Vasily Bolotov - lectures on the history of the ancient church

110. V. V. Bolotov himself in his lectures (course 1892/3), as well as in the studies mentioned above, published after his death in the form of an article entitled “On the History of Emperor Heraclius”. (Byzant. Times. XIV, 1, 89-91, ott. 22-24), expresses the opinion that the cathedral in Karin, at which Ezra and other Armenians were reunited with the Greek Church, was at the end of 628 or the beginning of 629 . In this article, as the terminus post quem non of the council, July 28, 631, the date of the death of the Monophysite Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch, is established, in view of the letter on behalf of this patriarch to the deposed predecessor Ezra Christopher, which is available in the Armenian translation of the chronicle of Michael the Great, which mentions the “unreasonable deeds" Ezra. When determining the exact date of the cathedral, V.V. Bolotov follows the testimony of Hovhannes Mamikonyan that the cathedral was in the 19th year of the reign of Heraclius (October 5, 628–October 4, 629). M. Brosset, Histoire de la Siounie par Stéphamios Orbélian, traduite do l'arménien, already accepted this testimony with confidence. IS-Pétersboürg 1864, 724. - But the letter with the name of Athanasius, after the promulgation of the corresponding part of the chronicle of Michael in the original Syriac text (II, 3, ed. Chabot, 1904), turned out to actually belong to Maruta, the metropolitan of Mar Mattai, and addressed to Athanasius' successor, John; there are no words about Ezra at the beginning of the letter (as well as at the end of the letter), and they appeared only in the Armenian adaptation of the chronicle. Wed B. Ter-Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den syrischen Kirchen bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts. (Texte und Untersuchungen herausgeg. von O. Gebhardt und A. Harnack. N. F. XI, 4). Leipzig 1904, 177–8. O. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, already speaks of this letter as a fake - "gefälscht". Stuttgart und Wien 1900, 383 (cp. Ter-Minassiantz, 67). On the other hand, even earlier G. Owsepian, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus nach ihren Quellen geprüft und dargestellt. Leipzig 1897, 51-4, drew attention to the fact that, according to Sebeos (History of the Emperor Heracles, ch. 28), Ezra's predecessor Christopher was placed on the throne under Kavad, who occupied the throne in 628 from February 25 to September, and replaced by Ezr after two years of reign, on the third. From this he deduces that this deposition could not have been earlier than the end of 630, and the council, if it had been already in the first year of Ezra, could not have taken place before the beginning of 631. But in the Narratio de rebus Armeniae of an unknown author, published by Combefis (1648) , the time of the council is determined as the 23rd year of Heraclius, the 4th after the death of Chosroes. Since the 23rd year of Heraclius (632 Oct. 5–633 Oct. 4) “may very well correspond to the year 633, and not 632, as Assemani thinks,” and Stefan Orbelian notes that the cathedral was in the 3rd year of the reign Ezra, then it must be attributed to the year 633 (54). This date can already be found in A. Ter-Mike1ian, Die armenische Kirchу in ihren Beziehungen zur byzantinischen (vom IV. bis zum XIII. Jahrhundert). Leipzig 1892, 61; but with him it appears independently of the indicated grounds, due only to a misunderstanding. After Hovsepyan's argument, scientists now usually accept it. Wed G. Krüger in Hauck's RE3 XIII, 40347. A. Pernice, L'imperatore Eraclio. Firenze 1905, 2254: "L'anno di questo concilio è stato saldamente fissato da Owsepian". Yu. Kulakovsky, History of Byzantium. III. Kiev 1915, 131–2. - However, it should be noted (Kulakovsky also draws attention to this) that the 23rd year of Heraclius reported in Narratio does not actually coincide with the 4th year after the death († 628 Feb. 29) of Khosroes II (631 Feb 28 [+ 1] - 632 Feb 28). Obviously, it is necessary to assume an error either by the author or scribes, in one of the numbers, κγ "or δ" (in the text published by Kombefiz it is "έν τετάρτω έτει", but in the manuscripts preceding its original there could also be a letter designation). The agreement of dates, among other things, would be achieved if we assume the replacement of the original. And in the latter case, through Δ, and to see here not Chosroes II, but Chosroes III († in the second half of 632 or the first of 633); but it must be considered, apparently, almost certain that Khosroes II is meant here, and not the ephemeral and little-known Khosroes III. If we accept δ" as coming from ε", then the time for the cathedral will be 632 Oct. 5–633 Feb. 28; if we correct κγ" into κβ", then - 631 Oct. 5–632 Feb. 28. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that it remains unknown how the author counted the years, whether he identified the years in relation to the beginning with Byzantine (from September 1) or even Armenian (from June 21 - if he was an Armenian who wrote in Greek). In any case, it is still impossible, apparently, to consider the issue finally resolved in favor of 633, and Hovsepyan, without sufficient, grounds, completely rejects the one proposed by Assemanius in 632 (this year is accepted by G. Williams in Smith and Wace, Diction, of Christian BIOGRAPHY, I ο μααττς μου ο μιιΣτςςνη παςςη αανη πααη υμιν с παρη υμιν с π апk. XVII, 6: εκ του ιαρςς τΩν μαρττρΩν ιησου Acts. XXII, 20 on Stefan). But Christ is also called "the apostle of our confession" (Heb. III, 1) and on apostles entrusts the ministry to be His witnesses, μαρτυρες (Acts I, 8, compare XXVI, 16.22). And the apostles call their mission “την μαρτυριαν Ιησου Χριστου” (Rev. I, 2). So martyrdom is a continuation apostolic ministry in the world.

When Christianity appeared, the civilized world of paganism had already lost faith in its religion so much that one must wonder how it could defend this religion for three whole centuries. The pagans believed in their gods less than the Christians themselves, who fought with them. For the Christians, these gods were at least demons, while the intelligent pagan was inclined to regard them as mere inventions. In the religion of the Romans, faith was not as important as in Christianity. Πιστις - not transferable to Latin language; fides is just a fake for it. Fides does not mean faith as a belief, but only honesty towards God. Thus, Roman religion consisted not in belief, but in the expression of this belief in a cult. And the cult was easy (for weathered indifferentism) to repay even without faith. Roman paganism was such an adversary that could not be given a general battle, because it could not be forced to seriously discuss the profound difference that separated its concepts from Christian ones.

Apologists like Tertullian, with all the fervor of sincere conviction, argued that religion - any - should enjoy freedom; that a cult without faith would involuntarily only offend the deity to whom it is repaid; that by forcing Christians to sacrifice, the Romans only anger their gods. To this argument ad hominem (“towards a man”), the skeptical pagans, who had long ceased to be afraid of the wrath of their gods, calmly answered: “Yes, what does it matter to you if Jupiter or Janus is angry with us because of this? You bring only a sacrifice and leave us to reckon with the gods for its consequences. - "But these gods do not exist," they objected. Whoever refused something so easy, he - it seemed - risked his life because of perfect trifles. Any objections of Christians that a cult rendered to the gods under compulsion can only anger the gods, that it is impossible to honor false gods - these stone and wooden statues, flew without a trace through the thought of indifferentists, who willingly took the wrath of the gods at their own peril, and to refuse the cult of statues is not saw targets because of its complete harmlessness.

Posthumous edition of lectures on the history of the ancient church by Professor Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov. The desire to see this course in print has long been expressed by admirers of Vasily Vasilyevich, and it has grounds for itself both in the urgent need we have for publications of this kind, and in the generally recognized martyred authority of Bolotov and the merits of his readings known to his listeners.

The accepted method of publishing V.V. Bolotov’s lectures through the involvement of unauthorized notes in the case, generally significantly complicating the task, causes special difficulties in relation to the introduction, for which there is no text verified by V.V. Bolotov himself for lithography in general. It is published mainly in the courses of 1898-1899 and then 1887-1888 and 1890-1891. By the very nature of the object, it is precisely here that proper names, numbers, and titles of compositions are most often encountered; they had to be checked and sometimes restored using books from the library of Vasily Vasilyevich. The more important additions of a bibliographical nature to the readings of Vasily Vasilyevich, which are especially necessary in this section, are marked in square brackets or referred to in the notes. But the main task everywhere was, first of all, to restore, as far as possible, the content of the lectures of Vasily Vasilyevich himself, on the basis of sometimes extremely ungrateful material.

The shortcomings that will be encountered in the edition underway should be attributed to the state of the sources and their present processing. But one can think that the appearance of Vasily Vasilyevich's academic readings, even in their present imperfect form, will not detract from his scientific fame, but will only make the results of his scientific activity accessible to a wider circle of readers than can be assumed for his special works.

A. Diamonds

Vasily Bolotov - Lectures on the history of the ancient church I-II - Introduction to church history - History of the Church in the period before Constantine the Great

V.V. Bolotov. - 2nd ed. - Minsk: Belarusian Orthodox Church, 2011. - 576 p.

ISBN 978-985-511-341-7

Vasily Bolotov - Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church - Volume I - Introduction to Church History - Table of Contents

Foreword

I. Preliminaries

• 1. The concept of history
• 2. The concept of the Church
• 3. The work of the historian.
• 4. Objectivity and confessionalism in church history

II. Auxiliary Sciences for Church History

Diplomatics. Sphragistics. Epigraphy. Numismatics. paleography. Material for writing; tasks of paleography: reading manuscripts and determining the time and place of their writing; value of paleography. Philology and its meaning. Geography. Meaning of proper geographical names; manuals and primary sources on historical geography ancient world and ecclesiastical geography. Church statistics. Onomatology (prosopography). A guide to identifying the proper names of bishops and others. Right. Help for understanding job titles. Metrology and metrological names. Chronology material and formal. Proceedings on 1) material chronology; 2) formal chronology: a) technical and b) mathematical (astronomical). Information about the various eras and methods of chronology.

• Roman chronology
• Eastern (Syrian) reckoning
• Egyptian chronology
• Chronology from R.Kh.
• Question about the time of the birth and death of Christ
• Timeline from the Creation of the World
• Abyssinian, Georgian and Armenian chronology
• Muslim chronology
• Byzantine chronology by indictions

III. Church History Sources

• 1. Monumental springs
• 2. Book sources of a general nature and their fundamental publications
• 3. Special sources of church history

IV. Division of church history into periods

Index of names and cathedrals

Vasily Bolotov - Lectures on the history of the ancient church - Volume II - History of the Church in the period before Constantine the Great - Contents

Foreword

History of the Church in the period before Constantine the Great. General character this period

DEPARTMENT FIRST. CHRISTIANITY AND THE PAGAN WORLD: THE STRUGGLE OF CHRISTIANITY AGAINST PAGANITY IN LIFE AND IN THOUGHT

I. The Post-Apostolic Church and the Roman Empire

• 1. Martyrdom
• 2. Reasons for the persecution of Christians
• 3. History of persecution

II. Apologies for Christianity and pagan controversy

III. The struggle of Christianity with pagan thought in the form of gnosis

• 1. Origin and general character of gnosis
• 2. Scheme of the content of gnostic systems and experiments on their classification
• 3. Major Gnostic Systems

IV. Spread of Christianity

• 1. Sources of information about the spread of Christianity in ancient times
• 2. Spread of Christianity in the East
• 3. Spread of Christianity in the West

SECTION TWO. THE INNER LIFE OF THE CHURCH: EXPLAINING DOGMATIC DOCTRINE AND THE BEGINNINGS OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND RITE

I. Disclosure of the doctrine of the God-man (the "theological" stage par excellence: the doctrine of the Holy Trinity)

• 1. The doctrine of Christ as God and the theory of the Logos
• 2. Monarchism
• 3. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity by Tertullian and Origen and the general scheme for constructing this doctrine in the pre-Nicene period
• 4. The doctrine of the human nature of Christ in the pre-Nicene period. Teachings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria. Origen.
• 5. The Dynamistic Monarchianism of Paul of Samosata

II. Experience of Origen's system of Christian gnosis

III. Montanism

IV. Disputes over discipline and schisms in the ancient Church

• 1. The split of Callistus and Hippolytus
• 2. Schisms of Novatus and Novatian
• 3. Dispute about the baptism of heretics
• 4. Donatist split
• 5. Melitian schism.

V. Disputes about the timing of the celebration of Easter

• A) First Age: Difference Between Roman and Asia Minor Practice
• B) The Second Age: The difference between Alexandria and Syria. Question about Easter at the Council of Nicaea
• B) Third Age: Difference Between Alexandria and Rome

VI. Church system in the first three centuries of Christianity.

Index of names and cathedrals

V.V. Bolotov. 2nd ed. - Minsk: Belarusian Orthodox Church, 2011. - 768 p.

ISBN 978-985-511-342-4

Vasily Bolotov - Lectures on the history of the ancient church - Volume III - History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils - Church and state - Church system - Contents

Foreword

History of the Church during the Ecumenical Councils. General character of this period

DEPARTMENT FIRST. CHURCH AND STATE

I. Conversion to Christianity by Constantine the Great

II. The significance of the national characteristics of the Greeks and Romans and the traditions of the Roman state and the Christian Church in establishing relations between the Church and the state

III. The history of relations between Church and state since the time of Constantine the Great

• 1. Religious policy of Constantine the Great and his sons
• 2. Pagan reaction under Julian the Apostate

• 3. Religious policy of emperors after Julian

IV. The struggle of Christianity with paganism in life and thought

V. Rights and Privileges of the Church in a Christian State

• 1. Property rights
• 2. Freedom from taxes and duties (immunity).
• 3. Judicial privileges
• 4. Right of application and right of asylum
• 5. Other less important laws in favor of the Church

SECTION TWO. CHURCH BUILD

I. Clear and Hierarchy

• 1. Conditions for joining the clear
• 2. Increase in clergy and new church positions
• 3. Deacons and presbyters
• 4. Bishops
  • Appendix
    • Election of the Patriarch among the Syro-Persian Nestorians and among the Copts
    • The election of the pope in the Roman Catholic Church

1910

Bolotov Vasily Vasilievich (1853-1900) - Russian Orthodox Church historian. He graduated from the Ostashkov Theological School and the Tver Theological Seminary, and then St. Petersburg. Spiritual Academy (1879). Even in his student years, he impressed everyone with "amazing knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and free reading in Latin, Greek, German and French texts." He knew Jewish, Syriac, Arabic and other ancient languages. Bolotov's master's thesis "Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity" (St. Petersburg, 1879) was defended in 1879 and was a real event in Russian church history. Bolotov was a professor of ancient church history in St. Petersburg. Spiritual Academy. His posthumously published Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church (St. Petersburg, 1907-18, vols. 1-4) became a classic example of the Orthodox and at the same time strictly scientific method of research. period, as well as the further fate of Christianity of different peoples of the East and West. He is also interested in questions about the relationship between church and state, the relationship of the church to the pagan world, the history of theological thought, the schism of the churches, and the rise of the papacy.

Vasilevich

History lectures

ancient church

I. The post-apostolic church

and Roman Empire

A characteristic sign of the position of the primordial church is determined by the name of its "ecclesia pressa" ("persecuted, oppressed Church"). Indeed, this period is so exceptional that the question of the relationship of the state to the Christian Church pushes all other questions into the background. If you look at this time from a distant point, then one picture would be presented - the struggle for existence. The most important questions of the inner church life would appear as a detail in this picture. What will stand: the spirit or the figure - this is the main question of this period.

1. Martyrdom

The struggle of the church against the external force of the state found expression in martyrdom. The church of the post-apostolic period, the ecclesia pressa, was the church of the martyrs. Martyrdom is a highly characteristic phenomenon; that it is closely related to this time is evident from how difficult it is to convey in other languages ​​the Greek concept "μαρτυς". The ancient Eastern peoples translated it literally, therefore, without commentary. Greek μαρτυς means witness. It corresponds to the Syriac sohdo, testis, from the verb sehad, testatus est, the Arabic sahid shahid (Luke XXIV, 48), temoin veridique, from the verb shahid, rendre temoignage de, the Ethiopian sama'yt, hearsay, from the verb samy'a (= Heb.) - heard, asmy'a - listened = testified, Armenian vkaj (Luke XXIV, 48) from the verb vkajel. testify, Georgian seems to be motsame, i.e. also a witness. New Slavic, not excluding Western ones (Czech mucedlnik, Polish meczennik), interpreted this word in translation, but not quite right. On the contrary, the Western peoples, beginning with the Latin, have left the Greek word without translation; Latin martyr passed into all Romance languages, up to and including Romanian, and Germanic languages ​​(German Martyrer), however, with an interpretation in the Slavic sense (Marter = torment, torture, torture), as well as in Magyar.

The word "martyr", which the Slavs translate the Greek μαρτυς - witness, conveys only a secondary feature of the fact and appeared as a response of direct human feeling to the narration of those terrible sufferings that martures endured. Such a translation indicates that in martyrdom these nations are most affected by the tortures of the martyrs, and not by their testimony for the faith. But the Greek Christian looked at the phenomenon from a different angle. Martyrs are fighters (αθληται) of the faith; their torment is a "feat" with a touch of solemnity, αγων. μαρτυς, therefore, is not a passive (martyr a participio passivi) sufferer, but a hero - a doer. In the story of the martyrs, we, separated from the beginning of Christianity by many centuries, are struck primarily by the tortures to which they were subjected. But for contemporaries familiar with the Roman judicial practice These tortures were commonplace. In certain cases, every person was subjected to torture - a criminal, whether he was a pagan or a Christian. Before the Roman tribunal, Christians accused of disturbing the public order appeared as defendants, deserving (in case of guilt) punishment and, above all, subject to the most serious interrogation. Torture in a Roman court was the usual legal means of interrogation. Moreover, the nerves of Roman man, accustomed to the excitement of bloody spectacles in the amphitheaters, were so blunted that human life was little valued. So, for example, the testimony of a slave, according to Roman laws, only then mattered in court if it was given under torture, and slave witnesses were tortured; it did not matter if an innocent slave, whose only fault was that he knew something important to another free man, came out with broken limbs and half dead. Thus, what we see as cruelty was then an ordinary detail of legal proceedings. At the same time, Christians were accused of a criminal offense, “insulting majesty,” and judges had the legal right to apply torture in abundance to defendants of this kind. Therefore, the suffering of Christians for that time was a phenomenon out of the ordinary only when the tortures were especially refined and brutal or morally outrageous. Thus, the concept of martyrdom expressed in our term can least of all clarify the true meaning of martyrdom.

The current state of philological science is such that it cannot yet satisfactorily explain the Greek "μαρτυς". Nevertheless, philologists speak out in the sense that μαρτυς is akin to μαρμαιρω, I shine, I sparkle. Others associate μαρτυς with μερμερος, difficult (sorgenvoll); the root in μερμενος is μερ, hence also "μεριμνα", - a word difficult to translate; in Russian it is transmitted inaccurately by the word "care", like φροντις. It is assumed that this root appears in the Sanskrit smarati, he remembers - but with such a connotation that remembering itself brings torment to the rememberer, that is, it is something that cannot be forgotten. This "remembers" is related to the Latin memoro, but not memini, which comes from the root mana. The difference between memini and memoro is that the former means the pleasant feeling of a free and strong memory, while the latter is associated with the concept of torment. The root for the German smerza, meaning pain, is also found here. Thus μαρτυς means one who knows something and feels it in his whole being as a burden, and this he confesses.

What meaning should be connected with martyrdom can be seen a) from the biblical word usage in the New Testament, which is explained in the special historical task of Christianity in the first times, b) from the opposition of the concept of "martyr" to the concept of "confessor", c) from the historical concept of "witness", as it developed on biblical soil in Old Testament times. The moral logic of trial by jury at the present time can provide some analogy for this meaning.

a) The height of the feat of the martyrs in the history of the Christian Church is already evidenced by the fact that Jesus Christ Himself deigns to call Himself "μαρτυς" - "a faithful witness" (Apoc. III, 14, 1, 5; cf. Eus.he V, 2. 3 ) and martyrs - according to Slavic wording - with its "witnesses" (apoc. II, 13: αννειπππ [Pergamsky] ο αςςς μου ομ κτνςηη παρη υμμκτα сηη παρη υμιν с ап ап πμηη υμιν сκ ап ап αιιατςς τω ταυττρωςς τωΣου dean. XXII, 20 about Stephen). But Christ is also called "the apostle of our confession" (Heb. III, 1) and on apostles entrusts the ministry to be His witnesses, μαρτυρες (Acts I, 8, compare XXVI, 16.22). And the apostles call their mission “την μαρτυριαν Ιησου Χριστου” (Rev. I, 2). So martyrdom is a continuation apostolic ministry in the world.

When Christianity appeared, the civilized world of paganism had already lost faith in its religion to such an extent that one must wonder how it could defend this religion for three whole centuries. The pagans believed in their gods less than the Christians themselves, who fought with them. For the Christians, these gods were at least demons, while the intelligent pagan was inclined to regard them as mere inventions. In the religion of the Romans, faith was not as important as in Christianity. Πιστις - not translatable into Latin; fides is just a fake for it. Fides does not mean faith as a belief, but only honesty towards God. Thus, Roman religion consisted not in belief, but in the expression of this belief in a cult. And the cult was easy (for weathered indifferentism) to repay even without faith. Roman paganism was such an adversary that could not be given a general battle, because it could not be forced to seriously discuss the profound difference that separated its concepts from Christian ones.

Apologists like Tertullian, with all the fervor of sincere conviction, argued that religion - any - should enjoy freedom; that a cult without faith would involuntarily only offend the deity to whom it is repaid; that by forcing Christians to sacrifice, the Romans only anger their gods. To this argument ad hominem (“towards a man”), the skeptical pagans, who had long ceased to be afraid of the wrath of their gods, calmly answered: “Yes, what does it matter to you if Jupiter or Janus is angry with us because of this? You bring only a sacrifice and leave us to reckon with the gods for its consequences. - "But these gods do not exist," they objected. Whoever refused something so easy, he - it seemed - risked his life because of perfect trifles. Any objections of Christians that a cult rendered to the gods under compulsion can only anger the gods, that it is impossible to honor false gods - these stone and wooden statues, flew without a trace through the thought of indifferentists, who willingly took the wrath of the gods at their own peril, and to refuse the cult of statues is not saw targets because of its complete harmlessness.