Exegetical methods of St. John Chrysostom in his Commentary on the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Romans

Oleg Konstantinovich Pirogov – candidate of theology, teacher at the Rostov Missionary Theological School. The article was written based on the materials of a candidate’s thesis in theology defended by the author at the Moscow Orthodox Theological Academy in 2009. A historical overview of the exegetical methods of the Alexandrian and Antiochene interpretive schools is presented, and an analysis of their influence on the exegesis of John Chrysostom is made. An overview of the exegetical methods and principles used by St. John Chrysostom in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. St. John Chrysostom is the most famous and outstanding commentator on the Holy Scriptures. He is the author of a huge number of exegetical works, translated into various languages. This article sets out the hermeneutical principles of the saint using the example of his Interpretation of the Epistle of St. ap. Paul to the Romans. First, a brief historical overview of the exegetical methods that were formed in the period of time preceding Chrysostom is given. Alexandrian exegetical school In the patristic period (c. 100–590), it is customary to distinguish two main exegetical schools - Alexandrian and Antiochian. They differ in their methods of interpreting the Holy Scriptures in the initial period of their formation. In Alexandria, by the time of the apostolic disciples, the allegorical 1 method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures was gaining popularity and becoming widespread. 2 The first Christian teacher of the Alexandrian school is usually called Clement of Alexandria (150–215). Clement adopted a "spiritual interpretation" of Scripture using Philon's allegory. 3 In the Pedagogue and the Stromata he literally “dispelled the allegorical interpretations of various passages of Scripture.” 4 Clement believed that the truth of Scripture was veiled and needed to be interpreted. But hidden mysteries can be revealed if we accept that the key is Christ. 5 “Almost all Scripture is expressed in riddles,” 6 he argued. The main representative of the Alexandrian school and exponent of the allegorical exegesis of the Holy Scriptures was Clement’s student, Origen (185–253,254). Origen, like Clement before him, “used the route laid out by Philo.” 7 But unlike his teachers, who argued that Scripture has a double meaning, he declared three levels in the understanding of the Scriptures: “So, the way to read the Scriptures and find their meaning, ‹...› is as follows: ‹...› the thoughts of the sacred books should be written down in his soul in three ways - a simple believer should be edified, as it were, by the flesh of Scripture (as we call the most accessible meaning); he who is somewhat perfect [must be edified] as if by his soul; and even more perfect and similar to those about whom the apostle speaks - “But we speak wisdom to those who are perfect, but we speak wisdom not of this world, nor of the princes of this world who are passing away, but we speak the wisdom of God in the hidden mystery, which God first ordained for our glory” (1 Cor 2:6-7), - such a person must be edified by the spiritual law, which contains within itself the shadow of the future good For just as a person consists of body, soul and spirit, in the same way the Scripture given by God for the salvation of people [consists of body, soul and spirit].” 8 The last level has the highest significance, and “ascent to it is the fundamental goal of the exegete.” 9 “Everyone, even the simplest of the followers of the Word, believes that the Divine Scripture indicates some mysterious orders,” 10 states Origen. Like Philo, he saw the way to resolve the contradictions of Scripture through allegory, like Philo, he distinguished between moral meaning and meaning reflecting the truth about God and His relationship to the world. 11 But Origen did not blindly follow the allegorical method of interpretation and loved to repeat: “Why look for allegories where the letter edifies? Others must be preserved as they are written.” 12 Several main provisions characteristic of Origen can be identified. Scripture has a threefold meaning: 13 historical (literal), moral (mental), and spiritual (sacramental). At the literal level, Scripture contains aporias introduced into the text by the Holy Spirit in order for the reader to turn to the spiritual meaning of Scripture. With the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, even the smallest particles of text and seemingly insignificant fragments acquire special meaning. The unity of the two Testaments is certain, but the true meaning is hidden behind the narrative and can be revealed through the techniques of sublime interpretation. Origen often engaged in historical and philological research, in places difficult to understand, “offering hermeneutical rules about the context of speech, about scientific aids necessary for understanding Scripture.” 14 He believed that to explain Scripture it was necessary to be familiar with verbal sciences and philosophy, to compare one passage with another, to pay attention to the main subject of speech (ὑπ ό θεσις) and not to be attached to the letter. But although “Origen was the first to elevate the allegorical-mystical method of explaining the Holy Scriptures into a scientific system” 15 and “not only, following the example of his predecessors, explained the Holy Scriptures, but tried to define and establish the very rules of interpretation and explanation,” 16 he, as S.M. writes. Solsky: “often sacrificed the historical content of the revealed teaching to an artificially created mysterious meaning.” 17 As a result, he did not hesitate to arbitrarily interpret many passages of Scripture that have historical content. He often resorted to such “strained interpretations” where simple historical tales, as it seemed to him, contradicted “sublime moral feelings.” 18 Origen put forward the thesis that not all texts of Scripture have a literal meaning, although all of them have an allegorical meaning: 19 “But since there are some Scriptures that do not have a bodily meaning at all, as we will show later, in some places of Scripture we must look only for soul and spirit.” Antiochian School of Scripture Interpretation It is not surprising that this attempt to extend the allegorical method to all texts of Scripture, regardless of their historical context, caused a reaction in another exegetical school - the Antiochian one, whose representatives “reproach Origen exclusively for his adherence to “pagan allegorism,” that is, a specific interpretation technique based on the pagan tradition of allegorical interpretation of myths and mythopoetic texts.” 21 “Antiochians,” writes O.E. Nesterov – considered such methods of interpretation not only incorrect and inapplicable to the Holy Scriptures, but also directly hostile to Christian doctrine, demanding, for their part, to strictly limit Christian exegetical practice to the framework of a “literal” understanding of the texts of Scripture, implying an emphatically careful attitude to the biblical “word” and deliberately excluding the possibility of the interpreter introducing his own arbitrary and irresponsible into the revealed text speculation." 22 Some Western scholars, for example, F. Young 23, believe that the difference between exegetical directions lies in the difference between approaches in education. In their view, the tense relationship between the schools has direct parallels with the uneasy relationship between rhetoricians and philosophers in the classical period. Philosophers have accused rhetoricians of using an empty technique, used as a means of controlling the listener but without moral direction; rhetoricians, in turn, accused philosophers of irony, mockery of the world, useless speculation, and so on. According to F. Young, the basis of the Antiochian principles of exegesis is precisely classical rhetorical education. Working with texts, which was taught in ancient schools, was based on two principles - methodikon 24 and hystorikon 25. The first implied the study of philological issues, the second was related to the content of the text. The Antiochians are accordingly interested in issues of lexical analysis and content. “The characteristic features of both commentaries and teachings in the tradition of the Antiochenes are revealed by the paragraphs establishing the ὑπ ό θεσις 26 of the text - they want to understand the content, the plot. They then study the details of the text, question by question. The comments range from discussion of alternative readings, to material such as the selection of correct punctuation and appropriate sentence construction. Issues of translation and etymology, explanation of foreign words, attention to metaphor and figures of speech - all this characterizes the methodikon of the Antiochian school.” 27 They then examine the sequence of thought, compare the text with other text, provide additional text material, and often use other texts in the Bible to answer questions in the context of the content. Here they talk about ἱστορία 28. This exegetical technique ensures that the content and truth are not lost in the mass of detailed commentary. As exegetes, the Antiochenes sought to identify the main idea contained in the words and style of the text. Of great importance for them was ἀκολουθία 29 - consistency, mutual consistency of teaching and events in the Holy Scriptures. In general, “the expression “Antiochene school,” established in early Christian thought, refers us to broad and, therefore, not general aspects: 1) the Christological view; 2) biblical exegesis, which formed in Syria and flourished at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 5th centuries. in the works of Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 390) and his two disciples - St. John Chrysostom (347–407) and Theodore of Mopset (c. 350–428),” 30 as well as Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus (386–457). The very concept of “Antiochene school” is akin to the concept of “Cappadocia school” because, unlike the Alexandrian school, which was limited to a place and a disciplinary course, it had neither “a specific teaching staff, nor a clearly defined range of subjects.” 31 There is no clear opinion about the founder of the Antiochian school. 32 One of the first founders of the Antiochian school is considered to be the Antiochian presbyter, martyr Lucian (d. 311). He was from Samosat and received his education in the neighboring city of Edessa. “He was a real didaskal, whose scholarship and authority gathered around him faithful students who formed an entire school.” 33 His famous work is the version of the Septuagint translation, corrected from the Hebrew text (Lucian Review). These corrections were primarily grammatical in nature. For Lucian, the purpose of exegesis is to eliminate the ambiguities of the text associated with errors and even intentional insertions of 34 translators and copyists. St. Lucian of Antioch, although he widely used the historical-grammatical method of interpreting Holy Scripture, did not completely reject the allegorical method, and most likely experienced some influence from Origen. “Lucian was influenced by Origen not only in his biblical-historical activities, but also in his dogmatic views; nevertheless, the direction in exegesis that he approved gradually revealed itself in complete opposition to the dogmatic-allegorical method of Origen and left its mark on the entire character of the theology of the Antiochian school.” 35 His follower Eustathius of Antioch is known from his only surviving work, De engastrimytho contra Origenem, which was directed against Origen's exegesis of a number of biblical texts, including the episode of the meeting of King Saul with the sorceress of Endor (1 Samuel 28). The next key figure in the Antiochene interpretative tradition was Eusebius of Emesa, who was distinguished by his comprehensive education. Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa, was from Edessa, where he studied the Holy Scriptures with the teachers there. He “drew his knowledge and methods of interpretation from church sources and precisely from those famous schools, in one of which the excellent critic and exegete Lucian received his education long before him.” 36 The historical-grammatical method of the Antiochian school had a strong influence on Eusebius’s worldview, “thanks to which his disparate religious concepts merged into a theological system of strict certainty.” 37 A characteristic feature of the works of Eusebius, judging by the surviving fragments of his works, is a living language, light style, strong dialectics, clarity and liveliness of reasoning. A prominent personality of the Antiochian school was Diodorus of Tarsus (d. before 394), who studied with Eusebius of Emesa. 38 Diodorus, in turn, became the teacher of St. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuet. Diodorus's exegetical activity was extraordinary. He wrote commentaries on “all the Scriptures.” 39 His comments “were based, according to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation of the Antiochene school, 40 on the literal meaning.” 41 Diodorus's interpretation of the Holy Scriptures is characterized by philological analysis of the text, simplicity and clarity of presentation. θεωρία – method of interpretation of the Antiochian school The exegetical work of Diodorus of Tarsus “On the difference between theoria 42 and allegory”, directed against the allegorical method of interpretation, is well known. 43 In it, Diodorus distinguishes three methods of exegesis: ἱστορία - “history,” i.e., consistent research, presentation; θεωρία – “theory”, contemplation and ἀλληγορία – “allegory”, allegory. Diodorus says that θεωρία does not oppose ἱστορία, but is established on it, in contrast to ἀλληγορία, which destroys it. “According to Diodorus, there are no allegories in Scripture, in other words, Scripture is not a parable. Biblical stories and sayings are always realistic and directly relate to what is being discussed. Therefore, biblical interpretation must be “historical”, must be a “pure statement of what happened.” On the contrary, allegorism breaks away from the direct meaning, “changes the subject”; for allegorism, one thing is said, but another is implied. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish “contemplation” [theory – approx.] from allegory. ed. ]. Contemplation in history itself reveals a higher meaning—historical realism is not denied by this, but is presupposed.” 44 “The contemplation that Diodorus speaks of is, first of all, an exegetical divination that reveals prototypes,” further writes Archpriest. G. Florovsky. 45 In contrast to the Alexandrians, the Antiochian exegetes were especially fond of clarifying the historical meaning of the Bible. It was important for them to discover the thought that the author himself put into the words. As stated above, they tried to achieve this by studying the peculiarities of the language of the sacred books, style, the true meaning of metaphors, tropes and images of expressions, establishing the context of speech and the logical connection in which its individual parts stand, and research in the field of history, life, geography and archeology of Palestine. “They felt for the first time what an inexhaustible source of moral renewal, what a radiant light is contained in the simply and literally understood text of Scripture...” 46 While the Alexandrians often “completely arbitrarily connected a spiritual meaning with passages of Holy Scripture, the Antiochians proceeded from the literal, sought to define it with the aid of all the means of sound exegesis, and then showed that this or that narrative is the shadow of things to come, a God-ordained type, which found its fulfillment through Jesus Christ.” 47 Modern researchers are trying to express the difference between “history” and “theory” in various ways. One of them points out that, unlike Origen and other Alexandrians, the Antiochenes preferred to see in each fragment of Holy Scripture a different double meaning - literal and spiritual, extracted through theoria 48. “Both meanings are equally derived from Divine inspiration, since the Spirit of God is present and guides the holy writers when they compose their works. The Antiochians believed that the literal meaning referred to the main idea of ​​the biblical author; this is what is the content of the message, received by himself through the inspired action of the Holy Spirit, which he tries to convey to his readers. The spiritual meaning, in turn, refers to the word that God speaks through written text at every moment in time, in every generation of people in life in the Church. However, this spiritual meaning for the Antiochian Fathers remains firmly rooted in historical events." 49 The Antiochene School insisted that “the ultimate meaning of any event or action must be based on history. Their task was to find what they called θεωρία - an inspired vision of divine truth. This search led them to designate not two different feelings, but, more precisely, a double feeling within the events of the Old Testament, a feeling or meaning that is both literal (historical) and spiritual.” 50 The term θεωρία itself was used by Antiochene exegetes in various contexts and therefore it is difficult to describe its general meaning. Most often, the term θεωρία “implies the ability to perceive both the literal historical facts described in the text and the spiritual reality to which these facts pointed,” writes E.T. Kazenina. 51 Another author points out that “in Antiochene exegesis, contemplation (θεωρία) is usually understood as the spiritual meaning of Scripture, which, unlike the “allegory” of the Alexandrians, is characterized by greater consistency with the literal meaning of the interpreted text.” 52 A. Vaccari identifies four characteristic features of theory as a method of interpretation: 1. "Θεωρία presupposes the historical reality of the events described by the biblical author. 2. In addition to historical description, θεωρία simultaneously embraces a second future reality that was ontologically related to the first. 3. The first (or close) historical event stands in relation to the second as mediocre to perfect, small to large, or a sketch for the artist’s completed work. 4. Present and future events are the main objects of θεωρία." 53 The relationship between theory and typology The Antiochian School also used auxiliary exegetical methods known as typology and sensus plenior. 54 Resorting to typology, 55 the Antiochian exegetes considered the Old Testament “types” as a special form of prophetic signs, which directly linked the typological method of interpretation with the interpretation of “implicit” Old Testament prophecies (especially messianic ones). For the Antiochenes, “the concept of “double” or “indirect” prophecy was of primary importance. 56 That is, such a prophecy, which was realized only to a weak extent, and which was to be fulfilled once again - this time in full - in the future, although it was incomprehensible to the prophet’s contemporaries. 57 “The theory of sensus plenior generally views a given text as containing a “double meaning,” that is, a literal and a fuller spiritual meaning that may go beyond the original intention of the biblical author.” 58 Father John Breck writes the following about the predominant use of this method: “Starting from the literal meaning, the sensus plenior serves to renew at every new historical moment the redemptive significance of the deed of God that took place in the past in the bosom of Israel and - in the highest sense - in the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 59 The question of the relationship between θεωρία and typology has not yet been completely resolved, since there is a fine line between these methods. 60 If we proceed from the terminology of one of the key representatives of the Antiochian school, Diodorus of Tarsus, who identifies pheory as one of the main methods, we can conclude that typology is its special case. A. Vakkari and a number of other researchers, for example, S. Seidesos 61, consider pheory, on the contrary, as a type of typology. For this purpose, S. Seidesos identified two forms of typology among the Antiochians: 1. The case when the prophet does not see and does not intend to indicate the future fulfillment of the prototype (ἀντίτυπος) is typology in the general sense. 2. An option when the prophet (although perhaps not entirely clearly) sees the future ἀντίτυπος thanks to divine revelation through contemporary events. The future eschatological reality shapes the language used by the prophet to address his contemporaries, and the present, in turn, becomes a means of indicating future messianic events. 62 The Prophet is aware of both events of his prophecy, and it is this double vision that is θεωρία. 63 Close to this point of view is P. Ternant 64, who practically identifies θεωρία and typology and believes that the Antiochians did not see much difference between these methods. “The difference between θεωρία and typology was that θεωρία was conceived as a form of direct oral prophecy, which was applicable to the prophetic words of Holy Scripture. In typology, however, the future was expressed indirectly in the type, that is, through persons, events, or institutions that the prophet did not at all consciously foresee or could not predict.” 65 Methods of interpretation of St. John Chrysostom St. John Chrysostom extracts the spiritual content of the text of Holy Scripture through contemplation (θεωρία) of its literal meaning. For him, as a representative of the Antiochian movement, this is the basis of the entire interpretation. Therefore, the literal meaning for the saint is not the only one; Chrysostom is far from the “dry literalism” that can be found among individual representatives of the Antiochian school. Chrysostom often calls the symbolic interpretation of Holy Scripture in the general sense “anagogical” 66, and by the term κατ ’ ἀναγωγήν he understands any explanation in a figurative sense, as opposed to the direct, historical sense, and includes here both θεωρία and allegory. 67 As mentioned above, θεωρία as the general method of the Antiochian exegetes involved determining the intention (intention) of the biblical author. What the apostle meant by his words, what was his intention, is a question that occupies St. John throughout his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Analyzing his commentary, we see how “the deep basis of religious feeling, logical analysis, psychological view and correct tact illuminate the task of interpretation and enable him to accurately guess the author’s thought.” 68 Chrysostom follows the generally accepted principles of Antiochene exegesis. First of all, the Antiochenes looked at the content of the text (ὑπ ό θεσις), which corresponds to methodikon. 69 Chrysostom prefaces his interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans with the following reasoning about the need to review the topic (ὑπ ό θεσις): “Paul wrote letters to others, prompted by some reason (αἰτ ί ας) and purpose (ὑποθέσεως) - this is what he points out when he says to the Corinthians: “and concerning them I wrote letters” (1 Cor 7:1), and to the Galatians he explains the same thing, both in the preface and throughout the epistle. Why and for what reason did he write to the Romans?” 70 Further, throughout the commentary he points out the need to consider the content and identify the purpose that the apostle set for himself. Chrysostom constantly monitors the course of the apostle’s speech, compares its content with the train of thought: “And that this was Paul’s intention and for this very reason he arranged his speech this way can be seen from the following. If he had not tried to prepare this, then it would have been enough for him to say: “Because of your cruelty and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath” (Rom. 2:5) - and stop this speech (ὑποθέσεως ταύτης).” 71 Another example: “Therefore, the apostle points out at length what the Jews themselves praised, knowing that everything that was said [ὑπ ό θεσις τὰ λεγ ό μενα – lit.: “the content of what was said”] serves to further accuse them.” 72 Further: “Why didn’t he say [apostle]: “wasted Himself”? Because He wanted to express not only the fact that the Son of God became man, but also that He was subjected to reproach and acquired a bad reputation from many, since He was considered powerless. (Matthew 27:42). That is why [the apostle] mentioned the circumstance that he needed for the present subject (ὑπ ό θεσιν), but, however, here he expresses much more than he promised. From his words it is clear that not only Christ, but also the Father was slandered, since it is said: “The reproach of those who reproach Thee has attacked Me” (Ps 68:10). And this, by the way, means that nothing new and unusual happened. The very same ones who in the Old Testament learned to revile God also became mad against His Son. And this was written so that we would imitate [the Son of God].” 73 Sometimes for Chrysostom ὑπ ό θεσις; - not only the essence of the subject and its content, but also the reason prompting this or that course of thought of the apostle: “Do not be surprised that Paul, speaking about the law, used very strong expressions; he limits himself to what is necessary, making it impossible for those who think differently to find a reason for objection in his words and revealing a great effort to correctly portray the present. Therefore, do not just evaluate the actual speech, but delve into the reason (ὑπ ό θεσιν) that forced [the apostle] to speak so, imagine the fury of the Jews, and their insurmountable stubbornness, which he tried to overcome.” 74 Like Origen, Chrysostom recognizes the presence of “aporia” in the text, that is, certain difficulties. But he solves them in line with the historical and philological method of the Antiochian school. For example, commenting on the text “Accept the weak in the faith without arguing about opinions, For some are confident that they can eat everything, but the weak eat vegetables” (Rom. 14:1–2), Chrysostom says: “I know that these words are difficult for many (ἁ πορίαν) to understand. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to set out the content (ὑπ ό θεσιν) of this entire passage and say what [the apostle] wanted to correct when he wrote about it. So, what did he want to fix?..” 75 A distinctive feature of Chrysostom’s exegetical principle is “strict objectivism” 76 - penetration into the spirit of the author, into the idea that occupied him when writing. “St. John Chrysostom tries everywhere to penetrate into the spirit of the author, to grasp the idea that occupied him when writing and to find what lies in the text according to the intention of the author himself, in a word, to find the objective original meaning of the text, this was his guiding principle of exegesis.” 77 “Everywhere you need to pay attention not just to the expressions, but to the thought of the speaker, and you need to accurately understand the difference in what is said ( ῃ του λέγοντος ἀναγκαι ον πανταχου προσέχειν , καὶ τὴν ἀκριβη τω ν εἰρημένων εἰδέναι δια ί ρεσιν),” he says in the 13th conversation. 78 Or again: “But, as I have always said, it is necessary to take into account the disposition (γν ώ μην) with which something is said, the essence of the subject (τὴν ὑπ ό θεσιν) about which it is said, and what the speaker is trying to correct. (Ἀλλ᾿ ὅ περ ἀεὶ λέγω, τὴν γν ώ μην ἐξετάζειν δει, μεθ᾿ ἧ ς λέγεται, καὶ τὴν ὑπ ό θεσιν, περὶ ἧ ς λέγεται, καὶ τ ί σπουδάζων κατορθω σαι λέγει )". 79 Chrysostom attached great importance to determining the goal, the intention of the author in a specific situation: “Then, again encouraging him, he does not say “falls,” but how? - “Stands or falls.” If one thing or another happens to him, all this depends on the Lord. If he falls, it is a loss for God, and equally, if he stands, a gain for God However, such indifference would be completely unworthy of the care befitting Christians, if we again did not pay attention to the goal of Paul (τὸν σκοπὸν), who wants those weak in the faith not to be reproached ahead of time.”80 Or another example: “We must not just listen to what is said, but delve into the thought (γν ώ). μην) and the intention (σκοπὸν) of the speaker, in what he tried to achieve, which I always beg your love for. If we accept every word with such reflection, then we will not encounter any difficulty. And in the present case, the main goal [of the apostle] is to destroy among the pagan believers the arrogance that could arise under the influence of what was said above; after all, the pagans, having learned modesty, will thus remain safer in faith, and the Jews, freed from despair, will more willingly approach grace. So, paying attention to this goal (σκοπὸν) [of the apostle], let us listen to everything he said in this place...” 81 M. Mitchell believes that Chrysostom uses the Greco-Roman rhetorical system of evidence to prove the absence of contradictions in Paul’s reasoning - στάσις. 82 There are three types of στάσις – presumptive, legal and legal. Chrysostom uses all three to show that there is no contradiction in Paul's teaching on the law. The saint resolves any contradictions or controversial issues in the text of the Epistle in the spirit of the rhetorical tradition, pointing out that, first of all, it is necessary to identify the goal or intention of the apostle. Pavel. Then the contradictions are removed. “I do not contradict myself,” answers [the apostle], but I hasten to heal and attract the weary. Do you notice how in this whole speech he reveals one intention, namely the desire to console the Jews? And if you lose sight of this, you end up with a lot of contradictions.” 83 The exegetical principle of Chrysostom lies within the framework of the interpretative practice of the Antiochians. Chrysostom's examination of the content (ὑπ ό θεσις) of the Epistle to the Romans corresponds to the methodikon of the Antiochene school, but the definition of person (πρόσωπον), cause (αἰτ ί α) or purpose (σκοπὸς), intention (γν ώ μη) of the author and the time of what is happening (καιρὸς) will correspond to hystorikon. “Pursuing everywhere the task of finding the goal of St. writer, which coincides with the purpose of Scripture itself, John Chrysostom posed the questions: Who speaks? What is he talking about? Who is he talking to? - and almost always gave satisfactory answers.” 84 An example of the saint’s reasoning confirming these words. “What will be the solution? To do this, you need to look at who, and when, and why Christ commanded this. Indeed, not only the spoken words themselves must be considered, but also the person (πρόσωπον), and the time (καιρὸν), and the reason (αἰτ ί αν), and all this must be carefully examined.” 85 In Homily 16 he says: “And if we do not investigate the reasons (αἰτ ί ας), then we will have to call Elijah a murderer, and Abraham not just a murderer, but also a child killer, and we will also accuse Phinehas and Peter of murder; Without observing this rule, we will make absurd conclusions not only about the saints, but also about the God of all. To prevent this from happening in all such cases, let us examine the circumstances, paying attention to the cause (αἰτ ί αν), intention (γν ώ μην), time (καιρὸν) and everything that can serve to justify what happened.” 86 And here is another characteristic example, indicating the importance for Chrysostom’s interpretation of Paul’s Epistle of the time of its writing, and the reasons motivating the author: “So, I notice that Paul writes to the Romans and Colossians about the same thing, but not in the same way. He writes to the Romans with great condescension (συγκαταβάσεως) when he says: accept him who faints in faith, not doubting thoughts. ‹...› I find the reason (αἰτ ί αν) for such a difference in nothing other than the circumstances of the time. In the beginning one should have been lenient (συγκαταβα ί νειν), but after that it was no longer necessary.” 87 One of the distinctive features of Chrysostom's use of the θεωρία method in his interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans is consistent attention to the smallest details of the text, such as the listing of names, places, changes of names, etc. The saint is convinced that etymology, as an aspect of grammar, should be especially involved in establishing the full theological meaning of the text: “In the Holy Scriptures there is nothing superfluous and nothing unimportant, even one iota, even one feature, but a simple greeting opens up to us a great sea of thoughts (πέλαγος ἠ μίν ἀνόιγει νοήματων ). What am I saying: a simple greeting? Often the addition of even one letter introduces a whole series of thoughts ( νοημάτων εἰσήγαγε δύναμιν ). This can be seen in the name of Abraham." 88 Another example: “Let a zealot of wisdom and a lover of spiritual conversation know that in Scripture, even apparently unimportant things are said not in vain and not without purpose, and that the Old Testament contains a lot of useful things. “All this happened to them like images; but it is written for our instruction” (1 Cor 10:11), says [the apostle]. That’s why he said to Timothy: “engage in reading and instruction” (1 Timothy 4:13), encouraging him to read all the books of Scripture, although he had such a spiritual gift that he cast out demons and raised the dead.” 89 For the Constantinople hierarch, the entire Holy Scripture constituted a “sea of thoughts”, the contemplation of which he sought: “Repeat this constantly and receive instruction from here, since each of these words contains an immeasurable sea of thoughts (τούτων γὰρ ἕ καστον τω ν ῥ ημάτων πέλαγος ἀχανὲς ἔχει νοημάτων )". 90 Chrysostom draws the attention of his listeners to the spiritual treasures that can be found in the etymology of biblical names. For example, in 31 conversations he says: “I think that many, even those who consider themselves very zealous, ignore this part of the message as useless and not containing anything important; I believe that they reason in a similar way about the genealogy placed in the Gospel: since it represents a list of names, they conclude that much benefit cannot be derived from this. But goldsmiths also collect small sawdust, and these people also pass by large ingots of gold. So that they should not be subjected to this, and what has been said before is enough to keep them from such carelessness. And that there can be considerable benefit from this, we have already proven in the previous conversation, when we aroused your attention with such greetings. Let us now also try to extract the noble metal from this place, because even in bare names a great treasure can be discovered ν θησαυρ ό ν ). If you understand why Abraham is called by this name, why Sarah, Israel and Samuel are [named], then from this you will extract information about many things ( διὰ τ ί Σά ῤῥ α , διὰ τ ί Ἰ σραὴλ , διὰ τ ί Σαμουὴλ , πολλω ν πραγμάτων καὶ ἐντευ θεν ἱστορ ί ας εὑρ ή σεις )". 91 The names of places and times are also important for him: "You can extract the same thing for yourself from the names of times and places ( Καὶ ἀπὸ καιρω ν δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τ ό πων τὸ αὐτὸ του το δυν ή σ ῃ συναγαγει ν ) An attentive person is enriched from this, but a careless person does not benefit from the most obvious. The names of Adam, his son, his wife and many others teach us a lot of wisdom, because names are monuments of many events: they express God’s blessing and gratitude to mothers, since mothers who conceived in the womb, according to God’s promise, gave in remembrance of such God’s blessing. children's names." 92 Simple, at first glance, words generate in the mind of an attentive exegete “many considerations” (θεωρηματω ν), for the explanation of which sometimes even a day is not enough for him: “Greet,” says the apostle, “Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 16:3). Doesn't this seem like a simple greeting that does not represent anything great or important to us? Let us devote the entire conversation to him alone, or - better - today, with all our efforts, we will not be able to exhaust for you all the thoughts contained in these few words, but it is necessary to postpone for you for another day the many considerations (θεωρηματω ν) born from this small greeting. 93 What considerations did Chrysostom have about greetings? “It taught us what good is work, and what evil is idleness, and what kind of soul Paul was - how vigilant and caring, providing great care not only for cities, tribes and peoples, but also for each individual believer. It showed that poverty is not in the least an obstacle to hospitality, that what is needed everywhere is not wealth and money, but virtue and a pious disposition of the soul, and that the most glorious people are those who have the fear of God, even if they were reduced to extreme poverty,” says the saint. 94 The Father of the Church attached great importance to the fact of changing his name, especially mentioned in the Bible. This is how he talks about the change of Saul’s name: “And our question today is not about unimportant things, but about such research, which was just begun yesterday, but was not completed on many subjects that presented themselves. What is this? We began to talk about changing the names that God gave to the Saints. This subject at first seems unimportant, but if you look carefully, it contains a great treasure (θησαυρὸν)." 95 Then he continues: “You were immediately struck by the change of name, because in all the epistles and in their introductions we find that he is called not Saul, but Paul; and this [change of name] was not with him alone, but with many others. And Peter was formerly called Simon, and the sons of Zebedee, Jacob and John, were renamed after the sons of thunder, and in the Old Testament, it is known that the same thing happened with some. So, Abraham, who was formerly called Abram, was later called Abraham, and Sarah was formerly called Sarah, and then she was called Sarah, and Jacob was later given the name Israel. So it seemed to me indecent to pass such a treasure of names (ὀνομάτων θησαυρὸν) without attention." 96 Elsewhere he argues like this: "You have often heard this and we have read it: but the words [of Scripture] must not only be read, but also understood, otherwise there will be no benefit to us from reading. Treasure ( θησαυρὸς), while they walk on it, does not show the wealth; no, it is necessary to dig it up first, go down, and so find all the [hidden] wealth. The same is with the Scripture: if you do not explore its depths, then reading alone will not reveal the treasures (θησαυρὸν) contained [in the Scripture]. reading, then Philip would not have said to the eunuch: “Do you understand what you are reading?” (Acts 8:30). If reading had been enough, Christ would not have said to the Jews: “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39). And the explorer does not stop at the surface, but descends into the very depths. After all, in the very introduction [of the message] I see a great sea of thoughts (πολύ πέλαγος νοήματων). ‹...› This word - “Paul” - is, of course, just one simple name, but it contains such a treasure of thoughts that you already know from experience.” 97 Chrysostom calls for careful consideration (θεωρίας) of each word: “We could say more about the name [Paul], but in order for us to touch on the second word, let’s stop here considering (θεωρίαν) the name, and now move on to this word. Just as the name “Paul” brought us great wealth, so the word “called,” if we only decide to study it with due diligence, will give us the same, or even more abundant, object for contemplation (θεωρίας). In fact, just as someone who has taken out only one stone from any ornament or royal diadem can, by selling this precious stone, buy magnificent houses and expensive fields, crowds of servants and many other objects - so in relation to the words of God, if you want to explain the meaning of one saying, it will give you great spiritual wealth, not by bringing you houses, or servants, or tithes of land, but by awakening the souls of those who are attentive to piety and wisdom. This very word “called”, look at what the history of spiritual affairs leads us to (χειραγωγεί πραγμάτων ἰστορίαν πνευματικω ν)." 98 From the above comment it is clear that the saint recognizes the “theoretical” meaning of biblical names as material of great importance. For him this is a great treasure. Biblical and New Testament etymologies suggest to the careful, diligent student the presence of higher spiritual truths. Through the names of Abraham, Jacob, Priscilla and Aquila and others, through etymological analysis, the fullness of theological meaning can be extracted from the text of Scripture. The Constantinople hierarch calls on his listeners to carefully examine every word in Scripture: “Are you convinced that nothing found in divine Scripture should be considered superfluous? Have you learned to carefully examine the inscriptions, names, and simple greetings written in divine sayings? I think that no one who is hardworking will allow himself to ignore without attention any words placed in the Scriptures, whether it be a listing of names, or a counting of years, or a simple greeting to someone.” 99 Based on the above comments, it can be argued that St. John attached great importance to the study of every, even at first glance, insignificant detail of the Holy Scripture, be it a listing of names or a chronology of events. Is it not this approach that has given some researchers reason to consider Chrysostom a “dry literalist” and characterize his method as “grammatical micrology” (G. Meyer)? 100 And, if not, then what is the difference between the approach of St. John from the Jewish literalism of the late Second Temple era, or from Origen’s interest in the letter? The literalism of Jewish interpreters was characterized by such a strong focus on details that what was valuable to the saint in the first place - the purpose and general meaning of Scripture - eluded them. Origen's detailed study of the letter of Scripture became only a toolkit for his allegorical interpretations, which are of a pronounced subjective nature. Like Chrysostom, Origen believed that in the Holy Scripture “there is not only not a single place, but not even a single letter of a single title, where a special mysterious meaning is not hidden, ‹...› therefore, the most sacred duty of every interpreter of Scripture is to go deeper and deeper into it, to look for the highest mysterious wisdom in it and to rummage through it with an exploratory thought, as in an inexhaustible rich mine, in order to endure from the deep depths of it hidden in it and invisible to the world are treasures of gold or divine, heavenly truth.” 101 However, for Origen, sacred writers served as mere instruments in the hands of the Holy Spirit, who were not able to penetrate the full depth of wisdom that the Spirit put into words. Therefore, unlike Chrysostom, in his search for the mysterious meaning, Origen is concerned not so much with correctly understanding and presenting the thought of this or that sacred writer, but with extracting some hidden meaning with the help of an allegorical interpretation - a meaning unknown and not revealed to the sacred author himself. Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by St. John's method of θεωρία is closely related to his understanding of the doctrine of biblical inspiration. He realized the depth of the spiritual meaning of Holy Scripture as a whole, so he compared it to the sea, inexhaustible as the action of the Holy Spirit. For Chrysostom, “The sacred writers wrote and spoke “in the Spirit,” or the Spirit spoke in them. However, Chrysostom decisively distinguishes this influx of the Spirit from obsession: consciousness and mind remain clear and comprehend what is suggested. It's more of an insight. And this is the significant difference between prophetism and mantika. Therefore, sacred writers do not lose face.” 102 The Holy Writer in Chrysostom “reacts to God’s inspiration as clearly as water reflects a ray of sun,” writes Prof. C. Bauer. 103 Θεωρία in Chrysostom, as a representative of Antiochene exegesis, is firmly based on ἱστορία. He soberly assessed the historical nature of the Epistle and “if Chrysostom had recognized the mechanical theory of inspiration, according to which man appears to be a passive organ of action of the Holy. Spirit, then it would be impossible to find in Chrysostom neither an amazing and correct view of the body of messages, nor subtlety of comments on the characteristic features of one message in comparison with another, nor truthful criticism, nor meaningful weight of judgments.” 104 According to G. Meyer, “if Theodore of Mopsuestia looked at Holy Scripture as a product of human thought and from here almost came to the destruction of the typical character of the Old Testament, then Chrysostom, on the contrary, looks at Holy Scripture as a product of Divine influence on man, as a work of the Holy Spirit. Hence, he extends the positive nature of inspiration not only to the general content, but also to form in general; even the selection of thoughts and the order of speech he attributes to the action of the Holy Spirit...” 105 So about the ap. Pavle Chrysostom argues: “And isn’t it reckless - when someone receives a letter from a friend, he reads not only the contents of the letter, but also the greeting below and from it especially concludes about the disposition of the writer; and when Paul writes, or - better - not Paul, but the grace of the Spirit proclaims the message to the whole city and to such a multitude of people, and through them to the whole universe ... ". 106 Thus, it was Chrysostom, through a surprisingly calibrated view of the interpretation of Holy Scripture, who managed to maintain the golden mean without going to extremes, unlike Origen or Theodore of Mopsuet. His sober exegesis, firmly based on the historical-philological method, coupled with the sublime method of θεωρία used by the Antiochene tradition, was adopted by a huge number of exegetes in the East and in the West. His special interest in history, in the content of the entire Epistle to the Romans in totality with its individual parts, his objective approach, special attention to the personality of St. ap. Paul, and especially the practical orientation of his exegesis, made an invaluable contribution to the tradition of interpretation of this book of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. 1. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. Patrologia Cursus Completes Series Graeca. Vol. 60. Ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1862. Col. 391–681. 2. Joannis Chrysostomi, Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamenti. Patrologia Cursus Completes Series Graeca. Vol. 51.Ed. J. P. Migne. Paris, 1862. 3. John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. Book. 1. Conversations on various places of Holy Scripture. St. Petersburg, 1898. 4. John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 9. Book. 2. Discourses on the Epistle to the Romans. St. Petersburg, 1903. 5. John Cassian the Roman, St. Scriptures. M., 1892. 1. Brek I., priest. Reading the Holy Scriptures according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers // Alpha and Omega. 2002, No. 2 (32). 2. Dobrotsvetov P.K. Holy Scripture as an object of contemplation by St. Maximus the Confessor // Alpha and Omega. 2006, 2. pp. 36–48. 3. Dykonov A. Types of higher theological school in the ancient Church of the III-VI centuries. // Christian reading. 1913, no. 4. pp. 495–525; No. 5. pp. 598–629. 4. Kazenina E.T. John Chrysostom in the history of biblical exegesis // Alpha and Omega. 2001, 3. pp. 64–80. 5. Korsunsky I.N. New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. M. 1885. 6. Meyer G. St. John Chrysostom as an interpreter of the Holy Scriptures // Orthodox Review, 1889, 10. pp. 52–311. 7. Nesterova O.E. Allegoria pro Typologia. Origen and the fate of allegorical methods of interpreting the Holy Scriptures. M., 2006. 8. Fathers and teachers of the 3rd century Anthology in 2 vols. T. 2.: Origen, Gregory the Wonderworker, Hippolytus of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, Methodius of Olympus. M., 1996. 9. Popov I.V. Proceedings on patrolology. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 2004. 10. Savrey V.Ya. The Alexandrian school in the history of philosophical and theological thought. M., 2006. 11. Sagarda N.I. Ancient church theological science in the Greek East in its heyday (IV-V centuries): Its main directions and characteristic features “Speech at the annual act of the SPBDA on February 17, 1910 // Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. A complete body of lectures on patrolology. St. Petersburg, 2004. 12. Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. A complete body of lectures on patrolology. St. Petersburg, 2004. 13. Solsky S.M. A brief outline of the history of sacred bibliology and exegesis // Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 1866, No. 10. pp. 157–190. No. 11. pp. 305–342. No. 12. pp. 466–506. 14. Florovsky G., prot. Eastern fathers of the 4th century. Sergiev Posad, 1999. 15. Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Bd. III. Freiburg, 1912. 16. Baur C. John Chrysostom and his Time. London-Glasgow, 1959. 17. Breck J., Fr. Orthodox Principles of Biblical Interpretation // St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. 1996, 40. 18. Kannengiesser S. Handbook of Patristik Exegesis, The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Vol. II. Boston, 2004. 19. Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961. 20. McNeil B. Typology // A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation Ed. by R.G. Coggins, J.L. Houlden. London. 1990. 21. Nassif B. The Spiritual Exegesis of Scripturë The School of Antioch Revisited // Anglican Theological Review, 1993, 75. pp. 437–490. 22. Norris R.A. Antiochene Interpretation // A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation » Ed. by R.G. Coggins, J.L. Houlden. London, 1990. 23. Seisdedos F.A. La “theoria” antiquena // Estudios Biblicos, 1951, 11. P. 60. 24. Ternant P. La “theoria” d'Antioche dans le cadre des sens de l'Ecriture // Biblica, 1953, 34. P. 135–158, 354–383, 456–486. 25. Vaccari A. La Θεωρία nella scuola Esegetica di Antiochia. Roma, 1920. 26. Young F.A. Alexandrian Interpretation // A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation « Ed. by R.G. Coggins, J.L. Houlden. London. 1990. 27. Young F.M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge. 1997. Greek ἀλληγορία – allegory. “An allegory ‹...› is an allegory in which, in general, there is no necessary connection between what is said (ἀγορει ν) and what is meant by what is said (ἄλλο), and this latter is established only by the allegorist himself” (Korsunsky I.N. New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. M. 1885. P. 38). The allegorical method is one of the main methods of interpreting Holy Scripture, along with the historical-philological (literal-historical) and typological (theorical). By resorting to allegory, the interpreter proposes to consider biblical persons and events as images symbolizing either philosophical and theological ideas, or the laws of spiritual life and concepts from the moral sphere. Accordingly, a distinction is made between philosophical, theological, spiritual and moral allegory. Philosophical allegory is more characteristic of Philo of Alexandria and Origen, while theological and moral allegory was more popular among the ascetics of the Christian Church. The peculiarity of this method of interpretation is that the text itself does not provide the interpreter with sufficient grounds for establishing the symbolic connections he needs; allegorical interpretation is to one degree or another arbitrary. This is the fundamental difference between allegory and typology and theory - methods that the author examines in more detail in the article. This is also the reason why I.N. Korsunsky does not classify this method as the main methods of interpretation of the Orthodox Church, assigning it only an auxiliary meaning - approx. ed. See: Young F.A. Alexandrian Interpretation // A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation Ed. by R.G. Coggins, J.L. Houlden. London. 1990. R. 10. Dykonov A. Types of higher theological school in the ancient Church of the 3rd-6th centuries. // Christian reading. 1913, No. 4. P. 525. See: Young F.A. Alexandrian Interpretation. R. 10. Kazenina E.T. John Chrysostom in the history of biblical exegesis // Alpha and Omega. 2001, 3. P. 66. Quote from: Fathers and teachers of the 3rd century “Anthology in 2 vols. T. 2: Origen, Gregory the Wonderworker, Hippolytus of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, Methodius of Olympus. M., 1996. P. 148. Young F.A. Alexandrian Interpretation. R. 10. Quote from: Fathers and teachers of the 3rd century. T. 2. P. 146. Quote by: Solsky S.M. A short sketch of the history of St. bibliology and exegesis // Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 1866, No. 10. P. 181. “Some of the exegetes subsequently distinguished four meanings of Holy Scripture and even more. So, for example, blessed. Augustine identifies 4 meanings - interpretation according to history, allegory, analogy and etiology. Late antique and medieval authors accepted Origen’s three-part division, but within the spiritual meaning they singled out two aspects - allegory itself and anagogy (from the Greek ἀναγωγή - ascent)" (Kazenina E.T. John Chrysostom in the history of biblical exegesis. P. 68). St. Cassian the Roman also emphasized tropological (from the Greek τρόπος - disposition, character) or moral meaning. “One and the same Jerusalem can be understood in four ways. In historical terms it is the city of the Jews, in allegorical terms it is the Church of Christ, in anagogical terms it is the city of heavenly God, in tropological terms it is the soul of man “...›” (John Cassian the Roman, St. Interviews of Egyptian Ascetics. 14, 8 // John Cassian the Roman, St. Scripture. M., 1892. P. 426). [I.N. Korsunsky offers a fairly strict systematization based on church experience of interpretation and internal hermeneutic logic: two main methods - historical-philological (or literally historical) and typological (theory), and the third - auxiliary - allegory (Korsunsky I.N. New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament. pp. 22-39). Actually, all the examples given by the author of the article fit into this scheme. For example, a tropological interpretation is nothing more than a moral allegory, etc. - approx. ed.] Solsky S.M. Brief essay... P. 181. Sagarda N.I. Ancient church theological science in the Greek East in its heyday (IV-V centuries): Its main directions and characteristic features Speech at the annual act of the SPBDA on February 17, 1910 // Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. A complete body of lectures on patrolology. St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 865. Solsky S.M. Brief essay... P. 179. In this he follows Philo of Alexandria (see: Korsunsky I.N. Jewish Interpretation of the Old Testament. M., 1882. P. 226, 228) - approx. ed. Origen. About the beginnings. IV, 2, 5. Quoted. by: Nesterova O.E. Allegoria pro Typologia. Origen and the fate of allegorical methods of interpreting the Holy Scriptures. M., 2006. P. 15. Nesterova O.E. Allegoria pro Typologia. P. 15. See: Young F.M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge. 1997, pp. 169–175. From Greek μεθοδικός - acting according to the rules, methodical - approx. ed. From Greek ἱστορικός – here: research, scientific; knowledgeable, competent - approx. ed. Greek ὑπ ό θεσις – here: subject, topic, content – ​​approx. ed. Young F.M. Biblical Exegesis... R. 171. Greek ἱστορία – here: research, research; knowledge, science - approx. ed. Greek ἀκολουθία - here: the ability of logical connection and comparison - approx. ed. See: Norris R.A. Antiochene Interpretation // A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation « Ed. by R.G. Coggins, J.L. Houlden. London, 1990. R. 29. Savrey V.Ya. The Alexandrian school in the history of philosophical and theological thought. M:., 2006. P. 592. Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. A complete body of lectures on patrolology. St. Petersburg, 2004, pp. 911–913. Savrey V.Ya. Alexandria School... P. 604. Lucian was one of the first to put forward a theory about the possible corruption of the text of Holy Scripture by Jews or heretics. Sagarda N.I. Ancient Church theological science... P. 871. Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. Complete body of lectures... P. 912. Kannengiesser S. Handbook of Patristik Exegesis, The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Vol. II. Boston, 2004. R. 780. Savrey V.Ya. Alexandria School... P. 607. Socrates. Church history. 6.3. Sozomen. Church history. 8.2. Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. Complete body of lectures... P. 974. Greek θεωρία - contemplation, vision, consideration (Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961. P. 648–649). Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur. Bd. III. Freiburg, 1912, pp. 307–308. Florovsky G., prot. Eastern fathers of the 4th century. Sergiev Posad, 1999. P. 219 Popov I.V. Proceedings on patrolology. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 2004. P. 327. Sagarda N.I. Ancient Church theological science... P. 886. In this case, the literal meaning is understood as the direct historical meaning of the biblical text, i.e. its meaning, which was adopted by the contemporaries of the sacred authors in the context of the era. Then the spiritual meaning or theoria are those shades of meaning of the text that are revealed in subsequent historical eras. The turning point, in this case, of course, is the coming of the Savior, when the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises makes it possible to better understand the meaning of the Old Testament text - approx. ed. Brek I., priest. Reading the Holy Scriptures according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers // Alpha and Omega, 2002, No. 2 (32). P. 53. Breck J., Fr. Orthodox Principles of Biblical Interpretation // St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. 1996, 40. R. 90. Kazenina E.T. John Chrysostom in the history of biblical exegesis. P. 71. Dobrotsvetov P.K. Holy Scripture as an object of contemplation by St. Maximus the Confessor // Alpha and Omega. 2006, 2. pp. 36–48. Quote from: Nassif B. The Spiritual Exegesis of Scripturë The school of Antioch revisited // Anglican Theological Review, 1993, 75. R. 437–490. See also: Vaccari A. La Θεωρία nella scuola Esegetica di Antiochia. Roma, 1920. Lat. sensus plenior - “full understanding”. When establishing typological connections between events and persons of the Old and New Testaments, exegetes used the following terminology. The Old Testament prototype (a less successful translation into Russian - image) was called τύπος, and its fulfillment in the New Testament was called ἀντίτυπος (See: McNeil B. Typology // A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation Ed. by R. G. Coggins, J. L. Houlden. London. 1990. R. 713). [For other variants of terminology using the typological method of interpretation, see: Korsunsky I.N. Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. M., 1882. P. 23, approx. 1 – approx. ed.] In modern biblical literature, such prophecies are often called “Double Fulfillment Prophecies” - approx. ed. The Antiochians thus based their understanding of typology on the fact that “the intentional meaning of a prophecy may not coincide with its real meaning, which is fully revealed and made understandable only after this prophecy is fulfilled (and not at the moment when it was just announced), and therefore they believed that only a retrospective interpretation of prophecies, in which it becomes possible to discern “images” or “shadows”, can be valid or true. events unknown to the prophet [or at least to his contemporaries, if we proceed from the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture and take into account that the prophet was inspired by God - approx. ed. “KhCh”], but known to the interpreter separated from the prophet by a significant historical distance” (Nesterova O.E. Allegoria pro Typologia. P. 74). Kazenina E.T. John Chrysostom in the history of biblical exegesis. P. 69. Brek I., priest. Reading the Holy Scriptures according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers. P. 53. [T. O. The sensus plenior method, which can be considered a special case of theoria, seeks to interpret biblical texts taking into account God's economy in the matter of human salvation - approx. ed.] For the current state of scientific research on the Antiochene θεωρία, see: Nassif B. The Spiritual Exegesis of Scripture... R. 437–490. Seisdedos F.A. La “theoria” antiquena // Estudios Biblicos, 1951, 11. P. 60. Nassif B. The Spiritual Exegesis of Scripture... R. 437–490. In the case of A. Vaccari’s classification, pheory begins to be thought of only as a rather narrow method of interpreting prophecies of “double fulfillment,” which, of course, does not correspond to the view given above in this article of pheory as a general method of interpretation by Diodorus of Tarsus and his followers - approx. ed. Ternant P. La “theoria” d'Antioche dans le cadre des sens de l'Ecriture // Biblica, 1953, 34. P. 135–158, 354–383, 456–486. Greek ἀναγωγία – construction. Here: the exegetical method, which allows us to extract the sublime, spiritual meaning, starting from the literal meaning of Holy Scripture. At St. John Chrysostom’s concept of “anagogy” is generally identical to the “theoria” of the Antiochian school. But among other church authors this term may have a different meaning - as an indication of a moral or theological allegory, for example - approx. ed. See for example: John Chrysostom, St. Commentaries on the Psalms. Psalm 9, 43, 44, 46, 147. Meyer G. St. John Chrysostom as an interpreter of the Holy Scriptures // Orthodox Review, 1889, 10. P. 302. Thus, for example, “In the prologue to the Commentary on the Psalms, attributed to Diodorus, a representative of the Antiochian school, ‹...› Diodorus first wants to provide “a brief overview of the contents ( τὴν ὑπ ό θεσεον ) of the book, in general, and in relation to individual psalms, as well as an explanation ( ἐρμενεία) of their simple meaning (κατα λεξίν – perhaps it is better to translate “literal meaning”)” (Young F.M. Biblical Exegesis... R. 174). Joannis Chrysostomi. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. Argumentum. PG, 60. Col. 393. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 9. Book. 2. St. Petersburg, 1903. P. 486. Ibidem. Homilia 5. PG, 60. Col. 426. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 529. Ibidem. Homilia 6. PG, 60. Col. 434. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 539. Ibidem. Homilia 27. PG, 60. Col. 646. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 815. Ibidem. Homilia 12. PG, 60. Col. 500. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 626. Ibidem. Homilia 25. PG, 60. Col. 627–628 Rus. trans.: Ibid. P.791. Vladimirsky F.S. St. John Chrysostom, Christian thinker and exeget // Faith and Church, 1907, 9–10. P. 379. Meyer G. St. John Chrysostom... P. 304. Joannis Chrysostomi. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. Homilia 13. PG, 60. Col. 517–518. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 9. Book. 2. P. 649. Ibidem. Homilia 25. PG, 60. Col. 630. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 794. Ibidem. Rus. trans.: Ibid. Ibidem. Homilia 19. PG, 60. Col. 585–586. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 736. Mitchell M.M. “A Variable and Many – Sorted Man”: John Chrysostom's Treatment of Pauline Inconsistency // Journal of Early Christian Studies, 1998, 6. R. 99. Joannis Chrysostomi. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. Homilia 19. PG, 60. Col. 588. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 9. Book. 2. P. 739. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamenti. In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam (Rom 16:3). 2. PG, 51. Col. 197. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. Book. 1. Conversations on various places of Holy Scripture. St. Petersburg, 1898. P. 192. Joannis Chrysostomi. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. Homilia 16. PG, 60. Col. 549. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 9. Book. 2. P. 690. Ibidem. Argumentum. PG, 60. Col. 393. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 486. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamenti. In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam ( Rom 16:3 ) et de colendis dei sacerdotibus scamo 1. PG, 51. Col. 187. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. book. 1. P. 181. Joannis Chrysostomi. Commentarius in Epistolam ad Romanos. Homilia 31. PG, 60. Col. 668. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 9.Book. 2. P. 843. Ibidem. Homilia 28. PG, 60. Col. 654. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 824. Ibidem. Homilia 31. PG, 60. Col. 667. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 842. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamenti. In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam (Rom 16:3) ... sermo 1. PG, 51. Col. 189. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. Book. 1. P. 182. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamenti. In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam (Rom 16:3) ... sermo 2. PG, 51. Col. 195. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. Book. 1. P. 190. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamentï De mutatione nominum 2. Ad eos qui reprehendebant eum ob prolxitatem eorum... PG, 51. Col. 125. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. Book. 1. P. 114. Ibidem. Col. 126. Rus. trans.: Ibid. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamentï De mutatione nominum 4. Eorum, qui aberrant ab ecclesia... PG, 51. Col. 148. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. Book. 1. P. 140. Ibidem. Col. 150. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 142. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamenti. In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam (Rom 16:3)… sermo 2. PG, 51. Col. 195. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Right there. P. 190. Meyer G. St. John Chrysostom... P. 308. Florovsky G., prot. Eastern fathers of the 4th century. P. 218 Baur C. John Chrysostom and his Time. London-Glasgow, 1959. R. 316. Meyer G. St. John Chrysostom... P. 267. Joannis Chrysostomi. Homiliae XXV in quaedam loca Novi Testamenti. In illud: Salutate Priscillam et Aquilam ( Rom 16:3 )... sermo 1. PG, 51. Col. 187. Rus. trans.: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 3. Book. 1. P. 181.