This publication contains the original text and the Russian translation of the newly discovered fragments of «Book of the Chapters on Knowledge» of Joseph Ḥazzāyā (8th c.), one of the brightest representatives of the East Syriac mystical tradition. The only manuscript known to researchers «Book of  the  Chapters on Knowledge» (containing about 2700 chapters) was lost in 1915. Since experts remained available only quotes from this work, preserved in the commentary of the East Syriac author Aphrem of Qirkqesion (around 300 chapters), as well as about 550 chapters, preserved in the West Syriac tradition. In 2018, M. G. Kalinin and A. M. Preobrazhensky discovered about 250 new chapters of this work, which are now offered to Russian-speaking readers.

The paper presents the newfound fragments of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s «Commentary on John» translated into Russian. The fragments in question were discovered after critical edition of this Commentary by Ph. Pusey was published in 1872. The Introduction reminds 7–8th books of the Commentary had been lost. It provides the brief overview of earlier publications containing fragments of the lost books by J. Aubert, A. Mai, J.-P. Migne and Ph. Pusey. The latest publications of J. Reuss (1944, 1966), A. Alexakis (1996) and K. Zawadzki (2018) who complemented the Commentary with new fragments are mentioned as well. The overview of content of the newfound fragments is presented. Basing on specifics of triadological terminology, the assumption is made that the two fragments of the Cod. Paris. gr. 1115 published by Alexakis do not actually belong to St. Cyril of Alexandria. The statement of Zawadzki who dates the fragment of Cod. Athon. Pantocr. 28 (discovered by him) to the times of Nestorian controversy due to occurrence of the expression «God-bearing man» (ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος) in it is criticized. It is suggested that the abovementioned expression had been circulating long before the controversy, and criticism of dualism in christology is also encountered in the early works of St. Cyril. The conclusion is drawn that occurrence of the expression «God-bearing man» in the St. Cyril’s Commentary does not provide grounds to reject its traditional attribution to the period before 428/429.

The first treatise from «Amphilochia» by the St. Patriarch Photios expounds the general principles of the biblical exegesis on a specific example of certain passages from the Bible. It is not just the theological or historical context that has to be taken into consideration, but also purely philological aspects, such as semantics, intonation, the language usage of the New Testament and Septuagint, possible variant readings etc. The Patriarch is convinced, that the correct application of these tools makes it possible to perfectly harmonize all seemingly contradictory statements of the Scriptures.

The Russian-speaking reader is presented with the first part of the translation into Russian from the modern Greek of the book Ὁ Θεολογικός Διάλογος Ὀρθοδόξων καί Ἀντιχαλκηδονίων (παρελθόν — παρόν — μέλλον): Μία ἁγιορειτική συμβολή. Ἅγιον Ὄρος: Ἱερά Μονή Ὁσίου Γρηγορίου, 2018 (841 p.). This edition is devoted to the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the non-Chalcedonians and includes all texts of the relevant topics, published on the Holy Mount Athos in the period 1991–2015. This publication includes a translation of the Prologue of archim. Christophoros, the abbot of the monastery of St. Gregory, and of a part of the Introduction (Chapter 1, paragraphs 1–3). The translation is also provided with a preface of the translator, which summarizes the history of the Theological Dialogue, the purpose of the publication and its translation into Russian, which is to contribute to the fruitful and consistent with the Holy Tradition reunification of the non-Chalcedonians with the Church.

The article discusses Maximus the Confessor’s interpretations of the Transfiguration of the Lord, which are compared to his doctrine of mystical theology. It proves that Transfiguration was contemplated by Maximus to be a kind of paradigm of mystical theology. A comparison of some key concepts of Maximus’s mystical theology is made, on the one hand, with that of the Corpus Areopagiticum, and on the other — with the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. Remaining loyal to the main points of the teachings of the Areopagite, Maxim gave them a clearer Christological and experimental anthropological interpretation. As for the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas, despite some differences in terminology, (especially the understanding of apophaticism), Maximus’s exegesis of the Transfiguration and his doctrine of mystical theology as a whole can be reconciled with the main provisions of Palamas. At the same time, it is necessary to remember that Maximus answered other questions, the nature and character of the perception of the light of Thabor was not at the centre of his discussion.

In this article, the A. studies the attitude of Patriarch St. Athanasius I of Constantinople (1289–1293; 1303–1309) to the agreement of 1310, which ended the Arsenite schism (1265–1310). The A. treats the views of Patriarch Athanasius on ways of reconciliation, expressed by him before his second renunciation of the patriarchate (1309), whose main idea is the true repentance of schismatics, expressed, in particular, in the rejection of personal benefits. It is possible that Patriarch Athanasius found out about the plans of Emperor Andronicus II to compromise with the Arsenites and wrote him two letters about this, in which he tries to over-persuade the Emperor. To understand the reasons for the rejection of the reconciliation, the A. propose to refer to the concept of φρόνημα («way of thinking») on the basis of a comparison of the use of this concept by St. Athanasius and in the anti-Arsenite sermons of St. Theoleptos of Philadelphia. One of the possible reasons for the rejection of the reconciliation of 1310 by these two hierarchs could be a violation of the formula of St. Theoleptos «One Faith — One way of thinking (φρόνημα) — One Church».

St. Gregory Palamas has faced a problem of compatibility of two theological provisions within his doctrine based on distinction in God of substance and non-created activities: these are, firstly, that God is unalterable, and, secondly, that He acts accordingly with the time in relation to the created world, in particular, having made the created being. This background caused polemical argumentations on possibility of signifying the divine activities as accident. We see that Palamas is moving towards a more detailed notion of accidental while considering its applicability to divine activities: this is the moving to the notion of inseparable accident. But even in this sense, the accident, compliant to Palamas, must not be attributed to God and divine activities, though the Church tradition used to do this. Palamas finds a solution of this tension by pointing out that the notion of accident was used by the Church tradition in an improper sense. Meanwhile, his associate David Dishypatus takes a more subtle position: he admits a possibility to apply the notion of accident to the divine activities, but minding core restrictions of the human language, which speaks of God only within the horizon of human nature.

In the earliest work of Gregory Palamas, the «Logos on Saint Peter of Athos», there is a passage describing the process of self-knowledge of the ascetic: his mind first turns to itself, freed from all sensual and passionate, and then goes beyond its own nature to contemplate God and connect with Him. In his article on this topic Ioannis Polemis has pointed out that the origin of the obviously Neoplatonic vocabulary and conceptual apparatus of this passage can only be explained by the direct or indirect acquaintance of St. Gregory Palamas with the works of Plotinus. In this article an attempt is made, in the development of Polemis ‘ observations, to identify the Plotinus’ treatise, on which the monk Gregory Palamas relies in his reasoning. The author aims to demonstrate that the founder of Hesychasm, using and modifying some passages of Enneades V, 3, follows in line with the thoughts of the Plotinus in some aspects, but disagrees with him in key points points and argues that the result of intellect self-conversion is not the acquisition of natural boundaries, as Plotinus insists, but overcoming them in an endless striving to God. The article brings up the reasons what Gregory Palamas argued with humanist thinkers who were under the influence of Plotinus, in particular, with Nicephorus Gregoras.

Among the New Testament writings the Epistles of St. Paul serve as the deepest theological source for elaborating the biblical doctrine of «discernment» (διάκρισις). Due to the variety and interrelation of the Greek terms representing this spiritual as well as cultural phenomenon, pragmatic intention of the Apostle is clear. Referring an appeal directly to the man, he constantly has in mind the mystery of God (μυστήριον), that was revealed in Christ. The «Gospel» of St. Paul focuses properly on an unexplicability of Godʼs plan: i.e. on the apophatic dimension of discernment as well as on an extreme openness of this plan in the apocalyptic context. On this background such important themes are stressed as: human responsibility, vigilance, perseverance, divisions (κρίσις). Between these two poles (immanence and transcendence, «already» and «not yet») dialectics of discernment is developing. The gift as well as the art of discernment is condensed in the Russian iconography of the «Holy Trinity» of Andrej Rublev. Within spiritual richness of this unique image resounds an appeal to strengthen brotherly relationships among Christians. It also discloses a deep dimension of the Godʼs judgment whose essence is expressed by the Trinitarian love of God towards a man.