Why should I become a Christian? The “Kristian legend” in the context of byzantine thought

A. Papaconstantinou writes in relation to the Coptic environment: “The emphasis on torture and suffering, however, served another purpose.

17. … The Coptic Church needed to promote its indigenous character, and thus the continuity with its most distant past, both in territorial and in ethnic terms”. See [44, p. 78].

18. A.I. Rogov writes in this context: “The Sazava monastery, established, perhaps, arond the year 1033, was also interesting since it was a family cloister, built by the expenses of the hermit Prokop, `originating from Bohemia, from the village Chotoun'”. According to the testimony of the Chronicle of the so-called monk from Sazava, preserved in manuscripts of the 12th-13th centuries, Prokop, was “very much educated in the slavic script, whichwasinventedsometime by, and canonically introduced from by most holy bishop Cyril, who was very educated” [50, p. 11-12].

19. As we have noted above, F. Stejskal reminds us that the canonisation process was not yet the prerogative of the Roman Pope (up to Alexander III, 1159-1181), and that local bishops could have decided about this. F. Stejskal mentions the manuscript from Verona (number 87), from the period of Saint Wolfgang (f 994) and Otto III (coronated as the Roman king in 985). F. Stejskal remembers other evidence, which we will not mention here. In the calendar from the Verona manuscript here we have I. Makl. Octobris Sancti Vuenkizlai martyris et sanctae Libae virginis.

20. Stejskal continues: “There is no doubt that during Saint Wolfgang the cannonisation of saint Vaclav was already made, even if we do not know when; we can assume it was made by Vojtech or Detmar, both bishops of Prague, if not earlier” [56, p. 143].

21. Generally, in terms of Augustine and his influence on the political ideology of the medieval age, H.-X. Arquilliere observes: “il reste, ecrit-il, encore beaucoup de recherches a faire pour preciser son influence exacte (de l'augustinisme) sur les grands papes qui se sontsuccedesjustqu'a la fin du Moyen Age...; il reste a determiner la force des contrecourants” [5, p. 49].

22. The critical edition of the Church Slavonic version of Gregories XL Homiliarum in Evangelia Libri II see [61; 62].

23. It is interesting enough, that there is a discussion on seating also in the letter 99 of Nicholas Responses to the question of the Bulgars. Here the discussion is centred on the fact that no one sits with the king. The Pope replies stating, that all should be like brother and sisters and be humble: “You state that when your king sits down in his throne (sedilis) at the table to eat, on one, not even his wife, may recline with him; rather you sit far away on stools and eat on the ground; ...we exhort you, not so much commanding as persuading that you pay attention to those, who observe the Christian religion as leaders and after considering the evidence of their humility...” (Asseritis quod rex vester cum ad manducandum in sedili sicut most est, ad mensam sederit nemo ad convescendum etiam, neque uxor ejus cum eo discumbat, vobis procul in sellis residentibus, et in terra manducantibus... licet bonos mores satis, impugnet, non tam praecipientes, quam suadentes, hortamur, ud ad Christioner eligionis cultores principes attendatis, et humilitatis, eorum considerantis fastigium) ([39, col. 996]; see also [49]).

24. M. Spinka possibly, basing himself on the Slavic sources for the Chronicle, emphasises that the ruler was instructed in the Christian faith. The Greek term (єфоггісбп) speaks of “enlightened”. See Chronicle of John Malalas, Book 17, 9 (412/413), translated from the Slavic version by M. Spinka and G. Downey [55, p. 121]. See also [54; 10].

25. Skylitzes does not mention other issues here such as the relationship with the Papacy and Boris.

26. The popularity of Ludmila in Rus is another important feature well commented. We may perhaps enquire why Ludmila was so popular, which is a task for another paper. R. Jakobson has mentioned that in the Russian chronicles about Olga, the Patriarch of Constantinople turns to her with the words, which almost exactly repeat the words of the Latin homily of saint Ludmila, which emerged in Bohemia (Homily which emerged at the end of the 11th century, beginning with Factum est) [25, p. 44]. This position is also supported by F. Dvormk ([14, p. 332]; see also [57, p. 556-558; 60, p. 161-167]). However, limiting the popularity of Ludmila to cultural or literary contacts and exchanges would seem too superficial for our understanding as to why she gained such prominence elsewhere. Perhaps her “piousness” combined with “rulership” was the primary motive for her gaining popularity in the Rus region. We will not enter here into the discussion of the existence of a general legend about saint Ludmila, the subsistence of which is established through the prism of the Slavic Prologue legend about saint Ludmila, and the Latin legend “Fuit in provincia Bohemorum” (“There was once in the land of Bohemia”, which is also known in Czech as “The suffering of Saint Ludmila and Vaclav”) [57, p. 467-481].

27. That, there was an intention of manufacturing dualities of one kind or another, can be supported by VI. Lesyuchevskiy [31, p. 238], although Boris and Gleb did not always form a duality.

28. N.N. Il'in mentions direct parallels between the story of Boris and Gleb and the First Slavic legend of St. Vaclav and also the Prologue legend of St. Ludmila [22, p. 52].

29. It is interestingly enough that we may mention here that the Second Slavic legend of St. Vaclav has a very theologically profound introduction, where education is understood as a return to substance, it enables us to discover our inner being. This kind of more sophisticated reflection would be undoubtedly more difficult to grasp by the general public. See [40].

30. There is extensive discussion on the dynamics of mission in Moravia and the existence of ecclesiastical structures in the context of Moravia before the Byzantine mission. Fr. Dvornik, as other shave addressed this issue. But regardless of these discussions the specifics of the ecclesiastical expulsions and dynamics remains a mystery. If we accept the existence of other priests in the region of Moravia or Bohemia before the mission from Byzantium, and more importantly the unsettling nature of the ecclesiastical structures after the Byzantine emission, this creates more questions. Fr. Dvornik writes about the period before Byzantine emissions: “The bishop of Passau is said even to have held synods in Moravia with his own priests and priests from foreign lands. It has now been established that some rudimentary ecclesiastical organisation had been introduced by him to Moravia” [16, p. 1110].

31. Photios, Epist. 8, 652-656 [47, p. 22]. See also: Photios, Epistolarum Liber I. Epist. 8.31 [48, col. 665]. For a broader overview see also [13].

32. B.A. Todorov, quoting the chapter 17 of the “Responsa” of Pope Nicholas I (see [38, p. 577]), writes: “Such a vision of the events is confirmed by the implicit rhetoric in some of the sources closest in time to the conversion of 865 AD. A number of them stress the revolutionary and coercive character of the act. According to the Bal§i inscription, Boris-Michael equated his own baptism with the baptism of the entire people given to him by God to rule. He wrote to the same effect to the Pope, who quoted in chapter 17 of the `Responsa': `You made your whole people receive baptism' (Populum vestrum baptizari omnem feceritis)”. See [58, p. 189].

33. Photios Encyclical Letter to the patriarchs spoke about the conversion not only the king alone, but more generally about the conversion of the Bulgarians as a people, describing the event as “against all expectations (paradoxos)” [47, p. 41]. When addressing the Papacy, Boris-Michael supported his claims to have converted the country, by offering to St. Peter the arms, with which he had subdued the rebels ([58, p. 189]; see also [2, p. 63]).

34. This particular writing of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos is titled: “Юса 5єї ^yvec0ai топ реуаіоп каі пуп^оп РасЛєак; Trnv Popairnv peHovTO^ фоссатєпсаі” (“What should be observed when the Great, and High Emperor of the Romans, Goes on Campaign”). It is one of three military treatises found in the manuscript Lipsiensis Rep, 117, which also contains Constantine's treatise “De Ceremoniis” and therefore are an addition to this work or were simply added to the manuscript as an appendix. The Leipzig manuscript is the only manuscript, which contains all these works in one composition. For a further study of this issue see ([18]; see also [33, p. 426]).

35. M. Mavroudi does not believe that this work is that of Artemidoros, we would perhaps imagine [33, p. 426].

36. According to Legenda Christiani, Ludmila dies on the 16th of September, on Saturday, on the first night vigil (in the 61 year of her life) (Kristianova Legenda. 4, 75 [29, p. 39]). Here J. Ludv^kovsky comments: “Only two manuscripts of the Kristian legend speak of the death of Ludmila (T and FP) on the 16th of September. All the other texts of the Kristian legend, indicate the 15th of September as the time of death of saint Ludmila (XVII. Kal. Oct.). For the 16th of September there is also evidence in the form of the mentioned Paleo-Slavic Prologue of saint Ludmila and the church tradition testified to from the 12th century. Most manuscripts would then have a recorded mistake of their writer. The corresponding day for the year 920, the 16th of September, would be Saturday, so the murder of Ludmila would be on the 16th of September 920. Pekar would also suggest the date of the 16th of September 921, which is indicated in the breviary of the Abatyss Kunhuta from the beginning of the 14th century. The age of Ludmila 61 is indicated also in harmony with the addition of the manuscript K also by the Prolog legend of St. Ludmila and the legend “Fuit”. She was born in 859 or 860. The birth of St. Vaclav, is given by J. Pekar, as the year 907 and 908, and V. Chaloupecky suggests a date until the year 904”. As to datum, offered by J. Pekar, see the latest of his work in Svatovaclavsky sbormk [46, p. 24, note 74]; as to V. Chaloupecky see [46, p. 63]. See also [29, p. 146].

37. The education and linguistic skills of Vaclav especially in the context of the other legends on this saint is again a source of controversy among scholars. But it is perhaps true that various authors of the legends would offer an ideological statement by claiming, that Vaclav knew Greek or Slavic or Latin.

38. J. Ludvikovsky writes on this subject: “The Christian piety of the young Vaclav is described mostly in accord with the legend Crescente fide, being also in harmony at some areas with its Czech version, which was here as it seems, interpolated from Kristian. The following discussion of the conflict and blooshed between the Christian side of Vaclav and the pagan side of the mother is the work of Kristian, who however does not go into futher detail” [29, p. 146].

39. The Czech translation directly mentions “priests of God” here, but this concrete identification seems problematic in the Latin.

40. Here N. Gaul cites N.M. Kalogeras, namely [27, p. 145-155].

References

1. Schopenus L. et al., eds. Annae Comnenae, Alexiadis LibriXV. In 2 vols. Vol. 1. Bonnae, imp. Ed. Weberi, 1839. L, 461 p.

2. Waitz G., ed., Annales Bertiniani. Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae Historicis. Hannoverae, Imp. Bibliopolii Hahniani, 1883. X, 173 p.

3. Nelson J.L., ed. The Annals of St-Bertin. Ninth-Century Histories. Vol. 1. Manchester, New York, Manchester Univ. Pr., St. Martin's Pr., 1991. XII, 267 p.

4. Weitz G., ed. Arnoldi Emmeramensis, De Miraculis et Memoria Beati Emmerammi Libri Duo, Parisiis, Apud Garnies Flatres u.a., 1880, coll. 989-1090A. (Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Ser. Latina; vol. 141).

5. Arquilliere H.-X. L'Augustinisme politique. Essai sur la formation des theories politique du Moyen Age. 2-e ed. Paris, Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1955. 206 p.

6. Azkoul M. Sacerdotium et Imperium. The Constantinian Renovatio According to the Greek Fathers. Theological Studies, 1971, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 431-464.

7. Brown G. Introduction, the Carolingian Renaissance. McKitterick R., ed. Carolingian Culture. Emulation and Innovation. Cambridge, Cambr. Univ. Pr., 1994, pp. 1-51.

8. Vacek F. Ceske povёsti ve 12. stoleti, Praha, Zprava c. a ak. Realneho a vysiho gymnasia v Praze v Kremencove ul. (Kremencova), 1905. 28 p.

9. Vostokov A.Kh. Opisanie russkikh i slovenskikh rukopisey Rumyantsevskogo muzeuma [The Description of Russian ans Slavonian Manuscripts of Rumyantsev Museum]. Saint Petersburg, Typ. Imp. Akad. nauk, 1842. IV, 899, [3] p.

10. Jeffreys E., Jeffreys M., Scott R., eds. Chronicle of Malalas. Melbourne, Australian Association for Byzantine Studies; Sidney, Univ. of Sydney, 1986. XLI, 371 p.

11. Schoell R., Kroll G., Krueger P., Mommsen Th., eds. Corpus Iuris Civilis. In 3 vols. Vol. 3. Novellae. Berolini, apud Weidmannos, 1895. XXII, 810 p.

12. Dawes E.A.S. The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, 2005. 448 p.

13. Dujcev I. Au lendemain de la conversion du peuple bulgare. L'epitre de Photius, Melanges de science religieuse. Lille, Univ. catholique, 1951, t. 8, cah. 2, pp. 211-226.

14. Dvornik F. Les Benedictins et la christianisation de la Russie. L 'Eglise et les eglises, 1054-1954. Neuf siecles de douloureuse separation entre l'Orient et l'Occident. Etudes et travaux sur l'Unite chretienne offerts a D.L. Beauduin. Chevetogne, Ed. de Chevetogne, 1954-1955, vol. 2, pp. 323-349.

15. Dvornik F. Byzance et la Primaute romaine. Paris, Ed. du Cerf, 1964. 160 p.

16. Dvornik F. The Byzantine Mission to Moravia. Rechcigl M., ed. Czechoslovakia: Past and Present. Vol. 2. Essay on the Arts and Sciences. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton, 2019, pp. 1107-1222.

17. Epanagoge Aucta. Zepos J., Zepos P., eds. Jus Graecoromanum. In 8 vols. Vol. 6. Athens, G. Fexis, 1931, pp. 49 (57)-216.

18. Featherstone M. Further Remarks on “De Cerimoniis”. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2004, Bd. 97, Hft. 1, pp. 113-121.

19. Gaul N. Rising Elites and Institutionalization - Ethos/Mores - “Debts” and Drafts. Three Concluding Steps towards Comparing Networks of Learning in Byzantium and the “Latin” West, c. 1000-1200. Steckel S., Gaul N., Grunbart M., eds. Networks of Learning. Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and West, c. 1000-1200. Munster, LIT-Verl., 2014 (2015), S. 235-280.

20. Geanakoplos D.J. Byzantium. Church, Society and Civilization seen through contemporary eyes. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1984. XXXIX, 485 p.

21. Homza M. The Role of Saint Ludmila, Doubravka, Saint Olga and Adelaide in the Conversions of Their Countries. Urbanczyk Prz., ed. Early Christianity in Central and East Europe, Christianity in East Central Europe and Its Relations with the West and the East. Warszawa, Semper, 1997, vol. 1, pp. 187-202.

22. Il'inN.N. Letopisnaya statya 6523goda ijeje istocnik. Opyt analiza [The Annalistic Article of 6523 and His Source. The Essay of Analysis]. Moscow, Izd. AN SSSR, 1957. 210 p.

23. Dindorfii L., ed. IoannisMalalae Chronographia. Bonnae, imp. Ed. Weberi, 1831. LXXVII, 799 p.

24. Thurn H., ed. Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1973. LVI, 579 p.

25. Jakobson R. The Kernel of Comparative Slavic Literature. Harvard Slavic Studies, 1953, vol. 1, pp. 1-71.

26. Wortley J., Cheynet J.-Cl., Flusin B., eds. John Skylitzes. A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811-1057. Cambridge, Cambr. Univ. Pr., 2010. XXXIV, 491 p.

27. Kalogeras N.M. Byzantine Childhood Education and Its Social Role from the Sixth Century until the End of Iconoclasm. Ann Arbor, Mich., Univ. of Chicago, Department of History, U MI Dissertation service, 2000. 285 p.

28. Karbusicky V. Baje, myty, ddjiny. Nejstarsi ceske povesti v kontextu evropske kultury. Praha, Mlada Fronta, 1995. 312 p.

29. Ludvikovsky J., ed. Legenda Christiani. Vita et Passio Sancti Wenceslai et Sancte Ludmile ave eius, Kristianova Legenda. Zivot a Umucem Svateho Vaclava a jeho Baby Svate Ludmily. Praha, Vysehrad, 1978. 164, [4] p., 16 pl.

30. Leonis, Romanorum imp. Tactica. Leonis, Romanorum imp. augusti, cognomine Sapientis, Opera. Parisiis, Apud Garnies Flatres u.a., 1863, cols. 669-1093. (Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Ser. Graeca, vol. 107).

31. Lesyuchevskiy VI. Vysgorodskiy kult Borisa i Gleba v pamyatnikakh iskusstva [Vyshhorod Cult of Boris and Gleb in Monuments of the Art]. Sovetskaya archeologiya [The Soviet Archaeology], 1946, vol. 8, pp. 225-247.

32. Martyn J.R.C., ed. The Letters ofGregory the Great. In 3 vols. Vol. 2. Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004. X, 323-712 p.

33. Mavroudi M. A Byzantine Book on Dream Interpretation, the Oneirocriticon of Achmet and Its Arabic Sources. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 2002. XI, 524 p.

34. Reinsch D.R., ed. Michaelis Pselli Chronographia. Bd. 1. Einleitung und Text. Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014. XLIX, 540 p.

35. Kaldellis A., ed. Michaeli Pselli Encomium to His Mother. Kaldellis A., ed. Mothers and Sons, Fathers and Daughters. The Byzantine Family of Michael Psellos. Notre Dame, Ind., Univ. of Notre Dame Pr., 2006, pp. 51-109.

36. Moesch S. Augustine and the Art of Ruling in the Carolingian Imperial Period. Political Dicource in Alcuin of York and Hincmar of Rheims. London, Routledge, 2020. 245 p.

37. Kaldellis A. et al., eds. Mothers and Sons, Fathers and Daughters. The Byzantine Family of Michael Psellos. Notre Dame, Ind., Univ. of Notre Dame Pr., 2006. X, 210 p.

38. Perels E., ed. Nicolai I. Papae Epistolae. Dummler E., ed. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Epistolarum tomus VI, Karolini aevi IV. Berlin, Apud Weidmannos, 1925, pp. 257-690.

39. Nicolai Papae I Epistolae et Decreta. Ordine Chronologico Digesta. Nicolai I Pontificis Romani Epistolae et Decreta. Parisiis, Apud Garnies Flatres u.a., 1880, cols. 769-1212. (Migne J. P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Ser. Latina; vol. 119).

40. Nikol'skiy N.K. Legenda mantuanskogo episkopa Gumpol'da o Sv. Vyaceslave Cesskom v slavyano-russkom perelozhenii [The Legend of Mantuan Bishop Gumbold about St. Vyacheslav Czech]. Saint Petersburg, Typ. M.A. Alexandrova, 1909. [2], LI, 99 p.

41. Notari T. De Conversione Bulgarorum - On the Legal Background of the Conflict between Rome and Byzantium. Zbornik Radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 2009, kn. 43, no. 1, pp. 445-461.

42. Notari T. Some Remarks on the Responsa Nicolae Papae I, ad Consulta Bulgarorum. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Legal Studies, 2015, no. 4 (1), pp. 47-63.

43. Miller D.J.D., Sams P., eds. The Novels of Justinian, a Complete Annotated English Translation. In 2 vols. Cambridge, Cambr. Univ. Pr., 2018, vol. 1. XIII, 493 p.

44. Papaconstantinou A. Historiography, Hagiography and the Making of the Coptic “Church of the Martyrs” in Early Islamic Egypt. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 2006, vol. 60, pp. 65-86.

45. Pekar J. Nejstarsi kronika ceska. Vnitrini kritika prace Kristianovy. Cesky casopis historicky, 1902, vol. 8, pp. 385-481.

46. Pekar J. Svaty Vaclav. Chaloupecky V., ed. Svatovaclavsky sbornik. Na pamatku 1000. Vyroc^ smrti knzete Vaclava Svateho. Dil. 1, Kn^ze Vaclav Svaty a jeho doba. Praha, Narodni vybor pro oslavu svatovaclavskeho tisicileti, 1934, pp. 9-101.

47. Laourdos B., Westerink L.G., eds. Photii Epistulae et Amphilochia. In 6 vols. Vol. 1. Epistolarum pars prima. Leipzig, B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, 1983. XXVI, 197 p.

48. Photii, patr. Const. Epistolarum Liber Tres. Photii, Const. patr., Opera omnia. Parisiis, Apud Garnies Flatres u.a., 1900, col. 585-990(998). (Migne J.-P., ed. Patrologiae cursus completus. Ser. Graeca; vol. 102).

49. The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars, A.D. 866 (Letter 99). North W.L., ed. Medieval Sourcebook. URL: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/866nicholas-bulgar. asp (accessed 1 October 2022).

50. Rogov A.I. Slovanske legendy z doby vzniku ceskeho statu a jejich osudy na Rusi. Staroslovёnskё Legendy ceskeho puvodu. Praha, Vysehrad, 1976, pp. 11-53.

51. Saggau E.H. The Byzantine Influence on Early Slavic Passion-Bearing Saints. Hiperboreea, 2021, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 184-203.

52. Santo M., dal. Gregory the Great, the Empire and the Emperor. Neil B., Santo M., dal, eds.

53. A Companion to Gregory the Great. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 2013, pp. 57-81.

54. Speck P. Die Kaiserliche Universitat von Konstantinopel. Prazisierungen zur Frage des hoheren Schulwesens in Byzanz im 9. and 10. Jahrhundert. Munchen, Beck, 1974. XII, 120 S.

55. Spinka M.A. History of Christianity in the Balkans. A Study in the Spread of Byzantine Culture among the Slavs. Chicago, American Society of Church History, 1933. III, 202 p.

56. Spinka M., Downey G. Chronicle of John Malalas, Books VIII-XVIII. Chicago, University of Chicago, 1940. VI, 150 p.

57. Stejskal F. Svaty Vaclav. Jeho zivot a ucta. Praha, Dedictvi Sv. Jana Nepomuckeho, 1925. III, 246 p.

58. Chaloupecky V. et al., eds. Svatovaclavsky sbormk. Na pamatku 1000. Vyroc^ smrti kmzete Vaclava Svatёho. DU. 2, sv. 2. Prameny X. stoleti. Legendy kristianovy o svatёm Vaclavu a svatё Ludmile. Praha, Vyd. Narodm vybor pro oslavu svatovaclavskeho tisicileti, 1939. 638 p.

59. Todorov B.A. Coercion and Reconciliation. The Roman Mission of 866/7 and the Internal Conflicts in Bulgaria. Stepanov T., Kazakov G., eds. Medieval Christianitas, Different Regions, “Faces”, Approaches. Sofia, Mediaevalia Christiana, 2010, vol. 3, pp. 181-202.

60. Turek R. Kosmas a cesky pravek. Casopis Musea KralovsM ceskeho. Praha, Narodm Muzeum, 1947, dll. 116, pp. 38-57.

61. Chaloupecky V. Na usvitu krest'anstv^, z nai literarn^ tvorby doby romanske v stoleti IX-XIII. Praha, Evropsky literarm klub, 1942. 292, [9] p.

62. Konzal V., ed. Ctyric et Homilu Rehore Velikeho na evangelia: v ceskodrkevneslovanskem prekladu. Dil 1. Praha, Slovansky hstav AV, CR, Euroslavica, 2005. VI, 681 p.

63. Konzal V., ed. Ctyric et Homilu Rehore Velikeho na evangelia: v ceskodrkevneslovanskem prekladu. Dil 2. Praha, Slovansky hstav AV, CR; Euroslavica, 2006. XL, 684-1387, [53] p.

64. Urbanek R. Legenda tak zvana Kristiana ve vyvoji predhusitskych legend Ludmilskych i Vaclavskych a jej^ autor. Dil 1, cast. 3. Praha, Nakladem ceske akademie ved a umeni, 1947. 216 p.

65. t'yamb [Antique and Hellenistic Elements in the Christian Teaching (On the Material of the Comparison of Armenian and Greek - Classical and Byzantine - Sources)]. Yerevan, Golden Print and Design Publ., 2005. vii, 370 p.

66. Shirinian M.E., Xachatryani G., eds. Girq pattwar'ac [The Book of Causes]. Ashtanak, 2011, vol. 4, pp. 18-43.

67. Shirinian M.E.S. Grqi imasti “er'amasn” (“trixotomik”) y'nkalman Oroginesi tesowt'yowny' & dra ard'agangy' haykakan aghbyowrnerowm [Origen's Conception on Trichotomic Sense of the Holy Bible and Its Reception in the Armenian Sources]. Oskanean Astowac'ashnchi hratarakowt'ean 350-ameaky ' (1666-2018) [350th Anniversary of the First Bible in Armenian Printed by Voskan Yerevantsi (1666-2018)]. Echmiadzin, Mayr At'or' Sowrb E'jmiac'in Publ., 2018, pp. 104-111.

Размещено на Allbest.ru