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

The author investigates the presence of the concept of «individual nature», introduced by Leontius of Byzantium, in the works of such dyophysite theologians of the 6th–9th centuries as Leontius of Jerusalem, St. Eulogius of Alexandria, Pamphilus of Alexandria, St. Maximus the Confessor and Theodore Abu Qurrah. The author traces the influence of this and some other Christological ideas which emerged in the dyophysite Christology of the 6th century (e. g. the notion of «enhypostatos»), in shaping a new understanding of the hypostasis in the Orthodox dyophysite tradition of the time. Besides, the author deals with the philosophical aspect of the polemics between supporters of the Council in Chalcedon and its adversaries. Special attention is paid to the impact which had the concepts of «common nature» (dyophysites) and «particular nature» (Severus of Antioch, John Philoponus) on the Christological discourse. It is precisely the infl uence of these concepts that brought about substantial difference between the Orthodox and the Monophysites in their understanding of the hypostasis. If champions of halcedonian theology described the internal structure of the hypostasis using the formula «hypostasis = common nature + combination of accidental properties + hypostatic difference (the logos of the hypostasis, the logos of the hypostatic peculiarity)», those who opposed the Council of Chalcedon viewed the hypostasis as a combination of the particular nature and accidental properties. The different conceptions of the hypostasis, in their turn, influenced the structure of the Chalcedonian and Monophysite Christologies in general, contributing much to the difference between them. Thus, the author comes to the conclusion that an important role in the Christological discussions during the epoch of the Ecumenical Councils was played by the philosophical factor.

Leontius of Byzantium, Leontius of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore Abu Qurrah, Christology, individual nature, hypostasis, Council of Chalcedon, Dyophysites, Monophysites.

1. Cross R. 2002 “Individual Natures in the Christology of Leontius of Byzantium” in: Journal of Early Christian Studies, 2002, vol. 10/2, pp. 245–265.
2. Dell’Osso K. Il calcedonismo Leonzio di Bisanzio, Rome, 2003.
3. Gray P.T.R. 2006 “Introduction” in: Gray P. T. R. (ed.) Leontius of Jerusalem. Against the Monophysites: Testemonies of the Saints and Aporiae, Oxford, 2006, pp. 38–40.
4. Grillmeier A. Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Wien, 2002, vol. 2/3.
5. Helmer S. Der Neuchalkedonismus: Geschichte, Berechtigung und Bedeutung eines dogmengeschichtlichen Begriffes, Bonn, 1962.
6. Krausmüller D. 2001 “Leontius of Jerusalem, a Theologian of the 7th Century” in: Journal of Theological Studies, 2001, vol. 52, pp. 637–657.
7. Mаthew J. Christology of Severus of Antioch mainly Basing His First Thirty One Cathedral Homilies, Salzburg, 2001.
8. Van Roey A. 1980 “Les Fragments trithéites de Jean Philopon” in: Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 1980, vol. 11, pp. 135–163.
9. Wesche K. P. 1987 “The Christology of Leontius of Jerusalem. Monophysite or Chalcedonian?” in: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quartely, 1987, vol. 31, pp. 65–95.
10. Benevich G. I. “Ioann Filopon” (John Filoponus) in: Pravoslavnaja Jenciklopedija, Moscow, 2010, vol. 24, pp. 628–647.
11. Benevich G. I. Leontij Ierusalimskij, Feodor Abu-Kurra, Leontij Vizantijskij. Polemicheskie sochinenija (Leontius of Jerusalem, Theodore Abu-Qurrah, Leontius of Byzantium. Polemical Writings), Krasnodar, 2011.
12. Bolotov V. V. Lekcii po istorii Drevnej Cerkvi (Lectures on Ancient Church History), Moscow, 1994, vol. 4.
13. Davydenkov O. V. 2012 “Problema sootnoshenija obshhego i edinichnogo v hristologii umerennogo monofizitstva VI veka: Ioann Filopon (k voprosu o filosofskoj problematike hristologicheskih diskussij jepohi Vselenskih Soborov)” (Problem of the Correlation of the Common and the Single in VIth Cent. Moderate Monophysitism’ Christology: John Filoponus (Concerning Philosophical Problem of Christological Discussions during the Period of Ecumenical Councils)) in: Vestnik OGU. Serija: «Novye gumanitarnye issledovanija», Orel, 2012, vol. 2 (22), pp. 212–216.
14. Davydenkov O. V. 2012 “Problema sootnoshenija obshhego i edinichnogo v hristologii umerennogo monofizitstva VI veka: Ioann Filopon (k voprosu o filosofskoj problematike hristologicheskih diskussij jepohi Vselenskih Soborov)” (Problem of the Correlation of the Common and the Single in VIth Cent. Moderate Monophysitism’ Christology: John Filoponus (Concerning Philosophical Problem of Christological Discussions during the Period of Ecumenical Councils)) in: Uchjonye zapiski OGU, 2012, vol. 5, pp. 136–141.
15. Davydenkov O. 2013 “Koncepcija «individual'naja priroda» v hristologii Leontija Vizantijskogo” (The Concept of “Individual Nature” in Leontius of Byzantium’s Christology) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2013, vol. 3 (47), pp. 7–17.
16. Dobrohotov A. L. 2000 “Filosofija i hristianstvo” (Philosophy and Christianity) in: Sbornik dokladov konferencii «Hristianstvo i filosofija», Moscow, 2000, pp. 18–19.
17. D'jakonov A. P. Ioann Jefesskij i ego cerkovno-istoricheskie Trudy (John of Ephesus and His Church-Historical Writings), Saint-Petersbourg, 2006.
18. Koplston F. Ch. Istorija srednevekovoj filosofii (History of Medieval Philosophy), Moscow, 1997.
19. Larshe Zh.-K. 2007 “O pis'mah svjatogo Maksima” (On St Maximus the Confessor’s Letters) in: Prp. Maksim Ispovednik. Pis'ma. Saint-Petersbourg, 2007, pp. 15–68.
20. Lur'e V. M. Istorija Vizantijskaja filosofii (History of Byzantine Philosophy), Saint-Petrsbourg, 2006.
21. Mejendorf I., protopr. Iisus Hristos v vostochnom pravoslavnom bogoslovii (Jesus Christ in Orient Orthodox Theology), Moscow, 2000.
22. Sokolov V., svjashh. Leontij Vizantijskij: ego zhizn' i literaturnye trudy. Opyt cerkovno-istoricheskoj monografii (Leontius of Byzantium: His Life and Writings. Experience of Church-historical Monography), Moscow, 2006, pp.

Davydenkov Oleg, archpriest

The author subjects to thorough consideration the gradual change in the status of the Patriarch of Constantinople from the bishop of a minor town to the Ecumenical Patriarch possessing a certain set of administrative privileges. After giving a definition of the status of a bishop and ecclesiastical provinces in the ancient Church, the author, basing his conclusions upon canonical sources and their expositions in the Early Byzantine period, proceeds to develop the idea that the change in the bishop’s status went through several successive stages and that each new stage had its own causes, not the least important of which were of political nature. After both Rome and Constantinople, as political centers of the Roman Empire, received in the 4th century certain «privileges of honor» peculiar to capital cities, these privileges were consecutively modified into mandate of power. This process took several centuries to reach completion and was connected with the activities of the Emperors Zeno I and Justinian the Great (5th–6th centuries) who legally secured the new status of the bishop of the capital city and granted him the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. After the patriarchate of Photius and the confl ict with the bishops of Rome the Patriarch of Constantinople receives the right to intrude — in certain cases — into the canonical jurisdiction of other Churches, which becomes the key change in understanding the nature of supremacy. In later times this tendency was enhanced and reached its climax in the 20th century when the Ecumenical Patriarchate began testing the ground to expand its authority to the whole of the Orthodox world, with the further perspective of turning into a kind of «Orthodox Rome».

Constantinople, Rome, bishop, episcopal see, primacy, primatus, privileges, (Roman) Pope, Patriarch, diptychs, the Byzantine Empire, the Christian Church, Ecumenical Patriarch.

1. Jugie M. 1918 “Le plus ancien recueil canonique slave et la primauté du pape” in : Bessarione, 1918, vol. 34, pp. 47–55.
2. Kapterev N. F. Snoshenija ierusalimskih patriarhov s russkim pravitel'stvom (Relations of Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Russian Goverment), Saint-Petersbourg, 1895, vol. 1.
3. Maksimovich K. A. 2005 “Spor o pervenstve «starogo» i «novogo» Rima v slavjanskom mire: («papisticheskie» sholii v drevneslavjanskoj kormchej Efremovskoj redakcii)” (Disput on Priority of “Old” and “New” Rome in Slavic World (Papal Scholia in Old-Slavonic Kórmchaia Book in Ephraim’s Version)) in: Ezhegodnaja bogoslovskaja konferencija PSTBI, 2005 g. Moscow, 2005, vol. 1, pp. 370–378.
4. Maksimovich K. A. 2007 “Novella CXXIII sv. imperatora Justiniana I (527–565 gg.) «O razlichnyh cerkovnyh voprosah»: Perevod i kommentarij” (Novella CXXIII of St. Emperor Justinian I (527–565) “On Different Church Matters”: Translation and Commentary)) in: Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2007, vol. 3 (19), pp. 22–54.
5. Pavlov A. S. 1897 “Anonimnaja grecheskaja stat'ja o preimushhestvah Konstantinopol'skogo patriarshego prestola i drevneslavjanskij perevod ee s dvumja vazhnymi dopolnenijami” (Anonymous Greek Article on Privileges of Constantinople Patriarchal See and Its Old-Slavonic Translation with Two Important Addition) in: Vizantijskij vremennik, 1897, vol. 4, pp. 143–154.

Kuzenkov Pavel

The author discusses a S. N. Bulgakov’s unique approach to the problem of time, consisting of an effort to resolve the problem basing on corollaries from Kant’s antinomy of nature and freedom, as well as on ideas of Schelling. Bulgakov views the time antinomically. It was his reflection on the meaning of Kant’s antinomism which led him to posing the problem of time. For the first time we find him treating this problem in his article Apocalypticism and Socialism, which dealt with antinomy of eschatology and chiliasm. Here also he starts to consider relation of time and eternity through antinomy of nature and freedom. In his Philosophy of Economy the same problem is solved by means of the concept of Sophia as the ontological basis of personality, which unites freedom and nature, the eternal and the temporal. But in his Unfading Light the antinomy of nature and freedom is discussed through differentiation between negative and positive theology. Bulgakov uses as a synthesizing concept Schelling’s idea of «eternal time» as unity of eternity and time. Thus, despite Bulgakov’s repeated statements about their clear distinction, time and eternity are drawn together. Such an attempt to solve the problem of time raises doubts about the very possibility of freedom.

Sergei Bulgakov, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schelling, time, freedom, antinomism, eschatology, chiliasm, eternity, Sophia, apothatic and cataphatic theology.

1. Askol'dov S. A. 1913 “Vremja i ego religioznyj smysl” (Time and Its Religious Sense) in: Voprosy Filosofii i Psihologii, 1913, vol. 117, pp. 137–173.
2. Askol'dov S. Soznanie kak celoe. Psihologicheskoe ponjatie lichnosti (Consciousness as a Hole. Psychological Concept of a Person), Moscow, 1918.
3. Bulgakov S. 1905 “Bez plana” (Without Plan) in: Voprosy Zhizni, 1905, no. 3, 6
4. Bulgakov S. N. Dva grada: issledovanija o prirode obshhestvennyh idealov (Two Cities: Studies on the Nature of Social Ideals), Moscow, 2008.
5. Bulgakov S. N. Pervoobraz i obraz (Preimage and Image), Saint-Petersbourg, 1999, vol. 1.
6. Bulgakov S. N. Sochinenija: V 2 t. (Writings: in 2 vol.), Moscow, 1993, vol. 1.
7. Bulgakov S. 1907 “Na religiozno-obshhestvennye temy. I. Srednevekovyj ideal i novejshaja kul'tura” (On Religious-Social Themes. I. Medieval Ideal and Modern Culture) in: Russkaja Mysl', 1907, no. 1.
8. Bulgakov S. 1905 “Neotlozhnaja zadacha” (Urgent Task) in: Voprosy Zhizni, 1905, no. 9.
9. Bulgakov S., prot. Agnec Bozhij. O Bogochelovechestve (The Lamb of God. On God-manhood). Paris, 1933.
10. Bulgakov S., prot. Nevesta Agnca (Bride of the Lamb), Moscow, 2005.
11. Bulgakov S., prot. Radost' cerkovnaja. Slova i pouchenija (Churchly Joy: Speeches and Sermons), Paris, 1938.
12. Zima V. N. 2011 “Problema svoeobrazija uchenija o vremeni i vechnosti v vostochnoj patristike v kontekste jevoljucii terminologicheskogo apparata” (Problem of the Originality of the Teaching on the Time and Eternity in Orient Patristic in the Context of Evolution of Terminological Apparat) in: Vestnik PSTGU. I. Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2011, vol. 3 (35), pp. 45–57.
13. Ivanova E. V. 1993 “Florenskij i «Hristianskoe bratstvo bor'by»” (P. Florensky and “Christian Brotherhood of Struggle”) in: Voprosy filosofii, 1993, vol. 6, pp. 153–166.
14. Kant I. Sochinenija: V 3 t. (Writings in 3 vol.), Moscow, 1964.
15. Kolerov M. A. Ne mir, no mech. Russkaja religiozno-filosofskaja pechat' ot «Problem idealizma» do «Veh». 1902–1909 (Not Peace but Sword. Russian Religious-Philosophical Press from “Problems of Idealism” to “Landmarks”. 1902–1909), Saint-Petersbourg, 1996.
16. Maksimov M. V. 2001 “Istoriosofija Vl. Solov'eva v otechestvennoj filosofskoj mysli” (V. Soloviev’s Historiosophy in Russian Philosophical Thought) in: Solov'evskie issledovanija, 2001, vol. 2, pp. 5–39.
17. Nosov A. 1996 “K cenzurnoj istorii religiozno-obshhestvennoj pechati (1905–1906 gg.)” (To Censorial History of Religious-Social Press (1905–1906)) in: Voprosy filosofii, 1996, vol. 3, pp. 35–43.
18. Solov'ev V. S. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij: V 20 t. (Complete Writings: in 20 vol.), Moscow, 2000.
19. Kejdan V. I. (ed.) Hronika chastnoj zhizni russkih religioznyh filosofov v pis'mah i dnevnikah S. A. Askol'dova, N. A. Berdjaeva, S. N. Bulgakova i dr. (Chronicle of the Private Life of Russian Religious Philosophers in S. Askoldov, N. Berdyaev, S, Bulgakov etc.’ Letters and Diaries), Moscow, 1997.
20. Shelling F. V. J. Filosofija otkrovenija (Philosophy of Revelation), Saint-Petersbourg, 2001.

Rezvykh Tat'iana

The author touches on two aspects of the sociology of religion in contemporary Russia. The first of these aspects is the loss of the Soviet-type institutions of the «scientific atheist» sociology of religion and the emergence of a new model of sociological research in the sphere of religion. The author notes both the existence of the objective motivation for sociological research of religion in modern Russia and the subjective understanding of the necessity of such research. The tradition of empirical research rooted in the Soviet period and preserved mainly by inertia is matched by the insufficiently developed scholarly theory. At the same time, professional community is not sufficiently institutionalized and does not enjoy the support of either the state or the society. Within this professional milieu an active search of self-implementation is underway both on the scholarly and on the institutional level. Another aspect addressed by the author is the current state of affairs in the Russian sociology of religion, which is represented by five principal segments: public opinion research services, research centers in academic institutions and higher educational establishments, the teaching of the sociology of religion, professional associations uniting researchers in the sociology of religion, online communities bringing together enthusiasts of the field. The situation with the sociology of religion in Russia is on the whole identified as the «luminal» phase during which, according to a well-known classification, the stage of «disconnection» from the former (Soviet) state of affairs is already past, whereas the fi nal, internally well-structured stage is still far ahead.

sociology of religion, research centers, public opinion study, professional associations of researchers in the sociology of religion.

1. Belova T. P. 2001 “Sociologija religii v sovremennoj Rossii: opyt, problemy, perspektivy” (Sociology of Religion in Contemporary Russia: Experience, Problems, Perspectives) in: Vestnik Ivanovskogo universiteta. Serija: Pravo. Ekonomika. Sociologija, vol. 4.
2. Garadzha V. I. 1998 “Sociologija religii (2006)” (Sociology of Religion 2006) in: Jadov V. A. (ed.) Sociologija v Rossii (The Sociology in Russia). Moscow, 1998.
3. Lopatkin R. A. 2001 “Sociologija religii v Rossii: opyt proshlogo i sovremennye problemy” (Sociology of Religion in Russia: Experience of the Past and Modern Problems) in: Gosudarstvo, religija, Cerkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 4, pp. 34–46.
4. Medvedko S. V. 2001 “Problemy metodologii sovremennoj sociologii religii v Rossii” (Problems of Modern Sociology of Religion Methods in Russia) in: Gosudarstvo, religija, Cerkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 2.
5. Mukharijamov N. M., Zakamullina M. N. 2009 “Sociologija religii: nauchnyj i obrazovatel'nyj potencial” (Sociology of Religion: Scientific and Educational Potential) in: Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 18, Sociologija i politologija, vol. 1.
6. Jablokov I. N. Sociologija religii (The Sociology of Religion). Moscow, 1979.
7. Smirnov M. Yu. Sociologija religii: Slovar’ (Sociology of Religion: Dictionary). Saint-Petersburg, 2011.
8. Vozmitel A. A. 2007 “Sociologija religii v Rossii: problemy i perspektivy” (Sociology of Religion in Russia: Problems and Perspectives) in: Sociologicheskie issledovanija, vol. 2.
9. Ugrinovich D. M. Vvedenie v religiovedenie (Introduction to the Study of Religion). Moscow, 1985².

Smirnov Mikhail

The author attempts to analyze the most significant stages of the developing of the Messianic conception within Judaism as well as the cultural and historical conditions and mechanisms which contributed to the marginalizing of Messianic Jewish communities within Judaism. The main research instrument used by the author is the discourse analysis method proposed by M. Foucault as well as the method of problematization developed and systematized later by Castel. Given methodology presupposes a reconstruction of historical events as refracted by their modern perception; the aims are, fi rstly, to discover invariant models or continuity that are instrumental in preserving the identity of problematization in its constant transformations and, secondly, to single out the principles of varying, that is the variant models of the phenomenon under study. In our case, the problematization emerges at the moment when abruption or marginalization of Messianic Jewish communities takes place. At the end the author arrives at the following conclusions: with respect to Messianic Judaism it is obvious that in the course of its historical development the term «Messianic» has acquired and appropriated negative connotations which was preconditioned mainly by the fact that Messianic communities and groups which shared and actively propagated the Messianic ideas in the society were perceived and declared by the dominant religious tradition as unacceptable, heretical or marginal phenomena destabilizing the established order.

G. Simmel, M. Foucault, marginality, Christianity, Messiah, Messianic Judaism, discourse, narrative, cultural borders, discourse analysis, mythopoeia.

1. Green W. S. 1987 “Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question” in: Green W. S., Neusner J., Frerichs E. (eds.) Judaims and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 1–13.
2. Horsley R. A. 1984 “Popular messianic movements around the time of Jesus” in: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1984, vol. 46, pp. 471–495.
3. Hughes E. 1945 “Social Change and Status Protest: An Essay on the Marginal Man” in: Phylon-Atlanta, 1945, vol. 10/1, pp. 58–65.
4. Park R. 1928 “Human Migration and the Marginal Man” in: The American journal of sociology, 1928, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 881–893.
5. Simmel G. 1972 “The sociological significance of the stranger” in: Park R., Burgess E. (eds.) Introduction to the science of sociology, Chicago, 1972, pp. 322–327.
6. Siu P. S. P. 1958 “The Sojourner” in: The American journal of sociology, 1958, vol. 58, pp. 34–36.
7. Ban'kovskaja S. P.2007 “ Drugoj kak jelementarnoe ponjatie social'noj ontologii” (Another One as Elementery Concept of Social Ontology) in: Socioloicheskoe obozrenie, 2007, vol. 1, pp. 75–87.
8. Bart R. 1996 “Mif segodnja” (Myth Today) in: Mifologii, Moscow, 1996, pp. 233–251.
9. Danchenko O. “Vozvrashhenie k istokam” in: http:in:www.myzion.ru (27. 04. 14).
10. Donin H. Byt' Evreem (To Be a Jew), Rostov, 1999.
11. Duglas M. Chistota i opasnost': analiz predstavlenij ob oskvernenii i tabu (Purity and Danger: Analysis of Notions on Desecration and Taboo), Moscow, 2000.
12. Zimmel' G. Izbrannoe (Selected Works), Moscow, 1996, vol. 2.
13. Ierushalmi I. H. Zahor (Zachor). Tel Aviv, 1998.
14. Solovejchik J. B. Obshhina zaveta (Society of Testament), Jerusalem, 1989.
15. Fakengejm Je. «Chto takoe iudaizm». Sovremennaja interpretacija (“What is Judaism”. Modern Interpretation), Moscow, 2002.

Panteleeva Anna

The author tells in his introductory article to the publication the history of the emergence of hectography in Russia and touches upon the related questions of describing hectograph texts from the collection of the Russian State Library devoted, among other things, to the «Encyclical» by I. G. Kabanov. At present such editions are bibliographic rarities. The publication of hectograph texts dating to the 19th and 20th centuries, that follows, is dedicated to the polemics between the supporters of the «Encyclical», the champions of the Old Believer I. G. Kabanov — the author of the «Encyclical Letter of 1862» and an advocate of a rapprochement with the Russian Church, and the «non-Encyclicals», his adversaries. Kabanov’s letters reveal his views on the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the «Belokrinitsky Agreement» of the Old Believer Church. These texts, written after his death, present a picture of an appreciation of Kabanov’s activities on the part of various ecclesiastical, political and cultural circles of the then Russia. In them Kabanov singles out several key reasons for the ever-deepening schism between the two Churches: he notes an influence on the Old Believers exercised by a certain semi-legendary personality, Martin the Armenian, as well as previously unheard-of circulation among the Old Believers of apocryphal texts presenting a most hostile view on the Russian Church. The second of the published hectograph texts deals with a later stage of polemics between the «Encyclicals» and the leader of their adversaries, Bishop Iov (Borisov). The author of the text, priest V. Mekhannikov, conducted a most detailed analysis of Bishop John Kartushin’s literary work and singled out his principal mistakes which led to the separation of the «non-Encyclicals».

I. G. Kabanov, Encyclical letter of 1862, St. Dmitri of Rostov, Archbishop John (Kartushin), S. T. Bol’shakov, T. I. Filippov, Bishop Sil’vestr (Malygin), priest E. Mel’nikov, Bishop Iov (Borisov), Bishop Anthony (Guslitsky), priest V. Mekhannikov, M. I.

Grigor'ev Anton