Source: http://periodical.pstgu.ru/en/series/issue/1
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:18:51+00:00

Document:
Nesterova Olga (2019) "Origen’s doctrine of three senses of Holy Scripture in its relation to ancient models of threefold division of philosophy ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 11-34 (in Russian).
This article deals with origins of Origen’s conception of three senses of the Scripture and, specifi cally, with the alleged infl uence of ancient systems of the threefold division of philosophy on the formulation of this conception. The Christian Alexandrian tradition was not alien to the idea that the doctrine of the church can be regarded as a comprehensive doctrine of a philosophical kind, though far surpassing pagan wisdom. And Origen was indeed interested in the possibility of establishing some correlations between the three parts of philosophy and the kinds of doctrines corresponding to the three senses of the Scripture. He also made use of some explanatory analogies cognate to those which in the pagan school tradition were employed for the vivid demonstration of relationship between the parts of philosophy (such as the image of an orchard enclosed by the wall, where the wall was associated with logic, trees with physics, and fruits with ethics). However, the analysis of the parable of the vineyard and the wicked husbandsmen (Matth 21.33–46) given in Origen’s Coommentary on the Gospel of Matthew suggests that his own interpretation of the spacial image of the orchard only partly overlapped with the interpretation of similar images that illustrated the division of philosophy. Moreover, in his methodological reasoning Origen followed diff erent models that more effi ciently described the nature of the sense levels distinguished by himself in texts of the Scripture.
Danielou J. (1961). Message evangelique et culture hellenistique. Tournai: Desclee.
Goulet R. (1987). La philosophie de Moise. Paris: Vrin.
Hanson R. (1959). Allegory and Event. A Study of the Sources and Signifi cance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture. London.
Harl M. (1983). “Introduction”, in M. Harl, N. de Lange (eds.) Origene. Philocalie, 1–20. Sur les Ecritures. La lettre a Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne. Paris: Cerf, pp. 19–160.
Ierodiakonou K. (1993). “The Stoic Division of Philosophy”. Phronesis, vol. 38, pp. 57–74.
Nesterova O. (2013). “Proiskhozhdenie i bogoslovskie osnovaniia ucheniia Origena o trekh smyslakh Pisaniia. Chast pervaia: Kritika valentinianskoi doktriny o trekh rasakh liudei u Klimenta Aleksandriiskogo” [Origins and Theological Grounds of Origen’s Concept of Triple Sense of Scripture. Part One: Criticism of Valentinian Doctrine of Three Human Races by Clement of Alexandria]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series III: Filologia, vol. 34, pp. 74–92 (in Russian).
Nesterova O. (2015). “Proiskhozhdenie i bogoslovskie osnovaniia ucheniia Origena o trekh smyslakh Pisaniia. Chast vtoraia: Metodologicheskie implikatsii origenovskoi kritiki ucheniia valentinian o gilikakh, psikhikakh i pnevmatikakh. “Korinfi ane” i “efesiane” kak nositeli dvukh tipov znaniia, sootvetstvuiushchikh dvum vysshim smyslam Pisaniia u Origena” [Origins and Theological Grounds of Origen’s Concept of Triple Sense of Scripture. Part Two. Methodological Implications of Origen’s Criticism of Valentinian Trichotomy. “Corinthians” and “Ephesians” as Holders of Two Types of Knowledge Corresponding to Two Higher Senses of Holy Scripture”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series III: Filologia, vol. 41, pp. 81–102 (in Russian).
Nesterova O. (2015). “Proiskhozhdenie i bogoslovskie osnovaniia ucheniia Origena o trekh smyslakh Pisaniia. Chast tretia: Protivopostavlenie “korinfi an” i “efesian” v otnoshenii k trem stupeniam khristianskogo sovershenstva i trem formam znaniia, sootvetstvuiushchim trem smyslam Pisaniia” [“Origins and Theological Grounds of Origen’s Concept of Triple Sense of Scripture. Part Three: Opposition of Corinthians and Ephesians in Terms of Three Grades of Christian Perfection and Three Forms of Knowledge Corresponding to Triple Sense of Holy Scripture”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series III: Filologia, vol. 42, pp. 44–59 (in Russian).
Pepin J. (1976). Mythe et allegorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judeo-chretiennes. Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes.
Torjesen K. (2011). Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen’s Exegesis. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.
Eroshev Evgeny (2019) "Method of typological (transformational) hermeneutics in western historiography ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 35-49 (in Russian).
This article gives a brief historical outline of foreign studies in typology from the 18th to the late 20th centuries. In the initial section, it off ers a semantic analysis of key typological terms. This analysis identifi es the problem of translating typological terms into Russian which is subsequently being successfully solved. The article gives an outline of the historical situation that came to be the beginning of typological studies. Step-by-step, it identifi es the central historical fi gures who played an important role in developing typological topics. The authors mentioned in the article are being localised, their ideas being given in concise theses. The main part of the article deals with scholars of the 20th century and discussions around the signifi cance of typology and its place in the range of theological problems. After this, it studies theological works that dealt with the problem of biblical typology in the interdisciplinary domain and evaluates their contribution to the topic in question. In the fi nal section, the article briefl y formulates the way along which the understanding of typology as a separate theological method has been going through centuries, and identifi es the special features of the “resonable” typology which is understood as a necessary component of theology in the post-critical epoch.
Barr J. (1966). Old and New in Interpretation. London.
Bienert W. (1972). Allegoria und Anagoge bei Didymos dem Blinden von Alexandria. Berlin.
Blanshar I.-M. (2012). “Opredeliaiushchie printsipy patristicheskoi germenevtiki v svete poslednikh izmenenii v bibleiskoi ekzegeze” [Decisive Principles of Patristic Hermeneutics in the Light of Recent Changes in Biblical Exegesis], in XXII Ezhegodnaia Bogoslovskaia Konferentsiia PSTGU: Materialy, Moscow, vol. 1, pp. 390–396 (in Russian).
Bultmann R. (1950). “Ursprung und Sinn der Typologie als hermeneutischer Methode”. Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1950, bd. 75, ss. 205–212.
Cahill P. (1982). “Hermeneutical Implications of Typology”. Catholic Biblical Quaterly, 1982, vol. 44, pp. 266–281.
Calvin J. (1968). Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and the Ephesians. Grand Rapids.
Danielu Zh. (2013). Tainstvo budushchego: Issledovaniia o proiskhozhdenii bibleiskoi tipologii [Mystery of the Future. Studies in the Origin of Biblical Typology]. Moscow (in Russian).
Davidson R. (1981). Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures. Berrien Springs (Mich.).
Fabiny T. (2009). “Typology: Pros and Cons in Biblical Hermeneutics and Literary Criticism (from Leonhard Goppelt to Northrop Frye)”. Revista del Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Españolas, 2009, vol. 25, No 1, рp. 138–152.
Goppelt L. (1964). “Apokalyptik und Typologie bei Paulus”. Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1964, bd. 89, ss. 321–344.
Goppelt L. (1939). Typos. Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen. Bertelsmann.
Kannengiesser C. (2006). Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Leiden.
Kattan A. (2003). Verleiblichung und Synergie: Grundzüge der Bibelhermeneutik bei Maximus Confessor. Leiden.
Lampe G. (1957). “The Reasonableness of Typology”, in G. Lampe, K. Woollcombe (eds.) Essays on typology. Naperville, p. 1–3.
Lubac H. de (1959–1964). Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens del’Écriture. Paris.
Lubac H. de. (1966). L’Écriture dans la Tradition. Paris.
Lubac H. de. (1984). Théologies d’occasion. Paris.
Nesterova O. (2006). Allegoria pro typologia. Origen i sud’ba inoskazatel’nykh metodov interpretatsii Sviashchennogo Pisaniia v rannepatristicheskuiu epokhu [Origen and the Fate of Allegorical Method in Interpretation of Scripture in the Early Patristic Epoch]. Moscow (in Russian).
Nevin P. (1981). “The Hermeneutics of Typology”, in Annual Evangelical Theological Society. Toronto, p. 4.
Rad G. von. (2001). “Old Testament theology”. Louisville.
Rad G. von. (1963). “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament”, in C. Westermann (ed.) Essays in Old Testament Interpretation. Richmond, pp. 17–39.
Stek J. (1970). “Biblical Typology Yesterday and Today”. Calvin Theological Journal, 1970, vol. 5, рp. 133–162.
Kanaeva Elga (2019) "“It is exactly the same to know God and to be a seer of God”: Barlaam the Calabrian on the method in theology ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 50-68 (in Russian).
This article examines the views of Barlaam the Calabrian on the methodology of theology and draws on his theological texts, namely the three consequent versions of the “Treatise against the Latins”, correspondence with St. Gregory Palamas, Barlaam’s works in Latin. The article raises the question about the sources and integrity of Barlaam’s position. It is shown that Barlaam took an antischolastic position and, rejecting Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine, perceived himself as a successor of St. Gregory the Theologian in his struggle agains the Eunomians. Barlaam followed St. Gregory not only in his criticism of the possibility of rational comprehension of God, but also in the positive aspects of his epistemology, i.e. the need of spiritual growth for theologian and acieving full knowledge of God after death. Rejecting the rational programme of the Latins by means of Aristotelian logic, the Calabrian borrows from St. Gregory the method of debate as well. Barlaam separates faith and knowledge, imposing on the latter the requirement of “touch” of the comprehended reality. The article discusses Barlaamian distinction of the “theologian by faith” and “theologian by knowledge”, which did not allow him to fi nd an effi cient solution to the main issue. The article also proposes a reconstruction of his views on the correlation between the capabilities of individual theologians and theology as a whole. Barlaam’s views on the impossibility of evidential theology on the model of Aristotelian science are systematised following the essential parts of the scientifi c proof, i.e. the object of reasoning, its structure, assumptions and conclusion. It is concluded that Barlaam’s views on scientifi c proof in theology correspond both to the position of Aristotle and to the patristic tradition. The article expounds on Barlaam’s views on the role of dialectics in theology and identifi es the terminological discrepancy that became a starting point in the confl ict between the Calabrian and St. Gregory Palamas. It is shown that after his conversion to Catholicism, Barlaam did not change his methodological guidelines. The article theorises about the relationship between these guidelines and his conversion.
Athanasopoulos C. (2015). “Demonstration (Απόδειξις) and its Problems for St Gregory Palamas: Some Neglected Aristotelian Aspects of St Gregory Palamas’ Philosophy and Theology”, in M. Knezevic (ed.) The Ways of Byzantine Philosophy. Alhambra (California), pp. 361–364.
Beyer H.-V. (1999). “Der Syllogismus des Gregorios Palamas, der zeigt oder geradezu beweist, dass der Heilige Geist einzig vom Vater ausgeht” (Russian translation). Antichnaia drevnost’ I srednie veka, vol. 30, pp. 288–293.
Beeley Ch. (2008). “Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and Knowledge of God: In Your Light We Shall See Light”. Oxford Studies in Historical Theology, New York, pp. 105–113.
Byden B. (2002). “ “To Every Argument There is a Counter-Argument”: Theodore Metochites’ Defence of Scepticism (Semeiosis 61)”, in K. Ierodiakonou (ed.) Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, Oxford, pp. 183–218.
Demetracopoulos J. (2003). “Further Evidence on the Ancient, Patristic, and Byzantine Sources of Barlaam the Calabrian’s Contra Latinos”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 96, pp. 83–122.
Fruchtel L., Stahlin O., Treu U. (Hrsgg.) (1960, 1970). Clemens Alexandrinus, II, III. Berlin.
Fyrigos A. (ed.) (1998). Barlaam Calabro. Opere contro i Latini. Citta del Vaticano.
Fyrigos A. (2005). Dalla controversia palamitica alla polemica esicastica (con un’edizione critica delle Epistole greche di Barlaam). Rome.
Gilson E. La Philosophie au Moyen Age (Russian translation 2004).
Henry P., Schwyzer H.-R. (eds.) (1964–1982). Plotini Opera. Oxford.
Kakridis Y., Taseva L. (2014). Gegen die Lateiner. Traktate von Gregorios Palamas und Barlaam von Kalabrien in kirchenslavischer Übersetzung. Freiburg i. Br.
Kanaeva E. (2018). “Vzgliad odnogo bogoslova na primat papy s dvukh storon: evoliutsiia vzgliadov Varlaama Kalabriiskogo” [“The Twofold Approach of One Theologian to the Papal Primacy: the Evolution of Barlaam the Calabrian’s Views”]. Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, vol. 19/1. pp. 140–145 (in Russian).
Kanaeva E. (2017). “Spory ob iskhozhdenii Sviatogo Dukha v Konstantinopole v 30-kh godakh XIV v.” [The Debate about the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Constantinople in the 30s of the 14th Century”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, vol. 74, pp. 26–40 (in Russian).
Kislas Th. (2001). “Introduction”, in Th. Kislas (ed.) Nil Cabasilas. Sur le Saint-Esprit. Paris.
Meyendorff J. (1955). “Un mauvais theologien de l’unite: Barlaam le Calabrais”, in 1054–1954: L’Eglise et les Eglises. Etudes et travaux off erts a Dom Lambert de Beaudouin. Chevetogne, vol. 2, pp. 47–64.
Meyendorff J. (1962). “Epistolai pros Akindynon kai Barlaam” [“Epistles to Gregory Akindynos Barlaam”], in P. K. Chrestou (ed.) Gregorioy toy Palama syggrammata, Thessaloniki, vol. 1, pp. 203–312 (in Greek).
Podskalsky G. (2001). “Il signifi cato di Barlaam per l’Ortodossia Bisantino-Slava (da un punto di vista cattolico), in A. Fyrigos (ed.) Barlaam Calabro. L’uomo, l’opera, il pensiero. Atti del convegno internazionale Reggio Calabria-Seminara-Gerace 10–12 dicembre 1999. Rome, pp. 13–25.
Pospelov D. (2009). “Antitomizm v Vizantiiskoi Imperii kontsa XIV stoletiia (prepodobnyi Kallist Angelikud)” [Anti-Thomism in the Byzantine Empire in the Late 14th Century (St. Callistos Angelikoudes)]. Vlast’, vol. 8, pp. 167–169 (in Russian).
Romanides J. (1960–1961). “Notes on the Palamite Controversy”. Greek Orthodox Theological Rewiew, vol. 6, pp. 186–205.
Schiro G. (1959). O Barlaam kai e philosophia eis ten Thessaloniken kata to dekaton tetarton aiona [Barlaam and Philosophy in Thessaloniki in the 14th century]. Thessalonike (in Greek).
Sinkewicz R. (1981). “The “Solutions” Addressed to George Lapithes by Barlaam the Calabrian and their Philosophical Context”. Mediaeval Studies, Toronto, vol. 43, pp. 151–217.
Sinkewicz R. (1982). “The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God in the Early Writings of Barlaam the Calabrian”. Mediaeval Studies, vol. 44, pp. 181–242.
Usacheva A. (2018). “The Contact Theories of Epistemology in Aristotle and Gregory Nazianzen: “Then Shall I Know, Even as Also I am Known”” (1 Cor 13.12), in A.-Ch. Jacobsen, A. Usacheva (eds.) The Hermeneutic, Institutional and Textological Principles of Early Christian Discourse. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 8–15.
Usacheva A. (2018). “Who Knows His Aristotle Better? Apropos of the Philosophical Polemics of Gregory Nazianzen against the Eunomians”, in G. Bady, D. Cuny (eds.) Les polemiques religieuses du Ier au IVe siecle de notre ere, Paris, pp. 407–420.
Puschaev Yuri (2019) "Attitude of K. Leontiev to communism/socialism. On the failed “union of socialism... with russian monarchy and fiery mysticism” ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 71-88 (in Russian).
The article analyses the attitude of the prominent Russian religious and conservative thinker K. N. Leontiev (1831–1891) to socialism and communism, particularly the question why it had a complicated, ambivalent and in some aspects even positive character. As can be seen from many of his judgments, Leontiev preferred socialism and socialists to bourgeoisie and capital. However, what exactly caused these preferences, is still being debated. Sometimes one can fi nd statements that Stalin implemented much of what Leontiev wrote and predicted. Nevertheless, as the article argues, such statements are not feasible. For Leontiev, socialism was a masked, new feudal, reactionarism. It was socialism that Leontiev pinned his hopes on, where he saw the possibility of thwarting the enthropic all-round unifi cation and secondary, all-mixing simplification of society, which in his views were brought about by European liberalism and democratism. The article also studies the question about the social foundation of the so-called restrictive socialism of Leontiev, namely the land community. Another topic studied in the article is the history of relations of Leontiev and L. Tikhomirov. In the final section of the article an attempt is made to analyse Leontiev’s mistakes in his predictions related to communism and the reasons for these.
Bibikhin V. (2003). “Dlia sluzhebnogo pol’zovaniia” [For Offi cial Use], in V. Bibikhin. Drugoe nachalo. St Petersburg, pp. 181–209 (in Russian).
Fetisenko O. (2012). «Geptastilisty». Konstantin Leont’ev: ego sobesedniki i ucheniki [“Geptastilisty”. Konstantin Leontiev: His Interlocutors and Disciples]. St Petersburg.
Khatuntsev S. (2007). Konstantin Leont’ev: Intellektual’naia biografiia. 1850–1874 gg. [Konstantin Leontiev. Intellectual Biography]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
Kremnev G. Konstantin Leont’ev i russkoe budushchee [Konstantin Leontiev and Russian Future], available at http://russianway.rhga.ru/upload/main/09_appen.pdf (03.01.2019) (in Russian).
Leontiev K. (2000–2018). Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works, in 12 Volumes]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
Palievskii P. (2014). “Zaveshchanie russkogo konservatizma” [Last Will of Russian Conservatism], in V. V. Rozanov i K. N. Leont’ev. Materialy neizdannoi knigi «Literaturnye izgnanniki» [Rozanov and Leontiev. Materials of the Unpublished Book “Exiles of Literature”]. St. Petersburg, pp. 3–30 (in Russian).
Sergeev S. (2003). “«Okonchatel’noe smeshenie» ili «novoe sozidanie»? Problema sotsializma v mirovozzrenii K. N. Leont’eva” [“Final Mixture” or “New Creation”? Problem of Socialism in Leontiev’s World Outlook]. Roman-zhurnal 21 vek, 2003, vol. 7, pp. 100–104 (in Russian).
Tikhomirov L. (1995). “Teni proshlogo. K. N. Leont’ev” [Shadows of the Past: K. N. Leontiev], in K. N. Leont’ev: Pro et contra. St Petersburg, vol. 2, pp. 6–28 (in Russian).
Muskhelishvili Nikolay, Antonenko Andrey (2019) "Structural isomorphism of noema and image-sprout ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 89-101 (in Russian).
This paper examines the relationship between the E. Husserl’s theory of noema and N. L. Muskhelishivili’s and Yu. A. Schreider’s concept of the organising image (image-sprout) which was proposed in the paper “Meaning of Text as an Inner Image”. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate isomorphism of these two concepts. It can serve as a methodological and ideological basis for combining phenomenological, psychological and semiotic methodologies for analysing diff erent phenomena including altered states of consciousness, especially in religious studies. The main elements of the methodology of this paper are text analysis of Husserl’s and Muskhelishivili’s papers, their interpretation, structural comparison of their semantic aspects and the subsequent synthesis of the results obtained. The paper has a structure of step-by-step comparison of these concepts in the framework of meaning, signifi cance, object and intelligibility, with a subsequent synthecising conclusion. Drawing on the results of this study, the authors of the paper have discovered a similarity of noema and the organising image (image-sprout) in all signifi cant structural aspects. The similarity both in terms of signifi cance and meaning and in terms of the inner structure of noema and the organising image (image-sprout) is shown both on the conceptual level and using several examples. The study also shows signifi cant affi nity of the principle of contemplating both phenomena in the acts of consciousness of the individual. The only difference between noema and organising image is made up by the methodological system into which these theories are incorporated. However, the conceptual base of similar theories of intentionality of consciousness demonstrates a possibility of uniting the phenomenological and semiotico-psychological methodologies, which was earlier outlined by G. Shpet in his project of positive philosophy.
Føllesdal D. (1969). “Husserl’s Notion of Noema”. Journal of Philosophy, vol. 66, pp. 680–687.
Husserl E. (1950). Ideen zu einer reinen Phanomenologie und phanomenologischen Philosophie. Hague.
Muskhelishvili N., Shreider Iu. (1997) “Znachenie teksta kak vnutrennii obraz” [Meaning of Text as an Internal Image”]. Voprosy psikhologii, vol. 3, pp. 79–91 (in Russian).
Muskhelishvili N., Shreider Iu. (1999). “Molitva: semiotika teksta i psikhologiia deianiia” [Prayer: Semiotics of the Text and Psychology of the Act]. Logos, vol. 3, pp. 379–402 (in Russian).
Muskhelishvili N., Bazlev M. (2018) “O videniiakh v “Dukhovnom Dnevnike” Ignatiia Loioly” [On Visions in the Spiritual Exercises by Loyola]. Religiovedenie, vol. 3, pp. 128–139 (in Russian).
Muskhelishvili N. (2014). “Traditsiia lectio divina: kognitivno-psikhologicheskoe prochtenie” [Tradition of lectio divina: Cognitive and Psychological Interpretation]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Series I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, vol. 51, pp. 99–120 (in Russian).
Shpet G. (1997). “Pis’mo k E. Gusserlyu ot 14.XII.1913” [“Letter to E. Husserl from 14.12.1913”]. Logos, vol. 7, pp. 123–128.
*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.
Sgonnova Aleksandra (2019) "Messiah, King, Prophet: priestly ideology in the Jewish War by Josephus Flavius and in intertestamental literature ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 105-118 (in Russian).
The Jewish War by Josephus Flavius is a unique source that describes the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the loss of the Jews’ independence. Its special feature is the role of the priests as an elite group that occupy the central position in the events described. After returning from the Babylonian captivity, the entire life of the Jewish people starts to unfold around the priest. His fi gure comes to the foreground not only in religious but also in political life. At the moment of destruction of Jerusalem, this conception reaches its pinnacle. This article distinguishes a number of main motifs, images and characteristics that are most frequently used by Josephus Flavius in relation to the priests, namely the priest as a fi gure in possession of regal power, priest as the chosen part of Israel, priest as the messiah, priest as a persion who either himself possesses the prophetic gift or is able to explain prophecies. The study shows that most theses put forward by Flavius have parallels in the intertestamental literature, primarily in the religious tradition of the Qumran community. It is possible to draw the conclusion that the large literature which came into being as an opposition to the offi cial dogmata of the temple was not confi ned to the limits of one community. The views usually described as marginal were typical of a large proportion of the population, including the milieu of the priests. One can claim that the Jewish War and its assessment of events is a refl ection sui generis of Josephus Flavius as to both his own role and fate and the search for his place in the new world.
Bickerman E. (2011). The Jews in the Greek Age. Moscow (in Russian).
Charleswort J. (1987). “From Jewish Messianology to Christian Christology. Some Caveats and Perspectives”. Judaism and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge, pp. 225–264.
Feldmann L. (2007). Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism. Leiden.
Gray R. (1993). Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York.
Himmelfarb M. (2006). A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism. Philadelphia.
Himmelfarb М. (1993). Apocalyptic Ascent and the Heavenly Temple. New York.
Hultgard A. (1980). “The Ideal «Levite», the Davidic Messiah, and the Saviour Priest in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism, Chico (Calif.), pp. 93–110.
Jassen A. (2007). Mediating the Divine. Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. Leiden.
Jassen A. (2007). “Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls”. Religion Compass, vol. 1/1, pp. 1–25.
Mack B. (1987). “Wisdom Makes a Diff erence: Alternatives to «Messianic» Confi gurations”, in Judaism and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge, pp. 15–48.
Neusner J. (1987). “Mishna and Missiah”. Judaism and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge, pp. 265–282.
Orlov A. (2014). Voskreshenie Vetkhogo Adama: Voznesenie, preobrazhenie i obozhenie pravednika v rannei iudeiskoi mistike [Resurrection of the Fallen Adam: Ascension, Transfi guration, and Deifi cation of the Righteous in Early Jewish Mysticism]. Moscow (in Russian).
Pastor J., Stern P., Mor M. (eds.). Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History. Leiden.
Sanders E. (1992). Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE — 66 CE. London.
Talmon S. (1987). “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanters’ Wisdom”, in Judaism and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge, pp. 111–138.
Veviurko I. (2018). Septuaginta: drevnegrecheskii tekst Vetkhogo Zaveta v istorii religioznoi mysli [Septuaginta: Herbraic Text of the Old Testament in the History of Religious Thought]. Moscow (in Russian).
Zuber-Ianikum N. (2002). Osnovnye etapy formirovaniia messiansko-eskhatologicheskogo kul’ta Uchitelia pravednosti ot Kumrana do novozavetnogo kanona [Main Stages in the Formation of the Messianic Eschatological Cult of the Teacher of Righteousness: From Qumran to New Testament Canon]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
Gaginsky Alexey (2019) "On old wineskins of rational theology and new wine of faith ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 121-136 (in Russian).
This article analyses one more attempt to defend the onto-theological interpretation of Christianity, in which God is understood as one of the beings among a number of others and must consequently be subject to requirements of logic and be available for rational cognition. The author of the article shows that this approach is connected with obsolete conceptions of ancient philosophy which is now outdated and cannot be regarded as an adequate instrument for theology.
Borret M. (ed.) (1967, 1968, 1969). Origenes. Contra Celsum. Paris.
Constas N. (ed.) (2014). Maximus Confessor. Ambigua ad Joannem. Harvard.
Dawkins R. (2006). The God Delusion. (Russian translation 2010).
Fokin A. (2006). “Dokazatel’stva bytiia Boga v antichnoi fi losofi i i khristianskom bogoslovii” [Proofs of the Existence of God in Ancient Philosophy and Christian Theology], Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Filosofiia. Bogoslovie, 2006, vol. 15, pp. 30–51 (in Russian).
Frank S. (1995). Predmet znaniia. Dusha cheloveka [Object of Knowledge. Soul of Man]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
Früchtel L., Stählin O., Treu U. (Hrsgg.) (1960, 1970). Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata, II, III. Berlin.
Gaginskii A. (2015). “Ontoteologiia i preodolenie metafi ziki: M. Khaidegger, Zh.-L. Marion i khristianskaia traditsiia” [Ontotheology and Overcoming of Metaphysics: M. Heidegger, J.-L. Marion and Christian Tradition]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 2015, vol. 4 (60), pp. 55–71 (in Russian).
Gaginskii A. (2018). “Skrytye predposylki ratsional’noi teologii” [Hidden Prerequisites of Rational Theology]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 2018, vol. 11, No 1, pp. 111–124 (in Russian).
Grigorii (Lur’e), hieromonk (2017). “Palama myslil kak Bog: Interv’iu” [Palamas Thought like God: an Interview]. Finikovyi kompot, 2017, vol. 12, pp. 114–119 (in Russian).
Heidegger M. (1993). “European Nihilism” (Russian translation), in M. Heidegger. Vremia i bytie: Stat’i i vystupleniia [Time and Being. Papers and Presentations]. Moscow, pp. 63–176 (in Russian).
Henry P., Schwyzer H.-R. (eds.) (1951–1973). Plotinus. Enneades, in Plotini Opera. Leiden.
Mesiats S. (2005). “Transformatsiia antichnogo ponimaniia Absoliuta v khristianskom bogoslovii IV v.” [Transformation of the Ancient Understanding of the Absolute in Christian Theology of the 4th Century], in P. Gaidenko, V. Petrova (eds.) Kosmos i dusha: Ucheniia o vselennoi i cheloveke v Antichnosti i v Srednie veka: Issledovaniia i perevody [Cosmos and Soul: Doctrines of the Universe and Man in Antiquity and Middle Ages: Studies and Translations]. Moscow, pp. 823–858 (in Russian).
O’Rourke F. (2005). Pseudo-Dionysius and the Metaphysics of Aquinas. Notre Dame.
Shokhin V. (2018). “Legko li brat’ krepost’ ratsional’noi teologii?” [Is it Easy to Conquer the Fortress of Rational Theology?]. Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2018, vol. 79, pp. 117–131 (in Russian).
Suchla B. (Hrsg.) (1990). Dionysius Areopagita. De divinis nominibus. Berlin.
Swinburne R. (2006). Is There a God? Moscow (in Russian).
Tselishchev V. (2018). “Analiticheskaia fi losofi ia i revizionizm bez beregov” [Analytical Philosophy and Revisionism without Limits]. Filosofskii zhurnal, 2018, vol. 11, No 2, pp. 138–155 (in Russian).
Wolterstorff N. (2009). “How Philosophical Theology Became Possible within the Analytic Tradition of Philosophy”, in O. Crisp, M. Rea (eds.) Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology. Oxford, pp. 155–168.
Rev. of Melton B. N. Where Is God in the Megilloth? A Dialogue on the Ambiguity of Divine Presence and Absence. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2018 (Oudtestamentische Studiёn; 73). XII, 223 p.
Khangireev Ilya (2019) Rev. of Melton B. N. Where Is God in the Megilloth? A Dialogue on the Ambiguity of Divine Presence and Absence. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2018 (Oudtestamentische Studiion; 73). XII, 223 p., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 139-143 (in Russian).
Rev. of Karłowicz D. The Archparadox of Death. Martyrdom as a Philosophical Category. N. Y.: Peter Lang Edition, 2016 (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions; 10). 274 p.
Shilov Evgeny (2019) Rev. of Karłowicz D. The Archparadox of Death. Martyrdom as a Philosophical Category. N. Y.: Peter Lang Edition, 2016 (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions; 10). 274 p., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 143-147 (in Russian).
Anthropology of Semyon Frank: A New Perspective — Rev. of Элен П. Онтология и антропология С. Л. Франка / А. С. Цыганков, пер., Н. П. Волкова, ред. М.: ИФРАН, 2017. XIII + 149 с.
Berdnikova Aleksandra (2019) "Anthropology of Semyon Frank: A New Perspective". Rev. of elen P. Ontologiia i antropologiia S. L. Franka / A. S. Tsigankov, per., N. P. Volkova, red. M.: IFRAN, 2017. XIII + 149 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 148-153 (in Russian).
Rev. of Лексикон Библијске егзегезе / Р. Кубат, П. Драгутиновић, прир. Београд: Библијски институт Православног богословског факултета Универзитета у Београду, 2018. 534 с.
Puzovic Vladislav (2019) Rev. of Leksikon Bibliјske egzegeze / R. Kubat, P. Dragutinoviћ, prir. Beograd: Bibliјski institut Pravoslavnog bogoslovskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu, 2018. 534 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2019, Iss. 81, pp. 153-157 (in Russian).

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
sui generis
 V. 
 V. 
 V.