The Lost Fresco Paintings of the Inkerman Cave Churches (“Temple with Baptistery”, “Church of Geography”, Monastery of Saint Sophia)

Introduction. Among the “cave towns” of Mountainous Southwestern Crimea, there are monuments located in the lower reaches of the Black River valley. There are no less than 9 rock-cut monastic complexes which include about 30 temples. Methods. Some churches of the 13th–15th centuries were decorated with fresco paintings. Today, frescoes have been preserved only in one church. Sources of the 18th–20th centuries indicate traces of paintings in more than five temples. Frescoes inside the “temple with baptistery”, “Church of Geography (Eugraphy)”, and the Monastery of St. Sophia have not survived. Archival materials that expose the plots and compositions are published in this work. Analysis. The frescoes of the “temple with baptistery” date back to the 13th century. The Deesis composition is reconstructed in the apse conch. In the “Church of Geography (Eugraphy)” (the 13th century), on each side of the throne, four figures of saints are depicted (The Holy Fathers composition). This is probably: John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius of Alexandria and two more saints from among the Cappadocian Fathers. One of them is obviously St. Blaise. This painting in general terms repeats the traditional scheme of the lower register of the painting of the apses of the cave temples of the mountainous Crimea. The monastery of St. Sofia should be dated back to the 14th–15th centuries. During the period of the monastery’s functioning, there were fresco paintings in the Main Church and Church no. 3, but all the attempts to attribute them were unsuccessful. Results. The analyzed frescoes show themes of Deesis and the Great Cappadocians. They are common for altar compositions in cave temples in South-West Crimea. In the interiors of the cave temples of Inkerman, there are: simple linear ornaments, complex plant reports, linear ornaments with complex weaving and plant elements.

Personalitas Yesus dan Kritik terhadap Nestorius: Analisis Ibrani 4:12-14

The doctrine of the personal personality of Jesus Christ is still controversial today. Jesus Christ is the central figure and has the highest authority in Christianity, Jesus Christ is trusted by Christians because He is the Savior of all mankind, the proof that He is the Savior is through the Incarnation of the divine nature taking Mary's human nature so that Jesus Christ has two natures in His person namely, divine and human, the nature of Jesus is distinguishable but inseparable. However, a Christian figure in the fifth century, Nestorius, gave the opinion that Jesus Christ had separate divine and human natures in two distinct persons. It was Nestorius's teaching that became a major debate and rejection by Church fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria and rejected Nestorius's teaching in the Church. The author uses the method of text analysis or exegesis from Hebrews 4:12-14 which includes syntactic and semantic analysis, the semantic content will be analyzed by interacting with other texts such as the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers. :12-14 to make comparisons with the teachings of Nestorius. Based on the results of the research in Hebrews 4:12-14 and the opinion of the church fathers, it shows that Nestorius' teaching is heresy and should not be accepted in the Church. Jesus Christ is fully God and human because in Him there are two natures or natures, namely divine and human and these two natures cannot be separated in two different persons, if the person of Jesus can be separated then He cannot die, rise and save all mankind and it is useless to believe in Him.Abstrak: Doktrin tentang personalitas pribadi Yesus Kristus masih menjadi kontroversi sampai zaman sekarang. Yesus Kristus adalah tokoh sentral dan memiliki otoritas tertinggi dalam Kekristenan, Yesus Kristus dipercaya oleh umat Kristiani karena Dia adalah Juruselamat bagi seluruh manusia, bukti bahwa Ia adalah Juruselamat yaitu melalui Inkarnasi natur keilahian menggambil natur kemanusiaan Maria sehingga Yesus Kristus memiliki dua natur dalam pribadi-Nya yaitu ilahi dan manusiawi, natur Yesus dapat dibedakan tetapi tidak bisa dipisahkan. Namun tokoh Kekristenan pada abad ke-lima yaitu Nestorius memberikan pendapat bahwa Yesus Kristus memiliki natur ilahi dan manusiawi yang terpisah dalam dua pribadi yang berbeda. Pengajaran Nestorius inilah yang menjadi perdebatan besar dan penolakan yang dilakukan oleh para bapa Gereja seperti Cyril dari Alexandria dan menolak pengajaran Nestorius dalam Gereja. Penulis menggunakan Metode analisis teks atau eksegesis dari surat Ibrani 4:12-14 yang mencangkup analisis sintaksis dan semantis, isi semantis akan dianalisis dengan berinteraksi pada teks-teks lain seperti Alkitab dan tulisan para Bapa Gereja, Selanjutnya Penulis juga mengambil hasil teks eksegesis Ibrani 4:12-14 untuk menjadikan bahan perbandingan dengan ajaran Nestorius. Berdasarkan Hasil penelitian Ibrani 4:12-14 dan pendapat para bapa Gereja menunjukan bahwa pengajaran Nestorius adalah bidah dan tidak sepantasnya diterima dalam Gereja. Yesus Kristus sepenuhnya Allah dan manusia karena dalam diri-Nya terdapat kedua natur atau kodrat yaitu ilahi dan manusiawi dan kedua natur ini tidak dapat dipisahkan dalam dua pribadi yang berbeda, jika pribadi Yesus dapat dipisahkan maka Dia tidak dapat mati bangkit dan menyelamatkan seluruh umat manusia dan sia-sialah beriman kepada-Nya.

Council Acts Gathered and Organized

The protocols of individual sessions are gathered into larger units by the council’s secretaries, bringing together the records of several sessions. A frequent (but not the only) form of textual organization is the gathering of case files. The case of Eutyches’ trial allows the reconstruction of the material shape of the relevant file and the cohesion of separate minutes in one physical document. Internal textual signals for cross-referencing and interlacing such units are uncovered that support and expand these observations. The case of Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus I singularly shows directly the president’s own initiative to have a record combining physically the minutes of a number of sessions made.

Basilios Bessarion on George of Trebizond’s translation of Plato’s Laws

George of Trebizond (1395-1472) has spent a significant part of his life translating Greek books into Latin. The bulk of his translations is impressive: from Ptolemy’s Almagest to John Chrysostom’s homilies and works by Cyril of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Aristotle. He was quite an experienced translator, who had worked out an elaborated method explained in several writings. At the height of his career, George rather hastily translated Plato’s Laws. The haste and, probably, George’s bias against Plato and Platonism resulted in numerous inaccuracies of translation. Several years later, Basilios Bessarion closely scrutinized these faults in the fifth book of his In Calumniatorem Platonis, a comprehensive work aiming to refute the arguments set out in George of Trebizond’s anti-Platonic treatise Comparatio Philosophorum Aristotelis et Platonis. The paper analyses the use of such rhetorical devices as sarcasm and irony in Bessarion’s In Calumniatorem Platonis and especially in his commentary on George’s translation of Laws; it also aims to demonstrate how Bessarion turns George of Trebizond into a comic figure, thus compromising both the opponent and his interpretation of Plato’s doctrine.

Sermon of Nestorius «Against the Heretics, About the Divine Trinity» (CPG 5691)”. Translation from Greek, Edition of Slavic Translation from Greek, Preface and Commentaries by Dmitry V. Smirnov

Публикация посвящена проповеди Нестория, архиепископа Константинопольского, «Против еретиков, о божественной Троице» (CPG 5691), которая сохранилась под именем Василия, архиепископа Селевкийского, и была недавно идентифицирована и издана в древнегреческом оригинале В. Кинцигом. В предисловии даётся общая характеристика корпуса греческих проповедей Нестория, рассматривается текстология публикуемой проповеди и её перевода на славянский язык, анализируются богословское содержание проповеди и её критическая рецепция святителем Кириллом Александрийским. По заключению автора, проповедь имеет скорее риторическую, чем богословскую ценность; вместе с тем она служит важным источником, позволяющим понять внутреннюю связь между триадологическими и христологическими убеждениями Нестория. Предлагается полный русский перевод проповеди; в комментариях к переводу представлен ряд исправлений и уточнений текстологических решений и интерпретаций Кинцига. По рукописям Hilandar. slav. 404, Hilandar. slav. 389 и РГБ. Ф. 98. № 462 издаётся древний славянский перевод проповеди, сделанный в конце XIV в. в кругу святителя Евфимия Тырновского, патриарха Болгарского. The publication focuses on the sermon «Against Heretics, on the Divine Trinity» (CPG 5691) of Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople, which survived under the name of Basil, Archbishop of Seleucia, and was recently identified and published in an ancient Greek by W. Kinzig. The preface gives a general description of the corpus of Greek sermons by Nestorius, examines the textology of the sermon and of its translation into the Slavic language, analyzes the theological content of the sermon and its critical reception by St. Cyril of Alexandria. According to the author’s conclusion, the sermon has a rhetorical rather than theological value; at the same time, it serves as an important source for understanding the inner connection between the triadological and christological beliefs of Nestorius. Full Russian translation of the sermon is offered; in the comments to the translation, a number of corrections and clarifications of textual solutions and interpretations of Kinzig are presented. Based on the manuscripts Hilandar. slav. 404, Hilandar. slav. 389 and RSB. F. 98. № 462 the ancient Slavic translation of the sermon, made at the end of the XIV century in the circle of Euthymius of Tarnovo, Patriarch of Bulgaria, is published.

«One Energeia» in Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John 6, 53)

В настоящей статье анализируется одно выражение свт. Кирилла Александрийского (ок. 378-444). В своём «Толковании на Евангелие от Иоанна» (Ин. 6, 53) святитель, объясняя действие Евхаристии через сравнение с воскрешением дочери Иаира (Лк. 8, 53-54) посредством повеления Христа и протягивания Его руки, называет животворящую ἐνέργεια одной и сродной. В VII в. это место было введено моноэнергистами для доказательства того, что во Христе есть только одна ἐνέργεια. В статье сначала рассматривается, какое значение придавалось выражению «одна и сродная ἐνέργεια» различными поборниками моноэнергизма, прп. Максимом Исповедником (579/580-662), а также несколькими богословами Нового времени. После этого исследуется, что именно подразумевал сам свт. Кирилл, когда писал этот фрагмент. Автор приходит к выводу, что одна ἐνέργεια - это божественная ἐνέργεια, которая действует как через повеление, так и через прикосновение. Это не синтез божественной и человеческой энергий. Человеческая ἐνέργεια не упоминается в этом контексте, но из других мест становится ясным, что, согласно свт. Кириллу, Христос имеет также и человеческую ἐνέργεια. This article analyzes one expression of St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444). In his Commentary on John 6, 53, the archbishop elucidates the working of the Eucharist by comparing it with the raising of Jairus’s daughter through Christ’s command and the stretching of his hand. In this context St. Cyril calls the life-giving ἐνέργεια one and cognate. In the seventh century, this passage was adduced by the Monoenergists to argue that in Christ there was only one ἐνέργεια. In this article, at first it is studied what meaning was given to the phrase “one and cognate ἐνέργεια” by various Monoenergist protagonists, by Maximus the Confessor (579/80-662), and also by a few modern theologians. After that the author investigates what St. Cyril himself will have had in mind when he wrote this passage. He comes to the conclusion that the one ἐνέργεια is the divine ἐνέργεια, which is at work both through the command and through the touch. It is not a synthesis of the divine and human ἐνέργειαι. The human ἐνέργεια is not mentioned in this context, but from other passages it is made clear that according to St. Cyril, Christ also had a human ἐνέργεια.

When did Eunapius write his school biographies? To the problem of the dating of «Vitae Sophistarum»

This article examines the problem of the dating of Eunapius’ "Lives of Philosophers and Sophists" - one of the main sources of information on the history of Late Antique education, intellectual tradition and school culture. Arguments are put forward in favor of the fact that Eunapius’ story about the necrolatry of Christian monks who settled in the Egyptian Canopus, reflects the assertion of the cult of relics of St. Cyrus and John, dating back to the time of the Archbishopric of Cyril of Alexandria (412 – 444). These conclusions make it possible to correct the well-established historiographic tradition, according to which "Lives of Philosophers and Sophists" was published around 399–400, and enhance F. Paschoud's hypothesis, that the text of this work was composed no earlier than 412.

Spigolature pseudodidimiane

The present study, after a quick codicological investigation of the two surviving manuscripts of the De trinitate by pseudo-Didymus, in which it is concluded that one is a copy of the other, focuses on the lexical analysis of the first book of the mutilated trinitarian treatise. By showing divergences from the authentic works of Didymus, alongside parallels with the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, of other late patristic authors, as well as with those of the Neoplatonic philosophers, in particular Proclus, the author concludes that the chronological position of De trinitate should not be before the end of the 5th century, and suggests a possible origin from an environment of Antiochene influence.