Ipatievsky Vestnik № 1 (25), 2024

The article discusses the issue of authorship of the 31st chapter of the Book of Proverbs of Solomon. In modern biblical studies, the question of the authorship of this fragment remains open. In the Jewish tradition, it is generally accepted that the author is the son of King David, Solomon. But at the same time, even in ancient times, the opinion was established that the collector of the book was the pious king Hezekiah (7th century BC), and the final edition of the Proverbs appeared after the Captivity (6th century BC). Certain passages of the Book of Proverbs have references to certain persons, for example: “the parables of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah collected together” (chapters 25–29), “the words of Agur, the son of Jacob” (chapter 30) and “the words of Lemuel the king” (31 chapter). The last fragment listed is the subject of this article. Using the example of chapter 31, the question is explored that the Book of Proverbs, in addition to Solomon, formally has more authors, who technically can be called “co-authors of Solomon.”

The theological polemics with Jehovah's Witnesses remain relevant, despite their recognition as an extremist organization in 2017. An essential element of the doctrine of the “witnesses” is the idea of the resurrection of the elite class of “anointed Christians” in certain spiritual bodies that are not identical to earthly ones. This doctrine reproduces the ancient Gnostic teaching about the salvation of only the spiritual essence of man, with which he polemicized in the 2nd century. sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyon. The article analyzes his main anti-G nostic arguments: about the bodily communion of the Body and Blood of Christ; about the omnipotence of God, Who resurrects decayed flesh; about the bodily ascension of Elijah and Enoch, as well as the bodily salvation of the prophets from disasters; about the posthumous appearances of Jesus Christ; about the complete man as a union of soul and body; about the presence of the pledge of the Spirit in the mortal bodies of Christians; about the concept of a spiritual person. An interpretation of a number of key texts is also provided (1 Cor. 15:50, etc.). Despite the discrepancy between the teachings and practices of the “witnesses” and the general church (for example, they prohibit the acceptance of symbols for the vast majority of believers; the soul is denied as a substance separate from the body), these arguments generally retain their polemical significance, since they reveal the method of our salvation, distorted by the “witnesses”.

The aim of this work is to study the catechetical teaching of Metropolitan Mikhail (Desnitsky) (1761–1821). The relevance of the study depends on the fact that despite the large theological heritage and an important role in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, the catechetical teaching of Metropolitan Michael has not been systematically studied by the Orthodox Church. The object of the study is the catechetical teaching of the Orthodox Church, and the subject of the study is the catechetical teaching of Metropolitan Michael (Desnitsky). The methodology of this study is built in accordance with the objectives. As the main research methods, general scientific methods are required: description and analysis. By the methods mentioned above, the catechetical teaching of Metropolitan Michael is described and its composition is analyzed. As a result of the study, the features of the catechetical teaching of Metropolitan Mikhail are identified and characterized.

The article analyzes the most important and still unresolved problem of the history of the Kostroma Holy Trinity Ipatiev Monastery — the question of the time and circumstances of its foundation. The well-known hypotheses are presented: traditional (the foundation of the monastery in 1330 by the Tatar Murza Couple, who was baptized with the name of Zachariah), scientific (the creation of the monastery at the end of the XIII century as a patrimonial monastery by the same Zachariah Couple), Novgorod (the foundation of the monastery in the XIII century by a certain Novgorod boyar). A historical reconstruction of the events of the XIII–XVI centuries is proposed, describing the first period of the history of the Ipatievsky Monastery as its existence under the name of Alexandrovsky as a special place of veneration for the memory of the blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. The conclusion is made about the probable foundation of the Alexander (later Ipatiev) monastery by Grand Duke Ivan Kalita in 1330, which makes it possible to consider the monastery a shrine of three royal dynasties: The Rurikovich, Godunov and Romanovs.

The article, based on various historical sources, attempts to analyze the position of Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky) on issues of episcopal service, the position of the Church in the state, freedom of conscience, motives and freedom of choice made by church hierarchs concerning action programs and responsibility for decisions made. The Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, consistently implemented a program of loyalty in relations between the Church and the state. The actions of Metropolitan Sergius received mixed reviews, but their result was the restoration of church unity and the preservation of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The article proposed to the reader is aimed to get acquainted him with the Church sources revealing the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Finnish Autonomous Orthodox Church during the period when Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) was the President of the Department for External Church Relations. The proces sing and analysis of archival materials, primarily the Archive of the Department for External Church Relations, and official church publications allow us to conclude about the benevolent nature of bilateral church contacts in various areas of interaction. The settlement of disputes over the canonical status of the Church of Finland has made it possible to achieve such a level of cooperation.

The article examines such an original and unique phenomenon in the world of faleristics and numismatics as commemorative medals of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church, also known as desktop commemorative medals. Commemorative medals of theological schools became widespread in the 20th–21st centuries. among representatives of teaching corporations, employees of various kinds of church institutions and, of course, graduates of theological schools, both clergy and laity. Commemorative medals are the object of collecting by both falerists and numismatists, and as a phenomenon are located at the intersection of the interests of these two original and multifaceted trends in collecting. In the article, in chronological order, the reader is offered commemorative medals of theological academies and theological seminaries, known to the author, which are dedicated both to the anniversaries of the theological schools themselves, and to outstanding representatives of church science of the past and present. Commemorative medals of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church, having arisen in the difficult Soviet historical period for the Orthodox Church, became evidence not only of the revival of the corporate spirit of the highest theological school, but also a noticeable and valuable contribution to modern church phaleristics, numismatics and Russian church applied art.

The article examines the significance of Gospel motifs in the plot and imagery system of A. P. Chekhov’s story “Cossack” in order to determine the author’s Christian thought about the spiritual revival of Russia.

This article reveals the activities of the church choir of the orchestra of the Military Academy of Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection in the Syrian Arab Republic.

The article examines the place and significance of the discipline “Russian Literature” in the educational process of a theological school, the need to study this discipline, its cultural significance in the spiritual heritage of Russia over a long historical period. In this regard, the history of the development of Russian fiction is explored, starting from ancient Russian literature and ending with the modern literary process, the spiritual continuity of fiction from spiritual literature, their close connection, the teaching nature of Russian fiction. The article draws attention to the Orthodox Christian basis of secular literature in its desire to convey to the reader the God's Truth. The following periods are distinguished: ancient Russian literature, literature of the 18th and 19th centuries, the 20th century, and the newest period — the beginning of the 21st century. The works of M. V. Lomonosov, G. R. Derzhavin, A. Pushkin, N. Gogol, F. M. Dostoevsky are analyzed. Attention is paid to modern Orthodox prose, in particular, priestly prose. It is noted that the very appeal of clergy to literary artistic creativity is a natural fact, which allows them to influence the modern flock not only by preaching in church, but also in the teaching word of Orthodox fiction.

-

-

-

-

-