“Revelation of the Hidden”: a review of quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia in the first collection of St. Isaac the Syrian according to Syrian sources. Part 2

The title uses the words of John of Apamea (see example 5 of this article). Abstract: The article is the second stage of the study, in which, with the help of textual, philological and exegetical analysis, fragments interpolated in the manuscript of the East Syrian edition are identified. The manuscripts of the Melkite (Orthodox) edition are introduced into scientific circulation, which were not all available to Paul Bedzhan, but which were considered by him as containing interpolations of Monophysite scribes, and it is characteristic that P. Bedzhan did not leave any special commentary on the different interpretations of names. However, the names of the holy fathers, which are found in the manuscripts of the Melkite edition, are identified without much difficulty. At the end of the article, examples of the presence of polemics with Theodore of Mopsuestia in the texts of St. Isaac the Syrian. This fact is an additional argument in favor of the opinion that the East Syrian scribes subjected the writings of St. Isaac for a more acceptable adaptation of them in his tradition. About the author: Hieromonk Nikon (Skarga Denis Sergeevich) Resident of the Vvedensky stauropegial monastery of Optina Pustyn. ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000–0002–4213–9903 For citation: Nikon (Skarga), Hierom. “Revelation of the Hidden”: a review of quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia in the First Collection of St. Isaac the Syrian according to Syrian sources // Christian reading. 2022. No. 2. pp. 25–51. This article is a continuation of research related to the systematic study of the corpus of works of St. Isaac the Syrian. According to Orthodox methodology [Epifanovich, 2010, 55–70; Larche, 2019, 137–150], after the volume of works of a particular author is established, these works are subjected to a certain critical processing. Despite the fact that such work on the main body of the works of St. Isaac were produced, questions, and unresolved aporias remain open to this day. So, for example, the Second Meeting of St. Isaac was only half published critically [Brock, 1995] 1 . The publisher of the Third Collection, Sabino Kyala, himself “considers some of the texts to be quite problematic” [Kessel, 2015, 312]. In his review of this collection, G. M. Kessel emphasized that “issues of the authenticity of a particular treatise can be discussed in the future” [Kessel, 2015, 312]. Some scholars directly doubt the authenticity of certain treatises [Conference, 2014: Asceticism as a political theology, 265, approx. 19]. The fifth collection consists of texts that are attributed in science to two different authors, two Isaacs: “Pseudo-Isaac of Nineveh” and “Mar Isaac, monk of the monastery of Rabban Isho and glorious teacher” [Kessel, 2018, 239–254]. One of the best publications, which comprehensively reflects the picture of the Greek translation of St. Isaac the Syrian, is a critical edition of Marcellus Pirard [Πιράρ, 2012], but it also contains questions and shortcomings [Kessel, 2015, 317–322]. In previous publications we have shown that the texts of St. Isaac contain a certain layer of unexplored material. In this article we want to take a critical look at the quotations of Theodore of Mopsuestia found in the First Collection in manuscripts belonging to the East Syrian (Nestorian) tradition 2 . Our method of researching citations will consist of a well-known procedure: processing handwritten material, finding sources of citations and, mainly, exploring context and parallel passages. It is the last point that most often serves as the main guarantor of authenticity or forgery, since a contradiction to the context or authorship or, on the contrary, coordination of the quotation with the author’s context is the criterion by which forged texts and interpolations are determined [Epifanovich, 2010, 64–67]. The most striking example of the presence of interpolation is the replacement of names. In science it is generally accepted that in the so-called original text of St. Isaac there are names of such authors as Theodore of Mopsuestia - “blessed interpreter”, Diodorus of Tarsus. In the texts that are believed to have been interpolated, these names are replaced: Theodore - by St. Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Theologian or John Chrysostom or the expression “one of the teachers”; Diodorus - on St. Dionysius the Areopagite or Basil the Great. This point of view is accepted by many researchers [Vὂὂbus, 1988, 340, n. 23; Brock, 2004, 231–232]. According to Brock, the replacement of names was a fixation of the fact that the text was moving from one denomination to another [Brock, 2004, 231–232]. Alexey Vladimirovich Muravyov quite rightly noted that in the early Arab era, due to inter-confessional strife, “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” [Muravyov, 2016, 497]. Of course, the literary heritage of such a great saint as St. Isaac the Syrian, not without confessional edits. Considering that at present the handwritten heritage of St. Isaac the Syrian is divided into three branches, or three editions (East Syriac, West Syriac and Melkite), the urgent task becomes to determine which denomination made its edits. As is known, the Nestorians, that is, the East Syrian tradition, always remained in the shadows. Let's try to cover this topic. Bejan's edition: approaches to criticism First, we want to show the fragility of the textual 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 of St. Isaac the Syrian in Syriac is Paul Bejan. Thanks to the publishing activities of this scientist, many Syriac texts were published, and just as in the case of the text of St. Isaac, these publications remain the only ones to this day [Kessel, 2016, 56]. Bejan's publications immediately received recognition in the scientific world. Perhaps the fact of Bejan's Chaldean origin played a role here. In any case, all researchers and translators treat Bejan’s edition with great confidence and do not even consider it necessary to check it [Kessel, 2016, 56]. Such a priori trust was fraught with problems for the further development of Isaac studies. Despite the fact that Bejan's editions had a good reputation for the quality of published Syrian texts, they were often far from the norms of critical work with the text [Kessel, 2016, 57, note. 180]. Here are a few examples that Grigory Mikhailovich Kessel notes in his study: “The most eloquent evidence of Bejan’s work is the edition of the Chaldean Breviary he prepared. 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” [Voste, 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” [Kessel, 2016, 66]. In addition, G.M. Kessel advises to look at the comments of R. Draguet to the edition of “Paradise of the Fathers” [Draguet, 1978, 46–47] and H. Toile to the edition of “Henotikon” by Bar Evroyo [Kessel, 2016, 57; Teule, 1993, xii] 3. One can guess that with such a free approach to the published text, 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” [Kessel, 2016, 64–65] 4. 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. Gregory 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, that is, the Nestorians [Kessel, 2016, 66]. Further, when publishing the text of the Mardin list, Bejan provided it with an apparatus where he indicated discrepancies. “However,” notes Grigory 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” [Kessel, 2016, 64]. 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, taking into account the data of all manuscripts” [Kessel, 2016, 65]. 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 Bejan reproduces only ten of the thirty-two marginal glosses in his edition [Kessel, 2016, 65–66]. It also seems strange that the gaps in the Mardin list were restored by him from manuscripts from Alqosh and Mosul, which date back to 1898 [Kessel, 2016, 64]. G. M. 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” [Kessel, 2016, 65]. And this is only when comparing the first treatise from the Bejan edition with the original manuscript! However, G. M. Kessel admits the possibility of “using Bejan’s edition to work with Ishak’s text” [Kessel, 2016, 66]. However, he also recommends “involving the Mardin list itself” [Kessel, 2016, 66]. Ultimately, G. M. Kessel concludes: “Whether Bejan made substantive changes to Ishak’s text will only be shown by a detailed comparison of the published text with the text of the Mardin list” [Kessel, 2016, 66]. Another researcher, Marcellus Pirard, is the publisher of the critical Greek text of St. Isaac the Syrian, also notes Bejan's errors: “the published text shows many deviations from the manuscript on which it was based” [Πιράρ, 2012, 57]. When checking the same first treatise, Pirard discovered 9 discrepancies with the manuscript [Πιράρ, 2012, 57]. The most interesting thing that is worth emphasizing is that Bejan, as M. Pirard notes, made his changes to the published text, without stipulating that it was from manuscripts belonging to other faiths; “in their overwhelming majority they (the changes made - I.N.) are identical to the variant readings of three West Syrian manuscripts: Par. syr. 378 (Syro-Melkite), Vat. syr. 124 and Vat. syr. 562 (Syro-Jacobite), for which Paul Bejan did not consider it necessary to indicate the source” Πιράρ, 2012, 57]. It turns out that Bejan, when publishing the East Syriac manuscript, gave preference to the West Syriac tradition and made corrections at his own discretion, focusing on the latter. As a result, it turns out that, against the background of three editions, Bejan’s edition, in fact, has become some kind of “new” edition, which will now have to be restored. Considering the above, do we have the right to call Bejan’s publication a reproduction of the original text of St. Isaac the Syrian? Nevertheless, in the scientific world for more than a hundred years this particular publication has been positioned as the original text! Now let's move on to analyzing the quotes found in the so-called original text. As already mentioned, we will focus on the analysis of quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia found in the First Collection, which are generally considered authentic. First of all, it is necessary to note one characteristic feature - the way in which Theodore of Mopsuestia is quoted 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” [Kessel, 2015, 315] so that “it is difficult to determine the end of the quotation.” This phenomenon is very common in the corps of St. Isaac [Kessel, 2015, 315, approx. 13]. The publisher of the Second Volume writes in a note: “According to the text of St. Isaac is not entirely clear where exactly the quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia end and where the author’s text begins” (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 297, note 22). Such a strange way of quoting such a great authority for the Church of the East may suggest that this is more likely a later layering introduced by a copyist than an original quotation. Let's move on to looking at quotes. Our method will be divided into three stages: 1) consideration of the quotation, 2) reference to the source, 3) analysis of the context. The first place in which there is a so-called quotation from Theodore of Mopsuestia is found in the 9th treatise 5 (in Sobolevsky’s translation - the 7th word). Despite the fact that Bejan noted all the interpolations and marginal glosses available in the manuscripts available to him (including the one we are considering) (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909: De perfectione religiosa. P. X-XI), he decided to pass over this example in silence. Based on the Brit manuscript. Add. 14633 it can be judged that the name of the blzh. Martinian until the 11th century. nothing particularly bothered the Nestorians. But from the 11th century. the replacement of this name with the “interpreter”, Theodore of Mopsuestia, begins. The manuscript clearly shows how, on top of the original letter, written in a later hand, in Nestorian script: ( ͡ ͦ ͫ ͩ ͢ ͡ ) “interpreter.” Moreover, you can see how the deliberately bold font reveals the manipulations of the copyist who tried to hide the original name. There is a gloss in the margin that restores this name - “Martinian” 6. Since the beginning of the Orthodox (Melkite) manuscript has not survived, we give this example based on the Monophysite manuscript Vat. syr. 562, which in its content is close to the Sinai list Sin. syr. 24, as well as an example of reading the name of St. Martinian in the East Syriac (Nestorian) Berolin manuscript. or. quatr. 1159 7. It is interesting that in another Nestorian manuscript (Berolin or. oct. 1258, fol. 59v), the name of Theodore 8 is also missing. Table 1. Syrian sources The reading of the name “Martinian” is also confirmed by the Greek translation made at the turn of the 8th–9th centuries. It should be noted that the nature of the teaching of the blj. Martiniana does not correspond to the style of Theodore of Mopsuestia. From the point of view of identifying the quotation from Rev. Martinian, a small difficulty arises, which, however, resolves itself if we turn to the life of this saint. A fragment of this teaching was not preserved in early ascetic collections. However, fragments of the teaching under the name Martinian can be found in a collection called “Evergetinos”, which contains fragments from the life of the famous ancient ascetic of the 5th century. Martiniana [Blagolubie, 2010, 702–704]. If we compare the teaching of the blessed one. Martinian with the indicated life, you can notice several biographical parallels. Firstly, these are the unfavorable battles that the devil raised against this saint and of which St. Martinian always emerged victorious. Let's compare this with the teaching of St. Martinian: “You must certainly withstand for this every battle raised by natural passions, the attraction of this world, the constant and incessant malice of demons, with which they usually attack you, and with all their evil tricks” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 113. Cap. 9; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 36). Secondly, this is a battle against sin to the point of bleeding: “... so that you may be steadfast in battle, not defeated, stained with the blood of your wounds, and in no way stop fighting your opponents” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 113. Cap. 9; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 36). Indeed, in the life of the blessed one. Martinian there is a case of struggle against sin “to the point of blood.” When he was tempted by a harlot, St. Martinian stood with his bare feet on the burning fire, as a result of which he received severe burns. By this he brought the harlot to repentance and extinguished the kindling of lust [Sinaksar, 2011, 654]. These two autobiographical parallels can be considered as a fragment of the teachings of St. Petersburg, which were not preserved in ascetic literature. Martiniana. Our conclusion coincides with the opinion of Marcellus Pirard, who, considering this fragment, makes the following conclusion: “the text of the “Admonition” of Abba Martinian really constitutes the quintessence of the Life and does not reflect the style and content of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia from those that have survived, and does not confirm the authorship of the latter” [Πιράρ, 2012, 44, i. 1]. Pirard also admits the idea that the “Admonition” could have been compiled by the Venerable himself. Isaac, based on the life of St. Martiniana [Πιράρ, 2012, 44, i. 1]. So, taking into account the presence of internal and external facts confirming the damage to the text, such as inappropriate stylistics of the fragment, traces of text correction in the manuscript, as well as a reference to the source in favor of the life of St. Martinian, we can recognize the replacement of the name of St. Martinian in the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia by interpolation introduced by a Nestorian scribe. 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 Sakhdon (VII century), who was one of the exponents of the Prokhalka-Don movement in the Church of the East and represented a party hostile to the Nestorians. Consider the following fragment of text, which contains the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia. This example is considered to be interpolation [Πιράρ, 2012, 586] 13. However, we need to figure out from whose side it was made. The source of the quotation, found in the Orthodox (Melkite) and West Syriac manuscripts, was not difficult to find 14. It seems to us that distortion was introduced into the text in several places. It can be seen that Wensink, when working with Bejan's edition, was unable to offer a worthy translation of this passage: he had to interpret this passage according to his own understanding, deviating far from the literal meaning. The Sinai Orthodox manuscript contains the name of King Ahab in the margin, which in turn provides a clue to the correct reading of the text. In the text, above the word “malka” - king - there is a sign of omission, which in the gloss is filled in by the name Ahab (Sin. syr. 24, fol. 82r: ( ͡ ͠ ͟ ͐ ͐ ͚ ͒ ͂ ) 15 . As mentioned above, in the Melkite manuscripts the name of St. Gregory the Theologian. Let's check the identification of these quotes. Table 3. Melkite sources. Table 4. Identification of citations As we can see, these quotes undoubtedly belong to St. Gregory and St. Vasily. In addition, it can be noted that there is a thematic connection between the quotes of the two saints. Miller in his edition, followed by Pirard [Isaac, 1984, 248; Πιράρ, 2012, 586] absolutely accurately identified the second, actually verbatim, quote - this is the message of St. Basil the Great, addressed, most interestingly, to St. Gregory! Thus, we see the following picture: St. Isaac deliberately cites the testimony of two greatest, completely like-minded fathers Church, two inseparable friends who literally echo each other that man is the church of God. This begs the question: what could the Nestorians not like about St. Gregory the Theologian, this universal teacher? Obviously - by his teaching about the Face of our Lord Jesus Christ. From those available in the works of St. Gregory of numerous fragments on a Christological theme, which, even before the appearance of Theodore’s Christological concept, had already exposed this error; it is worth mentioning two letters to the presbyter Kledonius and Apollinaris. These letters contain the so-called “Ten Anathematisms”, which anathematize not only the teachings of Apollinaris, but also Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia 16. For this reason, it seems to us, St. Gregory the Theologian was no less an enemy for the Nestorians than St. Cyril of Alexandria. In order to finally be convinced that the interpolation was introduced by the Nestorian scribes, we draw the reader’s attention to the following aspect: in the Nestorian manuscripts, an indication of the author of the quotation with the name of St. replaced. Gregory on the “interpreter” 17 is related not to the subsequent statement about the “church of grace”, but to the previous one - about the “sorrow of the mind” 18. For clarity, we first provide a comparison of translations. Table 5. Comparison of translations Perhaps this is a “successful” attempt to get out of a difficult situation made by a Nestorian scribe. The fact is that, according to the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, man can only become a “church of grace” in the next century. Theodore taught that “now we are given only the beginnings of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hope of future benefits, and then we will accept the perfect influence of the Holy Spirit” [Guriev, 1890,333]; (see: (Theodoras Mopsuestenus, 1880, 38)). According to Theodore, grace could only motivate a person and strengthen him in faith and hope for future benefits, but the internal and direct effect of grace on a person will only be possible in the next century [Guriev, 1890, 339–340, approx. 1]; (see: (Theodoras Mopsuestenus, 1880, 133; Theodoras Mopsuestenus, 1882, 200)). It must be said that “the doctrine of the deification of man as the completion of his transformation through the Divine Spirit was alien to Theodore’s theology” [Kavvadas, 2016, 142; Guryev, 1890, 338–343]. On the contrary, at St. Gregory, this idea is one of the main ones in soteriology. Saint Gregory in his teachings often speaks of man as “the church of the Living God” (Gregorius Nazianzenus, 1985, 188), or simply of “the church when the soul is mixed with the Divinity” (PG 37, 1399) 19, etc. This could be the end of the review of this interpolation, but we want to look at this issue from another side: consider the verse to which the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia was attributed: ࣣদাাাাপাাাাাাাাাা Sorrow of the mind is sufficient to replace all bodily activity, according to the word of the Interpreter (translation of the Bejan text) (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 352. Cap. 50). It should be noted that this idea is expressed by Rev. Isaac several times, and in this (89th) treatise we find it three times before the phrase in question, and again in the next (90th) treatise: मेंपर में में मार में पे में में में में पे में र्टे गༀ ࠏࢡ ॥̈࠿ দ̈ࢢढ़ী ॥̈࠯ ওએ ࠥॕ ૫ ॥ࢫ দઐ ࠿ A heart filled with sadness about weakness and powerlessness in obvious, physical affairs replaces all bodily affairs. Physical affairs without the sadness of the mind are the same as the inanimate body (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 344. Cap. 50; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 419). ૫૘ ॥ࢯ ࡘग॒ ࡡ࡝઩ય ࡯ࢡ ࠀททททททททท ͐͐͘͢͢͝ ͕͛ͥ͢͝ ͗͠Ϳ ͥ͡ นൕ̈࿿ ࢢ૫ ढ़ࢢ ੘૫ ॥ ࡘ̈ࡀ Sorrow of mind is a precious gift from God. He who endures it as he should is like a man who carries a shrine in his members (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 344. Cap. 50; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 419). ͐͢ ͐͠ ͚ͫ͟͟͡ ͐ͬ͢ ͕ͬͥ͡͠͠ ͓͒ͦͪ̓ ͚ͫ ͑͒ͪͥ̀͢͟͟͝ If you cannot labor with your body, at least grieve with your mind (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 350. Cap. 50; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 425). ૫ ͕ ͣ ͒ ͠ ͝ ͢ ͚ ͡ ͦ ͚ ͕͚ ͕ ͢ ͬ͝ ͐ ͕ ͡ ͬ ͥ ͒ ͪ ͢͝ ͢ ͒ ͗ ͝ ͢ ͥ ͪ ͨ ͐ ͝ ͬ̓ ͕ ͘ ͬ͟ ͦ ͘ ͚͠ ͢ ͑ ... ͚ͬͫ͒͡͡ ͢͡͡ ͛͒ͬ͐͘͝ ͛॥ࢯ຺ຝຝ຺ຣຣຣ The sadness that we feel during our endeavors is imputed to us by grace instead of pure action (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 355. Cap. 50; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 429). Lexical repetitions are clearly visible both in Syriac and in translations into other languages. Moreover, the same idea can be found in the 40th treatise of the 1st volume: ͬͪ͡͝ ͗͘ ͚ͫ͐ ͕ͪͥ͐̓͢͝ ͢͡ ͐ͬ͐͘͠ ͕͓ͫ͐͘͡͡ ͂ …..mental sadness surpasses bodily labor (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 447. Cap. 65; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 168). Thus, Rev. Isaac repeats this idea several times: at the beginning of the 89th word he puts forward it as a kind of thesis, throughout the treatise he returns to it, examining it from different sides, and at the end he cites the biblical story of the external repentance of King Ahab to confirm it. In other words, the verse in question is the final conclusion from the entire context. The above examples clearly show that the phrase “sorrow of the mind is sufficient to replace all bodily work” is a frequent expression of St. Isaac, which he repeats repeatedly in his treatises without reference to Theodore of Mopsuestia. Thus, the interpolation in this example must be attributed to the Nestorian scribes. And finally, the second discrepancy in this fragment. This, of course, can be attributed to a simple copyist's slip. Indeed, replacing the letter “nun” (Ң) with “lamad” (Ҡ) in the phrase “about His Judgment” gives the reading: “about what belongs to Him.” However, given that in the East Syrian tradition many were adherents of the apocatastatic heresy, we assume 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 [Πιράρ, 2012, 586, etc. 281]. Before moving on to the next fragment, located in the 89th and 90th treatises (in Sobolevsky’s translation), it is worth giving one more example that confirms how much the name of St. Gregory was unacceptable in Nestorian circles. Absent St. Gregory This example of an edit made by the Nestorians is characterized by the fact that it is no longer a replacement of the name, but a whole phrase is issued - a quotation along with the name - for the reason that it is very well known. Due to the fact that the beginning of the Orthodox (Melkite) manuscript is lost, we will rely on Monophysite manuscripts, mainly on Vat. syr. 124. But first of all, we have evidence of the Orthodox (Melkite) tradition, undoubtedly, in the Greek translation made in the 8th century. This passage in Sobolevsky’s translation looks like this: For Gregory says: it is good to theologize for the sake of God, but it is better for a person to make himself pure for God (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 280–281). However, the presence of this quotation is also reflected in a manuscript belonging to the East Syrian tradition: Berolin. or. quart. 1159, f. 28r. It is also interesting that this quote is also found in a 10th century manuscript belonging to the East Syrian edition - Brit. Add. 14632. The beginning of the manuscript, where this quotation is located, has been lost and was added by the Monophysite serto. Table 6. Syrian sources In the 13th century manuscript published by Bejan. this quote is missing; however, in relation to another 11th-century London manuscript, Brit. Add. 14633, an important fact should be noted: although in this manuscript, in the place of interest to us, the quote in question from St. Gregory is also released, but there is a gloss in the margins reproducing it. Bejan in his publication - according to the tradition that had apparently developed among this scientist - decided to remain silent about this gloss, as compromising the Nestorians. On the other hand, in modern science one can already find an opinion according to which the presence of this quote as an authentic reading is not disputed. Brit manuscript. Add. 14633, f. 14r. XI century For example, in the new translation by A. Muravyov we find this quote already in the text of the translation itself [Muravyov, 2016, 265]. Despite the fact that after the Nestorian “cleansing” in the East Syrian manuscripts (however, not in all) the name and quotes of St. Gregory the Theologian disappeared, researchers still note the fact that the vocabulary of this saint was reflected in the style and language of St. Isaac [Ilarion Alfeev, 2017, 99, approx. 4]. It should be noted that in the manuscripts, both East Syrian and West Syriac, as well as in the Melkite, the 89th treatise (in Sobolevsky’s translation) is combined with the subsequent 90th. In this treatise there is another place where the name of Theodore is present in the Nestorian manuscripts instead of the name of St. Cyril of Alexandria. The presence of the name of St. Cyril in the 50th treatise of St. Isaac the Syrian, judging by the East Syrian manuscript (Berolin. or. quart. 1159, f. 214r), did not particularly bother the Nestorians. After Prof. D. Miller discovered a parallel passage in the manuscript attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia (BL add. 17, 217), in the scientific world the opinion was finally established that the interpolation was introduced by West Syrian scribes [Conference, 2014, 34–35]. In order to make an objective decision on this issue, we had to take into account the entire context of treatise 89–90, which, as already said, in the original represents a single whole. In the process of work, we discovered not one, but several parallel passages and citations in the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the so-called “Glafirs”, in his interpretation of Genesis. In addition to these fragments, we identified a context and a whole layer of ideas and thoughts, such as the immutability of God, justice and punishment, the reconstruction of fallen human nature and theodicy. All these ideas and thoughts are reflected in treatise 89–90, the context of which is intertwined with the context of “Glafir”, which is referred to by St. Isaac the Syrian, according to Melkite and West Syriac tradition. The result of the study exceeded expectations because a large number of parallels were discovered. Moreover, we have identified parallels between these two authors and borrowings on a related topic and outside the treatise 89–90. For this reason, our study was beyond the scope of this article. However, taking into account the novelty and interest of the topic, on the one hand, and, on the other, the abundance of quoted fragments and parallel passages that needed to be presented in a visual form, taking into account translations into other languages, we decided to present the article in a new format. By new format we mean an article posted on an electronic resource, which contains specially developed software tables that provide the ability to display a particular text with parallel translation. In the near future we plan to prepare this article for publication in printed format, but for now it can be found at the following link: http://ptr.optina.ru/cross_engine/o_cit_kirilla.php 20. Consider the following example, found in the 44th treatise (in Sobolevsky’s translation - the 84th word): “As St. 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 hidden” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 319. Cap. 44; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 401). In Nestorian manuscripts, instead of the name St. John Chrysostom stands "Blessed Interpreter". The difficulty of attributing this fragment lies in the fact that both from the writings of Theodore the source has not been identified [Πιράρ, 2012, 547], and in the works of St. No such quotation has been found from Chrysostom. In the critical edition, Marcellus Pirard expresses several thoughts on this issue. Judging by the fact that in his edition Pirard examines only two of Theodore’s six quotations, it can be assumed that this fragment led the Belgian scholar into difficulty. Having not found citations from two sources, Pirard resolves the issue philologically. From the entire quotation, he will highlight the phrase on which the emphasis is placed - “revelation of the hidden,” and determines that this expression can “be part of Theodore’s vocabulary” [Πιράρ, 2012, 44, i. 2], which, according to the scientist, “apparently confirms the authorship of the latter” [Πιράρ, 2012, 44, i. 2]. If we are more objective in this matter and apply the philological method to the entire quotation, then we will see the vocabulary of another author, whom Marcellus Pirard has repeatedly identified in the texts of St. Isaac: this writer is John of Apamea. Moreover, it is important to note that John of Apamea has a statement that is almost identical to this quote [Πιράρ, 2012, 249]. The main lexical pairs are clearly visible in the original language. Wed: ͚ closely ͑ ͐ ͑ ͝ ͕ ͥ ͬ ͑ ͚ͬ͐͠ \ ͥͬ͐͝ ͕͚ͪͩ (see: (Mar Isaacus Ninivita. Cap. 44, 319–320)). The idea in both quotes is the same: after a person begins to live in the fear of God, which implies repentance or exercise in piety, spiritual knowledge is revealed to him. Statement by Rev. Isaac differs from the words of John in the phrases: “doing virtues” (ঠদ😆ংমারাযাযাযাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাাা However, such terminology is undoubtedly included in the lexical tools of John of Apamea (see: [Böle, 2021, 136–161; Muravyov, 2016, 130–132; Πιράρ, 2012, 89]). If we focus on the phrase “revelation of the hidden,” as undertaken by M. Pirard (St. Isaac himself emphasizes this phrase), then it should be noted that in the vocabulary of John of Apamea this is one of the frequently used expressions denoting the same spiritual reality 21 . In addition, we discovered that John uses almost the same expression, “hidden revelations” (ณภจทททททททททท) (Johannes Apamensis, 1972, 160–161/ 75–76), which in context contains the same idea as that of St. Isaac the Syrian. Consideration of this expression in a broader context allows us to see another coincidence of thoughts among St. Isaac and John of Apamea. Robert Boele, paraphrasing a fragment of the teaching of St. John, writes: “However, this “knowledge of the mysteries of God” and the degree of Perfection are given here only as a guarantee that brings about in us the resurrection inherent in baptism” [Böle, 2021, 140–141]. A similar thought is found in St. Isaac immediately after the quote from St. John: “And the spiritual knowledge that follows it is the same thing about which we said that we received the guarantee of it in baptism” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 320. Cap. 44; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 401). Direct and contextual coincidences allow us to say with confidence that St. Isaac here quotes John of Apamea: our philological analysis leaves little room for doubt. The textual history of the manuscripts confirms the above. In the most ancient Syriac manuscripts belonging to the Melkite tradition, one can see that this saying is not attributed to St. St. John Chrysostom, but “St. John” ( ͡ ͪ ͝ ͝ ͘ ͐ ͢ ͝ ͣ ͩ ͕ ͫ ͐ ) (Sin. syr. 24, fol. 69r; Vat. syr. 125, fol. 66r). Perhaps the Syriac word “mar”, i.e. “lord,” gave the Greek translators a reason to identify this “Saint John” with St. John Chrysostom. The reading of the name John is supported by almost all West Syrian manuscripts. Moreover, in one East Syrian manuscript this quotation is attributed not to Theodore of Mopsuestia, but to “Saint John” (Berolin or. quart. 1159, f. 190r). It is worth noting one more feature in the fragment under study. We will talk about “natural knowledge”, or “discerning knowledge that distinguishes good from evil” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 318. Cap. 44; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 399–400). This thought, repeated several times in this treatise, is undoubtedly inherent in St. Isaac, since this is one of the main ascetic ideas, dedicated to the three degrees of knowledge, and it goes back directly to John of Apamea [Böle, 2021, 138–141; 144–146]. On the contrary, such a thought was alien to Theodore of Mopsuestia. According to the teachings of Theodore, the primordial Adam and Eve did not have a natural distinction between good and evil and distinguished them only thanks to the commandment of the Creator (see: (PG 66, 812)). “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 nature common to all people. <...> We would not have the distinction between good and evil, nor would we have the knowledge of sin, if this were not distinguished for us by law and we would do whatever we wanted, like unreasonable animals” [Guriev, 1890, 279–280]. It seems to us that it is precisely in this, that is, in the exegetical interpretation that we find in Theodore and which comes into conflict with the context in St. Isaac, this may be the main reason that led to the introduction of interpolation by the Nestorian scribes. This thesis is confirmed by another East Syrian (Nestorian) manuscript, in which instead of the name “Theodore” there is the phrase: ͚ ͕ ͡ ͡ ͢ ͡ ͠ ͦ ̈͢ ͐ “one of the teachers” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, XI; Berolin. or.oct. 1258, f. 158r). It can be assumed that the East Syrian scribe noticed this inconsistency and, in order not to compromise Theodore, replaced his name with the expression “one of the teachers.” Consider the following fragment. In this fragment it is clear that St. Isaac relies on the example and experience of many holy fathers. In the place where the name “interpreter” is found, that is, Theodore, in the Orthodox text there is an expansion of the authority of the writers: “and not only to the Fathers, but also to all who are enlightened by knowledge” 23; in the Nestorian manuscript, on the contrary, there is a narrowing to one. Moreover, it turns out that Theodore is outside the host of holy fathers and is not numbered among the holy fathers. Both the previous and the following context, which retains the plural: “they call the way” - and the final one: “You see, like the fathers” - do not imply such a train of thought of the saint. Isaac, which is in the Nestorian manuscript, that is, a transition from the plural to the singular and back, which, in turn, may indicate the editing of the text by a copyist. It should be noted that the reference to Theodore in this treatise does not look entirely convincing, to put it mildly. The entire treatise is devoted to the teaching of pure prayer, thanks to which “the Holy Spirit, according to each person’s strength, acts in him, and acts, borrowing substance from the very thing for which someone prays and is not in this world” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 174. Cap. 22; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 66–67). As has already been shown above, such a teaching, including the intercommunication of properties (communicatio idiomatum), was alien to Theodore. And Theodore himself was not so competent in the doctrine of pure prayer that one could refer to his authority in this matter. However, it is important to note something else. Both the context and the very teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian conflict with the thesis presented in science that St. Isaac the Syrian follows in this place the thought of Theodore, namely that prayer and good deeds are one and the same (Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 1933, 124). This is clear from the following statement: “It is clear that prayer is another matter, and the deeds done are another matter ( ͕͟ ͓͐͠͝ ͗̓͝ ͕͚͐ͪͬ͐ ͗͝ ͨͬ͐̓͘͠ ͚͐ͪ̈͐͘͢͢ ͐͘͢͢) ࣣธ॥̈ࢪ࡯ଏঠࠚࢢ.). Under “wonderful work” (ࣣธ॥̈ࢯ૫দઇઐ) St. Isaac understands prayer exercises, reflections, thoughts of God, which is indicated by the entire context of this word, and cannot be found anywhere in St. Isaac's identification of prayer and good deeds. On the contrary, St. Isaac there are even sharp attacks against those monks who sought to engage in works of mercy, etc.: “If you are a layman, then spend your time doing good worldly deeds. And if you are a monk, then become famous for the deeds that distinguish monks. If you intend to do both, then you will lose both” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 150. Cap. 18; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 56) 24. In his teaching on prayer and deeds, St. Isaac builds a kind of ladder, where each virtue is a step to prayer (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 439–441. Cap. 63; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 166–167), and in the 32nd word he writes: “For each virtue is the mother of the next virtue. Therefore, if you leave your mother, who gives birth to virtues, and go to look for daughters before you find their mother, then these virtues turn out to be vipers for the soul. If you do not reject them from yourself, you will soon die” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 218. Cap. 32; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 369). Therefore, we agree with the teaching that prayer and good deeds are one and the same thing. We do not find Isaac and believe that the parallel existing in science, referring to the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the “Our Father” [Πιράρ, 2012, 394], is not an entirely accurate identification. It is necessary to add that A.D. Makarov proposed another statement by Theodore in the transmission of Joseph Hazzaya [Makarov, 2021, 173], however, Böle noted that a similar “statement is also found in Afraat” [Böle, 2021, 24, note. 20], to the statement of this Persian sage, St. Isaac could refer, calling him “enlightened by knowledge.” Given previous examples that have shown that name changes were made by Nestorian scribes, we give preference to older manuscripts belonging to the Melkite tradition, in which there is consistency of context and doctrine. Let's look at one more fragment. In the East Syrian manuscripts, the following quotation from Theodore of Mopsuestia is found in the 59th treatise (the 35th word in Sobolevsky's translation). In the example presented in Table 9, you can see that the quotation is at the very end of the treatise. The placement of the quotation seems somewhat artificial; the final word “amen” should appear at the end of the treatise, whereas it is adjacent to the quotation. It looks like a double ending to the treatise. Using the example of the Greek and Russian translations, one can notice that the quote does not play practically any significant semantic role, but is a tautology that does not introduce any significant addition to the text. Such citation is uncharacteristic of St. Isaac. We see that the quotes that St. Petersburg uses. Isaac to confirm his thoughts are laconic in nature and, for the most part, are reproduced by him from memory. It is important to note that Rev. Isaac the Syrian is an original writer, so to speak, for which reason he quotes the holy fathers in cases where he needs to confirm the originality of his view or resolve some puzzling question. In this example, the quote in question does not have such functions and represents an unfounded addition. It is also important to note that the idea that it is impossible to live in relaxation and at the same time practice virtue, and that this requires sorrow, is expressed by St. Isaac with a frequent statement, which he utters without reference to Theodore 25. We are inclined to see in this example the intervention of the East Syrian scribe, for whom it was important to note some similarity of thoughts with Theodore. A similar example can be found in the so-called “Gnostic Chapters” of the 2nd volume. After the author of the Gnostic chapters reflects on how God, by His grace, brought the world into being, the speech will be replaced by the following remark: “How timely and desirable it is to recall in this place the words of the Blessed Interpreter, spoken by him somewhere 26: “So, it is clear,” he says, “that out of an abundance of goodness and an abundance of love, God came to the creation of the world” [Ilarion Alfeev, 2017, 105]. Such citations, in our opinion, look like late insertions and additions made by copyists and do not reflect the nature of the citation of the patristic texts of St. Isaac. Let us add that this quotation is absent in all West Syriac manuscripts and in the ancient manuscripts of the Melkite tradition, as well as in one manuscript belonging to the East Syriac tradition (Berolin or. quart. 1159, f. 245r). In Pirard’s edition this place is also left without any special comment [Πιράρ, 2012, 654–655]. This concludes our review of the so-called quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia 28. In the previous article [Nikon Skarga, 2021, 276–294], we showed that St. Isaac and Theodore are in serious disagreement with each other on many theological issues. This review complements the fact of disagreement between these two authors and shows that the East Syrian manuscripts in those places where Theodore of Mopsuestia is quoted were subject to some editing by Nestorian scribes. Before summing up, let us answer one question that is implicitly present in the texts of St. Isaac the Syrian. Who truly interpreted Scripture? In the 2nd treatise of the First Volume by St. Isaac the Syrian has one reference to an unknown interpreter, who, according to the reverend father, “truly interpreted the Scriptures.” Commenting on the words of the Apostle Paul “as in a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12), St. Isaac writes: “But, according to the true testimony of those who interpreted the Scriptures, it is the intelligent action of the Holy Spirit” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 13. Cap. 2; Muravyov, 2016, 193). Two points are characteristic here. The first is that St. 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” [Muravyov, 2016, 193, note. 63]. In his translation, A. Muravyov, in a reference to this place, makes the assumption that there is a high probability of referring to Theodore of Mopsuestia [Muravyov, 2016, 193, note. 63], and refers the reader to the preface of his edition, 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” [Muravyov, 2016, 146]. However, this assumption is untenable for several reasons. Firstly, as A. Muravyov himself admits, Theodore’s interpretation of these passages is based on the book of Genesis (cf. Gen. 15:12) and the prophet (cf. Jer. 2:21) [Muravyov, 2016, 146, note. 692], but not the apostolic saying “as in a mirror” (1 Cor. 13:12). Secondly, if we assume that this interpretation really belongs to Theodore, then for what reason could it not be directly referred to? The reason is from St. Isaac is indicated: truly and untruly “those who interpreted the Scriptures.” In other words, if Theodore had been for St. Isaac as the true interpreter, then his name would be announced here. Finding the desired interpreter turned out to be not at all difficult. We made a “mirror” review of the apostolic phrase “like a mirror” from those authors whom St. Isaac quotes in his works - it turned out to be St. Mark the Ascetic. It is characteristic that the thought referred to by St. Isaac, repeats St. Mark several times. The first fragment is in the 2nd word “About those who think to be justified by works”, the second fragment is in the 7th word “On Paradise and the spiritual law” (Mark the Ascetic, 2016, 384, 510) 29 . Let us give text parallels. Quoting the second fragment from the 7th word, St. Isaac acts here as an interpreter and commentator on this word. 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.G. Dunaev, is often found in St. Mark, so does St. Macarius (Macarius of Egypt, 2002, 218–219) 33. 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 next century” [Guriev, 1890, 338–339] 34. It is also characteristic that St. Isaac, following St. Mark, perceives the allegorical method of interpretation as the “true interpretation of Scripture,” and the second method is the actualization of Holy Scripture into personal experience. “He who is humble and exercises himself in spiritual work, reading the Divine Scripture, will relate everything to himself and not to others” (Mark the Ascetic, 2016, 338). Such exegetical methods are alien to Theodore of Mopsuestia. It is important to note that Rev. Isaac the Syrian follows St. Mark and in the Christological interpretation of Holy Scripture. Speaking against the Nestorians, St. Mark the Ascetic says: “Show me Him in Scripture divided (δεῖξό[ν] μοι ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ χωριζόμενο [ν] αὐτόν) at least someday or somewhere, or in some force or deed” (Mark the Ascetic, 2000, 143. Chapter XVII). The same idea is expressed by St. Isaac the Syrian, when he says: “Scripture does not share this (ἡ θεία γραφή... οὐ χωρίζει ταῦτα) ... what is characteristic of Him according to humanity is said about His Divinity” (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 20) 35. It must be added that in the writings of St. Mark of the Ascetic, there is an anti-Nestorian polemic [Kim, 2016, 702]. Attacks against Theodore of Mopsuestia by St. The Mark of the Ascetic looks in the most eloquent way: “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 sages who want to be interpreters of the Scriptures, not having the heavenly Spirit, for not yet merging with the Divinity, they are monsters who do not have healthy members, but convey a defective and rotten word (cf.: Eph.4:29)" 36 (Macarius of Egypt, 2002, 459). At St. Macarius can also find anti-Theodore polemic in the 40th word “about the fact that passions are not natural.” This topic is also touched upon by others. Isaac, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, but St. Isaac here takes the side of St. Macarius opposes the fact that our nature was created passionate (see: (Macarius of Egypt, 2002, 696–698)). In the above examples one can clearly see the same hidden polemic against Theodore of Mopsuestia, which we find in the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian. The latter’s choice of such ascetics as the authorities was St. Mark and Macarius, who “truly interpreted the Scriptures” 37, may indicate a conscious departure or rejection of the Theodore tradition of St. Isaac the Syrian. In conclusion, we want to show another interesting fragment, which is found in St. Isaac the Syrian in the 4th treatise: “Let not the words of well-skilled people be for you like the words of hypocrites and those who sell the word of God, so that you do not remain in darkness until the end of your life, lose the benefit of their words, and during a battle do not become confused, as if at night, and do not fall into a pit under the guise of good (👒🦦🪨😦 👪👪👐 38 (" (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 49. Cap. 4; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 283). In this fragment, it is necessary to note several characteristic points. We see that St. Isaac contrasts “the words of well-skilled people” and “the words of hypocrites and those who sell the word of God”; in the latter A. Muravyov sees “theological opponents of Mar Ishak” [Muravyov, 2016, 271, note 172]. We would add that by “those who sell the word of God” we can mean interpreters. The Reverend Father warns his reader that if he follows such an interpreter, or, in other words, a “trader” of the word of God, he will walk in darkness and will ultimately fall into a pit, which will turn out to be a ghost of truth, i.e. It is interesting that we found a similar thought in St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his work “On Worship in Spirit and Truth” 39. And the last thing we would like to focus on is the end of the quote, namely the expression “a pit that has the appearance (face) of truth.” The Monk Isaac uses here one of the main Christological terms (parsopa; ͦͪͨ͘দ), to which Nestorian writers gave a special theological interpretation [Seleznev, 2002, 53, 79–81]. By this term, Nestorian theologians understood a certain “face of unity” or “Person of sonship”, through which human nature is united with the Divine [Zabolotny, 2020, 298]. The “Person of Sonship” was understood as the totality of the properties of the Second Hypostasis, which were communicated to the human nature of Christ, while the Second Hypostasis itself remained incommunicable [Zabolotny, 2020, 298]. Within the framework of this paradigm, the human hypostasis of Christ takes on the “appearance (face) of truth” (দপન ૫પ৐), in fact, this is the same formulation that we find in St. Isaac. It is important to note that such a significant Christological term, which should be shrouded in sacred mystery, is used by St. Isaac is used in a negative sense and means “pit” or “well” 40, according to St. Cyril of Alexandria, where the foolish fall, that is, delusion. For this reason, we believe that this fragment, given its exegetical and theological content, as well as the parallel found with the statement of St. Cyril of Alexandria, has an anti-Theodore reading. So, the review of quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia, taking into account contextual and philological analysis, allows us to draw the following conclusions: firstly, almost all places in the East Syrian manuscripts of St. Isaac, which quotes Theodore of Mopsuestia 41, conflict with the context. Some quotes (example 1) do not correspond to the style of Theodore’s writings and have both external and internal signs of damage to the text. Some others (example 6) have grammatical inconsistencies and conflict with the teachings of St. Isaac. Some quotes (examples 2, 5), expressed on behalf of Theodore, contradict his teaching. Moreover, it is important to note that the sources of quotations attributed to those authors indicated in the West Syrian and Melkite lists are found without much difficulty. There are quotes (example 2) that use ascetic terminology that originally belonged to St. Isaac, and which are repeated by him in many treatises without reference to Theodore. There are quotations (example 3) that were completely removed from the text in the East Syrian lists due to the well-known nature of the statements contained in them, but which were disadvantageous due to confessional contradictions with the Church of the East. Some quotes (example 7) look like an artificial addition to the text and do not reflect the nature of the citation of the patristic texts of St. Isaac. Interesting in itself is example 4, which examines the problem of the presence of the name Theodore in St. Isaac in his treatise 89–90 (translated by Sobolevsky). Despite the fact that for a long time the fact that the quoted fragment in this treatise belonged to Theodore was not in doubt among researchers, thanks to contextual analysis we were able to uncover a whole layer of borrowed St. Isaac of ideas from the author whom the reverend father quotes in this word. Moreover, as shown in the example, the entire treatise 89–90 is contextually dependent on the exegetical reflections of St. Cyril of Alexandria over the book of Genesis. On the contrary, in our article [Nikon Skarga, 2021, 276–294], devoted to a comparative analysis of the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. Isaac the Syrian, it was shown that St. Isaac deliberately ignores Theodore’s exegetical work “Commentaries on the Book of Genesis” and even cites in principle those opinions that Theodore ridiculed. This fact all the more confirms the incorrect attribution of the quotation to Theodore in the East Syrian manuscripts. A thematic comparison of the teachings and theological opinions of the two authors under study, as well as a contextual review of the quoted fragments, allowed us to establish that 1) between Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. There is a serious disagreement between Isaac the Syrian, 2) in the latter’s writings there is an anti-Theodore polemic 42, which, in our opinion, prompted the Nestorian scribes to 3) artificially insert the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia into the texts of St. Isaac the Syrian, which could be related to the confessional dispute surrounding the identity of this saint. Our research allows us to reconsider the opinions established in the scientific community regarding the personality of St. Isaac the Syrian and the body of his works, mainly to remove the shadow of suspicion of Nestorianism and the adherence of the author of the First Collection to the Theodore (East Syrian) tradition. At the same time, we can recognize as untenable and erroneous the thesis established in the scientific community that “in the field of dogmatics and exegesis, the main authorities for Isaac the Syrian were Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus” [Ilarion Alfeev, 2011, 700] and thereby awaken to life a new round of Orthodox studies of Isaac 43 . The main milestones of the upcoming research will be the revision of biographical sources (Ishodnah and Anonymous Rahmani), which in some places do not agree with the autobiographical evidence of St. Isaac the Syrian, and a review of other volumes or collections of treatises attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian. 1. Bible (2013) – The Bible in Hebrew and modern Russian. Jerusalem: Hebrew-Russian Bible, 2013. 2. Böle (2021) - Böle R. The Formless Light: An Introduction to the Study of the East Syrian Christian Mystical Tradition. M.: Publishing house "Poznanie", 2021. 3. Charity (2010) – Charity / Trans. from ancient Greek M.: Edition of the Cell in the Name of the Nativity of John the Baptist of the Hilondar Monastery on Holy Mount Athos, 2010. Vol. 1–4. 4. Gregory the Theologian (2011) – Gregory the Theologian, St. Creations. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. T. 2. 5. Guryev (1890) - Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. M.: Printing house of L. and A. Snegirev, 1890. 6. Dunaev (2002) – Dunaev A..G. Part I: AUTHOR // Macarius of Egypt, St. Spiritual words and messages. Collection of type I (Vatic. graec. 694) / Preface, translation, commentary, indexes by A. G. Dunaev. M.: Indrik, 2002. 7. Epifanovich (2010) – Epifanovich S. L. Lectures on patrolology. St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2010. 8. Zabolotny (2020) – Zabolotny E.A.. Syrian Christianity between Byzantium and Iran. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2020. 9. Hilarion Alfeev (2011) – Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. Isaac the Syrian // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2011. T. 26. pp. 695–731. 10. Hilarion Alfeev (2017) – Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. The spiritual world of St. Isaac the Syrian. St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2017. 11. Isaac the Syrian (1911) - Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. Sergiev Posad: Printing house St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1911. 12. Isaac the Syrian (2013) - Isaac the Syrian, St. About Divine mysteries and spiritual life: newly discovered texts / Transl. with sire., note, preface. and after. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev). St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2013. 13. Isaac the Syrian (2016) - Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A. V. Muravyova. M.: Publishing house "Yask", 2016. 14. Kavvadas (2016) – Kavvadas N. The world of ideas of Mar Ishak. The Antiochian foundation of Ishak’s theology // Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I-VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A. V. Muravyova. M.: Publishing house "Yask", 2016. pp. 137–142. 15. Kessel (2015) - Kessel G. M. Two editions of the works of St. Isaac the Syrian // Theological works. 2015. No. 46. pp. 306–323. 16. Kessel (2016) – Kessel G. M. Manuscript tradition of the first volume of the Syrian corpus of Isaac of Nineveh // Isaac the Syrian, Rev. (Mar Isaac of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I-VI)/General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A. V. Muravyova. M.: Publishing house "Yask", 2016. pp. 56–78. 17. Kessel (2018) – Kessel G.M. The Fifth Collection of Isaac of Nineveh: Preliminary Observations on a Newly Found Manuscript (OLIM DIYARBAKIR/SCHER 25) // BT. 2018. No. 47–48. pp. 239–257. 18. Kim (2016) – Kim S.S. Mark the Hermit // Orthodox Encyclopedia. M., 2016. T. 43. pp. 701–706. 19. Cyril of Alexandria (2000) – Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 1 “On Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth.” M.: Pilgrim, 2000. 20. Conference (2014) – St. Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. Materials of the First International Patriotic Conference of the All-Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius. M., 2014. 21. Conference: Asceticism as a political theology (2014) - Hagman P. Asceticism as a political theology: the ascetic as a sacrament in St. Isaac of Nineveh // Venerable Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. Materials of the First International Patristic Conference of the All-Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius. M.: [Church-wide postgraduate and doctoral studies named after. St. Cyril and Methodius], 2014. pp. 259–273. 22. Larcher (2019) – Larcher J.-C. On the principles of the correct use of patristic research in Orthodox theology / Transl. from fr. P.K. Dobrotsvetova // Diakritis. 2019. No. 1 (1). pp. 137–150. 23. Macarius of Egypt (2002) – Macarius of Egypt, St. Spiritual words and messages. Collection of type I (Vatic. graec. 694) / Preface, translation, commentary, indexes by A. G. Dunaev. M.: Indrik, 2002. 24. Makarov (2021) – Makarov A. D. Distribution of the First Assembly of St. Isaac the Syrian outside the Church of the East. Part II: Interpolation of names // Theological Bulletin. 2021. No. 2 (42). pp. 165–207. 25. Mark the Ascetic (2000) – Mark the Ascetic, St. Against the Nestorians / Transl. from Greek, comm. B. Barchunova // Theological collection. M., 2000. No. 5. P. 125–181. 26. Mark the Ascetic (2016) – Mark the Ascetic, St. Moral and ascetic words. M.: Rule of Faith, 2016. 27. Muravyov (2016) – Muravyov A.V. The world of ideas of Mar Ishak. Sources and context // Isaac the Syrian, St. (Mar Ishaq of Nineveh). Book about the ascent of a monk: First collection (treatises I–VI) / General. ed. and lane from Syriac, Arabic, Greek A. V. Muravyova. M.: Publishing house "Yask", 2016. pp. 123–136. 28. Nikon Skarga (2021) – Nikon (Skarga), Hierarch. Venerable Isaac the Syrian and Theodore of Mopsuestia: alliance or disagreement? (Review of the 1st meeting of St. Isaac the Syrian // Christian Reading. 2021. No. 3. pp. 276–294. 29. Pigulevskaya (2011) – Pigulevskaya N.V. Syrian medieval historiography. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 2011. 30. Seleznev (2002) - Seleznev N. N. Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East. Analysis of basic materials in the context of the history of the formation of religious doctrine. M.: Euroasiatica, 2002. 31. Synaxarion (2011) – Synaxarion. Lives of the Saints of the Orthodox Church. Author-compiler: Hieromonk Macarius of Simonopetra / Adapt. lane from fr. M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2011. 32. Brock (1995) – Brock S.P. Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian). “The Second Part,” Chapters IV–XLI. Louvain, 1995. (Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Vol. 554). 33. Brock (2004) – Brock S.P. Crossing the Boundaries: An Ecumenical Role Played by Syriac Monastic Literature // Il monachesimo tra Eredita e Aperture / Ed. by M. Bielawski, D. Hombergen. Roma, 2004. (Studia Anselmiana, 140; Analecta monastica, 8). 34. Draguet (1978) – Draguet R. Les forms syriaques de la matière de l’historie Lausiaque. I. Les manuscrits. Edition des pieces liminaires et des ch. 1–19 // Corpus scriptorium christianorum orientalium. Leuven, 1978. Vol. 389. P. 46–47. 35. Gregorius Nazianzenus (1985) – Gregorius Nazianzenus. Discourse 32–37/Ed. par C. Moreschini, P. Gallay. Paris: Cerf, 1985. (Sources chretiennes. Vol. 318, 188). 36. Isaac (1984) – St. Isaac the Syrian. Ascetical Homilies / Transl. by D. Miller. Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1984. 37. Isaacus Ninivita (1909) – Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa / Ed. by P. Bedjan. Paris; Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1909. 38. Johannes Apamensis (1972) – Johannes von Apamea. Sechs Gesprache mit Thomasios, Der Briefwechsel zwischen Thomasios und Johannes und Drei an Thomasios gerichtete Abhandlungen / Hrsg. von W. Strothmann. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972, pp. 160–161. 39. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1869) – Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Fragmenta Syriaca/Ed. by E. Sachau. Leipzig: Typis Guilelmi Drugulini, 1869. 40. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1880) – Theodorus Mopsuestenus. In epistolas B. Pauli commentarii. Vol. I/Ed. by H. B. Swete. Cambridge: University Press, 1880. 41. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1882) – Theodorus Mopsuestenus. In epistolas B. Pauli commentarii. Vol. II/Ed. by H. B. Swete. Cambridge: University Press, 1882. 42. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1933) – Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Lord's Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist / Ed. by A. Mingana. Cambridge, 1933. P. 124. (Woodbrooke Studies. Vol. VI). 43. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1971) – Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex libro quinto commenti de creatura // Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Concilii actiones VIII/Ed. by J. Straub. Berolini: In aedibus Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1971 (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. [T. IV.] Vol. I). P. 64–65. 44. Vosté (1945) – Vosté J. Paul Bedjan, le lazarist person. Notes bio-bibliographiques // Orientalia christiana periodica. 1945. Vol. 11. P. 45–102. 45. Vööbus (1988) – Vööbus A. Histori of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient. A Contribution to the Histori of Culture in the Near East. III: A Contribution to the Histori of Culture in the Near East. Louvain, 1988. (Corpus scriptorium christianorum orientalium. Vol. 500; Subsidia. Vol. 81) 46. Wensinck (1923) – Wensinck A. J. (tr.) Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van 46.Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde. Nieuwe Reeks. Deel 23, Nr. 1, Amsterdam; Wiesbaden, 1923 (1969 2 (. 47. Πιράρ (2012) Ἰσαὰκ ὁ Σύρος, ὅσιος. Λόγοι ἀσκητικοί / Κριτ. ἔκδ. M. Πιράρ. Ἅγιον Ὄρος: Ἱερὰ μονὴ Ἰβηρῶν, 2012. A more thorough review of the Second Collection suggests that some of the treatises included in this collection were hastily attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian and require further detailed re-verification. Let us recall that the reason for this study was outlined in our previous article, where we showed the obvious disagreement between these two authors. Toile's publication was not available to us. 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 it,” while the manuscript was written in clear estrangela [Pigulevskaya, 2011, 20]. Here and below, the numbering of treatises by default corresponds to the Bejan edition. It must be said that in a recently published article on the interpolation of names, A.D. Makarov omits this example of text correction/distortion; the comparative table indicates the absence of the “Abc” example, which is a distortion of facts [Makarov, 2021, 192]. A. Makarov's article contains incorrect textual criticism of the manuscripts and other gross errors that distort the facts; One can only regret that the reviewers, without correcting even the most obvious errors, allowed such work to be published. See our review of the article by A. D. Makarov: Nikon (Skarga), Hierom. Review of the article Makarov A.D. Distribution of the First Collection of St. Isaac the Syrian outside the Church of the East. Part II: interpolation of names // Written monuments of the East (in print). G. M. Kessel believes that the West Syrian copy could have served as the original for this manuscript [Kessel, 2016, 78]. In the manuscript, instead of Theodore's name, there is an indication: “one of the teachers” ( ͚ ͕ ͢͡ ͦ͐͢͢͡͠ ). Literally, as in Greek: “be bold in repentance.” However, here we preferred the translation by S.I. Sobolevsky. In this fragment, Wensenck gives an incorrect translation: “If the habit of repentance has driven away the anger of the King, he will not now reject your sincere mind. If the habit of humility can drivêaway God’s anger from him who knows himself not to be true, how much more will this be the casêwith you who are suffering in truth for your trespasses” (“If the habit (habit) has led to repentance anger of the King, then He will not reject your sincere feeling (mind) now. If the habit of humility can avert the wrath of God from one who knows himself to be wrong, then all the more so in the case of you, who truly grieve over your sins." Compare: “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, the ever-memorable Creation - a created god, walking through Christ’s suffering into imperishable glory. Therefore, do not please the flesh, so as not to love real 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” (Gregory the Theologian, 2011: Homily 9, on human virtue, 93 // PG 37, 678). According to Bejan's instructions, the Rassam (from Mosul) and Vatican manuscripts have the variant ( ͕ ͒ ͕ ͝ ͢ ͗ ) “about His judgment,” which corresponds to the Greek translation. In all likelihood, Pirard, noting the discrepancy, and trusting Bejan's edition, did not consider it necessary to check the reference to St. Gregory. See Table 4. Judging by the handwriting, we can say that this is the only gloss, in comparison with others, that was introduced by the copyist himself. Let us cite those of them under which the teaching of Theodore and Nestorius falls: “If anyone does not recognize Holy Mary as the Mother of God, then he is excommunicated from the Divinity. If someone says that Christ passed through the Virgin as if through a trumpet, and was not formed in her divinely and humanly: divinely as one born without a husband, humanly as one born according to the law of pregnancy, then he too is godless. If anyone says that man was formed in the Virgin and then gave way to God, then he is condemned, for this does not mean recognizing the birth of God, but avoiding the birth. If anyone introduces two sons: one from God and the Father, and the other from the Mother, and not one and the same, then let him lose the adoption promised right to believers. If anyone says that in Christ the Divinity, as in the prophet, acted graciously, and was not essentially coupled and is coupled, then let him not have the best inspiration in himself, but, on the contrary, let him be filled with the opposite!.. If anyone says that Christ became perfect through works and that He, either by baptism or by resurrection from the dead, was worthy of adoption, let him be anathema: for it is not God that has received a beginning or succeeds, or is perfected, although this is attributed to Christ (Luke 2:52) in relation to gradual manifestation” (Gregory the Theologian, 2011, 480–481). Moreover, researchers have no doubt that Theodore’s quote should begin after the name of St. Gregory in the words: “He is the church of grace” (see: [Ilarion Alfeev, 2017: The Spiritual World of St. Isaac the Syrian, 379]). In the Nestorian manuscript Berolin. or. quart. 1159, f. 211r, name of St. Gregory is also correlated with this quote. Wed. at St. Isaac the Syrian: “He is the church of grace who is united with God.” Due to the fact that the article was written more than five years ago, some corrections may be made to it in preparation for publication. Compare: “knowledge of the mysteries of another age”, “inexpressible spiritual revelations”, “the beauty of the mysteries of God”, “contemplation of hidden things”, “comprehension of mysteries”, etc. [Böle, 2021, 140–141]. In both cases, the masculine plural form of the active participle of the pael type is used. This reading is also supported by the East Syriac (Nestorian) manuscript: see Berolin. or. quart. 1159, f. 94r. Wed. also: “Psalmody is the root of monastic life. However, know also that words with a soaring mind are much more useful than physical actions.” Translation: [Kessel, 2015, 322]. See especially at the end of the 77th word, which practically repeats the same thoughts (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 220–223), as well as the 5th word (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 292) and the 6th word (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 316–317). Such an introductory phrase, together with an abstract reference, is not typical for St. Isaac, in our opinion, in this place there is obviously the intervention of a copyist. Lit. "satiated with this path" See also our article regarding three quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia in the 19th treatise: Isaac the Syrian, St. Orthodox Syriac manuscript of the 1st volume of St. Isaac the Syrian, Sinai syr. 24 (19th treatise) / Ed., preface, note. and appl. hierome Nikona (Skargi) // Diakritis (in press). See also, as part of the Macarius Corpus, Homily 36 “On Paradise and the Spiritual Law” (Macarius of Egypt, 2002, 680). In the ancient Syriac (5th century) version, individual chapters of the “Makarievsky Corpus” were attributed to the authorship of Mark the Ascetic, see: [Dunaev, 2002, 119]. Rus. lane A. V. Muravyova (Isaac Sirin, 2016, 191–192). It is important to note that all three quotes from Holy Scripture that St. Mark, repeat, etc. Isaac in this short fragment; see: (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 10–11). Wed. introductory phrase: “if the word of blessed Mark is true”; see: (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 217). See also: [Böle, 2021, 89–96]. See about this above, 2nd example. See details in our previous article [Nikon Skarga, 2021, 287–288]. Works by Rev. Marks were already translated into Syriac in ancient times; the oldest manuscript dates back to the first half of the 6th century. [Kim, 2016, 701]. Literally: “in the face of truth”; Alternatively, you can also translate it “in the guise of truth.” Compare: “The “broken wells” are also being dug by lovers of false knowledge. So, if someone has dug a well, beware lest what seems to be a beautifully done thing turn out to be a way of destruction for someone, for we must correctly and very carefully compose the word about God, so as not to give anyone a reason for temptation” (Cyril of Alexandria, 2000, 371; PG 68. Col. 520CD). The Syriac word ( ͓ ͘ ͒ ͐ ) can also mean well. In some manuscripts there is no attribution to Theodore at all. The latter fact did not allow itself to be discovered for a long time due to the “narrow” use in the scientific community of the uncritically published manuscript of the East Syrian edition. The presence of the name Theodore of Mopsuestia in the manuscripts of the East Syrian edition did not even allow the thought of such a fact. The introduction into scientific circulation of older manuscripts belonging to the Melkite edition, which for a long time were behind the scenes of positive research, greatly expands the range of textual research and allows for a revision of some passages that were previously considered as interpolations. Despite the fact that the Melkite edition may represent a “short” or original version of the text, nevertheless, the names of the holy fathers that are quoted in these manuscripts do not cause any particular difficulty in identification and are consistent with the context of the teachings of St. Isaac the Syrian. Outstanding representatives of which were Archbishop. Nikephoros (Theotoke), St. Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Sergius (Spassky), Rev. Paisiy, abbot of Nyametsky, and Macarius of Optina, Justin (Popovich), sschmch. Ilya (Chetverukhin).