This article offers for the first time a complete edition of the Coptic text of Severus of Antioch’s Cathedral Homily XIV, preserved in three folios of a manuscript from the White Monastery, as well as in an additional fragment from the Coptic Museum in Cairo. The introduction examines the manuscript tradition, the state of preservation, and the composition of the manuscript corpus, as well as the linguistic features of the text, including its dialectal characteristics. Particular attention is given to the comparison between the Coptic version, the Syriac translation, and the Greek fragments preserved in biblical catenae, which makes it possible to clarify the translation technique and to identify textual divergences. The article also discusses possible explanations for these divergences, including the hypotheses of multiple Greek recensions and deliberate reworking of the text in the Coptic tradition. The principles of the edition are outlined, and an attempt is made to reconstruct lacunae on the basis of comparative analysis. The edition is accompanied by a Russian translation of the text.

This publication is the first translation from Ancient Greek into Russian of Origen’s Homilies on Psalm 80, preceded by an introduction. In this introduction, the author of the translation briefly outlines the main themes as well as compositional and stylistic features of the text. The translation is supplemented by a commentary and a translation of the critical apparatus.

Continuing to publish the translation of the Book of Isaiah according to the Septuagint, we offer to the reader’s attention chapters 26 through 33. These chapters include the end of the “Apocalypse of Isaiah”, followed by a continuation of the prophecies about the fate of Israel. The reader has the opportunity to find out where to hide from the wrath and where the Rhinocorurs were located, how punishing differs from teaching a lesson, how to shake off black cummin and how to fight with a flute and lyre in one’s hands. The following passage contains the first explicit biblical prophecy about the resurrection. And what about our interpretation, this time we managed to involve painting in it.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the content of correspondence between two theologians of late Antiquity, Origen and Julius Africanus, whose scientific interest was focused on the study of Holy Scripture. Because the biblical canon has not yet been definitively accepted by the Church, in his letter Africanus criticizes the story of Susanna and doubts the inspiration of the story itself. And although Origen wrote a lengthy letter in response, his arguments were not completely convincing. Due to the transience of life, the correspondence of both turned out to be very short (one letter from each). Since any letter is an echo of the problems and questions that worried its author and his contemporaries, the article uses a historical and philological research method so that Africanus’ questions and Origen’s answers are accessible to the modern reader. Small biographical descriptions of minor figures mentioned in the theologians’ correspondence are also given. The discussion between Origen and Africanus was not over, but its appearance gave rise to biblical studies as a science.

The article examines the concept of “image and likeness” in treatises 252–253 of the compendium Amphilochia by St. Photius of Constantinople (9th c.), while also comparing it with questions 19 and 20 from the work Questions on the Octateuch by the outstanding Antiochian Christian thinker, theologian, and exegete Bl. Theodoret (386/93—са. 457). It was this work, specifically the Commentary on the Book of Genesis is the main source of reasoning in the aforementioned questions 252–253. This article will focus on the peculiarities of Patriarch Photius’ method of borrowing from questions 19 and 20 of the aforementioned work by Bl. Theodoret. An important aspect of this study is that it uses philological and theological analysis techniques. The main conclusion of this study is that St. Photius, following the Antiochian exegete, limited himself to the method of expansion or abridgement; to a certain extent, his text includes original thoughts and philological and stylistic corrections rather than theological arguments and assertions. At the same time, neither Bl. Theodoret nor Patriarch Photius make a clear distinction between image and likeness, and the “image” itself is identified not only with the capacity for reason and free will, but also with independence, creativity, supremacy, immortality, the incorporeality of the soul, etc.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Syriac translation of the manuscript written in honor of the feast of the “Prudent Robber” (Department of Manuscripts, Russian State Library [OR RGB], f. 186, no. 79). This text is being introduced into scholarly circulation for the first time and has never been published before. It is considered in the context of the main genres of Syriac poetry and a brief history of the liturgical feast of the “Prudent Robber” in the Assyrian Church of the East. The article includes the Syriac text of this original written monument, as well as the author’s translation into modern Russian. It has been established that this text is not an official canonical rite but represents a liturgical work by a parish deacon that was used in liturgical practice with the special blessing of the ruling bishop.

The article examines two “external” biblical references to Job outside the book named after him: in the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 14:12–20) and in the Epistle of the Apostle James (Jas. 5:10–11). The main goal is to test the hypothesis that both authors, despite the significant time gap between them, relied to a greater extent not on the canonical Book of Job, but on an independent or earlier oral tradition, the so-called “legend of Job”, which formed the basis for its prologue and epilogue. The research methodology includes a comparative analysis of biblical texts, an intertextual approach, and a critical examination of existing scholarly interpretations, particularly the arguments of K. A. Richardson. The results demonstrate that Ezekiel provides the earliest evidence of the existence of the Job legend during the Babylonian exile, while James appeals to the image of the patient Job from folk tradition, not the rebellious hero of the biblical book’s poetic section. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of possible textual parallels and to proving the absence of the authors’ direct dependence on the canonical text of the Book of Job. The conclusion highlights the value of these references for reconstructing the pre-literary history of the figure of Job and points to the relative independence of the reception of Job in the analyzed texts from the canonical Book of Job, which opens new perspectives for studying the formation of the biblical canon.