Khristianstvo na blizhnem Vostoke

4-84

Authors: Dmitrii Safonov

Published documents from the State Archives of Israel are associated with the activities of Nikolai Romanovich Seleznev (1871-26.05.1925). Before the outbreak of World War I, he served as an assistant to the manager of the metochion of the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society (IOPS) in Jerusalem. The office of management was located on the Sergievsky building. With the outbreak of the war, Palestine, including Jerusalem, became the arena of military operations. According to the IOPS circular, the Society’s departments were closed and the staff left Palestine. The Ottoman authorities also ordered all subjects of the Russian Empire to leave the territory of Palestine. The war and the subsequent revolution in Russia for a long time interrupted the connection of the Palestinian society with its property in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. After the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II, the Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society ceased to use the word “imperial” in its name, resigned from the post of chairman, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, and after the revolution political events dispersed members of the Society for different ideological camps and even countries. In 1919 in Jerusalem resumed its work management Representation of the Orthodox Palestinian Society (OPS). N.R. Seleznev returned from Russia to Jerusalem in July 1919. He was sent to the Holy Land with authority from the Supreme Governor A.V. Kolchak member of the Council of the Palestinian Society AA. Neratov, who at that time served on the board of the Armed Forces of the South of Russia. By September, he is receiving recognition from the British Mandate authorities and is beginning an active work to stop the process of seizure of property of the OPS, formalize the rights of the company on the objects belonging to the Society and receive from their lease funds that could be spent primarily on charity goals. At that time, Palestine was already under British rule, and Syria and Lebanon – under a French mandate. Only February 24, 1920 with great difficulty, N.R. Seleznev as a representative of the Orthodox Palestinian Society was recognized as the supreme British and local authority. He survived very difficult times, trying to preserve the property of the Society. N.R. Seleznev maintained contact with A.A. Neratov and Prince A.A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov, elected in 1917 as chairman of the Society after the departure of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, but left Russia in 1918. The story of an attempt to revive the Russian presence in Jerusalem, undertaken by N.R. Seleznev, is vividly reflected in the published documents containing valuable information on the history of Russian property in the Holy Land.

89-103

Authors: German Krylov

There is a point of view in the Orthodox Christian world that Copts and other monophysites are not heretics, and that the perspectives of unity with the “antichalcedonians” are quite real. Champions of this view explain that it was the adherence to the ambiguous theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and his “mia physis” formula that made Copts and other monophysites use alternative theological language to express the same beliefs. This thesis is popular among the Copts who remind the political dimension of the theological dispute given to it by imperial repressions against them. Besides the differences related to the substance and terminology, the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (monophysites) don’t agree in their attitude towards the protagonists of the anti-chalcedonian schism drama. Thus Dioscorus of Alexandria, anathematized by the Orthodox, was sanctified by the Coptic Orthodox Church. Oppositely Pope Saint Leo the Great, sanctified by Orthodox, is deemed heretic by Copts. To Orthodox mind, Dioscorus was a monophysite, although not so extreme as Eutiches of Constantinople. To Coptic mind, Leo supported the heretic ideas of Nestorius. Thence, Orthodox and Coptic anathemas of Nestorius and Eutiches are not enough to unite them in hagiology. Copts don’t accept but the first three Ecumenical Councils. The consequence was the spread of monenergism and lack of immunity to iconoclasm, resulting in its outburst one millennium after its neutralization by Orthodox. Copts’ and other monophysites’ nonacceptance of the whole list of Ecumenical Councils causes critical stance towards the dialogue with them within the Orthodox camp.

121-157

Authors: Ilya Kashitsyn

In the times of so called Arab Spring Christian minorities in list of countries of the MENA region faced the unprecedented persecution from militants of radical groups, operating under Islamic slogans. This subject is very interesting from the side of threat to interreligious relations as well as from the position of research of the position of Middle Eastern Christians in general during the conflicts. This article intended to introduce the reader to the particular things about the Christian communities in countries, where they faced the worst persecution: Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt. These countries are in the top positions in charts of persecution during recent years. The situation there not so univocal as it seemed to be. For example, in Egypt, sequence of revolutions had not only external influence, but internal reasons. We will see in the article, that opposition between Christians and Muslims here has the long history. Unique feature of Christian community in Syria is its policonfessional character – Christians are divided into different Churches, that weakens they as religious group. In Iraq Christian community had to go through two huge waves of persecution. It pushed many of them to the decision of leaving the country forever. Libya is notorious by almost total determination of Christian presence. In atmosphere of clannish wars Christians are killed purposefully and scot-free. This article aims to identify similarities and differences, estimate the mentioned phenomenon.