| В рукописи памятник носит два названия: в оглавлении содержания кодекса он называется кратко: Διδαχ τν δδεκα ποστλων, а в самом тексте называется более пространно Διδαχ Κυρου τν δδεκα ποστλων τος θνεσιν. Последнее название, составляющее надписание «Дидахи», по всей вероятности, древнее первого, образовавшегося из него путём сокращения, и должно быть признано подлинным. Само собою разумеется, что надписание «Учение Господа (преданное) чрез 12 Апостолов народам», не есть указание на автора «Дидахи» (то есть на кого-то из Апостолов). Это видно и из того, что автор «Дидахи» всюду ведёт речь от своего лица (ср.: его обращение к читателям: «чадо мое» – Did. 3, 1; 4, 1//SC. T. 248. P. 152, 156; р. п.: C. 22:24), нигде не выводя говорящими Господа или Апостолов, как это делали в позднейших подлогах, и всегда предлагает наставления Апостолов в своей собственной передаче. Отсюда нужно признать, что надписание указывает на задачу автора «Дидахи» изложить учение Господа, переданное Им Апостолам и проповеданное ими всем народам, согласно с заповедью Господа – шедше научите вся языки, крестяще их ( Мф. 28:19 ). Такое понимание надписания «Дидахи» вполне оправдывается и его содержанием. «Дидахи», действительно, представляет собою как бы краткую запись тех наставлений, которые преподавали новообращённым верующим Апостолы, а за ними и миссионеры – харизматики, и наглядно показывает, как Апостолы оглашали язычников и какие правила церковной жизни давали они новооснованным общинам. «Дидахи», таким образом, является произведением, так сказать, компилятивного свойства, но оно нигде не выдаёт себя за писание апостольское, а потому оно не может быть считаемо подлогом или псевдонимом. При всём том, однако, составитель скрыл своё имя, так что «Дидахи» является произведением анонимным. 2. Содержание «Дидахи» «Дидахи» – весьма небольшое сочинение и разделено Вриеннием на 16 глав. По своему содержанию оно распадается на 4 части. Первая часть, обнимающая 1–6 главы, обыкновенно называется катехизической, на том основании, что в 7 гл. относительно изложенного в этих главах учения замечено, что по сообщении его оглашенным можно приводить их ко Крещению. |
| Кроме указанных совпадений «Дидахи» имеет сходные места и с «Пастырем Ерма», именно в гл.1, 5 (SC. Т. 248. Р. 144–146; р. п.: С. 19) речь о милосердии и щедродаянии сходна с 2-ю заповедью Ерма (Mand. II, 5//PG. T. 2. Col. 916; р. п.: C. 220). Так как у Ерма идёт речь о гонениях на христиан (Sim. IX, 28//PG. T. 2. Col. 1003; р. п.: C. 279–280), o падших (Sim. VIII, 6//PG. T. 2. Col. 975–977; р. п.: C. 258; Sim. IX, 19; Mand., VIII), o чём нет речи в «Дидахи», то вероятнее всего предположение о более позднем происхождении «Пастыря», а не зависимости его от «Дидахи». Если так, то это самый ранний свидетель такого текста «Дидахи», который имел специфически-христианский отдел 1 главы. 5. Позднейшие обработки «Дидахи» можно свести к двум группам: К первой группе относятся такие памятники, в которых обработано только учение о двух путях (1–6 гл.), причём недостаёт того самого специфически-христианского отдела (1, 3–11:1), какого нет и у Варнавы. Таковы: 1) « Церковные каноны » – Apostolische Kirchenordnung 187 , в которых (4–13 гл.) первые 4 главы (с некоторыми дополнениями) по частям вложены в уста самих Апостолов (10); впрочем, « Церковные каноны » относятся сюда отчасти, ибо в них есть намёки и на 7–16 главы «Дидахи»; 2) приписываемая свт. Афанасию Syntagma doctrinae ad monachos 188 ; 3) тоже приписываемая свт. Афанасию Fides Nicaena или «Учение 318 отцов» 189 ; 4) речь одного монаха в арабском житии архимандрита киновийного монастыря в Фиваиде аввы Шнуди († 451) 190 – Oratio Schnudi; 5) древнелатинский перевод «Дидахи» (1–6 гл.) (издан Шлехтом в 1900 и 1901) 191 ; 6) небольшой фрагмент древнелатинского перевода, под заглавием Doctrina apostolorum 192 (обнимает Did. 1, 1–3; 2, 2–6). Вторую группу образуют документы, в которых полностью использован весь текст «Дидахи». Таковы: 1) 7-я книга «Апостольских Постановлений» 193 , представляющая собой расширение «Дидахи» (путь жизни 1–17 гл.; путь смерти – 18 гл.; литургическая часть – гл. 22–26; о Евхаристии – 30 гл., о епископах – 31 гл.; эсхатологическая часть – 32 гл.); только отдел о новозаветных Пророках, бывший уже ко времени составления «Постановлений Апостольских» (нач. V в.) архаизмом, опущен в существенных чертах, кроме общих замечаний о том, как принимать приходящих христиан (гл. 27–28), и распоряжения давать начатки священникам (а не Пророкам) (29 гл.); 2) Сюда же отчасти относятся и « Церковные каноны » (нет специфическихристианской части), содержащие выражения, напоминающие «Дидахи» 10, 3: «духовную пищу и питие и жизнь вечную» и 13, 2: «делатель достоин пропитания». |
| How did Saint Sergius of Radonezh influence Russian monasticism? (p 154) Fifteenth century The Council of Florence was an attempt to unite the Eastern and Western Churches. What were some conditions of this unity? (pp 161–162) What is the Rum Milet? (p 164) What is the Possessors and Non-Possessors controversy? (p 167–168) Sixteenth century What 2 events probably turned Tsar Ivan IV (“the Terrible”) toward certain cruel tendencies he had as a youth? What is the basic Protestant doctrine of salvation? (pp 178–179) How were the claims of the Council of Trent in opposition to the teachings of Saint Gregory Palamas? (p 179) Who was Saint Philothei of Athens? (p 182) Seventeenth century Who were the Old Believers? (p 189–190) Why did 2 Church councils condemn the Confession of Faith written by Cyril Lukaris? (pp 192–193) What was Deism, and why did it emerge? (p 194) Eighteenth century Why did Saint Cosmas Aitolos undertake 3 apostolic journeys? (p 197–198) What is the Philokalia and what spiritual quality did Saint Gregory of Sinai and Saint Gregory Palamas emphasize in their writings about this work? (pp 200–201) What did Saint Tikhon appreciate in the Pietist writings of the Christian West? (p 207) What was the attitude of the Russian Orthodox missionaries toward the native Alaskan culture and religion? (p 209) Nineteenth century Upon what 2 monks did Dostoevsky model his character Elder Zossima in his masterwork The Brothers Karamazov? (p 215) What did Saint Seraphim emphasize in conversing with Nicholas Motovilov? (p 216) In what 2 languages did Saint Innocent write his Indication of the Way to the Kingdom of Heaven? (p 222) What “first” took place in San Francisco, CA in 1892? (p 226) How did Father Raphael Hawaweeny contribute to the growth of the Orthodox faith? (p 227) What is the “Gospel of Wealth” and with whom is it closely associated? (p 232) What controversial decisions were made by the Roman Catholic Church in the second half of the 19th century? (p 233) Twentieth century (into the early Twenty-First) |
| How did the emperor Charlemagne have an impact on the understanding of icon veneration and the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed? (p 101) Ninth century What do Empress Irene (8th century) and Empress Theodora (9th century) have in common? (p 104) Why did Prince Rastislav seek Byzantine missionaries to bring the Christian faith to his Moravian people? (pp 105–106) What contributions did the Studion Monastery make to our order of worship? (p 112) Tenth century What changes concerning marriage came about in the 10th century? (p 117) Why was it significant that the Archbishop of Bulgaria was granted the title of Patriarch? (p 118) What similar experience did Saint Paul and Saint Vladimir have? (pp 120–121) Eleventh century Other than the filioque, what issues enlarged the divide between the Eastern and Western Churches in the 11th century? (p 124) What dramatic, decisive event took place in 1054 in Constantinople? (pp 125–126) What was the original purpose of the Crusades, as called for by Pope Urban? (p 128) What are “Passion-Bearers” and how were Saints Boris and Gleb examples? (p 129) Twelfth century What official proclamation concerning Mount Athos was made during the 12th century? (p 133) With what name was the Serbian ruler Stephan Nemanya glorified as a saint by the Church, and why? (p 135) Thirteenth century How did the Fourth Crusade deepen the split between the Eastern and Western Churches? (p 139) For what purpose did Saint Sava travel through the Middle East, Europe and the Holy Land? (pp 141–142) Why did Saint Alexander Nevsky consider the Swedes and Germans a greater threat to the Orthodox Church than the Tatars? (p 143) What 3 orders of Western monasticism were founded in this century? (pp 144–145) Fourteenth century What did Saint Gregory Palamas teach about the possibility for human beings to know God? (p 148) How did Saint John Cantakuzenos want Byzantine theologians to prepare for dialog with Roman Catholic theologians? (p 150) Why were the Orthodox Church’s headquarters moved from Kiev to Moscow? (p 152) |
| If we are to imitate them, let’s discover what shaped them. What inspired them? What influenced them? Certainly, many had wonderful parents. Many had holy parents. Many had great spiritual mentors and teachers, and all of them had a wonderful education, a pagan education, a university type of education. But what did they all have in common? They all had different parents, they had different educations, different teachers, different mentors. What did they have in common that formed their character? Of course, it’s the Bible. What did Chrysostom take with him to the desert, when he subjected himself to extreme fasting? What did he spend hours memorizing? The Bible. When Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian went off to the wilderness of Pontus to live in their little monastery, what occupied the intellect of those great minds? The study of the Scriptures. What was the foundation of the prayer life of all of the Fathers and frankly all early Christians? The Psalter (the Psalter is another word for the book of Psalms.) What did Athanasios turn to when he was fighting Arianism? What did Cyril of Alexandria turn to in order to fight Nestorianism? What did all the Fathers turn to in all of the battles against heresy? Of course, the Holy Scriptures. We have always been reading the Bible Now since they used the Scriptures so effectively in these great battles, and of course, since they were all so well educated, does this mean that the Fathers considered the Scriptures to be the domain of only monks, priests and bishops (because most of them were bishops, although some were presbyters, like Jerome, and some were laymen, like Justin Martyr)? Did they think that only the educated, clerics and monastics should read the Bible? Certainly not. All of the Fathers emphasized the importance of the Bible as an indispensable source of spiritual instruction, inspiration, guidance, and comfort for all Christians. This was the case not only in the East, but also in the West. The Western Fathers such as Ambrose and Augustine and Jerome also encouraged Scripture reading and study for all Christians. They immersed themselves in the Bible. They wrote and preached on the Scriptures endlessly. They discussed and debated controversial passages, and we have wonderful exchanges between Augustine and Jerome on certain passages, the interpretation of which they didn’t agree on. They pushed for more accurate Latin translations. |
| Блж. Иероним упоминает также комментарии Дидима Слепца на И. п. к., состоявшие по меньшей мере из 18 книг и посвященные лишь последним главам книги (Ис 40-66; Hieron. In Is.//PL. 24. Col. 21; Idem. De vir. illustr. 109). Дидим неоднократно упоминал эти толкования ( Did. Alex. In Zach. I 24; II 171; IV 289; V 123), названные «О видении Исаии» (т. е. Ис 40-41) (ср.: Hieron. In Is. Praef.). Некоторые исследователи, однако, считают, что Дидим комментировал и др. главы И. п. к. (Ис 1-39), на что, по их мнению, указывают нек-рые ссылки ( Did. Alex. In Zach.//SC. 83. P. 122-123). Дидим различает толкования на книгу и на ее последние главы ( Did. Alex. In Zach. I 24, 303). Цитаты из И. п. к. в Комментарии на прор. Захарию дают представление о том, как Дидим интерпретировал отдельные стихи из И. п. к.: напр., в Ис 63. 1-2 он видит указание на воплощение Христа ( Did. Alex. In Zach. I 8//SC. 83. P. 202-204). Иногда переходит к аллегорическому толкованию: напр., змея, к-рая в мессианское время уже не будет опасной,- это образ людей отпавших, но в конце концов уверовавших (Ис 11. 1, 8-9; 6. 10; Did. Alex. In Zach. II 170-174; ср.: Ис 40. 9 в Did. Alex. In Zach. I 303; Ис 10. 10-11 в Did. Alex. In Zach. IV 289, и др.). Блж. Иероним сообщает об очень кратких комментариях на И. п. к. Аполлинария Лаодикийского (CPG, N 3685), ориентировавшегося в основном на буквальный смысл текста ( Hieron. In Is. Praef.). В катенах сохранились также небольшие фрагменты комментариев Иоанна Друнгария , Исихия Иерусалимского (CPG, N 6559). Сохранившийся под именем свт. Василия Великого (CPG, N 2911) комментарий на Ис 1-16 (Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam) во многом стал источником для составления катен. Вопрос об авторстве этого комментария даже после длительной дискуссии, судя по всему, не имеет окончательного решения. Сторонники аутентичности этого комментария выдвинули гипотезу, согласно которой толкования представляют собой черновой материал для проповедей на И. п. к. ( Humbertclaude P. La doctrine ascétique de St. |
| Patriarch Bartholomew has opted for a schism. For a long time, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has positioned itself as the coordinator of inter-Orthodox activities of various kinds. And we are ready to join this activity. For instance, for over fifty years we have participated together with other Local Orthodox Churches in the preparations of a pan-Orthodox Council, which ultimately has never taken place. That is to say, what did take place was a Council but not pan-Orthodox. But even after the Council of Crete, which did not become pan-Orthodox, the cooperation between Churches continued. Thus, in the very end of August, Patriarch Kirill came to Patriarch Bartholomew. There was a long talk, quite fraternal in its tone, but regrettably, it produced no results because the sides remained ‘with their own interests’. - The Greek mass media posted a shorthand report of the meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew. Is this transcript reliable? - I did not compare the shorthand report published by newspapers with what has survived in my memory of that talk. There was one person, a staff member of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, who took it down in shorthand. The initial arrangement was that the content of the talk was strictly confidential. When Patriarch Kirill talked to the press at the airport, he said absolutely nothing about the content of the talk. Then the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to organize what is described now by not a very nice word ‘leak’. I would not comment on the quality of this leakage and the degree to which it corresponds to the reality of what the staffer of the Patriarchate of Constantinople wrote down. But I can point out: the negotiations held in August produced no results and the Patriarchate of Constantinople took a line of further escalation of the conflict. - And why the Synod did not call yesterday for convening a conference of the Primates of all the Churches? Indeed, there were such proposals. - Such proposals were made at the previous session of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. Traditionally, synaxises of the Primates are convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople. But he did not listen to the voices of Local Churches and did not express willingness to convene such a conference. |
| However, the significance of the commission must not be underestimated. Its work was, from the beginning, Pan-Orthodox in its composition, its scope, and its concerns. It did much to establish new relationships among clergy and laity from the various jurisdictions who were concerned especially with the religious formation of young people. While it did not establish a unified curriculum, it did a great deal to promote Pan-Orthodox cooperation and consultation. Indeed, it was a grassroots organization that did much to indicate that Orthodox from various jurisdictions had a great deal in common despite their past differences and their past isolation. Constance Tarasar, a distinguished Orthodox educator in her own right, said: «The very idea of bringing together Orthodox pastors and teachers from various nationalities and jurisdictions was, in itself, a relatively new idea, and the actual foundation and development of the Commission became the first successful cooperative Pan-Orthodox project on a national scale.» 222 Closely related to these developments in the area of religious education were a number of Pan-Orthodox endeavors in the area of specialized ministry to teenagers and college students. In 1950, the Orthodox Christian Fellowship was established at Columbia University in New York by Father Georges Florovsky. This expression of pastoral ministry was designed to serve all the Orthodox students at that university regardless of jurisdictional affiliation. This fellowship became the model for similar associations established by Orthodox clergy and laity at a number of colleges and universities throughout the country in the 1950s. 223 During the same period, a number of the jurisdictions acted to establish national organizations designed to serve the specialized needs of teenagers. The Council of Eastern Orthodox Youth Leaders was established in 1954. Its principal aim was to bring together on a regular basis the leaders of the numerous jurisdictional youth organizations. The council was designed to create a forum for contact and cooperation among all Orthodox youth and their leaders. During the same year, a Pan-Orthodox Committee was established to oversee the development of an Orthodox award for deserving Boy Scouts. Like the Orthodox Christian Education Commission, these organizations were essentially grassroots in nature. Yet, they did much to bring together Orthodox from a variety of jurisdictions and to encourage pan-Orthodox cooperation. 224 |
| What precisely is this accusation which has been brought against Gregory? What is this opprobrium which some have attached to his name? Why have so many scholars labeled him “Origenist?” Chiefly on the basis of a purported eschatology he held in common with Origen: the doctrine of universal salvation, apokatastasis 129 ? Too many, however, have come to the study of St Gregory ready to cast his philosophia in a false light. Fatal to their undertaking is the failure to take seriously his anti-Platonic, anti-Origenist “Chalcedonian christology” or, what is the same thing, the Bishop of Nyssa’s Christian understanding of the beginning of, the course of and the end of created things. 1. Apokatastasis In the preface to his The Boundaries of Life. St Germanos of Constantinople (c. 635–733) rejected as false the charge of “Origenism” against St Gregory of Nyssa, maintaining that, in fact, his writings had been corrupted by heretics 130 . He may have been following the lead of St Anastasius Sinaitica (630–700) who was the first to suggest that St Gregory’s books had been altered, probably, in the workshop established in Alexandria by heretics, a workshop whose whole purpose was to adroitly change the writings of the Fathers, twisting for their “evil purposes (κακονοαν) their lofty teachings” (Via Dux PG 89 289D–292A). The Byzantine historian, Nikephoros Kailistos (fl. 1330), will later concur. Did St Maximus the Confessor (580–662) hear any rumors about the falsification of Gregorian manuscripts? Did he believe them? Maximos, so completely immersed in the controversies of his day, must have been aware that the disciples of the Monophysite, Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (d. 538), did not hesitate to “correct” any patristic text which employed the language of Chalcedon, among them a work entitled Peri arethns, “qui n’est autre que notre Vie de Moise.” 131 And certainly he knew and despised this Severian tactic to discredit St Gregory. Was it not heretics who attributed to the Saint the errors of Origen? Why, then, did he (and later St Theodore the Studite) refuse to disavow the so-called “incriminating passages” found among the writings of Gregory? What evidence did they possess 132 which led them to believe that the writings of St Gregory were not adulterated? |
| —Theoretically? —In what sense theoretically? He worked on theoretical problems including equations for estimating well pressure, but he also thoroughly analyzed deposits in America and was one of the leading Russian experts on American oil production. And of course he studied this not just for theoretical purposes. From the end of the 1930 to the end of the 1970s he participated in the development of some of the largest oil deposits. Even in the last years of his life he was consulted; he was a leading specialist. He received many government decorations. In the early 1950s he even won the Stalin Prize, first degree. —Did people around Vladimir Nikolaevich perceive him as a religious believer? —Many people knew that he was a believer, but not everyone, because he did not, as we would say these days, proselytize. But nobody who found out was surprised: his appearance and demeanor made it easy to guess that he was a Christian. At that time people did not typically broadcast their convictions. Till the start of the 1960s the Soviet intelligentsia was extremely atheistic, moving ever farther away from faith. Then the reverse process began; and strange as it may seem, it occurred not among those in the humanities but among the “technical” intelligentsia: physicists, mathematicians, and engineers. Many came to the faith as adults; as did I, for instance. It happened when I was about twenty—when I met Vladimir Nikolaevich. Over the course of his entire life he preached Christian values. Perhaps he did not call things by their real names. Obviously, in the Soviet era the undisguised propagation of Christianity would not have been allowed. But if we read his speeches at meetings and conferences, and the brochures he published, there is nothing you would want to cross out. Everything he said and wrote then is applicable to today. I don't think there are very many statements made in the Soviet era—both on scientific topics and on matters of conscience—that would not make their authors blush today. |
|
|
