Bellow text was translated using A.I. translator
* * *
Synodal Russian Translation of the “Confession of Faith” by Patriarch Dositheos II of Jerusalem and Its Influence on the Third Redaction of the “Longer Catechism” of 1839: Censorship by Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) on the Issue of the After-Life
© 2025 Mikhail M. Bernatsky
Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Research Fellow at the St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, 6-1 Likhov Lane, Moscow, 127051, Russia, Associate Professor at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 21-4 Staraya Basmannaya Str., Moscow, 105066, Russia ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3824-433X mbernatski@gmail.com
© 2025 Natalia A. Mamlina
Master of Theology, Independent Researcher, 42-1 Narodnogo Opolchenia Str., Moscow, 123298, Russia ORCID ID: 0009-0006-6259-4037 mamlina1988@gmail.com
I. Two Versions of the Confession of the Orthodox Faith by Patriarch Dositheus
The Homologia orthodoxou pisteōs (Confession of the Orthodox Faith) – the main work of Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus II (1641–1707) [1, p. 734–773]; [2]; [3] – was composed with the aim of refuting the Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith, attributed to Patriarch Cyril I Lucaris [4]; [5]. Lucaris's Eastern Confession, consisting of 18 chapters, was first published in Geneva in Latin in 1629. A translation into Greek appeared in 1631 and was printed in parallel with the Latin text. This same edition was reprinted in 1633. Unlike the first edition, the second and third contained references to Holy Scripture, as well as four question-and-answer sections placed at the end¹. In his work, Dositheus strictly followed this structure of the Eastern Confession (18 chapters and 4 Q&A sections), sequentially refuting the Calvinist doctrine contained within it.
The text of Dositheus's Confession forms part of the sixth section of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672². The reason for convening the Council was the theological polemic in France between Catholics and Protestants, as well as the activities of the French ambassador to Constantinople, Charles François Olier, Marquis de Nointel [7, p. 267–270], who, striving to obtain authoritative statements from Orthodox hierarchs and synods in support of Catholic theologians, personally appealed to the hierarchs, visited Greek monasteries and churches, and dispatched Catholic monks with a program of questions (on the Council, see: [8]; [9]).
There exist two versions of the Confession:
1. The First Version of 1672, first published with a Latin translation as part of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem in Paris in 1676 [10, p. 336–337, No. 536] and republished with corrections in 1678. In particular, the title on the frontispiece was corrected from "Synodus Bethlehemitica" to "Synodus Jerosolymitana."
2. The Second Version, corrected and expanded, was published as an authorial work by Dositheus in Bucharest in 1690 [11], also together with the acts of the Council of Jerusalem under the title Encheiridion kata tēs kalvinikēs phrenoblabeias ("A Sword against Calvinist Insanity")³. The 1690 edition appeared in the context of the polemic concerning the term "transubstantiation," which concluded with the Council of Constantinople in 1691, whose tomos bears the signature of Dositheus.
In 1723, the first version of Dositheus's Confession played an important role in negotiations between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Anglicans. As part of the "Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church concerning the Orthodox Faith"⁴, the text was sent to Russia for forwarding to Great Britain through the Most Holy Synod of the Russian Church: Peter I and the Most Holy Synod of the Russian Church, at the request of the Anglicans, assisted them in negotiations with the Eastern Patriarchs.
The text of the "Confession of Faith" that was sent appears to have been copied from manuscript BNF. Suppl. gr. 173 [16, p. 23]. This is a copy of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672, the Council of Constantinople of 1672, and the Council of Constantinople of 1691, commissioned by Chrysanthos. At the end of the manuscript, we find the signatures of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople; Cyril IV, former Patriarch of Constantinople; Samuel, Patriarch of Alexandria; Archbishop Joasaph II of Ohrid; and Chrysanthos, Patriarch of Jerusalem. With their signatures, they confirmed the copy's complete conformity with the original manuscripts (τῶν πρωτοτύπων, BNF. Suppl. gr. 173, fol. 43v–44v).
The Epistle was intended for Anglican bishops, the so-called non-jurors, who in 1690 refused to swear an oath to King William III of Orange (1689–1702)⁵, forming a separate congregation and seeking union with the Orthodox. The Confession was sent to the "non-jurors" as an authoritative document containing the true exposition of Orthodox doctrine; the Patriarchs (Jerusalem's Chrysanthos⁶, Constantinople's Jeremiah III, and Antioch's Athanasius III) made their agreement with this document a necessary condition for achieving unity with the Anglican bishops. To the Russian Church, the Eastern Patriarchs, headed by Chrysanthos, advised showing like-mindedness and solidarity with the "Epistle," so as not to have any other contacts with Protestants concerning the content of the Orthodox faith. In other words, they called for the official reception of the first edition of Dositheus's Confession of Faith.
In a number of issues, the first and second versions of the text of the Confession of Faith [9] differ from each other – including a significant reworking of Chapter 18, dedicated to the posthumous fate of people. Let us also note an important fact – in 1691, the Bucharest edition, which also included a work against Lucaris by the Greek theologian Meletius Sirigos (1585/6–1664), was sent by Dositheus to the Moscow Patriarch Adrian (1690–1700) with a request for translation into Slavic and publication. The translation, carried out with the blessing of the patriarch by students of the Likhud brothers, was not published and survives with corrections by Euthymius of Chudov in manuscript GIM. Sin. 158 [17, p. 493–495]. It is likely that Alexey Kirillovich Barsov, a student of the Likhud brothers (see about him: [18]), also participated in the translation of the 1690 edition. In manuscript GIM. Sin. 158, on folios 85–143, 324–339, we find the initial letters of the translator's name – 'A. K.'
II. Overview of Russian Translations and Publications of the Text of Patriarch Dositheus's Confession
In 1728, by order of the Holy Synod, the same Alexey Kirillovich Barsov made a new translation into Russian of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 and the first version of Dositheus's Confession of Faith, based on the Paris edition of 1678. The translation was not printed and is preserved in manuscript RNB. Q. I. 238 [19, p. 287–288]. This translation requires further study; however, it is important to note that it was made not from a copy of the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs." Why Barsov's translation was not published typographically can likely be explained by the struggle between Feofan (Prokopovich) and his opponents, which unfolded after the death of Peter I, a victim of which was Alexey Barsov himself, arrested in 1732 by the Secret Chancellery and who died during the investigation in 1736.
In the course of working on this article, we were able to ascertain that another attempt at translating the acts of the Council of 1672 and the Confession was undertaken in the 18th century. The Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library holds a manuscript under the call number RGB.F.200.6, dated by its colophon to 1796⁷. It contains a copy of a translation of the acts and the Confession of Faith, completed in 1749 by the hieromonk Iakov (Blonitsky)⁸ by decree of the Holy Synod. The translation was made, as in Barsov's case, from the Paris edition of 1678.
Almost a hundred years later, in 1838, with the blessing of the Holy Synod, a new translation of the first version of the Confession of Faith (the so-called Synodal translation [22]) was published, carried out by Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov). Count Nikolay Alexandrovich Protasov (1836–1855), upon whom the duties of Synodal Ober-Prosecutor and member of the Commission for Ecclesiastical Schools were placed in 1836, found the Patriarchal charters concerning the establishment of the Holy Synod in Russia, which included Dositheus's Confession of Faith as part of the "Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith" [23, p. 327]. Currently, these charters are stored in the Russian State Historical Archive: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 205. D. 6.
Protasov accused Feofan (Prokopovich) of initiating a Protestant trend in the Russian Church of the 18th century, which, in his opinion, included attempts to translate Holy Scripture into the Russian vernacular [24, p. 436–438]. Therefore, his turn to anti-Protestant confessions of faith from the 17th century became one of the elements in the struggle against this trend. The Ober-Procurator commissioned the translation of the charters and the "Epistle" to Metropolitan Filaret, who, in turn, perceived Latin influence in the Confession of Faith and, in translating, deviated from the original in a number of places, subjecting the Russian translation to censorial editing. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky (1812–1875) recorded the following recollection of Metropolitan Filaret concerning the subject of our interest: "Count Protasov found these charters in the Synod, together with the charter on the confirmation of the Holy Synod. I did not know that they were there. Publishing the latter seemed good to me, as it gives legality to our church government and shows that even Peter, who was distinguished by his love for reforms, found it necessary to turn to church authority for confirmation of this reform. In the former, however, I found the influence of Latin teaching. A strange thing. Even the sacrament of Chrismation is named there from the Latin: βεβαίωσις [cf. Latin confirmatio. – M.B., N.M.]. The task of translating and correcting was entrusted to me. I read the corrected version to the members of the Holy Synod. All were in agreement: only, I don't know why, Bishop Jonah⁹ said it would be better not to print it. In doing so, I omitted one of the answers to the questions about Holy Scripture, placed at the end after the charter" [25, p. 23].
From the text of the recollection in Gorsky's record, it is unclear who sanctioned not only the translation of Dositheus's Confession of Faith but also the correction of questionable passages, i.e., the censorial edits: "The task of translating and correcting was entrusted to me." Entrusted by whom: the Synod or the Ober-Procurator personally? In the end, the text of the translation with censorial corrections was approved by the Synod. We currently lack other sources confirming Metropolitan Filaret's testimony, for example, documents from the archive of the Holy Synod. The question arises: was Ober-Procurator Protasov aware of the corrections? Also unclear is the remark of Metropolitan Jonah (Vasilevsky) – "it would be better not to print it" – because the Confession of Faith is of questionable dogmatic character even with Metropolitan Filaret's corrections, or because subjecting a text approved by the Eastern Patriarchs to censorship and printing it seemed too audacious to Metropolitan Jonah? (Cf.: [23, p. 327].) We find a very brief and not very clear testimony from Filaret himself about his work on translating the Confession in his letters to Andrey Muravyov (1806–1874) dated March 15 and 22, 1837: "Here are all the charters for you, and the general title, and the preface, and the individual titles. It seems that in this way the matter will have a proper and not at all wild appearance" [26, p. 45]. Here is how Muravyov, the addressee and publisher of the letters, comments on these lines: "This relates to the correspondence that took place in the days of Peter the Great between the Russian Synod and the Eastern Patriarchs regarding the letter of the British bishops about the union of the Churches. They were published with a translation in a separate booklet" [26, p. 44–45]. Following the Russian translation, in 1840 in St. Petersburg, an edition consisting solely of the Greek texts of the charters on the establishment of the Holy Synod and the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" was printed. This publication included the Greek text of Dositheus's Confession of Faith [27], which also contained a number of corrections and omissions, the nature of which suggests that Filaret himself worked on this publication.
In 1875, in the third volume of the "Complete Collection of Decrees and Orders for the Department of the Orthodox Confession of the Russian Empire" under number 1115 [28], a new edition of the Greek text of the Confession of Faith appeared. As we read in the preface¹⁰, the Greek text was "collated with the authentic documents," i.e., checked against the "original," which we understand to mean the manuscript of the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" from RGIA. F. 796. Op. 205. D. 6. The collated text was placed parallel to Filaret's "Synodal translation." Thus, Filaret's Russian translation was not subjected to revision.
Finally, at the beginning of the 20th century, another Russian translation of the Confession of Faith appeared, made by an unknown translator. The new translation claimed greater accuracy in following the Greek text of the 1875 edition and was published parallel to it in the theological-apologetic journal Vera i Tserkov (Faith and Church) in 1907 [30].
In the present article, our attention will focus on the following texts of the first version of Patriarch Dositheus's Confession of Faith:
1. The Russian "Synodal Translation" according to the 1838 edition.
2. The Greek text with censorial corrections according to the 1840 edition.
3. The Greek text according to the 1875 edition.
The theological impediments that Metropolitan Filaret encountered in his work with Dositheus's text and their reflection in the texts of the corresponding editions will be demonstrated by us using a specific example—we will examine the 18th oros (definition/decree) of the Confession, dedicated to the state of the souls of the deceased before the general resurrection. But first, let us say a few words about Metropolitan Filaret's activity in the field of translating the New Testament and creating the Catechism in the 1810s–1830s, within the context of which his work on the Confession proceeded.
III. The Three Editions of the Catechism Compiled by Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov)
From 1812 to 1819, Archimandrite (from 1817 – Bishop, from 1819 – Archbishop) Filaret, an expert in ancient languages, a splendid stylist, already known at that time for his sermons, held the position of rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy; from 1812 to 1826, he actively participated in the work of the Russian Bible Society. In 1822, Archbishop Filaret compiled, by order of the Holy Synod, a Christian Catechism¹¹, work on which was inextricably linked with the project of translating Holy Scripture into Russian within the framework of the activities of the Russian Bible Society from 1812 to 1826. The Filaretian Catechism first saw light in 1823; in the same year, the complete Russian translation of the New Testament was published without the Church Slavonic text, as had been the case in the 1818–1821 editions, in accordance with the imperial decree of 1816 [31, p. 25–33]. Most of the propositions of the Catechism were confirmed by quotations from the New Testament in Russian. However, already in 1824, when the post of Minister of Public Education was taken by Admiral A.S. Shishkov, who did not accept, in his own words, "the rendering of the Holy Scriptures from the lofty and important language into the common vernacular" [32, p. 47], the Catechism came under a ban: its printing was suspended by a Synodal decree of November 26, 1824; already printed copies were withdrawn from sale. The next two editions of the Extended Christian Catechism saw light in 1827 and 1839¹². The main edit in the 1827 edition was the replacement of quotations from Holy Scripture in Russian translation with the same quotations in Slavonic translation. The edit of 1839, initiated by the aforementioned Ober-Procurator Count Protasov, was of a dogmatic character: a whole series of question-and-answer sections were added, and the Introduction was significantly revised, in which the section "On Natural Knowledge of God" was removed and, in contrast to the first edition, emphasis was placed on Holy Tradition, not exclusively on Holy Scripture. Among the sources of insertions in the text of the 1839 Catechism, the Confession of Faith of Patriarch Dositheus holds a noticeable place, which, by order of Count Protasov, Metropolitan Filaret translated from Greek into Russian, as we discussed above.
Let us turn to these corrections, which concerned the 18th oros of the Confession of Faith.
IV. Comparison of the Greek Text of the 18th Oros of the Confession in the 1875 Edition and the "Synodal Translation" of 1838
Let us note an important point for studying the textology and substantive analysis of the monuments of interest to us: Dositheus, refuting the text of the Eastern Confession, not only preserves its structure but also follows it lexically, remaining in the same terminological field and proposing new dogmatic formulations to replace the Calvinist ones. The explanation for this is obvious: the Eastern Confession was already being used in the confessional polemics of 17th-century Western Europe, and Dositheus's new Confession was intended to replace it as a true testimony from the Eastern Church. Thus, Dositheus in no way claims to provide an absolute dogmatic exposition of Orthodox doctrine; his Confession of Faith must be considered exclusively in the context of the polemic against crypto-Calvinism, as presented in Lucaris's text.
In the 18th oros of Lucaris's Eastern Confession, directed against the Latin teaching on purgatory, it is stated that the final decision regarding the souls of the departed occurs "immediately" (παραυτίκα) after death. Accordingly, in the 18th oros of the first version of Dositheus's Confession of Faith, he refutes this Protestant judgment. We are not addressing here the problem of Dositheus's sources for writing this oros. This problem has not been systematically researched for the monument as a whole. Let us only note that Dositheus emphasizes "mortal" sins for which a person has repented but did not manage to bring forth their fruits. In doing so, he partly distances himself from the concept of purgatory in the Roman Church, which requires the cleansing of souls that have committed both venial and mortal sins but have satisfied God's justice through works of repentance¹³.
Metropolitan Filaret, perceiving in this chapter of the Confession the influence of Latin teaching on repentance and purgatory, subjected the text in his translation to censorship. Let us examine step by step the original Greek text according to the 1875 edition and the Synodal translation of the 18th oros. The first paragraph of the text Filaret translated as closely as possible to the original:
Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета Πισ τε ύοµ ε ν τὰ ς τῶν κεκοιµηµένων ψυχὰς εἶναι ἢ ἐν ἀνέσει ἢ ἐν ὀδύνῃ, καθ᾿ ὅ τι ἕκαστος ἔπραξεν. Χωριζοµένας γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν σωµάτων, παραυτίκα ἢ πρ ὸ ς ε ὐ φρ ο σ ύ ν ην, ἢ π ρ ὸ ς λ ύ π η ν κ α ὶ σ τ ε ν α γ µ ὸ ν ἐ κ δ ηµ εῖν, ὁµολογουµένης µέντοι µήτε τῆς ἀπολαύσεως µήτε τῆς κατακρίσεως τελείας. Μετὰ γὰρ τὴν κοινὴν ἀνάστασιν, ὅτε ἡ ψ υ χ ὴ ἑ ν ω θ είη τῷ σώµατι, µεθ’ οὗ καλῶς ἢ πονηρῶς ἐπολιτεύσατο, ἀ π ολήψ ε ται ἕ κ α σ το ς τ ὸ τ έ λ ε ι ο ν, ἢ τ ῆ ς ἀ π ολ α ύ σ ε ω ς, ἢ τ ῆ ς κατακρίσεως δηλονότι. Веруем, что души умерших блаженствуют или мучатся, смотря по делам своим. Разлучившись с телами, оне тотчас переходят или к радости, или к печали и скорби; впрочем не чувствуют ни совершеннаго блаженства, ни совершеннаго мучения. Ибо совершенное блаженство или совершенное мучение каждый получит, по общем воскресении, когда душа соединится с телом, в котором жила добродетельно или порочно.
As we can see, Dositheus also uses the word παραυτίκα, but unlike Lucaris, he adds that both the blessedness and the torment to which souls pass immediately are not perfect until the general resurrection. Next, we encounter the first correction that the translator introduces into the text of the 18th oros:
Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета Τοὺς δὲ συµφθαρέντας θανασίµοις πληµµελήµασι, καὶ µὴ ἐν ἀπογνώσει ἀποδηµήσαντας, ἀλλὰ µ ε τ α ν ο ή σ α ν τ α ς µ ὲ ν ἔτι π εριόν τας ἐν τῷ µετὰ σώµατος βίῳ, µὴ π ο ιήσ α ν τ α ς δ ὲ ο ὐ δ᾿ ὁ ν τ ι ν α ο ῦ ν κ α ρ π ὸ ν µετανοίας Души людей, впадших в смертные грехи и при смерти не отчаявшихся, но еще до разлучения с настоящею жизнию покаявшихся, только не успевших принести никаких плодов покаяния
Filaret translates the word συμφθαρέντᾰς as "впадших" (those who have fallen/lapsed). However, this Greek aorist passive participle is derived from the verb συμφθείρω, which in the passive voice means "to perish," "to be destroyed," and should be translated as "погубленных" (those who have perished/been destroyed).
Further in the text of the "Confession of Faith," Dositheus specifies in brackets what constitutes the "fruits of repentance":
Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета (ἐκχέαι, δάκρυα δηλονότι, κ α ὶ γ ο ν υ π ε τ ῆσ α ι ἐ ν γρηγορήσει προσευχῶν, θ λ ι β ῆ ν α ι , π τ ω χ ο ὺ ς παραµυθῆσαι, καὶ τέως ἐν ἔργοις τὴν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τὸν πλησίον ἀγάπην ἐπιδεῖξαι, ἃ καὶ ἱκανοποίησιν καλῶς ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὠνόµασε14) (каковы: молитвы, слезы, коленопреклонения при молитвенных бдениях, сокрушения, утешение бедных и выражение в по ступках любви к Бо гу и ближним, – что все Кафолическая Церковь с самаго начала при знает Богоугодным и благо потребным)
We see that14 Filaret, when listing the fruits of repentance, adds the word "молитвы" (prayers), thereby emphasizing the personal prayers of the penitent, not only silent kneeling during church services. Also, in the fragment above, the translator does not call the fruits of repentance "удовлетворением" (satisfaction; from Greek ἱκανοποίησιν; cf. Latin satisfactio), but says that the Church recognizes them as God-pleasing and beneficial, thereby avoiding the Latin term that expresses one of the components (along with contritio and confessio) of the Catholic teaching on repentance and purgatory15.
Текст по изданию 1875 г. Синодальный перевод Филарета τούτων καὶ αὐτῶν τὰς ψυχὰς ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς ᾅδην, καὶ ὑποµένειν τὴν ἕνεκα ὧν εἰργάσαντο ἁµαρτηµάτων ποινήν· εἶναι δ᾿ ἐν συναισθήσει τῆς ἐκῆθεν ἀπαλλαγῆς. Ἐλευθεροῦσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς ἄκρας ἀγαθότητος, διὰ τ ῆς δεήσεως τῶν ἱερέων καὶ εὐποιϊῶν, ἃ τῶν ἀποιχοµένων ἕνεκα οἱ ἑκάστου συγγενεῖς ἀ π ο τ ε λ ο ῦ σ ι· µ ε γ ά λ α δυναµένης µάλιστα τῆς ἀ ν α ι µ ά κ τ ο υ Θ υ σ ί α ς, ἣ ν ἰ δί ω ς ὑ π ὲρ τ ῶ ν κεκοιµηµένων συγγενῶν ἕκαστος, καὶ κοινῶς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἡ Καθολικὴ καὶ Ἀποστολικὴ ὁσηµέραι π ο ι ε ῖ Ἐ κ κ λ η σ ί α . Ἐννοουµένου µέντοι καὶ τούτου, τοῦ µὴ εἰδέναι ἡµᾶς δηλαδὴ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἀπαλλαγῆς· ὅτι γὰρ γίνεται ἐλευθερία τῶν τοιούτων ἀπὸ τῶν δεινῶν, καὶ πρὸ τῆς κοινῆς ἀναστάσεώς τε καὶ κρίσεως, οἴδαµεν καὶ πιστεύοµεν, πότε δὲ, ἀγνοοῦµεν16 . души таких людей нисходят во ад и терпят за учи ненные ими грехи наказания, не лишаясь впрочем надежды облегчения от них. Облегчение же получают оне, по безконеч ной благости, чрез молитвы Священников и благотворения, совершаемыя за умерших, а особенно силою безкровной Жертвы, которую в частности приносит Священнослужитель для каждаго Христианина о его присных, вообще же за всех повседневно приносит Кафолическая и Апостольская Церковь.
Only the noun ποινή (a calque from the Latin poena) retains in the translation the meaning of "punishment" (наказания); however, lacking its pairing with "satisfaction," it loses its dogmatic Latin coloration. The noun ἀπαλλαγή and the verb ἐλευθερόω, used in relation to the souls of repentant people who did not have time during their earthly life to bring forth any fruits of repentance, are translated not as "deliverance" and "to set free," but as "alleviation" (облегчение) and "to receive alleviation" (получать облегчение). The final fragment of the text of the 18th oros, concerning the liberation of the aforementioned souls before the Last Judgment and containing the same vocabulary – ἀπαλλαγή and ἐλευθερία – Filaret omits entirely.
V. Comparison of the Greek Text of the 18th Oros of the Confession in the 1840 and 1875 Editions
In the separate publication of the Greek text from 1840, the publishers (whom we believe to be Filaret himself) made only one cut in the 18th oros – they removed the definition of the fruits of repentance that directly refers, as we said, to the Scholastic theory of repentance and its terminology (satisfactio = ἱκανοποίησις): ἃ καὶ ἱκανοποίησιν καλῶς ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὠνόµασε. The removed text can be translated as follows: "which the Catholic Church has rightly called satisfaction from the beginning"¹⁷. It remains a mystery why the final fragment of the 18th oros, omitted in the Synodal translation, was not left out in the 1840 edition. We will only be able to say whether this happened for "technical reasons" or not if we gain access to the proof copies of the Confession, if they have been preserved, of course.
I. Karmiris, in his critical edition of the two versions of Dositheus's Confession, states that he takes the 1840 publication into account in the critical apparatus; however, the textual variant we indicated, along with a number of others, is not noted there [1, p. 764], which calls for cautious treatment of the variants in the apparatus. Variants compared to the 1840 edition are presented more thoroughly in the publication "The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith," contained in volume 37 of Mansi's collection [14, pp. 541–580].
VI. Insertion of New Question-and-Answer Sections into the Interpretation of the 11th Article of the Creed in the 1839 Catechism
In the same years when Metropolitan Filaret was working on the translation (1838) and publication of the Greek text (1840) of Dositheus's Confession of Faith, he was once again editing the Catechism (1839) and introducing a number of significant changes compared to the 1823 and 1827 editions. Whether all of them were initiated by Count Protasov or some were made on Metropolitan Filaret's own initiative is a separate question, which, due to a lack of sources, leaves room for numerous speculations.
In 1839, in the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed ("I look for the resurrection of the dead"), a substantial insertion consisting of six question-and-answer sections was made [33, p. 87]. The source of this insertion in the text is not explicitly indicated, but we believe it is Dositheus's Confession, as we will show below. All new questions are dedicated to the same issue of the state of the souls of the deceased before the Second Coming, which is also the subject of the 18th oros of the Confession: "1. In what state are the souls of the dead until the general resurrection? 2. Why are the souls of the righteous not ascribed complete blessedness immediately after death? 3. Why is a preliminary blessedness prescribed for them before the final judgment? 4. Is this preliminary blessedness connected with the vision of Jesus Christ Himself? 5. What should be noted about the souls of those who died in faith but did not have time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance? 6. On what is this teaching based?" The content of the answer to the first question completely corresponds to Dositheus's Confession of Faith: "The souls of the righteous [are] in light, rest, and the preliminary state of eternal blessedness; while the souls of sinners are in a state opposite to this" [33, p. 87]. In the answers to the second, third, and fourth questions, Filaret also follows the Confession, conveying the idea that complete retribution a person should receive only after the General Resurrection, i.e., when the soul and body of each deceased person are reunited. But unlike Dositheus, Filaret—not constrained by the framework of a brief dogmatic definition—in the Catechism adds New Testament quotations to each of these answers to illustrate his words: 2 Tim. 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Lk. 16:22; Phil. 1:23. The fifth question concerns the souls of those people who repented during their earthly life but did not have time to bring forth fruits of repentance. Here, unlike Dositheus, Filaret does not specify whether these people fell into "mortal" sins or not, but simply says that they died in faith. That is, Filaret uses the text of the Confession but softens it even more than he did when translating this same point, thereby moving away from the division into "mortal" and "venial" sins characteristic of the Latin tradition. If we compare the fragments about offering the bloodless sacrifice for such deceased in Dositheus's Confession of Faith and in Filaret's 1839 Catechism, we will see that Filaret in this Q&A of the Catechism not only avoided Latin terminology but also removed the clerical context, not contrasting "prayers of priests" and "acts of charity by relatives," the private bloodless Sacrifice (ἰδίως ὑπὲρ τῶν κεκοιμημένων συγγενῶν ἕκαστος) and the general one (κοινῶς ὑπὲρ πάντων) offered on behalf of the Church. In the Catechism, the subject performing the prayers and acts of charity is not specified at all, only the special power of prayer combined with the Eucharistic sacrifice is emphasized: "...prayers offered for them, especially those combined with the offering of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and acts of charity performed in faith in their memory, can assist them in attaining the blessed resurrection" [33, p. 87].
The Greek text in the corresponding passage of the Confession presents a problem if translated literally, as it turns out that the sacrifice is offered privately for one's relatives by each (ἕκαστος) Christian. Therefore, both Filaret's translation and the 1907 translation propose a non-literal rendering, making the "clergyman" either the subject or the instrument¹⁸. We believe the ambiguity of the Greek text in this case is due to Dositheus's Latin source, which might have been referring to memorial Masses with an intention for a specific person.
Furthermore, unlike the Confession, Filaret's Catechism does not explicitly state that the souls of these people "descend into hell." However, the conclusion that, according to the Catechism, the souls of those who did not bear fruits of repentance are in hell until the General Resurrection can be drawn from the answer to the sixth question. In this answer, Filaret emphasizes biblical and patristic testimonies, referencing sources well-known in the Greco-Latin polemic on the question of purgatory at the Council of Ferrara-Florence [36]; [37]¹⁹ and in later treatises²⁰:
Church Tradition, "whose beginnings are visible even in the Old Testament Church. Judas Maccabeus offered a sacrifice for the dead soldiers (2 Macc. 12:43)" [33, p. 87].
The Liturgy of the Apostle James and liturgies composed later, which always contain prayers for the departed.
The Mystagogical Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem.
The prayers at Vespers on the Feast of Pentecost, attributed to Basil the Great, in which he "says that the Lord deigns to accept from us prayers of propitiation and sacrifices 'for those held in hell,' with hope for them of 'peace, alleviation, and freedom'" [33, p. 87].
A comparison of the 18th oros of Dositheus's Confession (the original text of the first version and the Synodal translation carried out by St. Filaret) with the insertion made into the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed in the third edition of the 1839 Catechism clearly shows that Filaret in this case used Dositheus's text as a source but did not follow it blindly, rather polemicizing with it. In the translation itself, i.e., "on Dositheus's field," this polemic was reflected in Filaret's censorial editing, while in the Catechism it was continued with much greater freedom "on his own field" and was clearly significant for the compiler of the Catechism himself. However, the very fact of the appearance of these question-and-answer sections was undoubtedly initiated by the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov.
VII. Conclusion
The vicissitudes of the text of the first version of the Confession of Faith by Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus in 18th–19th century Russia are undoubtedly of interest. Extracted from the context of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 by Dositheus's successor, Patriarch Chrysanthos, the Greek text, as part of the "Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" of 1723, arrived in Russia and became a witness to church-political events of the 18th century. Both attempts to translate it into Russian were not completed by printed publication. After the translation by Iakov (Blonitsky), the "Epistle" was forgotten for almost a hundred years until Count Protasov found the manuscript and commissioned the publication of the Greek text and its translation to Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov). The printed editions of the translation (1838) and the Greek text (1840) contained the Metropolitan's censorial edits.
Filaret's work on the text of the Confession was reflected in the text of the third edition of the Extended Catechism of 1839, since, at Protasov's insistence, the revision was carried out based on the theological tradition represented in the 17th-century dogmatic monuments—the Confession of Faith of Patriarch Dositheus and the Orthodox Confession of Peter (Mohyla) in the edition of Meletius Sirigos. Both monuments were subsequently introduced into circulation by the Synod within the system of theological education.
Using the example of a textological analysis of the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed, we have shown that the source of the insertion that appeared in the third edition of the Catechism within that interpretation was the Confession. A comparison of the 18th oros (the original text and Filaret's translation) with the insertion made into the interpretation of the 11th article of the Creed clearly demonstrates that Filaret used the Confession as a source and polemicized with it, which found reflection in the Catechism text.
It is noteworthy that Dositheus himself, in the second version of the Confession, completely reworked the 18th oros, acknowledging errors in the first version, as evidenced by a marginal note on p. 81 in the 1690 edition²¹.
The Greek text of 1840 and Filaret's translation require step-by-step study in the context of secondary sources (memoirs and correspondence) regarding changes and omissions, which will contribute to understanding his theological views during the creation of the third edition of the Catechism. The Russian translations by Barsov and Blonitsky, remaining in manuscripts, are of great interest as phenomena of Russian Hellenic studies in the 18th century and await their researcher.
Regarding the question of how justified Filaret's intrusion into the text of Dositheus's Confession of Faith was, we are currently limited to the aforementioned recollection of Filaret as conveyed by Archpriest Alexander Gorsky. This question is also important in the context of the edits made by Filaret to the Greek text and Russian translation of the Book of Rules, the preparation of which was entrusted to him by order of Emperor Nicholas I on the proposal of the Holy Synod [40, No. 12, p. 754–766]; [41]. The edits concerned, among other things, the 85th Apostolic Canon on the question of the biblical canon [42, p. 291]. And we know that issues related to Holy Scripture were burning ones for Filaret, whose main life's work was the creation of a Russian translation of Scripture and the Catechism for the purpose of enlightening the Russian people.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário