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

This article deals with the infl uence of F. Schleiermacher’s ideas on Möhler’s ecclesiology (of the time when he was writing the Unity in the Church). In this comparison, most interesting is Christian Faith, the main work on dogmatics by F. Schleiermacher (first edition 1821‒1822). Unfortunately, this work is not translated into Russian and has not been studied in Russia. The bulk of literature and mentions of F. Schleiermacher draw on his earlier work, On religion: Speeches to its cultured despisers (1799). However, Schleiermacher’s views underwent considerable change during the twenty-year period between these works. Despite the fact that the mentions of Schleiermacher are very few in the Unity, it was already Möhler’s contemporaries who criticised him for violating the purity of the Catholic doctrine under the infl uence of Schleiermacher’s philosophy. Certain parallels in their reasong are pointed to by the present-day scholars of Möhler as well. Both theologians belonged to the period of Romanticism, and its ideological content and principles of thinking refl ect in their texts. Beside the shared cultural and historical horizon, they are also brought close to each other by the situation having developed in the Catholic and Protestant theologies of that time, i.e. a certain stance against the receding theology of Enlightenment, appeal to the internal religious experience and necessity to combine it with Christian ecclesiology. The issue of Church comes to be a challenge of that time. Against the background of this context, shared and valued by both of them, the diff erences between them conditioned by their diff erent confessions become more prominent. Virtually all meaningful statements made by Möhler about the Holy Spirit repeat what Schleiermacher said about the Christian common spirit (Gemeingeist). This determines his understanding of Tradition, of the unity of Church and of the Christian faith as a “new life”. This being said, A. Möhler rejects and fi ercely criticises Schleiermacher’s identifi cation of the Holy Spirit with the Christian “common spirit” as pantheism, and also the idea of the invisible Church which allowed Schleiermacher to reject the institutional unity of the historical Church and the defi niteness of Tradition.

ecclesiology, Romanticism, Catholic theology, Protestant theology, A. Möhler, F.D.E. Schleiermacher, tradition, unity of Church, invisible Church, faith, Christianity

1. Diederich M. (1999) Schleiermachers Geistverstaendnis. Göttingen.
2. Doyle D. M. (1996) “Mohler, Schleiermacher, and the roots of communion ecclesiology”. Theological Studies, 57, pp. 467–480.
3. Eschweiler K. (1930) Johann Adam Möhlers Kirchenbegriff : Das Hauptstück der katholischen Auseninandersetzung mit der deutschen Idealismus. Braunsberg.
4. Geiselmann J-R. (1955) Die theologische Anthropologie Joahann Adam Möhlers. Freiburg Br.
5. Geisser H-F. (1971) Glaubenseinheit und Lehrentwicklung bei Johann Adam Möhler. Göttingen.
6. Himes M. J. (1996) “‘A great theologian of our time’: Möhler on Schleiermacher”. Heythrop journal, 37, pp. 24-46.
7. Himes M. J. (1997) Ongoing Incarnation: Johann Adam Mohler and the Beginnings of Modern Ecclesiology. New York.
8. Kager R. (2004) Die Theologische Hermeneutik Johann Adam Möhlers. Freiburg/Schweiz.
9. Lavrentiev A. (2015) "Teologia istorii Wolfharta Pannenberga" [Wolfhart Pannenberg's theology of history]. Gosudarstvo, Religia, Tserkov' v Rossii za Rubezhom / State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide, vol. 33 (3), pp. 345–360.
10. Möhler J.A. (1928) Gesammelte Aktenstucke und Briefe. Bd. I. München.
11. Möhler J.A. (1957) Die Einheit in der Kirche oder das Prinzip des Katholizismus. Darmstadt.
12. Pylaev M., Morozova E. (2015) “Filosofskaia teologiia F. Shleiermakhera” [Philosophical theology of F. Schleiermacher]. Vestnik PSTGU, Seriia I: bogoslovie, filosofiia, 1, pp. 56‒68 (in Russian).
13. Scheele P.-W. (1975) “I. A. Möhler”, in H. Fries, G. Schwaiger (eds) Katholische Theologen Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert. München. Pp. 70-71.
14. Schleiermacher F. D. E. (1980) Der christliche Glaube nach den Grundsätzen der evangelischen Kirche im Zusammenhange dargestellt. (Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Bd. I, 2). Berlin.
15. Shleiermacher F. D. E. (1994) Ueber die Religion. Monologen. St Petersburg (Russian translation).
16. Shokhin V. (2010) Filosofiia religii i ee istoricheskie formy (antichnost’ — konets XVIII v.) [Philosophy of religion and its historical forms (Antiquity — 18th century)]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Streetman R. F. (1986) “Romanticism and the Sensus Numinis in Schleiermacher”, in D. Jasper (ed.) The interpretation of belief. Coleridge, Schleiermacher and Romanticism. London. Pp. 104‒126.
18. Titova A. (2018) “Eres’ protiv Tserkvi: I. A. Meler i A. S. Khomiakov kak polemisty” [Heresy against the Church: I. A. Möler and A. S. Khomyakov as Polemists]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 84, pp. 77‒95 (in Russian).

Titova Anna

*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 deals with the main theoretical concepts of Martin Noth (1902‒1968), the German orientalist and biblical scholar, in the context of historical biblical studies and historical and literary criticism. The studied concepts were formulated in the framework of his study of the literary and pre-literary stages in the formation of the text of Pentateuch (Torah). The article attempts to assess M. Noth’s works in order to determine their signifi cance in the context of development of the presentday biblical (Old Testament) studies. Particular attention is paid to the theoretical direction, the founder of which is regarded to be M. Noth, especially the study of the history of traditions (Russ. история преданий). The article makes an outline of the context in which M. Noth’s ideas originated and developed (documentary hypothesis, works of A. Alt, H. Gunkel, G. Gressman and other biblical scholars of the late 19th — early 20th centuries). The article studies the main works of M. Noth and discusses their ideas mostly in the context of development of such theories as the documentary theory and the history of traditions (Überlieferungsgeschichte) or tradition criticism. The article gives an account of Noth’s hypothesis of Deuteronomistic history, as well as of the related concept of Tetrateuch and the idea of the sacred league of Israelite tribes. Within the framework of source criticism, the article expounds on the original idea of the German scholar about the common and primordial source G (Grundlage), which could be the foundation of two other early sources of the text of Pentateuch, i.e. Yahwist (J) and Elohist (E). Close attention is paid to the reconstruction of pre-literary (oral) narratives, or traditions, which, according to M. Noth, made up the contentrelated nucleus of Torah. The article also touches upon the relevance of this view by M. Noth (in the framework of historical and critical studies of his time) that implies a justification of the initial autonomous character of various traditions which constituted the integrated narrative only after a long course of time. The article discusses M. Noth’s methodology, by means of which he carried out the aforementioned reconstruction of traditions and in which there are distinguished several methodological criteria. The article contains not only the historical but also the present-day perspective of discussing M. Noth’s legacy in the works of modern scholars.

Martin Noth, history of traditions (Überlieferungsgeschichte), origin and formation of Pentateuch, documentary hypothesis, methodology of biblical criticism, history of Old Testament studies

1. Alt A. (1929) Der Gott der Väter. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der israelitischen Religion. Stuttgart.
2. Bitner K. A. (2018) “Noth, Martin”, in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. LII. Moscow. P. 119 (in Russian).
3. Bruegemann W. (1997) Theology of the Old Testament: testimony, dispute, advocacy. Menneapolis.
4. Fridman I. A. (2019) “Umberto Kassuto kak kritik dokumental′noi gipotezy proiskhozhdeniia Piatiknizhiia” [Umberto Cassuto as a critic of the documentary hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuch”]. Bogoslovskii vestnik, 4 (35), pp. 17–37 (in Russian).
5. Gertz J. H. (ed.) (2002) Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Disskussion. Berlin.
6. Hawkings R. K. (2012) The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation. Winona Lake.
7. Jolles A. (1930) Einfache Formen. Halle.
8. Kratz R. G. (2000) Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Göttingen.
9. Lavrentiev A. V. (2012) “Istorizm i istoriko-kriticheskiĭ metod v teologii W. Pannenberga” [Historism and historical and critical method in W. Pannenberg’s theology]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 3, pp. 7‒18 (in Russian).
10. Lavrentiev A. (2015) "Teologia istorii Wolfharta Pannenberga" [Wolfhart Pannenberg's theology of history]. Gosudarstvo, Religia, Tserkov' v Rossii za Rubezhom / State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide, vol. 33 (3), pp. 345–360.
11. Levin Ch. (2013) “Nach siebzig Jahren. Martin Noths Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien”. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 125 (1), pp. 72‒92.
12. Nicholson E. W. (1998) The Pentateuch in the twentieth century: the legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford.
13. Noth M. (1930) Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Stuttgart.
14. Noth M. (1938) Das Buch Josua. Tübingen.
15. Noth M. (1943) Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen.
16. Noth M. (1948) Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Stuttgart.
17. Noth M. (1960) Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch. Darmstadt.
18. Noth M. (1981) The deuteronomistic history. Sheffield.
19. Pury A. de, Römer Th. (eds) (2002) Le Pentateuque en question. Geneve.
20. Rad G. (1938) Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs. Stuttgart.
21. Rüterswörden U. (ed.) (2004) Martin Noth — aus der Sicht der heutigen Forschung. Neukirchener-Vluyn.
22. Skobelev M., Khangireev I. (2019) “Iulius Vell′gauzen i German Gunkel′: metodologiia bibleiskogo issledovaniia” [Julius Wellhausen and Hermann Gunkel: Biblical studies and methodology”]. Bogoslovskii vestnik, 2 (33), pp. 17–37 (in Russian).
23. Skobelev M. (2019) “Proiskhozhdenie Piatiknizhiia: traditsiia i Dokumental′naia gipoteza” [Origin of the Pentateuch: Tradition and documentary hypothesis]. Bogoslovskii vestnik, 1 (32), pp 39‒51 (in Russian).
24. Smend R. (1989) Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart.
25. Tantlevskiĭ I. (2000) Vvedenie v Piatiknizhie [Introduction to Pentateuch]. Moscow (in Russian).
26. Tischenko S. (1998) “Kto napisal Toru? K literaturnoi istorii Piatiknizhiia” [Who Wrote Torah? To the history of Pentateuch], in S. Lezov (ed.) Bibliia. Literaturnye i lingvisticheskie problemy [Bible. Literary and linguistic problems]. Moscow. Pp. 20‒24 (in Russian).
27. Wellhausen J. (2002) Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin.
28. Whybray R. N. (1987) The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Sheffield.
29. Zenger E. (ed.) (2008) Einführung in das Alte Testament. Moscow (Russian translation).

Lavrentiev Andrey

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The study was carried out in 2019-2020 as part of the project "Documentary hypothesis in the context of modern theories of the origin of the Pentateuch" with the support by Foundation of Development St. Tikhon's Orthodox University.

This article analyses the spiritual and fi gurative or, as the authors of the critical text describe it, the “mystical” exegesis of the Hexaemeron (CPG 7770) by St. Anastasius Sinaites in the context of discussion about typology and allegory as two methods — externally similar but diff erent in their principles — of the fi gurative explanation of Holy Scripture. The introductory section of the article explains the relevance of typology as a specifi c exegetic method and a specifi c role of the Hexaemeron in this discourse. The main section of the article analyses the exegesis of Hexaemeron in comparison with Origen’s approach to interpretation. Using the scientifi c literature and analysing the relevant loci in Origen’s texts, the article outlines main pronciples of his exegesis and evaluates the infl uence of these principles on the Hexaemeron. The study of this issue in the context of scholarly discussion about typology and allegory allows one to show fundamental diff erences between St. Anastasius’ and Origen’s methods of exegesis. Both authors use the principle of “all-embracing allegory”, but Origen often discards the natural meaning of the interpreted image as fi ctional (this being done in the spirit of pagan allegoreses) and replaces it with an allegorical concept. The author of Hexaemeron, by contrast, deliberately avoids such an approach. St. Anastasius has the “all-embracing interpretation” only on the macrolevel, whereas on the microlevel he follows his own exegetic formula, i.e. “makes use of the analogical interpretation only where it is necessary and only to a necessary degree”. The historicity of the narrative understood in its entirety makes the foundation of spiritual interpretation, i.e. the images incorporated in the system of symbolic and typological correlations do not lose their initial signifi cance. The hermeneutic key for St. Anastasius is the incarnation of God, the central element of the exegesis is Christ, through Whom the author enters the domain of Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology. Due to this, one can argue that the material of the Hexaemeron is the application by its author of the traditional typological explanation and that the method employed by the author cannot be identified with allegory in the sense of pagan allegoreses and with Origen’s method of non-literal interpretation.

typology, allegory, exegesis, Anastasius of Sinai, Anastasios Sinaites, Hexaemeron, Origen, patristics, patrology, hermeneutical methods

1. Anastasius of Sinai (2003) Selected works. Moscow (Russian translation).
2. Daniélou J. (1950) Sacramentum Futuri: Etudes sur les origines de la typologie biblique. Paris.
3. Eroshev E. (2019) “Metod tipologicheskogo (proobrazovatel’nogo) tolkovaniia v zapadnoi istoriografii” [Method of typological hermeneutics in Western historiography]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 81, pp. 35–49 (in Russian).
4. Kannengiesser C. (2006) Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Vol. 1. Leiden; Boston.
5. Kattan A. (2003) Verleiblichung und Synergie: Grundzüge der Bibelhermeneutik bei Maximus Confessor. Leiden; Boston.
6. Kuehn C. (2010) “Anastasius of Sinai: Biblical Scholar”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 103/1, pp. 55–81.
7. Kuehn C. A., Baggarly J. D. (eds) (2007) Anastasios of Sinai. Hexaemeron. Roma.
8. Nesterova O. (1998) «Iziasneniie tain» Ilariia Piktaviiskogo. Traditsiia i metod khristianskoi tipologicheskoi ekzegezy [“Tractatus mysteriorum” of Hilarius Pictaviensis. The tradition and method of Christian typological exegesis]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Nesterova O. (2006) Allegoria pro typologia. Origen i sud’ba inoskazatelnykh metodov interpretatsii Sviashchennogo Pisaniia v rannepatristicheskuiu epokhu [Origen and the faith of non-literal methods of interpreting Holy Scripture in the early patristic epoch]. Moscow (in Russian).
10. Origenes (2008) Peri Archon. Contra Celsum. St Petersburg: Bibliopolis (Russian translation).
11. Origenes (2019) Hexaplorum. Genesis. Moscow: ID «Poznaniye» (Russian translation).
12. Zaganas D. (2019) “The Reception of Origen in the Hexaemeron by Anastasius Sinaita: Between Criticism and Approval”. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 95/3, pp. 415–426.

Eroshev Evgeny

This article deals with the meaning and origins of the notion of the “archetype of perfect morality” which in Kant’s critical philosophy of religion represents, according to the philosopher’s own claim, an analogy of the Christian notion of Christ as the incarnate Saviour. Within the critical system, this notion can be traced back to the doctrine of the transcendental ideal of pure reason, which anticipates the basicattributes of the “archetype” as it is described in philosophy of religion. This allows one to reestablish the possible object fi eld of the Kantian ethico-theology which cannot be reduced to the notorious “postulates of practical reason”. In speculative philosophy, the problem of ideal referred to the relation between the idea and the notions, whereas practical philosophy focuses on the topic of realisation of ideas, for which reason the question about the way of existence of the transcendental and practical ideal (in God, in pure reason, “in us ourselves”) consistently entail the refl ection on God’s incarnation. Kant’s refl ection on the character of combination of human and “superhuman” natures in the embodied ideal of sanctity has as its aim such a notion of this combination which would not impede the aims of pure moral religion of reason. However, it is found out that not everything in this refl ection is related to Christianity; the notion of human nature (to which the independence from the power of needs is available), adequate for Kantian anthropology, and the “superhuman nature” (as a qualitative purity of moral will) do not cause moral and pedagogical problems outlined by Kant. The source of difficulties in the perception of the Christian doctrine by the adherents of pure religion of the practical reason exists in other layers of their philosophical Christology.

Kant, philosophy of religion, ethicotheology, sanctity, transcendental idea, ideal of reason, human nature, superhuman nature, incarnation

1. Kant I. (1997) “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft“, in Kant I. Sochineniya v 4 tomach na nemezkom i russkom yazykach [Works in 4 volumes in German and Russian], Moscow: Mezhdunarodniy filosofskiy fond, vol. III, pp. 276-733 (Russian translation).
2. Kant I. (1998) Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Moscow: «Nauka» (Russian translation).
3. Kant I. (1997) “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten“, in Kant I. Sochineniya v 4 tomach na nemezkom i russkom yazykach [Works in 4 volumes in German and Russian], Moscow: Mezhdunarodniy filosofskiy fond, vol. III, pp. 38-275 (Russian translation).
4. Kant I. (1980) “Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft“, in Kant I. Traktaty i pisma [Treatises and Letters], Moscow: «Nauka» (Russian translation).
5. Kant I. (1989) “Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft“, in Kant I. Werkausgabe: in 12 Bänden. Band VIII: Die Metaphysik der Sitten, Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 645-880.
6. Kruglov A. (2019). “O roli umonastroeniia (Gesinnung) v etike i filosofii religii Kanta” [On the role of Gesinnung in Kant’s ethics and philosophy of religion”]. Kantianskii sbornik, 38, 3, pp. 32‒55 (in Russian).
7. Carmichael P. (1973) “Kant and Jesus”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 33, pp. 412–416.
8. Firestone Ch. L., Palmquist St. R. (edss) (2006) Kant and the new Philosophy of Religion. Bloomington IN.
9. Firestone Ch., Jacobs N. (2008) In defense of Kant’s Religion. Bloomington IN.
10. Palmquist St. R. (2012) “Could Kant’s Jesus be God?”. International Philosophical Quarterly, 52, 4, 208, pp.421‒437.
11. Sala G. B. (2007) ““Est Deus in nobis”. Überlegungen zu einer revolutionierenden Interpretation des Gottespostulats in Kants “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft””. Philosophischer Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft, 117, 1, pp. 117‒137.
12. Thomas S. B. (1970) “Jesus and Kant: A Problem in Reconciling Two Diff erent Points of View“. Mind, 79, pp. 188–199.

Sudakov Andrey

*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.

It was not up to the mid-20th century that timelessness of God had been a topic of discussions, bit now it is a hot issue in analytical metaphysics in which you can even distinguish “strong”, “moderate”, and “weak” positions of its proponents and opponents, the latter positions becoming more and more prevalent. Arguments proposed by both sides demonstrate strong sides of the analytical method, but the participants of this discussion are united by the circumstance that they believe to have access to God’s nature itself and not only to our opinions about it, thus exhibiting features of pre-Kantian thinking. This article, by contrast, proposes a solution to a more humble problem, i.e. the defi nition of which solution to the discussed question is coherent in the concrete religious world outlook, and the author puts forward logical (primarily, traditional from God’s inalterability) and illustrative arguments in favour of the assumption that the idea of Divine temporality accords well with pantheist world outlook, whereas it can be incorporated in the theistic only with a destructive eff ect for the latter. The article concludes with the assumption that the most coherent idea of God is Anselm’s identifi cation of God as something “more than which nothing can be thought of”, including the attribute of non-temporality, corresponding to classical theism, and the argument as to fact why despite this fact apanentheistic ideas become more and more popular in present-day Western philosophical theology.

metaphysics, philosophical theology, temporality, timelessness, theism, panentheism, creationism, Scripture, logical reasons, illustrative arguments, coherence

1. Augustinus (2006) Confessiones. Minsk (Russian translation).
2. Brei D. (ed.) (2008) Bibleiskie kommentarii ottsov Tserkvi i drugikh avtorov I–VIII vekov. Novyi Zavet XI. Kafolicheskie poslaniia [Biblical commentaries of Church Fathers and other authors of the 1st — 8th centuries. New Testament XI. Catholic epistles]. Tver’ (in Russian).
3. Denge N. (2018) “Eternity in Christian Thought”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ (09.05.2020).
4. Hartshorne C. (1941) Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism. Chicago.
5. Hartshorne C. (1948) The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God (Terry Lectures). New Haven.
6. Hasker W. (2010) “Eternity and Providence”, in C. Taliaferro, C. Meister (eds). The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology. Cambridge. Pp. 81–91.
7. Helm P. (1988) Eternal God. Oxford.
8. Konacheva S. (2019) Bog posle Boga. Puti postmetafi zicheskogo myshlenija [God after god. Ways of postmetaphysical thinking]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Kreig U. (2013) “Divine Eternity”, in V. Vasil’ev (transl.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology. Moscow. Pp. 227–258 (Russian translation).
10. Leftow B. (1991) Time and Eternity. Ithaka (NY).
11. Leftow B. (2005) “Eternity and Immutability”, in W. Mann (ed.) Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Maiden (MA). Pp. 48‒77.
12. Lewis C. (1998) Mere Christianity. Moscow (Russian translation).
13. Malevich T. (2014) Teorii misticheskogo opyta: istoriografi ia i perspektivy [Theories of mystical Experience: Historical Survey and perspectives]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Morris T. (1991) Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology. Downers Grove (Ill).
15. Padgett A. (1992) God, Eternity and the Nature of Time. London.
16. Paustovskii K. (1983) Zolotaia roza [Golden rose]. Moscow (in Russian).
17. Rizhskii M. (ed.) (1985) Cicero. Opera philosophica. Moscow (Russian translation).
18. Schellenberg J. (2009) The Will To Imagine: A Justifi cation of Skeptical Religion. Ithaca (NY).
19. Shokhin V. (2008) “Filosofskii teizm klassicheskoi iogi”, in Donum Paulum. Studia Poetica et Orientalia. Moscow. Pp. 409‒449 (in Russian).
20. Shokhin V. (2018) “Novyi fenomen: strasti po analiticheskoi fi losofi i” [New phenomenon: Battle arond analytical philosophy]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 11, 4, pp. 106–114 (in Russian).
21. Shokhin V. (ed.) (1995) Lunnyi svet sankh’i. Ishvarakrishna “Sankh’ia-karika”. Gaudapada “Sankh’ia-karika-bhash’ia”. Vachaspati Mishra “Tattva kaumudi” [Moonlight of Sangha]. Moscow (in Russian).
22. Shokhin V. (2016) “Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology and Illustrative Argumentation”. De Gryuter Open Theology, vol. 2, pp. 804‒817.
23. Stace W. (1961) Mysticism and Philosophy. London.
24. Stump E., Kretzmann N. (1981) “Eternity”. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 8, pp. 429–458.
25. Taliaferro C., Meister C. (2016) Contemporary Philosophical Theology. London; New York.
26. Ukolova V., Tseitlina V. (eds) (1996) Boethius. De consolatione philosophiae. Moscow (Russian translation).

Shokhin Vladimir

*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.

This article deals with the experience of the pedestrian pilgrimage of Velikoretsky Procession as a factor in strengthening the religious identity of a person. The research methodology is based on an interdisciplinary approach. Empirical data has been obtained during in-depth interviews with pilgrims who are regular church goers and has been analysed from the point of view of the infl uence of the procession on the development of their religious identity. The article studies the structure of the consciousness of believers by means of a phenomenological analysis which uses fi ndings of F. Heiler’s phenomenology of religion. F. Heiler’s method of “concentric circles” and his reconstruction of the structure of the sacred world have led to the conclusion that the intentionality of the consciousness of pilgrims is connected with the perception of institutional aspects of Velikoretsky tradition. Participation in the procession is viewed by pilgrims as a “breakthrough of reality”, since the sacred world of the procession is contrasted with everyday life and everyday routine. There is a close relationship between attitudes towards religious objects and religious self-determination of the individual. Despite the fact that most participants in the procession pay much attention to external sides of religiosity, when they plunge into the practice of the procession, they begin to think more deeply about specifi c issues of faith, sin, redemption, practical morality. This leads them to experience unity with the sacred and religious self-knowledge. The experience of the religious procession contributes to the emotional intensifi cation of their sense of belonging to Orthodoxy. Analysis of the interviews showed that pilgrims describe the events of the procession and religious attributes not so much on the basis of “eye evidence”, but rather on the basis of mental constructs. It is the intentionality of the consciousness of believers that determines the perception of sacred objects. Their content is connected with the rational and mystical aspects of religious ideas of the pilgrims. The movement from the institutional elements of religion (the world of external manifestations of the sacred) to the rational (i.e. to the holy in the world of spiritual ideas) and, fi nally, to the mystical dimension of holiness allows one to use not only the sociological inventory but also philosophical methods in the study of religious identity.

religious identity, Velikoretsky procession, pilgrimage, phenomenology of religion, sociology of religion, F. Heiler, method of “concentric circles”

1. Andreeva L., Andreeva L. (2015) “Sekuliarnyi ili postsekuliarnyi mir? V erifi katsiia kontseptsii” [Secular or post-secular world: verifi cation of conceptions]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 3, pp. 82‒88 (in Russian).
2. Anisimova L. (2008) “Krestnyi khod v Viatskoi gubernii” [Religious procession in Vyatskaya Guberniya]. Obschestvo. Zhivaia Rossija, 75, pp. 106‒107 (in Russian).
3. Astapov S. (2016) “Konstruirovanie religioznoi identichnosti” [Constructing religious identity]. Manuskript, 10 (72), pp. 29‒32 (in Russian).
4. Balyberdin A. (2008) Velikoretskaia ikona Sviatitelya Nikolaia. Istoriia i sovremennost’ [Velikoretskaya icon of St. Nicholas. History and modernity]. Vyatka (in Russian).
5. Chesnokova V. (2005) Tesnym putem: Protsess votserkovleniia naseleniia Rossii v kontse XX veka [The narrow gate: The process of making the population of Russia religious at the end of the 20th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Dubnichenko V. (2018) Russkii pravoslavnyi arkhetip i russkaia metafi zika. V poiskakh osnov ratsional’nosti [Russian Orthodox archetype and Russian metaphysics. In search of the basics of rationality] (in Russian).
7. Dudin A. (2012) Velikoretskii krestnyi khod [Velikoretsky procession]. Vyatka (in Russian).
8. Guseva O. (2008) “Filosofskaia fenomenologiia i fenomenologiia religii” [Philosophical phenomenology and phenomenology of religion”]. Izvestiia Saratovskogo universiteta. T. 8. Seriia “Filosofiia. Psikhologiia. Pedagogika”, 1, pp. 16‒20 (in Russian).
9. Heiler F. (1961) Erscheinungsformen und Wesender Religion. Stuttgart.
10. Kaluzhnikova E. (2006) “Palomnichestvo kak ritual” [Pilgrimage as a ritual]. Izvestiia Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, ser. 2. Gumanitarnye nauki, 12 (47), pp. 13‒27 (in Russian).
11. Krylov A. (2014) Religioznaia identichnost’. Individual’noe i kollektivnoe samosoznanie v postindust rial’nom prostranstve [Religious identity. Individual and collective self-awareness in the post-industrial space]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Manoilova M., Sekretarev A. (2016) “Empiricheskoe issledovanie portreta sovremennogo palomnika” [An empirical study of the modern pilgrim’s image]. Vestnik Pskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Sotsialno-gumanitarnye nauki, 4, pp. 183‒189 (in Russian).
13. Mitrokhin N. (2004) Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov’: sovremennoe sostoianie i aktual’nye problemy [Russian Orthodox Church: Current state and current problems]. Moscow (in Russian).
14. Mchedlova E. (2015) “Raznoaspektnost’ rezul’tatov sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia religioznosti rossiian (2010‒2012)” [Variety of aspects of results of a sociological study of religiosity of Russian citizens (2010‒2012)]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 18: Sotsiologiia i politologiia, 1, pp. 127‒137 (in Russian).
15. Pylaev M. (2006) Zapadnaia fenomenologiia religii: teoretiko-metodologicheskie osnovaniia i perspektivy postroeniia religiovedeniia kak nauki o sviatom [Western phenomenology of religion: Theoretical and methodological foundations and prospects for building religious studies as a science of the holy]. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Pravoslavie i sovremennost’: problemy sekuliarizma i postsekuliarizma (2015) [Orthodoxy and modernity: Problems of secularism and post-secularism]. Moscow; Orel; Livny (in Russian).
17. Roussell K., Agazhanyan A. (eds) (2006) Religioznye praktiki v sovremennoi Rossii [Religious practices in contemporary Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Samarina T. (2016) “Fenomenologiia religii F. Hailera” [Friedrich Heiler’s phenomenology of religion]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 7: Filosofiia. Sotsiologiia i sotsial’nye tekhnologii, 2 (32), pp. 22‒33 (in Russian).
19. Sinelina Iu. (2013) “Novye tendentsii v religioznom soznanii i povedenii rossiian” [New trends in religious consciousness and behaviour of Russian citizens]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 18: Sotsiologiia i politologiia, 1, pp. 76‒82 (in Russian).
20. Vatoropin A., Kostina N., Podergina E. (2017) “Transformatsiia fenomena palomnichestva v sovremennom obschestve” [Transformation of the phenomenon of pilgrimage in the modern society”]. Diskussiia, 7, pp. 54‒63 (in Russian).
21. Vinokurov V. (2011) Vvedenie v fenomenologiiu religii. Religiia Drevnego Egipta: istoriia i fenomen [Introduction to the phenomenology of religion. Religion of Ancient Egypt: The history and the phenomenon]. Moscow (in Russian).
22. Vinokurov V. (2010) “Struktura sviashchennogo mira v fenomenologii religii Fridrikha Hailera” [The structure of the sacred world in the phenomenology of religion by Friedrich Heiler]. Tochki. Puncta, 12 (9), pp. 175‒177 (in Russian).

Gorodilova Tatyana

*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.

Khodyreva Olga

*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.

Representatives of modern spiritualism had their own ideas about “religion” as a specific phenomenon and were familiar with discussions of theologians, philosophers, and scientists about its nature. This article uses historical sources pertaining to the activity of a large association of Russian spiritualists of the early 20th century, i.e. Moscow Spiritualist Circle (later Russian Spiritualist Society). The primary materials (Doctrine of spirits and Immortality according to Asian Rosicrucians’ traditions) reveal spiritualists’ understanding of the genesis, essence, classifi cation, and future of religion. Spiritualists defi ned “religion” as the result of spirits’ activity, divided religions into more and less perfect, and argued that the best religion is Christianity. Spiritualists associated the evolution of religion with the destiny of nations and assumed that national religions, as well as polytheistic religions, represented its early forms. German idealistic philosophy infl uenced the views of the members of Moscow Spiritualist Circle on the nature of religion. Similar to those historians of religion who adhere theism, they regarded history of religion as a teleological process and thought that the comparative method would allow one to approach the understanding of the essence of religion. Spiritualists’ ontology may be defi ned as a spiritualistic monism; this being said, spiritualists regularly underlined their own adherence to theism. Members of Moscow Spiritualist Circle were familiar with contemporary psychological and anthropological theories of religion and considered mediumistic phenomena to be an empirical proof ofcertain theories. Spiritualists criticised Edward Taylor’s theory of religion and believed that it unreasonably reduced naturalism to materialism, denying the existence of the spiritual world and reducing religion to a false ideology. Spiritualists appealed to the works of William James and other scholars who devoted themselves to studying the diversity of mystical experiences. The ontology of the spiritualists can be characterised as religious naturalism which allowed one to defi ne religion as both a theological and anthropological phenomenon. Spiritualists’ views of the nature of “religion” help us expand our knowledge of the formation of the idea of religion in the late 19th — early 20th centuries.

history of religions, spiritualism, spiritism, history of Russia, P. A. Chistyakov, A. I. Bobrova

1. Antonov K. (2020) Kak vozmozhna religiia? Filosofi ia religii i fi losofskie problemy bogosloviia v russkoi religioznoi mysli XIX — XX vekov [How religion is possible? Philosophy of religion and philosophical problems of theology in Russian religious thought of the 19th — 20th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
2. Antonov K. (ed.) (2014) “Nauka o religii”, “Nauchnyi ateizm”, “Religiovedenie”: aktual′nye problemy nauchnogo izucheniia religii v Rossii XIX — nachala XXI veka [“Science of Religion”, “Scientific Atheism”, “Study of Religion”: Current issues in the academic study of religion in Russia of the 19th — 21th centuries]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Gulyga A. (1986) Nemetskaia klassicheskaia fi losofi ia [Classical German philosophy]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Halliwell M. (2014) “Morbid and Positive Thinking: William James, Psychology, and Illness”, in William James and the Transatlantic Conversation: Pragmatism, Pluralism and Philosophy of Religion. Oxford. Pp. 97–114.
5. Hanegraaff W. J. (2016) Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Moscow (Russian translation).
6. Harrison P. (2015) The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago; London.
7. Harrison P., Roberts J. H. (eds) (2019) Science without God? Rethinking the History of Scientific Naturalism. Oxford.
8. Heimann P. (1972) “The ‘Unseen Universe’: Physics and the Philosophy of Nature in Victorian Britain”. The British Journal for the History of Science, 6, 1, pp. 73‒79.
9. Josephson-Storm J. (2017) The Myth of Disenchantment. Magic, Modernity and the Birth of Human Sciences. Chicago; London.
10. Kiselev N. (2005) Iz istorii russkogo rozenkreitserstva [From the history of Russian Rosicrucianism]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Krasnikov A. (2007) Metodologicheskie problemy religiovedeniia [Metodological problems of religious studies]. Moscow (in Russian).
12. Lightman B. (2001) “Victorian Sciences and Religions: Discordant Harmonies”. Science in Theistic contexts: Cognitive Dimensions. Osiris, 16, pp. 349‒355.
13. Maklakova A. (2019) “Obraz vraga v diskurse russkikh spiritualistov (na primere materialov Moskovskogo spiriticheskogo kruzhka)” [Picture of an enemy in the discource of Russian spiritualists (the case of Moscow Spiritualist Circle)]. Religiovedcheskie issledovaniia, 2 (20), pp. 44‒66 (in Russian).
14. Masuzawa Т. (2005) The Invention of the World Religions, or How the European Universalism was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago.
15. Molejndij k А. L. (2016) Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East. Oxford.
16. Nongbri B. (2013) Before «Religion»: A History of a Modern Concept. Yale.
17. Oppenheim J. (1985) The Other World. Spiritualism and Psychical Research in England, 1850‒1914. Cambrdige.
18. Razdyakonov V., Maklakova A. (2018) “Uchenie i praktiki spiriticheskogo kruzhka P. A. Chistiakova i A. I. Bobrovoi” [Doctrine and practices of the Spiritualist Circle of P. A. Chistyakov and A. I. Bobrova]. Studia Religiosa Rossica: nauchnyi zhurnal o religii, 1 (1), pp. 66‒83 (in Russian).
19. Shakhnovich M. (2018) “Izuchenie religii v Rossii v kontse XIX — pervoi chetverti XX veka: ot fenomenologicheskogo opisaniia k kriticheskomu issledovaniiu” [Study of religion in Russia of the 19th — 20th centuries: From a phenomenological description to critical investigation]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov′ v Rossii i za rubezhom, 1, pp. 171‒195 (in Russian).
20. Shakhnovich M., Teriukova E. (eds) (2018) Istoriia religiovedeniia i intellektual′naia istoriia Rossii XIX — pervoi poloviny XX veka. Arkhivnye materialy i issledovaniia [History of study of religion and intellectual history of Russia of the 19th — 20th centuries. Archive materials and studies]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
21. Trubetskoi S. (1994) “Osnovaniia idealizma” [Foundations of idealism], in Sochineniia [Works]. Moscow. Pp. 594–717 (in Russian).

Razdyakonov Vladislav

*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.