patristicБиблия и христианская древностьBible and Christian Antiquity2658−78152713-1122Московская духовная академия10.31802/BCA.2020.8.4.004patristic-166Research ArticleИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ. ПатрологияRESEARCHES. PatrologyКому служат ангелы? Учение Иоанна Филопона об ангельском мире в контексте христологической полемики середины VI в.Whom do Angels Serve? The Teaching of John Philoponus on the Angelic World in the Context of the Christological Controversy of the Mid Sixth-centuryЩукинТ. А.ShchukinT. A.

Тимур Аркадьевич Щукин, ассоциированный сотрудник Социологического института Федерального научно-исследовательского социологического центра Российской академии наук; аспирант Российского государственного педагогического университета им. А. И. Герцена

190005, Санкт-Петербург, ул. 7-я Красноармейская, д. 25/14 

Timur A. Shchukin, Associate Researcher at the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences; PhD student of the Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia

7th Krasnoarmeyskaya, 25/14, St. Petersburg 190005

tim_ibif@mail.ruФедеральный научно-исследовательский социологический центр Российской академии наук; Российский государственный педагогический университет им. А. И. ГерценаFederal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia2020010320260472100Copyright © Щукин Т.А., 20262026Щукин Т.А.Shchukin T.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.patristic.ru/jour/article/view/166

В статье на материале трактата «О сотворении мира» («De opificio mundi») (557–560 гг.) рассматривается ангелология богослова и философа VI в. Иоанна Филопона. Проводится сравнение его учения об ангелах и учения Феодора Мопсуестийского; делается вывод о том, что ключевым расхождением между ними было понимание функции ангельского мира: если для антиохийцев ангел обращён к творению и человеку как его венцу, то для Иоанна Филопона — к Богу. Подвергается сомнению традиционное представление о том, что основным объектом критики Иоанна Филопона был трактат Космы Индикоплова «Христианская топография». Приводятся аргументы в пользу того, что трактат «О сотворении мира» следует рассматривать в русле полемики вокруг богословия Трёх глав 530–550-х гг.

The paper uses the material of the treatise «On the creation of the world» («De opificio mundi») (AD 557–560) to examine the angelology of the sixth-century theologian and philosopher John Philoponus. A comparison is made between his teaching on angels and the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia; it is concluded that the key difference between them was the understanding of the function of the angelic world: whereas for the Antiochians the angel is addressed to creation and man as its crown, then for John Philoponus the angel is addressed to God. The traditional idea that the main object of criticism of John Philoponus was the treatise of Cosmas Indicopleustes «Christian Topography» is questioned. It is argued that the treatise «On the creation of the world» should be considered in the context of the Three-Chapter controversy which took place in the 530s–550s.

Иоанн ФилопонФеодор МопсуестийскийангелологияхристологияАнтиохийская школаЛеонтий ВизантийскийЮстинианПятый Вселенский Соборспор о Трёх главахJohn PhiloponusTheodore of MopsuestiaangelologyChristologySchool of AntiochLeontius of ByzantiumJustinianThe Fifth Ecumenical CouncilThree-Chapter controversyИсследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 20-011-41004 «Трактат Иоанна Филопона “О сотворении мира” в контексте ближневосточной сиро-палестинской и византийской богословской (христологической, антропологической, космологической) традиции».ReferencesБеневич Г. И. Иоанн Филопон // Антология восточно-христианской богословской мысли. Ортодоксия и гетеродоксия / под ред. Г. И. Беневича и Д. С. Бирюкова. М.: Никея; СПб.: РХГА, 2009. Т. 2. С. 33–54.Alieva O. V. (ed.) (2019) “Vasilij Velikij. Besedy na Shestodnev. Beseda pervaja” [“Basil the Great. Homilies on Hexameron. Homily One”]. Philosophy: Journal of the Higher School of Economics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 195–244 (in Russian).Варламова М. Н. Учение Аристотеля и Филопона об элементах в контексте спора о вечности неба // Вестник РХГА. 2017. Т. 18. № 1. С. 55–68.Benevich G. I. (2009) “Ioann Filopon” [“John Philoponus”], in G. I. Benevich, D. S. Birjukov (eds.) Anthology of Eastern Christian Theological Thought. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxia. Moscow: Nikeja; Saint-Petersburg: RHGA, vol. 2, pp. 33–54 (in Russian).Грацианский М. В. Император Юстиниан Великий и наследие Халкидонского Собора. М.: МГУ, 2016.Clark T. L. (2008) Imaging the Cosmos: The Christian Topography by Cosmas Indicopleustes. PhD Thesis. Philadelphia.Лурье В. М. Две иудейские космологии: Косма Индикоплов и рабби Иуда бар Илай // Иудаизм эпохи Второго Храма, раннее христианство и античность. Взаимодействие в истории, литературе и культуре и отражение этого периода в культурной памяти Средних веков и Нового времени / под ред. И. Р. Тантлевского. СПб.: СПбГУ, 2013. С. 84–123.Congourdeau M.-H. (2002) “L’embryon entre néoplatonisme et christianisme”. Oriens-Occidens: sciences, mathématiques et philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Age classique, vol. 4, pp. 201–216.Clark T. L. Imaging the Cosmos: The Christian Topography by Cosmas Indicopleustes. PhD Thesis. Philadelphia, 2008.Daley B. (ed.) (2017) Leontius of Byzantium. Complete Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Congourdeau M.-H. L’embryon entre néoplatonisme et christianisme // Oriens-Occidens: sciences, mathématiques et philosophie de l’Antiquité à l’Age classique. 2002. Vol. 4. Р. 201–216.Daniélou J. (1953) Les anges et leur mission d’après les Pères de l’Église. Chevetogne: Éd. De Chevetogne.Daniélou J. Les anges et leur mission d’après les Pères de l’Église. Chevetogne: Éd. de Chevetogne, 1953.Devreesse R. (1948) Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Studi e testi; 141).Devreesse R. Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948. (Studi e testi; vol. 141).Devreesse R. (1959) Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Studi e testi; vol. 201).Devreesse R. Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuque et des Rois. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1959. (Studi e testi; vol. 201).Elweskiöld B. (2005) John Philoponus Against Cosmas Indicopleustes. A Christian Controversy on the Structure of the World in Sixth-century Alexandria. Lund: Lund University Department of Classics and Semitics.Elweskiöld B. John Philoponus Against Cosmas Indicopleustes. A Christian Controversy on the Structure of the World in Sixth-century Alexandria. Lund: Lund University Department of Classics and Semitics, 2005.Fladerer L. (1999) Johannes Philoponos. De opificio mundi: Spätantikes Sprachdenken und christliche Exegese. Stuttgart; Leipzig: Springer.Fladerer L. Johannes Philoponos. De opificio mundi: Spätantikes Sprachdenken und christliche Exegese. Stuttgart; Leipzig: Springer, 1999.Giet S. (ed.) (1968) Basile de Césarée. Homélies sur l’Hexaéméron. Paris: Cerf (SC; 26 bis).Gleede B. Christian Apologetics or Confessional Polemics? Context and Motivation of Philoponus’ De opificio mundi // Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World / ed. by G. Roskam, J. Verheyden. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. P. 157–167.Gleede B. (2017) “Christian Apologetics or Confessional Polemics? Context and Motivation of Philoponus’ De opificio mundi”, in G. Roskam, J. Verheyden (eds.) Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 157–167.Greer R. A. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Exegete and Theologian. London: The Faith Press, 1961.Gracianskij M. V. (2016) Imperator Justinian Velikij i nasledie Halkidonskogo Sobora [Emperor Justinian the Great and the Legacy of the Council of Chalcedon]. Moscow: MSU (in Russian).Hidal S. Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Antiochene School with its Prevalent Literal and Historical Method // Hebrew Bible. Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Pt. 1: Antiquity / ed. by M. Saebø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. P. 550–557.Greer R. A. (1961) Theodore of Mopsuestia, Exegete and Theologian. London: The Faith Press.Hoffmann P. Simplicius’ Polemics // Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science / ed. by R. Sorabji. London: Duckworth, 1987. P. 57–83.Hidal S. (1996) “Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Antiochene School with its Prevalent Literal and Historical Method”, in M. Saebø (ed.) Hebrew Bible. Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. I: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (Until 1300). Pt. 1: Antiquity. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 550–557.Hoffmann P. Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon // Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie / éd. par I. Hadot. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1987. P. 183–221.Hoffmann P. (1987) “Simplicius’ Polemics”, in R. Sorabji (ed.) Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. London: Duckworth, pp. 57–83.Honigmann E. Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle. Louvain: Durbecq, 1951.Hoffmann P. (1987) “Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon”, in I. Hadot (ed.) Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, pp. 183–221.Lang U. M. John Philoponus and the Fifth Ecumenical Council: A Study and Translation of the Letter to Justinian // Annuarium historiae conciliorum. 2005. Bd. 37 (2). S. 411–436.Honigmann E. (1951) Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle. Louvain: Durbecq.Lang U. M. John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century. A Study and Translation of the Arbiter. Leuven: Peeters, 2001.Jansma T. (1962) “Théodore de Mopsueste. Interprétation du livre de la Genèse. Fragments de la version syriaque”. Le Muséon, vol. 75, pp. 63–92.MacCoull L. S. B. Documenting Christianity in Egypt, Sixth to Fourteenth Centuries. Farnham: Routledge, 2011.Lang U. M. (2001) John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century. A Study and Translation of the Arbiter. Leuven: Peeters.MacCoull L. S. B. The Historical Context of John Philoponus’ De Opificio Mundi in the Culture of Byzantine-Coptic Egypt // Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. 2006. Bd. 9 (2). S. 397–423.Lang U. M. (2005) “John Philoponus and the Fifth Ecumenical Council: A Study and Translation of the Letter to Justinian”. Annuarium historiae conciliorum, vol. 37 (2), pp. 411–436.MacCoull L. S. B. The Monophysite Angelology of John Philoponus // Byzantion. 1995. Vol. 65. P. 388–395.Lour’e B. M. (2013) “Dve iudejskie kosmologii: Kosma Indikoplov i rabbi Iuda bar Ilaj” [“Two Jewish Cosmologies: Cosmas Indicopleustes and Rabbi Judah bar Ilai”], in I. R. Tantlevskij (ed.) Iudaizm epohi Vtorogo Hrama, rannee hristianstvo i antichnost’. Vzaimodejstvie v istorii, literature i kul’ture i otrazhenie etogo perioda v kulturnoj pamjati Srednih vekov i Novogo vremeni [Second Temple Judaism, Early Christianity and Antiquity. Interaction in History, Literature and Culture and the Reflection of this Period in the Cultural Memory of the Middle Ages and Modern Times]. Saint-Petersburg: SPbSU, pp. 84–123 (in Russian).Muehlberger E. Angels in the Religious Imagination of Late Antiquity. PhD Thesis. Indiana, 2008.MacCoull L. S. B. (1995) “The Monophysite Angelology of John Philoponus”. Byzantion, vol. 65, pp. 388–395.Muehlberger E. Angels in Late Ancient Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.MacCoull L. S. B. (2006) “The Historical Context of John Philoponus’ De opificio mundi in the Culture of Byzantine-Coptic Egypt”. Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum, vol. 9 (2), pp. 397–423.Pearson C. W. Scripture as Cosmology: Natural Philosophical Debate in John Philoponus’Alexandria. PhD Thesis. Cambridge (Mass.), 1999.MacCoull L. S. B. (2011) Documenting Christianity in Egypt, Sixth to Fourteenth Centuries. Farnham: Routledge.Peers G. Subtle Bodies. Representing Angels in Byzantium. Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 2001.Muehlberger E. (2008) Angels in the Religious Imagination of Late Antiquity. PhD Thesis. Indiana. Muehlberger E. (2013) Angels in Late Ancient Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pearson C. W. (1999) Scripture as Cosmology: Natural Philosophical Debate in John Philoponus’ Alexandria. PhD Thesis. Cambridge (Mass.).Reichardt G. Praefatio // Joannis Philoponi De opificio mundi libri VII / ed. G. Reichardt. Leipzig: Teubner, 1897. P. I–XVI.Peers G. (2001) Subtle Bodies. Representing Angels in Byzantium. Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.Scholten C. Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrift «De opificio mundi» des Johannes Philoponos. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1996.Petit F. (1986) Catenae graecae in Genesim et in Exodum II. Collectio Coisliniana in Genesim. Turnhout: Brepols; Leuven: University Press, 1986 (CCSG; 15).Simonetti M. Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428) // Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity / ed. by C. Kannengiesser. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006. P. 799–828.Petit F. (1987) “L’homme créé à l’image de Dieu. Quelques fragments grecs inédits de Théodore de Mopsueste”. Le Muséon, vol. 100, pp. 269–281.Smith G. A. How Thin is a Demon? // Journal of Early Christian Studies. 2008. Vol. 16. № 4. P. 479–512.Petit F. (1995) La Chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale. Vol. 3. Chapitres 12 a 28. Leuven: Peeters.Wildberg C. J. Philoponus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Aether. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1988.Šanda A. (ed.) (1930) Ioannis Philoponi Opuscula monophysitica. Beryti Phoenicorum: Gorgias Press.Wiles M. F. Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.Scholten C. (1996) Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrift “De opificio mundi” des Johannes Philoponos. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter.Wolska-Conus W. Introduction // Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne. T. 1. Livres I–IV / introd., texte critique, illustr., trad. et notes par W. Wolska-Conus. Paris: Cerf, 1968. (SC; vol. 141). P. 15–252.Scholten C. (ed.) (1997) Johannes Philoponos. De opificio mundi. Über die Erschaffung der Welt. Freiburg; Basel; Wien; Barcelona; Rom; New York: Herder, vol. 1–3 (FC; 23).Wolska-Conus W. Recherches sur la «Topographie chrétienne» de Cosmas Indicopleustès. Théologie et science au VIe siècle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1962.Schwartz E. (1939) Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Zaharopoulos D. Z. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible. A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis.New York: Paulist Press, 1989.Simonetti M. (2006) “Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428)”, in C. Kannengiesser (ed.) Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Leiden; Boston: Brill, pp. 799–828.Smith G. A. (2008) “How Thin is a Demon?”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 479–512.Smith G. A. (2008) “How Thin is a Demon?”. Journal of Early Christian Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 479–512.Straub J. (ed.) (1970) Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. T. 4: Concilium universale Constantinoplitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, vol. 1.Straub J. (ed.) (1970) Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. T. 4: Concilium universale Constantinoplitanum sub Iustiniano habitum. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, vol. 1.Tonneau R. M. (1953) “Théodore de Mopsueste. Interprétation (du livre) de la Genèse”. Le Muséon, vol. 66, pp. 45–64.Tonneau R. M. (1953) “Théodore de Mopsueste. Interprétation (du livre) de la Genèse”. Le Muséon, vol. 66, pp. 45–64.Varlamova M. N. (2017) “Uchenie Aristotelja i Filopona ob elementah v kontekste spora o vechnosti neba” [“The Doctrine of Aristotle and Philoponus on the Elements in the Context of the Dispute About the Eternity of Heaven”]. RHGA Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 55–68 (in Russian).Varlamova M. N. (2017) “Uchenie Aristotelja i Filopona ob elementah v kontekste spora o vechnosti neba” [“The Doctrine of Aristotle and Philoponus on the Elements in the Context of the Dispute About the Eternity of Heaven”]. RHGA Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 55–68 (in Russian).Wildberg C. J. (1988) Philoponus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Aether. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Wildberg C. J. (1988) Philoponus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Aether. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.Wiles M. F. (1970) Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wiles M. F. (1970) Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wolska-Conus W. (1962) Recherches sur la “Topographie chrétienne” de Cosmas Indicopleustès. Théologie et science au VIe siècle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Wolska-Conus W. (1962) Recherches sur la “Topographie chrétienne” de Cosmas Indicopleustès. Théologie et science au VIe siècle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Wolska-Conus W. (ed.) (1968) Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne. T. 1. Livres I–IV. Paris: Cerf, 1968 (SC; 141).Wolska-Conus W. (ed.) (1968) Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie chrétienne. T. 1. Livres I–IV. Paris: Cerf, 1968 (SC; 141).Zaharopoulos D. Z. (1989) Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible. A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis. New York: Paulist Press.Zaharopoulos D. Z. (1989) Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible. A Study of His Old Testament Exegesis. New York: Paulist Press.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.