St. John of Kronstadt said: "Church history should not be only a list of facts, but should be a teacher of dogmas and all Christian virtues" [5]. For us, the historical outline of the imiaslav disputes is only the background against which the analysis of the dogmatic, theological content of the question of the name of God unfolds. A historical account of the Athonite controversies is necessary for us insofar as it contributes to a theological understanding of the problems that brought them to life.

However, our analysis of theological problems is also introductory, introductory. We are well aware that the solution of the question of the name of God is beyond the power of one person: a group of people must work on it – theologians, church historians, philosophers, philologists. We hope that such a group will be created within the framework of the Theological Commission.

The reader will find in our work many quotations from the Holy Scriptures, from the works of the Fathers and teachers of the Church, liturgical texts, the writings of the imiaslavtsy and their opponents, and the works of contemporary theologians. We give quotations from the Bible according to the Synodal translation. In those cases where biblical texts are found in the works of other authors that we quote, we leave them in the form in which they are given by the authors (including in the Slavonic translation). Quotations from the Church Fathers are given, when possible, according to Russian translations; In some cases, the translations are checked by us against the original (the corrections made by us to the translations are not specifically specified). Quoting the works of the imiaslavtsy and their opponents, we sought to preserve the stylistic and grammatical features of the original; Nevertheless, we allowed ourselves minimal stylistic and spelling edits.

All abbreviations in the cited texts are marked with ellipses in angle brackets. Ellipses without angle brackets in quotations belong to the authors of the cited texts. There are no ellipses in our author's text. Words that are not in the quoted texts, but are included in them for clarity, are in square brackets.

We use italics as the only form of emphasis in the text. In quotations from essays in which other forms of emphasis were used (bold, breakdown, underline, capital letters, etc.), all these forms are replaced by italics. In all quotations, italics belong to the authors of the quoted texts, except where otherwise noted.

During the period of the imiaslav disputes, the term "imiaslavie" was spelled in different ways: "imiaslavie", "imeslavie", "imenoslavie" and even "imislovie". In quotations from sources, we, as a rule, unify the spelling of this term ("imiaslavie"), as well as its derivatives ("imiaslavtsy", "imiaslavsky", etc.)· Only the most extravagant forms, such as "name slave" (a term used by Berdyaev), have been left unchanged. The term "imyabozhniki" is replaced in quotations by "imyabozhniki", "imebortsy" by "imyabortsy"; Corresponding changes have been made to all derived terms. In the author's text, we try to avoid the terms "imyabozhniki" and "imiabortsy", which were perceived as offensive; However, in quotations from sources, as well as in references to sources, these terms are constantly encountered.

Special mention should be made of the spelling of the word "name" in relation to the name of God, the names of God, and the name "Jesus." As a rule, the imiaslavtsy wrote this word with a capital letter, and their opponents with a lowercase letter. However, there were exceptions: for example, Schema-monk Hilarion wrote it for the most part with a lowercase letter, whereas in the Synod Epistle of May 18, 1913, it begins with a capital letter. In our book, the spelling of the sources in this paragraph is left unchanged, so the reader will find both spellings in the quotations. In the author's text, the word "name" is written with a lowercase letter, except for those cases when a capital letter is required by the meaning. We hope that the reader will forgive us this inevitable discrepancy in the spelling of a term that is so important for the history and problems of the imiaslav disputes.

In the appendix to this book, some archival documents of interest to the researcher of imiaslavie are published.

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the librarian of St. Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos, Hieromonk Maxim, and to the students of the Moscow Theological Schools, A. R. Sokolovsky, I. V. Obukhov, A. E. Makshanov, and A. V. Dolgov, who assisted us in collecting, reprinting, photocopying, and processing the materials necessary for the preparation of this book. We thank A. N. Parshin, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and E. S. Polishchuk, a member of the Publishing Council of the Moscow Patriarchate, for their comments.

Chapter 1. The Name of God in the Holy Scriptures

The ancient understanding of the meaning and meaning of a name is fundamentally different from the modern use of names.

Nowadays, a name is nothing more than an identification mark necessary to distinguish one person from another. Each person has a name, but the original meaning of this name, as a rule, is not related to the person's personality: often people do not even know what their name means. When naming a child by a particular name, parents usually choose from a very limited circle of names that are more or less common in their culture, and pay more attention to the euphony of the name than to its meaning [6]. Due to the fact that different people can have the same name, one or more additional characteristics are added to the name in each specific case - surname, patronymic, middle name, serial number, indication of age. These additional characteristics are necessary in order to distinguish, for example, Pyotr Ivanovich from Pyotr Sergeyevich, Pyotr Ivanov from Pyotr Sergeev, Jean Paul from Jean Claude, Peter I from Peter III, George W. Bush from George H.W. Bush, etc. At the same time, the original meaning of the name Peter (Greek πέτρος - stone) or George (Greek γεόργιος - farmer) does not play any role.

In antiquity, the situation was different. The name was treated not just as an identification mark or nickname, but as a mysterious symbol indicating the fundamental characteristics of its bearer and being in direct connection with him. This cardinal difference between the ancient understanding of the name and the one that prevails today must be remembered when considering the theology of the name in the Old and New Testaments.

Old Testament