevant historiography came to be termed the “Roman Question”. It deals with a prolonged political crisis in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the united Italian state, caused by the annexation by the latter of the independent Papal state and, as a result, the liquidation of the secular power of the Roman pontifi ces, which took place in 1871 and led, ultimately, to the convocation of the First Vatican Council and the proclamation of the dogmata of papal primacy and papal infallibility. The “Roman Question” was frequently refl ected in the materials of the journals “Time” and “Epoch”, the articles of which discussed important aspects of the issue, including theological and moral problems of the boundaries of the secular and ecclesiastical authority of the Roman pontifex, personal features and policies of Pope Pius IX, the role of the Jesuits in the formation and active “promotion” of the ideology of ultramontanism in the churchpolitical agenda, as well as some very questionable, from a moral point of view, methods of missionary work of the Catholic Church during this period, in particular, the “case of the boy Cohen”. The materials of the study suggest that as early as the 1860s, F. M. Dostoevsky had shaped, both in his essays and in materials of his journals, all the main themes of his later anti-Catholic polemic that was to be refl ected in his epistolary and essayistic legacy (“Writer’s Diary”) as well as in his novels (“Idiot”, “Demons”, “Brothers Karamazov”).

F. M. Dostoevsky, Catholicism, Risordgimento, “Roman Question”, Pope Pius IX, journal “Time”, journal “Epoch”

1. Antoniy (Khrapovitskiy), metropolitan (1965) F. M. Dostoyevskii kak propovednik vozrozhdeniia [F. M. Dostoevsky as a Preacher of New Life]. New York (in Russian).
2. Arsen’ev N. Pravoslaviye. Katolichestvo. Protestantizm [Orthodoxy. Catholicism. Protestantism], available at: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/konfessii/pravoslavie-katolichestvo-protestantizm/ (10.01.2019) (in Russian).
3. Biblioteka F. M. Dostoevskogo: Opyt rekonstruktsii. Nauchnoe opisanie (2005) [Library of F. M. Dostoevsky: Attempt at Reconstruction. Scientific Description]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
4. Fudel’ S. (2016) Nasledstvo Dostoevskogo [Dostoevsky’s Legacy]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Gagaev A. (2001) “Kontseptsiia pravoslaviia F. M. Dostoevskogo» [F. M. Dostoevsky’s Conception of Orthodoxy]. Integratsiia obrazovaniia, 2001, vol. 1, pp. 22–24 (in Russian).
6. González, Justo L. (1984) The Story of Christianity. Nashville. Kniazeva S., Iaz’kova V. (2001) “Ital’ianskii liberalizm v epokhu Risordzhimento” [Italian Liberalism in the Era of Risorgimento]. Novyi istoricheskii vestnik, 2001, vol. 4, pp. 1–10 (in Russian).
7. Lintner V. (2001) A Traveller’s History of Italy. New York.
8. Lortts Y. (2000) Istoriia Tserkvi [Church History]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Nechaeva V. (1975) Zhurnal M. M. i F. M. Dostoevskikh «Epokha». 1864–1865 [The Journal of M. M. and F. M. Dostoevsky “Epoch”. 1864-1865]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Norwich J. (2011) The Popes: A History.
11. Rozenblium L. (1971) “Tvorcheskie dnevniki Dostoevskogo” [Dostoevsky’s Literary Diaries], in Neizdannyi Dostoevskii: Zapisnyie knizhki i tetradi 1860–1881. Moscow, pp. 9–92 (in Russian).
12. Samarin Iu. (2008) Pravoslavie i narodnost’ [Orthodoxy and Nationality]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Sergiy (Barabanov), hieromonk. Lichnost’ papy Piya IX v svete istorii [Personality of Pope Pius IX in the Light of History], available at: http://test.yarseminaria.ru/2018/01/22/lichnost’-papypiya- ix-v-svete-istorii/ (03.01.2019) (in Russian).
14. Shestakova A. (2015) “Retrospektivnyi vzgliad na formirovanie ideologii ul’tramontanizma” [Retrospective View on the Formation of the Ideology of Ultramontanizm]. Izvestiia Saratovskogo universiteta. Istoriia. Mezhdunarodnyie otnosheniia, 2015, vol. 2, pp. 79–82 (in Russian).
15. Skorokhodova S. I. (2012) “Poniatiia «Uniatstvo» i «Iezuitizm» v kontekste istoriosofi i Iu. F. Samarina» [The Notions of “Uniatism” and “Jesuitism” in the Context of Historiosophy of Iu. F. Samarin]. Nauka i shkola, 2012, vol. 5, pp. 174–179 (in Russian).
16. Syllabus, ili Perechen’, zaklyuchaiushchii v sebe glavneishie zabluzhdeniia nashego vremeni, ukazannyie v konsistorial’nykh allokutsiiakh, entsiklikakh i inykh apostol’skikh poslaniiakh sviateyshego gospodina nashego Papy Piya IX, available at: http://www.unavoce.ru/library/syllabus.html (05.01.2019) (Russian translation).
17. Tokareva E., Gorelov A. (2011) “Risordzhimento” [Risorgimento], in Katolicheskaia entsiklopediia. Moscow, pp. 219–223 (in Russian).
18. Volgin I. (1991) Poslednii god Dostoievskogo: Istoricheskiie zapiski [Last Year of Dostoevsky: Historical Notes]. Moscow (in Russian).

Yudakhin Artem

I express my heartfelt thanks to my scientific director, teacher and friend - archpriest Georgy Orekhanov, without whose help this article would not have appeared.

This article examines religious and philosophical views of Ibn Al-Moqaff aʻ, the Arabic-Persian poet, writer, translator of the periods of the Omayyads and Abbasids (died ca. 757). The basis for the study is made up of the treatise Answer to Ibn Al-Moqaff aʻ, The Heretic (Arab. ar-Radd ʻala az-zindiq Ibn al-Moqaff aʻ) by the founder of the Rassids’ dynasty, the fi rst remarkable Zaydi theologian al-Qasim ibn Ibrahim ar-Rasi (d. 860). The treatise is the largest extant heresiographical text which contains excerpts from the lost mystical works of the free thinker. For the fi rst time in the history of modern oriental studies, the article shows that the dualistic doctrine of Ibn al-Moqaff aʻ, generally dependent on Manichaeism, contains a range of new, irreducible to Manichaeism, mystical and cosmological theories. For example, the poet postulates the essential innocence of the initial matter, describes the reasons which induced the Demiurge to start the creation of the world, develops his own onomatodoxic theological model. Besides, the mystical doctrine of Ibn al-Moqaff aʻ is based on a belief in overcoming the Fall of the created being by means of the uniting the “names of light” in the “new” man. This precedes the eschatological victory of God over the impious forces in the day of resurrection; the latter, as the theologian claims, try to disrupt the search for the “path of Light” and “build” around those gone astray “impenetrable walls”, i.e. existing religious doctrines. Of special interest to historians of religion are the apologetic constructions of the thinker, who saw in the Islamic Revelation and prophet Muhammad’s sermon a sui generis victory of the dark powers and at the same time made references to the Holy Scripture of Muslims in order to support his cosmological conceptions. The article is preceded by a brief introduction with a biography of Ibn Al- Moqaff aʻ and circumstances of his death.

Arabic and Muslim philosophy, medieval philosophy, Ibn al-Moqaff aʻ, al-Qasim ar-Rasi, Zaydism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Islam, heretics, Qur’an

1. Ess J. van (1981) “Some Fragments of the Muʿāraḍat al-Qurʾān”, in W. Qāḍī (ed.) Studia Arabica et Islamica. Festschrift for Iḥsān ʿAbbās. Beirut, pp. 151–163.
2. Khosroev A. (2007) Istoriia manikheistva (Prolegomena) [The History of Manichaeism. An Introduction]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
3. Latham J. (1997) “Ebn al-Moqaff aʻ”, in: Encyclopaedia Iranica. Columbia, vol. 8, pp. 39–43.
4. Latham J. (1990) “Ibn al-Muqaff aʿ and Early ʿAbbasid Prose”, in J. Ashtiany (ed.) The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. ʿAbbasid Belles-Lettres, Cambridge, pp. 48–77.
5. Smagina E. (2011) Manikheistvo: po rannim istochnikam [Manichaeism: The Early Sources]. Moscow (in Russian).

Nofal Faris

This article deals with an important period in priest Pavel Florensky’s life, when all his fundamental religious, philosophical, and theological conceptios were formed. The beginning of this period is associated with a deep internal crisis experienced by Florensky in 1899. His memoirs and correspondence of 1900‒1904 reveal the essence of this crisis, which consists of two main aspects, i.e. the belief in the inferiority (non-viability) of the scientifi c worldview that excludes religion, and an experience of certain internal irrational processes manifesting themselves in fear, mental and spiritual disorder. Both these aspects were reasons for Florensky’s religious conversion. He perceived religion, fi rst of all, as a means of establishing an internal existential “order” in man. In this regard, the article draws attention to the special importance for Florensky of his acquaintance with works of Vladimir Solovyev and to the significance of his personal communication with Boris Bugaev (Andrey Bely) and Vyacheslav Ivanov. The article reveals the reason why Florensky fi rst developed critical attitude to some views of Solovyev and studies in detail the process of Florensky’s dealing with the “historical” Orthodox church in Russia. Based on the facts collected, a conclusion is made that Florensky found accord with his internal condition in Andrey Bely’s emotions and in Vyacheslav Ivanov’s works. This being said, his discord with A. Bely was due not only to his communication with D. Merezhkovsky and to his later fondness for anthroposophy, but rather to the discrepancy in the understanding of the signifi cance of mysteries (sacraments) in human life and in overcoming the internal and global crisis. In this regard, Vyacheslav Ivanov came to be almost unanimous with Florensky. In his conception of “homo liturgius”, Florensky processed and developed in a creative way Vyacheslav Ivanov’s ideas, according to which the personal internal crisis and its consequences can be overcome by those means and instruments that have been developed in the religious cult in the course of the history of humankind.

crisis, Florensky, Vladimir Soloviev, Andrey Bely, Vyacheslav Ivanov, religion, science, worldview, consciousness, religious cult, mysteries, Church.

1. Florensky P. (ed.) (2011) Obretaia put’. Pavel Florenskii v universitetskie gody [Finding the Way. Pavel Florensky in his University Years]. Vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Florensky P. (ed.) (2015) Obretaya put’. Pavel Florenskij v universitetskie gody [Finding the Way. Pavel Florensky in his University Years]. Vol. 2. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Florensky P. (1990) “Vstupitel’noe slovo pred zashchitoi na stepen’ magistra knigi: «O Dukhovnoj Istine», Moskva, 1912 g., skazannoe 19 maia 1914 goda” [Introductory Word before the Defense for Master’s Degree of the Book “On Spiritual Truth”, Moscow, 1912, delivered on May 19, 1914”], in P. Florensky Sochineniia [Works], vol. 1 (2), Moscow, рр. 817–826 (in Russian).
4. Florensky P. (1990) Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny [The Pillar and Ground of the Truth]. Moscow (in Russian).
5. Florensky P. (1992) Detiam moim. Vospominaniia proshlykh dnei [To my Children. Memories of Bygone Days]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Florensky P. (1994) “Dogmatizm i dogmatika” [Dogmatism and Dogmatic Studies], in P. Florensky Sochineniia [Works], vol. 1, Moscow, pp. 550–570 (in Russian).
7. Florensky P. (1994) “Empireia i empiriia”, in P. Florensky Sochineniia [Works], vol. 1, Moscow, pp. 146–195 (in Russian).
8. Florensky P. (1994) “Voprosy religioznogo samopoznaniia” [Questions of Religious Self-Knowledge], in P. Florensky Sochineniia [Works], vol. 1, Moscow, pp. 528–549 (in Russian).
9. Florensky P. (2004) Filosofiia kul’ta [Philosophy of Cult]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Ivanova E. (ed.) (2004) Pavel Florensky i simvolisty. Opyty literaturnye. Stat’i. Perepiska [Pavel Florensky and the Symbolists. Literary Experiments. Articles. Correspondence]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Pavliuchenkov N. (ed.) (2014) “Perepiska P. A. Florenskogo i V. F. Erna” [Correspondence of P. A. Florensky and V. F. Ern], in Russkoe bogoslovie: issledovaniia i materialy [Russian Theology: Studies and Materials], Moscow, pp. 199–231 (in Russian).
12. Solovyev V. (1988) “Filosofskie nachala tsel’nogo znaniia” [Philosophical Principles of Integral Knowledge], in V. Solovyev Sochineniya [Works], vol. 2, Moscow, pp. 139–288 (in Russian).
13. Solovyev V. (1988) “Kritika otvlechennykh nachal” [“Critique of Abstract Principles”], in V. Solovyev Sochineniia [Works], vol. 1, Moscow, pp. 581–756 (in Russian).
14. Solovyev V. (1988) “Krizis zapadnoi fi losofi i” [“Crisis of Western Philosophy”], in V. Solovyev Sochineniya [Works], vol. 2, Moscow, pp. 3–138 (in Russian).
15. Trubachev A. (ed.) (2015) Bibliografi cheskii spravochnik. Lichnost’, zhizn’ i tvorchestvo sviashchennika Pavla Florenskogo [Bibliographic Reference Book. Personality, Life and Work of Priest Pavel Florensky]. Sergiev Posad (in Russian).

Pavliuchenkov Nikolai

*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.

This article discusses one of the most important conceptions in Jewish mysticism, according to which the fi rst manifestation of the incomprehensible God is an anthropomorphic structure of light, termed the Primordial Man (Heb. Adam Kadmon). The article studies the origin of this conception, its parallels to other religious and philosophical traditions, as well as diff erences in its interpretation in various versions of Kabbalistic doctrine. Some kabbalists believed that keeping the commandments (Heb. mitzvoth) is of a theurgic, cosmic signifi cance. According to this understanding, the actions of the earthly man, created as an image of the Higher Man (Heb. Adam haelyon), are endowed with special holiness and, in turn, can aff ect the divine world of Adam Kadmon. The Torah itself, the Jewish scripture given in revelation, is understood as a living divine organism, a “divine structure” that has an anthropomorphic form. Special attention is paid in the article to the interpretation of Adam Kadmon in the late Kabbalistic school of Yitzhak Luria (1534–1572), whose cosmogony was rather elaborate and came to be most infl uential in the Kabbalah of the following centuries and in the doctrine of Hasidism. The article also analyses the conception of the Primordial Man in the philosophical system of Abraham ha-Cohen Herrera (1570–1635), who proposed a specifi c synthesis of Jewish Kabbalah and European philosophical ideas, which made it possible for non-Jewish thinkers to become familiar with the conception in question.

Adam Kadmon, Kabbalah, Judaism, mysticism, Philo, Neoplatonism, Islam, Bible, Absolute, emanation, Zohar, Sephirot

1. Abraham Cohen de Herrera (2002) Beit Elohim. Shaar ha-shamaim [The House of God. The Gates of Light]. Transl. by N. Yosha. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
2. Abraham Cohen de Herrera (2002). Gate of Heaven. Transl. by K. Krabbenhoft. Leiden.
3. Affifi A. (1939) The Mystical Philosophy of Muhyid Din-Ibnul Arabi. Cambridge.
4. Afonasin E. (2002) V nachale bylo… Antichnyi gnostitsizm v svidetel’stvakh khristianskikh apologetov [In the Beginning was ... Ancient Gnosticism in Testimonies of Christian Apologists]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
5. Afonasin E. (2008) Gnosis. Fragmenty i svidetel’stva [Gnosis. Fragments and Testimonies]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Altmann A. (1997) “Lurianic Kabbalah in a Platonic Key: Abraham Cohen Herre ra’s Puerta Del Cielo”, in Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge (Mass.), pp. 1–37.
7. Arnaldez R. (1986) “Al-Insan al-Kamil”, in B. Lewis et al. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 3, Leiden; London, pp. 1239–1241.
8. Avivi Y. (2008) Kabbalat ha-Ari [The Kabbalah of Isaak Luria]. 3 vols. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
9. Beltran M. (2016) The Infl uence of Abraham Cohen de Herrera’s Kabbalah on Spinoza’s Metaphysics. Leiden.
10. Burmistrov K. (2002) “Die hebräischen Quellen der Kabbala Denudata”, in Morgen-Glantz. Bd. XII, Bern, pp. 341–376.
11. Burmistrov K. (2009) “«On szhal Sebya v Samom Sebe»: kabbalisticheskoe uchenie o “samoudalenii” Boga (tzimtzum) i ego interpretatsii v evropeiskoi kul’ture“ [“He Contracted Himself within Himself”: Kabbalistic Concept of Self-Contraction of God and its Interpretations in European Culture], in Istoriya filosofii. Vol. 14, pp. 3-44 (in Russian).
12. Burmistrov K. (2013) Evreiskaia fi losofi ia i kabbala. Istoriia, problemy, vliianiia [Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah. History, Conceptions, and Infl uences]. Moscow (in Russian).
13. Burmistrov K. (2017) “Spinoza i kabbala: konfl ikty, vliyaniya, istochniki” [Spinoza and Kabbalah: Conflicts, Infl uences, Sources], in O. Belova (ed.) Contacts and Conflicts in Slavic and Jewish Cultural Traditions, Moscow, pp. 10–32 (in Russian).
14. Elanskaya A., transl. (2004) Premudrost’ Iisusa Khrista. Apokrifi cheskie besedy Iisusa Khrista s uchenikami [Wisdom of Jesus Christ. Apocryphal Conversations of Jesus Christ with the Disciples]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
15. Elanskaya A., transl. (2017) Trekhchastnyi traktat. Koptskii gnosticheskii tekst iz Nag-Hammadi [Tripartite Treatise. Coptic Gnostic Text from Nag Hammadi]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
16. El-Bizri N. (2006) “The Microcosm/Macrocosm Analogy: A Tentative Encounter Between Graeco-Arabic Philosophy and Phenomenology”, in Islamic Philosophy and Occidental Phenomenology on the Perennial Issue of Microcosm and Macrocosm. Pt. 1, Dordrecht, pp. 3–23.
17. Elior R. (1992) “Ha-zika ha-metaforit bein ha-El’ le-Adam u-retzifutah shel’ ha-mamashut ha-hez’yonit be-kabalat ha-Ari” [Metaphorical Connection between God and Man and the Meaning of Imaginary Reality in the Kabbalah of Yitzhak Luria], in Kabbalat ha-Ari. Divrei ha-kenes ha-bejnleumi ha-revii, Jerusalem, pp. 47–57 (in Hebrew).
18. Endel M. (1998) “Problema proiskhozhdeniya Kabbaly i osnovnye koncepcii kruga Sefer ha-ij un” [The Problem of the Origin of Kabbalah and the Basic Concepts of the Circle “Sefer ha-iyyun”], in Proceedings of the Second Conference of Young Scholars of the CIS on Jewish Studies, Moscow, pp. 45–55 (in Russian).
19. Giulea D. (2014) Pre-Nicene Christology in Paschal Contexts: The Case of the Divine Noetic Anthropos. Leiden.
20. Ibn Arabi (2013) Izbrannoe [Selected Works]. Vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
21. Ibrahim T., Sagadeev A. (1990) Classical Islamic Philosophy. Moscow.
22. Idel M. (2002) Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation. New Haven.
23. Idel M. (2005) Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders. Budapest.
24. Idel M. (2009) “The Image of Man above the Sefi rot”, in Kabbalah. Vol. 20, pp. 181–212.
25. Idel M. (2010) Kabbala: Novye perspektivy [Kabbalah: New Perspectives]. Мoscow, Jerusalem (in Russian).
26. Idra Rabba Kaddisha (1976) Jafe shaar ve-Shaare ga-idra [The Great Assembly]. Jerusalem (in Aramaic).
27. Khosroev A. (2007) Istoriia manikheistva. Prolegomena [The History of Manichaeism. Introduction]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
28. Krabbenhoft K. (2001) “Syncretism and Millennium in Herrera’s Kabbalah”, in Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture, vol. 1, Dordrecht, pp. 65–76.
29. Magid S. (2008) From Metaphysics to Midrash. Myth, History, and the Interpretation of. Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala. Bloomington, Indianapolis.
30. Meroz R. (1996) “Perush anonimi le-Idra Rabba ha-nimna im askolat Saruk” [“Anonymous Commentary to the Great Assembly, attributable to the school of Saruk”], in Mekhkarei Yrushalaim be-mahshevet Israel, vol. 12, pp. 307–378 (in Hebrew).
31. Meroz R. (2002) “Askolat Saruk — histor’ya hadashah” [“A New History of Israel Saruk’s School”]. Shalem, 2002, vol. 7. pp. 151–193 (in Hebrew).
32. Midrash Raba (2012) [Midrash Rabbah]. In 10 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow (in Russian).
33. Miloslavsky G. et al. (eds.) (1991) Islam. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Islam. Encyclopaedic Dictionary]. Moscow (in Russian).
34. Nechiporenko V. (2007). Evreiskaia fi losofi ia i kabbala [Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah]. Rostov- na-Donu (in Russian).
35. Necker G. (2011) Humanistische Kabbala im Barock: Leben und Werk des Abraham Cohen de Herrera. Berlin; Boston.
36. Nehunya ben Ha-Kanah (1998) Torat ha-Kanah. Sefer ha-Bahir [Book of the Bright]. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
37. Orlov A. (2018) Zerkala Vsevyshnego: nebesnyi dvoinik cheloveka v iudeiskoi apokaliptike [The Mirrors of the Most High: the Heavenly Twin of Man in the Jewish Apocalyptics]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
38. Rabbi Shimon (1994) Fragmenty iz knigi Zogar [Fragments from the Book of the Zohar]. Moscow (in Russian).
39. Reutin M. (2011) Misticheskoe bogoslovie Maistera Ekharta [Mystical Theology of Meister Eckhart]. Moscow (in Russian).
40. Schmidt-Biggemann W. (2004) Philosophia perennis. Historical Outlines of Western Spirituality in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought. Dordrecht.
41. Scholem G. (1940) “Israel’ Sarug – talmid ha-Ari?” [Israel Sarug — Isaak Luria’s Pupil?]. Zion, 1940, vol. 5, pp. 214–243 (in Hebrew).
42. Scholem G. (1960) Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. New York.
43. Scholem G. (1965) On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism. New York.
44. Scholem G. (1974) Kabbalah. Jerusalem.
45. Scholem G. (1978) Avraham Herrera – Baal’ Shaar ha-Shamaim [Abraham Herrera, the Author of the Gates of Light]. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
46. Scholem G. (1987) Origins of the Kabbalah. Princeton.
47. Scholem G. (1991) On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts of the Kabbalah. New York.
48. Scholem G. (1996) Über einige Grundbegriff e des Judentums. Frankfurt am Main.
49. Scholem G. (2004) Osnovnye techeniia v evreiskoi mistike [Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism]. Moscow, Jerusalem (in Russian).
50. Schulte C. (2014) Zimzum: Gott und Weltursprung. Berlin.
51. Shimon bar Yohai (1998) Sefer ha-Zohar al Hamishah Humshei Torah [The Book of Splendour]. 10 vols. Jerusalem (in Aramaic and Hebrew).
52. Smagina E. (2011) Manikheistvo: po rannim istochnikam [Manichaeism in Early Sources]. Moscow (in Russian).
53. Smirnov A. (1993). Velikii Sheikh sufi zma [The Great Sheikh of Sufism]. Moscow (in Russian).
54. Smirnov A. (ed.) (2013) Istoriia arabo-musul’manskoi filosof i. Antologiia [History of Arabic- Muslim Philosophy. Anthology]. Moscow (in Russian).
55. Tishby I. (1992) Torat ha-Ra ve-ha-kelippah be-Kabbalat ha-Ari [The Doctrine of Evil and Kelippah in the Kabbalah of Yitzhak Luria]. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
56. Tishby I., ed. (1994) The Wisdom of the Zohar. An Anthology of Texts. 3 vols. London; Washington.
57. Traktat Avot s kommentariiami r. Pinhasa Kegati (1990) [Treatise Avot with Commentary by Rabby Pinchas Kehati]. Moscow (in Russian).
58. Verman M. (1992) The Book of Contemplation. Medieval Jewish Mystical Sources. Albany.
59. Wolfson E. (2005) Language, Eros, Being. Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination. New York.
60. Wolfson E. (2006) Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on Time, Truth, and Death. Berkeley.
61. Yaglom E. (2018) “Traktat Idra Raba (Velikoe Sobranie)” [Treatise Idra Rabbah (The Great Assembly)]. Judaica Petropolitana, 2018, vol. 9, pp. 114–136 (in Russian).
62. Yosha N. (1994) Mitos u-Metaforah. Ha-Parshanut ha-Filosofi t shel’ r. Avraham Kohen Herrera le-kabbalat ha-Ari [Myth and Metaphor. The Philosophical Interpretation of the Lurian Kabbalah in Rabbi Abraham Cohen Herrera]. Jerusalem (in Hebrew).

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.

This article demonstrates the complexity and ambiguity of such religious phenomena as obsession and exorcism. It argues that they need to be extracted from a purely theological consideration into the domain of religious studies. The article studies the modern controversy over individual cases of exorcism and their theological reception, then it gives a classifi cation of approaches to the study and interpretation of exorcism and obsession. Five approaches are distinguished, i.e. theological, revealing, psychological, sociological, and performative. From the comparison of these approaches, it is obvious that there is no scientifi c consensus as to the assessment of the phenomena in question. To understand the nature of exorcism, the article refers to its genesis and development, highlighting several stages. At the initial stage, the practice of exorcism takes place in preparation for baptism in the Latin Church. In the Middle Ages, this practice comes to oblivion and does not interest serious theologians. At the Council of Trent takes place a stabilisation of the rite of exorcism; from a pre-baptismal practice that can be administered by any clerics it becomes a privilege of priests. The Council also regulates the need for control as to the real obsession and justifi es the publicity of exorcism. After the Council, the famous “Rituale Romanum” was composed, which records the canonical form of the ritual. The next two hundred years are characterised by a new decline in exorcism as a result of rationalistic criticism and scandals caused by cases of mass obsession. In the 19th and 20th centuries comes the third stage in the history of exorcism, which is now connected with esoteric mythology. Thanks to the medicalisation of the discourse of obsession, catholic priests are beginning to look for legitimation of the practice of exorcism in the fi eld of parapsychological and spiritual research. The article concludes that for many centuries the understanding of exorcism included theological ideas of early Catholicism, magical beliefs of medieval Europe, theological disputes of Protestantism and Catholicism, medical discourse of the 19th century, esoteric mythology of satanism and spiritualism, parapsychology, and clichés of media culture.

exorcism, esotericism, religious studies, theology, obsession, Catholicism

1. A Manual of Exorcism, Very Useful for Priests and Ministers of the Church (1975). New York.
2. Ward C. (ed.) (1989) Altered States of Consciousness and Mental Health: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Newbury Park, CA.
3. Amorth G. (1999) An Exorcist Tells His Story. San Francisco.
4. Asprem E. (2015) “The Society for Psychical Research”, in C. Partridge (ed.) Occult world, New York, pp. 266–273.
5. Certeau M. de (1980) La Possession de Loudun, 2nd ed. Paris.
6. Davies J. (2009) Exorcism from a Catholic Perspective. London.
7. Davies O. (2010) Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. Oxford.
8. DSM-IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1994). Washington.
9. Eco U. (2007) Polnyi nazad! “Goryachie voiny” i populism v SMI [Full Reverse! “Hot Wars” and Populism in the Media]. Мoscow (in Russian).
10. Fortea J.-A. (2008) Summa Daemoniaca: Tratado de Demonología y Manual de Exorcistas. Madrid.
11. Giordan G., Possamai A. (2018) Sociology of Exorcism in Late Modernity. Cham.
12. Gratsch E. (2003) “Exorcism”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington, vol. 5, pp. 551–553.
13. Kaleda V. (2008) “Tserkov’ i psikhiatriia: Istoriia i sovremennost’” [Church and Psychiatry: History and Modernity], in Al’fa i Omega, vol. 1 (51), pp. 218–232 (in Russian).
14. Kleinman A. M. (1977) “Depression, Somatization and the «New Cross-Cultural Psychiatry»”, in Social Science & Medicine, vol. 11 (1), pp. 3–9.
15. Levack B. (2013) The Devil Within: Possession and Exorcism in the Christian West. New Haven.
16. Luij k van R. (2016) Children of Lucifer: The Origins of Modern Religious Satanism. Oxford.
17. McCorristine S. (2010) Spectres of the Self: Thinking about Ghosts and Ghost-Seeing in England, 1750–1920. Cambridge.
18. Oesterreich T. (1966) Possession, Demoniacal and Other: Among Primitive Races in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern Times. New York.
19. Raupert J. (1919) The New Black Magic and the Truth about the Ouij a-Board. New York.
20. Rituale Romanum (1925). Rome.
21. Scala M. (2012) Der Exorzismus in der Katholischen Kirche: Ein liturgisches Ritual zwischen Film, Mythos und Realität. Hamburg.
22. Sluhovsky M. (2008) Believe Not Every Spirit: Possession, Mysticism, and Discernment in Early Modern Catholicism. Chicago.
23. Smith J. (2011). Psevdonauka i paranormal’nye iavleniia. Kriticheskii vzgliad [Pseudoscience and the Paranormal. A Critical View]. Moscow (in Russian).
24. Stollznow K. (2013) God Bless America: Strange and Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices in the United States. Durham.
25. Young F. (2014) “The Dangers of Spiritualism: The Roman Catholic Church’s Campaign against Spiritualism during and after the First World War”, in Paranormal Review, 71 (June), pp. 18–20.
26. Young F. (2016) A History of Exorcism in Catholic Christianity. Cambridge.

Nosachev Pavel

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