Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Антиохийская школа в истории христианской мысли. Учебное пособие
.pdf
Summary
‘nominalism’, that is essential for Hermeneutics and Christology, betrays their intimate knowledge of the la^ er’s writings.
The ‘sign’ and ‘event’ in the biblical interpretations by Diodore
of Tarsus or Theodore of Mopsuestia are correlated in the same
way as the ‘form’ and ‘ma^ er’ in Aristotle’s Physics. The human
and divine properties of Christ as belonging to diff erent entities are presented as a^ ributes of distinct hypostases. This being
said, the very peripatetic terminology is hardly used.
Christology had always been pivotal to the Antiochene philo-
st
sophical and theological thought. Already in the 1
and 2nd centuries AD there might have been a school at the bishop’s house;
at the same time there appeared theological works wri^ en by the
‘Apostolic Fathers’, the Bishops of Antioch St Ignatius (†107 AD)
and St Theophilus († aÆ er 180 AD) who is the fi rst theologian
rd
to use the word ‘Triad’ (Τριάς) of the Godhead. In the 3
th
centuries AD the development of the Antiochene school was
4
and
marked by two tendencies, namely: a fi nal formation of the historical and grammatical method in Exegesis and an a^ empt to
make a corresponding kind of Christology. During this period
the Antiochene movement was established in the shape of a circle of followers of St Lucian of Antioch, martyr and apologete.
He was renowned for his grammatical work on the biblical text.
St Lucian was against allegorical interpretation; he regarded
various readings as a consequence of mistakes and improper insertions, but not as a sign of multiple meanings. Among St Lucian’s pupils there were the most outstanding fi gures of the Anti-
th
ochene school, who, in the 4
century, were divided according to
their a^ itude towards Arianism as a broad coalition of rational
theologians. St Eustathius of Antioch, disputing with Arius, kept
at the same time criticising Origen by correspondence on issues
relating to Hermeneutics. Diodore of Tarsus (†394 AD) formulated basic rules of historical and grammatical interpretation.
He clearly distinguished ‘theory’ from ‘allegory’. The former is
contemplation of the spiritual sense on the basis of real historic
events, whereas the la^ er is their substitution for an arbitrary
and fi ctional sense (Psal. 7). Both literal and symbolic methods
should not be isolated from each other, but are mutually complementary. In Christology, while disputing with Apollinarius
221
Summary
of Laodicea who denied the existence of the God-man’s ‘lower
soul’, Diodore came close to the Nestorian theory of two hypostases, the one divine and the other human, in Christ.
Further steps in this direction were taken by Theodore of
Mopsuestia (350–428 AD). In his commentaries he took the position of extreme literalism that led him to deny the authenticity
of some biblical books. According to Theodore, events of two
stages of historic being—the Old and New Testaments—are
connected with each other through ‘imitation’ (μίμησις) that is
based on the principle of likeness. Where is no likeness, there
are no adumbrations. Theodore presented Jesus Christ as a man
whom the Son of God inhabited ‘according to a union of the will’
(κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν) and became ‘one person’ with him in the sense
of worship (Incar. fr. 12). In anthropology, Theodore comes close
to Pelagianism, although he himself did condemn Pelagius. Theodore’s pupil Nestorius, upon becoming Patriarch of Constantinople, forbade calling the Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos (Mother
of God), since She had given birth to Christ, but not to God. Such
a decision caused a reaction both from the local believers and
from Alexandria. The Patriarch of the la^ er, St Cyril, arranged
the Third General Council at Ephesus (431 AD) that pronounced
sentence of deposition on Nestorius. His supporters, mainly in
Eastern Syria and Persia, separated from the Orthodox Church.
The heresy of Nestorius, however, was not a basic feature of the
Antiochene philosophical and theological thinking. Another
of Diodore’s pupils and Theodore’s friend St John Chrysostom
(347–407) was recognised in the Ancient Church (both in the
Eastern and the Western one) to be her ‘great Father and Doctor’ along with another two pillars of the Cappadocian school. First
of all, Chrysostom insisted upon the incomprehensibility of the
Godhead. The biblical text is an adjustment of the infi nite Truth
to the limitation of human reason and, moreover, the fallen one.
This is why St John once again justifi es the allegorical interpretations, yet without regarding them universal, which was a characteristic feature of the Alexandrian school. To be of great benefi t to man and to arouse in him religious zeal, the knowledge
of Christ is ‘put in depth,’ in order that he may search for Him
‘with fervour and toil’ (Joh. XLI. 1).
222
Summary
St Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393–457 AD) carried out a method-
ological synthesis of the Antiochene and Alexandrian approaches
towards the interpretation of the sacral text. Criticising Theodore
for an arbitrary treatment of the biblical canon, St Theodoret admi^ ed a number of various allegories which were necessary to
allow the reader to ‘open a secret of the word,’ ascending to the
mystery of the God-man. In the fi eld of Christology, he asserted
‘a union in the same measure without division as without confusion’ (Ep. 21), which was confi rmed by the rule of the Council of
Chalcedon (451 AD).
The Eastern branch of the Antiochene school developed at the
th
towns of Edessa and Nisibis; in the early 5
century it was called
‘a school of Persians.’ Here Nestorianism was the predominant
theological teaching. However, its prominent local doctors of the
th
century retained authority for the whole of Christendom. The
4
works by St Jacob Aphrahat (270–345 AD) and St Ephraem Syrus
(306–378 AD) do diversify our notions of Antiochene Hermeneutics. The former was abbot of a monastery near Ninevia; the latter was a preacher at Edessa. The methodological basis of their
Exegesis was the Middle East culture of parable which is quite
diff erent from allegory due to the impossibility of gap between
form and content, reality and sense. According to Aphrahat,
the very Christian faith is ‘like a building which is being made
of multiple materials and this building is rising to the heaven’
(A Tahvita on Faith, 1). All temporal events are involved as sym-
bols into the eternity of God’s design that is an Eastern analogue
of St Justin the Philosopher’s doctrine of the ‘generative’ or ‘germinative logoi [words]’. St Ephraem Syrus saw Christ’s embodiment from the hermeneutical point of view as the meeting of
two incomparable natures in the space of symbol, where they
can mutually penetrate into each other: ‘He clothed Himself in
the likeness of manhood in order that He may clothe manhood
in the likeness of Himself’ (Paradis. XI. 6). St Ephraem wrote his
dogmatic treatises against Arians, Chiliasts, Astrologists, etc in
the form of solemn hymns, clearly avoiding scholastic arguments
in the spirit of Greek schools. Finally, the latest of great thinkers
th
of the Antiochene school Isaac the Syrian (7
century) presents
an epoch when the ‘schools’ controversy’ had altogether lost its
223
Summary
topicality. On the basis of fi ne empirical anthropology of monasticism he has managed to create a theory of asceticism which is
still in demand in the praxis of Christian life.
Cassiodorus (477 — c. 570 AD) used the system of the Nisibis school while establishing school education in the West. The
Antiochene school methods were incorporated into the structure of Byzantine Hermeneutics. In a refi ned form they caused a
lively interest amongst the Reformation ideologists and became
a standard pa^ ern for realising the formula of sola Scriptura. The
mystic and ascetic heritage of the Antiochene thinkers is only
recently becoming an object of regular scientifi c research.
224
Ключевые слова
Антиохийская школа, Эдесско-Низибисская школа, Алек-
сандрийская школа, Каппадокийская школа, Кесарийская
школа, риторическая школа, Библия, Священное Писание,
Священное Предание, Евангелие, Бог, Логос, Божественное
Откровение, Вселенская Церковь, Вселенские Соборы, Халкидонский Собор, Православие, философия, богословие,
герменевтика, экзегетика, экзегеза, историко-грамматический
метод, притча, покаяние, Крещение, Евхаристия, литургика,
ипостась, агиография, агиология, антропология, апологетика,
апологет, риторика, христология, христологические споры,
эллинизм, ересь, несторианство, гностицизм, монофизитство,
монофелитство, типос, типология, типологический метод,
иносказание, аллегория, аллегореза, аллегорический метод,
анагогия, метафора, сакральное время, сакральный текст,
апокриф, пророк, профетизм, сущность, природа, творение,
материя, энергия, ангельский мир, человек, время, вечность,
«Диатессарон», «Тахвита», Диодор Тарсский, Феодор Мопсуэстийский, апостол Павел, святой Лукиан Антиохийский,
святитель Иоанн Златоуст, преподобный Ефрем Сирин, блаженный Феодорит Кирский, святой Иаков Афраат.
Кey words
The Antiochene School, the School of Edessa and Nisibis,
the Alexandrian School, the Cappadocian School, the School of
Caesarea, the rhetorical school, the Bible, the Holy Scripture, the
Holy Tradition, Gospel, God, the Logos, the Divine Revelation,
the Oecumenical Church, the Oecumenical Councils, the Chalcedonic Council, Christian Orthodoxy, Philosophy, Theology,
Hermeneutics, Exegetics, exegesis, historical and grammatical
method, parable, contrition, Baptism, the Eucharist, Liturgics,
hypostasis, Hagiography, Hagiology, Anthropology, Apologetics,
apologist, Rhetoric, Christology, Christological disputes,
Hellenism, heresy, Nestorianism, Gnosticism, Monophysitism
(one-nature controversy), Monotheletism (one-will controversy),
typos, typology, typological method, circumlocution, allegory,
allegorism, allegorical method, anagogy (fi gure), metaphor,
sacral time, sacral text, Apocrypha, prophet, prophetism, essence,
nature, creation, ma^ er, energy, the angelic world, man, time,
eternity, Diatessaron (a harmony of the four Gospels), Tahvita
(a Demonstration), Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Apostle Paul, St Lucian of Antioch, St John Chrysostom,
St Ephraem the Syrian, St Theodoret of Cyrrhus, St Aphrahat.
Творческая биография
Валерий Яковлевич Саврей
(р. 1956) — доктор фило-
софских наук, профессор,
лауреат Макариевской премии. Специалист в области
истории зарубежной философии, истории культуры,
философии религии и богословия.
Автор научных трудов,
посвященных философской
и библейской герменевтике,
экзегетике, теологии и восточной патристике, самым
значительным из которых является исследование по истории философии и богословия
в александрийской культуре.
Основатель первой в России кафедры истории и теории
мировой культуры философского факультета и Института
мировой культуры МГУ.
Автор фундаментальной научной монографии «Алексан-
дрийская школа в истории философско-богословской мысли». Удостоен Макариевской премии РАН «за выдающийся
вклад в развитие отечественной исторической науки».
В.Я. Саврей является профессором кафедры философии
религии и религиоведения философского факультета МГУ
имени М.В. Ломоносова и профессором кафедры библеистики Московской Духовной Академии.
Curriculum Vitae
Valery Yakovlevich Savrey
(b. 1956), PhD, Professor, St Macarius Prize Winner, is at present a specialist in the fi eld of History of Foreign Philosophy, History of Culture, Philosophy of Religion, and Theology.
The scholar’s research interests include Biblical Studies, Philosophical Hermeneutics, Exegesis, Theology, and Eastern Patristics.
The most important of these works is his research into the History
of Philosophy and Theology in the Alexandrian culture.
He is a founder of the fi rst Russian Department of History and
Theory of the World Culture at the Faculty of Philosophy and the
Institute of the World Culture at Moscow University.
He is an author of the fundamental scientifi c monograph, The
Alexandrian School in the History of Philosophical and Theological
Thought. He has won the St Macarius Prize of the Russian Acad-
emy of Sciences for his ‘outstanding contribution in the development of national history.’
Mr V. Savrey is Professor at the Department of Philosophy
of Religion and Religious Studies at the Faculty of Philosophy
at Moscow University, Professor of the Department of Biblical
Studies at the Theological Academy of Moscow.
Учебное издание
САВРЕЙ ВАЛЕРИЙ ЯКОВЛЕВИЧ
АНТИОХИЙСКАЯ ШКОЛА
В ИСТОРИИ
ХРИСТИАНСКОЙ МЫСЛИ
Редакторы
Н.И. Колотовкин
Н.А. Любимов
Е.А. Босина
Художник
Н.Н. Аникушин
Художественный редактор
Г.Д. Колоскова
Технический редактор
С. Кондрашова
З.
Корректор
И.В. Бабаева
Компьютерная верстка
Л.В. Тарасюк
Подписано в печать 19.12.2011.
Формат 60 × 90 1/16. Бумага офс. № 1.
Офсетная печать. Гарнитура Палатинолинотайп.
Усл. печ. л. 14,5. Тираж 3000 экз.
Изд. № 8889. Заказ
Издательство Московского университета
Интернет-магазин: http://msupublishing.ru
Ордена «Знак Почета»
125009, Москва, ул. Б. Никитская, 5/7
Тел.: 629-50-91. Факс: 697-66-71
939-33-23 (отдел реализации).
E-mail: secretary-msu-press@yandex.ru
Сайт Издательства МГУ:
www.msu.ru/depts/MSUPubl2005
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]