John Philoponus’ teaching on Resurrection (Russian)

NB! Cp. my English paper
John Philoponus on the Bodily Resurrection, Scrinium, 9 (2013) 91-100.

My point is that the impossibility of reconstructing Philoponus’ thought about the Resurrection resulted from our total dependency on the Cononite sources (the monophysite tritheist party of the opponents of Philoponus): Timothy of C.ple (a Chalcedonian) was depending on the Cononite information, too.

The Cononites understood Philoponus’ notion of εἶδος as synonymous to σχῆμα, whereas its real meaning was different (the soul as a separable ἐντελέχεια of the body etc.). Thus, the famous knot from the Cononite anti-Philoponian florilegium, the following Philoponian quotation (about the resurrected bodies):
ܘܠܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܒܡܢܝܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܝܢ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ܆ ܐܠܐ ܘܠܐ ܫܘ̈ܝܝ ܒܐܕܫܐ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ.

must be cut with an emendation:

ܘܒܡܢܝܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܝܢ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ܆ ܐܠܐ ܫܘ̈ܝܝ ܒܐܕܫܐ ܠܗ̇ܢܘܢ.

which will be in accord with other Philoponus’ works and, especially, a place in the Arbiter (Syriac only) which was so far misinterpreted, too.

The resurrected bodies, according to Philoponus, will be different in their elements but the same in their “eidos”.