On the question of Greek sources of “Conversations of the Three Hierarchs”

Dedicated to the memory of the late professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Ivan Yakovlevich Porfiryev. († 26 October 1890) During my stay on Athos in the summer of this year, while studying manuscripts in the Athonite libraries, mainly the Panteleimon Monastery and St. Andrew's Skete, I more than once had to encounter monuments of Byzantine literature that were still unpublished and unknown, and yet very important in many respects and, by the way, with such monuments that have the significance of originals for many works of ancient Russian literature, especially apocryphal ones. I could not write off everything, since I did not have enough time for that, although I was aware of the importance of the monuments found; but still he copied something and, by the way, two small Greek articles that are important for clarifying the history of a very widespread and very important article in Russian-Slavic manuscript literature, known as “Conversations of the Three Hierarchs.” About these two Greek monuments that I found, I mean to give here a feasible study, namely, I mean to give an idea of ​​their content and composition, and of their relationship to the Russian Conversation of the Three Hierarchs, and also partly of the meaning that they have in themselves, and of their origin. Without making any claim to a completely thorough solution to all the questions raised, I hope, however, that the material I communicate and the instructions I give will not be useless. But before we begin the description and analysis of the monuments, it would not be superfluous to briefly recall the current position in science of the question of the Conversation of the Three Hierarchs. Literary historians have long paid attention to this article and attach great importance and significance to it. It is of particular importance, firstly, as one of the sources of one of the most beautiful works of our folk poetry - the so-called Dove Book. But in addition, it has even greater significance in itself, as an exponent of the worldview that was characteristic of the average Russian person in the era at least before the 18th century. Scholars call this Discourse an apocryphal interpretation of the Bible, the apocryphal popular Bible. This is not entirely true. This is something more extensive. This is a popular encyclopedia of questions and answers. If many questions here are resolved on the basis of the Bible, mostly in its apocryphal treatment, then this is because the Bible in ancient times was the most important source of all kinds of wisdom. But besides this kind of questions, in the Conversation, especially the full edition, there are many - maybe a good half - questions that have nothing to do with the Bible - Physical, geographical, historical, etc. There are many examples. What eg. may have a trace to do with the Bible. questions: “What is the sun placed on? How many islands in the sea, languages ​​and compositions are there in man? What is more than wind? Why are there bells in the church? etc. Questions follow one after another without a strict system, but they are all interconnected by one common tendency - to explain unknown things “from the deepest innermost mind.” If, in this way, the Conversation had the significance of a popular encyclopedia, then it is clear what the interest of its detailed study is and exactly what points this study should be directed at. In the interests of scientists, it is very important, firstly, to establish the chronological sequence of the numerous and varied editions and lists of the Conversation, so that we can know what questions primarily interested our ancestors at a given time and how they were resolved and how then other questions appeared on the scene in subsequent times, and from the old ones many received a different solution. Further, secondly, it is very important to determine where the questions came from and where their solutions came from, in a word, to determine the sources of the Conversation, in order to know under what influences the worldview of the Russian people was formed in a given era. These two kinds of problems naturally present themselves to the researcher when he intends to study the Conversation in itself without regard to the influence it had on the formation of works of folk poetry. In relation to this last influence, the Conversation was subjected to detailed study by V. N. Mochulsky in a special dissertation entitled: “Historical and literary analysis of the verse about the Dove Book.” But as for the composition and sources of the Conversation, not much has been done in this regard. Namely: the same V.N. Mochulsky in the mentioned book, having expressed the intention to devote a special special study to the Conversation, makes a preliminary, so to speak, review and outlines a classification of numerous copies of this monument. He distinguishes three editions of the Conversation and gives their characteristics. “The primary edition, according to V.N. Mochulsky, is brief, not precisely defining its material composition, but giving in its gradual development hints of what served as the grain of its origin, what were the reasons and goals of its emergence.” A representative of this edition is the list of it contained in the Izbornik of Svyatoslav of 1073 and now printed by Arkhangelsk 1. This is a monument from the 11th century. literally translated from Greek and beginning thus: “Questions and answers of Gregory the Theologian and Basil. Vasily. Which is the beginning." There are several other lists of this article from a later time. “The second edition is complete, partly bearing traces of its gradual development and complications, partly erasing these traces, being subsequently somewhat systematized.” V. N. Mochulsky includes many different lists in this edition, trying to divide them into sub-editions, and one list, according to him, is published in its entirety, the most complete. “Finally, the third edition is renounced, either with obvious traces of heresy, or with only hints of heretical admixture” 2. Then the author also makes an attempt to find out in general terms, “in the form of an assumption,” the history of the origin and gradual complication of the Conversation, and the lists of its first edition seem to him to be the seed or basis of all subsequent development. Another researcher who wrote later, Prof. Kazan University A.S. Arkhangelsky in his doctoral dissertation “On the works of the fathers in ancient Russian writing” concerns the same subject, but goes further than Mr. Mochulsky, and his study on the Conversation of the Three Hierarchs represents, so to speak, the last word of science. Prof. Arkhangelsky begins with the fact that you completely reject the classification proposed by Mochulsky, calling the attempt of its author completely in vain, and argues that in view of the extreme diversity of the lists of the Conversation, their distribution among editions is impossible. Mr. Arkhangelsky formulates his conclusions as follows. way: 1) “The numerous copies of the Conversation that have reached us, not being able to be divided into any editions in the usual sense of the word, sharply fall into two very unequal groups: one of them is the list of the 11th century. with later copies of the 15th and 17th centuries, another - all the other various lists of Conversations, starting from the 15th century. and continuing in the 17th, 18th and even 19th centuries. List of the 11th century. with copies, it represents the most ancient primary Conversation that came to us from Byzantine literature and stands out sharply among the surviving lists for its invariability throughout the entire period of our ancient writing. The questions and answers of Gregory the Theologian and Vasily, placed in the Izbornik of 1073, are read in the same form without the slightest changes in the 17th century manuscript. In the lists of the second group there are no signs of such literary stability. The lists of this second group, otherwise, all the other extant lists of Conversations - a long series of which, as noted, starting from the 15th century. goes up to the first quarter of the current century - they amaze with the extreme diversity of both their external presentation and their content. In most lists, with a complete absence of any systematization in the presentation, the content is extremely chaotic. 2) It is impossible to establish any direct, immediate literary relationship between the two intended groups of lists. The lists of the second group cannot be called, in relation to the lists of the first, lists of a special edition: the works themselves are different there and here. The ancient Conversation, once translated from Greek and included in the Izbornik of 1073, in the lists of the second group was replaced by a whole series of Conversations of a completely different nature. The ancient translated work disappeared, giving way to a long series of similar, but different new works” 3. Having thus abandoned the classification of Conversation lists by edition, Prof. Arkhangelsky then proceeds to identify those sources under the influence of which the Slavic-Russian Conversation was compiled. He searches for these sources with great diligence and thoroughness and presents a fairly long list of them. But according to his own statement, the “sources” he listed, pointing to the Russian origin of the later copies of the Conversation, do not, however, define its entire literary history and far from exhausting all its sources. The literary history of the Conversations of the Three Hierarchs is closely connected with the general history of the extensive ancient Russian literature of Questions and Answers. Literary sources of ancient Russian Questions and Answers, obviously, served as direct sources for various lists of Conversations” 4. What are these sources? “The sources or prototypes of various ancient Russian “Questions and Answers” ​​most often served as various similar works of Byzantine literature, which early passed into the South Slavic and our writing.” Which ones exactly? “A special role in this regard, according to Arkhangelsky, apparently belonged to the Questions and Answers of Athanasius to Antiochus, as well as other similar works attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria and formerly famous in our literature, “Interpretations of the parables of the Gospels (Ρήσεις to αί è ρ a ηνείαι πα p αβολῶν τουάγίου εύαγγελίου . Migne, XXVIII) and Netziam questions.” (Ἐτέραι τίνες έροτήσεις) ibid. 773), the influence of which on the literature of ancient Russian Questions and Answers is quite noticeable. Traces of the influence of these works are also noticeable on the lists of the Conversation” 5. These are the conclusions of Prof. Arkhangelsky. Obviously, they still, especially in relation to the main and primary sources of the Conversation, do not yet establish anything completely definite. Athanasius's answers did have some influence on the Conversation, but this influence dates back to a relatively late time and was rather weak, so that only some layers can be explained by them. With all the apparent desire, the author of Afanasy’s 137 answers could only indicate in 20 or so the indirect (even though) source of some of the Conversation’s answers. Almost no answer can be said to have been taken directly from Athanasius. Other articles attributed to Athanasius are even less useful for the purpose of explaining the Conversations. In general, Arkhangelsky’s reference to the Answers of Athanasius as a prototype of the ancient Russian Questions and Answers, and in particular the Questions or Conversations of the Three Hierarchs, turns out to be far from convincing, and the question about these prototypes remains open. These prototypes still need to be found. The reviewer of the Philological Bulletin suggests that one collection of Questions and Answers of the 13th century, located in the Imperial Public Library and very similar to the collection of Answers called “Kaaf”, described by Arkhangelsky 6, can be considered such a prototype. We do not know this collection, which is supposedly of Russian origin; but if we put the matter this way, then why not use Svyatoslav’s Collection of 1073 as a prototype: it undoubtedly has an encyclopedic content and the form of questions and answers almost prevails in it, since in it, in addition to the Answers of Gregory the Theologian and the Answers of Anastasius, more than half of the articles consist of answers to questions posed in their headings: like: “As you understand, as” and so on. In a word, from this the question of the prototypes of the Conversation will not receive a more accurate and definite solution. The main position of Prof. Arkhangelsky that “the prototypes of various ancient Russian Questions and Answers most often served as various similar works of Byzantine literature” is absolutely true, but it should be somewhat strengthened and also extended to those Questions and Answers that are known under the special name Conversations of the Three Hierarchs. This conversation, in our opinion, in its original editions had exact originals in Byzantine literature, where, as in our literature, next to Questions and Answers of more or less high theological-theoretical or exegetical content, compiled by people more or less famous for their education and scholarship, such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Anastase Sinaite, Theodoret and others, there existed a different kind Questions and answers that had their beginnings and revolved in a lower environment and had a different character from the first ones. Whereas Questions and Answers of the first kind, which are e.g. Afanasievs, Anastasievs, etc. contain serious theological studies of many important issues, often based on a critical examination of the opinions of various church teachers and interpreters of St. Scriptures, as a result of which the answers here are often very long - Questions and answers of the second kind, always anonymous or pseudonymous, have the same character as in our Slavic-Russian Conversation of the Three Hierarchs. These questions are more intricate than serious; the answers are brief and almost always based on apocryphal tales and fantastic speculation. These Greek apocryphal Ἐρωτήσεις καί - Αποχρίσεις being translated into the Slavic language, it is not known at what time, but not later than the 13th century, and served as the original of our Conversation and the basis from which it gradually began to develop and developed to the extent of something independent or original Russian. – But where are these Greek Questions and Answers? Did the Greeks really have them? Until now they were unknown and one could only guess about their existence. The article we found turns this guess into an undoubted fact. This article is nothing more than one of those originals and one of those prototypes on the basis of which the Slavic-Russian Conversation of the Three Hierarchs developed. It clarifies the history of the origin of this Discourse. This is its significance and this is what prompted us to study it. The article we are talking about has the following title: Ἐρωτήσεις καί άποχρίσεις διάφοροι ώφέλιμοι ... then the text is damaged, but that’s enough. This means: Questions and answers various useful... The manuscript in which this article was found is parchment sheet; written in semi-rut of the 14th century. in 2 columns. This is the Prologue or Synaxarion in an edition very similar to the edition of the 11th century. with Prologue by the so-called Petrov 7. This manuscript, which belongs to the Russian Panteleimon Monastery, has no beginning or end and, moreover, is very damaged in its upper part. The top damaged margin is cut off along with one or two lines of text and then the damage extends a little further down between the columns in the form of a triangle facing down. As a result, there are some omissions in the text I have, albeit small ones. Moreover, most of them can be restored. In the Prologue, this article is placed between the lives of October 15 and 16. Why in this particular place is not clear to me. Neither in the previous nor in the subsequent lives is there any reason for this. But the fact that the article is placed in the Prologue, as we will see later, is not without significance. This article consists of 20 questions with answers, compiled under the strong influence of the apocrypha, and sometimes those that are very little known. Most of these questions are found in various lists of our Conversation. Some of them could have come here from other sources, but most can so far be explained in no other way than from the Greek article we found. We will convey the contents of this article with brief explanations and comparisons 8 . The article, as we have seen, is simply entitled: “Questions and Answers.” The names of three or two saints are not here. But the names of these saints are also not on many lists of our Conversation. The text of the first question in the original is very damaged; only the words remained: ποίησεν ουτος; but the answer is whole-ὥ ρας ἕ ξ ; – 6 hours. From what follows we can guess that we are talking about Adam’s stay in paradise. One of the questions to Athanasius Antiochus has a similar content, namely the 49th (Migne Patr. XXVIII, p. 627) and one in the Dialogue of Caesarea by brother Vasiliev (ibid. XXXVIII, p. 1010). Taking into account the text of Antyukh's question 9, we restore the text of the manuscript in this way: Ερ. Πόσον χρόνον ἐποίησεν ούτος έν παραδείσω, i.e. How long did he spend in heaven? The pronoun: one, i.e. Adam, indicates that above there was a short question-answer along the lines of: Who was the first man? answer: Adam, The question and answer about the time Adam spent in paradise is also found in our Conversation. So in Buslaev’s list are Conversations without a title from the Synod. Flower Garden of 1665 we read: “How long was Adam in paradise? hours" 10. In other lists of the Conversations the answer is somewhat different: so in Pypin, III, 169 11: "I. r. How long did Adam remain in paradise? V. r. From the 6th hour to the 9th" in Vyazemsky, Nam. etc. p. 1880 I p. 90 and 112. "Question: How long was Adam in paradise? Answer from 6th hour to the 9th, and others wrote more." Although this answer is not similar to the manuscript, it is even more dissimilar to the answer to Antiochus. In "Inscriptions from various theological books, that is, from the deepest secrets of the mind of the wise fathers" (Alphabet of Solov. Bible No. 16. See Archangel, cit. op. p. 145) to a similar question the following answer is given: “Ovii say that before the crime, Adam was in paradise for 40 days, Ovii 7 days, after the crime, 6 hours, even Christ suffered on the cross.” The second question and answer are so damaged that we find it difficult to restore them with accuracy 12 . At the end of the answer it is said that God created man to replenish the fallen rank of angels. This idea is borrowed from apocrypha. See Porfiryev Apokr. legends, p. 245, ed. Ak. Sci. But we didn’t encounter anything like this in Beseda. Note that we are referring only to printed lists. Third question: “Who, first of all on earth, called God God”? is also available in Beseda. Eg. in “The arrangement of the words of Vasily and Gregory the Theologist and John” according to hand. XV century Room. museum and the 17th century Sol. bib. quoted by Arkhangelsk (cited pp. 177 and 201) we read; “Who is the first name of God on earth? O. Soton spoke to Evze, that you God said to eat>. We find a similar question and answer in Athanasius (E ρ . 45th) and in Ρήσεις x αί έρμηνείαι (E ρ . 73). The text of the question in the manuscript is literally similar to the question of Athanasius: but the answer is short. Fourth question: “Who died without being born? O. Adam” appears very often in the Conversation. See Tikhonrav. 432: "V. Who is unborn and dead? O. Adam." Sometimes in a modified form: “Who died without being born and who did not die without being born and who died without a loop”? Karpov, Azbuk., p. 126. Pypin III, p. 170 etc. But in Greek sources besides our article it is not found. Fifth question: “Who, having grown old, entered again into his mother’s womb?” also not found in Greek sources, but very often in the Conversation. See in the lists of the 15th century, in Tikhonr. 432 and Arhang. 200: “Who, at birth, grew old and climbed into the womb? Answer Adam was taken from the earth and returned to the earth.” See Tikhonr. more page 435, Pypina, page 170. Karpova, 126. Mochulsk. 243, Vyazemskago, 90, 105, 116. Buslaeva 2nd list. Attached, page 6. Sixth question: “Who taught Cain to kill his brother when he did not know what death was? Rep. The devil showed him a stone in a dream, saying: hit your brother with it and kill him; he did so." This question does not appear in the lists of the Conversation known to us. But it is available, although not in literally the same form, in the Answers of Athanasius. (Ερ. 57. Migne-XXVIII 632). Seventh question: “What is the essence of the 7 revenges on Cain”? available in Ρήσεις x αί ἐρμηνείαι Ερ .62,, Migne, col. 757, although not in literally the same form, and in one of the lists of Conversations, ed. in Pypin, (III, p. 172): “Which is 7 vengeance on Cain? O. Cain killed Abel his brother 1st angered God, 2nd made his father sad, 3rd created a childless mother, 4th killed his brother, 5th shed blood, 6th desecrated the earth, 7th renewed hell.” Eighth question: “When did the fourth part of the world die? A. When Cain killed his brother,” is not found in Greek sources, but is very common in the Conversation. See Tikhonrav. II, 432 and Arkhangelsk uk. op. 199. sp. XV century “When is the fourth part of the world going to die? Rep. Egda obi Cain Abel." Also at Tikhonrav. ib. 434, Vyazemsk. 99; Karpova 131, Buslaeva 2nd list. App. page 8. Question nine: “How old was Noah when the flood happened? O. 500 years,” is not found in the Greek sources indicated above, i.e., in the Answers of Athanasius and in the Interpretation of the Gospel Parables. Note that all subsequent questions in our article are not found in these sources. From the lists of the Slavic-Russian Conversation, the ninth question is in one of the Solovetsky lists, an edition similar to the 15th century edition published by Tikhonravov. (See Op. hand Sol. bib. vol. I p. 738) and in the same list of the 15th century, published by Arkhangelsky. This question reads like this: “How old was Noah when the flood came? See Arkhangelsk uk. op. I-II, p. 200. Tenth question: “How long did Noah spend in the ark? Rep. 7 months” is only available in our article, but it is not incredible that it was also included in Beseda. Question eleven: “When did the whole world rejoice? Answer. When Noah came out of the ark and those who were with him, and when in general (except for them) there was no living creature” is found in the Slavic-Russian Conversation repeatedly, for example. Tikhonr. p. 434. Arkhang., 200. “When did the whole world rejoice? Vasily speech. When Noah left the ark." Wed. Vyazemsk, pp. 98–118. Questions twelve, thirteen, fourteen and fifteen read as follows: 12th - “How many years were the children of Israel enslaved in Egypt? From. 400". 13th – “How old was Moses when he delivered the Israelites from Egypt? Rep. 40 years." 14 – th- “How many (Israelites) crossed the sea with Moses? Answer: 600,000.” 15 – th- “Into how many parts was the sea divided? Answer: According to the prophet, 12, so that each tribe had its own path through the sea.” All these questions and answers, with the exception of the 13th, are found both in the Slavic-Russian Conversation, and precisely in the list of the 15th century, published by Arkhangelsk. There they stand almost side by side and are read like this (See Archang., p. 200). The 15th question ends the first part of Questions relating to the Old Testament. The following questions relate to the history of the New Testament. The sixteenth question reads like this: “The incarnation of the Lord during whose reign was it? Rep. Augustus Caesar." This question also appears in some lists of the Slavic-Russian Conversation, namely in the lists of the 15th century, published by Tikhonravov (Pam., rev. l. II. 429) and Arkhangelsky (Uk. cit. p. 195). Grigory speech. “At what time did the Incarnation of the Lord take place and in what year? Rep. Under Augustus the king. Questions seventeen and eighteen are very curious in their apocryphal content and read like this: Question seventeen: “What was the name of the wife who was at the birth of Christ and hid the ointment? Rep. Salome." Question eighteen: “Where was the ointment with which Mary anointed the feet of Jesus and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment”? The text of the response is significantly damaged at the beginning and therefore we cannot reproduce it in its entirety. We are talking about some kind of world mentioned above, which allegedly was hidden or hidden by Salome at the birth of Christ and hid in the same cave (ἐν τῷ σπηλαί ῳ). “But after 33 years, God was pleased to open the place and discover the reliquary, and the place of the fragrance of the world was filled, so that the shepherd was surprised and, having searched, found it and took it out of the ground, not knowing what it was. By chance, or better yet, by the good pleasure of God, Mary, who was there, took it and kept it until the day when Jesus entered the house of Simon the leper.” The first of these questions is not found in the Slavic-Russian lists of the Conversation, but it is in close connection with the second, i.e. 18th and can be considered one with him. As for the 18th question, in the list of Conversations published by Arkhangelsky (Op. cit. p. 202) we find an almost literal translation of it, namely: We cannot say where or from what apocrypha this story was taken. In another list of Slavic-Russian Conversations, namely in the first one published by Pypin in the 17th - 18th centuries. “The question with interpretation was copied from the Roman patericon” (Pam. III, 170) we again find something similar. Here we read the following. questions: “G. r. Why was the world created? V. r. When Salome redeemed the Lord, Mary used that anointing font for her brother Simon, who had been sick for 9 years. G. r. Where does Salome see the font of the Lord? V. r. It parted in the mountain and to this day in Jerusalem an angel comes and sings and stirs up the water, and right there the candle burns, Christians see, but Jews do not see.” Here the myrrh again is nothing more than the water with which Salome washed the born Savior. Nineteenth question: “When did Christ rise again? Rep. March 25th, the first day of the week. On the same day, the Holy Mother of God conceived our Lord Jesus Christ. That’s why he resurrected on the same day, and when Sunday happens on March 25th, it’s called true Easter.” This Question and Answer is not in the lists of Conversations known to us. Twentieth question: “How many myrrh-bearers? Rep. Actually three. One is a Pharisee, another is Lazarus, and another is one who anointed the Lord with chrism at the supper.” In the Solovetsky list mentioned above and the Rumyantsevsky list of the 15th century. published by Arkhangelsky, this question is divided into two and reads like this: Thus, of the 20 questions included in the article we have analyzed, most, namely 17, are found in various lists of the Slavic-Russian Conversation, and especially in the list of the 15th century. Blush. museum, published by Arkhangelsk. Of these, 14 can be explained in no other way than from our article, and only 3 (1, 3, 7) can also be explained from other sources, namely: from the Answers of Athanasius to Antiochus and the Interpretation of the Proverbs of the Gospels, or better, that section of this article, which is entitled: Ἐ x το ῡ παλαιο ῡ διάφοροι ἐρμνείαι (Migne t. XXVII, col. 729 et sq). But since they are also found in our article, then there is hardly a need for this and it is unlikely to be completely thorough. Afanasy's answers are a compilation article, compiled from various sources. In its oldest editions and in ancient Latin translations, this article consisted of only 35–40 questions. Further questions were added gradually by different people and were borrowed from different sources, maybe even from articles similar to ours. However, in any case, the article we described is much closer to the Slavic-Russian Conversation than any of the others hitherto known. Is all this enough, however, to claim that the Questions and Answers we have analyzed belong to the prototypes or main sources of our Conversation? If we take into account exclusively the text that we have at hand, then of course this will not be enough, since it is still impossible to affirm positively that this particular text was translated into the Slavic language and was in the hands of ancient Russian scribes who were editing our Conversation. But if we take the question somewhat more broadly and bear in mind not just this list, but Greek lists similar to this in general, then the points we have indicated of the coincidence of Greek questions with Russian ones will be of decisive importance for the question of the main type of our Conversation of the Three Hierarchs. It is more than likely that in Byzantine literature Questions similar to those analyzed by us existed, like ours, not in one edition and not in one list, but in many. Some, and perhaps many, of these lists were translated into the Slavic language, became the property of Old Russian writing and formed the basis that later compilers tried to develop according to their own taste, with the help of other very diverse sources. That this was really the case, that in ancient Russian writing there were translations of Greek Questions and Answers of apocryphal content and various editions, more or less close to the one described, we have some very important evidence for this. These are traces of the Greek origin of some ancient copies of the Slavic Conversations, preserved in their very language. Unfortunately, there are not many such lists. Of the printed ones at hand, we have only two of the most ancient ones - the 15th century. One was published by Tikhonravov under the title: “On the organization of words, Vasily, Gregory Theologist, John,” the other by Arkhangelsky in the above-mentioned work. All other known lists mostly date back to the 17th and 18th centuries. and were very diligently edited by Russian compilers, so that traces of their original origin both in composition and in language were almost completely erased. The lists published by Tikhonravov and Arkhangelsky are also quite faulty and were subject to distortions, but still they retained, in general and in particular, a significant part of their original character. These lists are essentially identical and differ from each other only in that the last is complete, and the first is incomplete or, better yet, unfinished. The edition contained in them is consolidated. A comparison of it with the Greek article we described shows that the second part, which begins with questions from the Old Testament, is a special, added part and was compiled under the very strong influence of the Greek article we described, and the first part is also a special, independent part. It is distinguished by its integrity and systematicity and is also undoubtedly of Greek origin. The title above the list actually refers to it. Scientists looking for prototypes of the Slavic Conversation have in vain not paid attention to the language of this list. If you look closely, it will not be difficult to see that this is a translation from Greek, made by a not very skilled translator, who was mainly concerned with the literal transmission of the text and did not know how to translate some Greek words. So to the first question: “At what time and in what summer did the archangel preach the gospel to Elizabeth?” we meet the following answer: “In the time of l᷾v58;tilȢ í simyanou 13 before thirteen Kolaneds.” The text here may have been damaged by a copyist, so it is difficult to guess which words are left here without translation (the name of the month would be necessary here); Perhaps it was damaged in the Greek original, but in any case it is clear that the designation of time was taken from a Greek source. Next: to the question. “What was the name of the tree on which Judas hanged himself?” answers: “Myrnikhi” 14. In other later lists of the Conversation this question is answered: “oak has a Slavic effect.” But the most remarkable thing in this regard is the following passage: “Basily said, what have you heard, where is the Lord supper? (Ans.) Jacob is the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” What kind of dyna is this? To guess what it is, you need to remember that we are talking about the last supper of Christ and that the name of the person in whose house this supper was prepared is not reported in the Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew (26-17-18) tells: On the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus and said to Him: Where do you tell us to prepare the Passover for you? He said: go to the city to so-and-so and tell him: The Teacher says: my time is near, and so on. In Greek: Ὑ πάγετε εί τήν πρός τόν δεῖνα καί ε ἲ πατε ἀυτῷ ... The meaning of the question in the Greek original is obvious: what was the name do you hear) that someone - ό δεῖνα - with whom or in whose house the Lord dined? The translator did not understand the word ό δεῖνα and left it without translation. Further: if we turn to what is translated, we will encounter obvious Byzantinisms. So, for example, what does the phrase that is extremely often found at the beginning of the article mean: “what is hearing, who is hearing, what is hearing, what is hearing.” In Slavic this is very unclear and the translator himself apparently understood this and in one place made an explanation: “or what did he say in the name of her?” What do you hear, what is it called, what is it called, there is obviously a literal translation from Greek. In the Greek list we described there is such a turn. Question: what was the name of the wife who was present at the birth of Christ? In Greek it reads like this: πῶς ἢ κουεν ή γυνή -.. as it was known. Let us finally pay attention to the very title of the list. It is entitled: “On the organization of words,” and in the Solovetsky list it is simply: “Organization of words.” What kind of arrangement of words is this? The Russian compiler would never have given the article such a title, because it is not clear. Obviously again this is a literal translation from the Greek. In Greek it probably stood: περί or συστάσεως τῶν λόγων, with the word λόγος used in the sense of reason, wisdom. Although the Greek title is quite intricate, it still makes sense and it could perhaps be conveyed by the word: rational, which is found in the title of some other lists of Conversations, that is, a collection of solutions to satisfy the inquisitiveness of the human mind. What has been said is enough, it seems, to be convinced that the first part of the Conversation published by Tikhonravov and Arkhangelsky also had a Greek original and that, therefore, in Byzantine literature there were the same apocryphal Conversations as ours, and that these Conversations were the closest sources of ours. To prove the same idea, let us pay attention to one more interesting fact, namely the titles of some other lists of our Conversation. In Pypin’s collection there is a Conversation with the following title: “Conversation of the three saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, questioning with interpretation. Copied from the Roman patericon” (T. III, p. 169). List of XVII – XVIII centuries. Some other lists have the same title: Solov. Bible XVII century No. 742 l. 106–114, Bible. Khludov of the end of the 17th century, No. 108 l. 187–197, Imper. Publ. Bible XVII century No. 87, l. 123 – 125. Interesting here is the reference to a foreign source: copied from the Roman patericon. A source is indicated that is very unusual for Old Russian literature - a Latin source. It is true that it is very likely, although it has not been proven, that Conversations similar to the Greek ones existed in Latin literature, but it is quite unlikely that the Russians could become acquainted with them directly. True, the literary connection between Russia and the West was not always absent even in the field of patericons: so in Rom. The museum has one prologue or collection of lives of the 15th – 16th centuries. (No. 321. Description of rkp. rim. m. p. 455); But this connection was very weak and manifested itself, so to speak, sporadically, rarely and accidentally. However, this fact in any case requires careful verification, although we do not think that this verification will lead to a valuable result. It seems to us that it would be better to see in the name “Roman” an indication not of a Latin, but of a Greek source. It is quite possible that the word “Roman” is only an unsuccessful translation of the word ρ᾿ ωμαιχός, which the Byzantines used to denote the concept: Byzantine. There were many Patericons; it is very likely that the patericons used in Constantinople and its environs were called πατεριχόν ρ᾿ ωμαιχόν, in contrast to the patericons of Palestine, Egypt, and Sinai. There are facts of translation of the word ρ᾿ ωμαίοι into the word Romans. However, in order to see here an indication of a Greek source, there seems to be no need for this consideration. We called the Roman Patericon “Conversations on the Life of the Italian Fathers” by Gregory Dvoeslov. These interviews were translated into Greek very early and were very common among the Greeks. It is remarkable that these interviews were translated into the Slavic language precisely from the Greek translation, and not from the Latin original 15. It is interesting further in the above title of the Conversation that there is an indication of the patericon as the source from which it was borrowed. This indication happily coincides with the fact that the Greek Questions and Answers I described were found by me in precisely such a book, which belongs to the same type of literature as the patericon. This was unexpected for me, but it shouldn't seem strange. Patericon - prologues, synaxari - these are collections of the lives of saints - a book used in monasteries for reading not only in cells and at meals, but also during worship, books especially loved by monks for their entertaining and edifying, therefore - it must be assumed - alien to various impure impurities. However, it turns out that it is in the patericons and prologues that one should look for such articles. From the latest research on the origin and composition of these sometimes huge and very diverse collections of lives and in particular prologues 16, it is clear that even in the current edition, which has been repeatedly corrected and reviewed by spiritual censorship, there is a very considerable number of legends that are dependent on various apocrypha. In handwritten editions we will find many legends and directly apocryphal ones. We will find here, in whole or in fragments, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Pilate and the Word of Aphroditian the Persian, articles: On Evil Wives, On the Delivery of Christ to the Priesthood, the Word on Truth and Falsehood, and many others. etc. And there is nothing strange in this, the Apocrypha strives to supplement with fiction what is silent about in St. Scripture or said too briefly. When the fiction in them did not cross the proper boundaries, the tacite church allowed them to spread as works for a certain environment, useful in many respects, and they actually spread especially among the lower monasticism, which in Byzantium was very numerous, quite exalted, but also quite ignorant, since it consisted mainly of people, although very religious, but simple. Sometimes, however, things apparently went to extremes and the patericons were filled with apocryphal legends beyond measure, which probably gave rise to their persecution under the emperor Constantine Copronymus (741-775), about whom the historians Theophanes and Kedrin say that he burned many patericons. Let us suppose that this emperor was an iconoclast and hated monks, but why did he persecute the patericon, and not other books? Probably because in other books, although there were many works that were incomparably more dangerous for iconoclasm, they did not provide a plausible pretext. Based on all that has been said, it seems possible to form some general view of the literary history of our Conversation. We will express it briefly: 1. A conversation in the form of short Questions and Answers, containing, based mainly on the apocrypha, a solution to various questions related to St. Scripture and Theology, appeared in Byzantium. 2. It had different editions, and not just one, the mutual relationship of which cannot now be determined. 3. It is also impossible to determine with accuracy either the time of its appearance or the degree of prevalence. Judging by its content, one must think that it was distributed mainly among the class of people who were curious, but poorly educated. 4. Having been translated into the Slavic language, it first became the property of South Slavic literature no later than the end of the 13th century. 18, and then Old Russian literature no later than the beginning of the 15th century. and existed here from the very beginning in several at least two parallel editions. 5. From the 17th century, or somewhat earlier, Russian compilers began to independently process these editions, combining them with each other and supplementing them from other sources, but this processing did not lead to any definite result. No lasting version was developed. One more note. It’s interesting how the independence of Russian compilers was expressed? It is very difficult to determine this. They indicate a desire for systematization, but in reality it turns out that the ancient editions were systematic, and the new ones are chaotic. We noticed only one desire to complement and sometimes correct. In the field of corrections, several facts can be pointed out that indicate that Old Russian compilers were indeed not always mechanical in their approach to their work. Examples: In ancient editions there was a question: “Who, at birth, got old and fit into the womb? Rep. Adam was taken from the earth and returned to the earth.” (Tikhonr. II 432). A later compiler found this answer not entirely correct, realizing that the earth is a common mother and man in general is taken from the earth and changed the answer as follows. image: “Man is taken from the earth, but when he dies, he goes to the earth.” (ibid. 435). Another example. In the Greek text and in the Slavic there is a question: “When did the whole world rejoice”? The answer to this question in the Greek text is given as follows: “When Noah came out of the ark and those who were with him, for there was no other living creature anymore.” It was probably also in the most ancient Slavic texts, but in later answers it was corrected so that the mention of the non-existence of other creatures was thrown out as incorrect, and in some texts an indirect objection was added to this in the form of a new question: “Which beast was not in Noah’s ark? Rep. There were no fish in the ark" (Tikhonr. p. 434), According to another edition: "Which beast was not in the ark? V, r. whale fish." (Pypin III p. 170). Sometimes these corrections were made on the basis of book sources. So in some lists there is a question: “On what was the earth founded? Rep. On three great whales and thirty small ones.” The editor of the list printed by V.N. Mochulsky, a well-read man who read both the Teaching Gospel and Demetrius of Rostov and John of Damascus, apparently doubted the correctness of this decision and after it placed his question: “On what the earth stands and will be established” with the answer based on Damascus. “Hear the Creator John of Damascus saying, “God established the earth on nothing by His command and hung an uncontrollable burden on the waters.” However, the corrector did not dare to destroy the old answer. (Moch. 243, 244.) However, this process of correction and addition, in all likelihood, also took place in the history of Conversations on Greek-Byzantine and South Slavic soil. Unfortunately, due to the lack of monuments, it is difficult to trace it even on Slavic-Russian soil. We now move on to another monument that we found in the Library of St. Andrew's Skete and also has some, but very small, relation to the history of the Conversation of the Three Hierarchs. The manuscript from which it was copied is a huge collection of the early 18th century. (547 l. In f.), containing many different articles of theological and historical content. The title of our article is: Ϩ το ῠ μεγάλ Ϩ Γρηγορί Ϩ το ῠ Θεολόγου. Ἐρώτησις Βασιλεί Ϩ. Ἀπόκρισις Γρηγορί Ϩ. This is nothing more than the Greek original of an article placed: in the Izbornik of Svyatoslav in 1073 under the title: “Question and answer Grigor the Theologian and Vasily” and published: now by Arkhangelsky in his dissertation. The existence of this Greek original was known earlier. In the catalog of manuscripts Moscow. Synod. Library compiled by Mattei, it is listed in a 17th-century manuscript. No. 248 l. 212 – 213, under the title: ῠ. We had at hand a copy of this list, which was communicated to us by Mr. Mochulsky. Consequently, this article no longer has the character of novelty. But this is not enough. In view of the existence of the article we described above, and in view of the considerations made regarding the classification and mutual relationship of the lists of the Slavic-Russian Conversation by Prof. Arkhangelsky, it can no longer have in the history of this Conversation the significance that they wanted to attribute to it earlier. And if it is still possible to talk about it in the interests of this story, then mainly only from the negative side. V.N. Mochulsky sees in this article the primary edition and the seed from which all subsequent ones developed. Prof. Arkhangelsky, relying on the fact that there is not a single thing in common between the questions of this edition and the questions of all the others, you argue, on the contrary, that between the article of Svyatoslav’s Izbornik, or between the primary edition of Mochulsky, and all the other Conversations - the second and third edition of Mochulsky, no direct immediate literary continuity can be established. So prof. Arkhangelsky seems to suggest the possibility of establishing some kind of indirect continuity between them, which is why you probably do not eliminate the mentioned Dialogue from the number of monuments with which the history of the Slavic-Russian Conversation should be conducted. But it seems to us that in view of the fact that in the content of numerous lists of the Slavic-Russian Conversation no influence of the mentioned Greek Dialogue is noticeable, we need to go further and completely abandon the hope of establishing any relationship between them. The conversation of the three saints or the Dialogue between Basil and Gregory, placed in the Svyatoslav Izbornik, are two monuments completely heterogeneous and independent of each other. In fact, the difference between both monuments is extremely large. In the Conversation we see extreme apocryphal, heterogeneous and encyclopedic content, while in the Dialogue, on the contrary, complete unity of content and strict logical consistency. This is a philosophical and theological discussion on a topic very popular in ancient theology, although quite narrow, namely, that a person cannot have direct knowledge of the being of God and the Angels, and that if God and the Angels appeared to people, then people saw not the being and nature of God and the Angels, but only their glory or its manifestation in a form accessible to human knowledge. Let us briefly summarize the train of thought in this argument 19 . Already the very beginning shows that it was written by an educated person familiar with philosophy. The first question is of a very abstract nature: “What is the beginning? Answer, “The first reason of the second reason” - in Slavic translation: “the first guilt of the second guilty” or “the second guilty.” In Greek: τό πρῶτον ἅ ιτιον το ῠ δευτέρου άιτίου. The term δευτέρου άιτίου is found in some fathers, for example, in Eusebius of Caesarea 20 and means Jesus Christ “in whom all things were.” This second reason, or the Son of God, is asked further, did He dwell in the womb of the Virgin? не действием? Григ. Иеремия сказал: Сей Бог наш и не приложится ин к нему и т.д. Это – указание на истинно божескую природу Христа. Вас. Если Он существом низшел, то не вполне ли открылся Деве и был виден ею? Гр. Ни Он ей не открылся, ни она его не видела? Вас. Каким же образом Он обитал в ней а она его не видела? Гр. Мы не видим своих душ, но значит ли это, что мы не имеем их? V. We know that we all have souls. Gr. And Mary knew that God dwells in her, and those who have the Holy Spirit in them know this by its action, but do not see the Holy Spirit. Spirit. C. The saints did not see the Spirit, but they saw God. Gr. Who has seen God? You. Abraham is the first, for it is said: God appeared to Abraham. Grieg. God appeared to him, but not by nature, but in a vision of light. Further, Vasily lists in turn the facts of visions of God, and Gregory explains them in the sense that in all cases what was seen was not the being of God, not the nature of God, but only the manifestation of His glory, and therefore the words of the Gospel, that no one saw God anywhere, do not in the least contradict “those passages of Scripture that speak of the appearances of God to the patriarchs and prophets: Abraham, Jacob, Elijah, Isaiah. Then the same thing is proven regarding the appearances of Angels. “Just as Angels do not see the essence and nature of God, so people do not see the essence and nature of Angels, but only their glory and that only in part. Next, examples of the appearance of Angels to Abraham, Moses and the virgin are considered. Maria is 21. Last question: “What did the Angels eat with Abraham and the Lord with his disciples after the resurrection?” it is decided in the sense that this eating was also not ordinary, but more illusory, since the nature of the body of the Angels who appeared in the form of a man and the nature of the body of the Lord after the resurrection did not need material food. In addition, the general meaning of the article is explained in the Athos list with a short note attached to the end of it, probably by someone else. This explains how we can see and seemingly not see at the same time, using the example of the sea. “Often, it is said here, standing on the top of a mountain, we see the sea, and if we say that we saw the sea, we will not lie, but if anyone, contradicting us, says that we did not see, he will not lie either,” for a person, it is further explained, seeing the sea in general, cannot, however, grasp with his gaze both its breadth and depth and everything contained in its depths. This is the content of the Dialogue. Obviously, this is a completely integral work, written to clarify private thoughts and perhaps to refute a fairly common misconception characteristic of some heretics, namely, the Euchites or Messalians, about whom it is known that they admitted the possibility of seeing God with bodily eyes - In ρέπειν - Theodorit speaks about them - καί τόν Πατέρα βλέπειν καί τόν Ὑ ιόν καί τό πανάγιον Πνε ῠ μα τοῖς τοῖ σώματος ỏ φθαλμῖς 22. We also find it in I. Damascene 23 and in later writers: Timothy the Presbyter, Psellus, Euthymius Zigaben. Timothy speaks especially clearly about this: “They say that the most holy and life-giving Trinity, which is in essence invisible to all created things, is visible to the naked eye from those who come into the spoken dispassion, and alone can be seen by such a person, we can see from them... people can feel and see invisible forces... Λέγουσιν , ὃ τι ἡ παναγία καί ζωποιὁς καί μακαρία τριάς ἣ τις ἑστί ?? καθορ ᾶ σθαι ύπό τῶν είς τήν παρ ᾽ αύτοῖς λεγομένην έρχομέων άπάθειαν καί μόνοις γίνεται θεατή τοῖς τοιύτοις ἀν ρώποις ?? ᾿ ὲκείνων λοιπόν τἀ μέλλοντα προορ ᾶ ν οἱ ἂ νθρωποι δύναται, καί τάς ἀοράτους δυνάμεις ἀισθητῶς καθορῶσι 24. Psellus expounds this doctrine of the Messalians and Bogomils about visions of God (θεοπτία) even with great exaggeration 25 . Taken in itself, in isolation, this opinion was quite widespread not only in the heretical environment, where it took on the connotation of a superstitious dogma, but also among the Orthodox, especially in monasteries, since in its origin it is not so much the fruit of heresy as of a low level of education in the ascetic system of life and direction of thought. It appeared for the first time, as far as is known, in the 4th century. in Mesopotamia among monastics, and then crossed into Syria. The contradiction with his Orthodox teaching was not soon exposed, so his adherents were considered Orthodox for a long time and some of them managed to achieve prominent positions in the church. This opinion had some special appeal for ascetics: it stemmed from an exaggerated view of the meaning of prayer and ascetic deeds. According to this view, with the help of constant prayer and ascetic deeds, a person can achieve the ability to comprehend incomprehensible things, to discern the deepest secrets of existence and even the essence of God (Hence the heretical conclusion about the uselessness of the sacraments). Therefore, even after this false teaching was exposed and condemned, it still continued to exist in some places and sometimes acquired a very significant degree of distribution. In the X and XI centuries. it was especially strong in the monasteries of Thrace, from where it was adopted by the Bogomils. And subsequently it was not alien to the monastic environment, although in a softened form and without heretical overtones. Traces of this opinion, as far as it concerns unceasing prayer, a means of coming into direct contact with the being of God, can be found even in ancient Russian literature. So in one Solovetsky Psalter of the 16th century. the article on prayer and attention says: “if anyone sleeps...” 26 . It is very likely that it was precisely this opinion about the possibility of seeing the being of God, an opinion that was widely spread and, moreover, in such places and in such an environment where nothing of the kind should have happened, that the essay under discussion was written: The Dialogue of Gregory and Vasily. The polemical tendency of this work is quite noticeable. Its content does not represent anything new for ancient Christian theology. The question of the means of knowing the Divine and the boundaries of this knowledge was developed very diligently by ancient theologians, partly in polemics with paganism, partly in polemics with various heresies. In particular, the position that the being of God and Angels cannot be known or seen served as an introductory episode in large treatises devoted to a detailed presentation of the Christian teaching about God. But for some reason the author of the Dialogue singles out this simple proposition from the general system and processes it separately and in detail, as if assigning it for a special purpose. When processing, he also uses a special technique, choosing a dialogical method of presentation, used especially often in cases where they want to more firmly establish a teaching in the minds of readers or refute something. Polemicists especially often used this form. Ancient Christian literature presents an extraordinary abundance of dialogues of this kind against the Jews and various heretics: Arians, Macedonians, Manichaeans, etc. Many of the dialogues of this kind were written by famous fathers (eg Theodoret, Photius), while others are anonymous. Dialogue of St. Gregory of Vasily is also anonymous, that is, it was written by someone unknown: but the talking persons in it are pseudonyms: they are named after two great Christian teachers, Gregory the Theologian and Basil the Great. What does it mean? The custom of writing pseudonyms was very common in Byzantine literature, but almost exclusively in apocryphal literature. Here they are for the most part completely inexplicable, since they are arbitrary, set according to considerations, tastes and sympathies of the authors unknown to us. But as for the use of the names of three saints as pseudonyms, this can be explained quite plausibly. Such a plausible explanation is given by Prince Vyazemsky, referring to the Word in honor of the three saints John of Euchaitis or Maurus, who from 1050 was for quite a long time a teacher of literature in the schools of Constantinople, and then from about the 70s of the 11th century. Metropolitan of Euchaitis. This word tells that in Constantinople it was the custom for rhetoricians to debate theological and philosophical subjects, dividing into parties, each of which stood under the banner of one of the three great teachers of the church, and things went to extremes, which John does not approve of 27. This fact is very important. Obviously, each of the parties, putting itself under the banner of a famous teacher, had to use the works of this teacher in its objections, so that these objections or answers could rightly be inscribed with the name of this teacher. Shouldn't the same thing be seen in our Dialogue? The questions here are Vasiliev's, and the answers are Grigoriev's. The main role therefore belongs to Gregory, since Vasily only makes questions and directs the course and order of reasoning; Gregory gives detailed solutions. Do these decisions really belong to Gregory? If we compare these decisions and, in general, the entire content of the Dialogue with Gregory’s second Word on theology 28, it turns out that the name of Gregory could be placed above the Dialogue not without reason: the thoughts are the same, and the examples are mostly the same. The matter can be imagined this way. The unknown author, having decided to write an argument to refute the above incorrect opinion, turned to the works of Gregory the Theologian. This was quite natural, since the works of Gregory were considered the most important guide to theology. When it was necessary to study theology or become acquainted with the most important theological issues, they turned mainly to Gregory 29 . It is not for nothing that, above all church writers, he bears the name of a theologian; and many interpretations written by different persons on his works show that these works had an unusually wide circulation. Gregory found a solution to this issue, but the presentation does not correspond to the intended purpose. Therefore, the author takes only Gregory’s thoughts and presents them in the manner of the scholiasts, supplementing them from himself or from other sources. Thus, the Dialogue in its content can be called a scholia for some sections of the second word on the theology of Gregory the Theologian. Even the dialogical Form apparently has some basis in the manners of the scholiasts. There is some trace of this Form in the scholia of Nikita of Cerrone. In his interpretation of the 41st word of Gregory, after a rather long monologue explanation, we suddenly encounter: T ο ῠ μεγάλου Βασιλείου ἐρώτησς ... Then follows Απόκρισς 30. But let us return to the question of the relationship of the Dialogue in question to the Conversation of the Three Hierarchs. We have already said that not a single question from the Dialogue was transferred to the Conversation, as can of course be judged from the lists known to us. This is quite surprising, since in the Dialogue there are several very intricate questions, such that the compilers of our Conversations might like and be interested in them, for example, the last one: “How are the Angels?” 31. One must think that the Dialogue was very little widespread and completely unknown to most. In addition, it was not very clear, since its ancient translation was rather incomprehensible. One of the ancient lists, namely that printed by V.N. Mochulsky, shows that there was an attempt to make it more accessible to the majority through abbreviation; but this attempt apparently did not achieve its goal. In a word, a genetic connection cannot be established between Dialogue and Conversation. There remains only one point of contact between them - this is the pseudonym-inscription of the names of Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Perhaps the influence of the Dialogue on the Conversation was expressed in the fact that the inscription was moved from the first to the last? And this can hardly be proven. And if it melts, then in any case it didn’t happen here. The oldest South Slavic list of Beseda, Srečković’s list of the 13th-14th centuries. 32, independent of Russian influence, already has this pseudonym almost in its full form. But it is most likely that the inscription of the names of the three saints was made on the lists of the Conversation, similar to the one described above and serving as prototypes of our apocryphal Conversation, in Greece and passed on to the southern Slavs and to us together with these lists. There is hope that such lists will be found. Based on a parchment manuscript from the library of the Athonite Panteleimon Monastery of the 14th century. (no. no) (Dots indicate words lost due to damage to the manuscript and not restored; words restored by the publisher based partly on the texts placed under the line are printed in brackets. The text of the manuscript is printed line by line). καί άπο to ρίσεις διάφοροι ώφέλιμοι περ [ ίεργοι ]ȉ σως φαινόμεναι . τεθε ȉ σαι δέ διά τό εύρεθήναι: .................……………………………………………………….. 1. ……..[ Ἐρω . πόσον χρόνον έ -] ποίησεν ούτος [έν παραδείσφ ;] 33 2. A π . ώ᾿ ρας ȅ ξ : …… 34 έν …….[ έ ] κρύβη ώς γέγραπται εν …….. ια τη γυναι x ί παρευθύς έψ [ιθύρισ] ε μή φέρων φθόνον. ό γ [ άρ Θεός ȁ νθρωπον ] είς άναπλήρωσιν τού έ x [ πεσόντος άγγελρωον ] 3. τάγματος έδημιούργησεν: Ἐρω. [ τίς πρό πάν -] των ώνόμασεν έπί [ γής Θεόν τόν Θεόν ; Απ. Πρόδ ] ηλ [ ον ȍ τι ] ό διάβολος . Είπών τη γυν [ αι x ί τί ȍ τι ] είπεν ό Θεός έ x τούτου τού φυτ [ οΰ μή ] φάγης 35. 4. Ἐρω. τί ϛ μή γευνηθ [ είς ] άπέθ [ ανε ]; A π . ό A δάμ . 5. Ἐρω. [ ός αύτ ] ού ; A π . ό A δάμ . έ x γής γάρ πλασ [θείς] πάλν. 6. εἰς τ ἠ ν γῆν ὰπῆλθεν ἐξ ή ς [ἐλήφθη]. Ἐρω. ? ] τί έστι θάνατος ; Ἀπ. ὁ διάβολος [ κατ `ὂ] ναρ ύπέδειξεν αὐτῷ λίθον είπών δός μέτ ` αὐτο ῠ τόν άδελφόν σου καί άποκτενεῖς αύτον . 7. ὂ καί πεποίηκεν 36 . Ἐρω. τίνα είσί τά έπτἀ ἐκδικούμενα τοῦ Κάϊν ὂ τι εἰπεν ἀποκτείνων αύτον, ἑπτἀ ἑπτά ἐκδικούμενα παραλύσει; Ἀπ. φονεύσας Κάϊν τόν ἀδελφόν α ` υτοῦ, πρῶτον μέν Θεόν παραώργισε. δεύτερον δέ πατέρα ἐλύπησε. τρίτον μητέρα ήτέκνωσε. τέταρτον ἀδελφόν ἀπέ [κτεινε. πέμπτον αίμα έξέχεεν. ἓ κτον φόνον είργάσατο. ἓ βδομον ᾃ δην ἀνε -] 8. καίνισεν 37. Ἐρω. ἀπέθανεν ἐφ ` ἃ παξ τό τέταρτον τόν κόσμου ; Ἀπ. ὃ τε ἀπέκτεινε Κάϊ τόν ἀδελφόν . 9 . αὐτο ῠ Ἐρω πόσων χρόνων ὑπῆρχεν ό Νῶε ὃ τε ὲγένετο ό κατακλυσμός; 10. Ἀπ. πεντακοσίων. Ἐρω. πόσον καιρόν ἐποίησεν ό Νῶε είς τήν κιβωτόν; Ἀπ. μῆνας 11. έπτά. Ἐρω. πότε ἐχάρη ὃ λος ό κόσμος ἐφ ` ἃ παξ ; Ἀπ. ὃ τε ἐξῆλθε Νῶε ἐκ τῆς κιβωτο ῠ μετά τῶν σύν αὐτῷ, ἂ λλου μηδαμο ῠ ὂ ντος ζώου τό σύνολον . 12. Ερω. πόσα ἒ τη ἐδούλευσαν οί ὑιοί Ἰ σραήλ είς 13. Αἴγυπτον; Ἀπ. τετρακόσια. Ἐρω. πόσα ἒ τησεν Μωσῆς ἳ να ρύσηται τούς Ἰ σραηλίτας έκ τῆς Αἰγύπτου; Ἀπ. 14. τεσσαράκοντα ἒ τη ἐποίησεν. Ἐρω. πόσοι ἐπέρασαν τήν θάλασσαν μετά Μωσέως ; Ἀπ. 15. ἑξακόσιαι χιλιάδες. Ἐρω. εἰς πόσα ἐσχίσθη ἡ θάλασσα ; Ἀπ. κατά τόν προφήτην είς δώδεκα . ἳ να ἓ κάστη φυλή ἰδίαν όδὸν ὁδευσ ῃ περῶσα τήν θάλασσαν . 16. Ἐρω. ; Ἀπ. ἐπἰ Ἀουγούστου Καίσαρος. 17. Ἐρω. ᾒ κουεν ἡ γυνή ἡ εὑρεθεῖσα εἰς τήν γέννησιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ καί τό μύρον κρύ. 18. ψασα; Ἀπ. Εαλόμη. Ἐρω. ?? ὁ ο ἶ κος ἐπλήσθη ἐκ τῆς ὸσμῆς τοῦ μύρου ; Ἀπ. Ὃ τε ἐγεννήθη ό Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰ ησοῦς Χρ: στός. καί. [ἐλούετο, ἀπὸ τοῦ λοτροῦ λαβοῦσα] Σαλ [όμη ἡ μαῖα ἐνέχεεν εἰς ἀγγεῖον] 38 καί ἒ χωσεν ἐν τῷ σπηλαί ῳ. [ὃτεδὲ] εὐδ ό κησεν ό Θεὸς μετὰ λγ ΄ χρόνους ἀπεσκεπάσθη ὁ τόπος καί ἐφάν [η] τὸ ἀγγεῖον. καί ἐπλήσθη ὁ τόπος ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου. ὣ στε τὸν ποιμένα θαυμάσι. καί ἀναζη . τήσας ε ὗ ρεν μύρον καί ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς μή γινώσκων τί ἐστι. κατά τύχην δέ εὑρεθεῖσα 39 ή Μαρία , μ ᾶ λ . λον δέ εὐδοκί ᾳ Θεοῦ ἒ λαβεν αὐτὸ καί ἐφύλαττεν ἒ ως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης . - 19. μωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ. Ἐρω. πότε ἀνέστη ὁ Χριτός; Ἀπ. εἰκοστ ῇ πέμπτ ῃ τοῦ Μαρτίου μηνὸς. ἡμέρ ᾳ τῆς εὑδομάδος πρώτ ῃ. ἐν ταύτ ῃ καί συνέλαβεν ἡ ἁ γία Θεοτόκος τὸν Κίριον ἡμῶν Ἱ ησοῖν Χριστὸν . ἐν ταύτη καί ἀνέστη διά τοῦτο καί ὃ τε ἡ ἁ νάστασις γένηται κατά τήν εἰκοστήν πέμπτην τοῦ Μαρτίου μηνός κύριον πάσχα λέ – 20. γεται. Ἐρω. πόσαι μυροφόροι είσί; Ἀπ. αί κυρίως τρεῖς. μία τοῦ Φαρι – σαίου. ἑτέρα ἡ τοῦ Λαζάρου. καί ἂ λλη ἡ ἐπί τοῦ δείπνον ἡ ἀλείψασα τοῦ Κύριον (Below are some of the versions of the Synodal List and the Slavic Translation; text citations belong to the publisher). f. 297. v. Διάλεξις ἢ τοι διάλογος τῶν ἐν ἁ γιοις πατέρων ἡμῶν, Βασιλείου τοῦ μεγάλου καί Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου. Ἐρώτησις Βασιλείου απόκρισις V. Τί έστιν αρχή; Γ. Τό πρῶτον α ἲ τιον τοῦ δευτέρου αἰτου . V. Μαρίας; Γ. Nai 40. В. G. πρός αύτον 41 καί μετά ταῦτα ἐπί τῆς γῆς ὢ φδη καί ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη ( Βαρ . 3. 36, 38) κ αί ἂ ν ἂ θρωπός ἐστιν καί τίς γνώσεται αὐτόν; V. ρα᾿ θη ὑπ ’ αὐτῆς , ώς ἐν αὐτ ῇ καταξιώσας οἰκῆσαι . G. Ο ὒ τε αὐτός αὐτ ῇ ἐφάνη, ο ὒ τε ἐκείνη αὐτόν ἐθεάσατο. IN . Οὐκ ο ὖ ν οὐδε ' ᾢ κ ησεν ε ' ν αυ ' τῇ ἦ γα ' ρ ἂ ν ἐθ εα ' σατο αὐτον Γ . ` Επειδη ' ο ὖ ν τὰς ἐ αυτῶν ψυχα ' ς (f. 298) οὐχ ο ' ρῶ μεν η ' μρῖς 42, ω ' ς ἒ οικεν, οὐκ ἒ χομεν ψυχα ' ς; V. Ο ἲ σαμεν, ὃ τι ἒ χομεν πα ' ντες ψυχα ' ς. Γ. Ἤ ιδει κ αι ' ἡ Μαρι ' α , ὃ τι ἒ νδον αὐτῆς ο ' Θεο ' ς ἦ ν αλλα ' κ αι ' οι ' ἀ κ αι ' μη ' ο ' ρῶ σι το ' ἃ γιον πνεῦμα. V. Οι 'ἃ γιοι Θεο᾿ ν ε ἶ δον και᾿ πνευμα οὐχ ε ἶ δον. Γ. Και᾿ τι᾿ νες ε ἶ δον Θεο᾿ ν ; V. ` Αβραα᾿ μ πρῶτος . ὢ φδη γα᾿ ρ φησιν ο᾿ Θεο᾿ ς τω ` Αβραα᾿ μ (Γεν. 12.7). Γ. Ὢ φθη αὐτῷ ο᾿ Θεο᾿ ς α᾿ λλ ` ου᾿ φυ᾿ σει 43 . α᾿ λλ ` ε᾿ ν φαντασι 'ᾳ φωτο᾿ ς . ? η᾿ με᾿ ραν τμην . και ' ει᾿ δε και᾿ ε᾿ χα᾿ ρη (Ιωαν. 8.56). ου᾿ κ ἐμε᾿ ε ἶ δε , α᾿ λλα᾿ τη᾿ ν ἐμη᾿ ν ἡμε᾿ ραν . τὴν ἡμε᾿ ρα καλεῖ. ἐπειδη᾿ το᾿ παρ ᾽ η᾿ μῖν τοῦτο φῶς η᾿ με᾿ ρα ἐκληθη 44 . В. δον γα᾿ ρ Θεο᾿ ν προ᾿ ωπον προ᾿ ς προ᾿ ωπον και᾿ ἐσω᾿ θη μου η᾿ ψυχη '; ( Γεν . 32. 30) Γ . Ἐφντα᾿ σθη ω᾿ ς ἂ νδρωπος και᾿ αὐτο᾿ ς ορῶν . και᾿ τὴν α᾿ γγελιχη᾿ ν δε᾿ λεωφορον ἐν ε ἲ δει κλι᾿ μακος ε ἶ δεν. και᾿ ω᾿ ς ἀνθρωπ ῳ τ ῴ Θε ῴ 45 παλαι᾿ ων ἀντέστη ( Γεν . 28. 12–17). V. Πο᾿ θεν ο ὖ ν ε ἶ πε ` Θεο᾿ ν ; εἶδον; Γ. Ἐκ του ἐνεργοῦς τοῦ ἐν τ ῴ μηρ ῴ. ἐκ τῆς α᾿ νο᾿ δου. και᾿ καθο᾿ δου τῶν α᾿ γγε᾿ γων . και᾿ ἐκ τοῦ προσφο᾿ ρως μετονομασθῆναι Ἰ σραη᾿ λ . Β. Οὐδε Ἰὼ β εἰπων ἀκο ῇ με᾿ ν ὼ το᾿ ς ἢ κουο᾿ ν σου το᾿ προ᾿ τερον, νυνι᾿ δε ' ο᾿ ὀφθαλμο᾿ ς μου ἒὼ ρακε ' σε; (Ιωβ. 42.5). Γ. Ἀλλα ' δια᾿ λαι᾿ λαπος και᾿ νεφῶν . Β. Οὐδὲ Μωυσῆς ο τῷ προσ ὼ π ῳ ἒ νδοξος περι᾿ ου ἐλε᾿ χθη . ὃ τι στο᾿ μα κατα στο᾿ μα ἐλα᾿ λει 46 αὐτῷ και᾿ οὐ δι ` αἰνιγμα᾿ των; Γ. Προ᾿ θες και᾿ τὴν δο᾿ ξαν Κυρι᾿ ου ε ἶ δε και ' οὐ φυ᾿ σιν Θεοῦ 47. και᾿ ἐκα᾿ λεσε φησι ο᾿ Θεὸς τὸν Μωϋσῆν ἐκ ωε᾿ σου τῆς νεφε᾿ λης. ( Εξοδ . 24. 16–17). Β. Ο ὒ τε ` Ηλι᾿ ας ο᾿ ἀναληφθει᾿ ς ω᾿ ς ει᾿ ς το᾿ ν οὐρανον 48 ; Γ. Ο ὒ τε Ἠ λι᾿ ας . φωνη᾿ γα᾿ ρ ἦ κεν α ὒ ρας λεπτῆς . a τῷὂ ρει. ἰδου ' παρελευ᾿ σεται Κυ᾿ ριος . και ' [ἰδου᾿ ] πνεῦμα [ με᾿ γα ] κραταιο᾿ ν διαλῦον ὂ ρη . και᾿ συντρῖβον πε᾿ τρας ἐν ὼ πιον Κυρι᾿ ου. ούκ ἐν τῷ πνευματι Κυ᾿ ριος 49 . και᾿ μετὰ τὸ πνεῦμα συσσεισμὸς . οὐχ ἐν τῷ συσσεισμῷ Κυ᾿ ριος . και᾿ μετὰ τὸν συσσεισμὸν πῖρ. οὐκ ἐν τῷ πυρι᾿ Κυ᾿ ριος . και᾿ μετὰ το᾿ πυρ φων ἠ α ὒ ρας λεπτῆς χαι᾿ ε᾿ χεῖ Κυ᾿ ριος . και ' ἰδοὐ Ἠ λι᾿ ας ἐπε᾿ δηκε τὴν μηλωτὴν ἐπι᾿ προ᾿ σωπον αὐτοῦ. οὐ γὰρ ετο᾿ λμησε κατανοῆσαι (Βας. γ 19. 11–13). V. τα᾿ Σεραφι᾿ μ ε᾿ στῶτα κυ᾿ κλ ῳ αὐτοῦ; (Ἠσ. 6. 1–2). Γ. Οὐ μο᾿ νον ` Ησα ΐ ας οὐχ εὐδεν , ἀλλ ` οὐδε᾿ τα᾿ Σεραφι᾿ μ ὁρῶσι. και᾿ γαρ ο ' ` Ησα ΐ ας ορασιν ε ΐ δε . γε᾿ γαπται γα᾿ ρ ὃ ρασις ἣ ν ε ἶ δεν Ἠ σα ἶ ας . τὰ δὲ Σεραφι᾿ μ ο ἶ ς ἓ ξ πτε᾿ ρυγε᾿ ς εἰσιν κατεκα᾿ λυπτον ?? δο᾿ ξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. ὃ που δε᾿ ταῦτα τὰ μει᾿ ζω πα᾿ ντων ὂ ντα τῶν οὐρανι᾿ ων 51 ἰδτῖν υ᾿ ποβεβηκο᾿ τα αὐτῶν τα᾿ γμα τα ε ἶ δον τὸν Θεὸν ὡ ς ὂ ντα φυ᾿ σιν 52. B. καθη᾿ μενον ἐπι᾿ θρο᾿ νου και᾿ π ᾶ σαἡστρτιὰ παρεστη᾿ χει ὲκ δεξιῶν και᾿ ἐξ εὐωνυ᾿ μων (Βασ . γ ` 22. 19). ἀλλαχοῦ ἦ λδον οἱ ἂ γγελοι παραστῆναι ἐνω᾿ πιον Κυ᾿ ριον . και᾿ πα᾿ λιν ἐγω ' εἱμι Γαβριὴλ ὸ παρεστηχω᾿ ς ἐνω᾿ πιον Κυ᾿ ριον (Λουχ. 1. 19) και ' πῶς του᾿ των ἀψευδῶς λεγομε᾿ νων. 53 αὐτος (f. 298 v.) μη᾿ ο᾿ ρ ᾶ σθαι το᾿ ν Κυ᾿ ριον ὐπὸ ; ; Γ. Ο ὒ τε ψευδονται ο ὒ τε ε ἶ δον το᾿ ν Θεο᾿ ν ποτε . Θεο᾿ ν γὰρ οὐδει᾿ ς ἑω᾿ ρακε πω᾿ ποτε ει᾿ μη᾿ ο᾿ μονογενη᾿ ς ` Yιο᾿ ς, καδω᾿ ς γε᾿ γραπται. (Ιωαν. 14. 18). V. Ει᾿ ε ἶ δον, οὐ ψευ᾿ δονται. Γ. Εἰ ο ὗ το: ε ἶ δον, ο᾿ Κυριος ψευ᾿ δεται. εἰ δε᾿ μὴ ε ἶ δον , ο ὗ τοι ψευ᾿ δονται και᾿ ω᾿ ς χατα σε ' ἓ ν με᾿ ρος οὐκ ἁ ληδευ᾿ ει. V. Τι᾿ ο ὗ ν φαμεν 54; Γ. ` Εσχημα᾿ τισται δι ’ ἡμ ᾶ ς ὁ λο᾿ γος, γε᾿ γραπ. ?? και᾿ ἐξ εὐωνυ᾿ μων. και᾿ τι᾿ ς φησι ἀπατη᾿ σει τὸν ` Αχαα᾿ β ; (Βασ. γ ` κεφ. 22. σ. 20) και᾿ πα᾿ λιν ἦ λδον οἱ ἂ γγελοι. ἦ λθε δε και ' ο᾿ δια᾿ βολος ἐν με᾿ σω αὐτῶν (Ιωβ. I. 6) ω᾿ ς κατα σε ο ὗ ν και ' απα᾿ τη παρα᾿ Θεῷ και᾿ ω᾿ ς φι᾿ λος Θεῷ ο᾿ δια᾿ βολος ω᾿ μι᾿ λει. ἂ νεισι᾿ τε εἰς οὐρανούς αὐτο᾿ ς και᾿ χα᾿ τεισιν . ἀλλἀ μὴ γἐνοιτο ο ὓ τως νοεῖν ἡμ ᾶ ς 55. ' με᾿ ρει. ει᾿ ο ὖ ν λε᾿ γουσιν ε ἶ δομεν δο᾿ ξαν Θεοῦ , ἀληδευ᾿ ουσιν . ο᾿ μοι᾿ ως και᾿ ο᾿ Κυ᾿ ριος ἀληδευ᾿ ει . ? ει᾿ μὴ ο᾿ μονογενὴς Yἱο᾿ ς . το δε τι᾿ ς α᾿ πατη᾿ σει τὸν ` Αχαα᾿ β ; ἢ το ' ἦ λδεν ο᾿ δια᾿ βολος , σημαι᾿ νει τη᾿ ν 56 τοῦ Θεοῦ συγχω᾿ ρησιν. αὐτοῦ γα᾿ ρ μη᾿ βουλομε᾿ νου . ἢ μη᾿ συγχωροῦντος α᾿ δυ᾿ νατον π ᾶ σι τοῖς λε᾿ γουσι ἀγγε᾿ γοις και᾿ προφη᾿ ταις ε᾿ πι ' ἔναντι αὐτοῦ ποιῆσαι του᾿ τους ἰδεῖν. V. Οὐδ ’ ἀγγε᾿ λων φυ᾿ σιν ὁρῶσιν οἰ ἂ νθρωποι ; Γ. Ὣ σπερ οἰ αγγελοι ουσι᾿ αν και ' φυ᾿ σιν Θεοῦ οὐχ ὁρῶσιν. ο ὓ τως οὐδὲ οἱ ἄνθρωποι τῶν ἀγγε᾿ λων . εἰ μὴ δο᾿ ξαν αὐτῶν, και᾿ τοῦρο ὲκ με᾿ ρους. Β. Ἀβραὰμ , πῶς ε ἶ δε τὸν 57 Κυ᾿ ριον ἐν ἀγγε᾿ λου σχη᾿ ματι και᾿ τούς μετ ’ αὐτοῦ ἀγγε᾿ λους ; Γ. ‛ Ως ἀνθρω᾿ πους ε ἶ δε . διὸ 58 και᾿ μο᾿ σχον και᾿ ἐγκρυφι᾿ ας εἰς αὐτούς 59 παρεσχευ᾿ αζε . Β. Πῶς ε ἶ δε τούς ἀγγε᾿ λους ο᾿ Μωυσῆς ; Γ. Ἐν ε ἲ δει πυρὸς . και᾿ ἐκα᾿ λεσε᾿ φησιν αὐτὸν ἂ γγε᾿ λους ε᾿ ν πυρἰ φλογὸς βα᾿ του (Ἐξ. 3. 2–4). B. Γαβριὴλ πῶς ἐθεα᾿ σατο ; Γ. Ἐν σχη᾿ ματι ἀνθρω᾿ που τοῦτον ε ἶ δε. διὸ και ' ἠ πι᾿ στει ἀμφβα᾿ λλουσα . Β. 60 Οἱ ἄγγελοι δὲ διὰ τὸ ἀο᾿ ρατον τῆς φυ᾿ σεως αὐτων, οὐχ ' ὁρῶνται. ἢ διὰ το με᾿ γεθος τῆς περιεχου᾿ σης αδοξης ; Γ. Δια τα ὀμφο᾿ τερα . В. τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ μετὰ τὴν ἀνα᾿ στασιν ; Γ. Οι᾿ μεν ἂ γγελοι ἒ φαγον ὣ σπερ ὁ ἣ λιος ε᾿ κδαπαν ᾷ τὴν ὑποκειμε᾿ νην νοτι᾿ δε ᾗ περ ἂ ν προσπελα᾿ σ ῃ μηδε᾿ ν ὃ λως '. ἀναλῶσιν τὰ ὑποχει᾿ μενα βρω᾿ ματα , οὐδὲν ε᾿ ξ αὐτῶν εἰς τὴν ἰδι᾿ αν φυ᾿ σιν λαβο᾿ τες τροφῆς ε ἳ νεχεν 62 . ο᾿ δὲ Κύριοε Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς , ὣ σπερ τι πῦρ π ᾶ σαν μὲν ὓ λγν 63 ἀφει᾿ ς ἑχα᾿ στου τὴν ἰδιο᾿ τητα. μο᾿ νον δε το ' ἒ λαιον δαπαν ᾷ εἰς τὴν ἰδι᾿ αν φύσιν 64 λαμβα᾿ νων, ο ὓ τω και᾿ αὐτὸς κατὰ ἀλη᾿ θειαν ἒ φαγεν . και ' κατὰ τὸν τοῦ υ᾿ ποδει᾿ γματος λο᾿ γον 65, ω᾿ ς ο ἶ δεν αὐτο᾿ ς ῷκειω᾿ σατο 66: Ἐ ἁ ν τις ε ἶ δεν τὴν θάλασσαν , ε ἶ δεην , ὃ λην , λὲγε μοι : – (on the field – Πολλάκις γάρ καί ἐπί ἀκρωρί ᾳὂ ρους θεώμεθα καί τήν θάλασσαν καί ἐὰν εἴπομεν ἐωρακέναι θάλασσαν, οὐκ ἐψευσάμεθα εἰ δέ τις. ἀντείποι λέγων, ὃ τι οὐχ έώρακας, καί αὐτὸς οὐ ψεύδεται. γάρ δυκνεῖται τὸ πλάτος, ποῦ τὸ μῆκος, ποῦ τὸ βάθος, ποῦ οί μυχοί τοῦ βυθοῦ, καί τά ἀποτελέσματα οὐ δύναται εἰδέναι ἂ νθρωπος ὢ ν πληροῖται , πόσ ῳ γε μ ᾶ λλον ἐν τ ῇ χάριτι ἣ ν ἐχαρίσατο ὁ Θεός καί κατά χάριν δυνάμεως. When our article was almost completely published, we received a complete copy of the “Answers of Gregory the Theologian”, mentioned above in the note on page 30 and located in the manuscript of the Imperial Public Library No. 387. Having familiarized ourselves in detail with these answers, we found that they are of abstract dogmatic content and cannot provide any data for the history of the apocryphal Conversation. But for the history of question-and-answer literature in general, they, of course, should have some significance, since they were, apparently, translated into the Slavic language and served as a source for large question-and-answer articles of dogmatic content. Therefore, we, considering it unnecessary to print them here in their entirety, do not find it useless to give as detailed an idea as possible about their nature and content. To do this, it seems to us, it is enough to print here only questions without answers. The title is: Ἀπο x ρίσεις καί λύσεις ἢ γουν è ρωτοαποκρίσεις, ἃ ς είρμήνευσεν ό ύψηλόνους Γρηγόριος ό Θεολόγος x ατά πεῦιν καί ἀπόκρισιν. The questions are as follows: 1) Τί Θεός καί x ατά τί Θεός καί όσαχῶς εἴρηται Θεός ; 2) Ὁσαχῶς εἴρηται Θεός; 3) Τί έστι Θείς; 4) Τί τά ίδιώματα τῆς άγίας φύσεως έπί τῆς άγίας Τριάδος ; 5) Τί έστι Τριάς; 6) Τί έστι Θ ë οΰ; 7) Τί ούσία καί κατά τί ούσία εἴρητα καί όσαχῶς οὐσία ; 8) Ὁσαχῶς δέ οὐσία; 9) Τί ἐστιν όμοούσιον; 10) Τί έστιν καί κατά τί εἴρηται φύσις καί όσαχῶς ή φύσις ; 11) Τί ἐστιν ύπόστασις ; 12) Ποσχῶς δέ ύπόστασις ; 13) Τί ἐστιν ένυπόστατον; 14) Τί φύσις τοῦ λόγου ἐσαρκώθη ἢ ύπόστασις ; 15) Τί ἐστιν σάρκωσς; 16) Τί ἐστιν ἓ νωσις; The title of the second article is: Questions: 17) Χριστοῦ; 18) Πόσας ύποστάσεις; 19) Πόσας φύσεις; 20) Πόσας ούσίας; 21) Πόσα θελήματα; 22) Ἐπί τῆς ἀγίας Τριάδος πόσα πρόσωπα λατρεύεις ; 23) Πόσας φύσεις όμολογεῖς έπί τῆς Κυρίου; 24) Πῶς ύποστατι x ῶς δύω; 25) Πόσας φύσεις όμολογεῖς έπί τῆς θεότητος ; 26) Τί x οινόν τῆς θεότητος ; 27) Καί τί ἴδιον αύτῆς ; The answers are mostly short, especially in the second article. In the first article there are several answers that are quite long and one that is disproportionately long, namely the 5th about St. Trinity. It takes up half the article or even more, but does not contain anything characteristic or interesting. R. S. Copy from the manuscript of Imp. Publ. We obtained the library through prof. A. II. Almazov to whom we offer our gratitude. We consider it our duty to express here our deep gratitude to Professor Novoross. University of F.E. Korshu, who provided us with significant assistance in editing and correcting the Greek texts printed above. Creations of the fathers in ancient Russian writing. Vol. I-II A.S. Arkhangelsky. Kazan 1889 pp. 93–98. Historical and literary analysis of the verse about the Dove Book. V.N. Mochulsky. Warsaw 1887 pp. 38 et seq. Arkhangelsky, Works of the Church Fathers in Old Russian Literature. Kazan. 1889. Issue. I-II, pp. 189, 190. Philologist. Bulletin 1890 No. 2. See about him in the Complete Month of the East, ep. Sergius, vol. I. Moscow 1875, p. 232. For comparison, we involve, if possible, all the printed lists of the Conversation, namely: 2 – in Tikhonravov (Memoir. Ref. Lit. II. 429–439). 2 – in Pepin (Memoir of ancient Russian Lit. III. 169–148), 1 – in Buslaev (On folk poetry in ancient Russian Lit. Appendix to Speech, pp. 5–12), 5 – in Vyazemsky (Memorial of ancient Russian Lit. 1880, issue I. 88–123), 1 – in Karpov (Azbukovniki, pp. 124–132), 1st Mochulsky (On Golub.in., pp. 241–252) and 1st Arkhangelsk (Creative Fathers of the Church in Old Russian Letters, pp. 195–203). The last list, taken from hand, turns out to be especially important. XV century Room. Museum and in the first half of its homogeneity in the first, published by Tikhonravovo, also in the 15th century. See the Questions test notes below. Buslaev, On folk poetry in ancient Russian literature. Speech at the act in Moscow. Univ. 1859 Also at Tikhonrav. II, 442, in Karpov, Azbukovniki, p. 128. Maybe there is not even a special question here, but only a continuation of the answer to the first question. Room. Mirinhi (μυρί khtamarisk). For evidence, see Undolsky - Bibliographical Research. Moskvityanin 1846 No. 2 pp. 79 et seq. Description of manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library, vol. I pp. 377–357. See Petrov's essay for details. On the origin and composition of the Slavic-Russian Prologue. Kyiv. 1875 See Sergius, Complete Monthlies of the East, vol. I. Page. 197. The oldest list of Conversations is the South Slavic Srečković. See about him Sokolova - Materials and notes on ancient Slavic literature. Vol. I, Moscow 1888, p. 8. Greek See the text below in the Appendix, and the Slavic translation of 1073 in the book of Arkhangelsky, pp. 93–97. Migne, Patrolog. curs. t. XXI, p. 884 et sq. Later they thought about it a little differently. In the Ἕ τέραι τίνες έρωτήσεις attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria (Migne Patrol. t. XXVIII; p. 784) we find Ἐρ. αί. Ἐπί το ῠ Θεο ῠ πόσα ἂ ιτα ; Ἀποκ. Ἐν ἂ ιτον έπί το ῠ Θε Ϩ λέγω, καί το ῠ το έςιν ό Πατής … Ἐρ. ιβ. Καί πόσα άιτιατά; Ἀποκ. Ἀιτιατά δύο , ό Ὑ ιός καί τό Πνε ῠ μα … There is a discussion about visions of angels in the answers to Antiochus (Ἐρ. 26. Minge, Patrol. t. XXVIII col. 614–616) but there an exception is made for the Virgin Mary: μόνη δέ άγία Θεοτόχος γυμνήν ỏ υσσίαν, ώς ἐστί, το ῠ, Αρχαγγέλου Γαβριήλ ἐθεάσατο. Minge, Patrolog. curs. t. With. 428–431. Ibid. t. 94, col. 736. De haeres. Starine, VI, 108, 109. Cotelerii Eccl. grace. monumenta III. 401. Migne, Patrol. t. 122, p. 828 Περί ένεργείας τῶν δαιμόνων . No. 830, l. 557 Description III p. 289. Monuments of ancient writing. 1880 I, pp. 68, 127. Minge, Patrol. curs. t. XXXVI c 47–72. Name of St. Gregory the Theologian in Byzantine medieval literature is found above other Questions and Answers of dogmatic and theological content. So in one of the manuscripts in the Imperial Public Library, from the collection of Bishop. Porphyria No. 130 (Greek 387) XV century. l. I there is an article with the following title: εἰρμήνευσεν ό ύψηλόνους Γρηγόρριος ό Θελόγος κατά πε ῠ σιν καί άπόκρισιν. This article has a continuation with the title: contains 27 questions and answers about the being of God and the trinity of persons. The first question reads like this: Τ Θεός καί κατα τί Θεός καί όσαχῶς ε ἲ ρηται Θεός ? This is quite consistent with the text of the first question of one of the Slavic articles found in Kormchay Solov. library No. 414 (477) l. 283 rev. Under the title: “Church Teaching on the Holy Faith of the Holy Fathers.” The first question: “Who is God and why is God and how much is God spoken?” Name of St. Gregory over the Greek text is obviously a pseudonym, although not without reason. In another Slavic list of this article the name of St. is above it. Afanasia. See Collection Imp. Publ. Bible No. 82, l. 6. Arkhangelsk. Decree. op. page 142. Migne, Patrol. t. XXXVI, col. 948. The question of “how did the Angels eat with Abraham?” Apparently he was very interested in ancient church writers. We find its solution back in the 2nd century. in “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew.” Justin the philosopher. Justin resolves this issue in such a way that the Angels who enjoyed the hospitality of Abraham did not eat as if chewing with teeth and jaws, but ate in the sense in which we talk about fire, that it consumes everything (Dialog. Cum. Tryph. n. 57). The issue is also resolved by Theodoret (In Exod quaest. 29). The same Theodoret in another place (Λιαλγ. Ἐρανιστής. Migne, Patrol. LXXXIII, col. 160) also solves the other half of the question: Πῶς μετά άνάστασιυ ό Κύριος τροφῆς μετέλαβε. In this fact he sees an exception ( φύσεως ). In one of the writings attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Confutationes quorumdam propositionum) has a reasoning related to the same subject: πρός τούς λέγοντα; ; έπέφερον φύσν. (Minge, Patrol. t. XXVIII c. 1377 sq.). Sokolov, Materials and notes on ancient Slavic literature. Vol. I, Moscow 1888 p. 8, Wed. Srečković. History of the Srep people pp. 460–1. “Questions and answers from Gregory and Vasily. Ivan the Theologian." Other well-known Yugoslav lists: Novakovich (Starin VI. 47–55) and 2-Drionov - of a later date. Mochulsky, p. 48. Migne Patrolog. curs. t. XXVIII col. 629.Quest. Ad. Ant. 49: Πόσον χρόνον έν παραδείσω έποίησεν ό A δάμ; Απ. Αμφιβαλλδμενον τοίς πατοάσιν ήρώτησας πρόβλημα … et caet. Conf ibid. t. XXXVIII. 1010. Διάλογ. τού Κεσαρίου 3. Ἐρωτ. 122: Πόσας ήμέρας διέτρεφεν ό A δάμ έν τώ παραδεω; …. There appears to be some erased cinnabar here and probably a question. Minge, Patrol. XXVIII. Col. 628Quest. Ad Ant. 46: Τίς πρό πάντων ὠ νόμασε Θεόν τόν Θεόν ἐπί γῆς ; Ἀποκ. Πρόδηλον, δτι ὁ διάβολος, ὃ τε πρὁς τήν Εῦαν έλεγε: "Τί ὃ τι είπεν ὀ Θεός , ἀπὀ παντός ξύλου τοῦ ἐν τ ᾡ παραδείσω φαγείν ..." Ibid col. 744: Ῥ ήσεις καί έρμηνείαι ... Ἐρωτ . τὴς γὴς Ἀπος. μή φαγείν άπό τοῦ ξύλου "; Ibid. col. 632.Quest. Ad Ant. 57: Τινός ὒ τόν Ἂ βελ ; A ποκ . Ο διάβολος αύτῷ κατ ` ὂ ναρ ύπέδειξε , ποί ῳ τρόπ ῳ θανατῶσαι τόν ἀδελφόν. Ibid. col. 737. ` Ρήσεις καί έρμηνεῖαι … ` Ερ . 62: Τί λέγει, ἳ τι "Π ᾶ ς ί ἀποκτείνα; Κάιἑπτά ἐκδικούμενα πκραλύσει; άμάρτημα φθόνος , ὃ τι τόν πατέρα έλύπησε τρίτον , μητέρα ἂ τεκνον ἀπέδειξε τεταρτον , ἀδελφόν ἀπέκτεινε πέμπτον , αίμα έξέχεεν ἓ κτον, φόνον είργάσατο ε ὓ δομον, ᾃ δην ἀνεκαίνισεν. The restoration of these two lines was made in relation to the Slavic translation. See page 13 above. Εὑροῦσα? Wed. Slav. translation page 13 above. Syn. ούσιωδῶς. Slav. lane "burn". Syn. κ αί έξῆς . μετά δέ ταῦτα. Slav. lane “and I will pierce seven by seven.” Syn. V. Ου ' χουν; G. ‘ Επιδη ' ου ' ν τα ' ς ε ' αυτῶν ... Slav. per “then someday you will move into her. I saw bo and bi. G. topplema we don’t see”... Rukop. φυ᾿ σειν. Sl.trans. “not by nature, nor.” Syn. χδγεται γα ' ρ χαι ' εχα ' λεσεν ο ' Θεο ' ς . Syn. λε ' γεται γα ' ρ κ αι ' ἐ χα ' λεσεν ο ' Θεὸς . Syn. ὡ ς ει᾿ ς το᾿ ν ουρανο᾿ ν no. Syn. no. Syn. υ᾿ ποβεβηχο᾿ τα αὐτῆς ε ἶ δον . Sl. “We won’t agree to see.” RKP. λε᾿ γων; Syn. εφης; Slav. "Verbs." Syn. προς ταυτα φαμεν Sl. “against this speech.” Further to Slav. The translation follows Gregory’s answer: “Imagine” and so on, but in both Greek manuscripts the letter is not placed here: G. It is lower. Corrected according to the Slavic translation. Here in both Greek. Gregory's answer begins with the lists. Syn. σημαι ' νει τη ' ν συγχω ' ρησιν ποιησαι . There is no further. Slav.: “will mark the destruction of God. That’s why I don’t want to, or don’t indulge in infirmity, to create resistance to him.” Syn. ’ Αβρααμ πως ειδεν . There is no further. Also in Slav. lane Syn. vm. διυ κ αι ' – ο ' δε . Syn. εις αὐτοὐς no – παρεσχευα᾿ ζετο. In the Athonite manuscript. there is no question here. Corrected by the Synod. hands And Slavyansk. Translation. Syn. τρφῆς ε ἲ νεχεν – no. There is no further information in the synod. list, nor in the Slavs. Translation. You might be interested in: