About the works of Rev. Isaac

Contents I. The Scourge of Love Chapter 1. On the eschatology of St. Isaac the Syrian Preface 1. The afterlife fate of the righteous and sinners in St. Isaac the Syrian in the First Collection 2. Pangs of Love Chapter 2. On the eschatology of the second collection attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian 1. Translation of Origenistic teachings into the Syriac Christian tradition 2. Brief overview of the cosmology and eschatology of Evagrius of Pontus 3. Review of texts of the Second Collection containing Evagrius and Origenistic errors 4. Exegetical and comparative analysis of the texts of the Second Collection Conclusion II. The second volume of St. Isaac the Syrian Preface Textual review of published treatises in Russian Composition of treatises from the second collection Conclusion III. On the Guard of Syriac Orthodoxy Preface Christology of Theodore and Nestorius Christology of St. Isaac the Syrian Conclusion Exegesis of the Holy Scriptures by Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. Isaac the Syrian Exegesis of Holy Scripture by St. Isaac the Syrian Conclusion Chapter 1. On the eschatology of St. Isaac the Syrian Interest in the spiritual heritage of St. Isaac the Syrian has always been high in the Orthodox world, especially in the monastic environment. A number of new discoveries made by the English scientist Sebastian Brock and the Italian syrologist Sabino Chial expanded the legacy of St. Isaac until the so-called Second and Third Meetings. The authenticity of these collections is not fully understood, but is easily and often very quickly recognized by many scientists. The main argument is mainly the identity of style, lexical and terminological parallels. S. Kyala also cites a number of other circumstances confirming that the Third Assembly belonged to Isaac the Syrian. However, the author considers some of the texts to be quite problematic 1, and that at least one treatise included in this collection “cannot be considered completely authentic” 2, and also that the composition of the Third Collection may have been subject to certain modifications 3. “The authenticity of the newly discovered collection certainly needs further verification” 4 . With the Second Assembly the situation is even more difficult. It was only half published critically 5 . To date, no complete list of the Second Assembly 6 is known. The manuscripts that have reached us, which contain individual treatises and fragments from the Second Collection, show that they continued to be edited and processed during further circulation 7 . The fact that individual treatises of the First Collection are in the Second, and of the Second in the First, may not always be convincing as an argument for their unity. This occurs frequently in the patristic heritage. One treatise can move not only from volume to volume, but also be attributed to two or three authors at the same time, and published in this form, while preserving the unidentified authorship. For example, the so-called “Great Message” is published simultaneously in the works of St. Macarius the Great, and in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, its fragments are also found in St. Ephraim the Syrian. And there are many such examples. The presence in the Second Collection of references to the First Collection as an argument does not seem convincing. The very numbering of the treatises to which there are references shows that the thesis about their unity needs to be improved. At least, to be consistent, the identification can only apply to those words referenced and not to the entire collection 8 . And in general, it is generally accepted that the expressions “look above” or “see below” refer to a given text, but do not in any way address a separate volume of the work. Here is a clear mistake of the scholiast. The words in the 32nd conversation: “let him read above the long Word that we wrote about spiritual prayer” can refer to 5 or 15 conversations of the Second Assembly. The argumentation of lexical and terminological similarity is relative. In patristics, texts with lost authorship were attributed to one or another author based on the similarity of style with the remark “works attributed (for example) to St. John Chrysostom,” etc., the identification of which remains unresolved for many centuries. It should also be noted that the manuscript Bodlejan syr.e. 7 (Second collection), due to corruption, does not have an inscription by the author; authorship is restored according to the context left by the scribes: “to rewrite the Second Volume of the Bishop of Nineveh” 9. S. Kyala published two more treatises by St. Isaac the Syrian, belonging in the manuscript tradition to the Fifth Collection. However, he doubts the authenticity of the texts he published 10. The question of the “two Isaacs” also remains pressing. Syrian patrolology knows, in addition to our former bishop of Nineveh, four more Isaacs. 1. Isaac (Mar Ishak), Catholicos of Seleucia (Persia) (399–410); 2. Isaac of Amid, student of St. Ephraim the Syrian, who at the beginning of the 5th century. came to Rome, and then became a presbyter in Amida; 3. Isaac of Antioch (the Great) (5th century), a native of Edessa, who came to Antioch during the time of Peter Knatheus and entered into dogmatic disputes; 4. Isaac of Antioch, also a native of Edessa (5th century), who was initially an adherent of Monophysitism, but towards the end of his life became Orthodox. The last three Isaacs were distinguished by Jacob of Edessa, a Monophysite (d. 708) 11 . The most prolific Syrian writer of the four was Isaac of Antioch (the Great). The words "Memra", written in five syllables, are attributed to him. S. Kyala was able in one of his studies to identify the treatise of the last of the collections belonging to Isaac of Nineveh 12. Of course, further work in this direction can bring considerable results. And a comparison of hagiographic material can clarify dark places in the life of St. Isaac the Syrian. From the above it becomes clear that only “a careful study of the manuscript tradition of all three collections can make it possible to understand to what extent their composition (as we know it today) is authentic” 13. According to the established methodology, in patristics such texts should be published with appropriate remarks: 1. Authentic texts by St. Isaac the Syrian; 2. Tests attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian; 3. The texts are questionable or fraudulent. Modern publications ignore this classification, thereby introducing even greater confusion into the real issue. 1. The afterlife fate of the righteous and sinners in St. Isaac the Syrian in the First Assembly In the First Collection there are two fragments in which St. Isaac speaks of the afterlife fate of the righteous and sinners. In Sermon 58 14, the monk discusses the many mansions that the Heavenly Father has prepared for the righteous. Isaac says that the monasteries are between two degrees: “... I mean one degree is high, the other is low, and in the middle of them there is diversity in the difference of reward.” Then the reverend father continues, responding to someone’s “nonsensical speech”: “If this is fair (as it really is), then what is more senseless and unreasonable than such a speech: “It is enough for me to avoid Gehenna, but I do not care about entering the Kingdom”? For to escape Gehenna means to enter the Kingdom; just as to lose the Kingdom means to enter Gehenna. Scripture has not given us three countries, but what does it say? When the Son of man comes in His glory... and He will set the sheep on His right hand, and the goats on His left (Matthew 25:31-33). He did not call the host three, but two, one at the right hand, the other at the left. And he divided the boundaries of their various abodes, saying: and these go, i.e. sinners into eternal torment, but righteous women into eternal life. (Matthew 25:46) will be enlightened like the sun (Matthew 13:43). And again: from the east and the west they will come and look at Abraham’s bosom in the kingdom of heaven; the sons of the kingdom will be driven out into utter darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:11-12), which is more terrible than any fire. Didn’t you understand from this that the state opposite to the higher degree is painful Gehenna?” Here we see that St. Isaac is faithful to biblical eschatology. By painful Gehenna, he means one of the abodes that is prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). We find the same reminder in St. Paul: For a great house is built by someone; and he who arranged everything is God... And Christ is like a son in his house. And in a large house there are vessels not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; and some in honorable, and others in low, use. So, whoever is clean from this will be a vessel of honor, sanctified and useful to the Master. (Heb. 3:4–6; 2 Tim. 2:20–21). As we see, biblical eschatology, which is adhered to in this fragment by St. Isaac the Syrian, includes hell or Gehenna as one of the abodes of the coming Kingdom of God. The unexpectedness of such an interpretation can be explained quite logically. The fact is that the devil consciously does not want to return to his rank of bright Angels; on the contrary, he even, as the Apostle Paul says, takes on the appearance of a bright angel (2 Cor. 11:14) in order to multiply his evil. To be an opponent of God - this is what he believes to be the meaning of his existence - hence the demons, demons. In the terminology of the fathers, demonic possession = malevolence is a tropos, the existence of a fallen angelic nature. To be a demon is his personal choice, the demonic choice is to be an anti-god. The God of biblical revelation, being Himself a Person, takes into account the choice and self-determination of His creation. Therefore, hell is a kind of good, since it provides a place of existence for self-determined nature. The goodness of the Creator towards the fallen demons, who constantly rebel and resist Him, lies in the fact that He, as the Almighty, does not destroy them, but, being the Life of all living things, “thanks to abundant goodness, it extends to the life of demons, for not from another, but from the same Cause, it (the life of demons) has the gift of being life and abiding” 15. Indeed, due to the fact that demons still have a desire for good, and “they desire good when they want to be, live and think” 16, however, they persist in their evil and remain in the “old tropos” of their existence. And then, according to the tropos of their existence, they are also given that “country,” in the words of Isaac, which is “opposite to the upper degree,” i.e., hell. Since the demons hate the flaming love of God, they are given tartarus; since they hate the Divine Light, they are given the unilluminated darkness of hell, etc. “It is in separation from good,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa, - evil acquires its own hypostasis" 17. Thus, the ontology of the existence of hell is the presence of the existence of fallen nature, angelic and human, which autocratically chose the “tropos of the old” life, or the “tropos of evilness” 18, and abandoned the “tropos of deification” 19. The existence of these unfortunates constitutes, according to St. Isaac the Syrian, “another lower degree”, opposite to the “highest degree” of the coming Kingdom, “in the midst of them there is diversity in the difference of rewards” (Homily 58). Now let's see how St. Isaac solves an issue that is a “stumbling block” for all adherents of the theory of apocatastasis. We are talking about the well-known eschatological reflection of the Apostle Paul: Let God be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). Biblical thinking is not alien to the idea that God is in hell. The Prophet David says: Even if I go down to hell, You are there (Ps. 138). No place can be hidden from the Omnipresent God that is not imbued with His energies. And when the coming Kingdom comes, and after the Last Judgment everyone will be distributed to their monasteries and countries, as St. Petersburg discussed above. Isaac the Syrian, then the goodness of God and the abyss of inexhaustible love will pour out on everyone without exception! Only for some it will be the cause of joy, and for others it will be the cause of torment. But let’s listen to Isaac himself: “I say that those who are tormented in Gehenna are struck with the scourge of love! And how bitter and cruel is this torment of love! For those who feel that they have sinned against love endure torment greater than any torment that leads to fear; The sadness that strikes the heart for sin against love is more terrible than any possible punishment. It is inappropriate for anyone to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of God’s love. Love is a product of the knowledge of truth, which (as everyone agrees) is given to everyone in general. But love, with its power, acts in two ways: it torments sinners, as here it happens to a friend to suffer from a friend, and it brings joy to those who keep their duty. And so, according to my reasoning, the torment of Gehenna is repentance. Love intoxicates the souls of the sons of heaven with its joys” (Sermon 18). In the two fragments given above, St. Isaac resolves the main perplexing questions of eschatology. In the first fragment of Rev. Isaac resolves the question of the ontological status of hell. He is one of the mansions that is prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). However, although hell is outside the Kingdom, it is not a place, but a deprivation of those benefits that befit the Kingdom. “There is one place, and besides these two degrees there is no other intermediate degree, I mean one degree is mountainous, the other is low, and in the midst of them there is diversity in the difference in rewards... He did not call three soma, but two - one on the right hand, the other on the left. And he divided the boundaries of their various abodes, saying: And these, that is, sinners, go into eternal torment, but the righteous in the eternal life (Matthew 25:46) will be enlightened like the sun (Matthew 13:43) (Word 58). And again, the deprivation of the blessings of the Kingdom will occur not because of their absence, but according to the degree and “tropos of perception” of them, as the Reverend Father eloquently speaks about this in the second fragment: “Love with its power acts in two ways: it torments sinners, as here it happens to a friend to suffer from a friend, and it brings joy to those who have kept their duty.” So, in the second fragment of St. Isaac argues that hell will be permeated with the energies of God, and mainly with love, however, thanks to the “tropos of evil-being” 20 of fallen angelic or human nature, the perception of these Divine energies will be “sublimated” into torment, which Isaac characterizes as repentance. This is how the reverend bishop resolves the issue of the presence of God all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). As we see, the eschatology of St. Isaac the Syrian is entirely based on biblical, New Testament eschatology and does not go beyond the framework of patristic tradition. And even moreover, it resolves one of the most difficult questions of eschatology about the status and nature of the eternal torment of sinners in hell. He achieves this through theological intuition. Without using the terminology of energetic theology, he, paradoxically, moves in line with the Orthodox tradition of explaining the truth in the language of his experience. This is the teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian about eschatology, which we find in the so-called First Collected Works or First Volume. Our conclusion is quite consistent with the conclusions made by the famous theologian and patrolologist Archpriest Georgy Florovsky in his work dedicated to St. Isaac the Syrian. Regarding the doctrine of eschatology, St. Isaac's father George writes: “He only briefly mentions St. Isaac about the fate of sinners. Sin has a beginning and an end; and it will be when there is no sin. But this does not mean that everyone will enter the Kingdom. For hell and Gehenna have a beginning, but have no end 21. Not everyone can enter the Kingdom, for they will not be ready for it, but the Kingdom is within. And he who does not enter will be in Gehenna, in deprivation and torment. However, it is in no way permissible to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of God’s love. But it is love that is the source of torment and sorrow: “those tormented in Gehenna are struck with the scourge of love.” Love illuminates everyone, but it acts in two ways. And the righteous rejoice in the rapture of love, but sinners grieve for their sin against love” 22. Chapter 2. On the eschatology of the second meeting attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian Before talking about the eschatological views themselves, which are in this collection, it should be noted that the author, whoever he may be, is very much dependent on Evagrius. The author of the Second Collection himself does not hide this and praises Evagrius as “admirable among the saints.” Evagrius of Pontus was a very prolific ascetic writer, his numerous works had a great influence on the history of Christian asceticism. However, the condemnation at the Fifth Ecumenical Council also entailed the destruction of his creations. Only a small part of his writings has survived in the original Greek, and this is due to the fact that they were covered with a more authoritative name, for example, Nilus of Sinai and others. Some of his works, containing Origenistic views, were preserved because they were translated into other languages, mainly into Syriac, Armenian, Latin, Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic. “Since the Monophysite and Nestorian authors did not recognize the condemnation of Evagrius of Pontus, they continued to consider him one of the most authoritative ascetic theologians, rewriting and studying his works” 23. 1. Translation of Origenistic teachings into the Syrian Christian tradition Sebastian Broca's opinion that the Syriac translations of Evagrius differ from the Greek original and are “not at all identical to those Greek texts which were condemned by the Fathers of the Fifth Council” 24 does not stand up to criticism. Indeed, when copyists encountered Origenistic ideas in the works of Evagrius, they tried to carefully correct them, as was done in the Armenian manuscript of the “Speculative Chapters” 25. However, in Syriac translations there are two versions: (S1) corrected and (S2) uncorrected. A. Guillemot discovered a Syriac manuscript from the 5th century. (Add. M.S. 17167), which, as he convincingly showed, contained the uncorrected, original text of the “Speculative Chapters” (S2), which he published in 1958. “Guillemont’s conclusions are to this day generally accepted among researchers and have not met with any convincing objections” 26. This uncorrected version of the Speculative Chapters contains most of Origen's cosmological, Christological and eschatological ideas, even in a more orderly and distinct form than those of Origen himself. So, in the words of von Balthasar, Evagrius Ponticus was “more of an Origenist than Origen himself.” Further, A. Guillemont notes that “Evagrius’s influence on Syrian writers was stronger than on Byzantine writers, and, starting from the 5th century, there is not a single Syrian ascetic or mystical work that was not, to one degree or another, marked by the influence of Evagrius” 27. In order not to be unfounded, we will cite several Syrian authors who adopted Origenistic ideas. Stefan bar Sudaile 6th century. At first he was a monk in Edessa, but also traveled to Egypt, where he learned the Origenistic teachings of Evagrius about apocatastasis 28 . Sergius (Sargis) Rishainsky VI century. Sergius translated many works of Greek philosophers and physicians, especially Pseudo-Dionysius. “He prefaced the translation of the latter with a preface in which he expounds at length his mystical-ascetic teaching, imbued with Origenistic ideas” 29 . Joseph Hazzaiah ("Seer"). He left many works: “28 words, a commentary on the sayings of Evagrius.” He was accused because “he recognized the pre-existence of souls” 30. Khenana 7th century “Henana is reported to have approved of Origen’s theories, namely his errors regarding the apocatastatic “resurrection” 31. As we see, the reception of Origen's error was adopted by many Syrian teachers. Mainly, of course, this happened through the writings of Evagrius. The author of the Second Collection, which is attributed to Isaac the Syrian, also fits into the galaxy of these teachers. It should also be noted that Ignacio does not allow even a shadow of suspicion of Origenism in the works of St. Isaac. He reports that St. Isaac “about 70 works have been preserved in Syriac, not always in the same order - these are Words, Epistles and Dialogues. All this appears to come from one volume. Moreover, there are speeches (not published) and hymns, mostly unpublished, as well as other writings, the authenticity of which should be doubted. Often confusion with Isaac of Antioch cannot be ruled out” 32. In this regard, one thesis is requested for discussion Wednesday. Namely: is it possible that the copyists of the manuscripts of St. Was Evagrian and Origen's doctrine of apocatastasis introduced into Isaac's texts, intentionally or unintentionally? If this is done deliberately, it is only to cover this teaching with the authority of Isaac. If unintentionally, then due to possible confusion of manuscripts. The scribes could rely on frequent references to Evagrius. The possibility of forgery in the newly discovered writings attributed to St. Petersburg is also not excluded. Isaac the Syrian. Moreover, such a precedent is known. For example, there is a well-known collection of works by “Mar Isaac, of blessed memory, Bishop of Nineveh, a true recluse and truly Orthodox” entitled “Against those who confess in Christ two natures and one hypostasis.” The monument includes a collection of Christological texts directed against supporters of the Council of Chalcedon. “Internal data allows us to completely unequivocally reject the authorship of Isaac the Syrian, who nowhere in his original texts reproduces such ideas. The polemical nature of the treatise and its harsh tone also argue against the authorship of Isaac. However, the very fact of attribution of an important Christological text to “Mar Isaac, Bishop of Nineveh” confirms that in the Church of the East the name of Isaac was fanned with an aura of holiness and theological authority” 33. The reasons for fraud are different. “Forgeries owe their origin partly to deception, partly to the error of the scribes. In order to quickly sell and sell their copies at a higher price, they inscribed the names of the most famous Church Fathers instead of the names of little-known writers. In an effort to release some literary novelty, they sometimes added a new beginning to the finished work, mostly borrowed from another work. Often, scribes, through ignorance or negligence, made mistakes, namely: they inscribed works that were preserved in one codex, but for some reason did not have the name of the writer, with the name of the author of the previous work; or, based on one guess, they attributed to a famous person any works that did not have the name of the author (it could be controversial)” 34. This question can be resolved only through a careful and critical analysis of the manuscripts. 2. Brief overview of the cosmology and eschatology of Evagrius of Pontus Our research is a continuation of already known articles that began to appear with the first publication of the Second Meeting, but only recently reached the proper scientific level. The main specialist in this field was Alexey Ruslanovich Fokin. In his article “Apokatastatis in the Syrian Christian tradition: Evagrius and Isaac” 35 Alexey Ruslanovich convincingly showed “traces of the influence of Evagrius’s eschatology in the teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian about “universal salvation” 36, as well as parallels with Origenistic cosmology. We will mainly build on this work and add a little of our own links and comments. In order to see more clearly in the texts attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian, Evagriev's influence, needs to outline the main milestones of his teaching about cosmology and eschatology. The cosmological and eschatological views of Evagrius of Pontus were formed mainly under the influence of Origen. At the heart of his cosmology is the concept of “double creation.” In the beginning, outside of time, God created the “primordial creations”: the “monad” or “genad”, the unity of pure minds. They were all created equal and enjoyed perfect knowledge of God. But then, due to the “negligence” of these minds in the pursuit and knowledge of God, the first “genad” of intelligent beings disintegrated, which led to the emergence of differences between them. Depending on their falling away and removal from God, a hierarchy of beings was formed, consisting of three “ranks”: angels, people and demons 37 . Then followed the “second creation,” as a result of which God, in His just “first judgment,” endowed the fallen minds with an appropriate body and habitat or world, in order to gradually, by His Providence, lead everyone to the knowledge of God and a return to the original state of unity. According to Evagrius, “judgment” is the creation of the world, and the “world” is the environment that contains the various bodies of rational beings destined for the knowledge of God. “Thus bodies and worlds are the means by which fallen minds can achieve knowledge of God and salvation” 38. 3. Review of the texts of the Second Collection containing Evagrian and Origenistic errors The first thing that attracts attention in the Second Assembly is the frequently encountered concept of “intelligent (creatures)” or “intelligent natures”. Traces of the doctrine of “double creation” are clearly visible in these texts. According to the author of the Second Assembly, as well as Evagrius, “originally all rational beings were united with each other, forming a kind of single “community” or “unity” - an analogue of the “genad” of rational beings in Evagrius: “He [God] has one equal love, extending to the entirety of the rational creation, be it visible or invisible, to everyone in general” 39 . “He [God] planned to establish the Kingdom of Heaven for the entire community of rational [creatures]” 40. All rational beings after their creation were in unity with God, bringing Him angelic praise: “From the very beginning, rational natures learned to use speech from the Creator. And its first use was the praise that was brought by the creatures to the Creator, as it is written in Job 41 (Job 38:7).” Further, the free movements of the will of rational beings led many of them to fall away from God and turn to evil almost immediately after their creation: “Intelligent [creatures]... He created that they might delight in Him, whether evil or good. With this intention He brought them into being, although they themselves made the distinction between evil and good - after their coming into being” 42. “It was not for this reason that the merciful Lord created rational [creatures] in order to mercilessly subject them to endless sorrow - those whom He knew before their creation, what they would turn into after [creation], and whom He [still] created for the Creator, who, even before drawing the picture of created existence, knew everything that happened before and what [will happen] subsequently as a result of the actions, as well as the intentions of rational [creatures].” 43. The Fall led to a change in the created world, the main characteristics of which were materiality, diversity, variability and subordination to time: “Times exist where there are bodily movements. Where there are no bodies, there are no changes. Where there is no change, there is no time. If there is no equality of differences, then there [are] types and colors. Through them the contemplation of every chapter will be carried out” 44. A hint of the idea of the creation of the material world as a “second creation” can be seen in the following words of Isaac: “From the beginning of this world, He [God] indicated us - those who were placed by Him at the end, in order to complete creation, to show the perfection of the second being that [creation] will receive, and how entry and activity will be carried out in that state” 45. We also find in Isaac the idea of a multitude of worlds, or spheres of habitation of intelligent beings: “The Highest Kingdom is prepared for all worlds. Because of the goodness of His nature, thanks to which He brought the whole [universe] into being, supports and guides [it], and cares for all worlds and creatures in His immeasurable compassion" 46 . “He who, even before the creation of the worlds, intended to bestow such blessings on creation” 47. Evagrius has a very developed doctrine of the difference of contemplation. Since all rational beings were deprived of the true or “essential knowledge” of God, they received knowledge that corresponded to their different states and degrees of fall, so that in the presence of different bodies, different types of contemplation arose - this is the degree of “natural contemplation.” The object of the “second natural contemplation” is the logoi of sensory objects; it is characteristic of people following the path of a virtuous life and purification from passions. Both of these “contemplations” are steps on the path to knowledge of the Holy Trinity - Angels and people who have achieved dispassion move along them. Thus, various contemplations become a kind of ladder along which “fallen minds can gradually ascend from lower types of knowledge to higher ones, and thus achieve salvation. And since there is a close connection between different types of contemplation, bodies of different qualities and corresponding worlds, the transition from one contemplation to another corresponds to the transition of a rational being from one body to another and from one world to another. In the texts of the Second Assembly, attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian, one can find echoes of Evagriev’s teaching on the difference of contemplation. “In thinking about spiritual natures we are presented with a double contemplation. The other is the contemplation that we perceive and which is hidden in the mystery of the hour of their origin. And the other is contemplation, which points to their activities and the natural gifts they received from the Creator. And one thing tells about the mystery of the creation of the general resurrection: in what order and at what moment that secret action of the resurrection will take place. The other symbolically [points] to the new way of life that rational [creatures] will have in that life: how it will please the great favor of the Creator to equalize them in that spiritual place. From each of these contemplations, we will vaguely know the secrets of the new world, which are carried by the blessed essences, through which the Creator wanted us to know [this]” 49 . “All this local [knowledge] is a symbol of that future [knowledge], even if we talk about that [knowledge] of angels” 50. “The essential vision of those who were previously taught the knowledge of the six days [of creation] [is] to [master] precise thoughts about them, which in the natural well-being of the mind are called [reasonable] movements” 51. “According to the good [disposition] of a person’s lifestyle in relation to God, he [man] is enlightened. And according to how he rises to knowledge, he approaches the freedom of the soul. And according to how he approaches the freedom of reason, [he ascends] from [one] knowledge to [another] knowledge that is higher than [the first]” 52. What we have before us is a purely Origenian concept: the intellectual ascent of minds to the Monad. Evagrius transformed this ascent through prayer. The soul becomes mind through contemplation, the highest degree of which is pure prayer 53 . Now let us deal directly with the eschatology of the Second Assembly. Unexpectedly, and even contrary to the compositional style, the last three conversations of this collection raise the topic of the ultimate fate of the world and subsequent life after death. The eschatological views of the author of the Second Collection basically repeat the heretical teaching of Evagrius and Origen about apocatastasis, or the theory of “universal salvation.” According to Evagrius, the salvation of all rational beings is achieved through repeated transformations and reincarnations, and not even necessarily for the better; transitions from one body to another, from one world to another, from category to category, until finally created minds, gradually freed from matter and place, acquire true knowledge of God and unity with Him 54 . Evil, which once did not exist, will be completely destroyed in creatures, and with it vice and ignorance, and virtue will be restored in everyone. All rational nature, not excluding demons and “all enemies” in general, will submit to the Lord, enter His Kingdom and voluntarily bow to the knowledge of God. Thus, all intelligent creatures will become pure incorporeal “minds”, “Christs” and even “gods” capable of creating various worlds. Ultimately, they will all return to their original, purely spiritual state, there will be a complete destruction of the consequences of the “first movement” - bodies, matter and other elements - and the last “eighth day” will come, when Christ, having turned everyone to Himself, will betray His Kingdom to God and the Father, ceasing His providential activity in relation to rational creatures, leading everyone to the enjoyment of the knowledge of one God the Father; So will God be all in all 55. Many such traces, similar to Evagriev's eschatology, can be found in the author of the Second Collection. “Thus, he views Christ as the way to restore all fallen creatures to their original state: “He is the one who died the death of Jesus - the One who is the resurrection of all worlds”” 56. “His brothers will also be like Him (Christ): both [those who are] on the right and [those who are] on the left. So, like Him, they will be exalted from earthly forms to the most glorious image” 57. Christ is the High Priest not only for people, but also for angels. His priesthood was not limited to this world. It will continue until the salvation of all intelligent creatures: “You are a priest forever (Ps. 109:4). This forever [means] that even now our Lord Christ is a priest and performs a sacred act for our redemption. This happens all the time. [And it will happen] until He lifts us all up to Himself” 58. “The priesthood of Christ consists in offering prayers for all rational natures to the Divine nature that dwells in Him... The Apostle testifies: He entered to appear for us in the presence of God (Heb. 9:24). Understand this for us [as follows]: He rose up for us all and sat down at the right hand of God and asks for us. He became not only for the sake of people, but also for the sake of the holy angels” 59. “Together with them, from this temporary earth to the eternal earth, all those who are worthy [of this] will be raised... Then all the first and last rational [creatures] will approach God the Father through Him [Christ] and will receive there forever that indivisible unity” 60. Like Evagrius, Isaac understands resurrection as the acquisition by the body of a new form or qualities corresponding to the conditions of the spiritual Kingdom: “In this case, the body will not suffer damage, since as a result of the change it will put aside its previous form and will be honored [by acquiring a new form]” 61. Eventually there will be a restoration of all sentient beings into “indivisible unity” with each other (or “genada”) and they will all achieve spiritual perfection and unity with God. Then the difference between people, angels and demons, which arose as a result of their free falls, will be overcome, and all rational beings will form a single angelic rank 62: “It is known that at the moment when they [intelligent beings] fall, He does not abandon them; and thus, neither demons will remain in their demonic [state], nor sinners in their sins; but to a single equal [state of] perfection in relation to His own being He intends to bring them - [to the state] in which the holy angels are now, to the perfection of love and dispassionate consciousness. He intends to raise them to that virtue of will when they are no longer in bonds, nor in [freedom], and then they will not be aroused by the enemy; but [they will be] in the virtue of knowledge, with thinking matured [thanks to] the movements which they received from the Divine outpouring prepared by the blessed Creator by His grace; they will be perfected in love for Him, with a perfect consciousness that has become above [any] deviation in all their movements" 63... “He planned to establish the Kingdom of Heaven for the entire community of rational [creatures], although a certain transitional period of time [staying in Gehenna] was left for [so that everyone would rise] to that same level” 64. This will be “universal salvation” or apokatastasis, when all rational creatures created by God for eternal bliss will unite with Him in infinite love, and God will be all in all: “The Fathers inform us that at that hour when the saints are attracted by the Divine beckoning, they will be raised to that bliss through the meeting of our Lord, who will attract them by His power, like a stone magnet drawing into itself particles of iron. Then all the legions of heavenly armies and the descendants of Adam will gather into one church. And then the purpose of the Creator’s providence will be accomplished, which He foresaw from the beginning of the origin of the world, creating creation with good will. The entire long course of various [events] of this world was foreseen for this outcome, which served with its changes to rational [creatures] as a master. And henceforth the exiles of the Kingdom will enjoy the joy of life in a world in which there is no end and no change." 65 “And since in the new age the love of the Creator reigns over all rational nature, amazement at His mysteries, which [then] will be revealed, will captivate for Him the minds of rational [creatures] whom He created to enjoy in Him, whether evil or good” 66. So, the eschatology of the author of the Second Collection is a completely different eschatology, which we found in the author of the First Collection, i.e. St. Isaac the Syrian. True, A. Fokin also noted that the eschatology of the author of the Second Collection (for A. Fokin this is St. Isaac the Syrian) “strikingly differs from the rationalistic eschatology of Origen and Evagrius” precisely in that at the basis of his theological intuitions the author of the Second Collection believes the Infinite Mercy of God in “God-Love, Who equally loves all rational beings and leads them to salvation.” 67. It seems to us that this is not a very successful generalization. The idea of ​​God's infinite mercy is present in both Origen and Evagrius, and of course, this idea, if not the main one in the system of “rational eschatology” of these authors, then at least set the main premise and enthusiasm in its construction. Paradoxically, the eschatology of the First Assembly also ends with Love. The only difference is that it does not cynically equate the evil and the good, as happens in the Second Assembly, but, without changing in its essence, it approaches both the first and the second, and cheers the righteous as those who are able to accept it, and burns the sinners with its unbearable heat, due to their inability to accept it. Before making a final conclusion, I would like to examine a few more eschatological fragments in which the author of the Second Collection comes into conflict both with Holy Scripture and Tradition, and with the Holy Fathers, to whom he refers in other places, and ultimately with himself, which once again confirms the thesis we have put forward about the dubious attribution of the authorship of the Second Collection to St. Isaac the Syrian. 4. Exegetical and comparative analysis of the texts of the Second Collection First, I would like to show the absurd contradictions with the Holy Scriptures in the texts of the Second Assembly, since agreement or, at least, non-contradiction with the Holy Scriptures determines the authority of a particular father and his affiliation with the Church 68 . In conversation 39 of the Second Meeting one can come across such an absurd interpretation: “It was not disobedience that brought death into the house of Adam, and it was not the violation of the commandment that cast Adam and Eve out of Paradise, for it is clear that God did not create them to stay in Paradise - only a small part of the earth; but they had to conquer the whole earth. For this reason we do not even say that He drove them out because of the violation of the commandment; for if they had not violated the commandment, they still would not have been left in Paradise forever” 69. Such daring contradictions of the Holy Scriptures clearly show that the author of the Second Assembly misunderstands the latter. This happens because he cannot free himself from the Origen-Evagrian concept of “reincarnation” or the transition of the soul from state to state. For the author of the Second Collection, the personal choice and moral perfection of Adam and Eve are also unimportant. Whether the ancestors sin or not, it doesn’t matter, the cherub will kick them out not for disobedience, but for the fact that constant stay in Paradise does not fit into the scheme of cyclic world-making of the Origen-Evagrievsky concept. We find a completely different concept in St. Ephraim the Syrian. We will quote those authors on whom St. Isaac the Syrian refers to the First Collection in order to show the inconsistency of the thesis that the author of the First and Second Collections is the same person. After all, it seems absurd when an author in one volume quotes certain saints and agrees with them, and in the second volume sets forth his own views that are contrary to their opinions, which is a sign of a forged work 70 . Ephraim the Syrian, who is repeatedly quoted by St. Isaac the Syrian, in the First Assembly, argues this way: “If the serpent had not drawn them into crime, then they (Adam and Eve) would have tasted the fruits of the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would not have become forbidden to them, for from one of these trees they would have acquired infallible knowledge, and from the other they would have received eternal life and would have become godlike in humanity” 71 . We find similar thoughts in the pillar of the Church of Basil the Great. “The eating was followed not only by the disobedience of the commandment, but also by the knowledge of nakedness. For it is said: “They were poisonous, and their eyes were opened, and they understood, as if they were besha” (Gen. 3:6-7). But it was not necessary to know nakedness, so that a person’s mind, thinking about clothes and protection from nakedness, should not be distracted by the concern of replenishing what is missing, and so that in general, by caring for the flesh, it should not be distracted from attentive striving for God... Therefore, it was indecent for a person to have both natural and artificial coverings. On the contrary, if he showed his valor, other coverings were prepared for him, which, by God’s grace, would adorn the person and begin to shine on him in the form of light clothes, similar to angels, surpassing the diversity of flowers, the lightness and radiance of the stars” 72. Saint Gregory the Theologian 73 also disagrees with the author of the Second Assembly that “if they (the first parents) had not violated the commandment, they still would not have been left in Paradise forever.” This is what he writes: “If we had remained in our original state and kept the commandment, we would have become what we were not, and after eating the tree of knowledge we would have come to the tree of life. What would we become? We would be immortal and closest to God" 74. Adam's task was to transform the entire earth into Paradise and, together with himself, to involve the entire universe in deification. The concept of these thoughts will subsequently be presented theologically by St. Maximus the Confessor. Saint Gregory also does not agree with the opinion of the author of the Second Assembly that, supposedly, “it was not the violation of the commandment that cast Adam and Eve out of Paradise.” On the contrary, he says that it is “through sin that he becomes an exile, removed at the same time from the tree of life, and from Paradise, and from God” 75 . We find consensus patrum on this issue in many of the fathers to whom St. Petersburg refers. Isaac the Syrian in the First Assembly. Moreover, it should be noted that these holy fathers are the undoubted authorities for all Syrian monasticism and the so-called Church of the East. “For if Eve had won in a short battle and in a short struggle, and the serpent, and whoever was in the serpent, had suffered the punishment that they suffered, then Eve and her husband would have tasted the fruits of life and acquired eternal life, having received in truth the existence that was promised to them; they would truly begin to possess everything that was previously given to them by goodness” 76 . “The first parents would have acquired infallible knowledge and immortal life while still in the flesh, but the serpent, with his promise, deprived them of what they could have acquired, and assured them that they would acquire it by breaking the commandment - and all for the sole purpose of not acquiring what God promised through keeping the commandment” 77 . Chrysostom preacher, quoted by St. Isaac the Syrian in the First Assembly also disagrees with the opinion of the author of the Second Assembly that “it was not the violation of the commandment that cast Adam and Eve out of Paradise.” On the contrary, he flaunts: “Just as Adam is expelled from Paradise for one sin, so for one true confession a thief is brought into Paradise.” And as a student of the Antiochian school of exegesis, he eliminates all inappropriate interpretations: “Adam is punished not for doing something contrary to nature itself, but for attempting to do something that was forbidden by the commandment” 78 . Moreover, the author of the Second Assembly contradicts both the prophets and the apostles: “God created man for incorruptibility and made him the image of His eternal being; but through the envy of the devil death entered the world, and those who belong to his inheritance experience it” (Wis. 2:23). “But lust, having conceived, gives birth to sin; but sin that is committed gives birth to death” (James 1:15). “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men” (Rom. 5:12). Exegetical analysis shows that the author of the Second Collection, firstly, contradicts the literal meaning of Holy Scripture; secondly, it also contradicts the prophets and apostles who explained and interpreted this passage of this Holy Scripture; thirdly, it also contradicts the holy fathers, who explained this meaning of the Holy Scriptures in more detail. The marginality of the author of the Second Assembly in this interpretation becomes even more obvious because he comes into conflict with the didaskals, which stood at the head of the Antioch and Edessa schools of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, i.e. the most authoritative for the Church of the East. The author of the Second Assembly has his own “apostle” and “blessed interpreter”, who turned out to be “wiser” than the prophets, apostles and the above-mentioned fathers. This is Theodore of Mopsuetia. This is how he writes about him: “For we do not reject his words - let it not be! On the contrary, as one of the apostles, we accept him, and anyone who contradicts his words, who introduces disputes about his interpretations or doubts about his works - we consider such an alien to the church community and sinning against the truth" 79 . In the words of the author of the Second Assembly, in fact, anathema is pronounced to the V Ecumenical Council, which anathematized the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuetia. We have already mentioned above that in the original texts of St. Researchers of Isaac the Syrian do not find such sharp attacks and similar polemical ideas concerning dogmatic issues 80. In fact, a bishop who left the see due to his extreme love for the hermit life is unlikely to polemicize and enter into endless disputes. It seems to us that these inserts or similar treatises in the Second Collection refer specifically to that polemicist and “champion” who compiled a book entitled “Against those who confess in Christ two natures and one hypostasis,” and for greater authority, inscribed it with the name “Mar Isaac of Nineveh” 81 . As is known, Theodore of Mopsuetia is an extreme representative of Antiochian literalism. He used only biblical language and rejected all metaphorical speculation 82, and in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians “directly compared allegory with the interpretation of dreams as an empty matter and unworthy of a Christian” 83. But if St. Isaac the Syrian is such an ardent admirer of Theodore of Mopsuetia, even pronouncing anathemas against those “who bring controversy regarding his interpretations,” then naturally he must also be an adherent of his exegetical method. However, in the First Assembly we find quite the opposite. At St. Isaac the Syrian's hermeneutical method is much broader. He talks about the biblical Six Days (Gen. 2:2) in the spirit of the Alexandrian school of exegesis: “Six days are spent in doing life, keeping the commandments; the seventh day is spent entirely in the tomb, and the eighth day in coming out of the tomb” (Homily 19). Being an ascetic writer, St. Isaac interpreted Holy Scripture by applying it to ascetic needs. So, leaving the city: Let us come to Him outside the city and accept His reproaches (Heb. 13:12) - for Isaac means renunciation of the world and going into the wilderness (21 Words). The thorns and thistles that the earth produces after the curse (Gen. 3:18) mean passions (Word 20). The battles of the prophet David and repose from all his surrounding enemies (2 Samuel 7:1) mean the battle of the soul with passions and repose from them (45 Word). The Old Testament prohibition about sowing mixed seed in one field and not yoking an ox and a donkey together (Deut. 22:10) is interpreted by Isaac as scattered prayer (48 Word). The Monk Isaac also uses techniques of personification: “Faith says: even if you pass through fire, you will not be burned, and the rivers will not cover you” (Is. 43:2); “Faith says: unless the Lord builds the house and preserves the city, he who builds will suffer in vain, he who builds will labor in vain” (Ps. 126:1) (25 Word). The Monk Isaac sometimes resorts to free quotation of the biblical text; he also quotes those books of Holy Scripture that Theodore of Mopsuetia removed from his biblical canon: the books of Sirach and Job 84. In its interpretation of Holy Scripture it does not always follow Theodore and Diodorus 85 (cf. Rom. 8:15). All this clearly shows that St. Isaac the Syrian could not be a follower of Theodore of Mopsuetia, nor could he speak out against those “who bring controversy regarding his interpretations,” for he himself used those methods of exegesis that Theodore rejected. So, we see that the author of the Second Collection is in the marginal camp of those Syrian writers who, having divorced themselves from the grace-filled life of Sacred Tradition, came to a contradictory understanding of Sacred Scripture. And also, in addition to the fact that the author of the Second Collection comes into conflict with those holy fathers who are quoted in the First Collection, he ultimately comes into conflict with himself. Thus, in the 39th conversation of the Second Assembly, the author reasons as follows: “To think that anger, or rage, or envy, or anything like that could take place in this Divine Nature, would be in the highest degree disgusting: no one who is reasonable and has intelligence will come to such madness as to think anything like that about God. Also, we cannot in any way say that He acts this way out of retribution, although a literal understanding of Scripture may lead to this. For it is shameful to even think such a thing about God - so that retribution for evil deeds could be found in Him.” On the contrary, in the 31st conversation of the same meeting, the author seems to forget his modesty, that such reasoning is “in the highest degree disgusting,” and says: “Don’t you realize, callous person, to Whom you are approaching in order to make the sacrifice of your service? For you have not yet experienced the severity of the Lord when He changes His good right hand to shuytsa, demanding retribution from those who insulted Him: how hot He is in anger and how filled with jealousy He is at the hour when He awakens! He will not give up, even if you beg Him a lot, if He is moved to do so: but He burns like a furnace (Mal. 4:1) in His anger. Do we dare to show licentiousness and approach Him in prayer to Him and in other liturgical actions... Otherwise, under the name of insane freedom, we will bring destruction upon ourselves, offending the honor of the Lord; and when we die, or when the ability to think is taken away from us, removes us from there (from God), as happened to many who received a similar wound during prayer" 86 . Also, the author of the Second Collection apparently acknowledges the eternity of torment: “Let not my rising from the dust be for judgment and shame for my face! Lord, may I not awaken in order to endure Your condemnation and deprivation” 87. “O God... do not leave me deprived of hope of going to the grave, and may I not find myself sitting in the bonds of the darkness of my sins, dead to eternity” 88 . But at the end of the volume, the author of the Second Collection already forgets his fear of eternal torment and asserts that “neither demons will remain in their demonic state, nor sinners in their sins; but to one equal state of perfection in relation to His own Being He intends to bring them - to the state in which the holy angels are now... Perhaps they will be elevated to even greater perfection than that in which the angels now exist” 89. “After all, He, by any means (regardless of us, whether we want it or not) achieves what He has intended for our benefit” 90. The question arises, why then write these ascetic treatises about the fight against passions, about the subtlety of contemplation, etc., when you can, even lying on your side, achieve not only salvation, but also become higher than the angels! And finally, we want to show another contradiction, which is found at the beginning and end of the Second Collection, showing the falsity of this work. In the first conversation, the author of the Second Collection, sending his ascetic treatise to one hermit, gives him instructions on how to read. He writes: “Don’t read: - or what tells you about the events and clashes that took place in the Church... – or polemical words and refutations of the opinions of one side or another in a dispute” 91. But at the end of the treatise, the author of the Second Assembly seems to forget his instructions and places “polemical words and refutations ... of the other side in the dispute” and “what tells about the events and clashes that took place in the Church.” Moreover, he anathematizes his opponents and places fragments on the interpretation of the Scriptures, while in the first conversation he condemns those (meaning primarily the addressee) “who, before he has acquired power over his thoughts and conquered absent-mindedness, when his feelings are still sick and his conscience is weak, engages in reading, which allows him to look like a scientist, an expert, an interpreter of the Scriptures” 92. Following the methodological and scientific principles of patrolology, all these contradictions clearly show that the so-called Second Collected Works, attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian, is a forged work 93. This is proven for the following reasons: 1. The authors of the First and Second Collections have completely opposite eschatological concepts. 2. The authors of the First and Second Collections have completely opposite exegetical methods. If the first leans more toward the allegorical method and the so-called “mystical typology,” when mental states are typologized and framed by the biblical text, then the second stands entirely for the methodology of Theodore of Mopsuetia, and considers anyone “who opposes his words” to be “alien to the church community and sinning against the truth.” In this regard, the author of the Second Collection literally “rapes the Scriptures” (this is how St. Jerome of Stridon speaks of Origen) 94, interpreting him in the concept of Origen-Evagrian cosmology and eschatology. Thus: 3. It comes into conflict with the holy fathers, who are undoubted authorities for the author of the First Collection and whom he quotes in his treatises. 4. And finally, the author of the Second Collection comes into conflict with himself within the body of the Second Collection and, since the main contradictions are in the last part of the collection, devoted to eschatological polemics, it can be stated with a high degree of probability that this particular part of the collection is a later and deliberate insertion. Outside the scope of our study, we leave the ascetic and theological analysis of the texts of the First and Second Collections, between which there are contradictions, as well as philological analysis (on well-known issues), certainly thanks to which we would be able to identify an even greater number of contradictions than we did with the naked eye. Concluding his research concerning the eschatological views of St. Isaac the Syrian, we can testify that the eschatology of this reverend father does not go beyond the framework of patristic and dogmatic theology. However, recently, publications began to appear under the name of “newly discovered texts” of St. Isaac the Syrian, which contain completely opposite eschatological views, are essentially heretical. In order to sift the tares from the wheat (Luke 3:17), we subjected these treatises (Second Collection) to the elementary methodological procedures used in patristic science. As a result of the study, it was discovered that the Second Collection, at least its last part, conversations 39–41, is a forged work, since the texts presented in these conversations conflict with the ideas and theses contained in the Second and First Collections. As was convincingly shown by Alexei Ruslanovich Fokin, the cosmology and eschatology of the author of the Second Collection, including his doctrine of “universal salvation,” is quite strongly dependent on the eschatology of Evagrius, which in turn represents a creative development of the eschatology of Origen. However, this Origen eschatology is expressed in St. Isaac is not as distinct and systematic as that of Evagrius, and its elements are scattered in different places in his 2nd volume 95.” In addition to Evagrius, the source of the doctrine of “universal salvation” for the author of the Second Assembly were such church writers as Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuetia, whom he cites in confirmation of his error 96 . In fact, the Second Collection on its pages contains the heresy of apokatastasis, which was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543 and at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553. A. Fokin rightly noted that the eschatology of Evagrius, which is a creative development of the eschatology of Origen, having fallen on Syrian soil that had not yet been plowed by Hellenism, gave birth to its own version apocatastatic heresy, clothed in “sophistic injustices” 97, it became almost invisible. It is very unfortunate that many scientists and researchers fell for this counterfeit coin; Instead of plunging this work into the crucible of patristic tradition and testing the “gold of theology,” alas, they accepted the false speeches at face value. And finally, we give the floor to the Venerable himself. Isaac the Syrian, so that he would stamp his eschatological views, which in no way agree with the author of the Second Collection, through the coinage of his speeches. “The life of this world is like some drawing only letters from those inscribed on a table; and when he wants and desires, he adds and subtracts to them, and makes a change in the letters. And the future life is like manuscripts inscribed on blank scrolls, sealed with the royal seal, in which nothing can be added or subtracted. Therefore, while we are in the midst of change, let us be attentive to ourselves, and while we have power over the handwriting of our life, which we write with our own hands, we will try to make additions to it with a good life, we will begin to erase in it the shortcomings of the previous life. For while we are in this world, God does not put a seal on either good or bad, until the very hour of our departure, at which the work in our fatherland ends, and we depart for a foreign country. And, as Saint Ephraim said 98, “It is fitting for us to reflect that our soul is like a ready ship that does not know when the wind will blow on it, and an army that does not know when the trumpet will sound. And if,” he says, “this happens for a small gain, in such cases that, perhaps, will return again, then how should we prepare and equip ourselves before this door of the new century.” May the Mediator of our life, Christ, grant us the readiness to be confirmed in this confession of our aspirations. To him be glory, worship and thanksgiving forever and ever! Amen" (Homily 39). II. The second volume of St. Isaac the Syrian Recently, editions of the so-called newly discovered texts of St. Isaac the Syrian have begun to appear, which set forth eschatological views that are opposite to those found in the first volume of the works of this saint. An article by Optina monk Hieromonk Nikon (Skarga) offers a study that reveals the essence of these contradictions. Textual review of published treatises in Russian It is immediately necessary to clarify why such a “narrow” approach was chosen in this study. There are several reasons for this. In Russian, the second volume has already gone through seven editions. Each edition comes with corrections and additions. This is the first reason. The other is the first conference recently held in Russia, dedicated to St. Isaac the Syrian and his legacy. Its materials were published, which made it possible to take a more objective look at the spiritual heritage of the Reverend. The original discovery of the manuscript for Volume Two was attributed to Bejan, who published fragments of it in 1909 in the preface to Volume One. Unfortunately, the manuscript was subsequently lost. In 1983, another manuscript of the Second Volume was discovered by S. Brock in the Oxford Bodleian Library. It dates back to the 10th or 11th century. (Bodleian syr.e. 7). In 1995, Brock published Conversations 4 - 41, and in 1997 1 - 2, in English. The "Gnostic Chapters" from Volume Two were published by the Italian scholar R. Bettiolo in 1991 in Italian. In Russian, the Second Volume, translated by Hieromonk Hilarion (Alfeev), was published in 1998. It included all the conversations, with the exception of the “Gnostic Chapters,” of which only a small fragment was translated. This was followed by seven more editions, the last in 2013, already by Metropolitan Hilarion, with significant corrections and additions. Unfortunately, there is no critical edition of the Second Volume in the form in which it is currently known. Despite this, world science has formed an opinion about the authenticity of the newly found collection. Our small study is aimed at showing the flaws or oversights of modern science and encouraging specialists in this field to a more sober and critical analysis of the Second Volume, attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian. The authority of St. Isaac was so great that, paradoxically, his writings were in demand by both Nestorians and Monophysites. Each denomination edited the Rev.'s texts in its own way. This is reflected in the West Syrian lists. The Monophysite edition is shown by Bejan in his preface to the First Volume, and the Orthodox edition, which was carried out by the “hesychast philosopher” monks Patricius and Abraham, was destined to conquer the whole world. The features of this translation edition were highlighted by the Belgian scientist M. Pirard. A critical study of the First and Third Collections helped to identify treatises that do not belong to St. Isaac the Syrian. In the First Volume these are Words 8, 9, 20, 68, written by John of Daljat (55 Words by Philoxenus of Mabbut); in the Third Volume it is the 10th treatise, which in a number of manuscripts is found attributable to Ephraim of Nisibin, but Kyalo attributes it to Isaac of Antioch. In addition, the Italian scientist considers a number of treatises dubious 99 . P. Hagman shares the same opinion. However, a “critical silence” hung over the Second Volume. Composition of the treatises of the second collection The so-called Second Volume consists of 41 treatises, it includes Letters or Epistles, Sentences, consisting of 400 hundreds: Chapters on knowledge, Prayers, Conversations, which were recorded by the disciples, as can be seen from the context “there are people gathered here” (30:11); polemical and dogmatic works containing heresy. This multi-genre and multi-thematic polyphony of treatises from the Second Collection alone should have encouraged researchers to more critically analyze and identify each treatise. But modern science has avoided these issues. Although a more careful reading allows us to detect contradictions already from the first treatise. So, in the 1st Conversation of St. Isaac, who receives this message, warns his addressee which works he should not read. “Do not read,” he instructs, “that contains lies, or that tells you about events and conflicts that took place in the Church, or polemical words and refutations of the opinions of one side or another” (1:45). Such a warning made by St. Isaac at the beginning of the Second Volume, gives us the opportunity to consider those treatises containing polemics and “stories about events and clashes that took place in the Church” not to have belonged to the pen of the Monk, but to attribute them to later insertions by copyists. Such treatises in the Second Volume are 11, 14 and 38–41. The 11th reflects the anti-Jewish polemics of the 6th-7th centuries; The 14th contains a polemic with the Messalians; Treatises 38, 39, 40 and 41 refer the reader to the fringe camp of Syrian writers who challenged the Church's orthodox dogma regarding eternal torment. These treatises have a more or less pronounced polemical character, with different themes. It is difficult to imagine that a bishop, who was burdened by his archpastoral service and left the pulpit for the sake of beloved silence in order to keep both his mind and heart pure for unity with God, suddenly begins to write polemical treatises on various topics that worried the Church, if not in different eras, then at least at different times. In addition to such an obvious contradiction, which follows both from the biography of St. Isaac, and from the text of his 1st epistle, these treatises violate the composition of the Second Collection. Thus, the 11th treatise, dedicated to the historical and apologetic theme of the Cross, breaks the unity of the 10th and 12th treatises. The tenth treatise is devoted to the four orders of knowledge or reflection that a silent person should engage in in his cell. The 12th continues the same theme: “In the dwelling or cell of the one who, in his way of life, has achieved this contemplative conversation...”. The 11th introduces a striking dissonance into the unified theme of these two treatises. In its text one can also find the doctrinal Nestorian confession: “For He to Whom all these belong, willed and dwelt in Him, and gave Him the honor of His Godhead” (11:21). Nowhere else in St. Isaac does not encounter such a Mopsuetian fantasy about the infusion of God the Word into the Man Jesus Christ. On the contrary, the Venerable One professes the Incarnation (1 volume of the Word 53) and the Incarnation (Bejan, 20 Word); He also lacks the doctrine of two subjects. For Rev. Isaac “the uncreated Word of God and the created man Jesus are one and the same Person” 100. Thus, it can be stated that the 11th treatise is a late insertion made by copyists, and belongs to an unknown polemicist with a clearly expressed Nestorian confession. The fourteenth treatise also introduces dissonance, breaking the unity of the narrative about the internal (spiritual) exercises of the silent man and “the enlightened service of the mind,” which begins with the 10th and ends with the 16th treatise. The thirteenth treatise speaks of the “movement towards judicious silence” and that God grants to the inner man to know “the power of the age to come.” These considerations are continued by the 15th treatise: “So, a wise man, when he sets his face to strive to acquire something necessary and necessary, the acquisition of which he usually yearns with lust...”. The fourteenth treatise destroys this sublime unity of the narrative, calling on the addressee to descend into the novice order and study the “external forms” of prayer. The twenty-first treatise, one might say, duplicates it, raising the same topic. Therefore, the 14th becomes redundant. But most importantly, it reflects two polemics: one - “with people with a Messalian consciousness” (14:22); the other is with the Syro-Jacobites, which flared up around the Lord’s Prayer “Our Father” in the 9th century, under Patriarch Timothy I. In the East Syrian rite, this prayer contains a characteristic insertion: after the words “hallowed be thy name,” “Holy, Holy, Holy” is added 101. The author of the 14th tract tries to justify this change: “If a person speaks of the prayer that the Savior said, that only this should we repeat in all our prayers, using the same words and maintaining the same order of words, but not their meaning” (14:36). The controversy continues in the 37th and 38th and ends in the 39th paragraph: “For this is a childish way of thinking - when they delve into the sequence of words ... changing the external form of the words does not change anything in the tradition of the Lord's Prayer, if only we pray based on its meaning, and our mind follows it.” Thus, the dating of the 14th treatise can be attributed to the 9th century; it was compiled by an unknown polemicist 2 centuries after St. Isaac, is of East Syrian origin. And finally, the third polemical block of the Second Volume is located at the very end and consists of 38, 39, 40 and 41 treatises, containing a “justification” of the apocatastatic heresy. From the point of view of the composition of the entire volume, these treatises not only violate the harmony of the whole, but also make this collection very contradictory and illogical. The work, which is dedicated to silence, prayer, severe ascetic deeds, addressed to “those who endure cruel battles with demons” (5:26), ends with a banal or, better said, immoral equation of the evil and the good (38:2), flatters that “neither demons will remain in their demonic state, nor sinners in their sins,” but without struggle and without feat, “they will be exalted even to a greater perfection than that in which the angels now exist” (40:4–5). Such acute internal contradictions turn this work into complete absurdity. Moreover, “The Fifth Ecumenical Council recognized this opinion [apocatastasis heresy] as the most inhuman of all teachings and, as causing harm to the Church and weakening the diligent, was anathematized” 102. We examined the contradictions in these treatises in a separate work devoted to the topic of eschatology in volumes 1 and 2 (see The Scourge of Love. On the eschatology of St. Isaac the Syrian). Here we wanted to emphasize that from the point of view of composition, these treatises nullify all the ascetic and spiritual tension that St. Isaac in his writings, because. not only salvation, but also “perfection above the angelic” is given freely. Let the nurturers of such illusions know that with such a thought you cannot sit for long in the harsh desert. It is also generally accepted in science that the author of these four treatises hears echoes of the anathemas of the two councils of 596 and 605, convened against Henana; as a result of this testimony, it is believed that St. Isaac preferred to adhere to the official doctrine of his Church 103. However, the doctrine of apokatastasis has never been the official doctrine of the Church of the East. And the fact that the author of the 39th treatise openly professes it indicates precisely the opposite, i.e. about his belonging to marginal circles. In addition, a bishop who has voluntarily left his see does not have the canonical right to pronounce any anathema until he restores his canonical powers. A number of such evidence clearly indicate that these treatises are a late insertion made by scribes. Now let’s move on to the analysis of the most extensive treatise of the Second Volume, which is called “Gnostic Chapters” and is numbered the 3rd Conversation. The volume of this treatise is slightly less than half of the entire Second Volume. This oddity did not confuse the researchers at all; moreover, it is necessary to take into account the fact that treatise 10 is already devoted to the topic of various knowledge. The structure of the 3rd treatise itself shows that this is a separate work, consisting of 4 hundred so-called maxims or chapters. Some chapters largely duplicate what has already been said in various treatises of the Second Volume, for example, on prayer and contemplation. To begin with, we will show the compositional break that the insertion of the 3rd treatise made between the 2nd and 4th, and also consider the sloppy traces of the insertion that the copyists left, and then move on to the analysis of the chapters themselves. The second treatise in Volume Two is devoted to the theme of continually praising God. “The soul that is constantly occupied with the praise of God remains in the creatureliness of its nature,” and through this “constant conversation of praise to God,” the “glory of the Divine Nature” is revealed to the soul (2:2). At the end of the conversation, the same thesis is repeated: “As I said earlier in this conversation, when the soul is moved to the enjoyment of glory, thanks to constant conversation with Him, and it is happy to remain in it (the conversation) unceasingly, it knows by the grace of the Holy Spirit what it will ultimately be clothed with” (2:7). A little higher, the Reverend warns that “the one who imparts knowledge to his disciples should not lead them to perfect knowledge from the very beginning, without first teaching them properly the letters of the alphabet and how to read in sequence” (2:5). Thus, the 2nd treatise is a kind of introduction to the next one, devoted to the topic of prayer. And indeed, in the 1st paragraph of the 4th treatise one hears a continuation of the theme of “alphabet”: “Our intention is to organize conversations about inner prayer and present them sequentially in alphabetical order” (4:1). Treatise 4 then proceeds with instructions on the purpose of prayer, concluding with an invitation to “enjoy the very communion with God in the prayerful meditations which we are about to compose” (4:1). And in the 5th treatise there are prayers with an alphabetical acrostic. From the point of view of composition, the 4th and 5th treatises form a single whole. Their division into different treatises seems artificial because the former serves as a preface to the latter, and the latter cannot be called either a Conversation or a Word, as is done in the manuscript, because in content these are prayers. At the end of the 5th treatise, after the prayers, three paragraphs are added in which traces of scribes are found. “This purpose in prayer and meditation should also be yours, our brother... Even if the order of the words and the sequence of them (the prayers) are not the same, undoubtedly the purpose of prayer should be the same” (5:33). Here one hears an echo of the same polemic of the 9th century. regarding the rearrangement of words in the Lord's Prayer. This is the first point, the second is related to the acrostic poem. As is known, an acrostic, in addition to its mnemonic function, played the role of a kind of safety lock for the text. If the acrostic was not read, then this was a sign of a change in the text itself 104. It becomes a strange thing that the Reverend writes God-inspired prayers, i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit, distributes them in the proper sequence, secures this with an acrostic, and then says that both the “order of words” and their “sequence” can be changed at will. These two textological points indicate that the scribes are not of the same mind with St. Isaac and use his texts for their own purposes. Also in this paragraph, the communicative replacement of both the addresser and the addressee from personal to collective stands out. From the 1st to the 4th treatise, the Reverend writes on his own behalf and addresses his addressee “my brother.” As we noted above, St. Isaac the Syrian enjoyed very great authority during his lifetime, so in his writings he appears as the first person. Sometimes he writes about himself in the third person, very rarely using the pronoun “we”, and expressions with possessive pronouns such as “our brother”, “for the remembrance of our soul”, “not from our human strength”, reflecting collective communication, are practically absent in the First Volume, and in the Second they appear only in the 3rd, 4th and 5th treatises as obvious traces of copyist insertions. Now let's take a closer look at how the scribes inherited. The more carefully they tried to hide their malice, the more it appeared in the text. So, between the 2nd and 3rd treatises, having changed the numbering, they inserted an essay that, in genre, style, and volume, is strikingly different from all the treatises in the Second Volume. Realizing that such an obvious inconsistency/break, intruding into a coherent narrative system, could cause bewilderment among the reader, the scribes before the 4th treatise made the following inscription: “The words of the same Mar Isaac, other works compiled by him after the “Chapters on Knowledge” [as] instructions and explanations regarding our venerable service in silence.” In a work where there is a continuous numbering of chapters, there is no need to explain that after the 3rd treatise comes the 4th, especially since there are no such explanations in the inscriptions to other treatises of the Second Volume. The fear of exposing the forgery, a well-known psychological mechanism, involuntarily forced the scribes to make incorrect insertions, which ultimately made their tricks obvious. Let us consider further developments in the words of the scribes. In the 1st paragraph of the 4th treatise they write: “Now, by the grace of God our Savior, we have completed these “Chapters of Knowledge,” in which great power lies, since grace itself has clearly ordered them. For my conscience testifies to me that the energy [contained] in them is not from our human strength, since we are worth nothing in our way of life, and we do not have enough knowledge to allow us to rise to such a height of the mysteries set forth in this work. When we have now reached what follows those “Chapters” written with the help of our Lord, we intend to point out [the various types of] internal prayer and set them out successively in alphabetical order” (4:1). Let us cite for contrast the first line of the 2nd paragraph: “You should also know this, my brother” (4:2) 105. Sebastian Broca's translation reveals the same textual reality. IV. By the same Mar Isaac: other matters which were composed by him after the Chapters on Knowledge (to serve as) clarificatory indications of our honorable labor which is (performed) in stillness. 1. Now that, through the grace of God our Saviour, we have completed these Chapters on Knowledge, wherein great power is stored up – seeing that it was clearly grace which set them in order, for my conscience bears witness to me that they contain an operative power which does not belong to our own human strength, seeing that we are so deficient in the ascetic life and lack a knowledge which would allow us to be raised up to such a height of the mysteries which are stored in this writing – having reached this point following those chapters which were written down with the help of our Lord, our intention is to set out the (forms of) the converse of hidden prayer, grouped separately under the different headings (designated by) the letters (of the alphabet) 106 . It is easy to see that the text was damaged by copyists. The communicative addressing here jumps from the collective plane to the personal one and back, and in the sentence: “...we do not have enough knowledge that allows us to rise to such a height of the sacraments set forth in this work,” the scribes, unbeknownst to themselves, discovered themselves. Without hesitation, they “interspersed” into the texts of the Reverend, changing them for their own purposes. For if Isaac had written about himself in the plural (!?), that he did not have enough understanding to understand the work that he himself wrote, then such a confession would have to be recognized as madness, and the work would be unsuitable for reading. As we see, the scribes failed to hide their insertion of the “Gnostic Chapters,” although for many, starting with S. Broca, this forgery went unnoticed. For clarity, we will cite another similar orbit of scribes from the “Gnostic Chapters”. “Those who are [confused while reading] this book, seeing that any of these chapters of knowledge are written in some places of the book above the lines, do not think that this was done by mistake. For these chapters on knowledge are a kind of explanation of most of the phrases of this book. Therefore, [this was done] both for [their] understanding and for the greater convenience of the reader, due to the fact that this book was written by us for remembrance of our souls. As I wrote at the beginning of the book, [based] on all the teaching [contained] in Scripture, and a little on the temptations that befell me. We have written these chapters on knowledge above each of the sections, so that with their help we can clarify for the mind those difficult to read [places]. For there are [some] words, each of which in the context of [this book] has a different meaning: [taken separately], in themselves they have a different meaning” (“Chapters on Knowledge” 1:41, trans. S. Turkin). It is difficult not to notice in these two fragments given above the unity of style of the scribes. Communicative inconsistency and crude insertions that contradict the context suggest that the scribes not only came from a marginal environment, but were also in some kind of exalted state. It is also characteristic that they try to “canonize” their scholia made over the lines, exhorting the reader “not to be confused” and “not to think that this was done by mistake,” assuring him that the saint himself did it. Isaac, when he wrote and at the same time inscribed above the lines what he was writing. The end of the above paragraph also indicates that the scribes are trying, on the one hand, to use the Rev.’s texts for their own purposes, and on the other, to reconfigure the reader in their own way. Now it’s worth talking about the so-called “Gnostic chapters” themselves. This very extensive work consists of four sections, each of which contains one hundred paragraphs. Only the first “Word on Knowledge” was fully published in Russian in 2014 (by S. Turkin, edited by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) in the journal “Church and Time,” p. 109). The remaining sections were published only in fragments in the so-called “Newly Discovered Texts of St. Isaac the Syrian" Met. Hilarion (Alfeev) in 1998–2013. Let us note that a review of the manuscripts containing “Gnostic Chapters” 107 leads to an unambiguous statement that the composition and volume in which this work is found in the Second Volume (400 chapters (!)) have never been known. It is also interesting that the Tehran Manuscript, a copy of the Second Volume, made in 1895, contains omissions, including in the “Gnostic Chapters” 108. The maximum fragmentary presence of “Gnostic Chapters” in various manuscripts does not exceed ten paragraphs, the minimum – one out of four hundred (!). The subject matter of the “Gnostic Chapters” is heterogeneous and is a cosmological-ascetic treatise of the euagrist sense, i.e. contains a euagrist cosmogony with its heretical eschatology. In order to somehow organize such a diverse topic, the scribes had, as we said above, to “canonize” the scholia, i.e. attribute them to the Venerable himself. Isaac. Although they differ in style and logical conclusions. For example, the sudden break in the ascetic theme of spiritual peace with a paragraph containing eugristic cosmogony is explained in the note as follows: “This chapter is connected with the one that comes after it and confirms its content.” Such explanations are difficult to find in St. Isaac. The key point for the scribes’ insertions were phrases that can often be found in the Reverend’s words: “...as the Blessed Interpreter said.” Using this “authoritative marking,” they inserted the heretical thoughts of the Mopsuetian blasphemer into these passages, adding to them euagrist fables, no longer caring about thematic breaks, believing that Theodore’s authority was a sufficient argument for the authenticity of what was written. In the first centenary, paragraph 20 served as such a connecting key. Although this paragraph contains the theme of spiritual asceticism, the key phrase of the “blessed interpreter” allowed the scribes to adjust the cosmogonic paragraphs. Paragraphs 21 and 22 stand out especially strikingly. The second key point for the scribes’ insertions were such expressions from Isaac as “the mysteries of God,” “the mysteries of the new world,” “the mystery of renewal,” and the like. Using such an unknowable area as the “mysteries of God,” the scribes, finding a convenient moment for themselves, decided to act as interpreters of this incomprehensible area. Hiding behind the generally recognized authority of St. Isaac, they acted as experts who accepted the revelation of what will happen after death and what the outcome will be after the Last Judgment. However, “for every wise man there is enough simplicity.” As the Apostle Paul says, “whose eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has the heart of man breathed what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor. 2:9). And even Paul, being caught up “to the third Heaven,” where he “heard unspeakable words,” admits the impossibility of retelling Divine revelations (see 2 Cor. 12:4), how then did the humble scribes somehow manage to do this? It turns out that they not only saw and heard the unspoken, but were also able to describe it. It is obvious that something human was “revealed” to them, and this something, under the name of “the mysteries of God,” turned out to be nothing more than the forgotten, naive and rejected heresy of the apocatastasis of the maddened Origen. These are paragraphs 91 and 92. Despite the key words “the mystery of God,” this insertion destroys the unity of the narrative. It is important to note that the paragraphs of the “Gnostic Chapters” containing evagrist cosmogony and heretical Origenistic eschatology are practically absent from all manuscripts (!). The manuscript tradition reflected only the ascetic theme of the Gnostic Chapters. In this regard, the following thesis suggests itself: the source of these chapters of the Second Volume was the “Gnostic Chapters” of Evagrius, mainly the uncorrected Syriac version of S2, containing a fabulous cosmogony and heretical eschatology. Just as the ascetic centurions of Evagrius tried to hide under the name of Nile of Sinai, in the same way the scribes of the Second Volume decided to hide individual heretical paragraphs of Evagrius in the centurions of the venerable father. This is our supposed version. A comparison of these two manuscripts can greatly clarify the essence of the matter, i.e. to establish the origin of the cosmological and eschatological paragraphs of the “Gnostic Chapters” attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian. Let's look at some of the contradictions found in the Gnostic Chapters. “God is truly the Father of verbal creatures, whom He begat through His care, that they might become heirs of His glory in the time to come, that He might show them His riches for their endless enjoyment” (1:1). “The Lord Christ is both the firstborn and the only begotten. Both [concepts] are not affirmed by the unity of nature. For He is the firstborn of many brothers [in humanity]. He is the only begotten [according to Divinity] because of the absence of birth before and after Him. Both [concepts] are established in God and man and are united into one person. Those [properties] that belong to nature are not mixed because of unity” (1:49). “Together with them, from this fickle earth, all those who are worthy [of this] will be raised up to the eternal earth, to where the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and the mediator the Man Jesus, who is one of us, are inseparable...” (1:91). “[The expressions] of Your destiny are many, deep (Ps. 35:7) and darkness under His feet (Ps. 17:10) have [the same] meaning. [By the expression] “under His feet” one should understand things that [are] far from Him. For the contemplation of the judgment, care and guidance of the rational beings of God is unknowable” (1:51). “...There will be no end or change in that life” (1:19). It is easy to notice that the concepts found in these paragraphs even come into conflict with each other. In the 1st paragraph there is an expression uncharacteristic of Isaac: “Father of the verbal creatures whom He gave birth to.” Speaking about the origin and existence of Angels, St. Isaac emphasizes everywhere that they were created: “On the first day the nine spiritual natures were created in silence” (Volume 1, Homily 18). A similar statement is found in Volume Two, Discourse 2:1,2, closest to the Gnostic Chapters. In the 49th paragraph of the “Gnostic Chapters,” the Orthodox confession of the unity of two natures in one hypostasis, “in one person,” is read, and “the natures are not mixed due to unity.” Thus, the author of this paragraph excludes both Monophysitism and Nestorianism. But the 91st paragraph of the “Gnostic Chapters” already contains the Nestorian confession of two subjects: “Son” and “mediator Man Jesus.” Moreover, the author of this paragraph blasphemously “quadruples” the indivisible Trinity: “The Father, the Son and the Spirit are unmingled, and the mediator is the Man Jesus” (1:91). And finally, paragraphs 51 and 19 conflict with Discourses 39 and 40 of the Second Volume, which contain the heresy of apokatastasis. Despite the fact that “the contemplation of judgment, care and guidance of rational beings is unknowable,” the author of the last Conversations, with the help of Neoplatonic categories, tries to talk about the unknowable providences of judgment and the further fate of rational beings. The mysteries of his “Unknowable Contemplations of Judgment” easily lend themselves to further development in human reasoning, and the author believes that he has comprehended something Divine. Also, despite the great oath of the Angel, “that there will be no more time” (Rev. 10:6), the author of the 40th conversation is trying to hold on to the disappeared time in order to commit a certain “period of time” to Gehenna, otherwise it does not fit into the categories of human logic. So, as we see, the text of the Gnostic chapters is corrupted by scribes, doubtful and contradictory. One can only regret that Master of Theology S. Turkin also did not notice that in the texts he published there are thoughts and ideas expressing the teachings of at least three heresies: evagrist cosmogony, Origenistic eschatology and Nestorian two-subject Christology, which blasphemously rebels against the Trinity. With a high degree of probability, we can say that Sebastian Brock was really lucky to find the Second Volume of the works of St. Isaac the Syrian. However, the lack of a proper critical study of this find led to the fact that St. Isaac began to assimilate those works that practically did not belong to him. A textual and thematic review of the Second Volume from the point of view of composition, style and grammar made it possible to discover treatises in its composition that conflict with others and break the thematic unity of the narrative. These are clear signs of a forged essay and a later insertion 109. Stylistic and grammatical analysis revealed clumsy insertions by copyists. The scribes are Origenists (let's call them that), using the peculiarity inherent in the works of St. Isaac, in which the so-called “realized eschatology” is very clearly expressed, they decided to make him their “patron” and began to intersperse their own speculations into his writings. Under the name of the Reverend, they inserted into the text their writings with heretical eschatology. A critical review of the treatises of the Second Volume allows us to identify the genuine block of writings of St. Isaac and at the same time abandon the wrong direction given by Western researchers of the heritage of St. Isaac, who are inclined to attribute to him works that in fact do not belong to him. Over the past decades, Western theological science has acquired a noticeably expressed liberal-ecumenical vector and began to lose the patristic method of working with the patristic heritage. Therefore, we are deeply convinced that on this issue it is necessary to use the unshakable methods left to us by outstanding domestic patrolologists, such as S. Epifanovich, I. Popov and others, whose authority remains unquestioned to this day, and whose works remain relevant. So, in the Second Volume of the works attributed to St. Isaac the Syrian, we have identified a number of treatises that do not belong to him. These are tracts 11, 14 and 38–41. Treatise 3 may contain several maxims actually written by St. Isaac, namely those reflected in the manuscript tradition. But in terms of its genre, volume and style, it cannot in any way be one of the treatises of the Second Volume. The subject matter of these maxims is largely duplicated by other treatises in the Second Volume. Reconciliation of the 3rd treatise with the Syriac manuscript S2 can greatly clarify its origin. It also seems to us that it is artificial and erroneous to divide one treatise into two: the 27th and the 37th. Treatise 27 has, instead of an inscription, “Question on the topic of inner humility,” which is a natural continuation of Treatise 37. Perhaps a typo crept in here - instead of the first number “2” it was written “3” - and this led to the fact that this treatise was pushed out of its thematic block. About the Second Volume of St. Isaac the Syrian “one can say with confidence” that his full text, “both in the West Syrian and in the Melkian environment, was not known” 110. Therefore, the treatises listed above: 3, 11, 14, 38, 39, 40 and 41 are evidence of the later processing of the Second Volume by scribes - Origenists, who turned the completely ascetic treatise of the reverend father into an apology for their evil. Just as a skilled sculptor, separating unnecessary parts from a stone, sculpts a beautiful figure, so our small textual review, discarding unnecessary and alien blocks of heretical inserts, discovered the possibly authentic tablets of the Second Volume of the skilled architect Mar Ishak. According to our assumption, the original text of the Second Collection consisted of 32 treatises (where the 4th and 5th, 27th and 37th according to the numbering of the Second Volume were combined). The book was divided into two parts, between which was inserted a treatise from the First Collection on jealousy (according to the numbering of the Second Volume, the 17th treatise). The first part talks about how to live in silence and practice mental or pure prayer, which is the active part of silence. The second half of the book is devoted to the various types of meditation, peace of mind and other degrees in which the soul succeeds, which is the contemplative part of silence. In this form, the Second Collection can be considered as an organic continuation of the First and truly represents a newly discovered pearl that can replenish the treasury of the patristic heritage. III. On guard of Syrian Orthodoxy This study is aimed at overcoming the existing contradictions associated with the heritage and theology of St. Isaac the Syrian. The generally accepted dating of the life of St. Isaac the Syrian – 7th century. - put many scientists and patrolologists in a difficult position: how could a great saint, revered in the Orthodox Church, be a Nestorian? They tried to solve this problem in different ways. The famous patrolologist Archpriest Georgy Florovsky considered it necessary not to touch upon this problem at all, noting only that St. Isaac “stands somehow apart” in the Nestorian environment. A number of scientists have put forward the thesis about the “formal” affiliation of St. Isaac to the Nestorian Church (Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), A.I. Sidorov). This statement has not found a solid basis in science. A number of researchers, including Greek ones, such as Protopresbyter John Fotopoulos, find a way out in correcting the erroneous chronology and propose, not without reason, to change the dating from the 7th century. in the 5th century Encyclopedic article by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev), dedicated to St. Isaac the Syrian, leaves the Venerable within the boundaries of the Church of the East, slightly expanding the life chronology: no earlier than the middle of the 6th century, no later than the first half of the 8th century. In our opinion, a way out of this difficult situation that has developed in the research environment must be sought not so much based on the dates and boundaries of the Church, but on the theology of the Venerable himself. Isaac the Syrian. It is the character of the Reverend’s theology that will be able to determine the denomination and the era to which he belonged. Considering the generally accepted opinion that St. Isaac the Syrian belonged to the Nestorian Church, was ordained by the Nestorian Catholicos Givargis (661–680), and also the fact that in the writings of the Venerable One there are references to the “blessed interpreter”, i.e. Theodore of Mopsuestia, we decided to do a Christological and exegetical analysis, on the basis of which it will be possible to see to which confession the Venerable belonged. Isaac the Syrian, because it was in Christology and exegesis that the Church of the East sinned against the apostolic teaching and fell into the Nestorian heresy. To begin with, let us cite the Christological errors of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius as the main exponents of the doctrinal teaching of the Nestorian heresy and see how St. Isaac the Syrian agrees with them. Christology of Theodore and Nestorius Theodore of Mopsuestia did not recognize the Incarnation of God the Word; instead of the Incarnation, he introduced his own terminology of “perception”, “inhabitation”, “dwelling”. “God the Word took on the man Jesus,” “The Word of God dwelt in the man Jesus, born of a virgin,” “The Word of God dwelt as in a church in Jesus of Nazareth.” Theodore taught that “the union of God the Word with Christ was accomplished in the same way as the apostle speaks of regarding husband and wife: there will be two in one flesh (Eph. 5:31),” moreover, expressing the duality of persons; he refused “to recognize the two births of the same Son of God - from the Father and from the Virgin.” For Theodore, “The man Jesus is not alien not only to the reproachful natural infirmities of man, but even to the sinful inclinations with which He struggled in the course of moral improvement. The basis of all this is the Nestorian conviction that the Son of God was united with a human hypostasis that existed before the union.” Thus, the Nestorian duality of persons in Christ introduced a “fourth person” into the Holy Trinity 111. Such a distorted Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia prompted Nestorius to “open his mouth for blasphemy against God” (Rev. 13:6). Nestorius began to assert that “one is the Son who endured suffering, and another is God the Word,” he “rejected that anything human can be attributed to God the Word, that is, the Only Begotten, considering this humiliating for Him,” insisted, “that one cannot say of God that He fed on milk or was born of a Virgin.” Nestorius expressed the method of uniting Divinity and humanity in Christ with the words “conjugation,” “correlation,” or “dwelling.” He strictly avoids any reference to “community of properties.” He so emphasized the difference between “the One who perceived and the one perceived, that the one Christ was doubled in him, divided into two persons, two subjects.” Nestorius stopped calling the Most Holy Virgin Mary the Mother of God and began to call Her the Mother of God or the Mother of Christ, and Nestorius’s allies even proclaimed an anathema against those who call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God 112 . These are the Christological misconceptions, essentially blasphemy, of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, who were rightly anathematized by the fathers of the Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils. Now let's see what the Christology of St. Petersburg is. Isaac the Syrian. Christology of St. Isaac the Syrian Speaking about the Incarnation, St. Isaac relies on biblical texts, he uses prophetic metaphors: “like rain on a fleece and like a drop quietly dripping onto the ground... He hid His greatness, as it were, in a treasury under a veil of flesh (Heb. 10:20) and among us talked with us in it, making it for Himself with His wave in the bosom of the Virgin and Mother of God Mary, so that we, seeing that He He speaks to us as one of our kind; they were not horrified when they looked at Him” 113. Commenting on the biblical text: “The Holy Spirit will descend and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35), Rev. Isaac writes: “There are two types of action in overshadowing... The first is sanctification, received through Divine grace... as was the case with Elizabeth, John [the Baptist] and blessed Mary, blessed among women - although the latter is not comparable with others and is above the rank of created things” 114. So, according to Isaac the Syrian, “the incarnation of our Lord and His revelation in the flesh” 115 occurs “through the mediation of the Holy Virgin” 116, “in the womb of the Virgin” and “above the rank of created” phenomena. In his Christology, St. Isaac follows the Apostle Paul in using the biblical Christ–Adam typology. What was lost by Adam as a result of the Fall is restored by Christ in the Incarnation. “That fragrance that emanated from Adam before his crime, when the animals were gathered to Adam and he named them in paradise. This was taken from us; but Jesus renewed and gave us this again by His coming. This is how the fragrance of the human race is anointed” 117. Continuing the biblical typology of Christ as the New Adam, St. Isaac reasons: since “the beginning of our creation fell by breaking the fast,” then “the Savior began with this when he appeared to the world on the Jordan. For after baptism, the Spirit led Him into the desert and He fasted there for forty days and forty nights... Therefore, before fasting, the human race did not know victory and the devil never experienced his defeat from our nature; but from this weapon he was exhausted at the very beginning. And our Lord was the leader and firstborn of this victory, in order to place the first victorious crown on the head of our nature” 118. Here Rev. Isaac follows St. Ephraim the Syrian: “So, equipped with the same weapons with which the enemy defeated and plunged the world into condemnation, the Lord descended into battle, and in the flesh received from the Woman, conquered the world, overcame the enemy and condemned” (“Interpretation on Diatessaron”) 119. The purpose of the Incarnation according to St. Isaac saw the renewal of our fallen nature, the union of creation with the Creator, “through Him access to God was opened for us.” According to the Apostle, “one man died for many” (2 Cor. 5:4) and “by offering His body He united the world with His Father (Heb. 10:10). The world mixed with God, and creation and the Creator became one!” 120. Thanks to such a close connection, our nature has become “the sanctuary of the hiddenness of the Divinity and the ark of the sacraments” and “on our hidden members we can bear the shrine of the Divine” 121. In fact, here St. Isaac speaks of the deification of our nature. Such bold statements about the “mixing of creation with the Creator” do not testify to the Nestorianism of the Rev. In Christology, St. Isaac also lacks the doctrine of two subjects in Christ. For Rev. Isaac Christ is God who appeared in the flesh, “He who by nature is not visible to all creation,” put on a body and completed the economy for the salvation and life of all nations... Who, as God and Man, became the Intercessor of God and men” 122. This is what the confession of faith by St. Petersburg sounds like. Isaac into the One Incarnate Hypostasis: “O Christ, clothed with light as with a robe (Ps. 103:2), Who for my sake stood naked before Pilate, clothe me with Thy power... O Christ, upon whom the many-eyed cherubim cannot look because of the glory of Your Face, out of Your love You received spitting on Your Face; remove shame from my face and grant me prayer with an open face before You” 123. At St. Isaac can also be found the terms “perception” and “dwelling”, but their interpretation is different than that of Theodore of Mopsuestia. If in Theodore “the Word of God perceives the man Jesus,” then in St. Isaac is “a wonderful economy, perfected in humanity by the perception of our nature” 124, and since in the previous sentence of St. Isaac speaks of the “difference of venerable Hypostases,” the context clearly indicates that it is precisely one of the Hypostases that will assume our nature. The terminology of “monastery”, “dwelling and church” by St. Isaac is also deprived of a two-subject interpretation. If the Word of God “dwells,” then only in the womb of the Virgin, and if it has an “abode,” then only the body received from the holy Virgin. “Awaken in me the understanding of Your humility, with which You lived in the world, in this monastery, in which You clothed yourself from our members, through the mediation of the Holy Virgin” 125. Here Rev. Isaac depends on St. Ephraim the Syrian (cf.: “Blessed is He who dwells in the Mother’s womb, in which He built for Himself a church to dwell there, and an abode to dwell in it, and clothing to adorn itself with, and weapons to conquer with it!” 126). In conclusion, it should be noted that the absence of a two-subject (Nestorian, Theodore) Christology in St. Isaac the Syrian also makes his triadology infallible, that is, he does not “quadruple” the Holy Trinity, introducing an additional human hypostasis of the man Jesus. Unlike the author of the “Gnostic chapters” 127, St. Isaac confesses that in the Kingdom of Heaven glory ascends to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that it was the Son who took the body from the human race and redeemed the Church with His Blood. Here is this confession, sealed with prayer with triadological praise: “Autumn, Lord, Thy holy Church, redeemed by Thy Blood... For those who passed from this world deprived of a virtuous life and without faith, be their protector, for the sake of the body that You took from them, so that from the one united body of the world we bring glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Kingdom of Heaven and that pleasure that is not has an end forever and ever. Amen" 128. It is also important to note that the main Christological source for St. Isaac is the Holy Scripture. Thus, he writes: “Divine Scripture says a lot and often uses names not in the proper sense. Something else is characteristic of the body, but affects the soul. And vice versa, what is characteristic of the soul affects the body. And Scripture does not share this; but intelligent people understand this. Thus, from what is characteristic of the Divinity of the Lord, other things that are not applicable to human nature are said in Scripture about His all-holy body; and vice versa, derogatory things characteristic of His humanity are said about His Divinity. And many, not understanding the purpose of the Divine words, crawled into this, sinning incorrigibly” 129. No matter how strange it may seem, it was Theodore 130 and Nestorius (!) who erred incorrigibly in this area. As was shown above, it was the Christology of the last two authors that began to noticeably deviate from Church and New Testament teaching and ended in unspeakable blasphemy. So, the Christology of St. Isaac the Syrian is based primarily on New Testament revelation. He confesses the Incarnation of God the Word, Who took on flesh in the womb of the holy Virgin. In the Christological discussions of St. Isaac follows the Apostle Paul, using biblical typology, and from patristic sources he relies most on St. Ephraim the Syrian. God the Word and the Man Jesus in St. Isaac is one Person. Not only dual subjectivity, but also other Christological aspects of the Theodorean and Nestorian sense were not reflected in the Christology of St. Isaac the Syrian, the similarity of individual terms in the Reverend has a completely different theological meaning and interpretation. As a result, it turns out that the Christology of St. Isaac the Syrian is outside Nestorian influence, and his statement that in this area some “creeped and sinned incorrigibly” puts him in opposition to the doctrinal confession of the Nestorian heresy. Exegesis of the Holy Scriptures by Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. Isaac the Syrian In the School of Antioch, Theodore of Mopsuestia was a very representative exeget, but his adherence to the literal historical-philological method of interpretation led to his becoming the first reformer of the biblical canon. Theodore's hermeneutic method subjected the Bible to deconstruction, which inevitably led to criticism of the text on the one hand, and on the other hand, it criticized the revealed teaching about Christ 131. “Based on this, it can be argued that the extreme direction of the Antiochian school was the first experience in the deconstruction of Christianity” 132. Here is the testimony of Leontius of Byzantium about the editorial treatment Theodore of Mopsuestia subjected the Bible to. “This wise and great Theodore, as his zealous followers readily call him, not content with fighting with people, dared to fight against the glory of the Holy Spirit, since he interpreted the sublime scriptures transmitted by God-inspired men in a base manner and separated them from the God-determined number of books. The great servant of God Job... he condemned and rejected the writing of the Holy Spirit about him, which James, the brother of the Lord, confirmed in his conciliar epistle, saying: “You have heard the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the Lord” (James 5:11)... For this reason, I think, he rejected the very epistle of the great James, and other conciliar epistles of others. For he was not content, in imitation of Marcian, with attacks on the Old Testament, but even had to fight against the New Testament Holy Scripture, so that his struggle against the Holy Spirit would be more clearly visible... He completely rejected the scriptures of sacred hymns, psalms and songs and attributed all the psalms in the Jewish way to Zerubbabel and Hezekiah, with the exception of three, which he attributed to the Lord 133 ... And even the sacred song, the Song of Songs, praised by all men experienced in Divine things and all Christians, known to the churches of the whole world and which was a subject of wonder even to the Jews, He excluded the enemies of the cross of Christ from the number of sacred books, interpreting it according to his dissolute way of thinking and language... And what would the culprit and father of wickedness who acted in him be unable to do? Therefore, he added evil to evil, and also rejected the books of Chronicles, first and second, and also the book of Ezra” 134. Summarizing the above, Guryev gives a list of the books of Holy Scripture that Theodore removed from the canons of the Bible: the books of Job, the Song of Songs, the inscriptions of the psalms, the 1st and 2nd books of Chronicles, the books of Ezra 1 and 2, the books of Nehemiah and the books of the conciliar epistles: James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude, as well as the Apocalypse of John the Theologian. Without much doubt, he excluded from the canon those Old Testament books that were not included in the books of the Jewish canon: the book of Tobit, Judith, Esther, the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the 2nd and 3rd books of Ezra and the three books of Maccabees 135. The reasons why Theodore of Mopsuestia excluded so many sacred books from the canon of the Bible are primarily due to the fact that, as researchers note, Theodore was guided by his concept of the various types and degrees of inspiration of the sacred books. He did not consider many of the writers of sacred books to be prophets of God in the strict sense of the word, but to possess only the gift of wisdom. The second reason is that he was undoubtedly guided by the historical review of the Jewish canon - here Theodore completely follows Josephus and repeats his canon 136. The church historian Hesychius directly said that Theodore, “taking the first elements of his teaching from Jewish idle talk, wrote an essay on the prophecy of the psalms, rejecting all predictions about the Lord” 137. Theodore chose his method in typology: “where there is no similarity, there are no typos” 138 - as a result of which he did not recognize most of the messianic prophecies about Christ. For example, in his interpretation of the minor prophets, he believed that “there are no direct prophecies about Christ at all” 139. Theodore was convinced that the words of the prophets should be relevant only for the era in which they lived, so he limited all verbal prophecy to the era of the Maccabees 140. In order to clarify dark places in the biblical text, he used a wide range of philological tools, but rejected any metaphorical speculation 141. He also challenged and criticized many interpreters 142. He actively opposed the allegorical method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, and in general “directly compared allegory with the interpretation of dreams as an empty matter and unworthy of a Christian” 143. “So, unable to resolve the apparent contradictions in the biblical text, Theodore of Mopsuestia almost completely deprives the message of the Old Testament of its messianic character. In this case, his interpretation of the Old Testament, in the apt expression of Theodoret of Cyrus, is “more beneficial for the Jews than for the disciples of the faith.” Therefore, in many cases, the Mopsuestian bishop in his interpretations follows the Jewish exegetical tradition more than the Christian tradition” 144. Now let's see how much St. Isaac the Syrian follows his teacher, who, according to most scientists, was an undoubted authority for Isaac. Exegesis of Holy Scripture by St. Isaac the Syrian More careful work on the texts of St. Isaac the Syrian leads scholars to the opinion that “he (Isaac) departed far from the Antiochene tradition... and the Hellenistic or “Alexandrian” influence is felt much more strongly in him, primarily in exegesis. He usually explains Scripture symbolically, trying to reveal its deep and spiritual meaning” 145. Bruria directly states: “He uses an allegorical method of interpretation” 146. For example: “Paradise is the love of God,” as well as the Tree of Life for Isaac – “the love of God.” “Adam was removed from this tree by the advice of the devil. The tree of life is the love of God from which Adam fell away; and from then on joy no longer met him, but he worked and labored in the land of thorns” 147. Let us note that this biblical story is strikingly different from the interpretation offered by the author of the 39th Conversation of the Second Volume. The thorns, according to Isaac, are passions. “Indeed, passions are thorns, and they grow in us by being sown into the body” (Gal. 6:8). “But from that night on which the Lord poured out sweat (in the Garden of Gethsemane), He changed the sweat that brought forth thorns and thistles to the sweat that was shed in prayer and together in doing righteousness. For five thousand and five hundred-odd years God left Adam to work on earth, because until then “the way had not been revealed to the saints” (Eph. 3:5; Heb. 9:8). In the last days he came and commanded freedom to replace one sweat with another fast, allowed not a rest from everything, but a change of everything: because, for the duration of our suffering on earth, He showed us His love for mankind” 148. We deliberately chose interpretations of this biblical story to show the source that inspired St. Isaac to such an interpretation. This is the “Interpretation on the Diatessaron” by St. Ephraim the Syrian. “And His sweat was like drops of blood (Luke 22:44). Sweated to heal the sick Adam. By the sweat of your face, he says, you will eat your bread (Gen. 3:19). And in the garden he prayed to bring Adam back into the garden." 149 In the “Christology” section we also give an example of how St. Isaac interprets the biblical text, the thoughts of which he draws from the Commentary on the Diatessaron. Other examples of allegorical interpretation of the biblical text by St. Isaac is shown in the article “The Scourge of Love”, in section 4 “Exegetical and comparative analysis of the texts of the Second Volume”. Let us only note here that even when St. Isaac follows the historical and literal interpretation, and even then he leaves room for a different interpretation. For example: “For it is written: “If you stretch out your hands to me, I will turn away my eyes from you; and if you increase your prayer, I will not hear you” (Isaiah 1:15). And although this is said about others, in any case it is written in general about those who have abandoned the path of the Lord” 150. In general, no matter what hermeneutic procedure St. Isaac did not work with the biblical text; he everywhere pursues one goal - updating it and involving it in his spiritual experience. If St. Ephraim the Syrian builds a typology - Adam and Christ, while Isaac’s typology extends to the interpreter himself. Adam “Christ praying (see examples above). With the exegetical key of St. Isaac counted the prayer. “Do not approach the words of the sacraments contained in the Divine Scripture without prayer and asking for help from God, but say: “Grant me, Lord, to receive the feeling of the power contained in them.” Consider prayer as the key to the true understanding of what is said in the Divine Scriptures” 151. Thus, the exegesis of St. Isaac the Syrian is mystical in nature and is a kind of ascetic work, through which not only the innermost meaning is extracted, but also unity with the Spirit who spoke these words occurs. Now let's move on, because unexpected discoveries await us ahead. As mentioned above, Theodore of Mopsuestia acted as one of the first radical reformers of the Biblical canon. Twenty biblical books were declared not to be inspired by God! But if for St. Isaac Theodore of Mopsuestia - “the light of the whole world” 152, “a man who was filled with grace-filled gifts and who was entrusted with the hidden secrets of the Scriptures, so that he would guide the entire community of the Church on the path to truth” 153, it is interesting what motivates St. Isaac, when he uses those books that Theodore rejected? Yes, Rev. Isaac quotes the Song of Songs 154 in his works, imitates the zeal of the Maccabees 155, and repeatedly cites Job as an example. Moreover, Isaac does not doubt, unlike Theodore, the plausibility of the story of Job and the inspiration of God of this book: “And the opponent does this not because he has such power, but because God allows him, as we learned from the righteous Job” 156. But let's finally move on to consider the more serious contradictions between the two authors and, as they say, “open our eyes to the truth.” Let's start with the doctrine of creation. In his commentary on the book of Genesis, Theodore taught that intelligent invisible beings were created along with the visible world, and not before it, for the reason that they could only know their own goods only by comparing themselves with other creations 157. “Blessed Moses,” says Theodore, “does not use the expression “God said” in relation to what was first created, but says simply: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” because He does this by His will alone, without using the word, since there was no one yet who could learn from His word... It was when such beings appeared who were supposed to know from the word the Creator, hidden in His essence, then, according to His will, the word began to precede the action... And this served for rational and invisible beings to know the One who created creation by His command” 158. Theodore taught about two acts of creation: one occurred by will, and the second by the Word. All creations were divided into two successive rows: “The first row includes all those that appeared along with heaven and earth, and the second – those that appeared after them.” Angels, according to Theodore, were created together with heaven and earth and other visible objects, which Moses does not mention 159. In support of this opinion, Theodore tried to cite various arguments from Holy Scripture: from verses of Psalm 148, from the epistle of St. Paul (1 Cor. 4:9): “We have become a disgrace to the world, to angels and men.” “The Apostle Paul,” thinks Theodore, “does not recognize the creation of angels before the visible world, because he places them along with other creatures” 160. Theodore also gave other considerations on this issue. For example, he believed that “intelligent and invisible beings must know God; but they can only know Him from His Creation. And if so, then they had to be created together with visible objects, otherwise they would be completely devoid of knowledge about God,” and also “intelligent invisible beings can only cognize the benefits given to them from God, except by comparing themselves with other creations” 161. Let us now see what the opinion of St. Isaac on this issue. Oddly enough, it is strikingly different. Isaac writes: “On the first day nine spiritual natures were created in silence, and one nature in speech; and this is light" 162. Also Rev. Isaac does not agree with Theodore that the Angels, in order to know the Creator, need creation, through which they know Him and accept knowledge of themselves. On the contrary, Isaac teaches that “they are our teachers, as well as teachers of each other... they learn one from another, gradually ascending to that unit which has the Holy Trinity as a teacher... each rank receives transmission from another rank... until the secret passes in this way to all ranks. But many of the secrets stop at the first rank... And some secrets reach the third and fourth tier. And also, in revelations visible to the holy Angels, there is increase and decrease” 163. Also Rev. Isaac does not follow his imaginary teacher and does not change the order of created things, as Theodore does. “Two,” he says, “God did not create two creations—one visible and the other invisible—with the first things, but in the end brought them into existence out of nothing. What is visible by nature is light, and what is invisible by nature is our souls” 164. At St. Isaac's light was created on the first day, and man with a rational soul on the sixth, which corresponds to the biblical narrative. Further, Theodore, at the end of the book on the interpretation of Genesis, touches on the incorrect opinions of pagan scholars. “Thus, he condemns the opinion according to which the sky rotates like a ball, and the earth spins at one point, likening the defenders of this opinion to drunken people who imagine that the sky is always spinning” 165. But Isaac the Syrian himself falls under this censure. He writes that God created “the highest heaven - like a skin and a vault and a cube; the second heaven is like a wheel attached to the first heaven” 166. The words “the second heaven is like a wheel” certainly imply rotation. Here Rev. Isaac follows the "Six Days" of St. Basil the Great, whose opinion is literally repeated by John of Damascus. Although the fathers learned this opinion from those who philosophized about heaven, as St. Vasily, they did not consider it unnecessary to explain the world order of the universe. But if St. Isaac revered his teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia, and “the brilliance of his writings” was not even able to contain 167, then would he have allowed such disagreements and, moreover, brought himself under censure?.. However, that’s not all. Discussing the image of God in man, Theodore, in his commentaries on the book of Genesis, considered those teachers worthy of laughter who argued that the image of God in man lies in the rational soul or in the dominant position 168. According to Theodore of Mopsuestia, the image consisted of the unification of two natures: spiritual and physical, “as if some guarantee of connection for all creation.” Theodore writes: “in the image of God he created him - this is precisely the fact that in him all creations are united, and that through him, as an image, they approach God, fulfilling the laws given by God by their service for Him” 169. What about our Isaac? He says: “We believe that God created what was created in his image without passion. By being created in the image I mean not in relation to the body, but to the soul, which is invisible. For every image is removed from the image that is presented” [60]. Rev. again Isaac, along with the Cappadocians, is ridiculed by Theodore, again reproached by them, but again he is “stubborn” and does not want to follow his imaginary teacher. In general, one gets the impression that Rev. Isaac the Syrian not only did not honor Theodore of Mopsuestia, but did not even read his works; and if I read it, it was only to say the opposite. To clearly show this, we present the following. As is known, Theodore of Mopsuestia did not recognize the doctrine of original sin; he even waged an active struggle in this direction with St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, and Blessed. Hieronymus of Stridon 170. According to the teachings of Theodore, Adam was created mortal, and even if he had not sinned, he still had to die 171. Theodore did not share the primitive state of Adam and his descendants. Thus, he writes: “... we very often fall into sin because of the pleasure we get from food and drink and from the outside world... since many of us use it immoderately. But all this cannot matter to immortal nature. What pleasure, what love of money can exist in immortal nature? But since we are created by nature as mortals and exist as such, we are very much agitated by the aforementioned passions and are very often carried away by them into sins” 172. “Mortals,” he says, “wholly serve sin... in us sin reigns with all necessity, even if the soul has learned its duty a thousand times... Since we are mortal by nature, we are necessarily burdened with sins very often” 173. This view of anthropology led Theodore of Mopsuestia to the opinion that Christ also accepted a mortal nature, “appearing in this mortal and subject to sins nature... destroyed mortality in it and at the same time destroyed even the burden of sin” 174. But, according to the teachings of Theodore, this did not happen immediately, but “only the gradual free moral development of the perceived person should have determined his more and more close union with God the Word.” And yet, the complete union of Jesus Christ with God the Word did not take place during his lifetime; it became possible only after His resurrection from the dead 175. We see a completely different teaching in St. Isaac the Syrian. He distinguishes between the state of human nature before and after the fall of Adam. “That fragrance,” he says, “which emanated from Adam before his crime... was taken away from us; but Jesus renewed and gave us this again by His coming. This is how the fragrance of the human race is anointed” 176. By fragrance here we mean holiness and immortality, for this is what the Lord has “renewed and given” to us. Elsewhere, St. Isaac writes: “When you hear in Scripture about the passions of the soul and body, let it be known to you that this is said in relation to the causes of the passions: for the soul by nature is impassive. Those who adhere to external wisdom do not accept this, and like them, neither do their followers. On the contrary, we believe that God created those created in his image to be impassive.” 177 Here it is not difficult to guess who the saint means. Isaac under those who “do not accept” such teaching. Having first mentioned Scripture, by “followers” ​​he means those who misinterpret it. Again the name of Theodore is not pronounced, but is reproached. Also in another place, St. Isaac writes “about spiritual passions, as it is known, and everyone recognizes that purity is natural to the soul, we must boldly say that passions are not at all natural to the soul; because illness comes later than health. But it is impossible for one and the same nature to be both good and evil. Therefore, one thing necessarily precedes the other; Naturally, something is preceded by something else; because about everything accidental it is said that it is not from nature, but came from outside... if virtue is naturally the health of the soul, then the illness of the soul will already be passions, something accidental that has come into the nature of the soul and takes it out of its own health” 178. So, what has been said is enough to see how different the opinions of these two authors are regarding the doctrine of the state of human nature before and after the fall of Adam. In conclusion, Rev. Isaac writes: “Therefore, let no one blaspheme God, as if He put passions and sin into our nature” 179. At first glance it may seem that here St. Isaac finally agrees with Theodore, since Theodore, speaking against the doctrine of original sin, noted that sin is not in nature, but in the will. However, firstly, in the speech of St. Isaac's passions are mentioned: “he put in passions and sin,” but according to the teachings of Theodore, our nature is passionate precisely because it was created mortal. Secondly, Rev. Isaac distinguishes between “retribution” and “curse” in Adam’s crime 180. So, everyone received reward, and curse according to their intention. “And just as Adam, Eve and the serpent, although they all received retribution from God for sin, were nevertheless cursed to varying degrees, so it happens with their sons: for each, the severity of the punishment is proportionate to his intention and addiction to sin” 181. And finally, thirdly, since Theodore of Mopsuestia, who spoke out against the defenders of original sin, “there was only one way out that made it possible to explain the phenomenon of the general sinfulness of the human race - to call the fear of death the cause of sin. Taking this idea from the Apostle Paul (Heb. 2:14–15), the Antioch theologian made it the basis of his anthropology” 182. But for St. Isaac the Syrian fear of death is not such a fatal or “otnological” cause, but is something transitory. “Every person who lives uncleanly desires a temporary life. The second according to him is the one who is deprived of knowledge. Someone beautifully said that the fear of death saddens a man who is condemned by his conscience. And whoever has a good testimony in himself desires death as much as life” 183. And again: “Let us always remember death, and in this thought draw closer to God with our hearts, and despise the vanity of the world, and worldly pleasures will become despicable in our eyes” 184. Thus, death and the memory of it in St. Isaac performs the opposite function. We see that in the doctrine of original sin, St. Isaac diverges from Theodore of Mopsuestia. One could continue to explore the differences between these two authors on such issues as: messianic places and their boundaries, classification and types of prophecies, justification and deification of man. You will not be surprised if you find discrepancies between them in all these topics. And we still have to answer one more question: how does St. Isaac the Syrian could refer to and quote Theodore of Mopsuestia, call him “the light of the whole world”, “blessed interpreter”, exalt him “as one of the apostles”, and anathematize those “who bring controversy regarding his interpretations or doubt his works” 185? Whereas his theology, in the broad sense of the word, starting with Christology and ending with cosmology, diverges from the teachings of Theodore, and in some places is in oppositional confrontation! In our opinion, references and quotes from Theodore of Mopsuestia in the texts of St. Isaac the Syrian - these are later insertions. Moreover, apparently it can be assumed that two editions of the inserts were made. The first - shortly after the death of St. Isaac, for the reason that the authority of the great teacher would be “branded” with Nestorianism and thus appropriated and adapted the body of his works in the Nestorian environment. The second was made approximately in the 9th century. already adherents of the apocatastatic heresy. With the second edition to the corpus of works of St. Isaac included treatises that did not belong to his pen, and in those places where the name of Theodore or his epithet “blessed interpreter” was mentioned, additional inserts of heretical eschatology and cosmology were added, breaking the unity of the narrative of ascetic themes. Such insertions are very noticeable in the Gnostic chapters. So, we finish the trilogy of justification of St. Isaac the Syrian, consisting of three articles. In the first article, “By the Scourge of Love,” the eschatology of St. Isaac the Syrian and a comparative analysis of the eschatological passages of the First and Second volumes was carried out. The analysis showed a striking contrast. At St. Isaac the Syrian's eschatological teaching does not go beyond the Orthodox tradition. On the contrary, he even solves the problem of the presence of God in hell and does not deprive sinners of the sacrament of Divine love, which, however, becomes a tormenting fire for them 186. Here Rev. Isaac follows Basil the Great 187. For the author of the Second Volume, eschatology goes beyond the framework of Orthodox teaching and is entirely based on Origen-evagrist eschatology and cosmogony. For Rev. Isaac's authorities in eschatological views are St. Ephraim the Syrian, to whom he refers, and St. Basil the Great; the author of the Second Volume is guided in this matter by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus. As a result of a comparative analysis, a forgery was revealed. In the second article “Second volume of St. Isaac the Syrian. Textual review of published treatises in Russian”, a comparative analysis of all the treatises of the Second Volume was carried out. As a result, treatises were identified that did not belong to the pen of St. Isaac the Syrian. Thus, a comparative analysis made it possible to discover a genuine block of treatises by St. Isaac the Syrian, located in the Second Volume. It should be especially emphasized that the presence of insertions and contradictions in individual treatises puts the philological analysis carried out to identify the Second Volume in a critical position and requires revision or coordination aimed at those treatises in which these symptoms are found. And finally, in the final article, “On Guard of Syrian Orthodoxy,” a comparative analysis of the Christological and exegetical views of St. Isaac the Syrian and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who revealed complete disagreement between these two authors on all key theological issues! In this regard, it becomes necessary to revise the thesis that “in the field of dogmatics and exegesis, the main authorities for Isaac the Syrian... were Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus” 188. This thesis is based on a purely external criterion (reliance on quotations), does not withstand theological criticism and has penetrated into our theological science thanks to the authority of Western specialists. In the field of dogmatics for St. Isaac the Syrian's authorities are St. Basil the Great and St. Ephraim the Syrian, in Angelology - Dionysius the Areopagite, in exegesis - St. Ephraim the Syrian and St. Macarius of Egypt - from the latter, he probably adopted the Alexandrian method of exegesis. It is also important to note that from the middle of the 6th century, a number of councils were held in the Nestorian Church, at which the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia were affirmed. Thus, at one of these councils under Patriarch Sabaryez 189 in 596, the following definition was adopted: “The comments of the great interpreter (i.e. Theodore) must be followed in everything, and whoever rejects them in any way or thinks differently from them, let him be anathema” 190. At their consecration, the Nestorian Patriarchs swore an oath to the bishops and people “to adhere to the commentary of the wisest teacher, Bishop. Theodore and his liturgy." “Patriarch Sabaryez (596-604) condemned the work of one highly respected Nestorian writer Hanan Adjaben, who had up to 800 listeners, because he did not follow Theodore in everything when explaining the Holy Scriptures. And Patriarch Jezuiabu 191 anathematized one writer because, while challenging Theodore, he followed John Chrysostom "192. Such a strict church policy could not allow St. Isaac the Syrian (who, contrary to the definition of the councils “to follow in everything,” did not follow Theodore of Mopsuestia in anything), was free to write treatises, expressing Orthodox teaching in them. So, our thesis, which was outlined at the beginning of the article, has fully justified itself at this point in the research: the nature of the theology of St. Isaac the Syrian placed him in the era that is highlighted to him by outstanding Russian hagiographers, St. Filaret (Gumilevsky) and Sergius (Spassky), - not the 7th, but the end of the 6th century 193. And allusive references to the interpretation of St. Ephraim the Syrian on the Diatessaron in the texts of St. Isaac may also serve as a basis for an earlier dating. Just as a layer of dusted dirt is removed from an ancient icon and over time the splendid appearance of a saint emerges, so our research removes the dust of prejudice and the dirt of heretical accusations from the godly and godly wise Mar Isaac the Syrian and presented him as an unshakable outpost of Syrian Orthodoxy. Kessel G. M. Two editions of the works of St. Isaac the Syrian // B. T. Issue. 46. ​​M., 2015. P. 312. Kessel G. M. Manuscript heritage of St. Isaac the Syrian: review of Syrian manuscripts // Venerable Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. M., 2014. P. 60. Kessel G. M. Two editions of creations... P. 311. Kessel G. M. Manuscript heritage... P. 59. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev). In search of spiritual pearls // St. Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. M., 2014. P. 38. Venerable Isaac the Syrian. About Divine mysteries and spiritual life. Newly discovered texts. Per. with sir. Ep. Hilarion (Alfeev). St. Petersburg, 2006. P. 62. Kessel G. M. Two editions of creations... P. 308. Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina. Syrian Patrology. PSTGU, 2011. P. 201. Kessel G. M. Manuscript heritage... P. 60. Venerable Abba Isaac the Syrian. Words of the Ascetic. Sergiev Posad., 1911. (further words from the First Meeting will be quoted from this edition). Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 443. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 399. Quote by: Zinkovsky Methodius, Hierom. Patristic categories and theology of personality. St. Petersburg, 2014. P. 78. Zinkovsky Methodius, Hierom. Patristic categories and theology of personality. St. Petersburg, 2014. P. 110. Father George quotes Bejan's 1909 translation. Georgy Florovsky, prot. Eastern fathers. M., 2005. P. 551. Fokin A.R. Evagrius of Pontus // P.E. T. 16. M., 2007. P. 559. Sebastian Brock. Door to infinite space // Venerable Isaac the Syrian. About Divine secrets... P. 14. Fokin A. R. Evagrius of Pontus. P. 561. Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina. Syrian Patrology. P. 110. Hilarion (Alfeev), ig. The spiritual world of St. Isaac the Syrian. St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 24. Epifanovich S. L. Lectures on Patrology. St. Petersburg, 2010. P. 62. St. Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage // Materials of the First International Patristic Conference of Church-wide Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius. P. 173. Fokin A.R. Apokatastasis in the Syrian Christian tradition. P. 173. Fokin A. R. Evagrius of Pontus. P. 567. Fokin A.R. Apokatastasis... P. 176. Compare: “evasion in all your movements” (II 40.4.). Fokin A.R. Apokatastasis... P. 176–178. Compare: “Contemplation of this glorious nature of the Trinity” (II 12.1.). Fokin A.R. Apokatastasis... P. 180–181. Lossky V. Vision of God. M., 2003. P.397. Fokin A.R. Apokatastasis... P. 181. Guillaumont A. Un philosophe... P. 403. Fokin A.R. Apokatastasis... P. 187. Epifanovich S. L. Lectures on Patrology. P. 91. Venerable Isaac the Syrian. About Divine secrets... P. 271. Epifanovich S. L. Lectures on Patrology. P. 64. Ephraim the Syrian. Sergiev Posad, 2003. T. 3. P. 486. Basil the Great, St. Creations. T. 1. Siberian euphony, 2008. P. 953. The Syriac version lacks references to St. Gregory, but are available in Russian and Greek. We place here the thoughts of St. Gregory as an addition to the thoughts of St. Basil the Great. Gregory the Theologian, St. M., 2010. T. 1. P. 803. Right there. P. 486. Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures are recognized as authentic works of Ephraim the Syrian. John Chrysostom. M., 2002. T. 8, book. 2. pp. 797–800. Venerable Isaac the Syrian. About Divine secrets... P. 273. Hilarion (Alfeev), ig. Spiritual world of St. Isaac the Syrian. St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 24. Anthony Thiselton. Hermeneutics. Cherkassy, 2011. P. 122. Savrey V. Ya. Antiochian school in the history of Christian thought. Moscow State University, 2012. P. 72. Savrey V. Ya. Antiochian school... P. 105. Biblical commentary of the Church Fathers and other authors of the 1st-3rd centuries. T.VI. Hermeneutics. 2003. pp. 329–331. Venerable Isaac the Syrian. About Divine mysteries... P. 240–269. Epifanovich S. L. Lectures on patrolology. pp. 60–65. Omkova N. A. Ierosanfion. Holy Mount Athos, 2010. P. 136. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 401. The link in this fragment to St. Ephraim the Syrian once again confirms the “eschatological” unanimity of these reverend fathers. Kessel G. M. Two editions of the works of St. Isaac the Syrian // BT No. 46. M., pp. 311–312. Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. Isaac the Syrian St. // P.E.T.XXVI. M., 2011. P. 704. Mateos. Lelya-Sapra. 1959 East Syrian rite // P.E.T.IX. M., 2005. P. 480. Mark of Ephesus, saint. Florentine Union, trans. Ambrose (Pogodin), archimandrite. Jordanville. New York. 1963. P. 69. Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. In search of spiritual pearls // St. Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. M., 2014. P. 30. Acrostic // P.E.T.I. M., 2000. P. 404. Isaac the Syrian, St. About Divine mysteries and spiritual life. M., 1998. P. 47. Sebastian Brock. Isaac of Nineteen. The Second part Chapters IV-XLI Lovanii in Aedibus Peeters. 1995. Turkin S. 2014. pp. 113–115; Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. 2011. P. 697.; Kessel G. 2014. pp. 53–57; Kyala S. 2014. pp. 93–95. Turkin S. 2014. pp. 111–112. Epifanovich. S.L. Lectures on Patrology. St. Petersburg, 2010. P. 64. Kessel G. Manuscript heritage of St. Isaac the Syrian. M., 2014. P. 57. Valentin Asmus, prot. Ecumenical Council V // P. E. T. IX, M. 2005. pp. 624–626. Valentin Asmus, prot. Ecumenical Council III // P. E. T. IX. M. 2005. S. 590 – 593. I/53 (233). The Roman numeral indicates the volume number, followed by the Word and page numbers. The first volume of Rev. Isaac the Syrian is quoted from the publication: Sergiev Posad. 1911. The second volume is quoted from the publication of Oleg Abyshko. St. Petersburg 2013. Translation by Metropolitan. Hilarion (Alfeev). In 20, 1. The edition of the original text by P. Bejan is indicated by the English letter “B”. Translated by Met. Hilarion (Alfeev). Ephraim the Syrian, Creations. T. 4. Sergiev Posad. 2003. P. 276. Ephraim the Syrian, St. T. 3. P. 71. Let us remind the reader that the Second Volume contains treatises that, as we have shown in our work, do not belong to the pen of St. Isaac the Syrian. See the article “Second volume of St. Isaac the Syrian. Textual review of published treatises in Russian.” What St. Isaac does not name the one who “sinned incorrigibly”, testifying to the situation that developed in his era around the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia. For example, this is what Blessed Theodoret did: when he challenged Theodore or his admirers, he never mentioned his name. The reason for this St. Cyril of Alexandria in a letter to St. Proclus of Constantinople expressed that the name of Theodore in the first years after his death was famous throughout the East. For the same reason, the fathers of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, having condemned Theodore’s creed, kept silent about the name of the author (Guriev. P.S. 167 - 168). See Christology section. Savrey V. Ya. Antiochian school in the history of Christian thought. Moscow State University. 2012. P. 105. Researchers believe that there were four of them: II, VIII, XLIV, CLIX. Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. M. 1890. pp. 195–197. Savrey V. Ya. Antiochian school... Moscow State University. 2012. P. 104. Boris Timofeev, priest. Typology in the interpretation of prophecies by Theodore of Mopsuestia // Christian Reading No. 2. 2016. SPbPDA. P. 206. Anthony Thiselton. Hermeneutics. Cherkasy. 2011. P. 122. Guryev P.V. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia... P. 218. Savrey V. Ya. Antiochian school... P. 72. Boris Timofeev, priest. Typology in interpretation... P. 201–202. Georgy Florovsky, prot. Eastern fathers. M. 2005. P. 542. Bruria Bitton-Ashkelon. Brought to silence // St. Isaac the Syrian and his spiritual heritage. M. 2014. P. 243. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Creations T. 4. Sergiev Posad. 2003. P. 428. Guryev P.V. Uk. op. P. 70. Guryev P.V. Uk. op. P. 260. This is what the three great Cappadocians taught: St. Vasily, two Gregory, etc. Ephraim the Syrian. Guryev P.V. Uk. op. pp. 274–276. Guryev P.V. Uk. op. P. 155. For the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Savrey V. Ya. Antiochian school... P. 107. Interpreting the words of the Psalmist: “The voice of the Lord cutting off the flame of fire,” St. Vasily says: “That is why some teaching secretly teaches us about reward for the deeds of our lives, that the nature of fire will be divided and the light will be provided for the enjoyment of the righteous, and the torment of burning will be assigned to those punished.” And again: “I think that the fire, prepared as punishment for the devil and his angels, is stopped by the voice of the Lord for the purpose that of the two abilities of fire - burning and illuminating - the terrible and punitive will be prepared for those worthy of burning, and the luminous and radiant will be separated for the joy of those who are having fun.” Basil the Great, St. T. 1. Siberian belfry. 2008. P. 505. Hilarion Alfeev, Metropolitan. Isaac the Syrian St. // P.E.T. XXXVI. M. 2011. P. 700. Guryev P.V. Uk op. P. 354.