Is Rev. Isaac the Syrian Orthodox or Nestorian?

This modest work is a filial tribute to the labors of the godly Optina elders and the great elder Paisius of Moldova. Thanks to their translation and publishing efforts, on the one hand, it became possible for a wide range of readers to become familiar with the works of St. Isaac the Syrian, and on the other hand, the beginning of patrolological studies of these creations in Russia was laid. But since in modern science, in this area, there has been, as we see it, a noticeable deviation from the direction given by the fathers, we considered it our duty to try to correct this “curvature” and restore the original. To study the patristic heritage is “a good yoke and a light burden”; in relation to the works of St. Isaac the Syrian can say that this is “wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Ps. 108:15). “As a person,” says Rev. Isaac, who drinks wine on the day of mourning, having drunk, forgets all sadness about his difficult situation, so, intoxicated with the love of God, in this world, which is the house of mourning, forgets all his labors and sorrows, and because of his intoxication he becomes insensitive to all sinful passions.” This kind of sober intoxication is offered to us by St. Isaac in his writings. In our time, the task arises of preserving this wine from all heretical fermentation, which has noticeably begun to penetrate into the field of Isaac's studies. Western theological science in its ideas and in this area differs significantly from Orthodox theology. Therefore, in our articles we deliberately dwell on those issues that, in our opinion, have not been fully considered, assessed incorrectly, and sometimes deliberately omitted. On the other hand, we consider it our duty to continue the work of studying the works of St. Isaac the Syrian, who was led before us by our spiritual fathers, Rev. The Optina elders, who in turn continued the work of St. Elder Paisius. It is difficult to overestimate the contribution to Russian culture made by what A. Muravyov called the “Optina movement” 1, which for the first time introduced the wide Russian reader to the works of St. Isaac the Syrian, publishing them in 1854. The Optina elders understood how beneficially the works of this “divine philosopher” 2 could influence the modern intelligentsia, therefore, when representatives of this class visited the monastery and met the elders, this book was presented to them as a gift. For example, the thoughts of Rev. Isaac, having barely entered the creative field, visiting Optina Pustyn F.M. Dostoevsky, have already passed into his literary works. Thus, Dostoevsky’s wife testified that in the drafts and in the final version of The Brothers Karamazov the name of Isaac the Syrian is mentioned many times. N.V. Gogol, who visited Optina several times and it was here that he became acquainted with the works of St. Isaac, later wrote: “I regret that I was late in learning the book of Isaac the Syrian, the great soul-teacher and perspicacious monk. We find sound psychology and not a crooked, but a direct understanding of the soul among ascetic hermits. What young people entangled in the intricacies of German dialectics say about the soul is nothing more than a ghostly deception. A person who is up to his neck in everyday ethics is not given the ability to understand the nature of the soul.” After reading the book of Abba Isaac, Gogol on his first copy of the edition of “Dead Souls” in some places wrote the following signatures: “I wrote this in delusion,” “I deeply regret the “rotten words” written here. I felt when I was typing this chapter that I was getting confused...” 4 . It is known that when the writer Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Strakhov were at a reception with Elder Ambrose, the latter gave Strakhov a book by St. Isaac the Syrian. In the book, Strakhov wrote in his own hand: “From Fr. Ambrose. Optina Pustyn. 1877, July 27." This copy is kept in the library of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy 5. It should be added that another representative of the Russian intelligentsia, the famous Slavophile and philosopher I.V., greatly contributed to the publication of Isaac the Syrian’s book. Kireyevsky. He was directly involved in the translation and comparison with the Greek text, and actively corresponded on this topic with Rev. Elder Macarius and St. Filaret Moskovsky, personally met with the latter regarding publication issues. All this determined the best quality of the book that was soon published. We can say with confidence that the preparation and publication of the works of Isaac the Syrian became for Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky the last field of his life’s feat. Two years after its publication, at the 50th year of his life, Ivan Vasilyevich died suddenly. With the blessing of the Optina elders, the published book was sent free of charge to the libraries of all theological academies and seminaries in Russia, to laurels and monasteries, and parish churches. Rev. Moses (Putilov) ordered that a copy be sent to almost all the diocesan bishops, as well as to Athos, to the Panteleimon Monastery, and to the famous Nyametskaya monastery, the resting place of St. Paisia. The publication and distribution of patristic works was also continued by the successor of Elder Moses, Rev. Isaac (Antimonov) 6. In the publication of Optina Pustyn, the first scientific apparatus appears, made interlinearly; in the numbering of each treatise a reference was given to its number in the Greek edition, for archaic Slavic words and expressions - an explanation; Some words were accompanied by a Greek translation. Discrepancies with ancient Serbian manuscripts were cited; an index of quotations from the Holy Scriptures has been compiled. At the end of the book there is an “alphabetical index of subjects”, i.e. names and concepts, and at the beginning - a “short statement” about the translation of the manuscript from Greek into Slavic. There is also brief historical information about Rev. Isaac the Syrian, borrowed from a Greek printed book 7. Thus, the beginning of the Russian study of Isaac was laid in Optina Pustyn. Then the Trinity Lavra took over the baton and in 1911 published a new translation into Russian. It is worth noting the works of priest Elijah Chetverukhin, the future martyr, who collected and prepared information about the Venerable for this publication. Isaac the Syrian and his writings. Here sschmch. Elijah is the first to note the inconsistency found in hagiographic sources, which “contradict each other in some of their points, and even quite sharply” 8. Compared to the Optina edition, in the Lavra edition the reference apparatus is placed at the end of the book, in tables, with separate pagination, in a somewhat supplemented and expanded form. Undoubtedly, modern studies of Isaac have achieved certain results, but those that have developed around the personality of St. Isaac. Isaac has still not been able to resolve the contradiction. Thus, in Western science, questions about the number of volumes and the religious affiliation of St. Isaac the Syrian has already been finally decided: he is a Nestorian 9, the number of volumes belonging to him is from three to five, the attribution is recognized as authentic; however, several treatises from these volumes are considered dubious. In Russian theological science, the situation is somewhat different: despite the fact that these issues were raised relatively long ago, for the first time – Archpriest. Georgy Florovsky, then Archbishop. Vasily (Krivoshein) and others, but no definite decisions from the point of view of canons, dogmatics, liturgical commemoration, i.e. In general, church veneration of this saint was not accepted. It is necessary to realize that veneration of St. Isaac the Syrian in Byzantium and Rus', starting, most likely, with the appearance of his creations, has been going on for many centuries. The first Greek translation of his writings was carried out in the Lavra of Saint Sava at the turn of the 8th - 9th centuries. Subsequently, we encounter the quotation of the words of Rev. Isaac from such fathers as Sschmch. Peter of Damascus, then with Rev. Gregory of Sinaita, Rev. Callista, St. Gregory Palamas, Rev. Nikodim Svyatogorets and others. The creations of this godly father began to penetrate into the Slavic world from the 12th century. through the Pandects of Nikon Chernogorets, translated into Slavic at that time. In Rus' there is active veneration of St. Isaac began at the end of the 14th - beginning of the 16th centuries, which was influenced by Rev. Nil Sorsky, who brought Rev. Isaac in his "Charter". At the same time, the liturgical commemoration of St. Isaac in the calendar and months. S. Spassky points out several manuscripts of the Jerusalem Rule of the 15th – 16th centuries, where the calendar contains the commemoration of St. Isaac the Syrian, Bishop of Nineveh: the days of his memory are marked on January 17, January 28 and December 28 10. In some Athonite manuscripts - September 28. However, over time in the Greek Church the celebration of the memory of St. Isaac died on this day, which was the reason for the grief of the famous Athonite elder, Venerable. Paisius of the Holy Mountain. Through his zeal for the liturgical memory of St. Isaac was restored on Holy Mount Athos: in his kaliva on this day the all-night vigil was celebrated without fail 11. So, as we said, veneration of St. Isaac the Syrian in Byzantium and Rus' began from the moment his creations appeared, but there was no formal act of canonization either there or here. In this regard, it should be noted that this is the situation with Rev. Isaac is no exception: there are many ancient saints whose canonization files are missing. As A. Muravyov rightly notes: “It can be said without exaggeration that the fate of Mar Ishak’s works was decided by translations, first of all, the Greek translation made by the monks of the monastery of St. Savva the Sanctified by Patricius and Abraham" 12. It is important to note that this translation was made from the most ancient Orthodox (Melkite) manuscripts of the 8th century. 13 Pirard, following Broca, names a number of other Orthodox (Melkite) manuscripts from which the Greek tradition originates 14: Parisinus syr. 378, Sinaiticus syr. 42, Vat. syr. 125, Sinaiticus syr. 14 15. Therefore, the veneration of Isaac the Syrian in the Orthodox world as an Orthodox father is not so much legal as it is primordial. But in the Western world a completely different situation occurred: there the “fate” of Rev. Isaac was decided by the publication of P. Bejan. The Nestorian manuscript of the 13th century published by him. Mardin/Scher 46 in fact introduced the Western world to Isaac, the Nestorian writer. Now we have come to the scientific watershed of the main problem in Isaac studies. Before rushing through these stormy waters, we will make a short excursion to hagiographic sources. 1. Biographical sources At the moment, biographical sources of Rev. Isaac the Syrian has already been well studied. There are three biographies; all three can be found in the book by A.V. Muravyov’s “Book of the Ascension of a Monk”, where they are presented in the original and translation; detailed comments are provided for them. In the scientific world, preference is given to biography, the original of which is in the “Book of Chastity”, written by Ishodnah of Bar in the middle of the 9th century. The second source, already of West Syrian (Monophysite) origin, is “Anonymous Rahmani”. This biography depends largely on the testimony of Ishodnah, and only makes a few clarifications. These two sources refer to a certain “Mar Ishaq of Nineveh from the Qatari country, which was located below India” 16. As A. Muravyov rightly noted, it is the biography of Ishodnakh Barsky that puts Mar Ishak from Katara into a historical context and connects him with the leading figures of the era 17 . Indeed, due to the fact that the name of Catholicos Gevargis (680), who ordained Ishak as a bishop, appears in the biography, the dating of his life is recorded in science - the 7th century. Also in these two sources there is other valuable information: about the place of tonsure, about the monasteries that Mar Ishak visited, about burial, etc. In fact, these two hagiographic sources complement each other, and in general present a picture in which the image of Mar Ishak, Bishop of Nineveh, is read and recognized. The third hagiographic source (believed to be of West Syrian origin) was recorded by Karshuni 18 by an anonymous author. Although this source is very sparse in biographical data, it also contains some additions to the first two, or, rather, has serious discrepancies with them. And most importantly, this hagiographic source, in comparison with the first two, contains a different dating, chronological coordinate, defining the era in which the saint lived. Isaac: “This saint lived at the beginning of the seventh thousand years from the creation of the world.” 1.1. Chronological experiment It must be recognized that dating expressed in this way may imply different interpretations of the time period. However, since in the writings of St. Isaac there are similar datings and chronologies, then, when compared with them, the date given in the third hagiographical source can be determined very accurately. Let's start solving this arithmetic problem: in the First Volume of Abba Isaac's works, in the 19th and 30th Words, there are two dates according to the Byzantine chronology, from the creation of the world. In the 19th Word the date of Christ’s coming to earth is given, in the 30th Word the date of its writing is recorded. Here are quotes: “For five thousand and five hundred-odd years God left Adam to work on the earth... in the last days he came and commanded freedom to replace one sweat with another later...” 19 . This is a well-known date, many chroniclers repeat it. In particular, it can be found in the Acts of the VII Ecumenical Council: “Christ our God in the year five thousand five hundred and one came to people, and lived with us thirty-three years and five months” 20 ; and in the “Easter Treatise” by Rev. Maximus the Confessor 21. The second phrase containing dating sounds like this: “For you go out to teach those (i.e. demons) who are already six thousand years old” 22. By comparing these two dates, the problem is not difficult to solve. If the first date, “more than five thousand five hundred,” speaks of the 1st century, i.e. the beginning of our era, then the second, “six thousand years”, about the 500th year of our era. This is simple arithmetic: Rev. Isaac, when writing the Words, counted the indicated dates in his mind, which, it seems, can be traced very clearly. It is necessary to consider another important feature of these datings. A peculiarity of Syrian historiography is that Syrian writers, when recording events, calculated chronology not from the creation of the world, as was customary in Byzantium, but from the beginning of the Seleucid era, i.e. The usual system of counting was “from Alexander the Great”, “adopted and widespread among the Syrians until the 20th century.” 23 Calculation from the beginning of the new era did not come into use among the Syrians and was rarely used in the East 24. In this case, we see that Rev. Isaac used chronology exactly according to the Byzantine account, “from the creation of the world,” and not from the Seleucids, as did the Syrians and the chroniclers closest to him, John of Ephesus and Zechariah the Rhetor. This argument, of course, is eloquent evidence of the affiliation of Rev. Isaac the Syrian to the Orthodox (Melkite) environment. It is worth discussing another existing feature of Syrian sources. In Bejan's edition we find that the Nestorian scribe of the 13th century. I have already rounded the date to 5000 years. It seems to us that such a rounding of 500 years (!) is most likely either a typo or an interpolation, through which the calculation of the dating of the life of the saint is hidden. Isaac the Syrian. To confirm our assumption, we checked the Melkite manuscripts of Vat. syr. 125 and Sinai syr. 24, in which, however, there is no rounding, but also does not have the accuracy that is found in the Greek translation. We also looked at another manuscript, the Monophysite one, Vat. syr. 124, where they found the same reading as in the Melkite. In Orthodox manuscripts of the 8th century. literally there is the following phrase: “for ( ͓ ͝ ͪ ger ) [for] five thousand years and more ( ͝ ͝ ͝ ͡ yatir ) He left ( ͫ ͒ ͩ ẗ shavkekh ) man/Adam ( ͕͐͠͠͡ l-adam ) so that he would work/labor ( ͕ͥ͢ࡡ d-ne'mal ) on it ( ͒͗ bang - lit. “in it”)": Sinai syr. 24, f. 24 (VIII century) Vatican syr. 125, f. 023r (VIII century) In Bejan's manuscript: “[for] five thousand years on that ( ͒ ͡ ͝ b-hai - lit. “in that”) He left him ( ͫ ͒ ͩ ͗ shavkekh ) so that he would work/toil ( ͕ ͢ ͥ ͡ ͠ d-ne'mal )''. Bejan's absence of the words ͓ ͝ ͪ "for", ͬͪ͝͝ ͒ "more than'', "more than, ͕͐͡ adam "man", shows that the Savvaites actually translated from the Melkite manuscripts. It can be said that the Greek translators transformed the word “ ̝ ̬ ̝ yatir ” (more), containing an unspoken date, into the well-known dating of the Incarnation, relying primarily, as Bickel would later say, on the chronology found in the Septuagint. In the Melkite manuscripts the Syriac word was interpreted rather than interpolated by the Savvaites; The Greek translation at this point explains what was said on the basis of an interpretation that does not imply distortion of the text, but the accuracy of what was said. We also do not exclude the possibility that there was another protograph that contained the full date (i.e. 5500 years). Let us repeat: in the manuscript published by Bejan, it seems to us that the Nestorian copyist of the 13th century. made a typo or interpolation. If you believe what is written in Bejan’s edition: “five thousand years” before the birth of Christ (there is not a single chronology system in the world, dating back to the creation of the world, in which the Incarnation would be recorded by this dating 25), then the next date for St. Isaac, “six thousand years” will mean the tenth century. – this is the first demonstrative anachronism. And the date in the hagiographic source - “at the beginning of the seventh thousand years” - will indicate a second anachronism - the 11th century. But even if we take into account the purely East Syrian tradition, where, in addition to the Seleucid era, the “era from the Ascension” was also used, then even then the divergence from the Byzantine era in such chronology will be only thirty years or so. “Ascension – world 5540 = 342 Seleucid era = 31 AD. 1 year from Ascension = 31/32 years. AD" 26. You can also take into account another chronology that existed in Syria - from Adam to Alexander the Great. The Muslim scholar Abu Raikhan Muhammad Biruni testifies to this chronology. “Some calculate the period between Adam and Alexander at five thousand and sixty years, and others at five thousand one hundred and eighty years. The last figure is used by most Christians, and it is [most] known among researchers.” Kuzenkov explains that “this synchronicity is 1 year of the Seleucid era = 311 BC. = 5181 AD - suggests an era whose beginning is placed at the beginning of the Easter cycle of Eas, 5491 BC. This era is one year behind the Alexandrian era. This type of era is used by the East Syrian writers Simeon Shanklavaya (12th century) and Avdisho bar Briha, Metropolitan of Nisibis (+1318). Thus, in the East Syrian era, based on the Paschal of Eas: the beginning of the creation of the world is Sunday, March 24 of the 1st year of the cycle = 5491 BC. Incarnation - from Sunday 24 to Monday 25 March 5500 of the world" 27. So, as we see, the reading in the Melkite (Orthodox) manuscripts of the 8th century. “five thousand or more” denotes the date of the Incarnation, i.e. 5500 year. It is difficult to say for what reason these two dates did not attract the attention of scientists, although the Greek compilers of a short life, and after them the Slavic ones, used the date “six thousand years” as a chronological support for the end of the 5th century: “About the time in which Saint Isaac lived, there is little disagreement with the opinion, but the most reliable is this, as he lived at the end of the fifth century, as is evident from his thirtieth word (according to Greek book 55), where the Saint speaks about the cruelty of demons in spiritual warfare: “against these who have it, for six thousand years you have made it legal for yourself.” It is obvious that Saint Isaac wrote this at the beginning of the seventh thousand years from the creation of the world, that is, about 500 after the birth of Christ” 28. Indeed, the date "six thousand years", if stated on its own, and if rounding is allowed, may suggest many readings. But when it stands on the same page with the exact date “5501”, then in this case one should assume an indication of the simplest arithmetic calculation that the Rev. used. Isaac, and for the era in which he lived and to which he testified - the border of the 5th - 6th centuries. Without a doubt, the author of the last hagiographical source recorded by the Karshuni implies precisely this dating: “This saint lived at the beginning of the seventh thousand years from the creation of the world,” i.e. border V – VI centuries. Our outstanding domestic hagiographers insist on the same dating - St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) and Archbishop. Sergius (Spassky) 29. To this we can also add the remark of Marcellus Pirard, who carried out the critical edition of the First Volume: M. Pirard especially notes that “the text of Abba Isaac was written in the spirit of the works of St. John the Hermit (5th century) and Abba Isaiah [5th century], although he does not mention their names” 30. It is also worth noting that in modern science the Arabic life is generally considered to originate from the West Syrian tradition (Monophysite) 31 . However, given that the chronology in this life is carried out according to the Byzantine account “from the creation of the world,” it would be more correct to consider this hagiographic source going back to the Orthodox (Melkite) environment. “The era from the Incarnation with the era of September 1, 9 AD. from VIII to XIV centuries. Orthodox Arabs (Melkites) also widely used it” 32. This biography acquires even greater significance for the reason that its content has direct parallels with the content of the Words of the Venerable himself. Isaac, confirming biographical and historical facts, which cannot be said about the first two lives. Firstly, this is the already mentioned chronology according to the Byzantine account “from the creation of the world”, which is also used by Rev. Isaac, and the author of the life. Secondly, the text of the life mentions the saint’s brother, which directly refers to the 24th Word, which contains a letter to this brother. And finally, the third fact, which is not directly related to the text, but is related to the inscription of the corpus of works, is the title “Bishop of Nineveh.” In this life, contrary to the first two, the monastery of Mar Mattai is mentioned. It is reliably known that “it was from among her tonsures that the bishop of Mosul was elected, who according to tradition bore the name “Nineveh”” 33. Regarding the city of Mosul (“al-Maucil”), Bolotov writes that “there is no reason to doubt that the episcopal see was located in Nineveh itself” 34. Indeed, there is no doubt that the Isaac of the Arab life was appointed bishop of Nineveh. But how relevant was the title “Bishop of Nineveh” for the Nestorians at the end of the 7th century. (if it was no longer used in the 8th century) - this issue requires special consideration. Catholicos Gevargis arrived in Qatar in 677 and is believed to have taken Mar Ishaq with him. At that time, the Monophysite party dominated in Mosul (Nineveh). After the Arab conquest, the Nestorian center of administration of the Nineveh diocese was moved to the Bet'Awe monastery, which is 35 - 40 km away. from Nineveh. The “Bishop of Nineveh,” nominally living in Nineveh, was ecclesiastically subordinate to the Metropolitan of Arbel 35 . A. Muravyov tries to explain this fact as follows: “We consider the most probable explanation that the position of bishop of the Church of the East with the title “Nineveh” was purely nominal, because the city was actually dominated by Monophysites. He was in the Bet'Ave monastery, and in fact did not perform any episcopal duties" 36 . 1.2. The theory of "mixing two Isaacs" So, we return to the question: how true was the title “Bishop of Nineveh” at the turn of the 7th – 8th centuries? among the Nestorians? By the time that Ishodnah Barsky made a hagiographical note about Mar Ishak, “the term “Nineveh” had completely fallen out of use among the Syrians” 37 . Bolotov writes that later, when “the city of al-Mausil (Mosul = Nineveh) became more famous than the ancient Arbel, the metropolitans of Arbel began to be called “Arbel and al-Mausil”, “Hazza and al-Mausil” and simply “Ator” or “al-Mausil”. Until the end of the 12th century. there was one metropolitanate, Arbel-Hazza-al-Mausil. At the beginning of the 13th century. it was divided into two: 1) Arbel-Hazza and 2) al-Mausil (Atar)” 38. Thus, not only the bishops subordinate to Metropolitan Arbel ceased to be called “Nineveh”, but the metropolitan also accepted the new title “al-Mausul”, i.e. Mosul. But we were interested in another detail. In a commentary on the Qatari schism, Bolotov wrote that “the Qataris apparently achieved that the Catholicos recognized them as an independent church “eparchy” with a “metropolitan bishop” at its head” 39 . This is the first interesting detail. The second is that Bolotov, continuing to comment on Qatari history, at the end of the book provides a separate study dedicated to the location of the island of Derine, on which Catholicos Gevargis held a church council 40. On the coast of Qatar, as Bolotov writes, there were two large cities, al-Qatif and al-Khatt. In note 17 he mentions a certain Ishak, Bishop of Hagar and Pat-Ardashir, i.e. Khattsky, who was present at the VIII Council of 576. What is important to us now is not Ishak himself, but his department. Bolotov continues: by 677, when Gevargis arrived in Qatar, “the see of Bishop Ishak was already divided into two: Hagar and Hatto” 41 . Next we will offer our interpretation of the events associated with Ishaq of Qatar. Of course, Ishak from Katara is a genuine historical person - a famous writer, teacher, who, perhaps, at the end of his life became a hermit, who actually lived in the 7th century. It was he who was ordained by Catholicos Gevargis as a bishop, but not to the Nineveh See, but to the local one, which was called “Hatt”, which is quite consonant with “Hazza”, i.e. former Nineveh. We have already said that by the time Ishodnakh Barsky wrote notes about the life of Mar Ishak, the title “Nineveh” was no longer used among the Syrians. So, it is quite likely that reading the writings of St. Isaac, “called Sirin Bishop. of Nineveh,” who lived in the 5th-6th centuries, but without having before him his life, or only a short version of it, Ishodnah could identify him with the closest chronologically Ishak of Katara, Bishop of Hatta, who lived in the 7th century. and died in the 8th century. Since in the writings of St. Isaac, called the Syrian, has the title “Nineveh”; for Ishodnah in the 9th century this title was equal to “Hazza-Mousil”. The identity of the names of two bishops who lived several centuries earlier and occupied departments with similar names; besides, the scant information about the life of the first of them (Isaac the Syrian) - all this could well have led Ishodnah to mix the two Isaacs into “one person”, and the subsequent interpretation of the life. In other words, in order for the historical title “Bishop of Nineveh,” with which the ancient books of Isaac the Syrian were inscribed, to be justified, Ishodnah cites a version according to which Catholicos Gevargis took Isaac from Qatar with him, and placed him under the subordination of the Metropolitan of Arbel, who bore the title “Mousil-Hazza.” This version could also arise as a result of an error, a typo in the manuscripts, or understatement. It is clear that Ishodnakh, when compiling his note, corrected, combined, and interpreted a lot. Deliberate distortion of facts cannot be ruled out. As Alexey Muravyov quite rightly noted, in the early Arab era, due to interfaith strife, an “inventory of heritage” began. “It was in the literary sphere that the process of “re-accounting the spiritual past” began, during which various writers of the 4th – 6th centuries. views, statements, and even entire works in a certain confessional spirit were attributed” 42 . Of course, the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian. Both Monophysites and Nestorians tried to “drag” him into their camp by interpolating his texts. Therefore, it is natural to believe that the life of St. Isaac has undergone many distortions. Indeed, despite the more or less brief and clear style of presentation in the two Syrian sources, Ishodnah and Rahmani, there remain many incomprehensibility and contradictions. So, for example, in what is believed to be the most authentic source (Ishodnakha), the names of bishops are given: both Ishak’s predecessor and the one who assumed the see after him. It would seem that this is the best evidence of cathedral succession and precise historical coordinates. However, Syrian historiography does not know such personalities: Moses and Savrisho, bishops of Nineveh 43. Also impressive is the fact of the grandiose journeys that the interpreters of the life suggested. Ishaq from Katara found himself near Nineveh, and after five months or less - one day - he set off on a return journey to his native place, Mount Matut. In those days, such a journey of 1800 km could last for more than one month! Again, this fact may conflict with the letter to his brother. In addition, in the source “Anonymous Rahmani” there are such strange expressions: “When he learned church books and interpretations, he became a hermit and teacher in his country.” The last phrase is especially significant. “He became a hermit and a teacher” is a contradiction in itself, and in addition, to the teachings of St. Isaac the Syrian. Thus, in the 56th, 14th, 23rd, 41st and other Words, he speaks of the incompatibility of the position of teacher with hermitage. The phrase “learned interpretations” also raises a certain question. The Qatari method of interpretation "involves etymological interpretations of biblical terms" 44 . However, we do not know of a single example of such an interpretation by St. Isaac the Syrian. On the contrary, his method of interpretation 45 is in sharp contradiction with the East Syrian tradition and does not reflect the realities of the 7th century. Another fact from the history of the 7th century. - the general decline of monasticism, which is evidenced by Dadisho of Qatar 46, a contemporary of Mar Ishak from Katara, also conflicts with the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian. In his autobiographical studies, he describes those great fathers who mentored him (Words 31, 34, 41, 10). Judging by the extent to which these ascetics achieved - one spent 24 hours in prayer, another “stood for three days in amazement, without feeling any labor,” etc. - we are talking about the flourishing of monasticism. Considering that the famous “History of the God-Lovers” by Blessed Theodoret was written by him around the middle of the 5th century. 47, then the testimony of Rev. Isaac the Syrian can serve as a historical addition to it. It is also impossible not to take into account the fact that Rev. Isaac himself became an “addition” to this “History.” Another question (fact) attracts attention. How is it that a West Syriac writer knows more about Mar Ishaq, even listing his family connections, than an East Syriac writer, since it is to this tradition that the Venerable One is believed to have belonged? It seems to us that such a collision can be explained by the fact that Ishodnakh gravitated towards the fact that the meager sources about St. Isaac the Syrian is given greater clarity by identifying, comparing, interspersing, mixing them with the life of Isaac of Katara. Whereas the West Syrian “Anonymous Rahmani”, already having a “mixed” life of Ishodnah and possessing more biographical information about Ishaq from Qatar, decided to make important adjustments. The first tried to “artfully” combine two different sources that, as it seemed to him, spoke about the same thing. And the second, already having in front of him a “skillfully composed” portrait of Mar Ishaq from Katara, put the stamp of a rhetorical cliché on it. Thus, we believe, there was a confusion of three hagiographic sources, which speak, in essence, about two Isaacs. The first, whose life dates are V-VI centuries, is a historical figure whom we know as Venerable. Isaac the Syrian. The second is also a real person, a native of Bet-Katrayya, known to us as Ishak from Katara, who lived in the 7th-8th centuries. Moreover, this confusion affected not only hagiographic sources, but also the written heritage. Hence there is confusion in the number of volumes attributed to the authorship of Rev. Isaac the Syrian. Anonymous, written by karshuni, says four. “Anonymous Rahmani” is about five books, and in the catalog of Syrian authors, recorded in the 13th century. Avdisho, seven are reported. It is this latest evidence from the cataloger Avdisho that testifies to the fact that works by authors of the same name began to be added to existing books signed with the name of Isaac or Ishak. It is clear to us that Ishaq of Bet Qatrayya was a learned monk and a prolific writer, interpreter and teacher, as described in the above Syrian sources. We are inclined to attribute to this author those works that we have isolated from the so-called Second Volume, attributed to Rev. Isaac the Syrian. These are treatises 3, 11, 14, 38, 39, 40 and 41. We have shown that these treatises generally violate the composition of the Second Volume, being the fruit of later interpolation. In their composition and content, they reflect the realities of the 7th-8th centuries, which corresponds to the life of Mar Ishaq from Katara. The treatise of the 3rd “Chapter on Knowledge” in its composition is a separate work or volume, in which, by the way, one can sometimes find traces of etymological interpretations. The block of treatises 38–41 can also be considered as a separate volume containing an apologia for the apocatastic heresy. Treatises 11 and 14 are polemical, containing anti-Jewish and anti-Messalian themes. Thus, separate volumes emerge before us, the author of which is most likely Mar Ishak of Bet Qatrayya. It is very important to note here another contradictory fact found in the life of Ishodnach. Namely, that Ishak expressed “three propositions that many did not accept.” The expression “many did not accept” contradicts the well-known fact that the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian was literally "in great demand" by all confessions, trying to add rather than subtract a few minor confessional studies, just to take possession of the corpus of his creations. On the contrary, the writings of Ishaq from Katara both in the 9th century. caused rejection: “Daniel, Bishop of Garmai Bar Tavunita, spoke out against him because of the things that he expressed,” and so it is today. Immediately after the translation of the so-called Second Volume appeared, it was “not accepted by many.” This, of course, applies primarily to the opinions regarding Origenistic eschatology and evagristic cosmogony found in the treatises of the Second Volume indicated by us. In the future, it will be necessary to conduct an analysis of identifying forged works in the existing so-called Third and Fifth volumes attributed to Rev. Isaac the Syrian. Judging by the available data, the Fifth Volume contains anti-Chalcedonian polemical themes and cannot be considered authentic, since the Christology of St. Isaac has nothing anti-Chalcedonian. It is the task of future research to more thoroughly critically examine each treatise attributed to or found under the name of Mar Ishaq or Rev. Isaac the Syrian. Including, so that authentic texts that make up volumes of works by other authors are collected under their names. Despite the fact that the two Syrian hagiographic sources (Ishodnah and Anonymous Rahmani) are largely similar to each other, there are a number of internal contradictions and disagreements. This suggests that both lives were “skillfully” compiled from different information. Here is a very indicative example of how Ishodnakh (the author of an authentic life) fits into the context of the 7th century. an event that happened in the 9th century. Namely, the accusation of Bishop Ishak. Daniel: “He (Isaac) created books about monastic practice and [expressed] three propositions that many did not accept. Daniel, Bishop of Garmai Bar Tavunita, spoke out against him because of the things that he expressed. When he reached a ripe old age, he passed away from temporary life, and his body was laid in the monastery of Shapur” 48. Ishak from Katara lived in the 7th century, but Daniel died at the end of the 9th century. The presence of this anachronism, as well as other contradictions mentioned above, speaks in favor of the fact that the life of St. Isaac the Syrian was compiled from different, even incomparable sources. Thus, the unresolved contradictions of these two lives do not allow us to consider them as reliable information about St. Isaac the Syrian. On the contrary, the life recorded by the Karshuni has both external and internal evidence confirming the authenticity of the facts stated in it 49 . This hagiographical source is directly related to the text of the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian. The biographical value of the letter to his brother in the 24th Word is confirmed by many scientists, for example G. Bickel and D. Miller. It is important to note that the latter, based on the dating contained in this source: “This saint lived at the beginning of the seventh millennium from the creation of the world,” was still in the 19th century. came to the same conclusions as we did in XXI (independently of him, because we received the translation of his book quite recently). G. Bickel writes in the preface to the publication: “This date is indicated in accordance with the chronology of the Septuagint, according to which the Nativity of Christ falls on the year 5500 from the creation of the world. Consequently, Isaac of Nineveh lived at the beginning of the 6th century” 50. Further, after reading the text by Rev. Isaac, Bickel writes: “... he (Isaac) at the time of writing his works could not possibly have been a Nestorian, but only a Monophysite or Catholic... of course, it is possible to assume that Isaac was Orthodox, which can be countered with only one argument, namely: we do not know about the existence of Catholic dioceses and monasteries in Persia at that time. The fact that in any case Isaac died belonging to this Church is confirmed by the fact that his works were translated into Greek by a monk of the Orthodox monastery of St. Savva" 51. The conclusions of this undeservedly relegated German scientist remained unheard by Western science. It seems to us that the point here is not so much that Bickel, in the words of M. Tamke, “failed”, failing to discover Isaac for himself and considering that “in a practical and edifying sense (his writings) do not correspond much to our time” 52. But what is much more important is that his conclusions, related not only to ethics, but also to the biography of St. Isaac the Syrian turned out to be, to put it mildly, “unsympathetic” to their Western colleagues. However, we should not forget that primacy in Western Isaac studies remains with this scientist. It was thanks to his translation that Western readers first became acquainted with the “original” text of St. Isaac the Syrian. The translation was made from ancient manuscripts of the 10th century, albeit Nestorian, and the correct conclusions of the German syrologist showed the Western world the true confessional affiliation of St. Isaac. It can be said that Western science, in the person of Gustav Bickel, stood at the origins of the orthodox development of Isaac studies. One can only regret that this prominent orientalist lost his position as a result of some kind of internal crisis. Alas (we admit, we note with sadness the following), another famous scientist, Paul Bejan, took the baton of Isaac studies into his own hands. It was he who was destined to publish what is believed to be the complete text of the First Volume of Rev. Isaac the Syrian in Syriac. And thus, unfortunately, we emphasize once again, introducing it into scientific circulation. Bejan did not imagine that his hasty project, the publication of Isaac's “original text,” would lead to serious scientific problems and the creation of false theories. Missionary success was important to him 53 . With such a prioritization, the goal did not justify the means that this researcher used. Bejan's project deliberately doomed Western science to wander in a kind of labyrinth of guesses and assumptions, where dubious exit theories have been created for more than a century. 2. Bejan's publication - approaches to criticism First, we want to show the unsteadiness and fragility of the foundation on which the modern Western science of Isaac studies began to be built. As is known, the first publisher of the complete original text was Rev. Isaac the Syrian in Syriac is P. Bejan. Thanks to the publishing activity of this scholar, many Syriac texts were published, and, as in the case of the text of Mar Isaac, these editions remain the only ones to this day. Bejan's publication immediately received recognition in the scientific world. First of all, for the reason that Bejan declared the text he published to be authentic, belonging to the list of the Eastern edition. Perhaps the fact of Bejan’s Chaldean origin also played a role. In any case, all researchers and translators treat Bejan’s edition with great confidence and do not even consider it necessary to check it (!) 54. Such a priori trust was fraught with problems for the further development of Isaac studies. Although Bejan's editions had a good reputation for the quality of the Syriac texts they published, they were often far from the norms of textual criticism 55 . Let us give a few examples that Grigory Kessel notes in his research. “The most eloquent testimony to Bejan’s work is his edition of the Chaldean Breviary. The text sent to the Chaldean patriarch for imprimatur was categorically rejected due to the conscious changes (with a pro-Latin tendency) introduced into the text by Bejan: Vosté 1945, 57-67.” According to the remark of H. Murre van den Borgh, when publishing the Syriac text, Bejan sought to ensure that there were no contradictions with Roman Catholic teaching. “The dogmatic criterion: the book must be in agreement with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - this is a sine qua non. If a book deviated significantly from what Bejan considered Catholic teaching, it was not published by Bejan. Less significant “errors” were either corrected or accompanied by an appropriate warning.” 56 In addition, G. Kessel advises to look at the comments of R. Draguet to the edition of “Paradise of the Fathers” (Draguet 1978, 46–47) and H. Teule to the edition of “Henotikon” Bar Evroyo (Teule 1993, xii) 57. With such a free approach to the published text, one can guess that the generally accepted original and authentic text of the First Collection, published by Bejan, underwent changes. Indeed, the observations of Gregory Kessel led to the statement of this fact. Thus, G. Kessel, comparing the Syriac text published by Bejan with the original manuscript Mardin/Scher 46 (1235), discovered the following inconsistencies. “The first thing that attracts attention is Bejan’s use of the East Syriac script (Nestorian), while the manuscript is written in a clear East Syriac version of Estrangela. Secondly, Bejan produced a complete vocalization of the text in accordance with East Syrian norms. In the text of the manuscript, the use of diacritics and accents is minimal. Thirdly, along with Bejan's vocalization, systematic punctuation of the text was carried out. However, only in some cases does it find a correspondence in the manuscript” 58. Such categorical manipulations carried out by Bejan over such a serious text demonstrate a subjective and sometimes deliberately destructive approach, but are by no means a scientific method. G. Kessel tries to “soften” this fact and explains that Bejan’s efforts were aimed at returning Ishak to an “authentic” environment. According to Bejan, despite the fact that Rev. Isaac was revered by both Monophysites and Orthodox Christians; in fact, his heritage belongs to the tradition of the Church of the East, i.e. Nestorians 59. Further, when publishing the text of the Mardin list, Bejan provided it with an apparatus where he indicated discrepancies. “However,” notes Gregory Kessel, “very often one can observe how the publisher (Bejan) introduces emendations into the main text, and places the original readings of the Mardin list in the apparatus” (!) 60. G. Kessel also noted that “in four cases Bejan introduced into the main text the corrected reading present in the margins of the manuscript, without specifying it” (!) 61. In his study, he cites cases of unspecified emendations, as well as other errors that could arise when typing Syriac text 62 . And this is only when comparing the first treatise from the Bejan edition with the original manuscript! Bejan's next innovation, as Gregory Kessel notes, was the sequential numbering of treatises. In the Mardin manuscript, only the first six treatises are numbered. Bejan's division of some lengthy treatises seems to G. Kessel to be unfounded, and therefore he considers it necessary to “carry out an audit of the division carried out” 63 . It should also be pointed out that the Mardin manuscript has a large number of corrections in the margins of the main text, the so-called marginal glosses, but only ten of the thirty-two marginal glosses are reproduced by Bejan in his edition 64 . And one more, perhaps for now, last note on Bejan’s edition: he reconstructed the gaps in the Mardin list using manuscripts from Alqosh and Mosul, dating back to 1898 65 (!). Judge for yourself whether we have the right to call Bejan’s publication a reproduction of the original and authentic text of St. Isaac the Syrian. I think that no sane scientist will now agree to this. We are faced with the obvious recklessness of Western science. The illusion that has developed in the scientific community is that Bejan’s publication is the original text of Rev. Isaac the Syrian begins to dissipate. To confirm such a serious statement, we will not rely only on the work of Gregory Kessel, but we will also offer our own comments. Namely, we will show that the text published by Bejan has interpolations. This fact serves as a serious reason for the Bejan edition to be removed from the category of authentic texts. 2.1. The problem of two or three editions After Bejan declared that the Syriac text of the First Collection he published was the authentic and original text of Rev. Isaac the Syrian, and in his works noted the presence of two editions in the manuscript tradition, an unquestioning orientation towards this thesis was established in the scientific world and this theory was accepted. The basis of this theory is chronological support for the 7th century, associated with the identification of St. Isaac the Syrian with Ishak from Katara - hence the East Syrian origin and Nestorian environment. The main argument in favor of the authenticity of the text is the presence of the names of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as Diodorus of Tarsus and Evagrius of Pontus. Thus, the theory of translation of the Syriac text by Rev. Isaac was understood as follows: from the East Syrian Nestorian environment he moves into the West Syrian Monophysite environment. Here the text undergoes changes, names are interpolated and gaps appear, designed to level out dogmatically unacceptable passages. After which the text passes to the Orthodox, among whom it also undergoes changes. This completely logically acceptable theory did not raise any doubts in the scientific world for a long time. However, a more detailed review of the manuscripts, first by Sebastian Broca and then by Gregory Kessel, made it possible to identify the so-called third edition of the Melkite, i.e. Orthodox origin. These are the Vat manuscripts. syr. 125 and Sinai syr. 24, the latter serving as material evidence of one of the lists, which, we think, served as the original for the Greek translation made in the Lavra of St. Savva. It is also important to note that these are the oldest manuscripts containing the First Collection. The differences between this edition, as well as the Western one, consist in the replacement, as is commonly believed, of the names of Theodore, Diodorus and Evagrius; in the presence, it is believed, of lacunae; as well as interpolations related to confessional views; in addition, there are differences in the text that are not related to confessional and theoretical considerations. This last fact was noted by Gregory Kessel when comparing the Sinaitic manuscript with the Bejan edition 66. A similar divergence of the text, not related to confessional and theoretical considerations, was noted by G. Kessel in the second Orthodox (Melkite) manuscript Vatic. syr. 125. Let us give one example from the 49th Word: “Those who desire what is in this transitory age swim over terrible waves, dare to travel along difficult paths - and they do not speak at all...” (Vatic. syr. 125). “Those who desire the things of this world, perishable wealth and passing glory. They swim across heavy waves, dare to travel along terrible paths, endure a long journey filled with labor and hardship, and endure painful things in order to fulfill their desires - and they do not hesitate at all” (Bedzhan edition). As you can see, in the Orthodox (Melkite) manuscript the text of St. Isaac is laconic, which is characteristic of the language of the Reverend. In Bejan's text, the scribe already plays the additional role of commentator. And what is characteristic is that in the first ancient text of the 7th – 8th centuries. author, i.e. Isaac, thinks monastically: “those who desire what is in this transitory age,” i.e. everything, and not just “perishable wealth and transitory power,” as the 13th century scribe thought. Bejan's manuscripts. At Rev. Isaac’s monastic maximalism is obvious here: “the law of silence: to remain silent for everything” 67. The scribe of the 13th century The presence of secular thinking and the desire to clarify the thought of the Reverend, to make it more understandable or accessible, are noticeable. We will not dwell on such examples; a curious researcher who speaks Syriac will be able to find them in the plural. We would like to focus attention on whether what is missing in ancient texts is really a lacuna, and what is interpolated in later copies is authentic, as is commonly believed? Further, the Orthodox (Melkite) edition differs from the West Syriac in that it lacks six rather than seven treatises belonging to the Eastern edition, as well as a special sequence of treatises 68. And perhaps the most interesting fact that has made a hole in this dense labyrinth is the interpolation associated with the name of Evagrius. The overwhelming majority of researchers fully agree with Bejan's opinion that the interpolations associated with the names of Theodore, Diodorus and Evagrius were introduced by the Jacobites in order to eliminate the names of Nestorian writers. But if the first two authors were indeed unacceptable in the Monophysite environment, then the name of Evagrius and his writings enjoyed unquestioned authority 69 . The first person to notice this fact was Gregory Kessel. Working on the handwritten legacy of Rev. Isaac, he noted that in the Western edition “the name of Evagrius was corrected everywhere” 70. Sebastian Brock also specifically focused on the problem of interpolation of names when moving text from one denomination to another. Brock examined the Vatic manuscript. syr. 125, which he clearly recognizes as Melkite, where the name of Evagrius, as he believes, was corrected. The presence of such interpolation is explained by him as a transition of the text into the Chalcedonian environment 71 . However, then quite rightly G. Kessel asks the question: “How is this fact consistent with the idea that the Western editors arose in a Monophysite environment” 72? Indeed, the correction of the name of Evagrius, as one might assume, began precisely in the Orthodox environment after the decision of the V Ecumenical Council, while the Jacobites and Nestorians, precisely contrary to the decision of the Council, adorned the authority of Evagrius with an aura of “holiness” 73 . Kessel goes on to say: “This observation suggests that at least some elements of the Western edition, which is generally considered to be the result of the Syro-Jacobite reception of Ishaq's text, are of Melkite origin. And through the Melkites, the text of Ishak passed to the Jacobites” 74. This correct assumption of Gregory Kessel will soon turn out to be completely justified! We will demonstrate this below using the example of interpolated names, as is commonly believed. And now, since a hole has been made in this ossified scientific theory, we will follow the chain of facts that modern science has. Indeed, the absence of the name Evagrius in manuscripts of West Syriac origin objectively indicates that the starting point for the translation of the text came from the Orthodox (Melkites). But this is not the only fact. If the Monophysites did not recognize the interpolation of the name Evagrius (as is commonly believed) and adopted such names as Gregory the Theologian, St. Macarius and Mark, it is believed that the treatise of the Monophysite author Philoxenus was immediately recognized by them. As soon as the text by Rev. Isaac passed into the Monophysite environment, immediately the “later West Syrian hand” restored the name of Philoxenus 75 either in the form of a marginal gloss or by erasing the old inscription and inscribing the authentic name 76 . A similar procedure took place in the Monophysite environment and with homilies attributed to John of Daljat. In the corpus of the First Collection in Orthodox (Melkite) manuscripts, the homilies of John of Daljat follow the epistle of Philoxenus and are not inscribed. Moving into the Monophysite environment, the “West Syrian hand” signed in the margin “Saba” - the spiritual nickname of John of Daliyat 77 . These facts take the further study of the handwritten heritage of the Rev. to a completely different level. Isaac the Syrian. But before we get to the textual evidence, let's follow the chain of evidence further. A more detailed examination of the handwritten heritage of Rev. Isaac the Syrian, on the one hand, confirms pre-existing facts, on the other, allows or even forces one to abandon existing opinions, assumptions, theories. Thus, some manuscripts force us to abandon the prevailing opinion that the translation of the text by Rev. Isaac definitely came from an East Syrian environment to a West Syrian one. This is confirmed by the manuscript Berlin or. quart. 1159. The relationship of this manuscript with the West Syrian edition was noted by Bejan. Gregory Kessel, explaining this phenomenon, makes the assumption that “the East Syrian copyist used the list of the Western edition as the original, most likely due to its ease of accessibility” 78 . Moreover, the copyist, either through inattention or for other reasons, did not replace the name “Basily” with “Diodorus,” as was done in other East Syrian lists 79 . This case is not unique and has analogs 80 . In conclusion of his research related to the manuscript heritage of St. Isaac the Syrian, G. Kessel writes: “It should also be noted that the attribution of a particular text to the Eastern or Western edition may not be so obvious and simple. For example, the list from Alkosch (Berlin or. ost. 1258), belonging to the eastern edition, contains interpolations of an anti-Nestorian nature (!). “The blessed interpreter” is replaced by “one of the teachers”, “the admonition of the blessed interpreter” by “the admonition of that teacher”, “Diodorus” by “Dionysius” 81, the 19th treatise (usually absent in the Western edition) is present in it with gaps, etc. It is enough to look at the apparatus to notice other cases of support for the readings of the Western edition. Despite the fact that these features of the manuscript were noticed by Bejan, he did not comment on them in any way, and there are currently no explanations for the presence of elements of the Western edition in the lists of the Eastern edition” 82. It also remains a mystery “how two ancient manuscripts of the British Library [Add. 14632, Add. 14633] of East Syrian origin contain the text of the Western edition" 83 . As we see, Gregory Kessel reveals to science a serious textual problem, the presence of which scientists did not even suspect. Boldly based on the research achievements of Bejan and on the works of his followers, who blindly repeated his theses, Western science has built a fragile edifice of Isaac studies, which today will have to be rebuilt. The problem raised by Grigory Kessel not only deserves close attention, it involves a radical revolution “crossing the Rubicon”... To show this, we are moving on to the next stage. 2.2. Quotations or interpolations The most striking example of the presence of interpolation is considered to be the replacement of names. The prevailing opinion in science is that in the so-called. “authentic” text of St. Isaac contains the names of such authors as Theodore of Mopsuestia - “blessed interpreter”, Diodorus of Tarsus and Evagrius of Pontus. In the texts that are believed to have been interpolated, these names are replaced: Theodore - with Cyril of Alexandria, or with the expression “one of the teachers”; Diodorus - to Dionysius or Basil; Evagrius - on Gregory the Theologian, Macarius, Mark, Nile or John Chrysostom Fr. Several authors dealt with the problem of name interpolation: S. Brock 84 and V. Fominykh 85. According to Brock, the replacement of names was a fixation of the fact that the text was moving from one denomination to another 86. Vyacheslav Fominykh in his study showed that the unambiguity of this opinion, which has developed in science, does not always look convincing and does not have solid foundations due to the lack of reference to the source 87. We also want to show the results of our observations regarding some “quotations” that are generally considered authentic. First of all, it is necessary to note one characteristic feature - the way of citing such authors as Theodore of Mopsuestia and Evagrius of Pontus in the corpus of the works of St. Isaac the Syrian. This is “not a verbatim quotation, but an embedding in one’s own text” 88 so that “it is difficult to determine the end of the quotation.” This phenomenon is very common in the Isaac Corpus 89 . The publisher of the Second Volume writes in a note: “According to the text of St. Isaac, it is not entirely clear where exactly the quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia end and where the author’s text begins” 90. Such a strange way of quoting such “great authorities” for the Church of the East suggests that this is, rather, a later layering than a quotation made in order to more skillfully hide the forgery and interpolation. Let's move on to considering “quotations”. We will focus mainly on quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia, found in the First Volume of St. Isaac the Syrian 91. In science it is generally accepted that they are authentic. Let's try, as they say, to take a sample of this “gold”. This example is considered to be interpolation 95. However, we need to figure out from whose side it was made. As can be seen, the source of the quotation was found in the Orthodox manuscript 96 . In a later Nestorian manuscript, the quotation is relegated to the previous sentence. This is an “original” move by the Nestorian copyist, since according to the teachings of Theodore, being a “church of grace” is possible only in the next century 97. But that's not all. We discovered an interpolation in the top paragraph, where we talk about the external repentance of King Ahab (1 Kings 21:27–29). In the academic edition there is a note to this place, where it is said that St. Isaac follows the “Hebrew text” of the Bible (more correctly, Peshita, which follows the Hebrew text at this point). Where exactly the external side of Ahab’s repentance is reflected: “he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his body and fasted and slept in sackcloth and walked sadly.” However, “there are words in the Greek text that are not in the Hebrew, from which it is clear that Ahab’s repentance was not only external, namely: it is said that he “was touched before the Lord, walked and wept”” 98. To sort all this out, let’s first show where the interpolation occurred. In the Orthodox manuscript, after the words “The Son of God endured the cross...” comes a call to sinners to “boldly rely on repentance.” And in confirmation, the biblical (!) example of the purely external repentance of King Ahab is given. In the Syriac text (Nestorian) and in the English translation, this biblical story is interpolated. Let's try to explain why this harmless passage, and also a very edifying one, could confuse the Nestorian copyist. It seems to us that there were several reasons. The first is that Theodore could not interpret this biblical text (based on the Hebrew version) in this way due to ignorance of the Hebrew language. Guryev 99 speaks about this fact in detail. It is also possible that Theodore interpreted this biblical fragment differently; he could also have been confused by the story of King Ahab in the book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 18:19–22), which he removed from the biblical canon. Due to the unpreserved interpretations of Theodore, one can only speculate about this, but based on the fact that the admirer of Theodore leveled the biblical text, we emphasize once again, a very edifying one (!), we can assume that our conclusions are correct. Traces of interpolation are reflected both in the uncorrected past tense and in the semantic narrative. Such a clumsy interpolation could have been allowed, it seems to us, with the second edition of the texts 100. In the first edition the name of St. was removed. Gregory, and the name Theodore is conveniently assigned to a previous biblical story. But then a more careful copyist discovered that the biblical example of Isaac did not agree with Theodore's interpretation, which prompted him to interpolate. When translating into English, Wensink, in order to add consistency, had to both make his own additions and omit an entire phrase. Wensink's translation does not convey literally the "deformation" introduced into the Syriac text. It is especially important for syrologists to pay attention to this point. Pirard, for some unknown reason, did not reflect this discrepancy in the apparatus of his publication. And finally, the third interpolation in this fragment. It can, of course, be attributed to a simple copyist's slip. Indeed, replacing the letter “nun” with “lamad” in the phrase “about His Judgment” gives the reading: “about what belongs to Him.” However, given that the Nestorian scribes were adherents of the apocastasic heresy, we believe that a conscious interpolation was made here. In addition to the fact that Bejan indicates two manuscripts containing the reading “about His Judgment,” Pirar indicates two more, including the Melkite 101. Consider the following supposedly non-interpolated fragment. In this fragment it is clear that St. Isaac draws on the example and experience of many Fathers. In the place where the Nestorian insertion of the name “commentator”, that is, Theodore, is made, in the Orthodox text there is an expansion of the authority of the writers “and not only the fathers ...”, in the Nestorian manuscript, on the contrary, there is a narrowing to one. Moreover, it turns out that Theodore is outside the Fathers, not numbered among the Fathers. The interpolator did not notice this. Also, the following context, which retains the plural “they call the way...” and the final “You see how the fathers...” does not imply such a train of thought. Isaac, which is allowed by interpolation. That is, the transition from plural to singular and back. These are clear signs of interpolation. Another example of how interpolations are considered. “As Saint John Chrysostom said: “When someone acquires the will that follows the fear of God and the right way of thinking, then he will soon accept the revelation of the hidden.” He calls spiritual knowledge the revelation of the unseen” 103. In the Nestorian manuscript, instead of Chrysostom, there is “The Blessed Interpreter”. The complexity of this fragment lies in the fact that both from the writings of Theodore the source was not identified 104 and in the works of Chrysostom no such quotation was found. Despite this complexity, we found another reason that reveals traces of interpolation made by the Nestorians. Just above the above quote is a text that was preserved in the ancient Orthodox copy and which was released in the Nestorian manuscript. This passage speaks of the natural discernment of good and evil that God has placed in our nature. The question arises: why was such a harmless text reflecting thematic unity produced by a Nestorian scribe? The answer is simple, it contradicted the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. According to the teachings of Theodore, the primordial Adam and Eve did not have a natural distinction between good and evil only thanks to the commandment of the Creator. “If they did not have this commandment,” writes Guryev, “then they would not have, according to Theodore, knowledge of either good or evil and would not differ in this case from unreasonable animals. “The story of Adam,” says Theodore, serves to understand the properties of the nature common to all people... We would not have the differences between good and evil, and we would not have the knowledge of sin if this were not differentiated for us by law, and we would do whatever we wanted, like unreasonable animals.”105 Here we find the same reason for double text interpolation as in the first example. At first the name was interpolated, and then a more careful editor discovered a fragment located near the quotation that did not correspond to Theodore’s teaching, which was the reason for its removal. The following is an example of interpolation. As we see, it is in the Nestorian text that interpolation is found. Another example of interpolation. This fragment could be considered the greatest quote from Theodore of Mopsuestia by St. Isaac, if at the end of this Word there was not a contradiction that is not consistent with the teaching of Theodore. This passage reads like this: “And the most terrible thing is that, just as here he was separated from them on his journey, so Christ will separate him from them on the day when a bright cloud carries bodies on its ridge, shining with purity, and places them at the gates of heaven. For by the very fact that their deeds have already been condemned here, “the wicked will not rise again for judgment, nor the sinner for the council of the righteous” at the resurrection of judgment (Ps. 1:5)” 106. This passage excludes both the doctrine of apokatastas found in Theodore and his concept of two worlds. “Here their deeds are already condemned” corresponds to the New Testament teaching, which St. Isaac the Syrian. “He who does not believe is already condemned...he who does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:18; 36) and has nothing to do with Theodore’s fable. A little above this place there is a lengthy quotation, which in the Orthodox text is signed as follows: “The Council of St. Martinian.” The Nestorian scribe made a re-attribution. If St. Isaac was quoting Theodore; he would not have ended this treatise by contradicting his “teacher.” In our opinion, interpolation can also be traced here. It should also be noted that the style of this ascetic passage differs from the famous Feodorov teachings. It can be assumed that the Nestorian scribe might have been confused by the name “Martinian”, which is consonant with the name Martyrius. This name (in Greek translation) was the name of the famous Syrian theologian and bishop of Sahdon of the 7th century, who was one of the exponents of the pro-Chalcedonian trend in the Church of the East and represented a party hostile to the Nestorians. And finally, the last example of “interpolation” of the Orthodox. This is a quote from St. Cyril: “What God had from the beginning, he always has and will have to infinity, as blessed Cyril said in his interpretation of the book of Genesis: fear Him, he says, out of love, and not according to the cruel name given to Him” 107. Until recently, the example of this "interpolation" was considered the most reliable, since the source of the quotation was identified to Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Syriac manuscript BL add. 17,217 from the Monophysite monastery of Deiral-Suriani in Egypt. However, Vyacheslav Fominykh in his work “The Life and Works of St. Isaac the Syrian” 108 definitely showed the ambiguity of such identification. This untitled manuscript contains fragments of interpretation on Genesis (without authorship), immediately followed by fragments of various teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria 109. It is strange that two such well-known authors, hostile to each other, were placed in one manuscript. Nevertheless, such a desperate attempt has been made in science to attribute nameless texts 110. However, even in secular science there are doubts about the accuracy of the attribution of all these fragments to Theodore of Mopsuestia 111. Also, according to the remark of P. Guryev, in this Syrian manuscript, the fragments attributed to Theodore contain opinions that he could not adhere to 112. This fact leads Guryev to the conclusion that this manuscript is damaged. Consequently, in our opinion, the fragments of interpretations on Bithiya, like the manuscript itself, are of a compilative nature, which calls into question the accuracy of the attribution of certain fragments. Therefore, in our opinion, it is hasty to talk about the unambiguous attribution of this quote to Theodore of Mopsuestia; this issue requires further research work. This concludes our review of what is believed to be interpolated quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia. In the previous article we showed that St. Isaac and Theodore are in serious disagreement with each other on all key theological issues. This review confirms our assumption that the interpolations associated with the name and quotes of Theodore were made by the Nestorians in order to adapt the corpus of works of St. Isaac the Syrian in his midst. As for the interpolations associated with the name of Evagrius and his citation, the solution to this issue looks much more complicated. Just above we cited G. Kessel’s remark regarding the peculiar quoting of Evagrius’s texts in the corpus of St. Isaac: “not a verbatim quotation, but embedding in one’s own text.” Almost all Nestorian manuscripts have been patched up, and incompetently, with such peculiar, “non-verbal”, centon, patchwork quotations (to continue the metaphor). It also seems strange to us that science maintains some kind of reverent attitude and trust towards these obvious mistakes. Firstly, in the places where these quotations are added, there are no signs of citation, that is, the name of the quoted author, quotation marks or other signs indicating this. Secondly, these so-called quotes break the context of the narrative, although apparently the similarity of concepts remains, the purpose of which, in our opinion, was to reconfigure the reader - to create a kind of translation to certain texts. And finally, thirdly, a self-evident consequence. Oversaturation of texts by St. Isaac the Syrian's eugristic "peculiar", "non-verbal" quotations led to the fact that Pirard in his critical edition attested to the presence of "two types of terminology" "in the works of Abba Isaac" 113. Terminology St. Isaac certainly “has its source in the earlier Syriac tradition and Syriac translations of Greek texts” 114 and the introduced euagrist terminology of the later Nestorian theological school created in the works of St. Isaac a certain discourse. Although Pirard tries to reconcile the “coexistence” of such a fact, in our opinion this is a superficial opinion that leaves the problem unresolved. In the future, we plan to carry out a similar analysis of the “two terminologies” when we translate all the existing “peculiar” embedded quotes. In light of the above, such “peculiar” quotations of the eugristic sense obviously bear the character of interpolations. As for those quotes that are directly inscribed with the name of Evagrius and are really close to the source itself, we have the following opinion. Indeed, the chronology of the life of St. Isaac the Syrian fully admits that he could quote Evagrius, who had not yet been condemned. The Monk Isaac died at the beginning of the 6th century, and most of the works could have already been written by the time of the condemnation of Evagrius (553). During the existence of the handwritten text, it is quite acceptable and historically well known that the name of Evagrius was abolished. This fact can also be attributed to the corps of St. Isaac. However, it remains unclear, for example, why, as mentioned above, the name of Evagrius was subject to interpolation in the Monophysite environment? And why didn’t the Monophysites treat the quotations of Evagrius in the same way as they did with the treatises, as they believe, of John of Daliat and Philoxenus, that is, having recognized them, they inscribed them with their own names? Be that as it may, this issue cannot be closed and resolved unambiguously. At least using the example of the 46th Word of St. Isaac the Syrian. If in two places Pirard in the critical edition indicates the source of the found quotes from Evagrius 115, then the remaining two places remain controversial. It seems to us that one short phrase that Pirard offers “γράμμασιν αὐτοῦ” 116 in our translation of “his writings” 117 is not enough to attribute and identify this passage with the letter to Melania 118, on the grounds that a similar phrase appears in this letter several times 119. The subject matter of this message is far from corresponding to the question raised by St. Isaac in the 46th Word. Also, in the place where in the Nestorian manuscript Nilus of Sinai is replaced by Evagrius, Pirard was never able to find the source of the quotation from Evagrius 120. Despite the fact that Rev. Isaac is not quoted, but only the name of the Nile is indicated; the context we found, as it seems to us, fully corresponds to the fragment of the quotation from St. Isaac. So, in the process of the existence of the text in the manuscript tradition, the corpus of works of St. Isaac the Syrian has undergone certain changes, including interpolations. As Brock rightly notes, these interpolations were a symptom of the transition of the text from one denomination to another. However, our research has shown that the main culprits of interpolations have remained in the shadows until now. In science one can already find facts indicating that interpolations were introduced by the Nestorians 121 . If on the part of the Orthodox it is possible to allow interpolation in several places associated with the name of Evagrius (although this question is definitely still considered closed very early), then the Nestorian scribes should be blamed for the damage to the largest amount of text. The introduction of Theodorian interpolations and later theological ideas of the evagristic type, created in the Nestorian school. The goal of which was to “capture” the corpus of works and adapt it to the Nestorian environment. We fully agree with Pirard that “only a critical edition of the Syriac text will reveal the more correct of the two editions” 122, that is, the East Syriac and West Syriac, which both, we believe, go back to their prototype - the Melkite text preserved in the most ancient copies. It is the critical publication of the most ancient lists that will be able to remove the veil of prejudice that has reigned in the scientific community for more than a hundred years. We also want to make one of our assumptions regarding two ancient lists of East Syriac, believed to be of origin, but which contain the text of the Western edition of Add. 14632, Add. 14633, dating back to the 10th century. If we take into account that the lists of the West Syrian edition begin to appear no earlier than the 13th century, then it is obvious that the two indicated manuscripts of the 10th century. from the British Library, more than presumably, can be considered Melkite, i.e. of Orthodox origin, which, having found themselves in the Nestorian environment, were subjected to East Syrian edition. Thus, if we consider this assumption correct, we are faced with the first known translation of Orthodox (Melkite) manuscripts into the East Syriac tradition. 3. Exegetical alternative to Rev. Isaac the Syrian (St. Mark, Macarius, Ephraim) Since we have shown that Theodore of Mopsuestia was not an authority for St. Isaac the Syrian both in the dogmatic and exegetical areas 123, then naturally the Rev. There had to be an alternative for Isaac. We find such an alternative in the 2nd treatise of the First Volume. Commenting on the words of the Apostle Paul “as in a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12), Isaac writes: “But according to the true testimony of those who interpreted the Scriptures, it is the intelligent action of the Holy Spirit” 124. Two points are characteristic here. The first is that Rev. Isaac does not refer to Theodore as the “blessed interpreter”; the second – there is a contrast between those who truly and untruly “interpreted the Scriptures”. True, A. Muravyov, in his reference to this place, makes the assumption that there is a high probability of having Theodore of Mopsuestia in mind and refers the reader to the preface of his publication, where a footnote is given on Theodore’s interpretation of the word “amazement.” “The blessed translator, explaining the mystery of amazement, writes: “Amazing means being outside the natural order and outside human perception”” 125. We took a different path, made a “mirror” review of the apostolic phrase “as in a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12) from those authors whom Abba Isaac quotes in his works - Rev. Mark the Ascetic as part of the Makarievsky corps, Homily 36 “On Paradise and the Spiritual Law” 126. To clearly show that Rev. Isaac means exactly this word, we will give textual parallels. The Monk Isaac acts here as an interpreter and commentator. As we see, the “true interpreter of Scripture” and exegete of the fact that the “sensation” occurring in the soul of an ascetic “is the mental action of the Holy Spirit” was St. Mark the Ascetic. The expression “to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit in every assurance and sensation,” as noted by A. Dunaev, is often found in both Mark and Macarius 128. On the contrary, “Theodore could not talk about any internal direct action of grace on the will of man, because, from his point of view, such an action of grace is possible only in the future century” 129. It is also characteristic that Rev. Isaac, following Rev. Mark, perceives the allegorical method of interpretation as the “true interpretation of Scripture” (again contrary to Theodore). But he understands allegory not in the sense of destruction or distortion of biblical history, but in the sense of a speedy transition to the spiritual level of interpretation, with the goal of “tasting all the sweetness that the Spirit contained in the Holy Scriptures” 130 and “as soon as possible to achieve knowledge and sensation of the Lord” 131. We have before us a completely original method of interpretation, which requires separate study. Next, we want to demonstrate the presence of the fact that Rev. Isaac, when composing his treatises, relied on, or, better to say, commented on the so-called “Makarievsky Corpus”. It seems to us that Rev. Isaac used one of the Syrian lists of the “Makarievsky Corps” 132. It is also possible that Rev. Isaac used a separate florigelium, consisting of the teachings of St. Macarius and Mark. The next topic in the 2nd treatise, the topic of the crucifixion, Rev. Isaac could also borrow from Mark - Macarius. St. Isaac writes: “The activity of the cross is twofold; According to the duality of nature, it is divided into two parts. One consists of enduring carnal sorrows... and the other consists of subtle work of the mind” 133. At Rev. Macarius can be found with the following statement: “For Christians have truly tasted grace and have the sign of the cross in their minds and hearts” 134. A. Dunaev quite rightly noted that the cross is spoken of here in a mystical sense and gives a reference to a parallel place in the Makarievsky building, where a fragment of St. Mark the Ascetic, who speaks of contemplation in prayer: “In addition, to some the sign of the cross appeared in the light and was nailed into the inner man. Another time, again in prayer, a man seemed to be in a frenzy and found himself in front of the altar, standing in the church... Immediately after the sign of the cross, grace acts in such a way and pacifies all the members of the heart that the soul, having become pure, from great joy seems like a gentle and simple baby, and a person no longer condemns either a Greek, or a Jew, or a sinner, or a layman, but the inner man looks at everyone with a pure eye and rejoices about the whole world, and wants to bow to everyone, and loves both Greeks and Jews” 135 (cf.: St. Isaac the Syrian has a question about who has achieved heart purity I/21 and what is a merciful heart I/48). The first part of the discussion about contemplating the cross may be an allusion to Mark - Macarius; the second part, as A. Muravyov correctly pointed out, refers to Abba Isaiah the Hermit. But what’s interesting is that in the same place the Rev. Mark there is a fragment that can be traced in Rev. Isaac the Syrian, in the 2nd treatise. Alexey Muravyov, in his translation in exile, notes that P. Bettiolo draws attention to the eschatological context of this passage. As we see, the eschatological context is also present in St. Brand. Further in the 2nd treatise by Rev. Isaac raises the topic of what peace is and how connected one who renounces the world is with the world. The world is a totality of passions according to Isaac the Syrian, and whoever has freed himself from passions has become outside the world. Let's look at the allusive parallels of this topic between Rev. Isaac and the Makarievsky Corps. In our opinion, the parallels are well read. The following fact is also interesting. In this word, Macarius the Great encounters a descriptive image of scales, which he projects on internal asceticism: “first, within his heart there arises warfare, and balance, and inclination and preponderance of love for God, then love for the world,” “love and inclination toward the world will pull on the scales of the heart,” “balance, inclination, and preponderance of the heart depend on this” 138 . A similar image of scales can be found in the work of St. Isaac the Syrian: “Just as the speed of oscillation of scales in a windy storm is hindered by the weight of what is being weighed, so the oscillation of the mind is hampered by shame and fear. And as fear and shame diminish... the yoke of the mind, as if free, oscillates back and forth. But, just as the yoke of a scale, if its bowls are burdened with a very heavy load, is not easily shaken by the blow of the wind, so the mind, under the burden of the fear of God and shame, is hardly seduced by what causes it to waver” 139 . The image of scales is also found in Rev. Mark of the Ascetic: “As on scales, the thought of one who indulges in voluptuousness fluctuates” 140. Let us give a few more examples of the dependence of Rev. Isaac the Syrian from Mark the Ascetic. Here it is clearly visible that Rev. Isaac paraphrases the teaching of St. Brand. More examples of some allusions. “He who hates passions also cuts off their causes; and whoever remains with the causes that produce them is reluctantly overcome by passions” (Mark the Ascetic, Homily 2). “Whoever loves reasons for passions, involuntarily and reluctantly becomes an assistant and enslaves to passions. He who hates his sins ceases to sin” (Isaac the Syrian, Homily 57). “The mind does a lot of good and bad even without the body; the body without the mind cannot do anything like that, for the law of freedom is known before action” (Mark 8). “The mind can do good without bodily deeds; and the body, without heartfelt wisdom, even if it does something, cannot benefit from it” (Isaac. Homily 76). “The fear of Gehenna and the love of the Kingdom give patience in tribulations” (Mark 2). “If the fear of Gehenna does not frighten the heart, and love does not lead to the desire for bliss, then hatred of this world will not be aroused in the heart. And if he does not hate the world, he will not tolerate being outside its peace” (Isaac, Homily 39). “Knowledge by nature precedes faith” (Mark 1). “The knowledge that precedes faith is natural knowledge” (Isaac, Homily 84). “Just as a lioness does not meet a calf in a friendly manner, so shamelessness does not accept sorrow for God with love” (Mark 2). “Chastity and conversation with a woman are the same as a lioness and a sheep in the same house” (Isaac. Homily 89). It is also obvious that the teaching of Rev. Mark that “there are three mental states into which the mind enters from change: natural, supernatural and unnatural” (Word 1), was reflected and found further development in the famous teaching of St. Isaac on the three ways of knowledge and the three states of the soul in Words 25–29. So, the examples given are enough to make sure how strong the influence of these two authors is, Rev. Mark and Macarius, on Rev. Isaac the Syrian. Choice of prpp. Mark and Macarius as an alternative to Theodore may also not be accidental. First of all, this is, of course, the exegetical aspect. For Rev. Isaac, Saint Mark appears as “the one who truly interpreted the Scriptures,” as opposed to those who untruly interpreted them. Reverend Isaac receives from Rev. Mark is a spiritual or moral-allegorical method of interpretation and the second method is the actualization of Holy Scripture into personal experience. “He who is humble in wisdom and exercises himself in spiritual work, reading the Divine Scripture, will relate everything to himself and not to others” (Mark 1). Such methods are alien to Theodore of Mopsuestia. The next alternative choice in favor of Mark could be the polemical attitude of the reverend ascetic against the Nestorians. At Rev. Mark has a separate dogmatic treatise “Against the Nestorians”. Also in the 6th Word, “Refutation of Scholasticism,” Rev. Mark says: “The Word made man is one, and not two, although we understand Him to consist of two Natures, united inseparably and unmerged” (an expression from the Chalcedonian oros). This Word is found in the ancient Syriac translation. Exegetical alternative in favor of Rev. Macaria protrudes even more prominently. At Rev. Macarius can be found indirect anti-Theodore polemic in this direction. In the Makarievsky Corpus, the 40th Word is devoted to the theme “passions are not natural.” This topic is also touched upon by Rev. Isaac, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, but Rev. Isaac here takes the side of Abba Macarius and opposes the fact that our nature was created passionate, as Theodore taught. This is what Rev. writes. Macarius: “And some are not only far from the plagues of Christ, but also “feed their neighbors with muddy corruption”” (Hab. 2:15), suppressing “the truth of God through unrighteousness,” and in whom, says [the apostle], “the understanding of God is manifest” (Rom. 1:18-19). For, “having become futile in their thoughts and darkened in their foolish hearts” (Rom. 1:21), they claim that “shameful passions” are natural and came from God (Rom. 1:26), meaning corrupting lust, unrighteous irritability, anger and grief that does not come from God, and all the like... Away, I beg you, away, so that this absurd and foolish saying does not come to the mind of your pious understanding. God is the creator of the pure and most beautiful natures, as the Holy Spirit proclaimed during the creation of peace, for He says: “Behold,” He says, “all good things are good” (Gen. 1:31)... Therefore, whoever defends “shameful passions” (Rom. 1:26) as natural and not accidental, has eclipsed the “truth of God” with his own “lies” (Rom. 1:25)... So, know that the passions hidden within us are not ours, but someone else’s” 141. Disagreement on this issue between Rev. We discussed Isaac and Theodore in the article “On Guard of Syrian Orthodoxy,” here we state on whose side the reverend stood. Isaac. Another fragment, located in the Makarievsky corps, sends us back to St. Mark the Ascetic. The Anti-Theodorean polemic here concerns two aspects: exegesis and pneumatology. Theodore of Mopsuestia taught that the infusion of the Holy Spirit into a person in this world is in principle impossible. For this reason, Rev. Mark the Ascetic we find a question that his disciples may have asked him: “Question. Why cannot those who do not have the Holy Spirit speak an intelligent and living word? Answer. Just as a newborn child comes from the womb with healthy limbs, without any damage to the body, so are those born from the grace of the Spirit, and although we see them in this world in the flesh, in spirit they are completely at rest in that world from which they were born. Only they can speak a perfect word to the brethren, having perfect spiritual members within them. But whoever is not born from there cannot speak a spiritual word, because he does not have the living Spirit to inspire him with heavenly things. And as if a child who came out of the womb deformed, or lame, or blind from birth, is like a monster and a sign for the world - such are the wise men who want to be interpreters of the Scriptures, not having the heavenly Spirit, for not yet merging with the Divinity, they are freaks who do not have healthy members, but convey a defective and “rotten word" (cf. Eph. 4:29)" 142. In this fragment, the reproach towards Theodore of Mopsuestia is obvious. 3.1. Influence of Rev. Ephraim the Syrian at Rev. Isaac the Syrian The significance and influence of Rev. Ephraim the Syrian's influence on Eastern Christian mysticism is difficult to overestimate. Although in science recently there has been a tendency to give primacy to Theodore of Mopsuestia. This position, on the one hand, can be explained by the fact that Feodorov’s influence, starting from the middle of the 5th century, gradually replaced the undeniable authority of St. Ephraim the Syrian, conquering first the Edessa school, and then the Nibisin school, and replacing all the interpretations of St. Ephraim on the interpretation of Theodore. However, we will be interested in the influence of Rev. Ephraim as an early, pre-Theodore Syrian tradition. And above all, these are references to the Diatessaron. We will give several allusions to the commentary on the “Diatessaron” by St. Ephraim the Syrian, as direct confirmation that St. Isaac was well aware of this work. The allusions are mainly of a Christological aspect. In this regard, the anti-Theodore position is further aggravated here. Indeed, the Italian sirologist S. Kyala, who studied Ephraim’s quotations in the corpus of Isaac the Syrian, noted one interesting detail: “Mar Aphrem could be perceived as an ideological alternative to Mar Theodore the Interpreter in the context of two crises of the 7th century: the Khnani dispute and the story with Sahdona. That is why neither Shim’on d-Taibute, nor John of Daliyat, nor Joseph Hazzaya quote Mar Afrem at all” 143. The presence of two direct quotes from Rev. Ephraim at Rev. Isaac (Words 38 and 57), as well as many allusions, are quite consistent with both the opinion of Sabino Kyala and our conclusions made in the previous article: Rev. Isaac the Syrian was in the anti-Theodore camp, and primarily used Ephraim's interpretations and ascetic writings. The peculiar exegetical method of interpretation used by Rev. Ephraim, also brings these two Syrian mystics closer together. Let us give some typical examples: “If there was only one meaning in the words of Scripture, then the first interpreter of any kind would have found it, and after that others listening to them would not have needed to search for (the meaning) with difficulty and effort, and there would be no consolation left after finding (it). But each word of the Lord has its own body, and each such body has many members, and each member separately has its own qualities, and (therefore) everyone listens as much as he can, and interprets it as it is given to him” 144. Again: “The Lord decorated His word with many colors, so that everyone could learn by considering what he liked. He hid various treasures in His word, so that each of us, where we labored, would be enriched there” 145. Another example from the Word “On Paradise”: “I read the beginning of this book and delved into every letter and every verse, gradually rising in height. The first thing that developed in front of me affably stopped me and with the connection of speech lured me to what followed. And as soon as I reached the verse where the history of paradise is written, then he carried me away from the midst of the book and transported me to the bosom of paradise. Both the eye and the mind, as if on a bridge, passed over the verses and flowed into the abode of paradise. The eye raised the mind by reading, and the mind gave the eye rest from reading, because after reading a book the eye is calm, but the mind is working. That book was both a bridge to heaven and a door to it; crossed the bridge and stepped into heaven. The eye remained outside, and the mind went inside..." 146. This last method of reading the Scriptures is especially close to Rev. Isaac the Syrian. The purpose of reading, according to Isaac, is to open the mind to the path of subtle contemplation 147. “Let your reading be in silence from everyone; and be free from the many worries of the body and the rebellion of things, so that your soul may taste the sweetest taste with sweet understanding, above all feelings, and my soul will feel its abiding in them” 148. Isaac literally echoes Rev. Ephraim: “the work of reading... is the door through which the mind enters the divine mysteries” 149. Rev. thinks the same way. Ephraim: “That book was both a bridge to paradise and a door into it; I crossed the bridge and entered heaven... and the mind entered inside” 150. Just like St. Ephraim, Rev. Isaac believes that the meaning of Holy Scripture is not limited: “The mind floating on the surface of the waters, i.e. the sea of ​​divine Scriptures... cannot... comprehend all the treasures hidden in its depths" 151. “The soul is delighted with new ideas that it encounters in the sea of ​​the mysteries of Scripture” 152. Sabino Kyala believes that the images of the intelligent ray 153 and the diver behind the meaning of Scripture 154 found in St. Isaac, go back to St. Ephraim the Syrian 155. This small exegetical review allows us to say affirmatively that Rev. Isaac was influenced and dependent on the early Syriac exegetical tradition going back to Aphraates and Rev. Ephraim the Syrian. And this, by the way, is no longer surprising. After we identified the true chronological framework of the life of St. Isaac the Syrian, it becomes obvious that at that time Ephraim’s interpretations were still taught in the Edessa and Nibisin schools. Now we want to show several allusions to Rev. Ephraim the Syrian, found in St. Isaac. First of all, these are allusions to the “commentaries on the Diatessaron” - they have not yet been recorded in science. Then consider several allusions to the “Greek Ephraim”; and finally, let's move on to a small discovery, which is associated with one treatise located in the corpus of the “Greek Ephraim”. 3.2. Allusions to the “Interpretation of the Diatessaron” by Rev. Ephraim the Syrian with Rev. Isaac the Syrian Several allusions are found literally at the very beginning of the Commentary on the Diatessaron. Let us give these examples: “Since Adam’s body (was created) was earlier than disorders appeared in it, therefore Christ did not accept the disorders that Adam later received, since they were some appendage of weakness to a healthy nature. So, the healthy Lord accepted that nature, the health of which had perished, so that man, through the healthy nature of the Lord, would restore to himself the health of his primitive nature” 156. Now let us present a passage of similar reasoning from Rev. Isaac regarding the “primitive health of the soul.” In the 14th Word of Isaac we read: “Concerning spiritual passions, as it is known and recognized by everyone that purity is natural to the soul, we must boldly say that passions are not at all natural to the soul; because illness comes later than health. But it is impossible for one and the same nature to be both good and evil. Therefore, one thing necessarily precedes the other; Naturally, something is preceded by something else; because about everything accidental it is said that it is not from nature, but came from without... if virtue is naturally the health of the soul, then the illness of the soul will be passions, something accidental that has entered the nature of the soul and leads it out of its own health” 157 . Another example is: “So, equipped with the same weapons with which the enemy defeated and plunged the world into condemnation, the Lord descended into battle, and in the flesh received from the Woman, he conquered the world, overcame the enemy and condemned” (“Commentary on the Diatessaron”) 158. And another similar fragment from the 4th chapter: “The flesh of our Lord instructs all those clothed with flesh that he who goes naked into battle will be defeated, for the flesh of Christ first put on the weapon of self-control and then began to fight. So, a strong weapon is needed against the one who sends flaming and sophisticated arrows... “Tell these stones that they become bread.” He sent an arrow that stimulated satiety, so that during the hunger that the Lord experienced after fasting, it would confuse Him and thus tempt the Lord. But the Lord did not want hunger to prevail over Him, since His hunger was clothed with fasting, as if it were a shell. Such hunger threw back the arrow of satiety... so, the one who appeared in order to tempt fell into temptation, and was exposed by the same thing with which he wanted to teach... On the mountain, the Lord trampled on the lusts of the tempter and threw them into the abyss, so that those nations who had ever been trampled by them would trample them. Instead of them, He provided the fullness of grace to everyone, so that that which was once trampled upon by everyone would rule over everyone.” 159 Now let us cite the allusive passage of St. Isaac the Syrian, in whom it is easily recognized that he relied on the above text by St. Ephraim, essentially retelling the same fragment of the Gospel. “By breaking the fast, the beginning of our creation fell... this is where the Savior began when he appeared to the world on the Jordan. For after His baptism the Spirit led Him into the desert, and He fasted there for forty days and forty nights. Likewise, all those who follow the Savior on this basis affirm the beginning of their feat, because fasting is a weapon prepared by God. And who, if not, cares about him. Will he not be reproached for this? If the Lawgiver himself fasted, how could anyone who kept the law not fast? That is why, before fasting, the human race did not know victory, and the devil never experienced his defeat from our nature: but from this weapon he was exhausted at the very beginning. And our Lord was the leader and firstborn of this victory, in order to place the first victorious crown on the head of our nature. And as soon as the devil sees this weapon on one of the people, this enemy and tormentor immediately comes into fear, immediately thinks and remembers his defeat in the desert by the Savior, and his strength is crushed, and the view of the weapon given to us by our Leader burns him... Whoever neglects fasting is weakened in other exploits, careless, weak... and gives the one who fights with him an opportunity for victory, since naked and unarmed he sets out for the feat, and therefore it is clear that he will emerge from the struggle without victory, because his members did not put on the warmth of hunger in fasting” 160. As we see, this retelling of Rev. It would be more accurate to characterize Isaac as a reminiscence, in which the end refers to the beginning of Ephraim’s quote (we underlined for clarity). Let's give another example: “And His sweat was like drops of blood” (Luke 22:44). Sweated to heal the sick Adam. “By the sweat of your face,” he says, “you will eat your bread” (Gen. 3:19). And in the garden he prayed to bring Adam back into the garden." 161 At Rev. Isaac we find an allusion to this fragment, which he interprets in an ascetic key. “So he said to Adam: “By the sweat of your brow, eat your bread.” But from that night on which the Lord shed sweat, He exchanged the sweat that brought forth thorns and thistles for sweat shed in prayer and together in doing righteousness. For five thousand and five hundred-odd years God left Adam to work on earth, because until then “the way had not been revealed to the saints” (Eph. 3:5; Heb. 9:8). In the last days he came and commanded freedom to replace one sweat with another, and allowed not a rest from everything, but a change of everything: because, for the duration of our suffering on earth, He showed us His love for mankind” 162. So, the above allusions to the “Commentary on the Diatessaron” clearly show the tradition in which St. Isaac developed and became an exponent. Indeed, the Diatessaron was the standard Gospel text in the Syrian Church until the 5th century. Ephraim's interpretations in the Edessa-Nizibin school were popular until the middle of the 5th century. “The Edessa-Nizibin school occupies a special place in the Antiochene tradition, since it has a historically attested organization and the most obvious eastern, non-Greek bias. Its first outstanding representatives were the Venerable Jacob Aphraates (270-345) and Ephraim the Syrian (306-378), the latter can already be conditionally considered the Venerable Isaac the Syrian, Bishop of Nineveh... 163 about whose life little is known, but he undoubtedly continues the literary line of Saint Ephraim” 164 . A completely fair description: Isaac “undoubtedly continues the literary line of St. Ephraim.” Created hagiographic mythologem, supplying Rev. Isaac in the 7th century, of necessity forced this researcher to call him the “last, already conventional” representative of Ephraim’s ascetic and exegetical tradition. If we can quite agree with the word “last”, then if there is a genuine dating of the life of St. Isaac the Syrian - 5th century, instead of the word “conditional”, “direct” is more suitable - the heir and exponent of the original theological culture of Ephraim’s style (prose). In this regard, the writings of Rev. Isaac the Syrian represents a unique phenomenon of the Syro-Melkite epic. 3.3. Allusions to the “Greek Ephraim” by Rev. Isaac the Syrian The corpus of the so-called “Greek Ephraim” remains poorly studied to this day. It is generally accepted that the texts included in the corpus of “Greek Ephraim” are of later origin. Only a few of them date back earlier than the 10th century; Also, some manuscripts of Latin translations date back to the 7th – 8th centuries. 165. We have one example from patristic writing for the earlier dating of individual treatises in the corpus of "Greek Ephraim". This is a famous saying by Rev. John Climacus 29:8: “Who, before the future heavenly lordship, was awarded such dispassion as this Syrian? For David, so glorious among the prophets, says to the Lord: “Loose me, let me rest” (Ps. 38:14); and this ascetic of God cried out: “Weaken the waves of Thy grace for me.” John does not call Ephraim by name, but all researchers of the Ladder clearly believe that the “Sirian” means St. Ephraim 166. Indeed, in the corpus of “Greek Ephraim” this is typical of St. Ephraim’s expression “waves of grace” is found in two treatises, “On Mental Fear” - four times, and once in “The Word on Repentance, Judgment and Separation of the Soul from the Body” 167. Considering that the chronology of Climacus’s life is determined around 525–595, most researchers assign the date of death to the 7th century. In any case, we can assume that “The Ladder” was written by him in the 6th century. It follows from this that Rev. John already in the 6th century. was familiar with the so-called building "Greek Ephraim". Now let's move on to the allusion found in Rev. Isaac the Syrian. In the 90th Word we find the following statement: “Behold, Lord, the waves of Your grace made me fall silent, and I had no thought left of gratitude to You” 168 . The influence of Efremov’s statement is recorded here. The context of the two above-mentioned words of Ephraim has a corresponding scheme - the acceptance of grace by the soul and responsive thanksgiving. Further in the same fragment, Rev. Isaac's thanksgiving continues with these words: “Glory to Thee for these two worlds, which Thou hast created for our growth and enjoyment, leading us from all that Thou hast created to the knowledge of Thy glory.” Let's move on to another treatise from the corpus of “Greek Ephraim” called “On Repentance” (chapters 1–76). This extensive treatise was translated from the Syriac 169 . In it, only some chapters are considered not authentic 170. In the 10th chapter of this treatise we find the following doxology: “Glorious will You be, O our Lord, in Your righteousness, and they will praise You, O Good One, for Your mercy; both worlds will bless You, Lord" 171. In this allusion: “Glory to Thee for these two worlds” (Isaac) – “both worlds will bless Thee, O Lord” (Ephraim) for the first time we encounter the pre-Theodorean and non-Theodorean concept of “two worlds”. It goes back to the patristic paradigm: the “down” world and the “high” world. In the 24th chapter of the same treatise, St. Ephraim confirms this paradigm: “A man is born in two worlds, two carry his wombs - the mother’s womb and the coffin; the mother's womb gives birth to labor and illness, and the coffin - to Judgment and retribution. And one world passes away, the other remains forever. Blessed is he who is wise!” 172. Thus, we indicate the source of the concept of “two worlds” found in Rev. Isaac the Syrian, which has nothing to do with the concept of “two worlds” of Theodore of Mopsuestia. In the 74th chapter “On Repentance” there is such a reflection of St. Ephraim: “Enter into yourself, live within yourself, in the silence of your insides, with a moderate and pure soul, with a calm and humble spirit. Go “inside” yourself and look for the “Kingdom of God” there; it is really there, as the Lord Himself taught us in His Gospel (Luke 17:21). In the soul that loves God, God dwells, and His Kingdom resides there, which is why He says that “the Kingdom of God is within you.” 173. At Rev. Isaac the Syrian can be found an allusion to this place: “Make peace with yourself, and heaven and earth will make peace with you. Strive to enter your inner cage, and you will see the heavenly cage; because both are one and the same, and when you enter one, you see both. The ladder of this kingdom is inside you, hidden in your soul” 174. Also in the 74th chapter of Rev. Ephraim has the following reasoning: what should we ask God for in prayers? “Let us beseech God with such prayer as is pleasing to God; Let us plead not for something unimportant, but for His whole Kingdom... We will only ask God for the Kingdom of God and the truth of God; everything else that is necessary for us will He give us in abundance. Let us not humiliate this great Treasury, which willingly gives us the Kingdom, by asking her for bread, like dogs who care only about bread. We will ask Her for the highest gift, and the unimportant will be given by Herself. Let us ask for the greatest wealth, then he will not refuse us food. Let us ask that we may be worthy of a great meal, then He will give us our daily bread. Let us strive for the eternal, then the temporal will not be denied. It would be humiliating, Lord, to ask You for just bread, when You have given us Your Holy Body for food. Therefore, even without our asking, give us bread - this animal food. Through our prayer He will give us His Kingdom, this worthy gift, so that Your gift will be as high for those in need as You Yourself.” 175 At Rev. Isaac the Syrian we find a similar reasoning, which seems to us to be an allusion to the Ephraim text. We will give only part of the 5th Word. “Do not be foolish in your petitions, so as not to offend God with your foolishness... Bring your petitions to God in accordance with His glory, so that your dignity may be magnified before Him, and He will rejoice in you... Do not ask God for what He Himself gives us without asking according to His providence, and gives not only to His own and beloved, but also to those who are strangers to the knowledge of Him... The son no longer asks his father for bread, but seeks the greatest and highest in his father's house. For out of the weakness of the human mind alone, the Lord commanded to ask for daily bread. But look at what is commanded to those who are perfect in knowledge and sound in soul. It is not said: “Do not worry about food or clothing: because if God cares about dumb animals, about birds and about inanimate creatures, then how much more will he care about us: “Seek more the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these will be added to you”” (Matthew 6:33) 176. Perhaps we can stop there. The above examples are enough to to testify to the direct influence of St. Ephraim on St. Isaac the Syrian and at the same time to discover the dependence of St. Isaac’s train of thought on the writings of the Syrian poet. Now the time has come for the most important discovery related to this topic. 3.4. About one treatise by Rev. Isaac the Syrian in the corpus of “Greek Ephraim” When starting this section, you immediately encounter several questions or confusion. How did it happen that until now this treatise has remained outside the field of view of scientists? And second: who does this treatise belong to, Rev. Isaac or Rev. Ephraim? Neither the “exemplary” critical edition of Marcellus Pirard, according to A. Muravyov, in which “almost all the textual problems of the “Greek Ephraim”” 177 were resolved, nor the publication of Alexy Muravyov himself 178 could find this treatise, believed to be the “Greek Ephraim”, in the corpus of the works of St. Isaac the Syrian. The text we are interested in is in the 58th Word of the academic edition, translated by Sobolevsky 179, in the edition of Pirard 180. In the corpus of “Greek Ephraim” this treatise is found in the 3rd volume, pp. 19–20, edition 1907 in the 2002 edition, 2nd volume, pp. 13. The translation of this volume was carried out by the MDA in 1849 according to the edition of I. Assemani 181. Its title is “On the Blessed Abodes”, the original Greek text is in TLG 4138/67, pp. 296–297. In TLG, the original text is given in two versions, the first is Modern Greek, followed by Ancient Greek. The ancient Greek text practically coincides with the text in the edition of Theotoki and Pirara, although there are minor discrepancies in individual sentences. Here is the text for comparison. As you can see, the discrepancy here is minimal. Basically it falls on the line that talks about “eternal torment”, in the Greek text eternal punishment “κόλασιν αιώνιον”. Pirard in this place prefers to follow the text of Bejan's edition 193 without stipulating it in the apparatus, and places the original text in the apparatus (a similar style of Bejan's work). Although the text of the “Greek Ephraim”, we believe, corresponds as closely as possible to the original. In favor of reading “κόλασιν αιώνιον” is the academic translation of the Efremov corpus 194 and the translation of Sobolevsky 195. In Peshit this verse (Matthew 25:46) also says “eternal torment.” ). It can also be observed that in the Syriac text edited by Bejan, the scribes change the biblical expression "sons of the kingdom" ) (Matthew 8:12) to “sons of the Covenant ). This again violates the Peshita citation. In our opinion, the intervention (interpolation) of the scribe is obvious here. Eternal torment for admirers of the apocatastatic theory is “a temptation and a stumbling block.” The context of the quotation implies verse 46 as a contrast to the division. Here we have looked at the interpolations made in the text of Holy Scripture. Now let's move on to considering a more serious insertion (interpolation). The purpose of this interpolation was to completely neutralize the meaning of this passage, which is based on the Gospel verses (John 14:2; Matthew 25:46). We have at our disposal six translations of the same fragment “Many Abodes”. Two Greek, one in the 56th Word of St. Isaac the Syrian, dating back to the 8th-9th centuries. The second in the “Greek Ephraim” corpus, source text TLG 4138/67, CPG 3987. We are inclined to date this treatise, located in the “Greek Ephraim” corpus, no earlier than the translation of the Savvaites in the 8th-9th centuries. Although an example of a quotation from Rev. John Climacus of the “Greek Ephraim” in the 6th century. may suggest an earlier dating. There is also a translation into German by Gustav Bickel of 1874 from the ancient manuscripts Add. 14632, Add. 14633. English translation by Wensink A. 1923 from the 1909 edition of Bejan. And three translations into Russian. Two academic translations of the MDA, one treatise in the “Greek Ephraim” corpus is called “On the Blessed Abodes” of 1849, and in the First Volume of Rev. Isaac the Syrian in the 58th Word, made by Sobolevsky in 1911 and translated by A. Muravyov from the Mardin list in 2016. Of course, there is also a Slavic text in the same 58th Word, published by the Optina elders in 1854. Above we presented in the table the Greek text of St. Ephraim and Rev. Isaac. The discrepancy in this example depended on the edition of Pirard, who tried to “correct” a Greek Orthodox text dating back to the 8th century with a Syriac Nestorian text from the 13th century. (?) Below we provide tables of comparisons of translated texts. Due to the fact that we have several examples of translation of the same text from different manuscripts with different dates, we have the opportunity to trace the process of the existence of the text in the manuscript tradition. This will make it possible to clearly see interpolations and later layers or accumulation of interpreted fragments. Let's start with Ephraim's treatise “On the Blessed Abodes” and a fragment of the 58th Word of St. Isaac. As we see, the identity here is obvious. The difference, it seems to us, depended on the fact that the translation was carried out by different translators. Now let’s look at a “slice” of three translations of different manuscripts with different dates. Display the original German text of the Bickel translation / English translation by Wensink So, before us is revealed the visual process of the existence of handwritten text. We see that the text of the 10th century. (trans. Bickel) is as close as possible to the original text provided in the Greek translation. But at the same time, there is a noticeable increase in comments, trying to more clearly reveal the thought of St. Isaac. In a 13th century text. add your own micro-comments. In addition, the large interpolation located in the middle of this fragment attracts attention. The interpolation text (two paragraphs) is noticeably different stylistically and semantically. Above was presented the source text located in the “Greek Ephraim” corpus TLG4138/67, which is identical to the text found in the 58th Word of the First Volume of Rev. Isaac the Syrian. The text of both fragments is laconic and understandable, one might say, complete and supported by biblical quotations. After reading it, there are no questions left, because the text itself, in Ephraim’s version of the treatise, is devoted to resolving a certain question: “... what is more senseless or unreasonable than such speech... Have you not understood from this...”. However, the introduced interpolation neutralizes this question-answer and introduces additional (unforeseen or unforeseen) topics and poses new questions. The purpose of interpolation is clearly visible; it is to harmonize and reconcile discordant and irreconcilable things, i.e. biblical eschatology with evagristic cosmogony and the apocatastatic doctrine of Origenism. Already the first paragraph of interpolation speaks of this, introducing a new additional commentary to a completely understandable text. The purpose of this commentary is to “switch” the reader’s attention to the visible similarities in the teachings of Evagrius. It should be noted here that for Rev. Isaac the Syrian's main sources in the fragment under consideration “Many Abodes” were such well-known fathers as St. Mark and Macarius. Allusion to Rev. Makaria was also identified by A. Muravyov 197. In the Russian version, this is the 4th Word, 2nd and 3rd question-answer: “for some assert that the kingdom is one, and Gehenna is one; We say that there are many degrees, differences and measures, both in the kingdom itself and in the punishment itself... but those who claim that there is one kingdom, and one Gehenna, and there are no degrees, speak poorly...” 198 . At Rev. Mark we find two corresponding fragments. The first is in “Chapters on Temperance.” In the 25th chapter: “Some who are inquisitive ask how there will be a difference between the eternal mansions and the promises? Is it by a specific place, or by a mental representation of the spiritual difference separating the quality and quantity of each monastery? And to some the first seems (fair), to others the second. But he who knows what it means: “The kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21), and “the Father’s many mansions” (John 14:2), will receive the second.” The second fragment is found in the 4th Homily of “On Holy Baptism”: “As the sun, being perfect, pours out perfect, simple and equal grace from itself to everyone; but each, to the extent that he has a cleansed eye, receives sunlight; so the Holy Spirit made His believers from baptism capable of accepting all His actions and gifts; however, His gifts do not work in everyone to the same extent” 199. These three fragments, one rev. Macarius and two Revs. Mark, show the semantic identity and even partly the textual dependence of the fragment of St. Isaac the Syrian. In general, Marco-Makarievsky reasoning on this topic reflects the early exegetical, patristic tradition. Reasonings of Rev. Isaac completely coincide, reflect and continue it. The Monk Isaac acts as if in spirit, imitating the question-answer of Macarius-Ephraim. Against this background, evagristic interpolation very clearly demonstrates its foreignness. In addition, we find serious discrepancies in the interpolated fragments themselves. For example, in a tenth-century manuscript translated by Bickel, the text of two interpolated paragraphs presents a clearer meaning. The second paragraph talks about “the way of knowing the Divine Persons... through spiritual movement.” In a 13th century manuscript. This fragment reflects a completely different meaning, and the intervention of the copyist is noticeable here. Further comments are unnecessary; the comparison table clearly shows the “evolution of interpolations.” As for the question of who actually owns the treatise located in the corpus of the “Greek Ephraim,” we are inclined to leave this text with the authorship of Rev. Isaac the Syrian. We believe that the fragment “Many Abodes” was isolated from the treatise of St. Isaac the Syrian for the collection florilegium of patristic quotations as reflecting the original patristic tradition. Considering that the “Greek Ephraim” corpus contains at least six treatises by Isaac of Antioch in the 5th century. 200, we believe that part of the corpus of “Greek Ephraim” was compiled as the “St. Isaac’s” florilegium, which included our fragment “Many Abodes”, taken from the 58th Word of St. Isaac the Syrian. Also, the final phrase of the question and answer: “Have you not understood from this that the state opposite to the heavenly degree is that painful Gehenna?” 201, absent from Ephraim, testifies in favor of the attribution of St. Isaac. So, our research puts the reader on the other side of the Rubicon. From the right bank it is more convenient to see what is on the left bank. Thus, there are three chronological milestones: two - found in the writings of St. Isaac, one - in a hagiographical source, give a clear coordinate of the life of the monk. “Five thousand and five hundred plus” (in Melkite manuscripts “five thousand and more”), “six thousand” and “at the beginning of the seventh thousand years” according to the Byzantine chronology reveal well-known dates - 1st century, 5th century. and VI century. according to R.H. On the hagiographic date – VI century. - insists a whole galaxy of scientists: Archbishop. Sergius (Spassky) 202, Wright V. 203, Bickel G. 204, others like St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) 205, St. Theophan the Recluse 206. This raises the question: for what reasons is the day of remembrance of St. Isaac the Syrian is indicated by a date going back to Nestorian and Catholic sources of the 7th century? date based on the mythology artificially created by Nestorian writers 207? This date was adopted by Catholic scientists “at random”, and now they are actively trying to impose it and introduce it into Orthodox patrolology. We can say that it is very offensive to see this when in Orthodox church science (let’s start with the month book) there is a fundamental three-volume study “The Complete Month Book of the East”, in which it is written in black and white about the dating of the life of St. Isaac the Syrian: “not the 7th, but the 6th century.” 208. When the above-mentioned galaxy of fathers and scientists trumpets about this. When the scriptures themselves Isaac the Syrian, according to M. Pirard, were written in the spirit of the fathers of the 5th century. 209. When the handwritten legacy of Rev. Isaac leads us to the most ancient manuscripts of the 8th century. Orthodox (Melkite) content. We easily abandon our original tradition and listen to heterodox fables! So, the theological context we have identified (which conflicts with Theodorian theology), abundant citations of the ancient fathers, reliance on the interpretation of the Diatessaron by St. Ephraim the Syrian, as well as ascetic terminology, clearly show that St. Isaac the Syrian was dependent mainly on the “earlier Syrian tradition” 210, to which he adhered and became its exponent. During the existence of the corpus of works by Rev. Isaac the Syrian was carried out by Nestorian scribes in a literary edition of the past. As a result of this confessional revision of the work of St. Isaac the Syrian were interpolated and brought into relative agreement, or at least consistency with Nestorian teaching. However, a more thorough analysis of the texts of Rev. Isaac reveals the entire inconsistency of such a forgery. Let us warn you that identifying new terminology in interpolated fragments makes it possible to determine the time of introducing interpolations (!). In science, for the above reasons (see. section 2) there is unquestioning confidence in all interpolations introduced at a later time, which are considered to be “authentic” text; not only the terminology, but also the style of these fragments clearly does not cease to declare the presence of such a strange fact. Here we have to state the “deplorable situation” that G. Kessel states: “With regard to ancient translations... there is no critical edition of any of the versions (Greek 211, Georgian, Arabic, Ethiopian)” 212. Further, G. Kessel continues: “Taking into account the large number of manuscripts (the oldest dates back to approximately the 8th century) that were unknown to Bejan, the need for a new critical edition of the First Volume using all available material should be most urgently pointed out” 213. Pirard also agrees with Kessel’s opinion: “Only a critical edition of the Syriac text will make it possible to identify the more correct of the two editions” 214. And finally, a very sober and balanced speech by Gregory Kessel leads to a fair definition: “Of course, no study of the theology of this or that author is possible without the presence of critically published texts, for only a critical edition makes it possible to eliminate those distortions that have penetrated into the text in the process of its handwritten transmission over the centuries” 215. If this is the case in modern science, i.e. there is no critical edition of the Syriac text 216, without which “no study of the theology of this or that author” is possible; one wonders how legitimate are such publications as “the spiritual world of Isaac the Syrian” or “the world of ideas of Mar Ishak”? In our opinion, such publications deliberately create an illusory picture of reality. Of course, it can be said that these studies are aimed at learning more about and getting closer to the theology of the author being studied. But in the light of what was said by the outstanding scientists Kessel and Pirard, such works can be considered far removed from the scientific approach. They are based on ideology rather than scientific methodology. Finally, it is necessary to note the current situation: there is information that a translation into Russian of the critical edition of M. Pirard of the First Volume by Rev. is currently being prepared. Isaac the Syrian. In this regard, I would like to draw attention to the following. It is completely unclear to us, due to the statement of Pirard himself (see above), for what reason the uncritically published text (Bejan) was placed in the publication apparatus? We also do not understand why Pirard passed over in silence the hagiographic source recorded by the Karshuni and published by I. Assemani in 1719. This text was the first to enter scientific circulation 217, and the information contained in it is part of the historical data on the life of St. Isaac the Syrian. If this source deserves criticism, where is it? In a critical publication such a bypass of sources is unacceptable. It can be assumed that Pirard either does not know this source (?), or that this source actually contains “unfavorable” information, which Pirard chose to remain silent about (!). In general, it seems to us that Pirard continues the line of Bejan, i.e. tries to “squeeze in” both the text of the First Collection and the origin of Rev. Isaac in the Nestorian environment. This fact is evidenced by bypassing the inconvenient hagiographical source and placing the Syriac text uncritically published by Bejan at the forefront. Turning to the apparatus, one can notice that the vast majority of discrepancies with the Syriac text were carried out according to the Bejan edition. It can be assumed that the text published by Bejan acts as an indisputable, authentic text for Pirard. It is strange, however, that this does not agree with the statement of Pirard himself 218. The reviewer G. Kessel was dissatisfied with the review of the Syrian apparatus in Pirard's edition 219 . There is also “an obvious desire to ‘correct’ the Greek translation” 220, dating back to the 8th century. based on the Nestorian, uncritically published text of the 13th century, it looks more than strange in the critical edition. It seems to us that this publication requires improvement, but, of course, it is the best reference book on the study of Isaac. The field of view of Orthodox patrolological science should include the study of the so-called Second Volume of Rev. Isaac the Syrian. This manuscript was discovered by Western scientist Sebastian Brock at the end of the twentieth century. A critical edition was published by him in 1995. However, this volume contains a number of treatises that do not belong to Rev. Isaac the Syrian (according to our assumption, they belong to Ishak from Katara). The style and themes of these treatises, as well as the theological context, indicate their later origin. Probably for the reason we indicated in section 1.2, S. Broca was unable to separate these treatises from, as one might assume, authentic texts. In addition, the fact that Brock did not include “chapters on knowledge” in the critical edition suggests that he assumed the presence of forgeries and dubious texts in this volume. The task of Orthodox patrolology includes a critical study of this source, attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian, in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e. authentic texts from counterfeit ones and give the fullness of the church the still waters of patristic theology. Our research intends to begin a more detailed, in-depth study of the original Orthodox (Melkite) tradition, the representative of which was undoubtedly St. Isaac the Syrian 221. To begin mastering and translating the most ancient Orthodox Syrian manuscripts of the reverend father and carry out their publication. Which, in turn, will open a new milestone in science in the literary Syro-Melkite (Orthodox) “renaissance.” “My divine philosopher” - that’s what St. Isaac the Syrian St. Nicodemus Svyatogorets. Rev. Isaac the Syrian (1911), p. V. Ortiz de Urbina 2011, p. 150. And another time, a graduate of a theological school from France, in a conversation with an elder, began to insist that Abba Isaac the Syrian was not Orthodox, since he served as a bishop in an area where Nestorians predominated. Father Paisius tried to convince him that Saint Abba Isaac was in the very heart of Orthodoxy, but he stood his ground. The monk was very upset. “It hurt so much,” he said, “that if they hit me on the head with an ax, it would be easier. And then I saw something. After all, when a person is hurt for something, God informs him exactly. If the heart does not hurt, then God leaves you in ignorance. The whole reason is pain.” So, God, and precisely, informed the venerable elder about Saint Isaac. He had a vision: church hierarchs were passing in front of him, and among them was Abba Isaac, who turned in his direction and said: “Yes, I really lived in a Nestorian environment, and it is true that there were heretics in my diocese. But I preserved Orthodoxy and fought with them.” After this vision, when the topic of Saint Isaac came up, the monk fervently said: “Abba Isaac was not just Orthodox, but the most Orthodox hierarch!” Father Paisius also spoke about how the Holy Abba was slandered in the West, allegedly portrayed as non-Orthodox for cultivating hesychasm. In the synaxarion of the January Menaion on the 28th, after the words “memory of our venerable father Ephraim the Syrian,” Elder Paisius added in his own hand: “and Isaac, the great hesychast, who was treated very unfairly” (Life of the Venerable Paisius the Svyatogorets. Orfographer. M., 2017. pp. 376–377). Kessel speaks cautiously, but at the same time definitely, about the two Melkite manuscripts of Vat. syr. 125 and Sinai syr. 24 as the lists closest to the protograph (Kessel 2014, pp. 51–52; Kessel 2016, pp. 70; 73–74; Kessel 2010, pp. 207–218). Meanwhile, the oldest Orthodox (Melkite) manuscript Sinai syr. 24 strangely remains out of sight of scholars: “a detailed description of the manuscript with identification of all the texts contained is currently missing” (Kessel 2016, p. 73. note 308). One of the latest studies on this manuscript (Kessel 2010, pp. 207–218) has shed considerable light: this codex provides “an opportunity to get closer to the Syriac text that was used by the translators and to understand the origin of some features of the Greek translation” (Kessel 2016, p. 70). For example, in this manuscript the message is believed to be inscribed by Philoxenus with the name of a certain Shim'on, i.e. Simeon, which gave rise to Orthodox translators (Savvaites) to identify this Shim'on with Simeon the Wonderworker (pillar). This fact is indicative: it removes the accusation against the Savvaites of reattributing this message (word 55 according to the Russian edition of 1911). The “mistake” of the Savvaites was identification, not renaming. Miller, for example, who studied this manuscript, preferred to see Simeon of Caesarea in the unknown Shim'on (Muravyev 2016, p. 81; 496) Further, in the Sinaitic manuscript, a notebook with homilies, believed to be John of Daliyat (36th notebook) was inserted between the 24th and 25th notebooks of the words of St. Isaac the Syrian (Pataridze 2014, p. 72), which gave the Savvaite translators a reason to identify them with the words of St. Isaac. This fact is also reflected in the Greek version, where the homilies of John of Daliyat, just like in the Sinai manuscript, are mixed with the words of St. Isaac, and do not stand separately, as in the Monophysite manuscripts. Returning to the message of Shim'on-Simeon, it is also worth emphasizing the fact that this message in the Sinai (Melkite) manuscript is in an abridged version. In the same form (abbreviated version) it is also in the Greek list (Kessel 2014, p. 51). G. Kessel also notes that “in addition to the parallels in content, there is one more feature that gives reason to bring the Melkite lists closer to the Greek translation. Namely, unlike Vat. syr. 125, the Sinai list contains an indication of the place of its writing, namely the monastery of St. Savva in Palestine. Thus, in the case of the Sinaitic manuscript, we are dealing not only with a list similar in content to the Greek translation, but we can also consider it as a valuable document testifying to the type of manuscripts with the works of St. Isaac were available at the monastery of St. Savva” (Ibid., pp. 51–52). We believe that further acquaintance with the Sinaitic manuscript will only increase the status of this list as the main protograph for the Greek translation. Karshuni is a variety of Syriac, rendering Arabic in Syriac letters. Acts of the VII Ecumenical Council. 1909, p. 212. Rev. Maxim the Confessor. Paschal treatise. // BT. No. 43–44. 2012, p. 135. Rev. Isaac the Syrian (1854), p. XX. There, p. 335; Muravyov 2016, p. 507. See the previous article “Guardian of Syrian Orthodoxy.” Dadisho Qatar // PE. T. XIII. M., 2006, p. 640. Perhaps the only “controversial” fragment in this source can be considered the phrase “withdrew to the holy monastery hermitage.” However, the interpretation of this statement does not necessarily imply only the Egyptian desert. It is known that from the 4th century. Many hermitages were founded around the city of Nineveh (Muravyev 2016, p. 26). Our Isaac could have retired to one of these monasteries. Bickell 1874, s. 277–278. There, p. 57, approx. 180. There, p. 64–65. Bejan carried out a similar “illegal” procedure with our ancient manuscript of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History.” This manuscript was sent to him in 1896 from the Russian Public Library to the University of Lüttich for work. Bejan printed it “in Nestorian script and vocalized” while the manuscript was written in clear estrangela (Pigulevskaya 2011, p. 20). There, p. 71, approx. 278. Dunaev, Fokin 2007, p. 559. Kessel 2016, p. 73; Brock 2001, p. 206. There, p. 78, approx. 361. See G. Kessel's comments on the Harvard Houg Mon Library Syr manuscript. 79. (Kessel G. 2009, pp. 43–100). Pirard in the critical edition also noted the replacement of the name “Dionysius” with “Diodorus” by the Nestorians (see Πιράρ 2012). There, p. 78. According to indirect evidence from William Thomson, it was these manuscripts that Arent Wensink consulted (in addition to the main Bejan manuscript) when working on the English translation, “...primarily in order to establish how close the surviving text was to Ishak’s autograph” (Kessel 2016, pp. 59–60). Kessel 2016, p. 71, approx. 278. Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. 2013, p. 118, approx. 39. We plan to prepare a separate publication about the 19th treatise in the manuscript published by Bejan. St. Gregory the Theologian. The chants are mysterious. Homily 9, on human virtue: And if you think low of yourself, then I will remind you that you are Christ’s creature, Christ’s breath, Christ’s honorable part, and therefore together heavenly and earthly, an ever-memorable creation - a created god, walking through Christ’s suffering into imperishable glory. Therefore, do not please the flesh, lest you love this life to excess. But try to build the most beautiful church; because man is the church of the great God. And he builds himself into this church who renounces the earth and unceasingly marches towards heaven. And I advise you to protect this church so that it is fragrant from all your deeds and words, so that God always dwells in it, so that it is always perfect, and, moreover, essentially, and not externally. According to Bejan's instructions, the Rassam (from Mosul) and Vatican manuscripts have the variant "of His judgment", which corresponds to the Greek translation. On this, see the previous article “On Guard of Syrian Orthodoxy.” Πιράρ 2012, σ. 586, υ. 281. In both cases, the masculine plural form of the active participle of the breed Pael is used. Guryev 1890, p. 279–280. Bischoff, Lapidge 1994, p. 20, no. 77. Guryev 1890, p. 69. approx. 2. Evagrius of Pontus. Message to Melania // Trans. from Greek Yu. N. Arzhanova. Anthology of Eastern Christian theological thought T. 1. 2009. P. 477. Mar Ishak of Nineveh. A book about the ascent of a monk. Translation by A.V. Muravyova // Preface. M. 2016. P. 146. Rev. Macarius of Egypt (2002), p. 680. Guryev 1890, p. 338–339. See: Dunaev 2002, p. 350. Rev. Macarius of Egypt (2002), p. 717. Rev. Macarius of Egypt (2002), p. 729–730. Rev. Mark the Ascetic (1911), p. 23. Rev. Macarius of Egypt (2002), p. 696–698. Rev. Ephraim the Syrian (2002), “Comments on the Diatessaron.” T. 4, p. 330. Rev. Ephraim Sirin (2002), “About Paradise.” T. 3, p. 170. Rev. Ephraim Sirin (2002), “About Paradise.” T. 3, p. 170. Rev. Ephraim the Syrian (2002), “Interpretation on the Diatessaron.” T. 4, p. 275. Rev. Ephraim the Syrian (2002), “Interpretation on the Diatessaron.” T. 4, p. 276. Rev. Ephraim the Syrian (2002), “Interpretation on the Diatessaron.” T. 4, p. 428. We deliberately omit the date found by V.Ya. Savreya: “VII century. according to R.H,” because it refers to Ishak of Beth Qatrayah. Ephraim the Syrian // P.E. T. XIX. M. 2008. P. 95. John Climacus // P.E.T. XXIV. M. 2010. P. 410. Rev. Efrem Sirin (2002), vol. 1, p. 206; vol. 2, p. 258. Theological Bulletin No. 3. 2003. P. 324. Kessel 2011–12, p. 1029. Rev. Efrem Sirin (2002), vol. 2, p. 408. Rev. Efrem Sirin (2002), vol. 2, p. 490. Muravyov 2016, p. 353–355 See Theological Bulletin, 2003. P. 280 See Muravyov 2016, p. 354–355. Rev. Efrem Sirin (2002), vol. 2, p. 13. We chose A. Muravyov’s translation for the reason that it is directly based on the Mardin list and, as we believe, does not have Bejan’s “emendations”. Rev. Macarius of Egypt (2002), p. 448–449. It is curious that A. Dunaev notes a large number of manuscripts from different traditions of this word with the attribution of Ven. Ephraim the Syrian. Note A. Rev. Mark Podvizhnik, M., 2016. P. 452, 577. Efrem Sirin // P.E.T. XIX. M. 2008. pp. 86–88. St. Filaret Chernigovsky (Gumilevsky). Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. 1882. P. 355. St. Theophan the Recluse // Philokalia. T. 2. 1884. P. 691. See chapter 1.2. “The Theory of the “Mixing of the Two Isaacs”.” For the Greek version, see below. Here it is necessary to make a reservation: not only is Bejan’s publication not a critical publication, on the contrary, it serves as an indicative example of how such serious texts should not be published. The publication of Bejan is a phenomenon of a serious catastrophe, which the scientific world has yet to understand. See Pirard 2016, p. 84; Pirard 2014, p. 87. Kessel 2015, p. 317–320. It is necessary to change the dating of the saint’s life in the calendar (calendar). Isaac the Syrian, based on the authoritative publication of Archbishop. Sergius (Spassky).