Venerable Isaac the Syrian and Theodore of Mopsuestia: alliance or disagreement? Part 1

(Review of the 1st meeting of St. Isaac the Syrian) The article examines the parallels between the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. Isaac the Syrian in the context of the First Assembly. Through comparative analysis, it was possible to identify strong differences in the theological themes of these two authors. The insufficiently studied context of the teachings of St. Isaac the Syrian, upon closer examination, reveals a hidden layer of unexpected factual material, which requires further understanding and raises many open questions. This article makes an attempt, using patristic Orthodox methodology, to explore the corpus of writings attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian, and answer a number of a priori questions related to this issue. About the author: Hieromonk Nikon (Skarga Denis Sergeevich). Resident of the Vvedensky stauropegial monastery of Optina Pustyn. E-mail: ptr@optina.ru The teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia became the main basis, thanks to which the Church of the East acquired its specific theological line. While Theodore's teaching was condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, a number of councils of the Church of the East approved it and made it an indisputable authority. The teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia were universally accepted in church educational institutions and monasteries belonging to the East Syrian tradition, where his books took the most important place in the frequent reading of all monks (see: [Zabolotny, 2020, 290]). The main purpose of our article is to answer the following question: to what extent did the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia influence St. Isaac the Syrian. In resolving this issue, let us present some theological opinions of Theodore of Mopsuestia in his exegetical writings and compare them with the teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian. 1. Exegesis of Holy Scripture by Theodore of Mopsuestia In the Antiochian school, Theodore of Mopsuestia was such a significant exeget that his authority practically supplanted the influence of such outstanding and world-famous teachers of Antiochene theology as St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. John Chrysostom. His influence reached extremes: all those persons who tried to interpret the Holy Scriptures contrary to Theodore, referring to the above-mentioned teachers were subject to anathema [Guriev, 1890, 354]. Theodore's commitment to the literal historical-philological method of interpretation led to his becoming the first reformer of the biblical canon. Theodore's hermeneutic method subjected the Bible to deconstruction, which inevitably led to criticism of the text, on the one hand, and, on the other, criticized the revealed teaching about Christ. According to the fair remark of Valery Yakovlevich Savrey, “based on this, it can be argued that the extreme direction of the Antiochian school was the first experience in the deconstruction of Christianity” [Savrey, 2012b, 105; see: Pirot, 1913, 350–428]. Let us cite the testimony of Leontius of Byzantium about the editorial processing that Theodore of Mopsuestia subjected the Bible to: “This wise and great Theodore, as his zealous followers readily call him, not content with fighting with people, dared to fight against the glory of the Holy Spirit, since he interpreted the sublime scriptures handed down by inspired men in a base manner and separated them from the Divine. number of books" [Guriev, 1890, 195–197; see: Kihn, 1880, 72]. Next, Leonty lists the books of the Old and New Testaments, which Theodore did not recognize as inspired. Guryev gives a list of books of Holy Scripture that Theodore removed from the canons of the Bible: the books of Job, Song of Songs, 1st and 2nd books of Chronicles, 1st book of Ezra, book of Nehemiah, as well as inscriptions of psalms; From the New Testament he excluded the conciliar epistles: James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude, as well as the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. He also excluded from the canon those Old Testament books that were not included in the books of the Jewish canon: Tobit, Judith, Esther, the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the 2nd and 3rd books of Ezra and the three books of the Maccabees [Guriev, 1890, 197–198]. The reasons why Theodore of Mopsuestia excluded so many sacred books from the canon of the Bible primarily lie in the fact that, as researchers note, he was guided by his concept of the various types and degrees of inspiration of sacred books (see: [Guriev, 1890, 235–238; Savrey, 2012b, 104–105]). He did not consider many of the writers of sacred books to be prophets of God in the strict sense of the word, but to possess only the gift of wisdom. The second reason is that he, without a doubt, was guided by the historical review of the Jewish canon: here Theodore completely follows Josephus and repeats his canon [Guriev, 1890, 201–203]. The church historian Hesychius directly said that Theodore, “taking the first elements of his teaching from Jewish idle talk, wrote an essay on the prophecy of the psalms, rejecting all predictions about the Lord” [Guriev, 1890, 238]. Theodore chose his method in typology: “Where there is no similarity, there are no typos” [Savrey, 2012b, 104], - as a result, he did not recognize most of the messianic prophecies about Christ. For example, in his interpretation of the minor prophets, he noted that “there are no direct prophecies about Christ there at all” [Timofeev, 2016, 206]. Theodore was convinced that the words of the prophets should be relevant only for the era in which they lived, so he limited all verbal prophecy to the era of the Maccabees [Timofeev, 2016, 205]. In order to clarify the dark places in the biblical text, he used a wide range of philological tools, but rejected any metaphorical speculation [Tisselton, 2011, 122]. He also challenged and criticized many interpreters [Guriev, 1980, 218], actively opposed the allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture and “directly compared allegory with the interpretation of dreams as an empty matter and unworthy of a Christian” [Savrey, 2012b, 72]. As Rev. rightly notes. Boris Timofeev, “unable to resolve the visible contradictions in the biblical text, Theodore of Mopsuestia almost completely deprives the message of the Old Testament of its messianic character. In this case, his interpretation of the Old Testament, in the apt expression of Theodoret of Cyrus, is “more beneficial for the Jews than for the disciples of the faith.” Therefore, in many cases, the Mopsuestian bishop in his interpretations follows the Jewish exegetical tradition more than the Christian tradition” [Timofeev, 2016, 201–202]. 2. Exegesis of Holy Scripture by St. Isaac the Syrian Careful work on the texts of St. Isaac the Syrian leads scientists to the opinion that “he departed far from the Antiochian tradition” [Florovsky, 2005, 542]. Bruria Bitton-Ashkeloni states directly: “He uses an allegorical method of interpretation” [Conference: Brought to Silence, 2014, 243]. Here are a few examples of his allegorical exegesis. “Paradise,” he says, “is the love of God,” as well as the Tree of Life for St. Isaac - “the love of God”: “Adam was removed from this tree, and from then on no joy greeted him, but he worked and toiled in the land of thorns” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 314. Cap. 43; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 397). Thorns, according to St. Isaac, these are passions: “Indeed, the passions are thorns and grow in us from being sown into the body” (cf. Gal. 6:8). “But from that night on which the Lord poured out sweat (in the Garden of Gethsemane), He changed the sweat that brought forth thorns and thistles to the sweat shed in prayer and together in the practice of righteousness...” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 203. Cap. 28; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 78). With the exegetical key of St. Isaac considered prayer: “Do not approach the words of the sacraments contained in the Divine Scripture without prayer and asking for help from God, but say: Lord grant me, to receive the feeling of the power contained in them” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 329. Cap. 45; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 408). The hermeneutic method of St. Isaac is divided into three stages: 1) “Let your reading be in undisturbed silence.” 2) “Be free from preoccupation with the body and from worldly rebellion, so that you may taste the sweetest taste in your soul through sweet understanding.” 3) “Consider prayer the key to the true understanding of what is said in the Divine Scriptures” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 329. Cap. 45; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 408). In general, no matter what heeumeneutic procedure St. Whatever Isaac did with the biblical text, he always pursued one goal - updating it and involving it in his spiritual experience. This method of interpretation in the Antiochene tradition was first outlined by St. Ephraim Sirin, who “created symbolic interpretation as a genre, using the polysemantic properties of the sign... Thus, Adam, Samson and David symbolize each of us, remaining themselves” [Savrey, 2012a, 154]. St. Isaac, without a doubt, draws parallels between the events of the Old Testament righteous and his personal experience: “Whoever, out of his own acquisition, sows teaching in the ears of those who listen to him, opens his mouth with boldness, speaking to his spiritual children, just as the aged Jacob said to the chaste Joseph: “I will give you one portion above your brethren, which I took from the Amorites with my sword and my bow.” (Gen.48:22)" Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 9. Cap. 1; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 8). St. Isaac also likens the soul to the entire camp of Israel, which was covered by a cloud during the day, and a pillar of fire shone for it at night (Ex. 40:38). “If the soul has shone with the remembrance of God and vigilant vigil day and night, then the Lord arranges a cloud there to protect it, overshadowing it during the day and illuminating the night with fiery light” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 83. Cap. 6; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 308). Typology of St. Isaac goes beyond the limited framework of the method of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Parallels are drawn where not only is there no “similarity of typos,” but also where contemplation (θεωρία) is divorced from history, which is also a violation of the exegetical method of Diodorus of Tarsus [Savrey, 2012b, 162]. St. Isaac draws parallels between the purity of the mind and the place of the Epiphany on Mount Sinai: “When the mind puts off the old man, and puts on the new man of grace, then it will see its purity, like the flower of heaven, which the elders of the children of Israel called the place of God (Ex. 24:10), when God appeared to them on the mountain” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 174–175. Cap. 22; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 67). Thus, the exegesis of St. Isaac the Syrian is of a mystical nature, through which the innermost meaning is extracted and unity occurs with the Spirit who spoke these words. The typological method acts as a kind of ascetic work, thanks to which the biblical text is updated through the constant discovery of parallels between certain events of Sacred history and the personal experience of the ascetic. Here Rev. Isaac the Syrian, if he does not anticipate, then at least adjoins and is in the bosom of the same tradition with such outstanding Byzantine interpreters of the Holy Scriptures as St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Andrei Kritsky and St. Simeon the New Theologian. 3. Biblical canon. The use of biblical books by St. Isaac the Syrian As mentioned above, Theodore of Mopsuestia was one of the first radical reformers of the biblical canon. He considered twenty biblical books not to be inspired. In turn, Rev. Isaac quotes the Song of Songs in his works (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 192), imitates the jealousy of the Maccabees (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 32), and repeatedly cites Job as an example (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 119, 151, 292). However, it can be stated that Rev. Isaac used almost the entire corpus of Holy Scripture in his quotation. Of the twenty books that Theodore rejected, St. Isaac does not quote only seven [Muravyov, 2016, 124]. As you can see, with regard to quoting Holy Scripture, Theodore of Mopsuestia did not have a significant influence on St. Isaac the Syrian. Bible for St. Isaac remains the inexhaustible “sea of ​​Scripture.” 4. Theology of the biblical commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia The main source that objectively reflects the theological thought of Theodore of Mopsuestia is commentaries on various books of Holy Scripture translated from Greek into Syriac. For this reason, it is Theodore’s exegetical methods and reflections on the biblical text that need to be given special attention when studying this problem (see: [Zabolotny, 2020, 29]; (Theodore of Mopsuestia: Fragment of a commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2020, Word 1)). 5. Cosmology and angelology of Theodore of Mopsuestia In his commentary on the book of Genesis, Theodore taught that intelligent invisible beings were created along with the visible world, and not before it, for the reason that they could only know their own goods by comparing themselves with other creations (Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 1869, [1–2]); [Guriev, 1890, 70]. “Blessed Moses,” says Theodore, “does not use the expression God said in relation to what was first created, but says simply: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, because He does this by His will alone, without using the word, since there was no one yet who could learn from His word... It was when such beings appeared who were supposed to know from the word the Creator, hidden in His essence, then, according to His will, the word began to precede the action... And this served for rational and invisible beings to know the One who created creation by His command” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 1869, [4]); [Guriev, 1890, 259]. Theodore taught about two acts of creation: one occurred by will, and the second by word. He divided all creations into two successive rows: “The first row includes all those that appeared along with heaven and earth, and the second – those that appeared after them.” Angels, according to Theodore, were created together with heaven and earth and other visible objects, which Moses does not mention (see: (Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 1869, [7]); [Guriev, 1890, 25]). In support of this opinion, Theodore cited arguments from the 148th Psalm and from the First Epistle to the Corinthians by St. Paul: “We have become a disgrace to the world, to angels and to men” (1 Cor. 4:9). “The Apostle Paul,” as Theodore thinks, “does not recognize the creation of angels before the visible world, because he places them along with other creatures” [Guriev, 1890, 259]. Theodore also gave other considerations on this issue. For example, he believed that “intelligent invisible beings can only cognize the benefits given to them by God other than by comparing themselves with other creations” [Guriev, 1890, 259]. Here we can agree with Guryev’s remark: “Theodore,” he says, “did not understand everything in the history of creation in accordance with the teachings of the Church... Wanting to substantiate his incorrect conclusion, he developed for himself a peculiar idea of ​​two creations” [Guriev, 1890, 262]. For this reason, Theodore, although he tries to follow the biblical six-day story, the already given “duality” of creation pushed him to innovation, which deviated far from the biblical narrative. “God did not create two,” he says, “creations: one visible, and the other invisible, together with the first things, but in the end brought them into existence out of nothing. What is visible by nature is light, and what is invisible by nature is our souls” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 1869, [5]); [Guriev, 1890, 260]. So, in Theodore’s teaching on the creation of the visible and invisible world, several points can be identified that were inherent in his understanding and which, at the same time, diverged from the interpretations of other exegetes, such as St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian, as well as representatives of the Antiochian trend - St. John Chrysostom and St. Ephraim the Syrian [Guriev, 1890, 262. Note. 1]. The main discrepancy lies in Theodore's teaching about two acts of creation, which noticeably violates the sequence of the six days. As a result, it turns out that some things that were created on certain days of the six-day creation (for example, light on the first day of creation, the firmament on the second day, the gathering of waters on the third day) turn out to have already been created in the first act of creation. For Theodore, light is created after all things. Theodore’s opinion about the human soul, which he attributes to “invisible nature,” seems peculiar, and the nature of the soul is created after all things. The angelic nature, which Theodore also refers to as “invisible and rational nature,” is created “simultaneously with visible things” (Theodore of Mopsuestia: Fragment of a commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2020, Word 1). At the same time, it can be noted that Theodore places the creation of angels after the creation of lower beings: “then He created intelligent beings who are higher than all the previous ones” (Theodore of Mopsuestia: Fragment of a commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2020, Word 1). In his commentary on the book of Genesis, Theodore obviously departed far from the exegetical tradition that preceded him and created his own idea, which in many ways does not agree with the biblical narrative. Now let's look at what idea of ​​the six-day creation is found in the writings of St. Isaac. 6. Cosmology and angelology of St. Isaac the Syrian The Monk Isaac will come: “On the first day nine 1 spiritual natures were created in silence, and one nature in a word, and this is light” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 188. Cap. 25; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 71). The creation of “light” by the reverend father corresponds to the biblical narrative, and the creation of angels is based on the previous exegetical tradition, according to which angelic beings were created before the visible creation (see: (Gregory the Theologian, 2010, 445: Gregory the Theologian, 2011, 18, 23–24)). In these two points, Rev. Isaac disagrees with Theodore's opinion. Also Rev. Isaac does not agree with Theodore that angels, in order to know the Creator, need creation, through which they know themselves. On the contrary, Rev. Isaac teaches that angels are godlike: “their knowledge is not based on study or achieved through symbols, but they contemplate the Divine directly” [Conference: Angelology of St. Isaac the Syrian, 2014, 144]. Further, the reverend father writes: “they (angels - I.N.) are our teachers, as well as teachers and each other... learn one from the other, gradually ascending to that unit that has the Holy Trinity as a teacher... Each rank receives transmission from another rank... until the secret passes in this way to all ranks. But many of the secrets stop at the first level... And some secrets reach the third and fourth levels. And also, in revelations visible to the holy Angels, there is increase and decrease” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 198–199. Cap. 27; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 74–75). That is, according to Rev. Isaac, the angels are self-sufficient and learn not from the visible creation, but from themselves, one rank teaches another, and the highest ranks are taught by the Holy Trinity Itself. We can say that the teaching about the angelic hierarchy of St. Isaac fully adopted the teachings of Dionysius the Areopagite, to whom he repeatedly refers (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 169, 186. Cap. 22, 25 2; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 63, 70)), and on this issue completely disagrees with the opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Let's move on to the next points of interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. At the end of the book of interpretation on Genesis, Theodore touches on the incorrect opinions of pagan scholars: “Thus, he condemns the opinion according to which the sky rotates like a ball, and the earth spins at one point, likening the defenders of this opinion to drunken people who imagine that the sky is always spinning” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 1869, [11]; Guryev, 1890, 71). He criticizes the opinion that “the sky is a sphere, the circumference of which is as if described by a compass.” Theodore considers nonsense the idea that “the sky does not stand firmly, but constantly rotates - is in eternal and continuous circular motion.” Theodore considers literally “bleating” the “idea of ​​the heavenly circle” and the idea that the sky is like a “ball.” He sneers: “It is their head that is dizzy from drunkenness, and not the sky, which the Creator determined to stand firmly and motionless” (Theodore of Mopsuestia: Fragment of a commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2020, Word 1). It will be interesting to note that the saint himself falls under this ironic reproach. Isaac the Syrian, who writes that God created “the highest heaven - like a skin and a vault and a cube” (cf. Is. 40:22) 3, and “the second heaven is like a wheel attached to the first heaven” (Isaac Ninivita, 1909, 188. Cap. 25; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 71). The words “the second heaven is like a wheel” certainly imply rotation. It can be assumed that Rev. Isaac in this place follows the “Conversations on the Six Days” of St. Basil the Great, whose opinion is literally repeated by St. John of Damascus (John of Damascus: Creations. Source of Knowledge, 2002, 192). St. Vasily believes that, although the fathers learned this opinion from those who philosophized about heaven, they did not consider it unnecessary in order to explain the world order of the universe (Basily the Great: Conversations on Shestodnev, 2012, 351–353). The doctrine of the “second heaven” 4 is also absent from Theodore of Mopsuestia. In general, St. Petersburg’s idea of ​​the world order of the universe. Isaac, on the one hand, follows the biblical narrative without violating the correspondence with the days of creation. On the other hand, it is clear that Rev. Isaac, contrary to Theodore, did not disdain the opinions of pagan philosophers, considering these opinions to be the property of contemporary science. From this it follows that St. Isaac did not accept Theodore's interpretations, which, however, could have been known to him. In order to finally be convinced of this, it is necessary to move on to the following points of comparative analysis. 7. Anthropological views of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The image of God in man, the state of nature before and after the Fall Discussing the image of God in man, Theodore, in his comments on the book of Genesis, considered those teachers worthy of laughter who argued that the image of God in man lies in the rational soul or in the state 5. According to Theodore of Mopsuestia, the image consisted of the unification of two natures: spiritual and physical, which is, as it were, some guarantee of connection for the entire creation (see: (Theodoretus Cyri, 1642, 20–21)). Theodore believed that “with words in the image of God, Moses created him... he indicated that in him all creations are united and that through him, as an image, they come to God, fulfilling the laws given by God by their service to Him” [Guriev, 1890, 276]. Theodore did not recognize the doctrine of original sin, and even led an active struggle in this direction with Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, and Jerome of Stridon [Guriev, 1890, 155]. According to the teachings of Theodore, Adam was created mortal (see: (Theodorus Mopsuestenus: Ex libro contra defensores peccati originalis et ex libro Quinto commenti de creatura. PG. 66. Col. 1006–1010, 640–641; Theodorus Mopsuestenus: Ex his quae sunt in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum , 1971, 64–65; Acts, 1996, 332–333)) 6, and even if he had not sinned, he would still have to die [Guriev, 1890, 278]. Theodore argued that humanity as a whole does not inherit the guilt of its forefather Adam for disobeying the will of God. In order to explain the phenomenon of the general sinfulness of the human race, he had only one way out - to call the cause of sin the fear of death (see: [Savrey, 2012b, 107]; cf.: (Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex libro contra defensores peccati originalis. PG. 66. Col. 1006–1012)) 7. “Taking this idea from the Apostle Paul (Heb. 2:14–15), the Antioch theologian made it the basis of his anthropology” [Savrey, 2012b, 107]. Theodore believed that the descendants of Adam were prone to sin not for the reason that they inherited the sinful corruption of nature from him, but because they were mortal by nature. Thus, he writes: “...we very often fall into sin because of the pleasure we get from food and drink and from the outside world... since many of us use it immoderately. But all this cannot matter to immortal nature. What pleasure, what love of money can exist in immortal nature? But since we are created by nature as mortals and exist as such, we are very much agitated by the named passions and are very often carried away by them into sins” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Commentarii in epistolam ad Romanos V, 21. PG. 66. Col. 800); [Guriev, 1890, 291]. “Mortals,” he says, “serve sin entirely... in us sin reigns with all necessity, even if the soul has learned its duty a thousand times... Since we are mortal by nature, we are necessarily burdened with sins very often” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Commentarii in epistolam ad Romanos VIII, 3. PG. 66. Col. 820-821); [Guriev, 1890, 292]. This view of anthropology led Theodore of Mopsuestenus to the opinion that Christ also assumed a mortal nature, “appearing in this mortal and subject to sins nature... destroyed mortality in it and at the same time destroyed even the burden of sin” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Commentarii in epistolam ad Romanos VIII, 3. PG. 66. Col. 820); [Guriev, 1890, 304]. A distinctive feature of Theodore’s teaching was that the purification of human nature in Christ did not occur immediately, but “only the gradual free moral development of the perceived person should have determined his more and more close union with God the Word” (Acts, 1996, 316–317, 325. Collection IV, §§4, 6, 11, 27); [Guriev, 1890, 253]. And yet, the complete union of Jesus Christ with God the Word did not take place during his lifetime: it became possible only after His resurrection from the dead (see: [Guriev, 1890, 253; Sidorov, 2011, 167; Leonov, 2015, 181–185]). Now let's see what is the opinion of St. Isaac on this matter. 8. Anthropological teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian. The image of God in man, the state of nature before and after the Fall About the image of God in man, St. Isaac says: “We believe that God created everything created in his image without passion. By being created in the image I mean not in relation to the body, but to the soul 8, which is invisible. For every image is removed from the image that is presented” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 21. Cap. 3; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 18). Here we see that the orthodoxy of St. Isaac is outside the Theodorian concept of the image of God in man. It is also worth noting that Rev. Isaac following St. Basil the Great insists on the dispassion of the soul, which also does not agree with the teachings of Theodore. In the same word, a little lower, St. Isaac writes: “the soul is outside its nature as soon as it comes into passionate movement, as the disciples of the Church assert. Therefore, passions came into the soul subsequently, and it is unfair to say that passions are in the nature of the soul” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 22. Cap. 3; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 18) 9. As we see, the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the passion of the soul of St. Isaac calls it unfaithful, erroneous, “unjust.” It will also be interesting to find out who St. Petersburg means. Isaac is under "the children of the Church" or, as the Syriac text says, "all the children of the Church." The concept of Theodore of Mopsuestia about the passion and mortality of human nature, as well as his teaching about the image of God in man as the connecting link of everything visible and invisible, was completely adopted by the Church of the East (see: [Seleznev, 2016, 33; Bumazhnov, 2012, 189–190. Note 32]). On the contrary, the teaching about the impassibility of human nature before the Fall, that the image of God lies in the rational part of the soul, was adopted by the entire Universal Church, including some parts that broke away from it: Monophysitism and Catholicism. For this reason, most likely, “pets of the Church” should be understood as the “imperial” Church, that is, the Orthodox Church. 9. The state of Adam's nature before the Fall The Monk Isaac the Syrian, contrary to Theodore's concept, distinguishes between the state of human nature before and after the fall of Adam. The venerable father writes: “Does the humble man approach the destructive beasts... they droop their heads, lick his hands and feet, because they felt from him the fragrance that emanated from Adam before his crime, when the beasts were gathered to Adam and he gave them names in paradise. This was taken from us; but Jesus renewed and gave us this again by His coming. This is how the fragrance of the human race is anointed” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 577. Cap. 82; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 253) 10. By fragrance here we mean lost glory, holiness and immortality, since this is what the Lord “renewed and bestowed” on us. Also in another place, St. Isaac writes: “About spiritual passions, as it is known and recognized by everyone 11 that the soul has natural purity, we must boldly say that passions are not at all natural to the soul, because illness is later than health. But it is impossible for one and the same nature to be both good and evil... if virtue is naturally the health of the soul, then the illness of the soul will already be passions, something accidental that has entered the nature of the soul and takes it out of its own health” (Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 20–21). Here again St. Isaac, obviously, does not agree with Theodore, but rather follows St. Ephraim the Syrian 12. From what has been said, one can see how different the opinions of these two authors are regarding the doctrine of the state of human nature before and after the fall of Adam. It is worth giving a few more examples to finally make sure that St. Isaac not only did not follow Theodore of Mopsuestia, but also considered his teaching to be a delusion. It must be said that words 3 and 4 (according to Sobolevsky’s numbering) 13 are written in the genre of question-answers and are entirely devoted to overcoming or resolving perplexities associated with the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the topic we are examining. The table clearly shows textual and terminological similarities; the difference is the semantic content. What is for St. Isaac is considered completely acceptable, but Theodore rejects, namely, the attribution of the properties of human nature to the incarnate Word and the attribution of the properties of the Divine nature to the human body. For Theodore, such correlations of natures were unacceptable (see: [Zabolotny, 2020, 186]), but a characteristic feature of his exegetical method was the distinction and separation of both the properties and actions of the “perceived man” and the Divine Logos living in him. With this arrangement of meanings, it is also interesting that the method of reading the Holy Scriptures and the exegesis of these two by the author, as mentioned above, are also different. It seemed important to us to find out who the saint was referring to. Isaac, when he says that “Scripture does not divide this (ἡ θεία γραφή… οὐ χωρίζει ταῦτα)” and a little lower: “Scripture does not strictly differentiate,” that is, when he professes the intercommunication of properties (communicatio idiomatum). Closest in time to St. Isaac, of the authors whom he quotes and who hold the same opinion, turned out to be St. Mark the Ascetic. The most interesting thing is that the treatise, which sets out the exegetical and theological method that St. Petersburg uses in the fragment under study. Isaac the Syrian, has the title “Against the Nestorians (on the Incarnation).” The main idea of ​​this treatise is that Holy Scripture everywhere confesses the incarnate and indivisible Son of God (Mark the Ascetic, 2000, 162. Chapter XXXVII). Just like St. Isaac, St. Mark says: “Show me Him divided in Scripture (δεῖξό[ν] μοι ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ χωριζόμενο[ν] αὐτόν) at least sometime or somewhere, or in any power or deed...” (Mark the Ascetic, 2000, 143. Chapter XVII). Speaking against the Nestorian division, St. Mark claims that Divine Scripture speaks everywhere about the One Christ - God the Word with His own flesh (Mark the Ascetic, 2000, 164. Chapter XXXVIII). Even “when He is beaten, betrayed, persecuted... when He is hungry or weary - in a word, in all [cases] about which Divine Scripture speaks, it speaks of one and the same God the Word, inseparably united with His own flesh, Who is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Mark the Ascetic, 2000, 164. Chapter XXXVIII). For clarity, let us present a table that reflects the exegetical methods of three authors. From the table it is clear that Rev. Isaac adheres to and follows the theological and exegetical method used by St. Mark the Ascetic in his treatise “Against the Nestorians.” The conclusion of Rev. seems interesting. Isaac regarding those who “did not understand the purpose of Divine words” and introduced division or difference into the interpretation of the Christological fragments of Holy Scripture. The third column in the table shows who did it. Conclusion prp. Isaac clearly shows that in this area it was Theodore of Mopsuestia who “sinned incorrigibly” 15. In confirmation that St. Isaac in this fragment speaks about the error of Theodore 16; firstly, there is a context in which the question of the state of human nature before the fall of Adam and the emergence of passions in nature after the Fall are discussed in detail. In this matter, as shown above, Rev. Isaac is at great odds with Theodore. Secondly, according to the fair remark of Alexei Vladimirovich Muravyov, in this Christological fragment of St. Isaac touches on the issue of the interconnection of properties [Muravyov, 2016, 217. Note. 111], however, it is known that Theodore “denied the intercommunication of properties (communicatio idiomatum)” [Zabolotny, 2020, 34], and Diodorus of Tarsus also denied it [Zabolotny, 2020, 181]. For this reason, the Christological reasoning of St. Isaac in this fragment is more directed against the Nestorian authors. Thirdly, Table 2 clearly shows that the thought of St. Isaac moves in line with the anti-Nestorian reading of the Christological fragments of Holy Scripture. Moreover, semantic and terminological coincidences between the 1st and 2nd columns of the table indicate that St. Isaac, with a high degree of probability, relied in his reasoning on the treatise of St. Stamp "Against the Nestorians". And finally, fourthly, in the monastic tradition, the teaching about the passions and dispassion of human nature is of fundamental importance, for which reason this important aspect of ascetic teaching is naturally touched upon by St. Isaac at the very beginning of his book. You may notice that in the questions and answers devoted to this topic, St. Isaac is trying to eliminate the wrong opinion that existed in the Church of the East and belonged to Theodore of Mopsuestia, namely, the creation of human nature (Adam) in a mortal, passionate and, one might say, semi-sinful state. Subsequently, this exegetical thesis of the Mopsuestian theologian was taken to the extreme by Nestorian writers, who ultimately began to argue that the world was created with sin. For Rev. Isaac, such a position was unacceptable, therefore, having built his argument point by point, at the end of the questions and answers of St. Isaac puts forward the main thesis: “Let no one blaspheme God, as if He put passions and sin into [our] nature” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 26. Cap. 3; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 21). In fact, Rev. Isaac calls blasphemy the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and, most interestingly, the teachings of the author of the “Gnostic Chapters,” which in the scientific community are attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian (sic!). Dmitry Fedorovich Bumazhnov in his article “The World, Beautiful in Its Weakness” [Bumazhnov, 2012, 177–194] showed in detail that such a teaching goes back to Theodore of Mopsuestia and is clearly presented in the writings of the author of the “Gnostic Chapters” attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian. Here we place a fragment from the 4th centenary, containing, according to St. Isaac the Syrian, the blasphemous teaching that God created the world with sin and the passions inherent in it, that is, “put passions and sin into nature.” "7. However, God, wise in everything <and> Lord of the universe, perfectly arranged this world in [its] weakness. 8. And He wanted to create it [exactly] the way it flows now, and not wanting to [create] something else: be it sinlessness or the absence of temptations or immunity to change and weakness. 9. [And] this world did not pass, against His will, into something else, whereas [God] would have wanted it to flow differently” [Bumazhnov, 2012, 181]. As we see, the thinking paradigms of St. Isaac and the author of the Gnostic Chapters are completely opposite 17. Before proceeding to the conclusion, we would like to touch upon one more well-known topic, without which our study would be incomplete. Perhaps we cannot ignore one well-known Theodorian idea that influenced many Syrian mystics. Similar passages can be found in St. Isaac the Syrian. This is the doctrine of two worlds, or the concept of two ages. In Theodore’s view, the concept of two centuries boiled down to the following: God simultaneously created two worlds, one changeable, that is, the world in which man now lives with his inherent passions, and the unchangeable, future world into which everyone will move after the general resurrection (see: [Devreesse, 1948, 89; Vries, 1958, 309]). As noted by Nestor Kavvadas, the doctrine of two centuries by St. Isaac is in a slightly modified form [Kavvadas, 2010, 72–73] and, as we see it, its content does not go beyond the framework of the patristic paradigm: “the world above” and the “world below”, the temporary world is like a school, and the future Kingdom is like rest. In some places at St. Isaac can be found in disagreement with Theodore on this issue. Theodore taught: “If immediately, from the very beginning, He made us immortal and unchangeable, then we, not knowing good in the proper sense, would be no different from irrational beings, because, without recognizing changeability, we would not know the good of immutability, not knowing death, we would not know the value of immortality, not having experienced corruption, we could not praise incorruption without experiencing the burden of passions, we would not be surprised at the dispassion. To put it briefly: without experiencing evil, we could not acquire the knowledge of good” (Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 1971, 64–65; Acts, 1996, 332). The Monk Isaac objects to this idea: “And if we say that God teaches them (the saints) without their own knowledge of it, then this means to say that God wants to make them like oxen and donkeys, having no freedom in anything, and that a person, if he is not first tempted by the test of evil, has no concept of good, so that when he encounters good, with knowledge and freely use it as his property.” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 427–428. Cap. 61; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 157). In Theodore’s theology, there is a principled approach - “the desire to preserve at all times the strict distinction between Creator and creation, between God and man” [Conference: Asceticism as Political Theology, 2014, 267] - this is the main idea of ​​the concept of “two centuries”. However, in theology, St. Isaac, you can find completely opposite statements, for example: “the world mixed with God and creation and the Creator became one!” (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 97). This statement shows that the concept of two centuries in St. Isaac the Syrian, for the most part, has nothing in common with the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Found at St. Isaac the Syrian's reasoning about the changeability of this world should not necessarily be made dependent on the teachings of Theodore - this is the general topos of patristic thought, which can be found, for example, in St. Ephraem Syrin (Ephraem Syrus, 1743, 426, 462. Cap. X, XXIV; Ephraim the Syrian, 1850, 255, 301) or in St. Gregory the Theologian [Conference: St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Simeon the New Theologian, 2017, 290]. Beneath the external similarity of expressions, there is a noticeable difference. Comparative analysis of the teachings of St. Isaac the Syrian and Theodore of Mopsuestia, it seems to us, clearly showed that the opinions of these authors are strikingly different in many respects. A review of theological themes in the works of two authors revealed that St. Isaac deliberately ignores the exegetical tradition of Theodore. Oddly enough, Rev. Isaac expresses opinions on certain theological questions that Theodore literally ridiculed: this applies to the allegorical method of interpretation, to quotations from pagan philosophers and their opinions regarding the structure of the universe, as well as anthropology and ascetic practice. The above study of the texts of St. Isaac and Theodore of Mopsuestia shows that St. Isaac was rather committed to an earlier exegetical tradition going back to St. Ephraim the Syrian, on the one hand, who after the 5th century. in the Church of the East was perceived as marginal [Zabolotny, 2020, 28; Muravyov, 2016, 136], and on the other – to Byzantine theologians: Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and the author of the Areopagitica corpus. In turn, such a statement of facts may raise the question: at what time and in what place did St. Did Isaac receive an education that is alien to the Theodorian tradition? The polemics of the Venerable also cause surprise. Isaac with the incorrect or erroneous opinion of Theodore (who, however, is not named) about the passion of human nature and the incorrect interpretation of the Christological fragments found in the 3rd treatise 18. It should be noted that in the scientific community, researchers on the topic of the influence of Theodore of Mopsuestia on St. Isaac the Syrian, on the one hand, is mainly based on those places where there are quotes and references to the comments of Theodore of Mopsuestia, on the other hand, most of the quotes are taken from the 2nd collection. For example, if you look at the research of Nestor Kavvadas [Kavvadas, 2016, 137–142], you will notice that almost all the references, excluding two out of 33, are taken from the 2nd collection, and most of them are from the “Gnostic Chapters,” the text of which has not yet had a critical edition. Having noted a certain dependence of prp. Isaac from the teachings of Theodore, N. Kavvadas also discovered the contradictions between these two authors: in soteriology [Kavvadas, 2016, 140], in Christology [Kavvadas, 2016, 141], partly in pneumatology and, mainly, in the doctrine of deification [Kavvadas, 2016, 142]. An interesting example is the contradictory reference of St. Isaac to Theodore’s teaching on the need for constant kneeling, while such statements were alien to Theodore [Kavvadas, 2016, 139]. Kavvadas even tried to make a bold assumption that perhaps Isaac “brings the text of another, unknown to us, interpreter, erroneously attributed to Theodore” [Kavvadas, 2016, 139]. It seems to us that relying on references where the name Theodore is present will not lead to an objectively correct decision in this case. Only checking the context and drawing parallels with other similar places can objectively show this or that dependence or, conversely, this or that discrepancy between the two authors. After carrying out several similar procedures, we discovered a rather strong discrepancy in the teachings of these two writers. It is important to note that a detailed analysis of the context reveals a lot of new factual material that has not yet been comprehended in the scientific community. Neglect of this methodology leads to the fact that researchers go unnoticed by the fact that St. Isaac calls blasphemy the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and, most importantly, the teachings of the author of the “Gnostic Chapters,” which in the scientific community are attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian! The question we have raised, of course, cannot be finally resolved. For us, for example, it remains unclear how St. Isaac the Syrian could refer to Theodore of Mopsuestia and quote him, call him a “blessed interpreter,” exalt him “as one of the apostles,” and anathematize those “who raise disputes about his interpretations or doubt his works” 19 (Isaac the Syrian, 2013, 273), while the theology of St. Isaac, in the broad sense of the word, is at odds with the teachings of Theodore, and in some places is in oppositional confrontation. Moreover, Rev. Isaac considers Theodore to have “incorrigibly sinned” 20! To resolve this confusion, it seems to us necessary to carry out a certain revision of the places where quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia are found using handwritten material. A detailed contextual analysis of these passages will help determine whether these quotations represent an authentic reading, or whether they represent corruption of the text - interpolation. In the next article we intend to move on to this part of our research. 1. Basil the Great (2012) – Basil the Great, St. Creations. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2012. T. 1. 2. Gregory the Theologian (2010) – Gregory the Theologian, St. Creations. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2010. T. 1. 3. Gregory the Theologian (2011) – Gregory the Theologian, St. Creations. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. T. 2. 4. Acts (1996) – Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 3: Constantinople 2nd. Ecumenical V. St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 1996. 5. Ephraim the Syrian (1850) - Ephraim the Syrian, St. Creations. M.: in the Printing House of V. Gautier, 1850. Part 5, book. 3. P. 255; P. 301 (TSO; vol. 16). 6. Ephraim the Syrian (1853) - Ephraim the Syrian, St. Creations. M.: in the Printing House of V. Gautier, 1853. Part 8, book. 2 (TSO; vol. 22). 7. Ephraim the Syrian (1896) – Ephraim the Syrian, St. Creations. Sergiev Posad: 2nd printing house of A.I. Snegireva, 1896. Part 8, [book. 1] (TSO; v. 61). 8. John of Damascus (2002) - John of Damascus, St. Creations. Source of Knowledge. M.: Indrik, 2002. 9. Isaac the Syrian (1911) - Isaac the Syrian, St. Ascetic words. Sergiev Posad: Printing house St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1911. 10. Isaac the Syrian (2013) - Isaac the Syrian, St. About Divine mysteries and spiritual life: newly discovered texts / Transl. from Syriac, note, preface. and after. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev). St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2013. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Pidalion (2019) – Pidalion. Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations: in 4 volumes: trans. from Greek T. 3: Rules of Local Councils. Ekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Alexander Nevsky Novo-Tikhvin Convent, 2019. 14. Theodore of Mopsuestia (2020) – Theodore of Mopsuestia. Fragment of a commentary on the Book of Genesis. Word 1 / Transl. with sir. A. Tarmazov. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6026455#_ftn3 (date of access: November 30, 2020). 15. Ephraem Syrus (1743) – Ephraem Syrus. Paraeneses // Epraem Syrus. Opera omnia. T.III/Ed. S. E. Assemanus, archiep. Apamensis. R.: Ex Typographia Pontificia Vaticana, 1743. P. 367–561. 16. Ephraem Syrus (1896) – Ephraem Syrus. Evangelii concordantis expositio / In lat. transl. a J.-B. Aucher, ed. G. Moesinger. Venetiis: Libraria pp. mechitaristarum in monasterio S. Lazari, 1876. 17. Ephraem Syrus (1963) – Ephraem, saint. Commentaire de l'Évanile concordant: texte syriaque (manuscrit Chester Beatty 709) / Éd. &tr. par L. Leloir. Dublin: Hodges Figgis & Co., 1963. 18. Isaac (1995) – Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian) . The Second Part, Chapters IV–XLI. Vol. 1/Ed. S. Brock. Louvain: Peeters, 1995 (Corpus scriptorium christianorum orientalium; vol. 554. Scriptores syri; vol. 224). 19. Isaacus Ninivita (1909) – Mar Isaacus Ninivita. De perfectione religiosa / Ed. P. Badjan. P., Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1909. 20. Philoxenus Mabbugensis (1963) – Philoxenus Mabbugensis. Epistola ad Patricium 46, 6–9 // La letter à Patricius de Philoxène de Mabbug / ed. R. Lavenant. Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie, 1963 (Patrologia Orientalis; vol. 30). 21. Theodoretus Cyri (1642) – Theodoretus, episcopus Cyri. Quaestiones in Genesin XX // Theodoretus, episcopus Cyri. Opera omnia. T. I. Lutetiae Parisiorum: sumptibus Claudii Sonnii & Dionysii Bechet, 1642. 22. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1869) – Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Fragmenta Syriaca/ed. E. Sachau. Lpz.: Typus Guilelmi Drugulini, 1869. 23. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1882) – Theodorus Mopsuestenus. In epistolas B. Pauli commentarii. Vol. II/Ed. H. B. Swete. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1882. 24. Theodorus Mopsuestenus (1971) – Theodorus Mopsuestenus. Ex libro quinto commenti de creatura // Concilium universal Constantinopolitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Concilii actiones VIII/ed. J. Straub. Berolini: In aedibus Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1971 (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum; [T. IV], vol. I). P. 64–65. 25. Ἰσαὰκ ὁ Σύρος (2012) – Ἰσαὰκ ὁ Σύρος, ὅσιος . Λόγοι ἀσκητικοί / Κριτ. ἔκδ. M. Πιράρ. Ἄγιον Ὄρος: Ἱερὰ μονὴ Ἰβηρῶν, 2012. 26. Bumazhnov (2012) – Bumazhnov D. F. A world beautiful in its weakness. St. Isaac the Syrian on the Fall of Adam and the imperfection of the world according to the unpublished text Centuria 4, 89 // Symbol. 2012. No. 61. pp. 177–194. 27. Guryev (1890) – Guryev P. V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. M.: Printing house of L. and A. Snegirevs, 1890. 28. Zabolotny (2020) – Zabolotny E. A. Syrian Christianity between Byzantium and Iran. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2020. 29. 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. 30. Conference (2014) – St. 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., 2014. 31. Conference: Brought to Silence (2014) – Bitton-Ashkeloni B. Brought to silence // St. Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. Materials of the First International Patristic Conference of Church-wide 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. 242–258. 32. Conference: Angelology of St. Isaac the Syrian (2014) – Seppala S., priest. Angelology of St. Isaac the Syrian // 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. 2014. pp. 137–161. 33. Conference: Asceticism as Political Theology (2014) – Hagman P. Asceticism as 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. 34. Conference (2017) – St. Simeon the New Theologian and his spiritual heritage. Materials of the Second International Patristic Conference of the All-Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius. Moscow, December 11–13, 2014. M.: [Church-wide postgraduate and doctoral studies named after. St. Cyril and Methodius], 2017. 35. Conference: St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Simeon the New Theologian (2017) – Fokin A. R. St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Simeon the New Theologian about “two worlds” and “two suns”: a new understanding of the old paradigm // Venerable Simeon the New Theologian and his spiritual heritage. Materials of the Second International Patristic Conference of the All-Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius. Moscow, December 11–13, 2014. M.: [Church-wide postgraduate and doctoral studies named after. St. Cyril and Methodius], 2017. pp. 290–311. 36. Leonov (2015) – Leonov V., prot. God in the flesh. Patristic teaching about the human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 2015. 37. 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 Syrian, Arabic, Greek, A.V. Muravyova. M.: Yask Publishing House, 2016. pp. 123–136. 38. Savrey (2012a) – Savrey V. Ya. The Alexandrian school in the history of Christian thought. M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 2012. 39. Savrey (2012b) – Savrey V. Ya. Antiochian school in the history of Christian thought. M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 2012. 40. 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. 41. Seleznev (2016) – Seleznev N. N. Yohannan Bar Zo'bi and his "Interpretation of the Mysteries": Critical text, translation, research. M.: Assyrian Church of the East, 2016. 42. Sidorov (2011) – Sidorov A. I. Patristic heritage and Church antiquities. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2011. T. 1. 43. Thiselton (2011) – Thiselton E. Hermeneutics. Cherkassy: Colloquium, 2011. 44. Timofeev (2016) – Timofeev B., priest. Typology and interpretation of prophecies by Theodore of Mopsuestia // Christian reading. 2016. No. 2. pp. 193–207. 45. Florovsky (2005) – Florovsky G., prot. Eastern fathers. M.: AST, 2005. 46. Kavvadas (2010) – Kavvadas N. Pneumatologie und Soteriologie in der ostsyrischen Mystik: Isaak von Nineve und Johannes von Dalyatha. (Dissertation an der katholisch-theologischen Fakultät der Universität Tübingen). Tubingen, 2010. 47. Kihn (1880) – Kihn H. Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten. Freiburg im Breisgau: Weissenburg, 1880. 48. Devreesse (1948) – Devreesse R. Essai Sur Théodore Mopsueste. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1948. 49. Pirot (1913) – Pirot L. L'œuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste. 350–428 après J.-C. Romae: Sumptibus Pontificii institute biblici, 1913. 50. Vries (1958) – Vries W. de. Das Eschatologische Heil Bei Theodor Von Mopsuestia // OCP. 1958. No. 24. P. 309–338. There is a discrepancy between the Syriac text and the Greek translation at this point. Be that as it may, researchers by spiritual natures mean the creation of angels (see: [Ilarion Alfeev, 2017, 97; Conference: Angelology of St. Isaac the Syrian, 2014, 141. Note 17]). In Paul Bejan's edition, the name of Diodorus of Tarsus appears in this place, but Marcellus Pirard, based on a comparison with West Syrian manuscripts, considers this a distortion of the original text (see: (Ἰσαὰκ ὁ Σύρος 2012. Σελ. 44, 884)). The Syriac text contains one word [kepṯā] - vault, arch. St. speaks about the “second heaven”. Basil the Great (Basily the Great: Conversations on Shestodnev, 2012, 353). This is what the three great Cappadocians taught: St. Vasily and two Gregory, etc. Ephraim the Syrian (see: (Basily the Great: First Discourse on the Creation of Man in the Image, 2012, 435; Gregory the Theologian, 2011, 31; Ephraim the Syrian: Interpretation of the first book of Moses Genesis, 1853, 268); [Guriev, 1890, 274–275]. This teaching of Theodore anathematizes the 120th rule of the Carthage Local Council: “It was pleasing: whoever says that Adam, the primordial man, was created mortal, so that, regardless of whether he sinned or not, he would die in body, that is, he would leave the body not as a punishment for sin, but by necessity of nature, let him be anathema” (Pidalion, 2019, 331). It is interesting to note that for St. Isaac the Syrian fear of death is not such a fatal or “ontological” cause, but is something transitory. “Every person who lives uncleanly desires temporary life. The second according to him is the one who is deprived of knowledge. Someone beautifully said that the fear of death saddens a man who is condemned by his conscience. And whoever has a good testimony in himself desires death as much as life” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 10. Cap. 1; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 8). And again: “Let us always remember death, and in this thought draw closer to God with our hearts, and despise the vanity of the world, and worldly pleasures will become despicable in our eyes” (Isaacus Ninivita, 1909, 464. Cap. 65; Isaac the Syrian, 1911, 176). Compare: “It is not the passions that are contained in the image of God, but reason, the ruler of the passions” (Basily the Great: First Discourse on the Creation of Man in the Image, 2012, 435). The Syriac text literally says: “all the children of the Church.” Compare: “...the animals could not look at the bright image of Adam. Having lowered their eyes, they passed in front of him when he gave them names, because their eyes could not look at his glory,” and again: “The serpent, approaching the people... appeared as a reptile, with his eyes drooping down, because he could not look at the radiance of the image of the one whom he wanted to tempt” (Efrem the Syrian, 1853, 280, 283. Chapter 3). Or “confessed by everyone.” Compare: “Since Adam’s body (was created) was earlier than the 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 regain the health of his primitive nature” (Ephraem Syrus, 1876, 2. Cap. I; Ephraem the Syrian, 1896, 12). In the Syriac version it is one treatise. Wed. again: “Let us believe that the Word dispassionately endured and created everything that is said in the Divine Scripture... why should we seek out how [exactly], or try to divide (μερίζειν) Him in [His] deeds and attribute some of them to His Body, and others to the Indweller [in the Body]?” (Mark the Ascetic, 2000, 162. Chapter XXXVII). What St. Isaac does not name the one who “sinned incorrigibly”, testifying to the situation that developed in his era around the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia. This is what the blessed one did, for example. Theodoret: When he challenged Theodore or his admirers, he never mentioned his name. The reason for this St. Cyril of Alexandria, as he indicated in a letter to St. Proclus of Constantinople, saw that the name of Theodore in the first years after his death was famous throughout the East. For the same reason, the fathers of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, having condemned Theodore’s creed, kept silent about the name of the author (see: [Guriev, 1890, 167–168]). Some researchers believed that St. Isaac in this fragment implies Monophysites (see: [Ilarion Alfeev, 2017, 109]). This is difficult to agree with for several reasons. Firstly, the above table shows that the context of the teaching is anti-Nestorian. Secondly, the emphasis of the teaching is on St. Isaac not on Christology, but on ascetic teaching in the context of anthropology. The starting points, of course, are the anthropological model in Christology and the exegesis of Holy Scripture, which some, namely the “reasonable,” understand, while others, “not understanding the purpose of Divine words, crawled along.” As a result of this attempt, an incorrect teaching emerged in anthropology, which led to an error in Christology, which St. Isaac corrects this word. The teaching of the Monophysite authors at this point is precisely at odds with the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia and is consistent with the opinion of St. Isaac: Monophysites also believe that the nature of Adam before the Fall was sound and had no passions (see: (Philoxenus Mabbugensis: Epistola ad Patricium, 1963, 792–793. Ep. 46, 6–9)). For this reason, the thesis that St. Isaac in this place opposes the Monophysites and becomes untenable. It must be said that the so-called “Gnostic chapters” included in the 2nd collection compete in volume with the second collection and to this day remain unpublished critically. However, in the research environment, the ideas of theology of St. Isaac the Syrian is mainly drawn from this work. The author of these lines fully shares the opinion of the majority of scientists that the authorship of the 2nd collection, published by Sebastian Brock in 1995 (Isaac, 1995), for the most part belongs to St. Isaac the Syrian. However, a more detailed review of the 2nd collection allows us to conclude that not all treatises included in this corpus can be attributed to St. Isaac. We will prepare a separate publication on this issue in the future. Sobolevsky's translation contains 3–6 words. We see that St. Isaac both argues and doubts about the correctness of the interpretations of Theodore of Mopsuestia. See tables 1 and 2 and commentary thereto.