Трактат четвертый. Об отношении «Евангелия» св. Апостола Павла к эллинизму и к (греко – ) римскому праву

The need for criticism of the recognition of Hellenic influences in the formation of the “Christian system” of the Apostle Paul and the attached possibility - the Requirement - (for the implementation of the latter) - the availability of Hellenic education from the enlightener of the pagans. Annunciation of St. The Apostle Paul is comprehensive in its content and comprehensive in application. Because of this dignity, it presupposes a special source that exceeds the available resources of human limitations. From this point of view, it is natural and inevitable that the Christian apostolic teaching is not easily derived from the then dominant religious and philosophical contemplations. And, indeed, rabbinism not only did not give, but also did not allow apostolic universalism, and the Alexandrian theosophy of Philo, with its Hellenic layers, would break the undoubted connection of “Paulinism” with Judaism. In turn, the book of the Wisdom of Solomon turns out to be rather colorless and completely unoriginal in the doctrines of the Jews and Hellenics, which is why it could not endow the Apostles with the riches of Christian knowledge. Under such conditions, the very idea of ​​the “genetic” origin of Christianity from the totality of early systems and views, which naturally gave rise to a new religious concept, wavers. However, the issue does not end there. The multi-definability of the apostolic gospel makes us guess that it had many producing factors, and therefore the insufficiency of those mentioned so far is not at all surprising and only forces us to look for new ones that should serve to replenish the previous ones. So, now we need to decide whether it is possible for St. Paul's contact with other spheres, from where it was not difficult to borrow original ideas and make them a ferment for the corresponding transformation of the finished material of religious traditions and beliefs? Here the answer is affirmative, sufficiently ensuring the theoretical consistency of genetic explanations. The champions of the latter direct all their energy towards this. According to their judgment, the apostolic gospel, having arisen on Palestinian-rabbinic soil, absorbed new elements and it was through them that it acquired its individual characteristics. Its very appearance is motivated by the fact that Jewish foundations are partly transformed and partly eliminated and replaced by others. In this way the Apostle immediately breaks out of the vicious circle of rabbinic scholasticism and enters into the open space where other influences dominated. And we know that the evangelist is credited with a deep dependence on Hellenistic Judaism, when through the medium of Philo and pseudo-Solomon he became acquainted with the new world and committed himself to its genius. And if the Jewish adaptations did not satisfy the requirements of the apostolic creativity, then the stronger should be his desire for direct knowledge of genuine Hellenism, since even indirect reflections were useful for it. This was an irresistible incentive to familiarize themselves with purely Hellenic religious and philosophical concepts in order to attract them to the successful completion of the work taken. And besides, there were sufficient amenities. All “genetic” interpreters take the Judaism of that time as the point of departure for Paul’s system, and in this direction many authors, especially Jewish ones, go to extremes. It was suggested that Christ and Paul at first only wanted to convert the pagans under the condition of accepting the “Noahic Commandments,” but left the entire Law of Moses to the Jews, and this confusion was accompanied by ambiguities and contradictions in the assessment of the latter and the Sabbath among the New Testament writers. The Christian tendency is depicted as an emanation from the Jewish one - only not pure, but Kabbalistic, but, in any case, completely dependent on modern Jewish dogma. It is considered fundamentally false that Christian morality is superior to Jewish morality, for it is supposedly entirely Jewish (fundamentally Jewisch) and deviates from it for the better. Already at the beginning of their history, Christians abandoned their brothers to the mercy of the Romans, and the collapse of Judaism was the first actual victim of a specifically Christian ethics, which even after did not have its own constructiveness. On the contrary, the basis was the “Paulinistic chimera” that the believer dies with Christ to the law, as this position was asserted through the perversion of Pharisaic theories and gave rise to religious enmity created exclusively by Christianity. Pavlovo's innovation, which made this person the true founder of the Christian church, was resolved by the fact that the radical change in Judaism opened a wide door to paganism and led, for example, to the pagan deification of the Mother of God. Here Jewish preconditions are crowned with pagan desires. A similar result is obtained from a slightly different view. It is admitted that the Redeemer himself preached only the Jewish faith in its simplest and purest form, when all the originality was in one phraseology. 1572 The real creator of the Christian religion was a Hellenic missionary - a Greek who did not know Christ. There was no criminality in this, since, expanding the narrow rabbinic framework, he was motivated by love for the spiritual well-being of humanity, for whom he served as a messenger of God, spreading Jewish hopes among the pagan environment and being for it a bright star in his heroic feat of introducing the beautiful Jewish aspirations everywhere. From this side, “Paulinism” is seen not as an undermining of Judaism, but as an opening of it - for the sake of attracting and reviving paganism. Contact with the latter occurs quite naturally and was ensured by the properties of Judaism itself, where great religious confusion reigned. It was no longer something holistic and original, but in the “dispersion” it suffered a lot from Hellenic influences, and in Palestine and further in the east – from eastern influences. A certain syncretic conglomerate has formed, from which Christianity is formed. 1573 It is inevitable that during its very emergence and spread the new religion received diverse religious elements through Jewish mediation. Of these, we can note the Babylonian influences, which were the first and deeply penetrated into Judaism, from where it is deduced that even the messiahship of Jesus was revealed by the application of the myth of Marduk to him. The Personality of the Lord is reduced to an ordinary human level, and it is as if He is the one who would be most surprised by the divinity assimilated to Him. At the same time, they say that the accepted date is erroneous, and Christ lived a hundred years before it - in the days of Alexander Iannaeus, being a disciple of Joshua ben Perachia, while others directly consider Him to be a mythical type, attributing to the share of sagality the most important facts, for example, death on the cross, and everything miraculous in Christianity. But they rightly protest against the extremes of “pan-Babylonism” in general and in particular as applied to the New Testament. Even though Babylonian influence has been around for a long time and continues to be found in the Talmud, in any case, it is problematic as a transformative factor, as if it awarded the Jews in captivity with the idea of ​​redemption - with a magical connotation. The points of similarity 1574 are greatly exaggerated contrary to the true data, for Israel is deeply different from Babylon and independent of it in special doctrines and institutions. This is true in the question of the flood, about creation, about the Sabbath 1575 and even about the Angels, it is doubtful that the very belief in them was of Babylonian origin, 1576 and in eschatological coincidences a common root is seen in the independent, overt development of Israel. His religion was a pure miracle among the religious beliefs of the East, certainly “autochthonous” in its monotheism, here it rather influenced the Babylonian one and, in comparison with it, was independent in the classical era. With all this, the Jewish doctrine of the resurrection is explained from the Babylonian one, why Babylonian echoes are assumed in Christ the Savior, although it is stated that in the ancient Babylonian religion there was no actual faith of this kind. A no lesser connection is asserted for Parsism, but again it was only a later one, very relative and did not affect the Israeli identity, 1577 if, for example, for eschatology it is put forward 1578 in the absence of decisive data in favor of a direct influence. Under such conditions there will be no reason to eliminate the Hellenic elements even in the most important matters. And we are told that the most important Christological contemplations do not come from Christ, but are taken from India and are primarily due to St. Paul, who depicts a mythical image of the Redeemer, is, by the way, higher than pagan myths. But this work of ethnicizing the true Christian reality was begun by Judeo-Christianity, which transferred characteristic pagan doctrines (for example, about the permanent conception) to the deliverer, to whom all the impulses of the heart were attributed, drawing material from Jewish sectarianism, at least from the “Menaea”, where there was a kind of bitheism adopted by Christianity - especially in Paulinism. For him there was abundant material in sectarian-Jewish Gnosticism, while Alexandrinism directly enriched Christianity, taking from there and applying to the Redeemer the idea of wisdom or the word, which - in the sense of hypostasis - was the sacrilegium for Judaism and arose in it due to external influences, according to Philo, who identified the Logos and Sophia, so prepared everything that was given the concept only had to be embodied, and this was again predetermined by the entire course of development in the Hellenic dispersion. Christianity turns out to be the fruit of communication between the Jewish and Hellenic worlds, being a product of this universal Judaism (“das Christentum... ust die Schopfung dieses Allerweltjudentums.” A difference emerges between the historical Christ and the religious-dogmatic Christ, and in the second of them many traditions were crystallized. He was initially revered as the “son of God”, but in the sense of the God-man was understood only in the later church interpretation, and among the early Christians it was understood adaptively, for the Apostle of tongues he was the “image of God” in the dignity of a “heavenly man”, which is the idea of \u200b\u200btwo Adams learned from Jewish sources, but is already combined with Buddhist concepts that are revealed both in the gospel history and in Paulinism (Rom. XII, 2). We now see how easily and simply the transition from Judaism to paganism takes place, so that the “New Testament,” having grown on Jewish soil, turns out to be a truly Greek book in form and content. It is no less natural that Paul, without losing the appearance of a Jew - a Talmudist in Christianity, undoubtedly, for example, in his aggadic exegis and Palestinian-rabbinic typology, could easily assimilate and adapt Hellenic views to such an extent that he is sometimes depicted as a product of Hellenic philosophy. Based on what has been said, it is not surprising if defenders of the genetic interpretation of Paulinism find support for themselves even in the historical process of the formation of Christianity. Being a generalization of various matters of religious heritage, it allowed all sorts of influences. True, it is said that in origin it was only a Jewish sect, and the roots of Christianity must be sought in Palestinian soil, but this does not at all profess unconditional rabbinic integrity. It is enough to recall that sometimes Esseneism plays a large part in the initial fate of a new religion. 1579 It is equally emphasized that the Apostle of Languages ​​for his Christology drew a lot from the Orientalist-Essene teaching about the Angel-Messiah, transferring it to the personality of the Savior. 1580 And it is known that Essene concepts are sometimes commented on from Jewish principles, 1581 sometimes they come close to philosophical ones, such as the neo-Pythagorean system 1582 or Stoicism. From this it is clear that both the relationship to Judaism and the interests of Christianity itself equally turned St. Paul to the Hellenic reserves. In them the proponents of genetic interpretations find everything that is desirable to fill the remaining gaps in the historical interpretation of the apostolic gospel, in which the Hellenic element is henceforth put forward as an essential factor. One cannot but agree that, given genetic logic, this conclusion is completely legitimate. Next, it is necessary to check its actual strength and determine to what extent this theoretical possibility has been realized. It goes without saying that this requires the means and ability to master Hellenic concepts, and this requires appropriate preparation. Did the Apostle Paul have it to a sufficient extent, and did he have a satisfactory Hellenic education, which gave him access to the “secular! wisdom of the Hellenic world? If “yes,” only then and in no other way will it be permissible to interpret purely Hellenic borrowings. How does the matter stand on this subject? Chapter one. Hellenic education of St. Apostle Paul Hellenic education from the perspective of its possibility for the Apostle Paul, as a Jew, for whom Greek sciences and language were supposedly prohibited (LXX translation). – Circumstances that predisposed the evangelist to assimilate Hellenic education and culture: origin from Tarsus, Roman citizenship (with the duality of names due to it) and good socio-economic condition of the family. – The naturalness of Hellenic enlightenment in the Apostle (the Athenian speech of Acts XVII, 22 ff. and the dispute about classical quotations in it); the question of his continuation of this kind of activity not only for the sake of the best preparation for the Christian mission, but even during the latter (2 Tim. IV, 13). – Evidence of Pavlova’s Hellenic awareness (Acts XXVI, 24. XIV. 12. Longinus, patristic and later) and the possibility of philosophical influences. – Paul’s writings according to their composition (Rom. XVI, 22. Gal. V, 11. 2 Cor. XI, 6. X, 10 and the question of copyists and translators), from the literary side (letters or “epistles”?) and in language, determined by the attitude to the LXX and to the “Hellenistic” of that time. – The likelihood of a relatively good Greek education among St. Apostle Paul. St. Apostle Paul was not a native of Palestine and belonged to the members of the Jewish dispersion. In this form, the present paragraph does not meet with authoritative objections and gives room to the categorical statement that Saul was a Hellenist. This directly predetermines the question of Hellenic education, since it is conceived in the very concept of such sons of the “Diaspora,” for they were only partly Jews. Of course, of course, first of all, Greek speech, but inseparable from it is a certain sum of special Hellenic concepts associated with language to the point of inextricability. And, apparently, the evangelist was a deeply cultured person who rose to a high level of Hellenistic enlightenment. Pavlov’s contemporary Philo testifies to the latter that it was heavily imbued with Hellenic elements. The Apostle was obviously familiar with them as a Hellenist who read the Epistle in Greek. This conclusion is not entirely indisputable and must be consistent with the premises. One thing that is accepted so far is that Paul was not born and spent his childhood under the Palestinian sky, but this does not directly say anything about his spiritual development. On the contrary, the evangelist himself presents slightly different instructions (in Philip. III, 5). He was "of the lineage of Israel" and in this respect is a pure descendant of Abraham through the great forefather Jacob. On the other hand, and according to the “tribe of Benjamin” (Rom. XI, 1), Saul turned out to be the scion of the glorious and noblest branch of the faithful sons of the covenant - not like the stiff-necked Ephraimites. His parents were also Jews, which means that he did not have the slightest foreign admixture from his proselyte ancestors, just as he himself, by circumcision on the eighth day, was directly included in the union with God. 1583 With all this, the Apostle certifies that already by his carnal origin he adjoined the very center of Orthodox Judaism and least of all ranked himself among the distant circles of the periphery, where the force of attraction was weakened by side influences that captured many into their sphere. 1584 St. Paul insists that from his birth until his conversion he was a typical Jew in blood and spirit. True, the term “Hellenist” denoted not so much a place of origin as a spiritual appearance, and one in which Jewish features were combined with Hellenistic ones. But when the latter are denied, it necessarily follows that the Christian educator of languages ​​only emerged from the dispersion and was not, in fact, a Hellenistic Jew of the Philonic type, even to a milder degree. With the recognition of this position, serious obstacles are revealed to substantiate the thought of Hellenic education. They need to be disassembled in advance so that you can move on. Pharisaism embodied the very essence of Orthodox Judaism, in which nationalism limited religion, and this imparted divine sanction to national isolation. 1585 Here, any extraneous influence was inevitably eliminated, as being contrary to the entire Jewish nature and hostile to it. Any contact was allowed for the “goy” only under the obligatory condition of renouncing carnal-spiritual differences, and without this it was not allowed in the slightest degree. These observations provide support for the idea that Hellenic influences in Palestine were vigorously resisted by the Pharisees and Greek sciences had no basis for perception and development here, because the opposition to them was convinced and principled. Saul was also a Pharisee, and he could not have had either an inclination towards Hellenism or the convenience of becoming familiar with it. This circumstance is usually referred to when they deny or belittle the Hellenic education of the Apostle, noting that it is doubtful both because of its Jewish-Pharisee origin and because of its general Jewish mood. The obvious facts are impressive and deserve careful consideration. Legalistic Judaism was imbued with a proud sense of self-sufficiency, sometimes reaching such intolerance as the Muslims showed in relation to the treasures of the Alexandrian library. Israel possessed divine revelation, sufficient for every need, and therefore under the Torah there was no need for any other books. Naturally, the Talmud, revered for the “mature testimony”, the expression and embodiment of Judaism, 1586 supposedly does not allow writing anything other than the Old Testament. Greek sciences, language, and philosophy were declared unnecessary for the chosen people. Under these conditions, hostility towards paganism and its enlightenment easily arose and strengthened, from which it is clear that familiarization with this area was prohibited and made difficult by systematic measures. Greek learning was decisively humiliated, and on this score they said (Kidduschin 49 b) that out of ten parts of the wisdom given to the whole world, the land of Israel received nine, and only one remained for the share of all other nations. It would be strange and unwise for a rich man to borrow from a poor man, and the former concentrates on using his wealth. This explains the belief of Joshua ben Hananiah (118 - 170) that a third of life belongs to the study of the Torah, a third to the Mishnah and a third to the Gemara. There is no time for Greek education. And the rabbinic news on this matter is completely clear. It is said (Menachoth 99 b) that ben Dama asked his maternal uncle, Ishmael ben Elisha (from the time of Hadrian), whether he could study Greek science after he had studied the legalistic Jewish science? In response to this, the rabbi referred to the words of Jesus. Nav. I, 8: Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth, and let ye learn in it day and might. The conclusion was inevitable and formulated very energetically: go and think about which hour belongs to neither day nor night, and learn from it Greek wisdom. This story had different variations and was sometimes attributed by other persons, from which it follows that it expressed a widespread and deep belief. In this light, a fair indication of the prohibition of teaching Greek knowledge takes on the meaning that the latter had no place at all in Jewish education. In pagan knowledge, a danger to orthodoxy was suggested if the Sadducees were accused of honoring the “writings of Homer.” 1587 Competence in this area was considered rather disastrous, as can be seen in the fate of the famous Rabbi Elisha ben Abuya. A Jewish star of the first magnitude - he was carried away by Greek ideas and was rejected, and his very name was replaced impersonally - with the derogatory “akher” = another. Only the kind-hearted Meir remained friendly towards Elisha and allowed for the possibility of salvation for him; however, the general mood was so hostile that they did not hesitate to accuse him of treason and betrayal of his fellow believers 1588 and of an immoral life. Even the weakened Hellenic movements did not find leniency. In Jewish writing, sepharim hachizzonim are mentioned, by which others mean not just apocrypha, but also secular books with content that is at least somewhat unacceptable to Judaism. They are more directly attributed to the creations of an Alexandrian-philosophical nature. It is indisputable, in any case, that apocryphal works, which were not actually the direct creation of the pagan mind, were also included in this category. However, all this was subject to severe ostracism, and R. Akiba argued that such bookishness eliminates participation in the future life. All entrances were closed for Greek enlightenment. And if “Greek wisdom” is sometimes mentioned, it is only in the sense of “adornment for women” and in other parallel reports it is replaced by “the wisdom of the law.” In general, an exception is made for females, and their knowledge of foreign languages, especially Greek, is certified as permissible - with its predominance over the sacred, but again as an embellishment (Her. Peah. I, 1). Obviously, this is a relaxation, and not at all a permission, since there are direct prohibitions from the rabbis specifically on the subject of teaching Greek speech. All the data presented are, of course, indisputable. You just need to determine the true strength. Let's look at them in a historical setting. The following information has been preserved on this subject (Baba Kamma 82 b. 83 a. Menachoth 64 b). During the war (in the 60s of the 1st century BC) between the brothers (sons of Alexander - Iannaeus and Alexandra - Solomiya) Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, the first locked himself in the city. For church sacrifices, a basket of money (denarii) was lowered daily and two lambs were received. Then one old man, possessed of Greek wisdom, noted that with such a readiness to satisfy the demands of the cult, the besiegers would never capture their enemies. And so the next morning - instead of sacrificial animals - a pig was thrown up, but as soon as the last one was raised halfway from the bottom, its hooves stuck into the wall and the earth shook 400 parasangs in all four directions. At this time, a curse was pronounced on those who feed pigs, and on the man (father) who teaches his son Greek wisdom... The question then arises, is the latter prohibited (forever)? On this occasion, a certificate is given, as if the Rabbi (St. Jude) expressed: why is the Syriac language in the land of Israel and why not the sacred (only) or Greek? R. Joseph also said: why should Babylon (the Jews who lived there) speak Aramaic when the sacred language or Persian is enough? To this it is noted that the Greek language does not at all coincide with Greek science: does this mean that it is prohibited? But at the river Judah Samuel on behalf of R. Simeon son of Gamaliel is transmitted: Lamentation. III, 51 says: it is mine that closes for my soul, more than all the daughters of the people, and in my father’s house there were a thousand children, of whom five hundred studied the Torah and five hundred Greek wisdom, but now I and my brother’s son are left in Asia. However, this is something completely different. The entire house of Rabban Gamaliel had access to the court and was close to the government. A special rule already applies here: he who cuts his hair completely cuts his hair, of course, according to the custom of the Amorrites, however, Ptolemy bar - Ruben allowed himself this for the sake of entering the court; Likewise, Rabban Gamaliel was allowed to speak Greek science for the purpose of relations with the court. This message explains the story we are interested in well. First of all, it is important that the implied prohibition dates back to around 64 BC. Chr., and even much earlier, Greek culture penetrated Palestine, whose long-standing influence on the Palestinian peoples is confirmed by archaeological research. In view of this, resistance necessarily presupposes a corresponding onslaught, and from here we must conclude that there was Greek enlightenment in Judaism during the given period. The motive for the interdict in question is much more significant. It portrays Greek wisdom in the most unsightly light. She is as skillful and insightful as she is cunning and blasphemous. All intelligence is used to insult the very shrine of Israel out of simple hatred towards it. The immediate goal of oppressing the besieged did not in the least require such blasphemous mockery. To make it difficult to perform sacrificial duties, it was enough not to provide the necessary animals; – and if an unclean pig is presented, this directly expresses the intention to desecrate the church of God and violate the service of the Almighty. By the force of this we have that Hellenic science is rejected precisely in its application when it is disgusting in its arrogant contempt for the religion of Israel. And since the latter was the vital element of the Jewish people, its leaders, in the interests of self-defense, had to fight against such an enemy, dangerous to their very existence. This is consistent with another observation that the prohibition came out in an era of turmoil under the influence of the Greek invasions. Consequently, Hellenic sciences are forbidden if they turn out to be disastrous for the faith of Israel. In this sense, a variation of the story (in Jerusalem. Berach. IV, 7 b) is also characteristic, with the event of the replacement of pigs being timed to coincide with the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans. Everywhere it is insistently put forward that Greek knowledge is intolerant of the enemy’s use of it to the detriment of Israel and to undermine its holy law. From here it rightly follows that in all other respects they are permissible and appropriate. At least, all other data does not indicate that the anathema is unconditional. We know of 18 restrictive rules that make it difficult for Jews to deal with pagans, and the 13th directly prohibits learning their languages. But we must not forget that these reprisals were finally edited only four years before the destruction of Jerusalem and were the completion of nomistic fanaticism on the eve of the catastrophe for the entire people, naturally imbued with the principle of a la guerre comme a la guerre; severity was caused by difficult circumstances themselves and might not extend to other times. Indeed, the day when these decisions were made by the “Zilotic Synod” among the Hellelites is considered unlucky, but later it was declared a fast, and rabbinical authorities do not cancel them just because they were sealed in blood. It is clear that such severity was dictated by the actual bitterness against the hated Rome and had no innocence. Further news is of the same nature of temporary conditionality. We read (in Sota IX, 14) that “in war (after war) Vespasian was prohibited from wearing crowns of grooms and tambourines, in war (after war) from Titus they were prohibited from wearing crowns of brides, and also forbade a man to teach his son Greek. Sometimes this testimony is quoted without amendments, but the chronology here is clearly confused, for the persons mentioned participated in the same war that destroyed the kingdom of Judah. Therefore, it is more correct to understand not Titus, but Quietus (Lusius Quietus), who under Hadrian completed the cruel struggle against the Jews (“polemos schel Kitos”) and brought them to their final collapse. However, the importance lies in the content itself, and here it is clear to everyone that what was prohibited was previously in common practice as permitted. And if this is now forbidden, it is only for a complete break with the oppressors, so as not to come into contact even with their very speech. This expressed national grief, and for the sake of it such a restriction was legitimized. There was some deprivation here - a kind of abstinence from joy even during bright family celebrations. This was a temporary and accidental measure that prevailed after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, as in mourning for this shrine, stern nationalists almost turned away from eating meat and wine forever, although such an extreme did not receive general application. The prohibition was valid only under the specified circumstances and served as an echo of a passing mood rather than fundamental hostility. It was adopted strictly for the sake of self-protection and in accordance with the real danger, in the absence or elimination of which it fell by itself, which is why in the family of Gamaliel II (1st - 2nd century) a passion for Greek science and language invariably reigned. This was the case throughout later Jewish history. And if the decree of the Barcelona Jewish community of 1305 prohibited the children of Israel from reading any books of scientific content, it was solely in order to put an end to the harmful influence of Greek wisdom, which infected youth with skepticism. Again we have an adaptive definition, designed only to suppress evil, so that truly useful use is obtained. Accordingly, the previous formidable interdicts were never actually implemented in practice, and did not interfere with the normal satisfaction of educational aspirations. On the contrary, the latter were recognized to such an extent that the rabbis had no difficulty formally allowing women to master the Greek language, forbidding them from studying the Torah. Likewise, to this day, the ancient prohibitions remain unchanged, and Jews are not at all deprived of a scientific “secular” education. This clearly certifies that the rules under consideration do not exclude, of course, “external” science in principle. Of course, it would be an exaggeration to surround the Talmud with a halo of an enlightening source and engine, 1589 but the opposite exaggeration should not be allowed. It is true no more than that rabbinism tried to paralyze the harmful effects of extraneous influences and thereby indirectly approved any beneficial application consistent with the interests of religious purity and national identity. Therefore, it is not surprising if it is concluded that after acquiring rabbinic wisdom, persons of mature age and strengthened religious convictions were freely allowed secular knowledge, which was generally possible in education with the presence of such guarantees. Of course, protective tendencies were sometimes cast in too drastic forms, but these extremes were accidental stratifications, historically quite natural. Here only a feeling of embitterment towards the oppressors was consolidated, when a person involuntarily develops an aversion to everything that resembles an enemy. This is clearly evidenced by all the data presented, where the repressions discussed are always associated with political adversities and disasters. Then a new impulse came along. It is rightly emphasized that prohibitive measures against Greek enlightenment were especially approved in the 1st century AD. Chr. And then Christianity began to succeed in the Greco-Roman world, not without the help of the widespread Greek language. This was the reason that the latter also fell into rabbinic disgrace. Here we move from the general to the specific, and consider the attitude of Judaism to Greek speech and its sacred monument in the LXX translation. It is often noted that initially only Greek sciences were prohibited, and not the Greek language. However, it is no less true that later the second one was subjected to rabbinic ostakism. In this way, all access to Hellenic knowledge was completely closed. To what extent this was, of course, - in the example they refer to Jewish views regarding the LXX, which is usually seen as a clear argument of Jewish hostility to the Greek enlightenment. At first glance, this judgment seems indisputable and irresistible. Indeed, the Jewish tradition sometimes (in Sopherim I, 7) reveals extreme intolerance towards the Alexandrian translation, while Christian science sees in it the greatest providential act of the will of God, since this “Western-Eastern book” became an instrument of the early Christian mission, especially for the Apostle Paul. The completion of the version is declared to be a great disaster for Israel and a kind of betrayal of Jehovah - to the generation when the golden calf was poured out at Sinai. The legend adds that at the end of this work there was three days of darkness. On this occasion (and in Hilchot Gedolot Ta'anit) a fast is appointed (on the 8th of Tebet) to express sadness, this very day was called darkness, as a similar message was included in later ritual codes. All this news is decisive, and we will not discredit it simply by citing a late date for the corresponding source. With all this, the information could be true, and we need to find out its true nature. In this regard, it is instructive that about the pseudo-Jonathan’s targum on the prophets it is said that its publication was accompanied by an earthquake. Here the Greek language is completely innocent. Obviously, the reason is that popular translation made the biblical content accessible to a wide circle, which was contrary to rabbinic tendencies. Gradually, nomistic isolation began to prevail, pushing away the “goyim” with the contemptuous conviction that one should not throw pearls before swine. Excluded from communion with God and doomed to destruction, the pagans are unable and unworthy to learn the law, for at one time they criminally rejected it, and now it is entrusted to Israel alone and belongs to him, like a wife to a husband, therefore any outside use will be adultery. Given such a mood, it is natural that the Greek translation, which communicated the Bible to the entire educated world, attracted suspicion. Here there was only a reflection of the reaction that prevailed in Judaism, where - associated with the LXX - yu by equal condemnation - the Greek language was forbidden only due to the strength and extent of the noted influences. The rejection is again not fundamental, but temporarily limited. There is ample evidence for this. It is not without reason that the writings of the LXX were once considered authoritative in Palestine. And from the second half of the 2nd century, a legend has been preserved about the divinely inspired origin of this translation, once - according to the Babylonian Talmud (Megilla 9 a) - 72 elders, by divine inspiration, independently presented completely identical Greek editions. Regarding outside Palestinian Jewish views, it is enough to remember that - according to Philo - annual festivals took place on the island of Foros, gathering even pagans to honor the very place from which the first light of this interpretation shone, and to thank God for such goodness. This information has all the historical impeccability and confirms to us how high and wide the reputation of the LXX was, 1590 if the use on about. Delos 100 years BC Chr. But there is also a clue to the future fate. This translation became the property of the “peoples of the earth” and, as it were, was somewhat profaned by unclean contact, and its belittling by the pagans to the level of their religious dreams and its polemical use against Judaism aroused rabbinic suspicion. This version no longer seemed to fully ensure the sacred integrity of divine revelation and cast a shadow of doubt on orthodoxy. In any case, the pagans found justification for themselves in it, and this undermined all credit in the eyes of strict rabbinism. It is clear that the latter condemns LXX along with Philo. 1591 This successful convergence explains that the Alexandrian Greek translation was condemned for its side effects, since it opened up space for new influences, alien and even hostile to narrowly nationalistic rabbinic theology. And in this respect, the extreme nomists were absolutely right, for the editorial board of the LXX breathes the spirit of freedom and universalism, intolerable for nationalist exclusivity and which was a great misfortune for it. 1592 Therefore, even today Jewish authors agree that the day of publication of the LXX was no less disastrous than the betrayal at Sinai. Now this does not prevent the flourishing of “external” education in Judaism, which, obviously, was not eliminated in principle before. Therefore, there is no doubt that the point here is precisely in extraneous applications, and not at all in hatred of Hellenic enlightenment. The following facts suggest this. It is remarkable that rabbinical authorities put forward Aqila as a counterweight to the LXX, although the latter do not see any material Greek influences. But there a proselyte appears before us, and also with a Greek interpretation, so the Alexandrian translation could not arouse antipathy due to its Greek accessibility. A more serious offense is required for causing disaster to Israel in the form of betrayal. It is permissible to guess about the latter because - to undermine the LXX - the work of Aquila is endowed with the sanction of Akiba, as a leader, and receives impressiveness from this pillar of Jewish orthodoxy, who imprinted his right-mindedness with martyrdom and the processing of halakhah, as if he deserved it before all humanity. This means that if Aquila gives the orthodox interpretation, 1593 then his opponent will be a traitor for the benefit of the enemies of the people of God. In such an association it is directly outlined that the whole sin of the LXX was that either the translation especially helped people who left Judaism, but withdrew from it themselves and rejected others. For the first century, these were Christians. However, it is legitimate to think that out of antagonism towards the latter, rabbinism extolled the slave labor of Aquila and condemned the LXX. 1594 Their translation of the very first times was the most important support of the spreading Christianity, helping it not only indirectly - by preparing a convenient receptivity in the readers of the Greek Bible, but also by directly protecting the rabbinic attacks and in retaliatory attacks. This forced us to transfer unfriendly feelings from the enemy to the guns he had. It is not surprising that the rabbinic luminaries found it necessary to reject the Alexandrian Greek version, not for its Hellenistic appearance or spirit, but because of its suitability for Christian apologetics and anti-Jewish polemics. By this, the besieger, although he was not deprived of the strength to provide for himself, was still deprived of his seductiveness for others. In particular, a strong fence was now being created against Christian incursions into the Jewish environment, imbued with an instinctive distrust of those who were proclaimed distorters of biblical purity. This was the main rabbinical concern of this era, and here the proposed interpretation finds its strength. It is consistent with all solid considerations. Judaism, of course, immediately paid suspicious attention to Christian successes. Not to mention Christian messages on this subject - even from Jewish sources we know that four rabbis specially traveled to Syrian Antioch in order to slow down the development of Christianity. 1595 By the way, in these interests, rabbinism confiscated and eliminated everything that resembled the latter, limiting and belittling the significance of miracles, tendentiously - polemically emphasizing its monotheism, strengthening the nomistic elements to the extreme, 1596 painting the Lord Savior in the form of a magician, etc. In this regard, Jewish zealots went so far as to abstain from reading the Decalogue daily during worship, because this passage had Christian liturgical use. One can observe how, out of opposition to Christianity, the rabbinical pillars allowed important fluctuations in essential dogmatic points. It is accepted by Jewish authors that, in contrast to Christian teaching, the famous Akiba denied any unusual (supernatural) means in the matter of redemption, and in 1597, in order to raise national courage in the last struggle with the Romans, he awarded Bar-Kokhba with messianic dignity. Under such conditions, Hillel saw the Messiah in the pair of Hezekiah, 1598 - of course, only for special reasons, which in the denials of his coming by Joseph Albo (XIV century) are directly revealed in anti-Christian sentiments. In general, there are undoubtedly anti-Christian currents in Judaism, as is clear from continuous disputes, clashes and suspicions. 1599 Traces of this are also noticeable in the fact that the doctrine of personal imputation to each person only of his sins 1600 and, accordingly, the interpretation of Adam’s crime develops into undermining Christian doctrines; In these same interests, hostility towards pseudepigrapha is also intensifying. True, the “Minim” themselves are mentioned here; others still continue to claim about them that they were Jewish heretics - Gnostics, to whom prayer appeals and commands to burn books even if the name of God is present in them belong. 1601 But they admit that sometimes (Judeo)Christians are also indicated here, and the majority definitely mean the latter, 1602 since the term in question, which originally meant simply heretics, was actually and predominantly applied to them, why should they be thought of in formidable prayer petitions, where they see a sharp revelation of anti-Christian bitterness, 1603 which prompted Gamaliel II (I - Ii c.) authorize the introduction of a special oath formula into the “18 blessings”. Resh - Lakish (Ɨ 278), dooming a pagan to death for observing the Sabbath (Sanhedrin 58 b), probably also targeted Christians, as in opposition to the “minim” various liturgical variations were produced, and an anti-Christian flavor was imparted to the teaching on almsgiving. Therefore, the early hostility of Judaism to the new religion is indisputable, 1604 for it was directly refuted by Akiba, and the Jewish leaders cursed its confessors in the indignation of Bar-Kokhba in their prayers, 1605 and in particular - along with everything Christian - from time immemorial they hated the Apostle Paul. 1606 Here, dislike for the Alexandrian period was inevitable due to new historical circumstances and should not be understood as fundamental hostility to Greek culture. And if the Greek language with all Greek science was condemned along with the LXX, then we are inclined to think that it was not prohibited in itself, but only in view of (usefulness for) Christians, as is evidenced for the beginning of the 2nd century. All other reports confirm this interpretation, indicating that Greek speech is often extolled. They write that “The Mishnah, in essence, has nothing against the Greek language,” and this is justified in various respects. In ordinary use, it was so widespread that for Palestine (along the Judah River around the half of the 2nd century) they recognized only it on an equal basis with Jewish ones and did not find the need for Syriac. The Greek language was considered not only the most harmonious and suitable for singing and poetry, but important advantages were learned from it. 1607 It is often mentioned that it was obligatory for members of the Sanhedrin, but the corresponding Talmudic passages (Sanhedr. 17 a.b. Menachoth 64 b) recommend all 70 languages ​​for them and, therefore, place it on a level with the others. It is much more valuable for us that the Greek language was preferred to all others and was declared the only Orthodox language for accurately reproducing biblical truths. It is reported that “Rabban Simeon, the son of Gamaliel, said: and books (biblical) are allowed to be written (from foreign languages) only in Greek,” 1608 expanding the permission adopted for the Pentateuch (Megilla I, 9 a), for which only Greek was allowed (Jer. Megilla I, 8), as correctly expressing the entire characteristic of the original. This exceptional difference also provided access to worship, where the sacred Jewish language was dominant, although even Aramaic was not excluded. In the “dispersion”, pagan wisdom was sometimes endowed with the character of inspiration, in which Jewish wisdom was superior in actual degree - and here it is natural that Greek speech dominated in liturgical practice. It is stated that in Palestine there were Jews who not only read the Scriptures, but also prayed in Greek, while the latter was forbidden to do in Aramaic, when the Angels might not understand. If it was asserted that the revelation was given in Greek, 1609, then it, of course, could also serve for prayerful appeals to God, being (according to Ex. XIX, 1) “immaculate.” Only in eight cases (according to Sota VII, 2), - however, more for the priests, the king, etc. - was the sacred language, of course, obligatory, as well as when pronouncing a “confession”, when the inexperienced were prompted. Daytime prayers, lunchtime prayers, etc. were allowed in any language that was authorized for the megillah (reading the book of Esther on the holiday of Purim, the 14th of Adar), to certify the fulfillment of all tithe regulations, for the “department of Sota, confession of the tithe, for the reading of the Shema, 1610 Tefillah, the doxology of the meal, for the oath of the witness and the oath of deposit, equally for the letter of divorce. Here the Greek language is thought of above all others as legally capable of worship in Palestine, and it cannot be argued that in the age of Christ and the Apostles it was strictly prohibited in Palestine, thereby blocking the way for the invasion of Hellenic science. On the contrary, we must judge the second by the first. If they point out that the prevalence of the Greek language cannot lead to an equal predominance of Hellenic knowledge, then this is only true for exaggeration and in itself represents an exaggeration. Of course, some go too far, adopting Greek speech almost to the point of predominance - and they rightly protest against such hobbies, as soon as the Hellenization of even the Jewish religion is accepted or even the high veneration of Greek culture by pre-Christian Jews. But the opposite extreme cannot be defended by citing the fact that during the arrest of St. Paul, after the rebellion, the commander of the thousand was surprised to hear that the prisoner could speak Greek (Acts XXI, 37). This fact is not relevant to our special question. In the guardianship of the political interests of Rome, simply police suspicion was revealed here, and he was struck by the guess that the Egyptian who had caused the outrage had fallen into his hands (XXI, 38). From this rapprochement, the opposite idea should rather be drawn that the Apostle was quite fluent in Greek speech, and no sharp features of Jewish origin were noticed in it. It is characteristic, however, that the evangelist addressed the people in Hebrew (XXI, 40), and the fury of the crowd “subsided” precisely because the sounds themselves were unusual and were irresistible evidence of the high Jewish-rabbinic culture of the speaker. It seems as if Greek would seem more common. 1611 And, indeed, Greek influence began to assert itself in the East since the time of Alexander V., and Greek speech gradually became international, which is why even in the West Latin was not required everywhere. Of course, the Hellenic invasion also affected Palestine, although it was less strong, but it can only be called such in comparison with other Hellenized countries and due to the state of religious self-control of Judaism. Hellenism, in any case, was a powerful educational ferment in that era and, judging by the terminology, penetrated into rabbinic writing itself. Its echoes can be heard even in rabbinic theology and in the worldview of Pharisaism in general. Therefore, for Palestinian circles of the 1st century, the presence of Greek literature and Alexandrian theosophy is allowed. Here was the danger of infatuation, which prompted protective measures to protect against harmful influences. 1612 It is clear that the prohibitions known to us do not deny the presence of Hellenic influences on Judea and, on the contrary, convince us of their intensity and breadth. It must be agreed that the Greek language and Hellenic knowledge successfully addressed Palestine, and the former was supposedly part of self-education and constituted an essential part of good education, even according to Talmudic information. Then it is necessary to accept that an environment was adapted for their perception, which had satisfactory means for assimilation. One cannot help but guess that Jewish education was not alien to Hellenic battles. It is difficult to believe that Greek writers would have served as the subject of (systematic) education in Palestine, but the very isolation of the latter convinces that Hellenism crept here too, if it circulated throughout the country, despite the harsh religious-national rigorism of Jewish education. The Babylonian captivity instilled in the Jews the ineradicable idea that they were guilty before the Lord due to ignorance of the law, which is why special care is necessary about the means to accurately understand it - and to satisfy these nomistic needs, a special school system is organized, supposedly on the widest scale. 1613 Further, this mood was resolved by a proud hope in the saving power of nomistic enlightenment or bookish wisdom, which is thought to be that only from the time of Ezra does the true dominion of God over the Jews begin and for their existence the closure of schools is more disastrous than the destruction of Jerusalem. For the student of the Torah, the sacrifices themselves were not considered necessary, over which knowledge prevailed. 1614 Naturally, Jewish learning was treated with the greatest care and respect as a “divine” matter. It was not for nothing that the teacher was a father to his pupils, and success in this feat earned him a place in the highest class of righteous people; sometimes it was even suggested that he should be revered on an equal basis with God. For all parents it was a sacred duty to educate their offspring, and here the tutors were not entitled to pay, although in practice they knew how to circumvent this constraint. The beginning and end of the school period were days of joy for the family and were accompanied by special celebrations, for schoolchildren are anointed ones. 1615 Children are born to learn righteousness and virtue. At the very awakening of a meaningful life, they already tried to gradually introduce some elements and the teaching began early, when it fell to the lot of mothers; it was they who were entrusted with sending children to schools, and they were exempted from many ceremonial requirements in order to have leisure for the high mission of education to such an extent that a person fulfilled all the instructions out of love and could himself choose good or evil with the judicious responsibility of the immediate benefit of both, when the afterlife retribution was somewhat obscured and did not receive development. The teaching started from the “law”, but also embraced the content that was preserved to us in the Mishnah and Talmud. Everyone had to teach and learn. Josephus confirms that this was actually the case when he writes: “we pay most attention to the upbringing of children and the maintenance of laws, considering the most important task of our whole life to observe the piety they teach”; 1616 “no matter who we ask, he will more easily retell all the laws than name his own name, for we confirm them from the very emergence of self-consciousness and, as it were, inscribe them in our souls”; “The Scriptures command that children be taught the laws and the deeds of their ancestors, so that they imitate these deeds and - brought up in the former - do not transgress them and do not have the excuse of ignorance.” The Jewish historian added quite a bit to the benefit and glory of his fellow tribesmen, but all fundamental considerations about the importance of nomistic education in post-exilic Judaism lead to the conclusion that there is enough real truth in the above words, as evidenced by Talmudic authorities. In this case, to explain such successes one must assume a good school organization in Palestine. There is again much confusion and exaggeration in the Jewish sources. However, everything suggests to us that schools have existed here for a long time and were distributed throughout the country, being the centers of certain districts. It was even said that a city where they are not present is subject to destruction and must be destroyed. In Jerusalem there was the highest institution of this kind. According to the needs and goals of Jewish education, it turns out that it was national - religious primarily. It is even more indisputable that the Jerusalem rabbinical academies, while serving the special interests of Jewish wisdom, did not concentrate on humanities courses and provided vocational education that was purely nomistic in nature. Under these conditions there is no scope for Hellenic knowledge, and therefore, allowing it in St. Paul, they doubt that the latter studied in Jerusalem. Others seem to close all avenues to Hellenic culture for the Apostle, exaggerating his rabbinical competence, as if he were a member of the Sanhedrin and, at the murder of Stephen, acted as an assistant to the rabbi, as an official. All this finds no actual justification, and the only truth will be that at the death of the first martyr, young Saul was not an outside spectator and performed some official functions or duties. But at the same time, Hellenistic awareness is not completely excluded even according to the strictest judgment of Josephus. We read from him: “No one except me could present such a work so accurately—neither a Jew nor a foreigner. My fellow tribesmen all agree that I stand out for the best domestic upbringing, just as I tried to master Greek literature, achieving grammatical experience, but achieving correct pronunciation was prevented by domestic custom, since we respect not those who have studied the languages ​​of many nations, for this skill is considered universal, characteristic not only of free-born people, but also of slaves. No, wisdom is recognized only in those persons who clearly comprehend the laws and can reveal the power of the sacred scriptures. Therefore, many practice this (the matter of mastering Greek speech), but barely two or three have mastered it completely and immediately received good fruits from their labors. This evidence confirms previous observations. They certify the predominance of Jewish education itself, but Hellenic participation is also allowed. If Joseph ascribes perfection here only to himself, it is not without a desire to boast and show off. However, even here the advantage relates to grammatical and phonetic correctness, and all other references speak of the widespread use of the Greek language among the Jews, even if it was not distinguished by its purity and correctness, as if, according to Flavius, Aristotle was surprised by the Greek culture of the Jew he met in Asia Minor. It is clear from everything that the Greek language was accepted in Palestine, and the hesitations of rabbinical authorities regarding it expressed temporary sentiments, which were resolved by interdicts only under the pressure of grave disasters. On the contrary, even women and girls spoke Greek. From this it is quite convincingly deduced that “Greek educational methods penetrated Jerusalem” and the Greek influence, especially powerful in the diaspora, also affected Palestinian schools, among which there were allegedly those in the holy city that were organized according to the Greek type. The latter is not so certain, but we know that rabbinic sources also show respect for pagan teachers. This means that it is conceivable that the Greek language was taught in school among the Palestinian Jews, who in the age of Christ, in any case, were not an uneducated people. As a result, it turns out that in the Jewish school system there were no absolute obstacles to acquaintance with Greek culture for the Apostle Paul. Listening to lessons from Gamaliel did not bother him either. The enlightened liberalism of this famous rabbi is usually extolled, and the intolerant zealotism of his pet is explained by his logical inflexibility in the development of all principles. Others suspect the very fact that Saul was at Gamaliel Academy, if he is such an embodiment of Jewish bitterness and rabbinic retrograde. There seems to be no serious reason for such skepticism. Judging by Saul’s entire spiritual mood, it was natural that he wanted to achieve a high Jewish education, and to implement this project it was not at all necessary that his entire family should move to Jerusalem with him for many years. Family ties (see Acts XXIII, 16 ff.) provided sufficient convenience for his stay in the holy city, where there were quite a few other fellow countrymen, since it is true that there was a “synagogue of the Tarsians.” There is also a special connection between Saul and Gamaliel due to their belonging to the same tribe - Benjamin. Based on all these data, the news in question is quite indisputable. Confusion arises on the other side. Gamaliel's liberality is too exaggerated, 1617 and without it his Greek culture would not be entirely possible. In this sense, there is a tendency towards almost a complete denial of the latter by Hillel’s successor, to whom he may even have been his own son. 1618 We think that such a decision will be extreme. For us, it is no less true that, of course, Jewish free-thinking was revealed in an easier unraveling of nomistic collisions in comparison with the casuistic severity of the shammantes. In itself, it did not at all indicate Greek culture. It is equally firm that Gamaliel I learned much that belonged to Gamaliel II proper (towards the end of the 1st and in the 2nd century), 1619 in order to protect such a tradition with the great name of the one who was “the glory of the law.” With all this, the enlightenment of teacher Pavlov is not a complete myth. Arguments of other kinds are far from convincing. It is said that Gamaliel I ordered the targum on the book of Job to be withdrawn from use. This is true, but there is still no direct intolerance towards Hellenic knowledge. This work was hardly Greek, and therefore its ban was not based on antipathy towards Hellenism. The true motives can be guessed from another mention that the meturgeman (interpreter) was not allowed to read the (pre-compiled) translation of the Scriptures, so that it would not receive authority among the people. In this spirit, of course, Gamaliel also acted, who did not want private understandings to spread, which is why he had to resist any paraphrases that could introduce teachings alien to strict rabbinism. For these purposes, they took care to keep the key of understanding in the right hands and ensure its correct application by not allowing unsanctioned opinions to be enshrined in writing and, in order to assimilate orthodox wisdom, they were forced to turn directly to its impeccable guardians, who were completely competent and knew how to communicate sound interpretations in the proper form. It is clear that this fact confirms the nomistic reputation of Gamaliel I and does not at all indicate his beliefs on the issue of Greek enlightenment. Another instruction says more directly about the latter: “members of the house of Rabban Gamaliel were allowed to study Greek because they are in relations with the government.” Of course, an important reservation is made here in the permission itself, but it does not follow from anywhere that Gamaliel was only forgiven for Greek knowledge. In this judgment, the truth is commented on in a tendentious manner. There is no doubt that Greek wisdom is not recommended, and some danger is found in it. Only in this case did the understandable rabbi admit that he was invulnerable to the Hellenic poison, why an exception was allowed for him. It is undeniable that such a privilege indicates its inaccessibility to ordinary Jews, but this was not a fundamental rejection. Everything relates to those moments when Greek science was subject to grave suspicions, and cannot characterize a normal mood. On the contrary, even if there were laws of withdrawal even now, then in the normal course of things there should be fairly broad freedom, since there are no grounds for limiting it. In this sense, harsh prohibitions are again in vain, and from them we can rather guess that Greek influence was not powerless in Palestine. Under such conditions, it will not be incredible to know that it was under Gamaliel I that up to 500 students studied Greek wisdom. It is dated to Gamaliel II, but there is no compelling reason to deny that it, although partly, also refers to Gamaliel II. They are trying to shake this message as vague, unclear and suspicious. However, such a property is not at all uncommon for many talmudic data and is not extraordinary in our example. We do not see any particular confusion or improbability in it, unless we understand it with excessive literalism and do not distort it with arbitrary comments. These include the hypothesis that they mean only children and members of the Gamalielova family, and not outsiders. A refutation here is quite unnecessary, for the immediate meaning of the Talmudic phrases irresistibly suggests that we are talking about students who listened to the lessons of Gamaliel I, while “Greek wisdom” is not at all depicted as Judeo-Alexandrian and is actually Hellenic. Therefore, we have the right to think that the glorious rabbi was disposed towards the Greek enlightenment, without being a keen admirer of it and in everything protecting the rabbinic religious integrity, while others even assimilated to him anathematization of the “minims” - sectarians and heretics. It is difficult to determine how far Hellenic culture and Gamaliel I’s sympathy for it extended, and it is not very important for our immediate purposes. It seems that much is being said again that Gamaliel I was a lover of the Greek language, knew Greek literature, “in his teaching he combined Alexandrian and Jewish views,” at least with a predominance of Jewish elements, diligently read the writings of the Greeks and encouraged his pupils to engage in Greek studies. It is further concluded that in this school Paul was enriched with free views and liberal ideas, became acquainted with Alexandrian theology, succeeded in studying the Greek classics and found ready the language in which he later believed the Gospel of Christ. In this light, it is easy to see in Gamaliel the forerunner of Christianity and turn the Apostle into a simple successor of it... The factual material does not provide sufficient support for such constructions. It is much more likely that he was the heir to the traditions of Hallel, who, along with rabbinic erudition, also possessed secular awareness. In this respect, Gamaliel I was more likely to approach the ideal of later rabbinic authorities, who proclaimed in relation to Genesis. IX, 23. 27 that the beauty of Taphet - Greek - should dwell in the tabernacles of Shem, and the pallium of Japheth should unite with the tallif of Shem. He did not avoid Greek science, but used it for the purpose of better providing and reliable defense of sacred religious truth and the nomistic system. In these interests, secular study could also be allowed for listeners. Of these, Paul during his school period represented all the guarantees of Jewish steadfastness and, of course, was not deprived of the convenience of the Gamaliel Academy to acquire the necessary competence in the Greek sciences. In any case, his school education in Jerusalem did not interfere with the assimilation of Hellenic culture. This removes the last obstacle to the recognition that the Apostle of Languages, being a strict Jew before accepting Christianity, could have had Greek enlightenment, if the general Jewish mood did not exclude it, of course. But there were also circumstances that predisposed the future evangelist to secular pursuits and facilitated them, which is why a certain inclination towards them is likely in him and its perfect implementation is quite possible. Here we will go into some details, although they have their own biographical significance and will digress somewhat to the side. First of all, the very place of origin and initial life of the Apostle is important. This is what the Writer (XXII, 3) directly calls the Cilician city of Tarsus (now Tersus). This news deserves full confidence. Otherwise, the blessed one conveys. Jerome. According to him, Paul and his parents moved to Cilicia from Galilean Giscana (now El-Jish) after it was captured by the Romans. There are many inconsistencies in these instructions, and they are not eliminated by the interpretation that the events in question could have taken place, for example, in the “War of Varus” in 4 BC. Chr.; 1620, on the contrary, speaks of the devastation of the entire country, but this was during the great Jewish war, 1621, when Giskala was actually destroyed by Roman troops. It goes without saying that around the 70s according to the river. Chr. Paul was not far from death, and his parents, of course, could not move to the Cilician region. From this point of view, Jerome's message is historically absurd, and it is hardly accepted for reasons of scientific impartiality. There are no solid justifications of equal value for this, for there are none in Paul’s epistles, 1622 Jerome’s authority is not yet a final guarantee, and the emergence of such a legend among him sufficiently reveals the desire to affirm that the Jews of the dispersion can still be the purest Jew through his father, who came from Judea in Palestine. On the contrary, the spread of the tradition regarding the Tarsian birth of the Apostle would be completely incomprehensible if he were not a Cilician. They think that this happened for random reasons. The Evangelist drew the attention of Christians with his exploits in the Syrian-Cilikian borders and from here he received a calling from them, which was then falsely attributed to the fact of birth. But this term is understood in a narrow sense, as denoting a citizen of Tarsus (Acts XXI, 39), and only a broader application is seen in it to indicate a citizen of Cilicia in general. There is not even a hint of birth, which is mentioned (Acts XXII, 3) in a different connection and without any correlation with that name. The Writer's story is independent and more authoritative than Jeronimov's. From this side, the latter is rightly rejected as a legend devoid of factual basis and historical plausibility. It does not at all follow from it that Saul saw light under the Palestinian sky. Even the less decisive guess that the entire family had recently left Palestine can hardly be assured with certainty. The motivation for her is the observation that in the Savlova family hereditarily (Acts XXIII, 6) a strictly Pharisaic trend dominated, and she had close ties with the holy city, where her husband had the sister of the Apostle (Acts XXIII, 16). But, without a doubt, in Jerusalem Saul was not the only Pharisee from his fellow Asia Minor tribesmen. This is clearly demonstrated by the fate of our evangelist, who suffered due to the wrath of the Asian-Ephesian Jews (Acts XXI, 27 ff.), who revealed extreme legalistic scrupulosity and caused a fatal rebellion over ritual trifles. After all, one cannot assume that all these people were of Palestinian origin... As for other arguments, the relations of the “sons of dispersion” with the holy city were always quite lively and for the Tarsians it was all the more natural if there was a Cilician synagogue in Jerusalem, and the name “Jew” adopted by Paul (Philipp. III, 5. 2 Cor. XI, 22) does not necessarily exceed the opposite of “Hellenist.” For all these reasons, we do not see any compulsion to think that the ancestors or parents of the Apostle were Palestinians who came from Giskala, although we do not deny the possibility of this, certainly defending, however, that he was born and spent his childhood in Tarsus. This is far from indifferent to the judgment of Saul's education. The fact is that Tarsus was an important center of education of that time, as a large university city that served as the center of culture and the focus of religious life. Glorious in the distant past, he shone with his enlightenment even later. Here was a place of learning, loud in its intellectual - Hellenic reputation. 1623 In this regard, Tarsus even successfully competed with Athens and Alexandria - however, not to the point of decisively darkening them. The latter is said in vain. Strabo (XIV, 5: 13) finds the advantage in the fact that the Tarean scientists were natives who, to improve themselves, willingly went abroad and stayed there, while the Athenians and Alexandrians preferred to live at home and attract foreigners when (XIV, 5: 15 fin.) Rome was overcrowded with Tarsians. 1624 All the same, and from this it follows that the love for philosophy and general education in Tarsus was higher and more intense than in Athens and Alexandria. Cilicia even has many philosophical authorities, and two of them - Athenidor (son of Sandon), mentor of Caesar Augustus, and Nestor, teacher of Augustus's nephew Marcellus - were rulers of the city (XIV, 5: 14); the first probably even still captured the era of Paul, who grew up in a philosophical atmosphere and under a philosophical administration. But university education necessarily presupposes preparatory stages and is created on them, which is why these are obligatory in Tarsus. We conclude this for historical reasons. Rome was somewhat indifferent in matters of education and for a long time did not take systematic measures, but around the Christian era attention was paid to this side, and schooling was widely developed: “in almost every city (empire) there were elementary schools,” where “youth received primary education,” and Tarsus was especially distinguished by its rhetorical schools. Now it is clear that the Apostle had every opportunity to acquire Hellenic culture. Of course, it does not in itself follow that he took advantage of favorable conditions. But it is no less hasty to assert categorically that this really did not happen. There are no solid arguments. They note that in a strictly Jewish family the admission of Greek education, which was considered a desecrating abomination, is unthinkable. This is just a theoretical prejudice. There are factual grounds to admit that the extra-Palestinian Jews differed significantly from the Palestinians in their tolerance of Hellenism and did not display too rigoristic severity in Asia Minor. From time immemorial, the government favored them, considering them a stronghold of its power and pushing them against the local population. This was the policy of both the Seleucids and Rome, with all the changes in the forms and persons of government in the latter. Therefore, Jews have been around for a long time and in large numbers on the Asia Minor continent, in particular in Tarsus. It is also natural that the Jews of Asia Minor were not so hostile to the cultural pagan world, and among them in everyday life the Greek language prevailed over the Hebrew. The Apostle undoubtedly has a freer spirit of the “son of dispersion.” Therefore, writers who are very suspicious of the Greek enlightenment of St. Paul, agree that - in addition to training - the Hellenic cultural environment had a corresponding influence and left its traces, for he was in constant contact with it, even if indirectly, perceiving elements of Greek education, rhetoric and philosophy. Such an impact will already be quite strong, penetrating philosophical and theological concepts. At the same time, it is sometimes stated that Saul’s native language was, perhaps, Greek, since he was supposedly more familiar with the Bible only from the LXX, i.e. from the beginning I read it in Greek. We are not inclined to this view. It does not proclaim an absolute impossibility, since the Greek language was widespread along the Asia Minor coast, where it served as the language of education, government, trade, etc., although it is not at all clear that the Old Testament readings in the Tarsus synagogues were necessarily conducted in Greek. However, orthodox Jewish parents, of course, took care of national education in advance, and therefore it is more likely that at home Saul spoke and prayed in Hebrew (Aramaic). Later memories also lean towards this, if it is conveyed that St. Before his death, Paul prayerfully cried out to God and his beheaded head pronounced the name of Christ hebraice. But it is no less conceivable that in Tarsus the Apostle from childhood freely mastered the Greek dialect, spoke and wrote in it, and through this commitment he acquired a certain gloss of a civilized urban man, not alien to Hellenic education. The argument for this lies in some undoubted literary features. In the speeches of the Lord Savior, everything breathes the expanse of fields and the expanse of the village, from where examples of illustrations and colors of paintings are taken: - the Hellenic evangelist avoids such techniques: he has a completely different atmosphere of city life and morals, providing material for plastic depiction. A cultured city dweller is noticeable here - however, not to such an extent that the very idea of ​​beauty is alien to him, since in general the Jews were not indifferent to nature and expressed this in speech with parables and all kinds of proverbs, which were most widely used by Jesus Christ, in comparison with St. Pavel. 1625 They unsuccessfully smooth out this difference, emphasizing that the latter was entirely filled with thoughts about God and man, and he had no room for reproducing pictures of the outside world. The reasoning is completely empty, for such a mood was even higher in the Redeemer himself... And along with this, it is very significant that the Apostle of the tongues often uses examples of lists and various shows, while the Jews were resolutely forbidden to visit the theater and participate in competitions. The evidence here is compelling that it was impossible for Saul to escape the impressions of the surrounding pagan environment, and he perceived its influence, at least not directly and consciously, or not through the deliberate assimilation of Hellenism. The result is that the high culture of Tarsus does not indicate with certainty that the evangelist “was brought up in Greek literature from an early age” and studied it systematically, since there is still no evidence that his parents sent him to Greek schools. This is just a naked problematic possibility. However, it is quite probable that the Tarsian situation outlined had an effect in the corresponding sense. How far this Hellenic invasion extended and how deep it was, we do not have indisputable data to answer. In indirect suggestions, everything depends on whether there were conditions that caused close contact with cultural Greco-Roman circles? This usually happens according to the requirements of social status, and in this regard Saul had important privileges. We emphasize, of course, his Roman citizenship (Acts XXII, 28. jus civilis, civitas) by birth (civis natus). 1626 They are trying to reject this news as doubtful, but without sufficient reasons. If there is no mention of this in Pavlov’s writings, where the real difference does not play any role, then it does not at all follow that it did not actually exist. The writer's depiction of Pavlova's life cannot be considered mythical, and in it the noted advantage was a prominent factor both in the very course and in the final completion with all the previous stages, from which we see that the Apostle had the personal integrity characteristic of the civis Romanus. 1627 It is especially significant that there is no reason to invent such a fiction when its reality is reflected even in small details, where it is impossible to suspect a special creative tendency. We understand the duality of names of the Apostle of Languages, which is mentioned in passing in his speech about visiting the island of Cyprus (Acts XIII, 9). On this subject, it is sometimes expressed that this is a question of literary history itself, and the whole point is in connecting various literary sources that did not have the same literary name. 1628 But the fact remains that the Hellenic evangelist went by two names. Saul, as a Jew, was original to him. Skepticism on this score is resolved by ugly fantasies, as if this was invented for the purpose of presenting the Apostle as a persecutor of the Church of God in the line of Saul, who persecuted David. Everything here is elementary and, nevertheless, plausible that it was an ordinary Jewish name, from which no more can follow than that the literal meaning (“requested”, “desired”) does not irresistibly indicate that its bearer was the fruit of the prayers of parents who were disappointed in the ability to have an heir. Once upon birth, all legal obligations were fulfilled (Phil. III, 5), and the Jewish naming was also completed. Saul is indicated as such, and we do not find the slightest reason to agree with the strange hypothesis that it is precisely the Apostle of the tongues who is depicted in the Gospel of John under the title of Nathanael. It is necessary to take it as an axiom that the evangelist was called Saul from childhood. The whole question is where and why he has a different name Paulus (in ancient times the Romans mostly took the form Paulius). There are many explanations, and most of them rest on the idea that then a change was allowed, which is still not averse to associate with the conversion of Sergius Paul. Philologically, this interpretation is impossible, and the widespread formula (in Acts XIII, 9) absolutely does not allow it. Then it turns out that Saul had already been called Paul, and therefore it cannot be said that he only received a second name from that moment on. Consequently, the nomen “Paul” had equal rights with “Saul” and could always replace it, which is why it will be just as primordial due to its inseparability. Obviously, the Apostle had a Roman name from childhood, although this does not categorically assert that his father himself called him that. We must find the reason for this duality. It was not uncommon for the Jews of that era to have a second name - Greek or Latin, and about those outside Palestine it is evidenced that their nicknames were similar to the pagans, just as the Galilean Jews usually have two names. "Peter" has long been known in Jewish onomatology in Syria and the eastern parts of Asia Minor and has recently been established in the Alexandrian "diaspora". In view of these observations, it is possible that even among the Hellenic evangelist the duality of interest does not express anything special. Even a somewhat random origin of the Latin name is allowed. In later Judaism, the famous biblical figures were revered, and in practice their names were avoided by mere mortals. In case of use, distinctive additions were made: for example, Samuel the Small. This is also conceivable for the name Saul, for a certain tapna Abba Saul is constantly called only with such a restrictive prelude. Therefore, it is possible that the Apostle was known among the Jews as “Little Saul,” and then the epithet was replaced by the equivalent Latin term Paulus (parvus). At this point we are approaching the conjecture of the blessed one. Augustine, that with this name the evangelist wanted to express his humiliation. This is a difficult decision to make and requires data that does not exist in our example. Distinction is appropriate only if there is a danger of confusion due to the similarity of understood values. Here a celebrity is allowed in Saul of Tarsus, capable of misleading, which is completely impossible to foresee at birth and in childhood. We would be forced to assume that the second title was added afterwards, but this contradicts the philosophical energy of the Descriptive text. He categorically confirms that from time immemorial he was also Paul, although until the point noted he appeared under the name of Saul. This was its characteristic feature, which makes us suspect something special in the nominal duality in comparison with other cases. Accordingly, it would be noted by the latter immediately - like a mention (in Acts. I, 23) Joseph (Barsaba) and (in IV, 36) Josiah (Barnabas), - or both members would be indicated haphazardly - both together and separately, now one, now the other, as we find for John Mark (Acts XII, 12. 25. XV, 37; XIII, 5. 13; XV, 39. 1 Pet. V, 13. Col. IV, 10. 2 Tim. 11). In relation to the Apostle, the situation is different, for the use of names is strictly delimited by a certain chronological moment, and each has its own period. It is clear that the hint must lie in the properties of historical circumstances illuminating the grounds for change. And from this side, the least satisfactory explanation is that previously Barnabas and Mark, speaking in Aramaic, called their traveler “Saul,” but now they began to use Greek speech, where it was more convenient to use “Paul.” With the most favorable judgment, this issue is not resolved in the least, since it only moves into languages, the change of which is not mentioned at all. One cannot rest on the assumption that the preference for the title “Paul” was prompted by the coincidence that it was also worn by the proconsul of Cyprus, who converted to Christianity. This is too insignificant a reason for such a shadowed phenomenon, which, becoming permanent, refers to a corresponding motivation. We must find it in the turn of the evangelistic mission, where a name is taken in accordance with its new character, and then it is sent directly to the pagans. From now on the Apostle entered upon the path that led to the Greco-Roman world, and it was natural for him to take care to ensure good success. Here, Jewish origin was rather an obstacle, and the Latin nickname could serve as an aid only under the indispensable condition that real rights were associated with it, guaranteeing freedom and protection. They were given Roman citizenship, to whom St. Paul guards his personality in order to achieve unhindered proclamation of the Gospel of Christ. At the same time, it opened access to the Greco-Roman public, just as filmmaking brought people closer to the craft people of Corinth. It goes without saying that it was more natural for a Roman citizen to appear under a Roman name. Therefore, for the latter we have that - along with the Hebrew - the Apostle of languages ​​spoke from childhood as civis Romanus, for whom, especially among the Jews, a Latin name was required when admitted to the community for the purpose of municipal registration. This decision is most likely and is shared by the majority of interpreters, that “Paul,” the Hellenic evangelist, was originally called according to the dignity of Roman citizenship, marked by this name, which was not taken only for use among non-Jews. In this respect, Saul and Paul are not complementary names - in the gender of nomen (generic) and praenomen (personal), but mutually interchangeable, which is why each is put forward according to the sphere of activity - Jewish and Greco-Roman. In what way is the social and public position of the Apostle of Languages ​​characterized by this distinction? – for a completely accurate answer, you need to find out how it was obtained in Pavlov’s family. Unfortunately, here we are also deprived of indisputable materials and are again doomed to be content with hypothetical judgments. The closest of them is that Pavlov's ancestors were awarded Roman citizenship along with other inhabitants of Tarsus, to whom this advantage was granted by the triumvirate Antonius. Indeed, no more than half a century before the birth of Paul, the Cilician metropolis was an urbs libera and a place for annual religious and public meetings. This was an important privilege, and such cities sometimes showed claims to the criminal jurisdiction of their Roman citizens, as if it had been the case with the Hellenic evangelist in Athens, although the Romans did not tolerate such claims and, under the empire, did not allow them at all for any of the civitates liberae, of which there were not so many. We do not limit their competencies and consider it unfair to deny that - in addition to financial and administrative freedom - Tarsus was not alien to the well-known advantages of municipalities, together with the “colonies”, which represented a copy of Rome in their structure. The story of Athenodar convinces us that there was local government here that maintained its independence. However, this quality did not elevate the Cilician capital to the level of a Roman “colony”, when all the prerogatives of the Roman territory itself were transferred to the area of ​​(usually military) settlements, which is why here the Roman coloni had the powers of the inhabitants of the latter or natural-born Romans; however, members of non-Roman origin, even in these centers, actually had part of the juris italici and did not directly have the civitas Romana. But Tarsus was not a colony, and therefore Paul’s Roman citizenship does not come from here, which was not directly communicated by the libertas Urbis liberae et immunis, undoubtedly, in Tarsus. This advantage is often explained by the fact that one of the Pavlov ancestors became a freedman and, upon receiving freedom, was recorded in the Roman family of his patron, just as the name Paulus itself is found in the gens Aemilia, Fabia, Julia, Sergia. Connected with this is the ancient view that Pavlov’s relatives were previously captured and then freed for special services, for example, to the republic during civil wars. It is undeniable that even in this situation Paul is portrayed in a favorable light. We even know that the freed provincials were proud of the freeborn citizens, for the latter - in addition to the land tax - also paid the poll tax. But the interpretation itself is very doubtful, since competent authors testify that in the east, manumission by a Roman citizen did not at all give the libertine Roman citizenship. Then you need to pay attention to another circumstance. St. Paul, calling himself a Tarsian, adds (Acts XXIII, 39) that this designates not just a Cilician native, but a Tarsian citizen. He was not a sojourner (incola), but a resident of Tarsus with all the advantages of members of its population, without which the laws of a given community were not allowed to apply to a person. In this rank, he could belong to only one municipal community and in Jerusalem he enjoyed only free residence, without the right of native birth. But the Apostle was still civis Romanus, just as many Jews held actual citizenship - Roman and Asiatic - in Asia Minor, where there were many of them and where they enjoyed various benefits. In this dignity of a dual citizen, the evangelist had both municipal (local) and imperial-state advantages. However, the first of them, like the Tarsian, was different from the Roman (Acts XXI, 39 and XXII, 27) and did not in itself give the second. Since Roman citizenship obligated the achievement of urban citizenship, since civis Romanus could not exist without communal residence, and itself did not provide the latter, then it is necessary to admit that the second existed earlier, and the unknown ancestor of Pavlov was already a Tarsian citizen when he was awarded civitas Romana. This required special conditions that do not exist in our time. The urban structure is based on unions or tribes, from the totality of which the urban contingent of empowered residents was made up. It was impossible to penetrate their number without first becoming a member of some urban group - and until this happened, every honest person would certainly remain an “alien”, living in a territory alien to him and not enjoying the protection of its laws. On the other hand, it is no less certain that all these city corporations united on the basis of mutual religious respect for their cult, the acceptance of which - with constant participation - was necessary for inclusion in such a city guild. This continuity was observed in general in Greek corporate organizations that flourished after Alexander. and always had a cult association. From this it is clear that one Jew could not be an urban citizen when he had to join a well-known pagan union, which is why it certainly cannot be accepted that the Apostle Paul received Tarsus citizenship personally. For each Jew it was necessary to enroll in a certain communal party with all its religious obligations. This point was impossible for the children of Israel, since all meetings of citizens were opened with pagan rituals. True, under the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the Jewish privileges of freedom from pagan pressures were not taken into account when obtaining Roman citizenship, and for the sake of it it was necessary to allow admiration for the Roman state religion. Judaism looked at this as the discharge of a state duty, and did not resolutely shy away from the imperial cult, while Christians completely avoided it and attracted persecution, while the synagogue had tolerance, which the Church did not have, if its communities did not have Jewish religious advantages in their Jewish contingent. Jewish adaptability did not extend beyond this, and the presence of a Jew as a city dweller necessarily presupposes an entire Jewish community as part of a given city organization. This was the case in all Seleucid cities where Jews were citizens. The same is necessary for Tarsus: in it Judaism existed for a long time and was numerous, and this order of things has been stated since the first half of the 2nd century BC. Chr. Based on what has been said, it is clear that, having recently moved here, Father Pavlov could not on his own acquire his former Tarsian citizenship, and it is more likely to think that it went to him as a member of the Jewish colony, when it was granted to it upon settlement by the government authority, which wanted to have an element loyal to itself. Therefore, Pavlov’s Tarsus civitas presupposes the existence of Jewish citizenship, which existed in Tarsus for a long time. 1629 Persons with this title, of course, were distinguished by their influential independence in order to influence city life and politics. Apparently this was a small group of wealthy Jews. From this side, the social and property status of the Pavlov family is depicted in a favorable light and is even more elevated by the distinction of Roman citizenship. Of course, the latter was sometimes easily obtained, and it was not so difficult to acquire it if, from the time of Claudius, it was sold at a tax, until, according to the Constitutio Antonina of Caracalla (about 212), it was granted to all free Roman subjects. However, Augustus recommended restraint in the distribution of this title, and among the provincials the latter was not so common, but in essence was always high. This inevitably leads one to believe that it was awarded to “outstanding municipalities” or members of urban communities, prominent and wealthy people. This judgment is especially true in our case. We do not know whether Pavlov’s father or grandfather received Roman citizenship; 1630 the Apostle's emphasis on the innateness of this right seems to emphasize its hereditary prescription. What is more certain is that, not being conditioned by manumission, this advantage was hardly purchased, for such a practice developed later, and it is rather denied by the sharp contrast with which the evangelist contrasts his noble civitas with that purchased from the Roman commander (Acts XXII, 28). By virtue of this, we must assume that the acquirer rendered exceptional merit in the civil field and thereby aroused special government favor, 1631 and this was not at all easy to achieve in Tarsus, which enjoyed the reputation of a comfortable city with good administration. Under such conditions, Roman citizenship necessarily elevated the holder into the ranks of the highest urban aristocracy, and he officially appeared under a Latin name in accordance with the language of the empire that honored him. At the same time, the nationality itself seemed to change if a Jew became a Roman. However, this was only a legal fiction, and it did not actually create a new Roman family. Since there was no record of manumission in it, it seems that we have no right to either assume a triple Roman designation (praenomen, nomen and cognomen), 1632 not exactly known, - why it is allowed to be accepted from the Roman official who granted the civitas, 1633 - nor to guess about the dignity of the name 1634 Paulus, nor to conclude from him to others. 1635 In any case, the whole family, prominent in its Tarsian citizenship, was even more elevated in Roman citizenship, where Paul possessed all the advantages that were supposed to influence the direction of thoughts and social position. This illuminates much of the history of the Apostle. And above all, the usual judgment is eliminated that he did not belong to high social circles, was a man of humble and poor origin and lived as a penniless wanderer. On the contrary, it is more likely to think that it was a respectable house, adjacent to a prominent social stratum, and Father Pavlov occupied an influential position, which is why the evangelist was of a respectable family. Equally, the property side was not entirely disastrous. The opposite has hitherto been defended in vain and leads to dangerous conjectures. The evangelist is considered a “poor artisan,” but many things lead one to assume that he had good money. This is especially true in the process after the arrest, because the legal proceedings at that time required large material costs, and Felix, of course, did not ephemerally hope for a bribe (Acts XXIV, 25) and, of course, a large one. 1636 To clarify their property wealth, they do not disdain the insolence that Paul went to the porphyry merchant Lydia of Thyatira (Acts XVI, 14 f. 40) in intimate relationships close to marital ones, and received generous financial support from her. This dark hypothesis is devoid of any support in the text into which such an impure dream is introduced. For this reason, there is even less incentive that Pavlov’s parents were, rather, people with significant property qualifications, in accordance with their social rank. Temporary material poverty is attributed to a break with the family, which rejected the son - the regent, who only later received his share by inheritance. Here the question arises about the Pavlovs’ relatives. It is sometimes thought about them that some converted to Christianity even earlier (Rom. XVI: 7 and cf. 11: 21); such, for example, is “sister” (Acts XXIII, 16), sometimes identified with Junia (Rom. XVI, 7), since it is not added here that this was a relationship “in Christ,” as is usually the case when indicating spiritual brotherhood. These considerations are hardly convincing, since in the section under consideration the terminology is not literalistic, if we read simply about brothers (Rom. XVI, 14), and we would have to recognize mother Rufus as dear to the evangelist (XVI, 13). Is it true that we should not exaggerate the family discord, allegedly caused by Saul’s betrayal of the original faith. Given the presence of a sharp conflict, the Apostle would not have sought refuge in Tarsus, where, living outside his home, he would necessarily have to cause severe grief to his loved ones, and he would not have decided to allow this aimlessly in the absence of hope for reconciliation. But it is difficult to admit that the parents fully approved of their son’s act, which was contrary to all their calculations and expectations, which were already expressed by sending him to Jerusalem for a strict rabbinical education. It is more plausible that they died before Saul’s conversion, and he had property holdings in Calicia that were at his independent disposal. The sister’s attitude indicates that the family did not completely push away from Pavel and did not break off all ties with him. However, his anti-Christian bitterness would not be so understandable if there had already been blood relatives in the ranks of Christ’s confessors before him. On the other hand, the noted references do not force such an interpretation, because indications of blood-national unity are often of a general nature (Rom. IX, 3 ff.). The latter is also recognized in the cases under consideration, but then we would encounter this definition with other Jewish names (Akilas, Priquillas, Mariami). And since this is not the case, we must accept closer ties to the individuals identified by this epithet. Above and on the basis of nationality, mutual oppression is conceived that does not reach family kinship. All conditions for this are given in city citizenship, where members of a certain group became close to each other in a common cult into a wide family, similar to a private one, and became mutually related in this area. And we are inclined to the competent opinion that the Pavlov relatives are the Apostle’s fellow tribesmen from the Tarsus Jewish “tribe.” And since some before him went over to the side of the Crucified One, it is not surprising that the converted Saul could count in Tarsus on the calm security guaranteed by the early presence of sympathetic co-religionists there. And for our special question, it turns out that family relations did not prevent the fact that, being rich as a Roman citizen, the evangelist later owned a solid property supply and was a wealthy person. We must attribute his material poverty to his voluntary refusal for the sake of evangelical asceticism, until the latter’s needs prompted him to use material means. Consequently, in Judaism Saul had sufficient resources to maintain himself at the height of his social position and satisfy all the claims of his title. He simultaneously moved in two aristocratic circles - wealthy Jewish citizenship and even more noble Roman citizenship. According to these features, Saul is the living embodiment of the centuries-old Judeo-Greek culture of the Seleucile regions, and it is natural that it was reflected energetically on him. Hence the natural conclusion is that, with property and social privileges, the well-born Tarsian was also a well-educated person. According to civitas, we can assume with considerable certainty. The apostle acted under the name of a Roman citizen with a consciousness of the importance and power of this dignity and used it for his own purposes; Naturally, from childhood this conviction was not alien to him, it taught him to look at things from a Roman point of view and directed his mental interests and educational aspirations. An acquaintance with Greco-Roman ideas was almost forced upon him, and a Greco-Roman citizen lived in him, although subordinate to a Jew. Under such conditions, it cannot be categorically stated that Paul did not study in the schools of Tarsus and did not undergo classical education, had it in extremely insufficient quantities, was indifferent to various philosophical and oratorical debates and did not know Greek philosophy, the influence of which was negligible. This is asserted on the basis that his upbringing was not Greek, but Pharisaic - with all the exegetical, dialectical and speculative sophistications of rabbinic scholarship, 1637 therefore eliminating the Hellenic. Everything here is exaggerated. One cannot think that it depended on the discretion of the parents whether to give a Jewish or Hellenic education to their children. This was a strict Pharisee family, and it is clear that national and religious obligations were fulfilled in advance. And if the duality of the state did not interfere with orthodoxy in life, then it was compatible in the intellectual field, where demands for appropriate enlightenment were equally made from both Judaism and the Roman civitas. This protects the possibility that in fact there was a mixed education of a Roman citizen who was not averse to philosophical studies. 1638 Speaking from childhood and Greek, Saul, even in his youth, could become acquainted with Greek writers, attend schools more or less systematically and study rhetoric and philosophy, receiving a “formal education” in Tarsus in philosophical and intellectual Greek thought. The dimensions are in no way predetermined, and there is no need to expand them to fantastic exaggerations. That this education was solid and extensive, that it embraced an encyclopedic course - with grammar, literature, mathematical and philosophical sciences and law - that from his youth the Apostle mastered the main literary monuments and assimilated the treasures of Homer and other luminaries of Attic poetry - for such judgments we do not have completely justifying grounds. But the fact that the evangelist did not study at all will be no less arbitrary, for the biographical details are so unfavorable for him that even authors of other convictions state in St. Pavel has some knowledge in the classical literary field. This is evidenced by the admission of obstacles that we deny. Without them, there are still many contributing and motivating conditions and influences, which is why there is a sufficient probability that the Apostle was not left without the influence of humanitarian Hellenic education. And the latter was, of course, not completely amateurish if it was mediated by the University of Tarsus, when it is rather conceivable that it partly resembled our Western one and was not alien to philosophical influences even through direct reading. Further doubt is conceivable from the other side, that the Christian mood was not favorable to Hellenic-philosophical knowledge. Of course, this would eliminate the actual use of the latter, without destroying their presence, for it is impossible to completely and forever throw out of one’s mind what has become a lasting mental property and has taken root in the intellectual organism. But here it is emphasized that Saul early moved to Jerusalem, where he was immersed in rabbinic scholasticism, and then Christian views did not allow Hellenic knowledge, for which there was absolutely no time found. With this we are directed towards solving the question of when and how the probability we accepted could have come true. From this side, the noted difficulty is important, which in fact is not insurmountable. It is rightly emphasized that the Apostle had a low value for human wisdom (1 Cor. II, 1 f. 4), however, only insofar as it was contrasted with the divine, as incompetent in the field of revival and blessing of humanity. This simply demonstrates her unsuitability for this sphere, so it is necessary to free up space for her in her circle. Consequently, it does not in any way follow from this that the evangelist disdains human knowledge and (1 Cor. I, 20) rejected their intrusion into his soul. The severity of the apostolic judgments does not indicate either behavior or hostility to scientific enlightenment, but simply gives it a proper assessment. And if criticism is carried out in comparison with revealed truth, then it is clear that there must be a thorough knowledge of both quantities. Obviously, in the interests of Christianity, an accurate understanding of paganism in an intellectual and religious sense was required. Here lies a new motive for serious scientific study, and we acquire support for determining its gradualness. General education was very widespread in Asia Minor and was distinguished by its solidity, and Tarsus was a serious cultural center and captivating with its atmosphere - especially when one was deeply drawn into it by social status. Therefore, writers who disagree with us express that it would be incredible that the Apostle was born and lived in the capital of Chilia if he remained uneducated. Then the opposite is no less indisputable, that for a prominent Tarsian, culture is natural. Without solid reasons, it will be tendentious to deny the very possibility of Greek education, as unthinkable and non-existent for Paul, and the nationalistic patriotism of the Tarsian Jews is in vain exaggerated, although their Hellenization was less than that of the Alexandrians. The knowledge of the evangelist could be narrow-minded and shallow, but one cannot apodictically assert about Roman citizenship from the Tarsian nobility that he did not study either the philosophy and poetry of the Greeks, or the language and law of the Romans. For this it is necessary to indicate the strong brakes that weakened the influence of all energetic attractions towards awareness of Hellenistic scientific reserves. They are seen in the early departure to Jerusalem, for now the Tarsus stay will all be absorbed in a special Jewish bearing. But there is no reason to speed up this resettlement too much. There are hints of a different kind. The very purpose of moving to the holy city could only be to assimilate the rabbinical wisdom that flourished and was available only here. His subsequent career testifies to precisely such motives and aspirations, since already at the murder of Stephen, Saul acts with the dignity of a far from being an outside spectator and then acts with the authority of a competent judge of faith and decider of the fate of believers. This was an extraordinary success (Gal. I, 14), which is unthinkable without the solid preparation acquired in advance and which ensured such exceptional success for the Tarsus youth in academic rabbinical studies. It is clear that Saul went through a good Jewish school already in Tarsus and did not leave it as a boy. They say that this happened no earlier than 15 years ago. We do not have sufficient data for such accuracy, and we only think that this event did not occur before the achievement of nomistic legal capacity. The latter began from the time when a Jewish boy became a “son of the commandment” and was obliged to fulfill all nomistic instructions, as capable of meaningfully bearing the yoke of the law. For this threshold, the age usually taken is 12 years, but the rabbinical monument sets 13, and in practice everything was determined by the actual achievement of physical maturity. 1639 Saul left his home, of course, after acquiring this title, 1640 since the move to Jerusalem was undertaken to improve the nomistic competence, which should already be present, as subject to further systematic development. A well-formed young man is pictured before us, and it will not be scary or unnatural for him that he managed to stock up on Hellenic erudition through special familiarization at school and through his own reading. This is theoretically no less probable than the direct denial of Hellenic education in general or during the period of youth, when everything is limited to the ability to speak Greek - in the absence of school bearing. On the contrary, nomistic hardening itself would not be complete if it were not ensured through comparison with Hellenic energy during mastery of it, and all other conditions tended to this. 1641 In the holy city, Saul moved in Gamaliel's audience, which was not alien to Hellenic educational trends. They think that it was here that a zealous student thoroughly penetrated the recesses of Greek wisdom, having Barnabas and Stephen as his accomplices. We consider this decision doubtful, because it does not agree with the very meaning of the stay in Jerusalem. 1642 His exclusive task was complete rabbinic improvement and everything else turned out to be secondary, just as in the Gamaliel Academy, Hellenic teaching was adapted to the immediate tasks that lay in the Jewish-rabbinic needs. It is safer to confine ourselves to the fact that during this time Saul did not cultivate hostility towards Greek knowledge, used it for his own interests and accidentally supplemented and processed it in the spirit of rabbinic views. Then furious jealousy of Judaism and the fight against Christianity completely captured the young rabbinist, until a saving crisis occurred - and he moved away from Jerusalem for three years. Of course, the latter were not spent in absolute inaction, but everything tells us personally that this was an era of internal concentration, when on the ruins of the collapse of the old man a new one is reborn, organically growing from the principles of grace-filled life. In this consistent process there is no place for science: here any deviation would, perhaps, be some kind of abnormality, until a mature Christian is recognized, reveals himself and applies the accumulated strength. And soon the Arabian hermit went out with his sermon in Damascus and Jerusalem, but special events sent him to the Syrian-Cilikian borders for several years with a stay in his native Tarsus. What were these years spent on? It is often said that they were dedicated to missionary work among their compatriots, 1643 and the Apostle inevitably acquired light philosophical knowledge during disputes and competitions. It is difficult to reject this completely, since with a high Christian mood, evangelism was a natural function of being itself. However, to assert that in this era St. Paul was the same as we see him after, it will hardly be fair. Factual information convinces us that his missionary practice gradually developed in scope and methods and, in its external development, was the systematic implementation of a strictly thought-out plan. Therefore, it is not entirely plausible that the Apostle immediately plunged into missionary activity and was exclusively absorbed in it. In any case, even if it extended even to the pagans, it still did not receive completeness, since St. Paul was brought into the wide field only by Barnabas (Acts XI, 25 ff.). Preaching was rather of a preparatory nature, which determined the direction of the apostolic activity. 1644 On this point one can argue with great firmness. Solid support is given in one's own apostolic words. It follows from them that St. From time immemorial, Paul understood his destiny for the Christian announcement of the pagan world. At least he had the unshakable conviction that the revelation of the Son of God to him was a direct commitment to the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal. I, 16). The second was already contained in the first and necessarily arose from it. In this consciousness, the Apostle appeared to Peter (I, 18) and then went to Tarsus, where missionary experiences only more clearly outlined his tasks, needs and demands. Everything indicates that all means were used to satisfy them. The entire apostolic missionary history serves as an eloquent argument. She is sometimes interpreted completely wrongly, as if St. Paul was a renegade and antinomian, in the line of Elisha ben Abuya, and labored only in a negatively militant role as an opponent of Judaism. Embraced by proselytizing fervor, he - at all costs - wanted to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and achieved this only by reinterpreting Jewish teachings, as we find in his antinomian theory of baptism. Here all contemplation is confined to a purely Jewish horizon, and its ephemeral nature is exposed by its practical futility. Shackled by the chains of Jewish scholasticism, this is a narrow - one-sided mind, devoid of creative productivity and lost under new conditions almost to the point of helplessness, unable to distinguish in the most obvious things and comprehend them, everywhere causing confusion with its impetuous argumentation without logical force and actual effectiveness, full of vague ideas - he was not able to inspire others with his conviction, and the consciousness of this weakness only contributed to the fact that impractical utopias were resolved by the futility of Hellenic missionary work for the one who was least prepared for the apostleship among the Hellenes due to complete unpreparedness. Everything was drawn from Pharisaism and Rabbinicism, and the involvement of Hellenic speculation was accompanied only by a mechanical agreement, where consistent systematicity is not seen, and all modifications are made without theoretical validity according to random requests. Of course, such an ugly conglomerate with a predominance of Jewish elements was incomprehensible to the Hellenes, and of them, in Paul's era, hardly a single member outside the synagogue entered the Church, 1645 which in the apostolic age was enriched from the pagans only by persons acquainted with Jewish ideas or with the Old Testament. Extra-Palestinian Judaism was a mediator for the Gospel during the transition to the Greco-Roman world, and here fertile ground had long been created by the translation of the LXX, which was a bridge between East and West and was established on both banks, which is why it was Western - Eastern - even a purely Greek book. But Paul himself did not reach these areas and did not penetrate into the depths. He moved among those classes where broad Jewish propaganda had developed even earlier, not without tendencies towards the nomistic enslavement of proselytes to the point of complete absorption, but which also attracted Jews. Thus, unions of God-fearing readers of the Jewish religion were formed and widely spread, and from them Christian, even Pauline, communities degenerated in places without the participation of the Hellenic evangelist. The latter did not have access to the intelligentsia, working in the lower spheres of the ignorant common people and acquiring followers only in these dark circles, where the original Christian propaganda was confined for a long time. His Judaic prejudices also contributed to this, because Paulinian universalism was supposedly specifically Jewish and was associated with contempt for the pagan, who was considered an inferior member of the kingdom of God. From this they even conclude that Pavlov’s pagan mission was unsuccessful and ephemeral, which is why Christianity of the 2nd century does not arise organically from early Christian movements, like their combination or the predominance of Paulinism, but proceeds to the later invasion of the Hellenic spirit. Naturally, such judgments reject the Hellenistic awareness of St. Paul, who will simply be a Jewish dreamer. But it is unlikely that many will agree with the views presented. Their extreme unambiguity is exposed by the whole of history, for the continuity of consistent progression is seen everywhere in it. Otherwise, to explain the historical course of Christian church life, an event will be needed that parallels the era of Christian founding; however, it did not exist and there is no compulsory reason to invent it. Then Christianization will turn out to be a gradual expansion through the transfer of grace-filled principles to new areas, which have absorbed the regenerating power and entered as living members into a single church body. A blessed Hellenic mission is required here. Since St. worked especially hard in this field. Paul, we must admit that his evangelistic activity was not a fleeting episode and left deep roots; rich in the life-giving juices of Christ's grace. And if it specifically affirms the Christian existence of pagan brotherhoods, it means that it is not limited to the mob, the poor or proselytes, but also captured the purest Hellenes, being able to subjugate everyone with beneficence and without violence against nature. Therefore, it is indisputable that the Apostle was not a utopian, and he undoubtedly had outstanding practical talent as an experienced organizer, probably trained in Judaism. And in this regard, he acts skillfully and boldly, sticking everywhere to the main Roman roads, despite the dangers of overland travel at that time. We see that everywhere central geographic points are chosen that could serve for Christian education in the corresponding areas, and villages and remote places are avoided, and the evangelist lives, sometimes for days, sometimes for years. Equally, in the especially Hellenic world, energy is directed primarily to commercial and cultural-administrative centers - of course, out of the conviction that victory over them predetermines triumph in entire districts. And the culmination of all missionary policy was the majestic enterprise to penetrate into Rome in order to convert the civil capital of the universe into the sacred metropolis of the universal kingdom of Christ. We see a harmonious, well-thought-out plan; 1646 implementation confirms that St. Pavel stocked up with sufficient funds, the quantity and size of which were proportional to the success of the application. 1647 Here we cannot allow an accidental compulsion to turn to Hellenism in the event of failures and defeats in the Jewish environment itself, 1648 where they did not listen and rejected all appeals. It would rather be true that Pavlova’s missionary policy combined the wisdom of the serpent and the integrity of the dove. And it is not without reason that they are amazed at the masterful art with which the evangelist used all the means of the then civilization for his own purposes, appearing to us in everything as a true type of Christian missionary, since he was in every sense the first missionary. 1649 Therefore, if all his ambition lay in preaching the Gospel everywhere, then all the necessary resources were here. Now we again get that the Apostle was seriously preparing for evangelism among the Hellenes, and for this it was necessary to study the Greco-Roman world from the most important aspects. This postulate is inevitable, since we do not want to consider all the intense missionary work illusory. Naturally, the authors, who do not share the thesis about Hellenic home education, accept this for a later period, when initial knowledge was replenished with special classes upon returning to Tarsa. Defenders of preaching activity in this era also admit that, along with it, St. Paul also devoted time to studying the Greek language and literature. During this period - before Barnabas was called to Antioch - he rounded out and strengthened his previous information, developing and increasing it in accordance with his new interests, for which the initial knowledge of the Greek language was not enough. Responsibility for the divine commission obligated us to take reasonable measures to become familiar with Hellenism, as the desire to “be all all things” (1 Cor. IX, 22) forced us to penetrate into the cultural and philosophical spheres, 1650 in order to communicate the Gospel in forms natural to Hellenic thinking. During this period, Hellenic studies were certainly natural, being an inevitable step towards conscientious service for the sake of Christian enlightenment, and due to its importance, it is likely that this brief preparation was serious work in the classical literary field, where a fair amount of competence was acquired, characteristic of a diligent non-specialist, who, of course, did not limit himself to “minor poets,” but studied even larger ones. In any case, Hellenic missionary work is impossible without Hellenic awareness, and it is presupposed - at least to a small extent - even with beliefs of the opposite kind. Let us weigh the strength of all the above considerations. They assert that in the character of the Christian existence of St. Paul had irrepressible impulses towards Hellenic studies. In this capacity, the latter were a moral duty, and there is no doubt that it was fulfilled to a sufficient extent. A definite goal imparted a systematic plan, and a wealth of talents and inexhaustible zeal were to be crowned with an equal result. And here we have more than one theoretical judgment before us; there is also factual support for it in Athenian speech. They say that all praise for her should be attributed to the author of Acts rather than to the speaker. There is no doubt that the entire content of this book was subject to editorial revision by the writer, but it does not at all follow from this that it was he who introduced entire scenes and events. This widespread prejudice is devoid of foundation and in the example under consideration, however, it is true that the speeches of all the persons of the apostolic historiography differ significantly from each other and strictly correspond to the individuality of each of them, while the Athenian activity is depicted with remarkable fidelity to all historical data, although now it is not all clear to us why hesitation is permissible, for example, about the place of utterance, that it was the agora or the square of the Areopagus. There is no doubt for everyone that a venerable tradition from the apostolic era has been preserved here - and from this side the evidence analyzed will always be impressive. 1651 And this is the form in which St. is depicted before us. Paul. Athens was a linguata cinitas, and any preacher could count on an attentive audience only if he met its needs. Everything shows that the Apostle behaved with the Athenians as a person of similar upbringing. In this direction, he even acquired such self-awareness as if the pagan poets were his own, if the quotation is prefaced (in Acts. XVII, 28) with the reference that “some of our poets” say so; and this reading is not impossible in the mouth of a man who acted either as a Pharisee (XXIII, 6) or as a Roman (XVI, 37. XX, 11. 25. 28). On the other hand, the Athenian public also hoped to see a rhetorician-philosopher in the unfamiliar stranger and accepted him in this dignity, for the sake of which a kind of formal test of his oratorical talents was made, although it did not have the character of a formal investigation. For everyone, the Apostle was a culturally enlightened person, capable of attracting the interest of a select society, which was spoiled in its oratorical tastes. The result was unexpected, and curious listeners immediately called the evangelist (Acts XVII, 18). This is not a completely flattering epithet, taken from everyday use, but it cannot be concluded that it characterizes only an ignorant claim to intelligence. It emphasizes more the abundance of philosophical information, with a somewhat skeptical assessment that they were picked up from everywhere without proper thoroughness. This is not noted at all in St. Paul of philosophical unfamiliarity, which is not confirmed by the speech itself. The latter was not successful, and this is explained by the incompetence of the speaker, for he allegedly did not understand the inscription on the Athenian altar, and therefore his entire argument was false and fruitless. This would be true if the Apostle identified the “unknown god” of the Athenians (Acts XVII, 23) with the one he himself proclaimed. Such an equation would be erroneous, since it did not mean an absolute supreme being, inaccessible to natural understanding, but simply a deity different from the long-familiar and not yet firmly mythologically outlined, which the Athenian citizens were forced to honor on a special occasion - in the same way as once (according to Diogenes Laertius I, 110) after a pestilence, sacrifices were made and then in similar circumstances erected “anonymous” altars - without indicating their own divine name. There is no doubt that this was a private divine principle, far from the idea of ​​​​the Old Testament Jehovah. But St. Paul does not assert such a rapprochement. He simply states the fact that, according to the religious Athenian conviction, the fullness of divinity is not exhausted by the well-known mythological Olympus and beyond it there is something that does not have stable definitions. This acquired religious ground for the development of distinct religious concepts, which immediately found a ready application, since the “unknown” not only allowed, but necessarily sought its quality. In this sense, the Apostle directly confirmed the present need, immediately and for a long time captured intense attention, without being exposed to the slightest danger, which many philosophical luminaries faced in Athens for religious innovation. At this point the apostolic argument reveals rare oratory and is truly brilliant. Therefore, the further conversation, strictly in accordance with the needs and mood of the listeners, flows with amazing consistency. Its disappointing ending is explained solely by the unexpectedness of the result, which was beyond the pagan understanding of the fundamental dogma of the “resurrection” of Christ. But in this respect, too, the Apostle showed himself to be a true evangelist, for he was able to fix his mental interests on the most important religious subjects and caused diverse debates about them, not limiting himself to the usual oratorical effects, which so easily earned noisy applause with the tawdry entertainment of idle complacency. The apostolic speech is deeply serious and in all the details of its justification reveals to us an oratorical talent, rich in means and flexible in its appropriate applicability to the pampered and enlightened Athenian public. In it we have actual evidence of the Hellenic education and classical literary learning of St. Pavel. 1652 Our theoretical conclusions acquire some factual support and allow us to speak more confidently about the traces of Hellenic erudition in the literary monuments preserved from the Apostle. In this connection, these examples receive a persuasiveness that, when presented differently, is paired with them without any apparent reason. We are actually talking about three classical quotes (Acts XVII, 28. 1 Cor. XV, 33. Tit. I, 12). They have long been a source of controversy. If the church historian Socrates saw here evidence of classical erudition, and other ancient writers of 1653 and the textual tradition of the Greek New Testament carefully noted the obvious authors, then many always thought completely differently, believing that they do not at all prove Hellenic culture, because they do not require special learning. The reason is that these are second-hand proverbs, taken from the street, circulated freely and are widely known throughout the world. These winged words do not indicate immediate erudition, since they were used and found among later patristic writers as ready-made formulas, which is why they were easy to recognize from a conversation during live communications, which brought some philosophical information and other similar expressions, or from a random reference in a book. Such maxims were common even in Palestine and were allegedly used by Christ himself, and the Apostle could have learned them from lessons at the Gamaliel Academy. Based on the analyzed excerpts, they not only conclude that the evangelist had a low education, but they also justify the idea that he did not study in Hellenic schools, and Greco-Roman literature remained alien to him. All these apodictic judgments do not rest on an argument of equal strength. It is emphasized that only one place is genuine (in 1 Cor. XV, 33), and the character of a direct reference is only the indication of Athenian speech: - this poverty of allusions would be amazing for a classically well-read person, if all his contemplation in relation to the Old Testament was “thinking in quotations,” without which he could not write even three lines. Such a preconceived limitation is tendentious, and we must judge the unknown by the totality of all given traditions. Then the only thing that will be correct is that there are very few classical literary echoes in the apostolic writings. However, the specific gravity of this modest amount is very significant. All efforts and interests of the evangelistic ministry were focused on Christian enlightenment in its divinely revealed saving truths. By their very dignity, the latter did not need rational justification, and St. Paul avoided it on principle, so as not to degrade the divine content to the level of brilliant human productivity. From this point of view, pagan literature could not be included in the apostolic apparatus on a par with the Old Testament, and later apologetic experiments in finding Christian doctrines in the depths of pagan wisdom were always artificial and hardly contributed to mutual objective knowledge. The evangelistic needs of the Apostle himself rather eliminated the scientific-Hellenic motivation of certain Christian exhortations. For the announced listeners, what was also important was not the scientific apparatus itself, the relativity of which was well known to them from the reproaches of the past and from direct observations. For them, everywhere and everywhere, only the life-giving effectiveness of God’s grace, reviving the entire being, was dear and impressive. Both sides closed themselves in the sphere of Christian contemplation, in which all missionary aspirations and religious inclinations were recorded. Under such conditions, the sporadic quotation of classical citations without deliberate warning is completely natural and proves nothing more than that for the Apostle all wealth and all intelligence were in Christ. If, despite all this, classical excerpts come across, this indicates a broad and strong classical education, since it breaks through involuntarily and naturally, as an instinctive reflection of school memories and mental skills. At first glance, a much more serious objection is that in 1 Cor. XV, 33, literary sensitivity and poetic taste are not noticed, since the poetic meter is violated there, since - contrary to the iambic structure (jamb. trimester acatalepticus sive senarius) - it is usually written, and was accepted only by Lachman ex conjectura. The question is needlessly aggravated, since competent authorities admit that verse is quite possible without elision according to the rhetorical models of that time. After this, positive arguments take on serious importance. It is difficult to deny that all quotes are made extremely successfully in strict accordance with the entire situation. Athenian speech has all the properties of direct borrowing, and it is undoubtedly due to many coincidences. The whole saying can be found with accuracy in Aratus, and he was a native of the city of Sol near Tarsus (315 - 305 - Ɨ to 240 - 239), and his fame to the Cilician countryman is quite understandable. A similar expression is found in the student and successor of Zeno Cleanthes (about 300 BC) in the hymn to Jupiter, which was the most beautiful and religiously sublime monument of ancient Stoicism, which is why it was most suitable for the lofty goals of the Athenian annunciation. Similar things are found in other pagan writers, and the Apostle noted several persons with the vague “some.” But both Arat, as if still understood (- in addition to the analyzed reference -) in related places, and Cleanthes were poetae minimi; if St. Paul studied them, then we have the right to think that they did not bypass the luminaries of Hellenic literature, since they borrow points of support from literary mediocrity. All Athenian speech shows a broad literary and philosophical awareness, reflected in many particulars, and based on the totality of all its properties, they decide to rank it among the masterpieces of classical antiquity, from which it turns out that the evangelist was brought up reading classical orators and from them he knew Lysias (5th century BC) and Demosthenes thoroughly, for he exhibits high oratorical qualities. Of course, more factual data is stated here - and with oblivion about the secondary nature of the text, since it is far from an axiom that St. Paul contributed directly to the editing of the book of Acts. Nevertheless, the classically literary education of the Apostle-speaker is visible here quite clearly. The same is true for 1 Cor. XV, 39, which has long been and still refers to the poetic popularizer of Epicurus, his accomplice and friend. In this form, the present reference was especially appropriate for the author's purposes, providing them with reinforcement even from the adherents of this laxative school with a similar warning. Even though this is a proverb, it is chosen so well that it demonstrates literary tact in accurately understanding the nature and origin of the entire phrase. This saying is, in any case, not the author’s work, since it is associated with an undoubted proverb (in v. 32) of widespread use and is placed in a passage where other classical echoes are indisputable, for example, from Cleanthes, with which important interpretations strikingly coincide (in 1 Cor. XV, 39 ff.) Regarding the third example (Tit. I, 12), it is accepted that Epimenides (late 6th century BC) appears in it, and it is very significant that he is called a prophet, as indeed (according to Diogenes Laertius) his words acquired a prophetic meaning, and poetic talent in general was sometimes equated with prophetic inspiration. This indicates close knowledge of the Cretan writer. 1654 All observations come down to the result, coming from antiquity, that the texts under consideration present their own quotations. But one can hardly agree that with these trifles the Apostle limited the influence of the university city through Greek literature, being content with small and unimportant grains from secondary poetic works. If it is recognized that they were not even read by the champions of Saul’s Hellenic education, then it is all the more legitimate to extend erudition to the classical luminaries. And the quotation itself is done with such ease and ease that it speaks of penetration by the classical spirit, revealed in the unintentional rhythmic structure of the apostolic exposition and involuntary reminiscences that are not particularly noted. We commit ourselves to think that St. Paul was well-read among the Greek poets in their works, and if this is true, then no satisfactory reason can be found for the exclusion of philosophers who again fall within the circle of classical competence of the evangelist. The latter turns out to be knowledgeable in Greek classical writing so extensively and not superficially that he allegedly had access to all areas, in particular to Plato. This is a “finely educated” person, and then he must have an appropriate education. Therefore, scientists who see simple proverbs in the analyzed passages and allow Hellenic influences only through living circulation are forced to guess that the evangelist “in all likelihood attended some elementary classes in Tarsus, in which he acquired knowledge of Greek rhetoric and even, perhaps, the principles of Stoic philosophy.” This concession is very significant and opens up broad prospects, since rhetorical training was not strictly elementary and presupposed good school training, was in connection with many other knowledge, in its extensibility included an extensive cycle of information and was inseparable from systematic education on literary models. After this, perhaps one more remark is that this knowledge was not gleaned directly from primary sources. In such a restrictive capacity, such a judgment is theoretically permissible. The classical erudition of the patristic authors was obtained, of course, not directly by sampling from the cited works, and it would not be absurd to say about Eusebius of Caesarea himself that he used aids in the form of educational compendia for classical argumentation. And it is indisputable that literary and philosophical dictionaries and christomathies circulated from antiquity, the beginning of which can be traced back to Aristotle’s student Theophrastus (372 – 287 BC). Of course, for them the most convenient and diligent use was in school teaching. It is not surprising that, along with other students, these literary and philosophical collections were known to the Apostle of Languages, and quite a few of his references were originally extracted from here. But it is hardly reasonable to reduce all apostolic erudition to this medium. It could serve the school needs of literary and rhetorical exercises, but for the high demands of Christian thought it was not enough and referred to testing according to the originals, which were studied as needed. All factual observations convince us that with his previous school training in the scientific Hellenic region, St. Paul took advantage of the improvement in the interests of the best fulfillment of his lofty plans for the subjugation of the Greco-Roman world to Christ with all its culture and intelligentsia. Sometimes they even think that the evangelist continued such activities during his missionary career, believing that it was the Eliin literary books that he asked Timothy to deliver to him from Troy (2 Tim. IV, 13). This evidence is not clear at all points. His bookish attitude expands at times, when by “phelonia” one means a container (paenula) for book scrolls, but it is not entirely likely that the evangelist specifically remembered a simple case at such critical moments. As for the rest, different interpretations are again permissible. The phrase gives the impression that leather scrolls are especially different, and we will have two classes of books - simple, papyrus, and more valuable, parchment. The latter were more expensive, of course, not just because of the material, which only emphasized their ideological importance, hence the natural guess that these were the sacred creations of the Old Testament. In contrast, other books will not be sacred or secular. This understanding is exegetically quite strong, although not the only one. Accepting adversative reading, they strengthen the opposition to the extent of dissociation of objects of speech not according to their quality, but according to the difference in the most essential properties, and in the second case it is no longer the books themselves, but simple parchments; Moreover, all the news will be contained in book papyri and parchment sheets with apostolic records. This decision does not seem to us indisputable, because the projected textual edition does not necessarily call for it, completely allowing for a different understanding. The recommended interpretation itself puts forward a not entirely natural antithesis between the content and written material, since it cannot be confined to the duality of book forms - the papyrus scroll and the parchment codex (coudex, codex), because the latter was also used with papyri, and without this antithesis it would be quite ugly. Therefore, a varied understanding can speak of the bookish interests of St. Paul, for whom it is generally accepted here that he kept preparatory notes, where purely bookish literary information is conceivable. On all sides there is a strong possibility that the Apostle possessed a certain amount of secular learning. There were no fundamental obstacles to this in rabbinical views and in Jewish upbringing, but there were favorable, inclining and motivating conditions in the surrounding environment and social status, by origin, and in Christian service. All this confirms that the evangelist has considerable erudition. Its presence should have evoked appropriate recognition, and in this sense the exclamation of Festus (Acts XXVI, 24) about great learning leading to madness is brought in here. In the mouth of the Roman procurator it is much closer to understand classical bookishness, but it is permissible to think that the prisoner was struck by his own ideological “strangeness,” which for a pagan consisted, of course, in the unusualness of the content, but it was biblically prophetic (Acts XXVI, 27). It is stated that it is not primarily pagan book erudition, but it is still clear that the evangelist gave the impression of extraordinary learning and even on his second trip he was distinguished by the Listrians before Barnabas for his “rule in the word” (Acts XIV, 12) or for his oratorical supremacy. The memory of the nearest generations has preserved for us the image of the Apostle as a learned, educated and knowledgeable man who was able to captivate an intelligent and discerning pagan public. It is possible that he appeared to her in such dignity at a later time. The guarantee of this is called (student of Ammonius and Origen, Neoplatonist) Longinus (Ɨ III century or ca. 273?). There is a fragment from him in one Vatican Codex of the Gospels, where among the luminaries of Hellenic eloquence and wisdom - along with Demosthenes, Lysias, Aeschines and others - is ranked "Paul the Tarsian, who first invented the technique of putting forward known dogmatic truths without argumentation." The authenticity of this characterization is quite controversial, and some strongly deny it, others ardently defend it, and still others seem to suggest a special person. In this dark matter it is difficult to achieve clarity and achieve stability. What is true is that the content does not cause any permanent confusion and cannot be considered completely erroneous. On the contrary, when applied to the Hellenic evangelist, the final interpretation will be completely correct, emphasizing the direct influence of the apostolic word, which acted through the inspired impressiveness of dogmatic confessions, when other speakers directed all their art towards dialectical justification and logical development of the theses defended. For a literary critic, this was, of course, a new, deeply original type, and its peculiarity was captured so aptly that Longinus’s review is in many ways reminiscent of patristic judgments. Then, skeptics regarding this passage agree that in it we have evidence of the high oratorical fame that St. later enjoyed. Paul. This is no less true for Christian circles of our own era. This question was not subjected to special analysis at that time, and often only a general thought is expressed about the superiority of Christianity over Hellenism, if the Apostle is called the best of the philosophers of 1655 and his views are compared with Pavlov’s. It is not uncommon to notice simply the elevated euphemism of reverent enthusiasm, admiring the flumen elo1uentiae christianae, where fulmina sunt, - and a calmer judgment was limited to a modest statement: sicut Apostolum praecepta secuta sit eloquentia, non negamus. Nevertheless, even now they accept that the evangelist “was not ignorant of secular books,” and his example usually protected the use of philosophical works and teachings for Christian argumentation. But the actual apostolic erudition during this period was not exaggerated to the point of excessiveness. Much later they began to write: de stupenda erudition Pauli, de Paullo philosopho (N. E. Zobel, Altdorf 1710), Paulus Jurisconsultus seu Dissertatio de jurisprudential Pauli (Joh. Ortwin Westenderg, Lips. 1794) and de jurisprudentia – Pauli (J. S. Stryck, Halae 1695) or Paullina (E. Guil. Kirchmaier, Wittemb. 1730), even in private points (Aug. Chr. March: Specimen jurisprudentiae Paulli, quoad rem tutelarem ad Galat. 4, I. 2, Lips. 1736), equals de Pauli elo1uentia (Kirchimaier Baden, Wittemb. 1695. Hauniae 1786), desubtilitate Pauli in argementis tradendis (Lips. 1777), but there have always been middle and reverse currents, which fight each other to this day, causing some to hesitate in their assessment. The series of restrained sentences is not short. In them we read about partial contact with Greek education - not very high, but not alien to Greek culture and literary awareness. In others, the tone is elevated by a categorical assertion of Hellenic education, sufficient, with literary acquaintance, reaching the level of disciplined experience. These moderate decisions, allowing only the thoroughness of the Hellenic competence of the Apostle, are followed by intense praise that he covered “the whole field of literature”, was almost a master in it, embracing everything serious in the Greco-Roman civilization, studied encyclopedically from his youth, 1656 and possessed a sophisticated dialectical dexterity. These extremes of almost phantasmagoric exaggeration meet with no less radical rebuff from deniers who reject the very possibility of the Greek culture of St. Paul, who allegedly did not study secular literary and philosophical disciplines at all, did not know history and did not have the slightest sympathy for the noble deeds of the pagan past. Such apodicticism undermines itself by its unconditionality, since the evangelist even recognized the well-known religiosity of paganism. 1657 And hardly anyone will object that he is the most humanitarian of the New Testament writers in the sense that he makes more frequent, abundant and systematic use of ordinary “scientific” means in formulating, revealing and arguing the Gospel of Christ. If everything is limited to these methods, then it will be impossible to rationally and convincingly explain the origin and essence of Paulinian theology, since its creator was entirely in the shackles of rabbinic scholasticism, and the influence of Greece on him was zero, like that of other New Testament authors who did not use secular literature. Then apostolic universalism will have to be derived from Pharisaism, but this will be downright absurd as long as strong Hellenic trends are not allowed in Pharisaic circles. 1658 Without this, the image of the Apostle of Tongues will turn out to be historically impossible, and here it is necessary to assume that he is not a real person and is a creation of the 2nd Christian century, which invented an evangelical figure on its own scale. 1659 Such a result is inevitable according to the logic of genetic interpretations and its blatant absurdity forces those who are not inclined to the idea of ​​the Hellenic education of St. to recognize some Greek-philosophical connection. Pavel. When this is accepted, then it must be assumed that there was not a blind mechanical pressure here, imperceptible and not conscious of the evangelist, why one cannot limit oneself simply to the influence of the Greek atmosphere of Tarsus. And with the deliberate meaningfulness of attracting Hellenic concepts - based on the conviction of their usefulness - there will be little autodidacticism, which, turning into systematic study, will require appropriate Greek education, at least not to assert that the Apostle of tongues was certainly “highly educated” in Greek wisdom. Given these data, it is completely untrue, as if it had now become an axiom everywhere that the Hellenic evangelist “did not receive any scientific Greek training.” On the contrary, something completely different is being stated, that today the influence of Hellenism on Christianity in general is exaggerated and, in particular, the power of Greek education on St. Paul, in whom the Hellenic elements are defined beyond measure. This mood is so impressive that even those who doubt the Hellenic culture of the evangelist find in him the use of Hellenic materials, but without extending Hellenic influences to rationalistic radicalism. In the end, and according to the result of scientific views, we have that the great enlightener of paganism mastered to some extent its best assets. It is natural to think that he used the latter to adapt and rework Christian views to the needs of a culturally civilized public. Of course, such an application is not absolutely inevitable, and it must be justified factually so that there is no controversy. After all, they claim that – sufficiently educated Hellenists – Paul and Luke ignored the philosophical terminology of Greece. The reason here is that the Apostle always harbored hostility towards the pagan world and was least inclined to build on Hellenic manuals. This is not entirely true and in our question represents an anticipation of the answer. The evangelist has no enmity towards anything except persistent evil, when it seeks to crowd out good itself, and he considers error to deserve only elimination. In this case, Hellenic wisdom could be hateful only “when charged to the mind of God” (2 Cor. X, 5), but not as a natural instrument in the field of all knowledge. Its insufficiency needed replenishment, for which it was necessary to use even meager available funds, just as a doctor always relies on the totality of the broken forces of his patient. the apostle would have made it difficult for himself to gain access to his chosen environment, since, while preaching Hellenism, he did not speak to them in the Hellenic word. The language, first of all, had to reflect the Hellenic influence, and a consideration of the apostolic writings from this side will show whether this element could penetrate into the Christian contemplation of St. Pavel. Of course, this method is suitable and gives reliable results if we have before us literary works that allow literary evaluation, but the latter will be strange for documents of a different kind. There are some doubts about this. They excite with the successes of modern philological knowledge. A careful study of the rich material in writing close to the Christian era - mainly in numerous papyri - discovered that the Apostles generally thought and expressed themselves in a living modern language, just as St. spoke and wrote in it. Paul. All this greatly shook the previous conviction regarding the perfect uniqueness of the New Testament Greek language, 1660 bringing it closer to the usual one, widespread everywhere right up to Rome, and its coincidences with the named monuments were so deep that they extended to the literary form itself, forcing us to assume the identity of literary intentions and ultimate purpose. In most cases, private letters are also found there, alien to literary purposes and with no claim to literary merit. In them, everything is focused on satisfying immediate needs, while the literary person himself does not care about art and can express himself in a completely non-literary way. Accordingly, Pavlov's creations will be letters for communication with a certain circle of people at the private requests of the author or readers who were interested in literary techniques, sometimes no more than a simple soldier. They are mistakenly called "epistles", which were literary writings in terms of the conditions of their origin and the driving intentions. This is only addressed to the Hebrews, 1661 and - on the contrary - in Paul's literature we have simply private notes, where a literary-critical scale is directly inappropriate. 1662 This view gradually took shape and was substantiated on purely objective data from actual convergences, and its argumentation was captivating in its impartiality no less than the solidity of the considerations of a competent scientist. This view is distinguished by its apparent firmness and acquires impressive supporters. Its importance for the case under consideration will be that then we are deprived of the very support for judging the literary talents of the Hellenic evangelist. In such a reasonable edition, such a decision seems to be an exaggerated extreme, even for those who do not deny the factual truth behind it in motivating Paul’s epistles with private and personal motives. But, although writing was a secondary matter for the Apostle, it is not simply the work of a minute and only for a given moment, where the content was everything and the form was nothing. The noted facts indicate nothing more than that the Hellenic evangelist did not invent a special presentation of his views, being content with the accepted literary forms, and among them the literary custom of that time cultivated letters. From this side, Paul's epistles, differing from the artificial products of ancient epistolography, are more reminiscent of the direct outpourings of private letters. With all that, St. Paul did not look at them at all as mere messages of a passing nature. The very essence of the matter did not allow this, that everywhere and everywhere he proclaimed eternal principles of imperishable quality. In this sense, private requests served only as external reasons for the written expression of Christian truths, which, sent first to known addressees, are essentially obligatory for all believers. 1663 The entire restriction concerned perhaps the completeness and method of disclosure, determined by immediate goals, but beyond this exception the content was absolutely equal to oral teaching, and all Christians had to adhere to the written traditions of the apostles no less than the verbal ones (1 Thessal. II, 15). Here both the writer and the reader certainly agreed in a firm conviction about the fundamental dignity of these documents, which were created on an unshakable dogmatic basis. It is clear that in their origin the apostolic epistles are completely different from the Egyptian letters (i.e., those found on Egyptian papyri). At the same time, it is clear that the evangelist could not be indifferent to the form in which such views were clothed. 1664 With him we must allow attentive care to ensure that all thoughts are cast in strict accordance with their true meaning and are assimilated in all their importance. The deliberate carelessness of external methods could somewhat degrade the doctrines themselves in the eyes of an enlightened public, and the Apostle naturally strives to ensure that formal processing contributes to internal action. 1665 All this excludes literary license, in which the guess is easily born that we are talking about ordinary or base things that are not worth more attention - beyond simple awareness of them. St. Paul thought quite differently, and in his works we have the right to expect not only accuracy, but also literary correctness. In these respects, they are literary documents and fall into the category of literary epistolography of a high quality 1666 in terms of the language itself 1667 and in all literary devices. 1668 Private in the actual conditions of their origin and not entirely artificial in their external decoration, Paul’s epistles were not randomly scribbled notes, for in them the missionary already becomes a theologian. Rather, here we should see a completely new literary type of Christian creativity, where the Hellenic evangelist was a fruitful creator who began a special Christian writing, and his own personal style did not in the least prevent him from using a cultural colloquial language. These literary properties are no small reason for their preservation, since letters not intended for publication in huge numbers perished almost everywhere (except Egypt). Of course, this does not eliminate private motivation, and therefore the opposite interpretations about purely ideological motives are not valid. Such an explanation is not consistent with the historical course of apostolic life. Therefore, the assertion that the apostolic epistles were originally books, treatises for instruction and, specifically, for teaching, is sometimes associated with a denial of their authenticity, even in their entirety. 1669 Here a false tendentiousness is revealed, if literary polish is completely reconciled with private reasons, because it is required by them. For the reasons noted, we must consider the apostolic epistles as literary creations and from them we can judge the literary qualities of the author. But to what extent will these considerations apply specifically to St. Pavel? Such bewilderment has factual support. Only the epistle to Philemon and, perhaps, to the Galatians - the second at least in part (c VI, 11) - was written by the Apostle as if personally, and in the rest he made only brief attestative additions (cf. 2 Thessalonians III, 17 - 18). In general, all of them did not come from under his hand, and Tertius is directly called the “writer” of the Epistle to the Romans (XVI, 22). This strongly indicates that the evangelist was inexperienced in “writing”, not being educated, as he himself mentions (Gal. V, 11) about the difficulty for him even of mechanical work in this matter. But, apparently, the ineptitude extended much beyond calligraphic inability, which indicates a lack of satisfactory skill. It seems that this is also true for the entire stylistic and literary side, where even minor art is doubtful with a poor grammatical education. And the Apostle himself openly admits (2 Cor. XI, 6) that he was “ignorant of words” and did not master literary technique at all, which was beyond his capabilities due to lack of the necessary preparation. The messages were published under the apostolic company, but in fact they were the property of the Hellenic evangelist only by “inspiration” and content; as literary works they do not belong to him and do not characterize him at all. On this subject, still blessed. Jerome said that St. Paul, although he was knowledgeable in various languages, however, “could not explain the greatness of divine thoughts in worthy Greek speech and therefore had Titus as his interpreter.” This remark is sometimes understood as if the latter - according to the church Latin teacher - was a translator from the Aramaic language, which will be common in preaching, from which it necessarily follows that the Apostle was not able to freely explain himself in Greek. Commentary is, of course, possible, but extreme conclusions should not be accepted by the bliss. Jerome, since he accepted the well-known Hellenic enlightenment from the great missionary, why do others understand that Titus served to explain to the intelligent public of cultural centers regarding the most secret Christian mysteries. However, the ancient example allows us to now assert that the translators assisted both Peter and Paul with the writings, since they were not entirely skilled in the intricacies of the Greek dialect. In addition to Titus, Luke is also brought in for this purpose, allegedly helping the Apostle of Languages ​​in 1670 in his literary work, and it is assumed that they could have met during joint studies, for example, in Tarsus, and then they were connected by a “commonality of deep educational interests.” Such a hypothesis is undoubtedly better than the “totally romantic” idea that the appearance of St. Paul in Troas the Macedonian (Acts XVI: 9) was precisely the “beloved physician,” although this groundless guess also does not exclude the possibility that Luke was a collaborator in the apostolic literary works. In all these ways, the conditions of origin of the apostolic epistles are well illuminated, and the important participation of these factors cannot be denied. There is no need to exaggerate them to the point of turning the Apostle into a literary ignoramus. There are no good reasons for this. As for the dictation, it is hasty to judge the literary apostolic inexperience, for this was the usual and widespread method for publishing works. Hence, it is unfair to deny in advance that from the epistles one can conclude about the literary development of St. Paul, since this is accepted for other ancient authors. The apostolic testimony before the Galatians (VI, 11) confirms the characteristic use of capital letters in the apostolic writings and with this “large handwriting” wants to draw the attention of readers to the fullness of love, which does not stop for their good even before such a painful mechanical procedure. In our opinion, this mention receives its true meaning under the obligatory assumption that this matter was difficult, why its execution actually revealed the self-sacrifice of the Apostle out of ardent zeal for the salvation of the Galatians. But all this concerns the only Greek calligraphic technique, in which the evangelist was not very far. It goes without saying that this does not yet indicate literary ignorance - especially for that era when writers most often resorted to the help of calligraphers and were themselves little encouraged to do such an activity. Much more decisive is the note about “ignorance in words.” It is necessary to determine its exact weight. What is important here is the contrast with the height of knowledge, the greatness of which is set off by “verbal” inexperience. All the power lies in this rapprochement, where the brilliant inevitably darkens even the bright, pale before the dazzling radiance. Accordingly, and there, all the harshness is determined by the opposition: - the brighter the apostolic knowledge was, the more disproportionate the literary expression was to it. Now it is obvious that the assessment is given only comparatively, and it does not affirm the apodictically perfect literary unpreparedness of St. Pavel. And the phrase itself says that if the latter called himself a simpleton in verbal expression, then only in the sense of Epictetus - in contrast to sworn rhetoricians and philosophers. This confirms the apostolic “non-Hellenistic” nature no more than that of the skillful Theophilus. On the contrary, St. himself Paul quotes (2 Cor. X, 10) the judgment of his opponents, which terms were accepted epithets to characterize literary-formal merits. This means that the mentioned “word” rather concerns oral circulation and depicts to us not literary helplessness, but the actual failure of personal verbal explanations. The messages themselves had solid literary impressiveness, and its shortcomings were only relative. This is also suggested by another observation that the Hellenic evangelist, of course, uses the derogatory phrase of his Corinthian opponents. The latter, of course, used the usual scale of the prevailing rhetorical floridity, and their verdict says no more than that the apostolic epistles did not exactly coincide with the products of the reigning artificial prose. There is no hint of outright ignorance or positive inexperience here; the whole emphasis is simply on the lack of technical dexterity in artificial rhetoric, and this only shows that St. Pavel was not and did not want to be a guild rhetorician in his contemporary taste. In this sense, he really rejected “pretentious words” (1 Cor. II, 4) of rhetorical affectation and enticing phrasing, known to him for their bad qualities and harmful influence; but it was precisely this sad observation that made him appreciate and utilize the sound skill of “exhorting people” in 2 Cor. V, 11 and Wed. Gal. I, 10) with the persuasive persuasiveness of all his verbal suggestions. We see that the Apostle himself does not at all degrade to uneducated literary simplicity, and the harsh critics of that time did not find this in him, if they only stated that the apostolic epistles were not written according to refined rhetorical templates. In this respect, they were not at the height of rhetorical pomp, however, the latter did not serve as an expression of a normal process, but was an artificial fruit of the false efforts of the Atticists to forcibly resurrect the Attic dialect contrary to the natural linguistic development. It was linguistic deadness, corresponding to internal lifelessness for its age and for subsequent history. By their isolation from these illusory currents, the apostolic epistles only highlight more clearly that the vitality of the content was cast in the forms of a living language with literary spontaneity, which does not at all eliminate literary-technical art. It is clear that the existing monuments of apostolic writing do not at all speak of the literary ignorance of the Hellenic evangelist and provide sufficient means for judging him from this side. Here, first of all, the question arises about the linguistic material itself. At this point it is accepted that the Greek translation of the LXX, which has spread for a long time, quickly and widely, was the favorite of St. Paul and all primary Christianity, serving as an organ of Christian propaganda. For them, this was a good means of preparing the ground in advance for preaching a new religion in the Greco-Roman world. Here Semitism, significantly freed from nationalistic exclusivity, being transferred to Hellenism, itself receives a universalistic character, and the Old Testament opens with the universal Bible, when it preaches God and describes His relationship to people under the guise of a testament. Without the LXX and the seeds of monotheism scattered in this way, the world mission of the Tarsus “Septuagintarist” Paul would not have been successful - and he naturally adhered to this version. It has been proven that more than half of his direct Old Testament quotations are taken from here - with an inclination towards A (lexandrinus cod.) and those readings that later received a great deal of progress through Lucian. Everywhere one can see close contact, from which it is concluded that the evangelist knew the Alexandrian translation even by heart. It is clear that such intimacy indicates the deepest influence, penetrating the entire structure of the linguistic apparatus, where there is no longer much room left for other formative factors of purely Greek origin and Hellenic nature. They notice characteristic phrases that are alien to the spirit of Hellenism. And since these “expressions are not found anywhere in him,” they serve as clear evidence of the influence that influenced St. The Apostle Paul was brought up by his upbringing as a Jew, with the latter’s biblical idiocy in his expressions.” This indicates that the mental makeup itself was not Hellenic, and with it the speech would not be Greek. And if the evangelist wrote in Greek, then he supposedly thought in Aramaic, why is his style also not Hellenic. And the more individual typicality there is in the latter, the more thorough the solution is possible. Sometimes, with the extreme harshness of the most severe censure, they say that the Apostle has a “disheveled” language, beyond which it is impossible to violate human linguistic logic with such audacity - a pitiful and confused language, stylistically incorrect in its best examples (for example, 1 Cor. XIII), - a strange language and so little Hellenistic, but close to “Judeo-Greek” that the evangelist himself recognized it common people's rudeness, along with this, poverty of expression is seen everywhere, although it stemmed rather from mental concentration on favorite ideas and from complete carelessness about external literary qualities. This, of course, is a fantastic exaggeration, but there are adepts who explain the apostolic language from the living treatment of the Greeks while denying the slightest school bearing. The point of departure for such conclusions lies in the comparison with LXX, and at this point the center of gravity for the correct illumination of the subject. It is especially important here that all the affinity extends only to the stock of words, as is inevitable in the biblical contemplation of the Apostle. Therefore, it is still unfair to judge the author's language. It is actually revealed in a peculiar combination of terms and in the stylistic structure of speech. Similarity in terminology in itself does not speak at all about linguistic identity, which should be built on mutual unity throughout the entire structure of literary architectonics. Without this, based on terminological analogies alone, the dependence of St. Paul both from the LXX and from the then vulgar language. The closest contact on this side would only convince us that the writer was not original in the narrowness of his outlook. But here, too, the Hellenic evangelist stands out with its advantages. He counts (96 in Rom., 91 in 1 Cor., 92 in 2 Cor., 33 in Gal., 38 in Eph., 34 in Col., 36 in Philipp., 18 in 1 Thess., 7 in 2 Thess., 73 in 1 Tim., 44 in 2 Tim., 31 in Titus, 4 in Philim.) up to 597 and even with the addition of 169 to Heb. - up to 766 special words, and for the entire amount of 5,594 for the New Testament vocabulary this gives a huge proportion, for in the latter it is almost over - it constitutes the exclusive literary property of St. Pavel. This statistics is not absolutely accurate and with the gradual study of language material it becomes more and more relative; however, it will forever remain a lasting result that the Hellenic missionary differs from other New Testament literary brethren in his spiritual productivity in word formation. 1671 It goes without saying that under such conditions we cannot immediately allow slavery in other parts. There is, of course, a coincidence in the LXX, but they rather convince of the actual dominance of precisely such a Greek language, which was not Judeo-Semitic, but widely Hellenistic. The latest research confirms with compelling examples that many Hebraisms are found in modern literary monuments as the common property of the Greek speech of that time. In these cases, there is no similarity with the LXX at all, anything non-Hellenic, and therefore it is in every possible way wrong to judge from them the Hebraistic character of the apostolic language. Along with this, it is no less significant that it is in the area of ​​syntactic that the Apostle reveals significant independence from the LXX - and objections on this matter only encourage us to emphasize the almost improbability of a deep Semitic influence on the syntactic-logical organization of the language of a native of Asia Minor. Perhaps this is too decisive for an educated Jew, but others have also stated that “Paul’s stylistic connection with the LXX and with the Semitic Greek language in general is extremely weak: he does not have a sense of language, but only ideological and lexical materials are colored Semitic; he thought in Greek, and the frequent use of the “author’s” plural. (we vm. i) is proven by examples precisely in the literary language of his time.” The apostolic style - except for quotations - is “remarkably free from crude Hebraisms,” and its peculiarity consists only in some innovation compared to rhetorical models, but this separates it only from the artificial prose of that time, bringing it closer to the organically developed Hellenic literature. For all the above reasons, we are obliged to agree that the language of the Apostle is not at all Judeo-Greek and not specifically Hebraistic - although it is sufficiently stylistic to avoid Hebraistic awkwardness. What exactly does he represent in this dignity of the ordinary Greek language, which was not an artificial creation of a Semite with violence against the entire linguistic nature? From antiquity to this day there have been unfavorable reviews that St. Paul did not speak purist Greek, and his language, far from classical perfection, is simply bad, and all the argumentation and stylistic decoration are non-Hellenic. In these judgments, truth itself, falsely applied, is inevitably resolved by untruth. The standard taken is the refined Attic elegance of ancient classical examples or sophisticated copying according to the Atticist program. All this, of course, does not apply to our case, since Pavlova’s writings do not pretend to be specifically rhetorical exercises. Due to the unsuitability of the criterion, the definition protected by it naturally also necessarily disappears. Then there will not be the slightest need for enhanced apologies, which have been diligently invented since ancient times. Having acquired knowledge of almost all languages ​​by the Apostle (according to 1 Cor. XIV, 18), they involuntarily came across solecisms and tried to explain all such defects by adapting to different dialects, depending on the difference in the public. The stylistic carelessness of the evangelist is a fiction if it is exaggerated to the point of neglect, and it is not at all evidenced by some inattention to the subtleties of the design, since the author did not even think about artificial tricks. It is only true that all the Apostles thought more about the actual work of God than about the floridity of pompous rhetoric, but this does not reduce them to the level of uneducated simpletons, to whom the “scribe’s cane” was completely unusual. A language that is not classical does not mean it is not literary and for Pavlova’s era it will only be modern, alien to the unnatural tortuousness of artificial prose. Deviations from it are undeniable, but they only show the naturalness of word expression, alien to slavish imitation, and therefore do not exclude either school dialectical education or healthy classical discipline. The denial of school bearing cannot be convincing, because the very basis for it in the classical point of view is erroneous - and it is all the more difficult for us to agree that St. Paul did not study and gained all his linguistic experience from communicating with the Greeks, since he adds that his language is good and has many advantages. It is also impossible to assert with excessive boldness that it is obvious from the Apostolic Epistles that their author did not read a single philosophical book, since he did not strive to write in philosophical terminology, which there was no need to use, even if it was known to him. The result so far remains the same, that the Hellenic evangelist was not a classical artist according to the Atticist template and wrote with natural ease, corresponding to the then linguistic development. We need to find out what literary properties are found in it from this side? Is there literary technique here, or does simple literacy dominate? Let us collect competent observations for this purpose. It is very valuable in them that even with a classical assessment they see the ability to master the effects of Greek speech as purely rhetorical, if in the spirit of Asian rhetoric, which ignored the literature of the past, honoring the Apostle as a great orator, with all his “independence from art.” This warns of the presence of undoubted literary qualities. And we clearly note the “comparative correctness of Pavlov’s language.” In particular, there is no doubt about the stylistic accuracy in the flexible use of prepositions and the skillful use of particles. True, stylistic imperfections are also emphasized, but they are aggravated only by artificial lighting with classical rays, which are not suitable for folk prose, which can be beautiful in itself. And we hear that “St. Paul spoke and wrote Greek “very excellent Greek,” as a culturally educated person, since his “language and style are truly Greek,” and in these respects, the school-disciplined Philo and Josephus were in no way superior to him. Methods of literary construction also stand out with certain features. The entire behavior of the Apostle in Ephesus (Acts XIX, 9 ff.) resembles the policy of the traveling sophists of his time when they promoted and defended their systems. These qualities are also reflected in literary argumentation, which is much closer to the Cynic-Stoic diatribe than to rabbinic techniques; the rhetorical movement, alien to periodicity, approaches precisely the former, as it, having developed from dialogue, was then practiced and cast into solid forms, and we see the Epictetus flavor of them (in 2 Cor.) in the alternation of “I” and “we” and in many others properties. Among the rhetoric of the heart, this will be an artificially rhetorical technique, the presence of which in Pavlov’s epistles is all the more possible since rhetorical means were common during this period. Rotating within a modern rhetorical-Hellenistic framework, the Apostle sometimes gives rhetorical examples with shades of oratory. There is a lot of character in the details. Often - even in the prose passages themselves - a love of parallelism is revealed - sometimes of the Hebraistic type, but not infrequently such a manner is maintained so naturally and skillfully that it has a completely Hellenic spirit. No less noticeable is the antithetical development in proportion to the content. At times (for example, in 1 Cor. I, 10 - IV, 21) - the arrangement of parts and the architectonics in the reduction to unity are distinguished by subtlety, capable of causing (at least in 1 Cor. I, 25 ff.) surprise on the part of any Greek speaker. There are truly rhetorical passages (Rom. VII, 7 – 25). The entire epistle to the Romans is imprinted with similar properties, and the symmetry of its beginning is impeccable. There are (2 Cor. XII, 2 ff.) musically exciting passages that (in Rom. XI, 25 - 36) captivate with rhythmic flight, and this combination (in 1 Cor. II, 6 - 16) of musical rhythm, elegantly sustained, with the complexity of the entire structure convinces of high oratorical power. Therefore, the art of rhetoric and eloquence is directly found in the Apostle. It is objected that these properties predominate in those departments (1 Cor. XIII), which even strict connoisseurs call beautiful hymns, from which it is argued that there is more inspiration here than technical art. in our opinion, one must reason and conclude quite the opposite, that the latter is all the more certain since it persists during the greatest rise of animation, when rhetorical dexterity can break through only because it is habitual and is revealed involuntarily. In view of this, it is hardly reasonable to think that rhetorical beauties appeared in St. Paul only by insight and inspiration. On the contrary, if this is observed with a stormy impetuosity of expression, reminiscent of a raging stream, then we must think that in a calm state the Apostle could always write correctly and rhetorically smoothly. One cannot, of course, go too far in such an assessment. Thus, it is rightly stated that the evangelist was the most amazingly and immensely gifted mind, possessing poetic phraseology and imagination, but it would be an exaggeration to consider him a poet, equating him with Shakespeare. Nevertheless, in some places it is noted that the Apostle, as if following the precepts of the Tarsus teacher, cares about Attic purity and consciously strives for elegance, which he achieves quite successfully. Under such conditions, it would not be a little strange to assert that rhetorical charms were born in the Hellenic evangelist by themselves. This assumption is eliminated by the fact that it was always intended to produce a special effect through oral reading in communities, and from this we must conclude to deliberate deliberateness in the use of rhetorical devices. It is much more likely to believe that such fragments (1 Cor. IX, 10 - 22) refer to the study of rhetoric. It is consistent with this that, in general, the literary structure of the language indicates a certain school development, although it is impossible to accurately determine the degree of Hellenic education and the thoroughness of familiarity with Greek literature. In any case, with autodidactic shades, the actual rhetorical features in the style are also undeniable, which speak of Greek studies, because they are too numerous and indicate a deliberate adaptation. Of course, it does not directly follow from this that there was a “serious philosophical and literary study,” but on the other hand, it still cannot be categorically denied in St. Paul's influence of rhetoric and popular philosophy. In this regard, there are again characteristic hints. The logical dialectic of the Apostle is often amazing and sometimes in vain illuminated almost as sophistic refinement. Here the argumentation is distinguished by its school-like persuasiveness. The methods of its construction and disclosure (for example, in Cor. XIII) have the Hellenic-philosophical properties of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, with which much is similar in diction and method in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. Ethical doctrines are also justified with philosophical thoroughness (in Rom. xii, Eph. and Col.), since they are reduced to a general principle, and according to it everything is classified with logical order. In this sense, analogies with Demosthenes and Thucydides have long been sought, and this observation is supported by recent authors. They directly see Thucydides’ methods, and as for the first, Demosthenes’ manner of inducing to a negative result by means of questions is so typical that it suggests the idea of ​​a direct connection. This, of course, does not mean at all that, judging by the classical merits of a stylistic-dialectical nature, the Hellenic evangelist from childhood received such a good education in the Tarsian Greek schools that with equal right he could later wear a philosophical cloak, being a master in both logic and rhetoric. However, it is perhaps more controversial to explain the coincidence with Thucydides simply by an affinity of genius and to consider them alien to mutual dependence. We should rather think that we have before us the fruits of solid study for missionary purposes. Then, based on rhetorical technique, it is even possible to guess about his acquaintance with Demosthenes. There is little suggestion here that the Apostle, through independent work, achieved the ability to read classical works fluently, even if we accept the dubious hypothesis that Greek was his natural language. In the Tarsian dialect one hears Hellenic - the dialectical experience of a “gifted, educated, intelligent writer.” One should not go to extremes, as if the evangelist was embarrassed by literary simplicity and - forced to it by considerations of the mental level of the Galitians - apologizes with the reference that he speaks “according to the person,” for he is not accustomed to explain himself in the tone of artistic eloquence. From antiquity in this regard, exaggerations were allowed that with “deep knowledge” the Apostle mastered the cultural-classical style of 1672 and, in dialectical dexterity, could withstand comparison with the Roman lawyer Paul (II - III centuries AD), an opponent of Papinian, and they also mentioned the incommensurability of the biblical Greek language with the greatness of the divine content. Иногда готовы были возвеличивать благовестника чуть не выше Платона, Демосфена, Аристотеля, Галена, но при этом приходилось и сами литературные несовершенства объяснять роскошью образования и обширной начитанностью. All these tensions irresistibly convince us that we should give up such hobbies. The apostolic language is not strictly classical, but generally accepted in that era, although not entirely common. The differences from the latter were not due to violent external influences. True, the Greek New Testament is largely conditioned by the presence of the former Old Testament: - for all that, in St. Paul is not at all a “vernacular dialect of Hellenistic Jews,” the existence of which, in such isolation, is quite controversial. Нет, он говорил и писал, как грек, а не как еврей, хотя в нем не окончательно исчез и семит. It is not clear that the Apostle thought in Aramaic and only translated it into Greek, for he speaks it skillfully and with great flexibility, allowing him to achieve philological clarity of 1673 Greek terminology even in depicting the mystery of the incarnation. This is good modern Greek, in which the Apostle was a “master” who discovered school literary techniques. It gives us a vivid and comprehensive picture of the author himself. It all pours out and is reflected in his works. His messages are deeply individual, and each of them is a biographical document, and in many places it is felt that the writer, as it were, dips his pen in the blood of his heart, from where his style is characteristically individual throughout. This gives solid support to the conclusion that St. Paul is "a well-bred citizen of the Roman world, accustomed to the graceful and refined tone of educated society." Our previous observations find a perfect crowning. Previously, we revolved in the sphere of theoretical possibilities and actual probabilities regarding the school - Hellenic culture of the evangelist. Now they are receiving decisive reinforcements. Language serves as the best evidence of intelligence; it also speaks of the high Hellenistic development of the Apostle, who had no small technical skills. The certainty of sufficient funds ensured the availability of the treasures of the Hellenic genius, and the missionary needs themselves prompted accurate information in the interests of success and fruitfulness. It seems that, not without reason, in the personal testimony of the Greco-Roman culture of St. Paul, former doctor gentium et magister Ecclesiase, declared that in the wisdom of God there is no understanding of the world through the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:21). Chapter two. St. Apostle Paul and Greco-Roman education St. Apostle Paul and Greco-Roman education. – The relationship of the Hellenic evangelist to Stoicism, in general and in particular. – St. Apostle Paul and philosopher Saneka. – Contacts of the first with philosophical and legal concepts and particular analogies (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Heraclitus). – Pagan mysteries of the Greco-Roman world and the Christian sacraments of St. Apostle Paul. – Conjectures about the influence of legal concepts and norms in the apostolic gospel with a detailed analysis of examples (Gal. III, 15 f. IV, 1 f. III, 7. Rom. II - IX. VI, 16 - 23. Gal. IV, 5 - 7 and Rom. VIII, 14 - 16. Tit. III. 5 - 7 and 1 Peter. III, 21. Rom. VIII, 23. 1 Cor. XIII, 1 - 7. – General conclusion about the divine originality of the “Gospel” of St. The Apostle Paul in essence. St. Apostle Paul desired to “be all things to all men, in order to save at least some” 1 Cor. 9:22). In relation to Hellenism, we saw that he had appropriate preparation, which provided convenience for attracting the Greek elements. On this subject it is argued that the direct influence of such should be limited, so as not to assimilate to it concepts passed directly from the language through which the concepts themselves inevitably penetrated. This means that by the degree of linguistic development we are obliged to judge the extent of the Hellenic influence. In this way, it will be objectively decided whether it was possible for the latter to invade the very structure of the apostolic idea, when with new material it acquired a different character, now transforming in its essence, now losing its dominant role and being subordinated to other influences. But it was revealed that the evangelist was fluent in Greek, and at the same time he had to feel and think equally, therefore he is completely Hellenic and seemed to the Listrians to be the embodiment of Mercury Logius or the eloquent one. It is clear that the Apostle was sufficiently knowledgeable in the Hellenic world and studied it not superficially in the best discoveries of scientific and philosophical creativity, for the recognition of a fair amount of religiosity in paganism 1674 presupposes a person who does not judge by the real baseness of degenerate cults, but rises to the brighter areas of philosophical thought and is able to appreciate them at their true worth. In turn, St. Paul accepted the wealth of ancient contemplations with the inevitable result that their application responded to the character of Christian thinking. This is how it actually turns out, even if we take purely literary parallels. In the spirit of classical love for cosmic beauty in everything created, the Hellenic missionary in the name of Christianity illuminates (in Philip. IV, 8) all that is good in the natural aspirations of humanity, and along with popular forms of greeting (Phil. IV, 4) arouses the corresponding mood and introduces the Attic salt into Christian ethics (Col. IV, 6), his teaching is titled with the term of Greek inspiration, in its proclamation he emphasizes (Rom. XV, 19 ff.) in Hellenic divine necessity, for relations to it introduces Greek concepts of conscience and faith and commands Hellenic “measurement”. The Apostle’s metaphors are purely Greek; in the literary properties of the epistles, the motives and forms of the common diatribe are noticeable, from which the content itself is colored with a Greek flavor. Christian life is depicted (in Acts XIII, 1) under the guise of state citizenship, for the doctrine of justification “testament” and “adoption” are taken from the field of civil law, and from agonism “a whole circle of thoughts is borrowed, which is in close connection with the very essence of the doctrine of salvation.” The evangelist “lived in the depths of the Greek world” and often uses the language of art for visual representation. He looks through the eyes of a Hellenistic Alexandrian, and the world spreads out before him like a universe closed within the “limits” (Rom. X, 18) of Greco-Roman civilization; even complete Christian self-determination is signified (in Philip. II, 17. 2 Tim. IV, 6) by the word of sacrificial pagan terminology. These analogies are greatly exaggerated and largely in vain, because they are completely unnecessary. But for us, first of all, the only important thing is that similarity in linguistic appearance imperceptibly turns into ideological kinship among impartial researchers who are alien to theological tendentiousness. The Hellenic way of expression turns out to be inseparable from the content of the ideas themselves, which were supposedly influenced by the thoughts of the then generally available Greek philosophy. Hellenic concepts are assimilated with language and if, without exceeding its laws, they provide insight into the depths of the Greek genius, then it is not surprising that the opponents of the Hellenic culture of the Apostle admit Greek philosophical reflections. The latter are limited by linguistic means: however, contact with the ideological movements of the century is stated in very serious points, for example, from the psychological sphere about the spirit and body, 1675 isolated, the autocratic independence of mental life, about the dignity of knowledge. What should happen that St. Was Paul imbued with Greek ideas? True, it is noted that all early Christian literature gives the impression of incomparability, transferring it to an alien world, and the evangelist’s Christian problems are original in content and properties, but this originality of the whole does not exclude the use of different building materials, which, by their participation in the work process, necessarily predetermine the result itself on the ideological side. This is especially true for the Hellenic missionary. They say about him that to complete his Christian contemplation, he did not find ready-made expressions, which is why he invented his own terms and created his own language. His “Christian philosophy” required a new shell, and the Apostle fulfilled this task successfully, as an educated Hellenist and certified rabbinist. Obviously, for the sake of the system, the original Greek language was developed; if its elements were taken from Hellenic speech of a pagan-philosophical nature and if characteristic concepts were assimilated with them, then it is necessary to assume that the latter were integrally included in the Christian construction. Speaking specifically in Hellenic, St. Paul bent down and thought according to Hellenic schemes, revealing Christian truth in Hellenic forms and enriching it with Hellenic appendages. On the basis of language, the actual possibility of ideological Greek invasions is affirmed. This undoubted support is what genetic deficiency desires, providing it with abundant materials and justifying the legitimacy of such attempts. Neither pure rabbinic Judaism, nor its apocalyptically popular and Hellenistically transformed types turned out to be suitable for the “natural” interpretation of Christian doctrines from them, for which new manuals are needed. They are found in Hellenism, since its contact with Christianity is ensured theoretically. On this basis, a bright picture is drawn, where all the tones depict the Hellenic appearance of Christianity. Of course, they emphasize that the Hellenic influences in it are now exaggerated, and in its roots it is independent of the Hellenic influences, which were reflected more secondaryly and only on later Christian dogmatism. But here they successfully note that when we begin to reduce all church theology to Greek metaphysics, then we will have to eliminate the entire New Testament from it, recognizing the gap between them, which excludes the natural continuity of historical development. since such a movement is impossible, then Christian genesis itself is subject to the same judgment. Having emerged among the chaos of religions, in 1676 Christianity was prepared even earlier by the co-creation of Greek philosophy, for example, by Philo, and was a product of Greco-Roman eclecticism, being the result of this process and combining the ideas of Philonism and Stoicism, Christ and the kingdom of God, Caesar and the Roman state. The Redeemer himself in the real sense is a fiction, but ideologically He lived long before the Christian era, and now he is simply perceived and adapted in an original way. The continuation corresponded to the beginning with all accuracy, for in its further application and spread Christianity was conditioned by other dominant religions, which is why Christian ideas did not seem completely alien to paganism. Greek philosophy will be one of the primary sources for the Christian system; the latter is so ennobled precisely by the Hellenic elements that “Homo sum” in the sense of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius is much better than “Christianus sum” in the spirit of Tertullian. The most cautious authors allow the participation of Greco-Roman concepts in the formation of Christian doctrine, which were retained even where they attached a different meaning. In the Hellenic environment there was fertile soil for Christian development, and to a certain extent the Hellenes turn out to be the truly chosen people, since Christians are in fact Greeks, since they professed a doctrine that, arising from Hellenism through Gnosticism, was something in between the Stoic and Epicurean, Hellenic dependent even in the cardinal point regarding Logos, the idea of which even goes back to Mazdaism, and For this purpose, in Parsism dualism is smoothed out almost to the point of negation. The Jewish sect acquired a universalistic character, borrowing its “catholicity” from Hellenism, which does not owe Christian help at all. The Hellenic evangelist, brought up under the dual pressure of the Old Testament worldview and Judeo-philosophical movements, was supposed to surpass Christ, who supposedly combined Socratic-Platonic concepts with Jewish school science. In any case, the Apostle was an early representative of Hellenic incursions into the closed Christian environment. Knowing Hellenism, which had long influenced Palestine, he assimilated Hellenic elements through Stephen and for the first time paved the true path for the Greek spirit, why Christianity owes gratitude to Hellenism even more than to Judaism. St. Paul opened the door and showed the way to this stranger, becoming the best exponent of the Hellenic movement, which was embodied in him and is reflected in his various epistles with such decisiveness that direct borrowing is visible. He directly contributed to the transition from Jewish sectarianism to pagan beliefs, when, having freed Hellenic Christians from most nomistic demands, he opened wide all the gates for paganism - and the latter, already from the 1st century, began to invade the teachings of Christ and distort it, rewarding with pagan dogmas, for example, about the Trinity in one, and degrading the very idea of \u200b\u200bdeity to Hellenic rudeness. “All the fundamental ideas of Paul’s theology are understandable only when interpreted in the light of Plato’s metaphysical ideas. In other words: where Christianity differs most from Judaism, there it comes closest to Greek thought. And this applies not only to dogmatics, but also to morality.” If such a process could not be completed in a short period, then there is no need to accelerate it, squeezing it within the boundaries of the apostolic era. On the contrary, by paying attention to this historical phenomenon, we are forced to accept that St. Paul was actually the Apostle of the Gnostics and Protestants; in fact, “he never lived, and therefore, of course, could not die.” From the examples presented, it is quite clear the extreme importance of the question of Hellenic influences on Christianity, which thereby acquires a new character and a completely different dignity. The evangelist of tongues found supports for such transformations, and from here broad genetic theories are developed, using the Greco-Roman elements to compensate for the insufficiency of Judeo-rabbinic materials and, by their combined influence, turning Christian doctrines into a natural product of historical evolution. To do this, it is necessary to convince that the main drivers in this direction were precisely the focus of modern intellectual and religious movements, reproduced them in themselves and used them in the interests of further progressive development. This is especially true for St. Paul, who is considered the most typical bearer of Hellenic movements, since he was the first worker of the Christian mission among the Hellenes. It is natural to think of him that he took advantage of the valuable Hellenic results for his own purposes, in accordance with the then historical result of the entire process of religious and philosophical thought. In this case, conscious evangelistic aspirations coincided with compulsory historical inclinations, which predetermine the entire spiritual structure, although they are not always noticed by the individual himself. The latter is a type of its time, often creating its own embodiment. And if the “Historical Paul” had to conform to the ideological trends of his era, satisfy them and respond in their tone, then the “mythical Paul” necessarily turned out to be a hypostasized reflex of his age in its best intellectual expression. This is what Stoicism undoubtedly became for our period, and “Peacockism” leans towards it from all sides and by all factors in its origin and ideological composition. We will focus on this point, first of all, by considering the issue in general and in particular. Before the era of the Lord Savior and in the age of the apostolic Greco-Roman world, it was imbued with Stoic ideas. Christianity, of necessity, had to develop in this element, which is why mutual influence is inevitable. In a certain sense, it must be accepted that the Stoic preliminarys were favorable to Christian success, since they served as convenient soil for Christian seeds. But this undoubted circumstance easily takes on a false color when assistance is exaggerated to such an extent that it turns out to be already a producing cause. In this sense, it is assumed that Stoicism was naturally resolved by Christianity, where many philosophical concepts emerged, especially in ethics, although they were all cleared of their crudeness and Stoic pessimism was suppressed by Christian joy. Nevertheless, the deep influence on early Christianity of the Stoic principles, which were one of the roots, is undeniable. Stoic concepts have put their special stamp on many Christian views - and with the participation of philosophical speculation - Christian growth has acquired in the West, and maintains a purely Stoic character. The widespread Stoic terminology was adopted by Christian leaders and passed into the New Testament, and along with the language, ideological content also penetrated. This will also be true when applied to St. Paul, for whom, theoretically, "it cannot be denied that he has features reminiscent of Stoic philosophy." On the contrary, everything points towards the opposite conclusion. First of all, it is quite likely that the Apostle is knowledgeable in Stoic teachings. For the latter, Tarsus, as a center of Orientalist and Greek education, was a crossroads for migration from the East and then served as an important center from which the most prominent members of the Stoic school excelled. The Cilician capital was a stronghold of Stoicism, and it is natural that Paul, imbued with Greek civilization, had easy access to it and could get acquainted with it even by reading one of the Stoic poets, since he quotes Cleanthes before the Athenians. Not alien to Greek culture in general, knowledgeable in Greek literature and not far from Hellenism, the evangelist back in Tarsus “was brought up in a Stoic atmosphere” and accepted Stoic ideas to such an extent that, while remaining a Pharisee, he was also a Stoic, which is why later he not only proposed Stoic thoughts, but even communicated them in the technical terms of the Stoic school. Other conditions also contributed to this. Eastern in its original origin, Stoicism, in turn, reacted to the Jewish East through Greece so strongly that Pharisaism was only its Jewish form, and Sadduceeism is identified with it by its very name and doctrines. Stoic elements are already seen in the Old Testament and especially in the LXX; they are stated in Judaism, in particular they are found in Essenism, supposedly reflected in Christ, although with significant exaggerations. 1677 It was equally not difficult for Paul to master the Stoic elements through the Pharisees, for example, from Gamaliel in Jerusalem, along with Judeo-Alexandrian theosophy. 1678 Philonism, in contact with Paulinism and influencing it in Christological and soteriological concepts, as well as in the doctrine of flesh and sin, grace and cosmopolitan universalism and in other points, also inspired the evangelist with Stoic sympathies, for Philo submits to Stoic influences even to unnecessary extremes. 1679 We see that the Apostle was heading in different ways towards Stoicism, which could continue to attract him with many attractive sides. It is said that the Stoic teaching was the purest and most sublime in antiquity, where there was no other such heroic school and no more peace-loving and humane sect can be found. The Stoics were essentially strictly religious and especially focused on moral issues, which is why they are considered the best and most prudent thinkers of the ancient world, and their system is called one of the most beautiful and noble phenomena of ancient civilization. From all sides, Stoicism appears before us as the only system that can claim to compete with Christianity, being, as it were, related to it. Hence it is likely that St. Paul made use of these favorable doctrines, and their general knowledge does not require that the most Stoic treatises be studied for this purpose. The Apostle is again brought into close connection with Stoic movements; then many apostolic contemplations are easily reduced to this source. In this regard, completely impartial observers testify to the contact of St. Paul with the ethical-monotheistic movement of the then Greco-Roman world, but is there a direct dependence of direct assimilation here? To answer, you need to take into account the following considerations. In this era, the following considerations need to be taken into account. In this era, stoicism was - literally - in the air, because it corresponded to the spirit of the times; it permeated the whole atmosphere of thought and activity in the Greco-Roman Empire, was a religious faith and a practical code. His ideas were everywhere, widespread and almost universal. This was diligently promoted by the popular “diatribe”, which in lively conversations carried Stoic dogmas to different cities, and they became a walking philosophy. The corresponding philosophical terminology was established everywhere, covering all circles. Under such conditions, the basic Stoic views turn out to be common property, and to explain their presence among educated people it is not at all necessary to assume a special obligation to one or another Stoic authority. In this sense, any coincidences with them in the New Testament do not at all indicate literary use. It is clear that the Apostle of Languages ​​also uses the language of Cynic-Stoic popularization, but the similarity here will only be in the similarity of general ideas, which were independent and equally rooted in the mental mood of the century, and partly had an essentially Christian origin. This common property could not be the exclusive property of anyone, which is why we cannot talk here about borrowing. Of course, in addition to this, the Stoic system contained quite a few special elements reminiscent of Christian contemplation. Isn’t there a subordination of the second to the first in these points by their very origin? But here a new question arises before us: is Greco-Roman Stoicism original? The suspicion on this score is all the more legitimate because the spirit that dominates in him is not Greek, but Eastern. It is even said that he became Hellenic only by accident. In fact, there is not a single famous Stoic from the Greeks, and most were from Semitic cities or colonies. All of them are closely connected with the East, they originally came from there and then from there they came to Rome. It is clear from everything that these were people of the semi-Oriental type - even with Jewish overtones. If in general there was a strong influence of the East on Greece, then for Stoicism Semitic influence with the Jewish elements, which have long penetrated into paganism, is unquestioningly allowed. Fertilized and developed in the West, it was here a Semitic reaction against a special Hellenic-philosophical direction. Eastern in its historical existence, Stoicism is not alien to the actual Jewish reflections, quite clear in doctrinal allusions to original sin, the resurrection of bodies, etc. It notes prophetic trends that have received a unique application in a similar prophetic-apocalyptic tone. Some even call the Stoics a kind of Pharisees of the Hellenic world. As a result, we have that in the Stoic concepts there were enough orientalistic contemplations borrowed from the traditions of the East, which are best preserved in biblical documents. In these cases, the coincidence of New Testament writers with Stoic ideas does not at all establish dependence, since the latter themselves could stem from a biblical source, or for all there was a common fundamental principle in the primordial religious and moral heritage of humanity. And a careful analysis decisively convinces us that in all examples of the parallelism of apostolic thoughts with Stoic ones, Christian forms always turn out to be earlier in comparison with the latter. And if it is true that Stoicism influenced the Apostle’s way of thinking and phraseology, then it is no less certain that there were only common concepts and ordinary moral rules, and the special ethical strictness was not strictly Stoic, but more Semitic. There is no need to add that St. Paul had no incentive at all to resort to secondary aids when he had open access to the pure inspirations that penetrated the Stoic theories. From the category of analogies between the apostolic and stoic doctrines, it is necessary to eliminate two whole categories of truths - widespread - intellectual and biblical - eastern, for which mutual conditionality is absolutely not required theoretically and is hardly permissible in fact, when the whole point is simple parallelism or the commonality of the same source. In addition to this, a third group of a similar nature is being sought. Not original in its origin, Stoicism was not holistic in its internal structure. It often summarized the results of the early religious-philosophical movement, and later formations were distinguished by their eclectic character. And this selection was not strictly consistent in one spirit, when what was taken serves only as material for its own construction. The Stoics often combined opposing teachings together, and - according to the judgment of competent connoisseurs - this was the most contradictory system. There were quite a few alien elements in it, and agreement with them cannot indicate Stoic influences. This observation has full force in certain cases where the relation of the New Testament and the Apostle Paul to Stoic theses is emphasized. A careful examination more than once reveals that the corresponding doctrines were proclaimed before the Stoic exponents and could have been known in addition to the latter. There are enough examples of this kind in Seneca, and by their totality they convince that all such elements were an integral part of the education of that time and were assimilated from it without any obligations to known authorities or systems, which is why they did not at all indicate the acceptance of certain school-philosophical views. For all the noted features, Stoicism - as a syncretically popular ethical philosophy - was the common property of the later Greco-Roman enlightenment of 1680 and therefore could not serve as a special supplier of understandable doctrines. As for his typical properties, which gave him an individual physiognomy, here the genetic kinship of Christianity with him is incredible on fundamental grounds. Let us highlight everything private, random and improper. With this exception, we end up with a scheme that is almost directly anti-Christian. In essence, the Stoics were the most complete materialists in their understanding of being, in its entirety. They preached transcendental materialism, which included the deity itself, since they recognized only substance and quality, or matter and force. Of course, for them, matter is destroyed in the mind, but for this reason everything rational materializes. Thus, pantheism was resolved organically - by dynamic materialism. From time to time they say that the latter was still relative. And, without a doubt, it is true that the Stoics often talk about spirituality, but we must not forget that everywhere here one simply thinks of a refined materiality, which appears not due to the weakness of pneumatic contemplations, but due to the requirements of a system alien to pneumaticity. In Seneca we find that he sometimes notes the supreme principle of materiality and even strives to maintain their isolation, but in fact, for him God is “extended and materially distributed throughout the whole world,” which is why he is actually the world in the totality of visible and invisible things. With such absolute materialism, a single fundamental principle is necessarily assumed, penetrating everything and producing everything from itself. The soul of the whole world inevitably merges with the deity, and all phenomenality acquires a certain divine dignity, being a form of manifestation of the highest principle in external expression. The result is pure materialistic pantheism, which permeates all Stoic metaphysics, where the identity natura = deus = ratio is categorically affirmed, so much so that God without the world is already a simple potentiality or a pure abstraction. This property appears in all the most important Stoics of the era we are interested in. It is said about Seneca that his personal element was very noticeable in the concept of the deity, which was depicted with the features of individuality, but in the end it turns out that here God and nature are just different names and are not actually separated from each other, since the deity is actually a refined ether that actually coincides with the world. It is clear that with such fundamental vagueness, this philosopher was not firm in his religious views about God, and sometimes leaned towards skepticism. Epictetus was the best theologian of the ancient Stoa. He also does not reject pantheistic premises at all. Like others, all his efforts were aimed at reconciliation with polytheism, and different deities were represented as particular manifestations of a common divinity. Rationalistic dogmatism, being a true signature of Stoicism, was also reflected at this point, where he, trying to save pagan mythology with various tricks of reinterpretation, defended popular beliefs, justified them and was himself imbued with characteristic contemplations. Marcus Aurelius freely incorporated popular mythological elements and pagan rituals into his design. Equally, Seneca mixes in a lot of mythological elements when he tries to give more of a fundamental formula, according to which the deity is generalized with nature or immanent reason to the point of loss of certainty. In the end, for the Stoics, God disappears behind the world and the blind law of naturalness. Under such conditions, the objectivity of the very idea of ​​deity was doubtful for Seneca, and religiosity was deprived of a real basis. Pantheistic - materialistic views necessarily had to be crowned with the conviction that everything that exists is divine - normal. Stoicism was naturally resolved by the optimism that prevails in Epictetus, while Seneca’s pessimistic tones were a deviation from logical consistency. Behind all this, deep down, lies an unshakable confidence that everything is happening and developing steadily and does not allow arbitrary fluctuations. The deity itself is certainly bound by this necessity or fate, although such is the very expression of the will of God; therefore, when mentioning the latter, everything is limited to the recognition that it has been established and unchangeable from eternity, it is actually fate. This is how no less absolute determinism arises. His influence is undeniable in many ways. Since everything in the world flows with normal and natural correctness, there is no room left for external control. Free divine guidance is decisively eliminated. Even with shades of personal understanding, God among the Stoics, being, as it were, an individual, does not descend to earth from his throne at all, or deistically does not care about little things. From this side, it is true that the philosophical ideas of providence - with all their similarities - do not coincide with the Jewish-biblical ones both in justification and in particulars. Stoicism rested on the dogma of fate and here was a contradiction to Christian providence, with which it sometimes comes into contact only in elements of semantic origin. Providence turns into blind inexorability, acting fatalistically - and in Marcus Aurelius, omnipotent fate reigns everywhere, although he was the best stoic moralist. Everything in the world moves with predestiny inexorability. There is neither support nor motivation for human moral development, for the freedom preached by the Stoics is actually an illusion. This is indisputable from all points of view. True, man serves as the greatest manifestation of divinity and thereby seems to receive a supreme purpose. But at the same time, the moral ideal itself is lost as the desired goal. On the contrary, it will be in the personality itself according to its highest drives, which require empirically - the most precise expression. In this case, everyone is God for himself and, under the guise of the latter, honors himself as his equal. Stoic morality, a system of extreme rationalism, was a product of the pride of self-deification and could only influence morally proud minds. She had nothing in front and everything was behind, or in immediate possession. There is no point of attraction for human aspirations. Equally, there are not enough incentives. Everything, being divine, will be ethically normal to one degree or another. Then it is inevitable that there is no real sinfulness, and that existing moral evil is partly even necessary in the world. Although the ancient Stoics noted a tendency towards sin, they denied its innateness and looked for reasons for it in ordinary human weakness. It reflected only the simple limitations of logic, which caused deviation from the natural laws of nature and eliminated the moral need for repentance. The truly ethical moment was completely smoothed out and partly destroyed. It is clear that along with this, any need for progressive improvement both for individuals and for the whole cosmos disappeared. It is not surprising that Epictetus did not allow redemption for a world that, although disastrous, was quite normal. Under such conditions there was no way out and no provision was made for getting rid of the world's disorder. In the interests of achieving harmony, it was necessary to cherish hope for the suppression of spontaneous anomalies, meanwhile for Stoicism they were legitimate phenomena, and their inevitability was confessed even with the gloomiest look, if, for example, Seneca said that we were, are and will remain evil, living among the bad. The only remedy was to move away from ghostliness and leave its painful sphere by ending subordination. Since the latter was created by life itself, then it was precisely this that had to be interrupted. Hence, the stoic preaching of suicide (patel exitus) as a radical panacea for all evils is logically natural. In this case, later Stoicism, acting in an era of moral decline and special disorganization, gave philosophical sanction to the general mood. If Hegel’s formula is true that philosophy is a focus, reflecting the entire corresponding age, then Stoic was here the embodiment of the intellectual and moral decay that reigned around the time of Christ the Savior. It was a product of the despair that dominated Roman society, amid general religious skepticism, and it sanctified the natural result of such movements. All the Stoics actually taught only to die well. For all, the proclamation of suicide was an essential dogma, and the blessed Epictetus recommended it in the spirit of the ancient stoa, no less than Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. 1681 In this respect, the Stoic system was truly an unnatural morality and decisively opposed to all Christian hopes. Lacking a higher goal and ethical motivation, it necessarily pushed a person to terrible arbitrariness. This was also facilitated by the fact that no perfect justification for moral human stress was found. For them, all ideals, motivations and means are drawn from humanity itself, and therefore the final crown of all exploits must lie in this sphere of what is accessible to human efforts. Stoic virtue is absolutely self-sufficient and proudly withdraws into itself, without demanding higher rewards. For this reason, the Stoics had no ethical need for the immortality of the soul. Along with this, there was no metaphysical basis for this. Since personality is simply a mode of divinity, then the first must only be resolved into the second, which, in turn, is devoid of individuality. A person expects a traceless absorption with his peculiarity. Therefore, the Stoics, purely silent about God, spoke with uncertainty about the future life. According to the Roman Epicurean skepticism, known from the inscriptions, the latter has always been controversial and is not mentioned at all by Epictetus, being a problem for Cicero as well. Stoicism almost directly denied the idea of ​​immortality, which was extremely vague for him. Seneca on this point was alien to Christian hopes and not only hesitated and was confused in his views, but was sometimes inclined to deny the afterlife and preached the complete destruction of man. If the Romans considered the soul to be an incorporeal divine part, this did not at all ensure indestructibility. Cornut (under Nero) - like Panetius (b. 185 - 180, d. 111 - 109 BC) - recognized its destruction along with the body, and Marcus Aurelius taught that the human soul dissolves in the world or in the deity, just as a bodily organism disintegrates into its elements. Only Posidonius (born after 135, died no later than 51 BC) allowed immortality. Finally, another important feature is that the contingent hopes of the future were not ethically illuminated; in them there is absolutely no attitude towards the question of eliminating prevailing anomalies and rewarding moral zeal. Stoic ethics, having no religious motivation 1682 and eschatological support, becomes egoistic 1683 and is least suitable for Christian ethics. For all fundamental reasons, Stoic morality, although similar in appearance, is contrary to biblical and Christian principles, but it loses ground even when actually discovered, which turns out to be no less different. If everything is divine, then evil is necessary and normal. In this capacity, it, being an integral link in the chain of beating, serves to ensure its integrity and from this side turns out to be beneficial. On the contrary, good, breaking into this combination and disturbing the balance, will be an ethically harmful violation of the “laws of nature,” when life in accordance with them was the greatest Stoic ideal. Given such premises, there was a very strong and dangerous inclination towards the most extreme theories, and here the possibility was not excluded that evil was portrayed as good, which was only transformed into evil. Empirically, morality seemed to be completely abolished and deprived of practical effectiveness, for it had to chase ghosts. Then any ethical activity could be carried out only in the personal interests of developing abilities to the highest degree. Here morality ceases to be objective and is imbued with unsympathetic subjectivism. Having no external ideal, she uses only individual resources, building each on her own strength. This isolation necessarily imparted to all moral tensions the deeply egoistic character of proud self-exaltation, which significantly suppressed glimpses of religiosity and significantly distinguished it from Christianity. 1684 The Stoic works not for the sake of achievement and not for the benefit of another, but - first of all - for himself, since his neighbor is actually a simple means for exercising virtue. In this light, all Stoic expressions, similar to Christian ones, take on a completely opposite meaning if Marcus Aurelius commands to love our enemies more because they cannot harm us. It is rather selfish pride, destroyed by Christianity alone. Mercy itself is based entirely on egoism, for for the Stoic philosopher it stemmed from caring not for others, but primarily for oneself. Even Epictetus reveals severe astringency and a lack of benevolent sympathy, according to the precepts of the school. In connection with this, contempt for the needy was necessary and all true sympathy for weakness, as deserving of healing, was eradicated. Everything is directed towards achieving equanimity of spirit, and the coldness of lifeless and deadening dispassion reigns if virtue is only apathy. The wise do not mourn the dead and shun everything weak. Without sanctioning the widespread barbaric custom of throwing away children, Seneca found it prudent to kill freaks and sickly babies. His clementia should not have Misericordia, and the second does not allow condescension to the inferior and helpless, otherwise it itself will be a weakness and even a vice. The stoic sage does not want and does not know how to forgive, and his restraint declares love for his wife to be a reprehensible excess. Such unnatural morality could not have practical effectiveness and turned into sterile theoretical reasoning, strong only in rhetoric. There were two significant reasons for this. The optimism of stoic fatalism saw an equal divinity everywhere, which penetrates everything and is reflected in everything with characteristic energy. Then everything turned out to be equally divine with the same value. It is not surprising that here both virtue and truth, like evil and lies, did not have gradual gradations, being always integral. In the absence of objectively ideal tasks, all attention is focused on the details of behavior in order to maintain stoic importance everywhere. This is why Epictetus is so persistent in his instructions regarding clothing and tries so hard to convince people not to cut their beards. Instead of an ethical system, the result is a scrupulous casuistry, reminiscent of the Jesuit in its bad manifestations. This pettiness of pompous scrupulousness is least suitable for the flourishing of true morality, which can kill in the very bud. She had no strength for vital activities, but at the same time there was no extensive soil for application. Stoicism built everything with its own human means based on the fundamental recognition of Epictetus that God is reason, which, of course, was sufficient for all religious and moral needs. On this side, a special intellectual culture was necessary in order to provide oneself with the very opportunity for stoic growth according to the precepts of the school. It is inevitable that the latter, while portraying itself as humanitarian - universal in principles, was in fact aristocratic - isolated and was recruited only from learned confessors of the Stoic symbol. In it we see only the history of individuals, since it was designed for idle intelligent people and its abstract reforms did not affect the people, who - in turn - remained far from any philosophical aspirations. The practical lifelessness of the system led to real futility. 1685 On this subject, Mommsen remarks extremely poisonously that the actual result of Stoic propaganda was simply the fact that in two or three noble houses the food was not so tasty. This exaggeration is only limited, but the main idea does not waver at all if one sees the glory of Stoicism in the fact that it created Musonius Rufus (2nd half of the 1st century), Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. The already exceptional rarity of such isolated examples, given the prevalence of Stoicism, irresistibly testifies that fruitfulness was not necessary for the latter by its very nature, why it is a school of individuals, not masses, and in general achieved the most insignificant results. It had absolutely no reserves for renewing the world. Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus gave only good books, while Christianity conquered and revived the universe. It is clear that Christian morality is not at all a plagiarism from Stoic morality, and one cannot think of the Apostle of Languages ​​that the Stoic ore has been refined and turned into gold. On the contrary, Christian success convinces with certainty that everything here was not done according to stoicism, and contrary to it, salvation was not based in man himself, but in Christ, as the source of spiritual life, pouring out on all those who suffer and are burdened. The Stoics, on the other hand, focused entirely on what was accessible to human means, from which it is clear that the ultimate Stoic tendencies are certainly different from Christian ones. Stoic wisdom tries to protect the spiritual elements and sharpen the contrast with the lower ones, which it cannot overcome and subordinate. At best, the world fire has consumed all discord, but then the old wandering will begin again if nirvana does not come. This means that Stoic philosophy - in an ethical sense - affirms the dualism of God and nature, when in the Christian religion they are reconciled. Stoic unification can only provide the crowning of human efforts in which one's own energy achieves supremacy over everything. Here humanity rises to the level of deity, displaces and absorbs it, which is why Stoicism was actually a non-religious system. A new antithesis regarding the completion of the world's destinies is outlined before us: according to the Christian hope of St. Paul, in this case, God will be all in all (1 Cor. XV, 28), while the Stoics believed that “all in all” will be man himself. 1686 We have outlined in general terms the most important Stoic doctrines and now see that on all essential points they are directly opposed to Christian ones, or are completely disparate. Despite external similarity, internal contradiction prevails everywhere, for similar ideas are always based on different principles. 1687 Christian evangelism and Stoicism were only parallel, but qualitatively they did not coincide with each other at all. True, there was quite a lot in Christianity that was prepared naturally in the historical process, and from this side there is no reason to consider all consonant elements necessarily borrowed from the Christian environment. It is impossible to deny in advance the Christian “infiltrations” - especially in Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, but neither of them had any meaningful Christian borrowings; if for the first, so lofty in his views, the opposite is sometimes allowed, they still state that the basic Christian principles were theoretically unacceptable for him. The strength of this will make the independence of Christianity all the more indisputable. It took advantage of the prepared mood, but genetically it is in no way connected in its origin and content with Stoicism, since they were mutually opposite in nature or simply incompatible. There are not and cannot be any strictly Stoic elements in the essence of Christian contemplation. Naturally, Stoicism somewhat resembles Christian truths only when it deviates from its fundamental foundations and - mainly - in the ethical field of universal human desires. In this case, everything good with Marcus Aurelius comes not from philosophy, but from the kindness of his heart - and he was the best of his contemporaries only when he was the worst Stoic. Epictetus almost completely loses his Stoic guise in examples of similarities with Christianity, and for him glimpses of faith in a personal God are “the violence of the human heart over the doctrine of the philosopher.” In Seneca, humanity often triumphs over the system due to the influence of the feeling that is heard in cosmopolitan hopes and regarding universal brotherly love, as well as in other cases, common sense fights with philosophical consistency. The religious conscience of the Stoics sometimes instinctively rejects school theology, and on the issue of recognizing freedom we see in them “a logical inconsistency that honors their character, but condemns their principles,” why “their morality is good only because it is untrue to dogma.” These observations clearly reveal that the main theoretical principles of Stoicism were dissimilar and hostile to Christian ones. Here, the closer the contact, the stronger the internal difference. All the main analogies and particular parallels convince us of this. It is said that there was an intimate relationship between the new faith and the Stoic teaching, and with the Apostle Paul the personal divine mediator in the Son of God and in Christ is a transformation of the Stoic Logos; with an ascetic - derogatory view of man - the latter acquired from the Stoics the personal character of an incorruptible being who serves to unite people with God and is capable of supporting mortals in struggle and suffering with his sympathy and assistance. Based on the above, it should be indisputable that all such hints have a metaphorical meaning in Stoicism, and not at all their own. True, Seneca has therapeutic features, because in connection with ethical contrasts - sensuality and rationality, materiality and spirituality - he sometimes puts forward personal understanding against pantheistic, but still does not go beyond the Stoic boundaries and does not achieve a clear idea of ​​​​divine individuality. And this is natural, since if the deity itself could not be a stable hypostasis in the Stoic system, then it is all the more doubtful that such a quality belongs to a secondary principle. For the root cause, it is even more acceptable that, due to its reasonable activity, it was drawn with personal properties, but they were not required for the executive body. Therefore we see that the Stoic God is sometimes rewarded with personal attributes, but they are never assimilated to the Logos. On the other hand, there is no need to exaggerate the personal predicates of the Stoic mediator - and careful interpretation opens up a completely different perspective. The pantheistic impersonality of the divine principle poorly explained the personal rationality of the divine dispensation and government, which immediate consciousness assessed from observations of human behavior. The general - divine referred to the particular - specific, while the second received the imprint of an individual agent implementing ideal plans. But the productive soil and sovereign basis for this illusory individuality will always be pantheistic, which is why it absorbs all isolation in its abysses. The Stoic Logos postulates pantheism and is its own God, devoid of personal merits, for ontologically it merges with the universal divinity, and under personal epithets it again indicates it in rational action, which to our imagination seems personal, although it is simply necessary. On the contrary, at St. Paul confesses a strict personality in the Son of God, from which it is inevitable that at this point the Apostle of the tongues denied all Stoic dogma, which was not suitable for him even as material. For these reasons, it is absolutely impossible to accept the hypothetical conjecture regarding the possibility that the Stoic concepts are somewhat reflected in the apostolic view regarding the Spirit of God or the glorified heavenly Christ living in those blessed with grace, just as others assimilate the apostolic doctrine of the second or last Adam to the influence of Judaism. There are many misunderstandings here, and without them all rapprochements will be mythical. First of all, the Holy Spirit is unfairly and tendentiously considered impersonal for the Hellenic evangelist, since the very mission of the personal successor of the feat of the personal Son of God - the Redeemer obligated him to accept a personal personality in Him. Without it, the Apostle thinks only spiritually - the divine mood in Christians as perceived from the life-giving spirituality of Christ. In this case, the personal influence of the Lord Savior is certainly assumed, Who communicates to people His personal acquisitions by the title of the Son of Man. No less than that, personal assimilation is affirmed with the active participation and reasonable aspiration of individual forces. Before us is a living interaction between two personalities. This is not and is not allowed in Stoicism. According to him, a single divine energy is conceived everywhere, developing with steady and predetermined naturalness. At the same time, a person does not have the spirit of God, as a property borrowed from the divine essence, but the same one as in God, from Whom the mortal differs only in the degree of detection, and in the superiority of his own moral achievement is even higher than the deity, as perfect only by nature or without any personal effort. Of course, this excludes actual personal communication. There is no soil for it. Even if both sides are understood personally, there is still no direct mutual relationship between them, since they are not connected by themselves, for they communicate through their primary principle, which produces both equally and therefore unites in itself. Their contact inevitably loses its personal character, and will not be a free union, but a forced subordination according to the primordial laws of existence. This is a necessity, equally obligatory for God and for people - and here Stoicism radically diverges from the apostolic gospel. It also emphasizes Stoic analogies in fatalistic terms - especially in the doctrine of election formulated in the Epistle to the Romans. But, in any case, St. Here, too, Paul departs from the idea of ​​a personal God and does not defend predestinatism itself, protecting only the sovereignty of God in historical destinies, where the wise and good will of God always and certainly triumphs despite all the deviations of human freedom, which serves divine plans and in its very anomalies. All these moments are from the stoic. They are not seen in anthropological questions either. The parallelism regarding trichotomy is rather illusory, for for the Apostle (in 1 Thessal. V, 23) this idea is very doubtful and is not important in his system, which is almost indifferent to such theories. It is also indicated that, not without philosophical and stoic participation, St. Paul eliminates the irreconcilable opposition between spirituality and physicality, if expected (in 1 Cor. XV, 44). But this bright hope confirms nothing more than that the evangelist did not recognize the dualistic incompatibility of these principles and accepted the possibility of subordinating one to the other. Their real unification rests on particularity and does not at all resemble the Stoic transformation of the spirit itself into bodily forms. 1688 This latter is normal under the “all-materialism” and “pansomatism” of the Stoics and in the Apostle can only be found through a tendentious conviction, as if for him spirituality was material, and corporeality was spiritualized in the “flesh”. 1689 Such stretches only expose the unnaturalness of rapprochement. They see no data even when considering the fate of a person. To much astonishment, it is said that redemption is outlined in St. Pavel postoically. The fact is put forward that in Stoicism the sage was the deliverance of hopes and the salvation of the world, just as in the Apostle humanity through Christ is freed from sin and oath. This is explained by the apostolic innovation, which changed the “autosoteric” doctrine of “salvation” among the Synoptics with the “etherosoteric” teaching - about the possibility of being saved only through another. External similarity does not indicate internal affinity in this subject either. It is forgotten that we are talking about commenting on a fact, which is reflected in the interpretation, where the fidelity of reproduction eliminates any guesswork about external dependence, conceivable only if there is inaccuracy in the understanding of the event. The question immediately takes on a tendentious direction with a pre-occupied solution of many fundamental aspects. But with any understanding, it will remain an unshakable axiom that the idea of ​​​​substitutionary propitiation is typically biblical and its apostolic form and application are entirely borrowed from biblical contemplations. Pagan-Hellenic concepts could not give special shades of the apostolic image. It is dominated by the Semitic terminology of cult language when it is interpreted about the reconciliation of humanity by the blood of Christ. This further exacerbates the difference in anthropology between Christianity and Stoicism, which, naturally, turn out to be not so consistent in ethics. The latter was the favorite area of ​​research of the Stoic school, which achieved the best success and greatest glory in it, and Roman Stoicism was actually practical, being more of a religious and moral sermon than a special philosophy. Here mutual contact is most likely, and it is stated for the most important parts of Christian morality. Everything here is based on the principle of freedom; They think about her that she is described by St. Paul is not Jewish and is colored by a Stoic flavor, which is noticed even in the corresponding Jewish doctrines, since there were Jewish Stoics and Jewish Stoicism, and “the sect of the Pharisees (supposedly) had an essential affinity” with the latter. According to this, external Stoic participation is accepted. This is concluded by coincidence with Epictetus regarding human helplessness under the pressure of passions and the impossibility of getting rid of them in one’s own way (Rom. VII, 14. 15. 18). The main thing is that the idea of ​​freedom is fragmented by the Apostle and presented in different meanings, the lack of unity of which seems to convince us that in the Christian gospel different elements merge that do not flow organically from the Christian essence itself. This reasoning would, perhaps, be solid if the incriminated “various caliber” of the apostolic teachings were not exaggerated to such an extent that it turns out to be fictitious. There is no dispute that the evangelist mainly puts forward three points - freedom from the law, from sin and from the world, with its joys and sufferings - but for him they were not at all disparate and irreconcilable in the highest principle. In fact, there is absolutely the opposite, that all these sides are threefold refraction of a common force, which both acts and is commented on differently, depending on the characteristics of a particular environment. According to the apostolic conviction, in Christianity a person is truly adopted by God, for he is mysteriously identified with the Son of God. Each of those blessed fundamentally possesses sonship with God, and therefore enjoys filial - unhindered access to the Heavenly Father and, with filial independence, disposes of himself in the sphere of God's inheritance. With such dignity, the believer is free from constraining legalistic norms, suitable only for slavish sinfulness, since he enjoys freely - filial closeness to the Almighty and in religious and moral behavior is determined by the own nature of his filial title. Naturally, by holding filial prerogatives and living in God, a Christian is beyond sin and above the world. All these external manifestations rest on sonship with God, and it is essentially Christian, which is why those particulars that cannot be assimilated by Stoicism, which suffered from fundamental instability on the issue of freedom, will also be entirely Christian. This difference can be seen from the actual comparison with Epictetus. He is found to have a particularly close connection with Paul's epistles in terms of ideas, language and forms of rhetorical expression. However, everyone is forced to agree that, in revealing liberation from passions as opposed to enslavement to them, St. Paul gives thought a turn that is extremely unstoic, eliminating the human autonomy in salvation that inspired the Stoics. For them, the world was an obstacle, insurmountable by their own activity, and they felt alien on earth, like involuntary strangers and wanderers, trying to get rid of the constricting bonds of prison. Something similar is found in the Hellenic evangelist (1 Cor. VII, 29. 32 - 35), but still this is not an imitation of Stoic lamentations. A Christian is not bound by worldly relationships, exceeding them by his constant dwelling in God. Nevertheless, these everyday bonds - like our entire cosmic existence - do not have a fundamental hostility to Christian ideals, from which the ethical task of subordinating everything worldly and transforming it in the Christian spirit is outlined. The world itself is a temporary refuge only because it does not accommodate Christian purity, but it is accessible to Christian transformation into a “new land” worthy of residence for the children of God, and until then it serves as a field and means for the ethical growth of people as created beings, who through their own deeds must secure for themselves the grace-filled privileges of redemptive rebirth. Stoicism recommended a completely different attitude of constant opposition to the cosmos, and it did not have Christian hopes and apostolic hopes. The difference is undeniable on both sides. Stoic morality energetically promotes abstinence and renunciation (Epictetus in Gell. N. att. XVII, 19: 5) and outwardly resembles Christian morality. Despite all this, the main motives and interests are not at all similar. The Stoic is unable to conquer the world and conquer his goals. Then the only way to realize school requirements will be through the most possible withdrawal, which is exhausted in itself and does not promise anything in the future. Everything is done out of necessity and without any enlightenment about the upcoming crowning; there is neither Christian voluntariness nor apostolic joy here. Ethical action seems to be unequal both in its normal course and in its deviations. It is very characteristic here that the Apostle omits the most important terms with which virtues are described in Stoicism. And if they assert the influence of the Stoic catalog of vices on Christian lists, then 1) for this there are closer parallels and 2) in St. Paul's classification is based on purely Christian principles. The latter oblige a person to continuously guard his grace-filled prerogatives and guarantee him filial autocracy in the possession of God's property. In Stoic dogmatics, the proud self-awareness of adherents is inseparable from the powerlessness to triumph over cosmic obstacles and will strengthen in the higher spheres, which is why the abandonment of the ethical struggle with the cessation of the conditions causing it or human existence itself is inevitable. It is necessary that the result of an ethical feat is indicated differently - for the Apostle in the triumph of sonship with God, for the Stoics in suicide. With such a difference in mood, the internal regulator should have been drawn differently in both, just as the object of moral perception was not commented on in the same way. But they say that the concept of conscience in St. Paul is Greek, because it is consistent with the interpretation of secular writers, meaning a person’s knowledge of something - or together with himself - with the participation of his own assessment of the innate internal criterion. In particular, the Stoic medium is especially put forward here. The Hellenic origin of this doctrine is all the more significant because it is one of the most important provisions of the vital and practical teaching of the apostles. This is seen as an example of the acquaintance of St. Paul with Stoic vocabulary from which knowledge of the doctrines or writings of the school is argued. We can agree that the pagan world was the basis for the emergence of theoretical concepts of conscience. It is equally impossible to argue that the Stoics worked a lot on developing this issue, and they come across correct judgments such as Seneca’s view that conscience is the guardian of human moral dignity. For Stoicism, this is the final arbiter and decider of human moral behavior, since the goal and motives for it are gleaned from human nature, which ethically commands through conscience. It contains the fullness of moral self-awareness and serves as an organ for determining qualities in its empirical manifestations. Naturally, in Stoic views the difference between these two moments is smoothed out, which is why conscience turns out to be both an ethical legislator and a moral judge. At this point, the apostolic teaching about the innate internal law (Rom. II, 14 - 16) is not of Stoic origin, not only due to its dependence on personal experience, but also due to its fundamental dissimilarity, since the Greeks and Romans knew only the judging conscience. For Christianity, this natural voice of God does not have such unconditionality. He is not at all an absolute bearer of moral impulses and is actually only a sensitive metronome of moral phenomena (cf. Rom. II, 15), acting in the role of an instinctive connoisseur of empirical moral acts. Here he notes the actual negative aspects - and not at all the producer of perfection, in which he is silent, but a protest against abnormalities, although even here it is not final, since it is sometimes “weak” (1 Cor. VIII, 7), “burned” (1 Tim. IV, 2), “defiled” (Tit. I, 15), or “evil” (Heb. X, 22). This difference is rooted in the essence of views on man as a willing subject. According to Stoicism, he is autonomous and absolute in his activities, which he himself judges. The reason for this is that everyone has his own identity due to the strength and extent of his natural independence in his actions. Where the source of the latter is, there is their equalizer. And this is man himself, due to his inseparable freedom in his moral structure. On the contrary, in Christianity such privileges are borrowed from a sphere that surpasses human potentialities. He who has been blessed is free only because he has been adopted as sons in Christ and can dispose of things with filial independence. Christian freedom follows from sonship with God and is its manifestation; it serves as a correlator to it. The natural abilities of the will are for her more an instrument of execution, but not a source that produces them and completely covers them. This is the idea of ​​St. Paul is purely religious and supranatural, while the Stoic concept is empirical - psychological in nature. Christianity exceeds the Stoic level, and Stoicism by itself is not able to rise to Christian pomp. They are on different planes and offer different prospects for human domination. But they claim that it is precisely at this point that the most striking analogies are observed. The Stoic, retreating into himself from the world, felt everywhere alien to him, and for him every place was equally indifferent, for his true life was concentrated exclusively in himself. It is not surprising that his fatherland was the entire universe, hence Stoic universalism. They think that these contemplations were reflected in apostolic cosmopolitanism with the recognition of heavenly citizenship and universal brotherhood of members of a single organism, destroying external gradations (1 Cor. XII, 12 f. 27. Philip. III, 20. Eph. II, 19. Philip. I, 27. Rom. XII, 5. Gal. III, 28. Col. III, 11). The transition from early Christian Judeo-nationalistic particularism to later universality is explained by Stoic influence, when - in parallel to the Stoic equation of all by participation in the Logos - St. Paul also began to preach in reference to the Lord the Redeemer. This resemblance is completely deceptive, although from the ostentatious side it is quite dazzling. We know that Stoic logic is inseparable from Stoic principles. In a fundamental sense, the Stoic Logos coincides with the human mind, as an individual reflection of the deity, and therefore, for example, in Epictetus, man is revered as the son of God pantheistically, as the bearer of the divine spirit. Stoic “universality” actually means that all people have rationality. The theoretical support will again be psychological, but so will the empirical justification, which is drawn from the equal unsuitability of cosmic conditions, since they are insurmountable for human energy. A person is at home everywhere only because he does not find it anywhere outside himself. In Christianity, all the prerequisites are completely different. In it, the actual equality of people is ensured by the same advantages in sonship to God, and everyone is brothers with each other. This concept is essentially religious and is psychologically supported by the conviction of ultimate human helplessness, in which humanity is incapable of mutual fraternal unity. It is obvious that the idea here is anti-Stoic, from where the disagreement extends to the result. Actually, Christian brotherhood actually embraces only actual children of God by adoption in Christ. Christian universalism (of actual right, and not of abstract possibility) coincides with sonship of God and does not go beyond its limits, which is why in the empirical revelation of the kingdom of God it is always narrower than human quantity and will merge with it not before the end of world history, when “God will be all in all” (1 Cor. XV, 28). 1690 In terms of these properties, Pavlov’s universalistic schemes are not at all Stoic, for they are drawn from the teachings of the Lord the Savior and are extracted through penetration into the mysterious depth of His redemptive feat. Accordingly, the attitude towards the world is different. A Christian is independent of him only due to the fact that the roots of Christian existence lie outside worldly limitations. By virtue of the dignity of the son of God, the believer leaves the cosmic framework and is regulated in a new area by the divine laws. Ordinary human norms are left behind, but are not crossed out, despite the factual presence of an indisputable existence. Christianity does not force an unnatural denial of the gradations existing in humanity, but rises above them and strives to bring them closer to itself through internal transformation. There is no barbarian, no Scythian, no male or female (Rom. X, 12. 1 Cor. XII, 13. Gal. III, 28. V, 6. Col. III, 11) only because of the strength of their complete presence in Christ, where everything is determined by divine principles; however, empirically no one ceases to be himself, and the Negro retains his national identity no less than a Greek or Russian. All remain in the calling in which they were called (1 Cor. VII, 20), although they are in no way subordinate to grace-filled privileges and try to adapt everything external to them. Equally, family-state ties are not violated, for the new universal Christian citizenship relates only to the religious sphere of sonship with God, and not to civil-political obligation before the father and the fatherland. Christian cosmopolitanism is religiously supranatural and by its nature different from Stoic, as psychologically - political. For empirical reality, in the first case, it will be an acquired ideal that contributes to its implementation and illuminates the path for this; in the second, it will be a utopian illusion and illusory self-deception. Naturally, for a Stoic and a Christian the world is not depicted in the same way. True, both note the superiority of the sage and his triumph under the most external constraints (see 2 Cor. VI, 4 ff., esp. 8 ff.); here they see a reflection of the lessons of Stoicism learned by the Apostle back in Stoic Tarsus, together with the Greek language of the Stoic type, which St. Pavel was excellent. There are many other analogies here in the depiction of the bearer of wisdom (see 1 Cor. IV, 8. 10. III, 22. 2 Cor. VI, 10. IX, 8. 11. Philip. IV, 11. 13. 18) according to his royal dignity in every situation ( 1 Cor. IV, 8), since he is always and naturally rich ( 2 Cor. VI, 10 and cf. Mo. V, 5), an exceptional judge for himself (1 Cor. II, 15), not subject to the deadly law, rejecting worldly knowledge (1 Cor. I, 27. XIII, 9) and fulfilling only one virtue - love, preferring abstinence from women in the spirit of Epictetus. These parallels seem so significant that the Apostle seemed to have the ideal of a Stoic philosopher directly before him. In this tone, the putting on of Christ is supposedly described (Rom. XIII, 14. Gal. III, 27) like the Stoic commandment about uplifting the souls of great men. Then - in deviation from the Judaistic baseness - and the kingdom of God turns out to be above all - free (Gal. IV, 26) in the spirit of Stoic autonomy and universality. All these particulars are similar except in appearance. In Stoicism they are based on a psychological basis and affirm only the intellectual dignity of a person who, according to it, recognizes himself as autocratically rich and independent of worldly ties (for example, family), united with rational beings by the mutual attraction of love and together with them forming a union of free citizenship with mutual imitation in the great. Christianity is built on the religious basis of its triumph in Christ through the power of grace-natural fusion with Him. Hence the two fundamental features that 1) there it is interpreted about cosmic phenomenality, here about supranatural reality, 2) there it is a utopian dream of proud despair, here it is the living possession of an enthusiastic and awe-inspiring faith. It is clear that both look at the world - and activities in it are very different. At this point, Epictetus often comes into contact with the apostolic gospel, but a careful analysis convinces of mutual insubordination. Here's a visual illustration. The characteristic consonance regarding God's calling for man on earth is emphasized (cf. Epict. Diss. I, 29 and 1 Cor. VII, 20. Eph. IV, 1. 2 Tim. I, 9), but there is great disharmony hidden here. The pagan sage compares human life with acting on stage, 1691 where, despite any mask, the actor’s voice is the same; Likewise, in the arena of life one must play, keeping unchanged the “calling” to testify to God through self-affirmation of good will. The thought, of course, is sublime, but it does not at all coincide with the apostolic one, which confirms the “title” of communion with God, independent of appearance, according to our sonship with God in Christ. The cardinal difference is that in the first case the psychological autonomism of self-deluded arrogance is protected naturalistically, in the second the sovereignty of the power of God, triumphant in human weakness, is stated. This in Christianity ensured a corresponding crowning in the future according to its inherent energy. Under such conditions, it is extremely surprising to hear that the Christian religion is developing the Greco-philosophical, Stoic doctrine of immortality, since there was no such thing in the Old Testament. But the last statement is factually false. Even admitting that Israel’s faith in the afterlife developed gradually, it is stated decisively that in the Hellenistic book of the Wisdom of Solomon, the foundations of eschatology remain biblical, and it accepts the bodily resurrection of the dead (saints). In general, Christianity would not need outside help, having support for its hopes in the increasing life-giving nature of Christ. Here, the least conceivable thing is the assistance of Stoicism, which was particularly vague in this subject and was generally full of controversy and heteroglossia in the highest questions of existence. This means, both in principle and in particulars, the Stoic view itself is either not consistent with the Christian one, or is contrary to it. Consonances are usually only external. They are often found in “common places” of the then mental heritage, in other cases they refer to points where Stoicism changes from its school principles. This, for example, is observed in ethics, where the most sympathetic Stoic moralist Epictetus most deviates from Stoic foundations. It should not be distorted by terminological coincidences, which are most deceptive. Stoic language was in many ways superior to the ultra-materialism of the system, which often used unusual Orientalist phraseology. This simply once again refutes the exaggerated thesis that Seneca and Marcus Aurelius are dominated by an entirely Greek spirit. On the contrary, when approaching Christianity, completely different trends of non-original origin of a Semitic-Orientalistic nature are noticed among the Stoics. Historical references do not in the least confirm internal genetic affinity, and this must be recognized by rationalism, which reveres the Stoic system above Pavlova. Let it be true that Paulinism is brought into actual connection with Epictetus through Nicopolis (Tit. III, 12), in which he once labored; let it be certain that St. Paul directly pointed to stoicism, the Christian features of which have been noted for a long time. All these are purely external contacts, and a detailed study of them only more clearly reveals that Christian contemplation and Stoic speculation were either disparate or antithetical and developed from completely different sources, although in the later course there were undeniable contacts between them. 1692 What is true, in general, remains true in particulars, which, introducing their own limitations, serve to visually verify the main position. From this side Seneca provides a good illustration. Already in distant Christian antiquity there was a strong conviction about him in close contact with Christianity. Evidence of this is his well-known correspondence with St. Pavel. It is now indisputable to almost everyone that it is not genuine. Its actual monuments, it seems, are no different from those of Jerome and, without referring to even earlier ones, allow us to judge the motives for the invention. They do not see the tendencies of anti-Paulinistic Ebionism, which created the Clementine figure of Simon the Magus, for the personality of the Apostle is depicted in a sympathetic light even in his relationship to Nero, since it was an excellent recommendation for an evangelist if he managed to interest the unbridled tyrant. The extreme poverty of ideological content excludes the assumption that this falsification was conceived with the aim of launching and disseminating a new idea about the Christian subordination of the philosopher. Obviously, there was ready ground for accepting such a simple pretext, which we must think that it arose from the existing confidence in Seneca’s Christian leanings. Therefore, here we have a Christian creation and, of course, for Christian purposes. For them, the dilemma is permissible that either Seneca is recommended to Christianity, 1693 or the latter. Nowadays the second solution prevails - to attract the educated pagan classes to the Christian truth, although it would be pure triviality, as if this were calculated to ensure the glorification of St. Pavel. This view is justified by the documents themselves. In their features, the letters under consideration are characteristically similar to other apocrypha and this is introduced into the chain of literary-apocryphal productivity. As such, they are a continuation of the corresponding Jewish traditions of an apologetic-missionary nature, when the sons of Israel tried to instill their faith in Hellenism through the fiction that the great pagan philosophers professed essential Jewish dogmas, and sometimes even directly borrowed them. The same is true for this case. There was no artificiality here - a fictitious and tendentious idea of ​​selfish Christian jealousy, which did not want to allow the good in paganism to develop in it on its own. This was only the mood, which was rather inclined to sanction the best achievements of natural genius - at least by recognizing that the human soul is naturally Christian. The hidden desire is focused on elevating through the beautiful - pagan to the excellent - Christian, as akin to and has long been approved in faint glimpses and vague forebodings. These inclinations were revealed in Judaism through mutual acquaintance with Hellenism and through literary contact. Therefore, the obvious forgery will fall on the era of the beginning literary rapprochement of Christianity with paganism in the century of the birth and development of Christian apologetics. Without a doubt, the narrow-minded falsariy had hopes of success, which actually confirms that his main idea about Seneca’s closeness to the new religion has been accepted in Christian circles from time immemorial. Apocryphal correspondence was a palladium for the philosopher’s creations and most contributed to their preservation amid the later persecution of pagan literature, and for us serves as an indicator of the vitality of conviction in the philosopher’s Christian disposition. This conjecture has long been rooted in Christian educated society and reached such tension that the Council of Tours in 567 directly refers to Seneca, as did Constantine. in a speech to the Nicene fathers, he quotes Virgil's fourth eclogue. 1694 We see that the hypothesis of the mutual proximity of Seneca and St. Paul is bequeathed to us by Christian history. And it cannot be considered necessarily false. If some declare the correspondence to be the fruit of ignorant unreason and consider the thought itself to be simply satire, then others do not find anything surprising here, stating the close contact between the philosopher and the Apostle and admitting the possibility of a relationship between them. The latter circumstance has long drawn attention to inquisitiveness and in its interpretations three trends were discovered: 1) Seneca and Christianity were historically independent, 2) the Roman Stoic influenced the second and 3) vice versa. The first possibility ensures the actual independence of the Hellenic evangelist, who supposedly drew similar elements from the then education, imbued with Stoicism, but it is also resolved by the result not in his favor. The fact is that the ideological coincidences of both in general and in particular are too characteristic and refer to a single source that equally enriched them. And for Seneca this was pagan culture, which is why St. Paul, we are obliged to admit that he drew many of his views from the treasures of Greek education, which was available to him as a man of science in secular sciences, although the latter is sometimes denied. A particular fact will be an indicator of the deep penetration of the apostolic into philosophical spheres with considerable borrowing from here; then the strange conjecture about the direct subordination of the apostolic ideas of the educator Nero will not appear absurd, if in fact it is possible to substantiate its historical probability. There is no shortage of arguments of this kind. In Tarsus, the Apostle, becoming more familiar with Stoicism, accessible to him through Jewish media, had the opportunity to assimilate the philosophical trends that influenced Seneca. There is evidence to believe that Saul saw and listened to Nestor, who ruled Tarsus, where at that time the doctrines of Athenodorus dominated, and the system of this Tarsian, who died in his hometown around 7 AD. Chr., could have a strong influence on Seneca. 1695 On the other hand, the latter also necessarily attracted sympathetic attention. Carried away by external rhetoric to exaggeration and deviations from logical consistency, this was still a great mind, although infected with the phrase of 1696 affected style. Being the Ovid of prose writers, whose speech often sounds rhythmic, he was the patriarch of all literary revival in all branches. Seneca was a brilliant and important representative of Stoicism of the imperial era - with the predominance of common moral and religious beliefs. According to our views, we see here a new and unique phenomenon in which the breath of the Christian spirit is so often heard. This philosopher resembles biblical revelations more than all the Greek and Roman classics, and not one of them was so close to Christianity, with which he merges more closely and more often than others. It is quite natural that the Apostle should have sympathized with him, which suggests the likelihood of direct use of his philosophical concepts for the sake of Christian interests. This is all the more possible since there are undeniable coincidences in thoughts and language, which are considered by everyone to be very striking. In this connection, the assumption that St. Paul knew and utilized the works of Seneca, but this one was original and extended his influence not only to exhorting moral instructions, but also to metaphysical premises. The philosophical impact goes so far that even the words of forgiveness on the part of the dying Christ (Luke XXIII, 34) sometimes come close to Senecan maxims. This caricatured extreme still does not eliminate the basic idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe obligations of the apostolic gospel to Nero's mentor, which will be philosophically conditioned in its content. We are forced to check whether this actually happened? Seneca's philosophical typicality lies in the Stoic direction, from which a fundamental dissimilarity with Christianity is inevitable. Lactantius also said that he was the strictest Stoic (acerrimus Stoicus), and the latest investigations indicate that his difference from the ancient principles is more only quantitative. General definitions about Stoicism fully apply to it. Essentially, Seneca, despite his religiously individualistic language, was a pantheist. If he allows for the existence of God, then it is actually as a world soul, merging with nature, and when distinguished, He is depicted as the organizer of the world according to immutable laws, no less obligatory for Him than for creation itself. This idea is entirely Stoic, but not at all Christian. In this only sense - divinely rational determinism - one can accept personal providence from a philosopher who, according to his metaphysical principles, professed strict fatalism, where in place of teleology he professed strict fatalism, where inexorable fate was installed in place of teleology. Pantheistic views logically led to the fact that, deprived of true freedom, a person was rewarded with participation in the deity and became an absolute subject, why, from this side, he has everything good from God. With all the energy of judgments about human weakness. Seneca did not admit innate sinfulness and directly recognized that the wise can be not only on an equal footing with Jupiter, but also higher, for he is superior in virtue, since it is acquired through personal effort. Here everything supersensible was useless, and Stoic tendencies tend to make God completely unnecessary, so that He and the soul are treated in a tone of cold indifference. The cosmological doctrines are purely Stoic and are accompanied by the natural result that in ethics Christian humility is suppressed by the convincing boldness of an irresistible pride, which is crowned with isolation. A person rises to the divine heights by his moral activity, which brings down the deity to himself, and only through this is he connected in equal dignity with others, fully revealing his virtues only in this environment. Selfish arrogance was the basis of moral activity and is resolved by the sharpest contempt for everyone who is not wise according to the Stoic model. Of all the Stoics, Seneca is the most imbued with an aristocratic contempt for the ignorant crowd, for these are slaves, from where his universalistic love is not alien to strong egoism, since only a philosopher considers himself worthy. He generally could not stand weakness and tolerated the cruelty of killing monsters. The philosopher preached for a select few, and his teaching was not at all intended to be universal. And if it is sometimes said that it was Stoicism that especially prepared Christian universalism, then such a favorable assessment should be attributed only to psychological theories and justifications. In terms of ethical properties, Stoic aristocracy is significantly different from Christian universality. This exclusivity is associated with a certain moral indifference, and stoic apathy already turns into Epicurean ataraxia and generally favored quietism. Seneca does not see a true concept of sin, which is not directly related to the deity and is not determined by human mortality. Naturalistic understanding, alien to moral illumination, predominates, and shades of the latter kind are found only when deviating from the system. But even here, amid the impulses of humble annihilation, self-confidence in one’s own ability to triumph in virtue, which is motivated autonomously in spite of Christianity, which elevates it to God, is evident everywhere. At this point Seneca again reveals his greatest fidelity to the Stoic demands in an ethics so different from Christian doctrine. The whole trouble is a simple lack of means to overcome the oppressive time, and it lies in the fleshiness that binds the soul with the shackles of the body and is a punishment for a person, like a heavy cross of constraining and overwhelming passions. In these features, Seneca in anthropology differed quite a bit from the ancient Stoics and, more than them, contrasting soul and body, noticeably leans towards Platonism. In its anthropological dualism, the teaching of Nero’s educator is completely inconsistent with the apostolic one. His influence in the ethical field was reflected by an involuntary admiration for the flesh - the natural necessity of sin, when indifference is established in moral action, killing the deep moral interests of active moral creation and moral struggle against evil. The latter, concentrated precisely in the body, was depicted as normal and irreducible. The same thing happened based on dogmatic overtones. According to them, an adequate combination of the ideal and the real was not allowed, and there was not the slightest possibility for the incarnation of God; if divine assistance was allowed here, it was exclusively through the medium of the human mind. All paths to escape were closed, and Seneca found a way out only in the “open doors” of suicide, which he recommends more energetically and more often than other Stoics, glorifying it almost to the point of ecstasy. All hopes of salvation were exhausted by the philosopher with the slogan about the convenience of opening a vein for everyone, but this was in radical contradiction with all Christian norms. In this case, stoicism went behind history and humiliatingly justified its fatal shortcomings. Under the tyrannical terror of unbridled despotism, human life was extremely unsecured and could be interrupted even on a whim, where the idea of ​​self-destruction was born, which caused a strong spread of suicide in Roman society. Most fully reflecting his era in his activities and literary works, at this point Seneca was “a true representative of a morally exhausted generation” and least of all possessed reserves of Christian vitality. He was, rather, faced with a bleak future. It is sometimes noted that Platonic sympathies inclined him to brighter hopes regarding disembodied bliss in the presence of the pre-existence of souls returning to the original source. Seneca is declared to be the most eloquent preacher of immortality, often achieving Christian sublimity, although he is alien to outside influences and bases himself on Stoic elements. However, all these points are covered differently. Death itself is commented on in the spirit of Platonic dualism, as liberation from unnatural bonds. What follows is shrouded in rather thick darkness. There are expressions of hope for a better life, and in this one finds an approach to Christianity with a denial of the disintegration of the psychic principle in individuality. But there are absolutely no guarantees for such a happy success. For Seneca, the soul was a body, and there was no escape from the corresponding laws, because for him the existence of God according to His properties always remained doubtful. Extremely skeptical about human immortality and not believing in it with firm determination, he preferred not to know whether there would be anything beyond death, and was more inclined to the idea of ​​complete mental destruction, although he did not preach a crude denial of Panaetius. Even if there are glimpses of faith in an afterlife, there is still no ethical understanding, since it does not indicate shades of moral reward for life’s feat. In such a combination, all analogies with the apostolic evangelist will be only external. This is undeniable due to the most characteristic coincidence in the issue of the separation of the soul from the body, which can be a burdensome church (2 Cor. V, 1 ff.). This act of dissolution is illuminated by Seneca in a Platonic sense in the sense of liberation from prison and soaring into pure supersensible regions. Everything here is based on the dualistic irreconcilability of both elements, of which spirituality is imbued with hostility to physicality and strives to get rid of any attacks of the latter, at least in its most pneumatic refinement. At St. Paul does not have these shades at all, for only burdensomeness is stated and relief is associated with the expectation of a better home. There can be no literary dependence here, since the basic view is, of course, different. The Apostle speaks of achieving correspondence between the spiritual and the material, and in this form he preaches not the Hellenic idea of ​​immortality, but the Christian faith of resurrection and judgment. The second is based on the foundation of individual infinity, for which there was no solid ground in Stoic pantheism - and in Seneca human immortality is doubtful. Everything is resolved by absorption in the pantheistic abyss, where fatal necessity reigns and where there is neither Christian eternity nor biblical theology. The result is now clear: - as a Stoic philosopher, Seneca followed an anti-Christian path, and on it any attitude could only be negative. In this area, most of his opinions are contrary to Christian views and do not have a Christian physiognomy at all, being a Stoic theory that developed from its own philosophical principles. From this side, it is fair to recognize the mutual independence of complete independence in comparison with Christianity and St. Pavel. With such disparity, all points of similarity will be illusory, and according to his Stoic convictions, Seneca had to reject them as inconsistent with his philosophical doctrines. It is clear that all such parallels, being artificial, do not indicate the closeness of the apostolic to Stoic principles, and they especially reveal a significant difference between the Christian hopes of self-determination and the hopeless calculations of Stoic arrogance, despite the exaggeration of coincidences, for example, in ethical-physical terminology. With such an assessment, it is even doubtful that Stoicism was even a preparatory historical moment in its philosophical schemes. For Seneca, only personal influence on the theme of elements that were not Stoic, but original, was permissible for him. How far did it extend in this direction? For an accurate answer, you need to carefully weigh the following facts. We have already noted more than once the indirectness of his philosophical construction, where many internal contradictions and great inconsistency are often undeniable. He takes a lot from others without strictly adapting to the requirements of his school. Its construction is quite unsystematic, and Stoicism takes on an eclectic character, which distinguishes all the major modifications. Seneca has a lot of alien, non-Stoic concepts, and solidarity with them does not in the least convince of either a specifically Stoic or personal impact. A detailed analysis of the parallels shows that a significant part of them were found earlier, for example, in Plato and Cicero. We find this at least on the issue of body and flesh, which was developed long ago in those differences that open up in the teacher Neronov. And these analogies of the Christian and apostolic gospel with other ancient thinkers are no less why they see no need for Senekin’s manual at all. In these cases, it is fairer to assume a common original source. But even this latter is not always of such a nature that direct acquaintance with philosophical theories is required when mastering speculative premises. A large percentage of everything that is similar falls to the share of maxims or concepts that were then in circulation everywhere. It was a common philosophical element of education itself and of all cultured people. Even in the opinion of the luminaries of the genetic party, not all coincidences speak of literary use, and speeches about the consent of the members (arms, legs, eyes) in the activities of the human body and about the rising of the sun over criminals, about athletes, about the innate law in man (Rom. II, 14), about the church of God in us, about internal freedom in the face of external enslavement, were fairly accepted, or they contained no more than what anyone could obtain through their own observation and reflection. Here Seneca presents no unusual advantages, and his features are not at all of Christian merit. This is also clear in ethics, where he gained good fame and appears very attractive to us, but here he also has the most noticeable deviations from Stoic dogma. In assessing theoretical knowledge, Seneca approaches the cynics, wanting to limit philosophy to the predominance of moral tasks and reducing it to practical morality, so that the sage is a practical figure of an ethical nature, and the theoretical aspect is smoothed out and is not inextricably linked with the practical. In views on human frailty there is again an undeniable deviation from Stoic foundations. When Seneca emphasizes the weaknesses of human nature and the imperfections of human existence, emphasizes the contrast between soul and body, the rational and sensory powers of the soul, between present and future life, when he distinguishes between God and the world, dualism is heard everywhere, in disagreement with Stoic monism. All these new elements are adapted to a unique ethical contemplation. In it, human poverty is directed to replenishment from divine abundance, and the deity is a beneficent helper. Christian tones are seen in this, arising from the depths of an ethical view of the divine and human. To this, however, it must be added that the Christian spirit is not heard here and, on the contrary, completely different trends prevail. In relation to human nature, this dualistic current is in no way akin to Christian currents. Ethical needs are established on different foundations and therefore are not motivated and completed in the same way. For Seneca, everything is based on the anti-pneumatic unfitness of the flesh, which is incapable of spiritualization, which is why divine intervention is necessary to keep it in tolerant subordination to the spirit. Nevertheless, natural transformation never happens, and the Stoic sage resolves the artificial balance with suicidal dissolution. The Apostle, even with the most living attraction to Christ, did not allow himself such thoughts and preferred to remain on earth for the benefit and benefit of others (Phil. I, 23 ff.). The very ethicization of the idea of ​​God is only comparative - when compared with ancient Stoic naturalism in theology, which professed an omnipotent world spirit, which is devoid of individuality and alien to free moral self-determination. Now these very points are being put forward, but they were formulated exclusively according to anthropological needs and revealed in strict accordance with them. God is only an ethical person, acting on the moral incentives of love and condescension, insofar as all this is necessary for the needs of the disastrous human existence. Here theological ethics is built on a common dualistic basis and imprinted with a non-Christian character. Naturally, it is expressed differently. Divine intervention does not extend beyond the establishment of temporary pacification of the warring parties, does not predetermine their relationship, which is normalized by ineradicable natural properties, and does not achieve final victory. On the contrary, at St. Paul, the entire moral structure of Christianity is erected to the Lord the Redeemer, as the creator of our spiritual and moral life, unconditionally ensured in its triumph. Similar moral maxims turn out to be at least disparate, and literary dependence is not permissible for them. This means that in general religious and philosophical truths, Seneca was not for the Apostle an accomplice of their philosophical transformation. This eliminates a whole class of parallels from the accounts. But even after this there remains a fair amount of very typical analogies. It is important for them that even in the language itself, Seneca often resembles biblical passages. From here it is fair to guess about biblical influences, which are not at all surprising in this era, when (in I - II AD) religious syncretism dominated. We have already argued that in Stoicism, which has always remained Asian in tone, there are quite a few biblical-orientalist echoes. Naturally, they are also found by the Roman philosopher. More than once the idea was expressed that more than one drop of real Semitic blood flowed in him. This is quite possible for a native of Cordoba in Spain, where there were Phoenician settlements in the north, and from Cadiz to Granada the Phoenician language dominated. In the works themselves there are considerable contacts with the Old Testament writings, and they are so characteristic that they imply some acquaintance of Seneca with the LXX and Jewish teachings and institutions. In connection with other data, it is further stated that the philosopher was interested in Judaism all his life and was knowledgeable about it, although - like Titian - he treated Jews harshly and presentably. In all this, Nero’s mentor was not original and cannot be considered the person who enriched St. Paul with relevant concepts. Rather, we must assume a common source in the Orientalist-biblical tradition. But the latter was known to the Apostle in the purest form of biblical revelation, in which it is completely strange to turn to secondary reflections. In this sense, parallels of this kind are resolved. For example, the apostolic note (1 Tim. VI, 7) that, having brought nothing into the world, we can bear no more, is reminiscent of Seneca’s saying (Epist. SP, 25), but in shades it is more suitable to biblical contemplations (Job. I, 21. Eccles. V, 14). Such an interpretation is entirely probable and frees the evangelist from any obligations to the Roman Stoic. Beyond these exceptions, the circle of mutual analogies is greatly reduced, but especially close convergences are found here, and philosophical maxims are colored with a bright Christian flavor. This is the most mysterious group that has not yet found an indisputable solution. However, the following observations are quite satisfactory. St. Paul and Seneca were modern, and the course of life brought them into some mutual relation. Therefore, sometimes it is still argued that both directly and indirectly the philosopher must have known about Christianity and the preaching of its great Apostle, then instilled the acquired Christian traits into Stoism and served as a mediator of Christian fertilization for the latter. How fair is this idea at its core? There is no doubt that Christian trends penetrated very early into the world capital, and the “Epistle to the Romans” actually convinces that on the banks of the Tiber the new religion acquired adherents from the most diverse strata, not limiting itself only to the Jews. St. Paul had bright hopes regarding the Roman church and during a personal visit he wanted to be more comforted by the common faith, not seeing the need for a long stay (Rom. I, 12 ff.). During his two-year bond, the evangelist contributed greatly to Christian success. Roman Judaism immediately received him unfavorably (Acts XXVIII, 21), and therefore everyone who came to him for conversations (XXVIII, 30 - 31), of course, was not limited to the sons of Israel or even proselytes. And according to other data, it is certain that the name of Christ became known among the praetorian guards, and unclean zealots spread the Gospel to wider layers (Phil. I, 13 ff.), not excluding the court spheres, where among the employees of different ranks were sincere confessors of the Crucified High Dignity (IV, 22). The course of the process necessarily drew attention to St. Paul, and his fiery speeches were to spread throughout Rome. It is difficult to imagine and admit that the echoes of these movements did not reach Seneca. Of course, it is not possible to accurately establish his connections with the Apostle using historical calculations, and we are not able to indicate a specific chronological term for them. However, this is not yet a reason to reject any possibility of such an event. It is possible that in Rome they did not understand Christianity so clearly as to persecute it out of a completely clear conviction of fantastically religious hostility to its paganism, 1697 but the private mistakes of Roman writers should not incline to undermine the authenticity of their testimonies. 1698 The error itself is a reliable guarantee that this news comes from an early period, when the Christian identity was, obviously, not for all Christians, and why it was not thoroughly comprehended by the pagans, who partly confused them with the Jews. From all these considerations it follows that for pagan Roman society Christianity was not completely unfamiliar in its basic religious views. Naturally, it turned out to be accessible to Seneca as well. His orientalistic and biblical-Jewish inclinations naturally predisposed him to concentrated attention in the field of the new religious-Jewish movement, and the winged words of the apostolic teaching could not escape him. In Rome they hardly saw each other in person, but it is extremely doubtful that Seneca had not heard of St. Paul, nor about the other Apostle, and knew nothing about the Christian faith. Rather, the opposite is plausible, that the philosopher knew about Christianity, to which his home’s relations were quite possible, and then there would be no compelling reasons to deny any contact with the Hellenic evangelist. This thesis is all the more strong because the newest defenders of the apostolic influences on Nero’s educator, without allowing for mutual literary dependence between him and St. Paul, comment on analogies with the New Testament only with oral knowledge. The latter is not rejected by supporters of completely different trends, although they add that it did not leave the slightest trace in Senekina’s philosophical system. For the fundamental Stoic theorems, it is indisputable that they were incapable of Christian assimilation and adaptation, but in Seneca’s treatment there was a lot of free space for all sorts of borrowings. His eclectic sympathies embraced a wide variety of materials, and among them Christian truths were most consistent with the philosopher's selective method: quod verum est, meum est. In all this, Seneca probably has, if not direct borrowings, then at least Christian “infiltrations,” which are even more conceivable from Marcus Aurelius. This also ensures apostolic independence from Roman Stoic confirmation. The chronology of Senekin’s writings has not been precisely clarified, and they cannot be compared in detail with the facts of the apostolic life, which is also not entirely clear chronologically. However, it is characteristic that most of the striking parallels with the sayings of St. Paul falls on the later works of Seneca, when he could become acquainted with Christian-apostolic views. After the general considerations outlined, we do not need to analyze in detail all the analogies that were collected for different purposes - even of a diametrical nature. A few comments will suffice. These coincidences are sometimes very striking, and about some of them it is categorically said that they (for example, for Rom. VIII, 35) are not accidental, but indicate direct assimilation by the Apostle (resp. later anonymous) from Seneca. With all this, a fundamental difference is stated and not in favor of the second, from which it is concluded that, obviously, Christianity, as a special religion, did not develop only in a natural genetic way from Philonism or the Stoic contemplations of Nero’s teacher. And careful examination reveals that even these points of greatest affinity are with St. Paul has a different character and refers to their own origins from the beginnings of Christ, where they find for themselves the only source and exclusive meaning. And if it is natural for the evangelist that, knowing about Stoicism, he uses its monuments in front of the appropriate audience of the Athenian Areopagus, then this circumstance should not at all be interpreted in the direction of Stoic obligation, which rewarded it with religious-Christian content. On the contrary, even for Seneca himself, Stoic dogmas were deadening ballast, suppressing the high impulses of a bright mind and a sensitive heart. There was no true vitality in them, sufficient even for personal rebirth, so that there would often not be a contradiction between theory and practice, whereas in theory every Stoic must necessarily live according to his own principles. They did not save Nero’s teacher from serious vices, and suspicions or accusations haunted him from time immemorial, supported by some factual data. Although many of his merits and merits are also undeniable, they still say that he was more a dexterous artist than a philosopher, or an empty phrase-monger - a stylist who cared little about the personal implementation of his lofty formulas. Seneca’s true apology will be that he was the son of his time, to which Stoicism was so consistent in its ethical views. The philosopher’s Christianity is extremely relative and barely reaches the level of Erasmus’s beautiful aphorism (from 1529): “if you read Seneca as a pagan, he wrote in a Christian way; if we assume a Christian in him, then he wrote in a pagan way,” just as Goethe’s judgment that the Stoics are Christians among pagans is also exaggerated. With his stoic convictions, Seneca denied Christianity in its very essence and, being built on a purely pagan foundation, was separated by a deep abyss, and by deviations from them he revealed only the languor of the spirit and melancholic attractions that arose from the emptiness of the past and present, but not from insight into the bright future, as provided by fruitful creative work... Then it is felt with all the fibers, for it resides in us and among us in all the fullness of powerful forces, meanwhile the Roman philosopher prefers to close his eyes and not think about the future... If it is true that the books of Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are, as it were, missals of the ancient world, then in them we read only the waste of the latter and do not hear Simeon’s blessings to the beginning of the year of the goodness of the Lord. In egoistically proud stoicism there was no constructive creativity capable of reviving and transforming the world. The forward movement of history is determined by the breadth of the horizons presented, and the Stoics did not even have a perspective. They did not know a blissful future and therefore could not give something gratifying in cash. A good illustration of this is the question of slavery in connection with a fundamental view of human dignity. Here is one of the best pages of Stoic biography, and it says that Christianity inserted this brilliant leaf into its Gospel precisely from here... Such an assumption is now all the more possible because they are trying to take Christianity out of the desires of the proletariat and connect it with the sagal news of the freedom-loving uprising of slaves, when for a sociological view it will not be an individual act, but a cultural-historical form of world development, going back to movements in ancient slavery. What was fundamental was that among these fighters someone named Jesus stood out and they retained the veneration of the cross as an instrument of execution and torture from enemies, but the death and resurrection of the Lord are deprived of individual flavor and will be a reflection of the corresponding moments of the general social revolution. With such a genesis, later Christianity without a historical Christ later required a humanitarian theoretical justification, which, supposedly, was taken from the most humane Stoicism. Where are the traces of this simple process? In historical conditions, Stoic philosophy is painted on this subject in noble colors. The contrast with the past and the mainstream is too sharp and entirely in favor of Stoicism, to its glory and honor. It is said that the suffering of the blacks is only a drop in comparison with the ocean of misery of ancient slavery, which was considered natural, and its members were simply speaking things (along with dumb and inanimate) and - in case of unfitness - were freely given over to death. Even in Plato there is no punishment for killing slaves. Cicero found cruelty towards them legitimate, but Aristotle, not seeing either will or reason in them, bases this institution on human nature itself. In Rome, a slave had no rights and was barely recognized as a human being. In truth, being one of the worst fruits of sin, slavery gave rise to immorality. This is not at all what we see among the Stoics, in particular among the Romans, who worked most hard on this task, focusing primarily on practical morality, just as in general the ethical problem always played the most important role for them, and in it the principle of universal brotherhood and mutual love was brought to the fore. According to Seneca, this was the gentlest sect, and its social ethics especially resembles the lofty apostolic universalism of fraternal solidarity and grace-filled equality. The teacher of the cruel Nero reveals radical gentleness, and the gentle tones of mercy dominate in him, sounding Christian notes, as if adopted by St. Pavel. Here he is superior not only to Cicero, but also to Socrates himself. His speeches were often beautiful and were not at all an imitation of the Christian gospel of forgiveness and goodness. Having suffered a lot from the cruelty of masters in his servitude, Epictetus directly commands to love slaves who were no longer counted among things. The Stoics were the inspiration for Greco-Roman legislation in this area until Constantine. and are emphatically declared to be the forerunners of Christian morality on this point. It was the law, under the influence of the Stoics, that erected the principle of universal patrol equality, and Christianity from here adopted the policy of theoretical recognition and practical mitigation of slavery, although in fact it did not improve its social position, and the Apostle Paul was completely indifferent to this social abnormality. In this area, the historical merits of Stoicism are undeniable, and in its nature lay the denial of slavery, although, for example, Posidonius allowed the latter. However, there is no need to exaggerate the matter to the point of darkening Christian originality. This school taught about universal brotherhood. Seneca's stoic utopianism dreams of humanitas - in a supernational union of all people - and in this respect, as it were, anticipates Christian religious contemplations. In essence, it was completely different, if not quite the opposite. Universal love, which served as the crown of the morality of Stoicism, did not flow from its principles and was maintained by other influences, and the Stoic religiosity of views was only conditionally - relative. Otherwise, all the supports of Stoic universalism and humanitarianism were purely naturalistic. They were gleaned, first of all, from the identity of human nature, which is equally related to God in everyone. This also involved the sameness of the conditions of earthly existence, when for everyone a common mother is the world, everyone enjoys the natural benefits of air, light, etc., and a common fate awaits everyone. Here the entire rationale turns out to be physiological – psychological and sociological. The religious aspect is almost completely absent - and this is the fundamental difference from the Christian view, in which the religious point of view entirely predominates. Christianity could find its ally in Stoicism, but in principle it stood above it on a peak inaccessible to it. This feature is reflected in radical dissimilarity in further applications. By focusing exclusively on naturalistic arguments, Stoic philosophy locks itself in the circle of earthly potentialities and is unable to escape from this clutch. She does not have the means to rise above this level, and therefore she can only reject these restrictions, being deprived of the very ability to eliminate them. Such cosmopolitanism, denying the opposites of peoples, did not provide a higher unification. Therefore, the Stoic universal brotherhood is the purest abstraction, where the ideas of humanus and humanitas, developed on Roman soil thanks to Panaetius, could not last long; here cosmopolitanism led not to vital activity, but to apathetic contemplation. True, which was the highest good for the Epicureans, served as the beginning of progress among the Stoics, as in Christian asceticism, but there it was indifference, sometimes bordering on the recognition of unnatural theses (for example, about the permissibility of communication between wives, cohabitation between father and daughter). The best and greatest thing that was possible for Stoicism was to affirm the burdensomeness, perhaps the abnormality, of slavery, but the latter still turned out to be insurmountable. And since everything external is indifferent, then there is actually no difference between freedom and slavery, of which the second could be preserved without restraint. Hence it is logical that all the Stoics actually spoke out for slavery and treated it with contempt - except perhaps Epictetus. Not a single writer of antiquity even had the hope that this shameful institution would ever be abolished, although everyone felt its terrible dejection, and on behalf of the masters Seneca said: “our slaves are our enemies.” And this most humane thinker, rejecting slavery and striving for actual mitigations, in the end, feared accusations of shaking social foundations and himself found his liberal speeches careless to the point of rashness. Then the Stoics could only deny the living evidence - and, claiming that only the soul is enslaved, they only testified to their fundamental and actual weakness when - together with Panaetius - they testified that in the world everything (necessarily) is enslaved, either too bad or too weak. Therefore, even with the closest analogies to the apostolic reasoning (for example, in 1 Cor. VII), we have only abstract - theoretical dreams. Such utopias always exist, are lifeless and do not bear fruit. We know that forced emancipation in the United States of North America resulted in a very beautiful legal fiction and has not yet even eliminated the social division between people of color and whites. The ancient world, where only Jewry stands out for its comparative softness, had even less means to transform its system; he needed help from outside, and it was not Stoicism that provided them, but Christianity. The latter in the slave himself made advances for the free one, who, with gradual growth, inevitably broke his shackles and created truly free forms. And, calling not to be embarrassed by their slavery (1 Cor. VII, 21), the new religion did not caress at all with a simple mirage of freedom. The Apostle had no enthusiastic fascination with practical inconsistency with the actual set of conditions, if he certified the presence of this good in the face of its real absence. No, in the divine sonship of acquired rebirth there was before him the undoubted fact of empirically possessed freedom, and it, transforming human hearts, produced social liberation in the strengthened freedom of each and everyone. Here was the best implementation of the principle without vain and empty shocks. If this was not discovered immediately, then the success achieved is the most striking illustration of the creative power of Christianity, which has always taken all measures to undermine all slave institutions, containing hostile principles. The apostolic teaching not only imperceptibly led to such deliverance, but was also deliberately directed towards this, for in St. Paul's aversion to slavery is undeniable due to its ever-present abnormality. Here the evangelist is a conscious revolutionary who, in a slave, created a free citizen of the earth, since he is one on it from heaven. World history has justified the apostolic feat and, on the contrary, revealed that Stoicism, theoretically incapable, was actually ineffective. At this point, its importance is overly exaggerated. It has now been established through precise research that the legal lack of rights of slavery did not coincide with the actual situation. On the contrary, the latter was much better and occupied its integral place in the social structure, requiring respectful adaptation. Life moved far ahead of doctrines that could barely keep up with it. In this respect, Stoicism was not at all a true mover and only tried to match a theory to an event. It is his honor that he sanctioned what happened by speaking for the first time about love for enemies, but the actual improvement is not due to him. Even in this role, the Stoic system was hardly at the height of its calling. With its utopian impulses it kindled unrestrained dreaminess, but did not add vitality to the functioning process of liberation. There were a lot of good words and thoughts in her, but there was not a drop of active, constructive love. For her, virtue seemed too soft if it did not allow one to feel its cruelty, while condescension approached weakness, beneficence was still inferior to the legal norm of suum cuique, and Seneca did not allow forgiveness. This coldness deadened the most energetic drives and killed them in the bud. She was associated with a school-like, proud aristocracy, which did not allow the Stoics to successfully work for the public good and - in particular - for the dark lower masses of the people, for they despised it with sectarian intolerance. Finally, the ancient world looked too pejoratively at external physical labor, which Aristotle despised, and Panaetius considered unworthy of a free person (Cicer. De office. I, 150). It is not easy to comprehend when it is proclaimed that Christianity has taken its motto “labora!” from Roman philosophy, since the Romans neglected this activity in every possible way. Here was a new obstacle to the realization of Stoic egalitarianism. Christianity in this regard was independent and original, more closely aligned with the Jewish tradition, but without any imitation, completing the biblical view of attention and leniency towards slaves. And the reason for this is that he had an inexhaustible source of universal love in Christ, who freed everyone to sonship with God and full rights as children of God. On this religious basis the Apostle establishes himself and develops everything in the spirit of Christ. All external benefits were eliminated by themselves, and did not reach his level. They say, however, that the nature of Judaism is rooted in a humanitarian disposition towards all people, as brothers, why the neighbor in it is not only a compatriot, but every person, even a pagan, since, serving God, the latter is used as the (high) priest of the Most High. Judaism is dominated by universalism, according to which all humanity must be loved, and these principles are still professed unchanged. The ethics of not only Hillel, but also other rabbis was ideally humane. It turns out that it was precisely in Jewish practice that the principle of evangelical love was created, and the entire system of Christian charity was simply borrowed from there. Judaism is based on love for one's neighbors as its foundation, and Christians took this commandment from it. Rabbinism taught to love pagans and enemies, and the Lord repeated this truth after it. Only because of this connection is it universal Christianity, which is generally unthinkable historically without the Judaism of the Mishnah and the Talmud, for in itself - as a church - it is imbued with a very narrow particularity, meanwhile Judaism is completely and uniquely universal. These conclusions are completely indisputable for Jewish authors, being for them only a natural conclusion. They say that everything beautiful that is attributed to Christianity is Jewish property, and only in this way is it superior to other religions, having learned from Rabbinicism all its sublime truths. After the Old Testament Bible, the New Testament is considered the most monumental and great product of the Jewish genius. Christ was a Jew by birth and by conviction, like a Pharisee and a disciple of Hillel, whose faith became His religion. It is inevitable then that the identity of Jewish and Christian morality coincides in the doctrine of humanitarian love for neighbors, as evidenced by the parallels to the Talk on the Mount. Christianity, both in its essence and in its missionary conquests, is decisively indebted to Judaism. Even Paul’s Christ remains the actual God of the Jewish people, and - except for suffering on the cross - everything here comes from the rabbinical circles of the Diaspora; The Pauline image of the Savior reflects the later Jewish type, which is changed only by a few real features of the historical personality. The whole of Paul's theology had long been taught in the schools of Jerusalem, and the distinctive arguments of Romans are purely rabbinical. Paul had long been preparing to be a Jewish missionary of the God of Israel and was an active propagandist among the uncircumcised, but in his “regency” he achieved success in the pagan world only among proselytes, rejecting the law, although he retained the Jewish catalog of sins. Christianity embodied the Jewish messianic expectations and the moral aspirations of the Haggadists, and therefore it belongs entirely to the history of Judaism until their final separation. As for the latter, Christianity gained dominance here, but the right was forever retained by Judaism, for the former stems not from a pure rabbinic spring, but from the dark popular Greek eschatology, which invaded the true contemplation of the Jews. In its further development in Paul, this Christianity represents a mixture of orthodox Jewish, apocalyptic and Hellenistic elements, mysteries and popular Greek philosophy; there was no internal integrity, and such a conglomerate, of course, was accompanied by all sorts of fermentations of consistent development. Hence the distortions in it, extending to the point that in the very concept of God, Christianity seemed to put forward the moment of motherhood instead of the fatherland, professed by Judaism. Also in morality, where Christ agreed with rabbinism and, however, deviates in principle and consequences, radically changing the character of the Decalogue, which is why all New Testament ethics is radically different. This means that Christianity is only reflected and distorted in preaching love for one’s neighbor, having borrowed it from Judaism. On the contrary, the Talmud is “the purest source of the most luminous humanitarianism” and at this point serves as the best focus and highest realization of all Scripture, even in its prophetic content. But for now, undoubtedly, nothing more than that the Talmud enshrines the doctrines of Pharisaism, which became the religious-dogmatic symbol of all later Judaism. Further, we have that if the Old Testament was a preparation for the Gospel, then Pharisaic piety led from the law not to Christianity and was resolved by Talmudism, and this was the crowning of the gradual progressive fall of prophetic ideals, which is why, in the end, he had neither confidence in salvation in the future, nor the possession of this salvation in the present, nor the provision of the second by the first. Under such conditions, Judaism cannot be the ancestor of Christian universalism. It is based on the idea of ​​brotherhood, which is created by our adoption to God in Christ. Here the soil is purely missionary, and in its nature does not at all coincide with the Jewish one. In Christianity, everything comes from and is directed from above by divine redemption in the Son, while Judaism depends so little on the supreme help that it itself evokes the Messiah, through legalism, repentance, charity, etc. According to the categorical statements of its official teachers, this is a religion of self-justification of people through themselves, and therefore it does not know redemption and does not need it. Naturally, the messianic idea does not have an absolute soteriological necessity in Judaism, which generally prides itself on the absence of irrational dogmas. There was never any inclination in him to seek a heavenly Deliverer, and rabbinical sayings concerning him are almost isolated. Until now it has been argued that the doctrine of the Messiah is only an appendage or a particular expression of the doctrine of the one God, good and providential for his people. The Apocrypha is more silent about it than it reveals, and Philo interprets it extremely vaguely. With such prerequisites, there are no necessary supports for the domineering and divinity of the Messiah. In all the relevant literature, hints of his celestial pre-existence are subtle in their sporadic and obscure nature. There is no definite conviction on this subject, which did not exist even in closed party circles; for example, for the book of Enoch, attributed by some to the beginning of the Christian era, it is more likely a person or a righteous man taken to heaven - a martyr. The actual idea of ​​the messianic redemption of Israel pre-existed, and in this sense, the Messiah is also in heaven only ideally, but not at all really - as an original divine principle. 1699 This statement is also true for the apocrypha. In fact, only the embodiment of the ideal in earthly conditions is permissible, when the divine destiny becomes a tangible reality. This will, of course, be a real person, but she is not at all superhuman and not at all divine, but a human being. Indications about divinity belong to post-Tannaitic monuments and are assimilated by the influence of Christianity, the latter is quite possible, for sometimes it is much more likely that Judeo-rabbinic formulas reflect and copy the sayings of Christ than vice versa, but the Talmud knows and refutes Christianity and allegedly reproduces (in Shabbath 30 b) the arguments between Paul and Gamaliel. In his real-historical existence, the Messiah is portrayed as the bearer of national aspirations and imbued with the political aspirations of Judaism. Hence, national-political traits, often of a crude nature, are exclusively predominant. The Jews were and are waiting for a political Messiah, as an avenging king, and in his mouth, “a kingdom not of this world” is completely unthinkable for them. He is the concrete realization of political dreams, all the precursors to him are of a political nature and his preliminaries to him are of a political nature, and his mission is simply earthly. In general, the Jewish Messiah never acts exclusively as a spiritual king, and the political connotation is nowhere completely erased from the Tannaites, since this very idea was born from politically-national desires, conditioned historically. This is how everything is depicted in the Talmud, and this is the orthodox and final authority of Judaism. The same is true in non-rabbinic monuments: according to the Ascension of Moses, the Deliverer is an instrument of divine vengeance, in the 4 (3) book of Ezra everything is imbued with chemical impulses of revenge, with which the Apocalypse of Baruch is in agreement, and the Apocalypse of Abraham reduces the entire role of the Messiah to the gathering and unification of the scattered Israelites. The national-political element permeates the entire messianic eschatology of Judaism, and the directly political ideal of the messianic reign dominates here. Called by its original source God, the latter actually means only the liberation of the Jews from slavery and the restoration of the theocratic state, as was expected and tried to be achieved, for example, under Bar-Kokhba. The bearer of the worldly crown, the king and moral hero, the political and spiritual leader of the Jewish people: - this is the Jewish ideal of the Messiah among the Tannaites, i.e. almost until 220 AD. Chronicle, but even in apocalypses he appears everywhere in an aura of glory and victory. Its prototype is Moses, and all tasks are exhausted by national-political interests and have no actual purpose or redemptive value. Judaism did not even ascribe to its Savior the power and strength to forgive sins and did not need his atoning sacrifices, which is why the death of any Messiah could not contain propitiatory dignity, in the Christian sense. Jewish authors say that the idea of ​​a suffering Messiah is not in the ancient tradition, and hints of it appear after and as a reflection of Christianity, and a secondary image of the Messiah, the son of Joseph, appears. The suffering Messiah is only an individual concentration of the sorrowful political fate of Israel and, being a product of national history, was generated by Hadrian's persecution and first arose after the surrender of Bettar. They never point to redemptive messianic suffering, but only mean “passive” times, which are necessary for the anticipation and implementation of national Jewish identity in the universe. In all of Judaism there is neither a propitiatory - suffering Messiah, nor a messianic - individual redemption. This principled nationalism of religious ideals narrows universalistic impulses and inevitably leads to tight restrictions in practice. Let it be true that the goal of Judaism is the messianic unification of all humanity, but it is no less true that in this case Palestine and Jerusalem will expand to the whole world, which, obviously, must turn into them, for rabbinically God is “our father” only for the Jewish people. All Jewish ethics, based on earthly ideals, takes a narrowly particularistic direction with an inclination towards national hostility towards everything alien - and even the Diaspora did not overcome this exclusivity. This is how a strong nationalist framework is erected, and then its own gradations inevitably appear within them. If Christianity is built on the immensity and infinity of the redeeming mercy of Christ, then Judaism is established on legalistic self-justification. It is clear that in order to be perfect, you need to know exactly the norm itself in order to always and punctually fulfill it in your behavior. In Judaism, piety necessarily coincides with learning, but this, of course, is not characteristic of everyone, even in Israel. True, it is sometimes emphasized that only in Christianity and the Apostle Paul wisdom has all the religious and ethical importance, and in Judaism moral practice is higher than theory and knowledge, but for the latter erudition is certainly mandatory for legalistic activity to be truly justifying. Therefore, the circle of “neighbors” does not include all Israelis, as can be seen from the relationship of Jewish Orthodoxy to the am-haarez. These are simple, unlearned Jews who do not have access to the rabbinic scrupulousness of understanding and execution. It is precisely because of their nomistic ignorance that they are persecuted by the Pharisees with contempt and turn out to be a “cursed people” (John VII, 49). This fact is too unpleasant for the defenders of Jewish universalism, and they try to smooth it over with various hypotheses, as if hostility towards the am-haarez arose only in Hadrian’s time and, in fact, after 130, or after the final destruction of Jerusalem with its transformation into a pagan colony, and was only a protest against religious ignorance, as generating national indifference and disastrous for theocratic autonomy. All these and similar interpretations are completely artificial and tendentious, while for rabbinism it is absolutely certain that am-haarez cannot be a Hasid and, therefore, is deprived of all the benefits of orthodox Jewish religiosity. This requirement, of course, applies in all other similar cases. The ten tribes of Israel lost the comfort of legalistic correctness: they were scattered across different countries and did not return, and therefore perished among foreign nations (Akiba) and almost all were destined for hell. Likewise, proselytes are dubious in their innovation and cause disagreements in the assessment of the rabbis: others (for example, Simeon ben Lakish) speak out in favor of them, but it seems that unfavorable views prevail - especially in Pharisaic circles - 1700 that it is an extraneous appendage, capable of all sorts of unnatural things. All the more, any deliberate deviation causes intolerance, as is clear in the examples of Elisha ben Abuya and the Menaeans, by which we mean free-thinking Jews and Judeo-Christians. Private inquiries of one’s own inquisitiveness were met with rebuff and rejection. It is from here that illegal literature developed in the cycle of apocryphal - non-canonical writings, which is why they are declared not truly Jewish. Apocalyptic documents found fertile ground among the am-haarez and spread among the lower strata. These are popular monuments and often of Judeo-Hellenic origin. But it is known with what condemnation of anathematism rabbinism treated these works and how to this day it is intensifying to connect Christianity with them, declaring it a continuation of the Hellenistic religiosity of the diaspora. We see now that all the fundamental prerequisites for humanitarianism in Judaism are significantly different from Christian ones. The entire set of religious foundations that support Christian universalism leans towards nationalist particularism, and the opposite ideals are established on purely rationalistic principles, which are replaced by dogmatic-legalistic religiosity by the newest champions of the Jewish reform. Here, external similarity does not at all indicate internal similarity - no less than the fact that the parables in the New Testament and among the rabbis formally coincide, but in content and spirit they are completely disparate. In traditional Judaism, love for neighbors, as people in general, is unknown in practice. Evidence of a different nature is isolated and lacks authority. If, for example, Johanan ben Zakkai said that the good deeds of the pagans are equal to the sacrifices of the Jews, then among his disciples the fanatical opinion triumphed that all pagan virtues are sins. In the most famous episode of Hillel, mutual relations are treated only between Jews and partly with proselytes, but not at all as applied to external pagans. Rabbinicism does not know the dogmatic commandment about love for one’s neighbors, and even less preaches it towards one’s enemies, and therefore modern Judaism can only insist, contrary to theory and history, that this does not exist in Christianity either. As a result, we find that the sense of universal humanity among the Jews was inseparable from nationalistic particularism. This is quite natural, since Israel could realize the ideal of equal divine creation or creatureliness of all people only through religiosity, which was conditioned nationalistically by the law itself and was consistently identified with racial privilege. Brotherhood was actually acquired through religious (fictitious) transformation into the son of Abraham, which is why Jewish universalism was narrowly national, both theoretically and practically, and Jewish ethics turns out to be devoid of true humanitarianism, although it is still boastfully proud that it is dominated by the principle of superiority over the world and readiness for any sacrifice, when the Gospel supposedly preaches hatred of the world. On the contrary, it produces religious-actual equality in addition to nationality and then transforms it itself according to its type. In it, nationalism is transformed by religiosity, but not the other way around. With its highest divine energy, Christianity really lives in the world, dominates it, subjugating it to itself and implementing the principle of love for enemies, unknown to paganism. Stoicism is confined to the sphere of naturalistic potentialities and is suppressed by them, sharing their helplessness. Naturally, in practice, everything is limited to an idle denial of reality, while the new religion immediately takes possession of it and inspires it to develop accordingly. This difference between application and result reveals a fundamental dissimilarity in the principles themselves, in the perspective presented to each. A new illustration of this is in the teaching on marriage and the position of women. Here they find that St. Paul preached some kind of “unsexing” and eunuchism. But Judaism has never recognized fundamental asceticism, and therefore, leaning towards it in the marriage issue contrary to rabbinism, the Apostle allows an admixture of pagan Gnosticism and even Persian dualism, for later Judea was undoubtedly influenced by Persia and Babylon, 1701 and the second, supposedly, is noticeable in the Gospel depiction of the life of Christ. With asceticism, to which they try to reduce even the humility of the Lord the Savior, the evangelist looks at marriage in general and in his defense of celibacy he committed the greatest error. The derogatory view of the apostolic on this point is explained by the reflection of the apostolic view on this point by the reflection of Hellenic dualism, since St. Paul, in the spirit of Philo, held a disdainful - negative view of all bodily needs and of women. On the contrary, the Stoics advocated the equality of the latter with men, and it was these ideas that were reflected in random apostolic mentions that received neither theoretical development nor practical application. Again, the merits of Stoicism are indisputable in the historical movement of thought. In the ancient classical world, the position of women was unenviable. Greece, through the mouth of Aristotle, spoke out almost with cynicism, Rome did not go far for the better and did not provide religious full rights to women, although religion wanted to fight against civil and legal inequality; finally, Judaism, more benevolent in this matter, largely belittled the female sex and fell from the truly biblical pomp of the Old Testament religion, which created the family and was the predecessor of Christianity. However, it must be added that in practice the actual position of women in Judaism, in Rome and Greece was higher in comparison with theory, but the latter interfered with the progress of life and drowned out its voice. Only Stoicism revealed exceptional freedom and courage of flight, and as if the Apostle Paul picked up these sounds, but was unable to master them in all their depth and became entangled in ascetic rudeness. It is declared to be a “tendentious untruth” in general that Christianity improved the position of women, for it was not it that liberated her, but Germanism (das alles uberflutende Germanentum). In all this there is more exaggeration than explanation. The Evangelist with dogmatic absoluteness affirms the truth of the religious equality of man and woman in Christ and by grace (Gal. III, 28). Here it is created solely and entirely on Christian soil, and its independence from everything pagan is obvious from the fact that - in contrast to pagan and heretical practice - it removes women from all priestly (hierarchically - hieratic) functions. On the contrary, the Stoics were motivated by naturalistic principles and here, of course, they did not find equality, and in the female sex they had to see a relative natural weakness, which they always disdained. Hence it is quite natural that even Seneca was actually no stranger to derogatory contempt for women. Christianity, proclaiming the principle of individual salvation for each and every one, puts forward and sanctifies the individuality of a woman, which is why she is highlighted in the religious sphere already in the Gospel and in the subsequent Christian mission, and then her social position changes significantly. 1702 The religious originality of the Apostle Paul on this subject is undeniable, as on the question of slavery. If he introduced certain restrictions, they were determined by religious considerations, but not at all by fundamental hostility. The Evangelist lived in constant contact with the world and did not suffer from ascetic intolerance, which is completely absent in relation to women, although from childhood he had before him sad examples of extreme female promiscuity in the city of Tarsus. The Apostle, in his educational activities, experienced the superiority of celibate freedom and, of course, had to recommend it to everyone as an ideal for the best provision of Christian perfection (1 Cor. VII, 1. 7. 8. 25 ff.). In this practical arrangement, conditioned historically by many other factors, the Apostle’s preference for celibacy was not at all influenced by the influences of dualism. As for the actual view of marriage, according to the natural side of St. Paul idealizes him least of all (1 Cor. VII, 1 ff.), but this is in no way a deliberate defamation, but only the simplest statement of natural marital functions. However, the evangelist does not stop at this stage and elevates a natural organic-social institution to the level of a Christian sacrament (Eph. V, 22 ff.) in the creation of the kingdom of God on earth in the Church of Christ. Hence the general apostolic principle that everything earthly must gradually be transformed into heavenly, which is why there is no violent revolution and anarchic negation. Everywhere at St. Paul is dominated by faith in the power and obligation of the Christian transformation of existing reality, which changes already in the process of universal Christianization. This point of view is entirely Christian, and here again it is proven that the Stoic principles themselves were not the genetic preparation of the Christian gospel, which grew out of a completely different soil. Careful comparison convinced us of the decisive internal disparity between the Stoic system and the Gospel of Christ. Direct mutual dependence is unthinkable here, and then all we can talk about is only the indirect influence of mediation on other sources and benefits. In this regard, it is important that Stoic philosophy was distinguished by its eclectic character and united many elements obtained from the entire set of early intellectual and philosophical movements. Naturally, the latter had to penetrate through the Stoics, and acquaintance with these reflections served for the interested mind as both a path and an incentive to study the originals themselves. So from the stoic successors and imitators of St. The Apostle Paul goes to the philosophical luminaries and philosophical popularizers. Even if we do not exaggerate the stoic influences and contacts, such an idea will still be far from ephemeral. Stoicism contributed to the spread of philosophical concepts, and they turned out to be the common property of the education of that time, not excluding Judaism. Every cultured person necessarily assimilated them, receiving a whole complete worldview, which was supposed to attract inquisitive inquisitiveness. This was the ever-present danger that pagan concepts could invade the Christian environment through current words. And we read that the ready-made language introduced its own atmosphere, and the evangelist assimilated philosophical terminology, became familiar with philosophical speculation, from which it is not surprising if clear traces of the invasion of Greek philosophy and Roman law are revealed in the New Testament. Other conditions also led to this. Hellenistic Judaism has long been imbued with philosophical movements, but in Philo it is purely Stoic, which is why he rationalistically reinterprets all biblical content in Platonic taste and concentrates many philosophical movements. Through this theosophist and fellow tribesman, the Apostle was imbued with philonism and stoicism, together with the vocabulary he again acquired Platonic views and was disposed to broad research in philosophical fields. Under such circumstances, when philosophical echoes, especially Heraclitean ones, are noticed in Ecclesiastes and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon 1703, the thesis that St. Paul had no inkling about the Greco-philosophical spheres. On the contrary, historically it is much more likely that he adopted the ideological speculations of Hellenic coinage, since philosophical ideas and teachings were widespread in his era. This was achieved without any special study. Ethically - religious reserves accumulated by centuries of philosophical work became publicly available and diverged everywhere along with Greek speech, which was purely philosophical in subjects of a higher order. Therefore, it cannot be stated in advance that the Hellenic evangelist did not use pagan-philosophical vocabulary and used it only for visual illustrations. On the contrary, in him we find an extensive arsenal of various Greek metaphors of the most varied properties. Then, in addition to books, it was not difficult for him to autodidactically extract from under the pagan shell the philosophical truths hidden there, and he has (for example, in 1 Tim. VI, 19) cultural Greek-philosophical expressions with which the Platonic-Aristotelian seeds were inevitably transplanted. Terminological similarities with the philosophy and religion of the Greco-Roman world are allowed even by defenders of apostolic identity. And these analogies are such that they make one guess about familiarity with philosophical and literary monuments. St. Paul, brought up in the freer Hellenic spirit of the city of Tarsus, was by no means an ignoramus or a superficial dilettante. His Greek education was so solid that the accessibility of Plato's works to him is not rejected by those who deny all philosophical commitments. And we are told that - among other philosophers - the Apostle especially studied Plato, read historians, folk poets and orators, and, perhaps, also had Aeschylus next to Demosthenes. In this connection, parallels, collected in abundance for various interests and often for the sake of apologetic Christian goals, 1704 receive the impressiveness of a serious argument for the internal closeness of the apostolic preaching with Hellenic contemplations. True, in these rapprochements there is a lot that is artificial, strained and exaggerated, but still enough philosophical elements are assumed through the medium of one language. Of course, they now claim that the missionary body of St. Paul was served by a living language, which was his own since childhood. He was neither literary nor vulgar, but rather closer to the LXX. This translation, made to meet the needs of the worship of the Jewish Diaspora, influenced the evangelist, was his Bible in spreading the Gospel and in general is the mother of the New Testament, but it is also a popular book. Hence, all New Testament documents will be colloquial and Paul's epistles turn out to be purely random notes. The last thesis contains some exaggeration, 1705 and New Testament originality, and then there is no doubt that the cultural Greek speech of that time was imbued with philosophical elements. This means that, drawing them from this source, the Apostle simply was not a narrow specialist and did not adhere to school isolation, assimilating modern popular philosophical ideas. Alien to party antipathies and attractions, he united in himself the most important religious and philosophical results of the past and was the original culmination of all views, moods and premonitions. From this side it is proclaimed the end of that movement, the beginning of which was in Socrates. And if it is sometimes expressed that St. Paul was almost a complete layman regarding Platonism, then others, with no less plausibility, assert the opposite, that Paul’s epistles are the writings of a Greek, not a Jew, and in the sense of belonging to the historical Saul, they are completely inauthentic. It is stated with decisiveness that it is Plato who is the father of Christian theology and he not only prepared Christianity, for he directly created it. St. Paul labored in this field, and the faith of the pagan Christian churches was only Christianized Hellenism, instilled into the primacy of Judeo-Christianity by the Apostle of the Gentiles. In scientific circles, the basic idea of ​​​​the co-creation of Greco is now readily shared - philosophical productivity, which, when combined and various combinations with biblical - Jewish concepts, formed into a new Christian doctrine and contributed to its material development, and the Hellenization of Christianity seems to be a kind of chemical process or even a mechanical conglomerate of all kinds of cultural fragments. All critical reconstructions rest on these premises. In the best case scenario, this sanctions the large participation of natural factors in the very origin of the Christian religion, and hence the importance of such attempts is clear. They are radical both in intention and in results, but the argumentation is far from corresponding to this due to the instability of fundamental convergences and the petty poverty of particular analogies. Let us consider everything characteristic of both categories, somewhat arranging the random parallels indicated in the corresponding works. Philosophy always strives for a rational understanding of the world, so that all phenomena find themselves logically - a reasonable explanation in connection with the fundamental understanding of the whole. Here, the real moment only to the extent of its suitability for the rational interpretation of the universe receives a certain rational interpretation of the universe and receives a certain rational examination. The most important thing in these constructions is the intellectualistic coverage of the subject. With genetic collaboration with the fruits of philosophical creativity, these traits should have been noticeably imprinted on the apostolic gospel. It is considered a synthesis of Judaism with the literature and philosophy of Greece, saying that, among a mixture of heterogeneous layers, the typical contours of a philosophical system are visible in it, where Hebraic Christianity is interpreted in the intellectual forms of the West and specifically Greek. So St. Paul became the father of Christian theology. For him, faith itself serves only as an intellectual conviction in the redemptive significance of the death of Christ. Absolutely everything is built on this - and the Apostle, falling into Socratic one-sidedness, affirms the intellectual ability as completely sufficient for the internal transformation of the whole world and every person. But - in comparison with his ancient model - he went even further, for in such a concept he simply elevated his personal experience, which was not justified by others, being individual, into a universal principle; in practice, such a theory was often accompanied by the fact that naked confession was considered sufficient and any unbridledness was allowed in life, which is why this inevitable danger forced even an enthusiastic evangelist to change the accepted sequence. His Christian teaching hangs by the thin thread of an intellectualist conviction that rational logic contains within itself a regenerative salvific power. In this formulation, the entire thesis involuntarily arouses suspicious doubt. Is it really St. Did Paul give such effectiveness to the rational side of knowledge? Wouldn't the opposite judgment be truer? A strict analysis of the facts shows that the Apostle does not at all seem to have a purely intellectual understanding of religion, or theology; This is not only a deeper rational comprehension of the Christian revelation, but - above all - a penetrating insight into its practical importance and obligation. Here knowledge was only the confession of a moral determining factor, which itself produces the influence characteristic of it. Everything is determined by the real relationship between people and this objective factor, and not at all by the pure understanding of the latter. In this case, cognition states the presence of an event to the extent of its digestibility for intellectual acuity. since in the matter of the gracious salvation of the world a divine agent is assumed, then its very accessibility to human tension must be ensured in advance. The condescension of divine recognition to humanity in its limitations is necessary so that it recognizes the power of God. Therefore, even intellectually, it is indisputable that it is not we who know God, but He who recognizes us (Gal. IV, 9; cf. 1 Cor. VIII, 3. XIII, 12) and, revealing Himself in a convenient form, guarantees our knowledge of God, which supplies us with simple contemplation of what actually happens. It is clear that rational knowledge plays a role in St. Paul's service role as a conditioned way for information regarding the ways of divine providence. For this reason, saving faith cannot be limited to the intellectual moment. The second contains one beginning of the possibility of a process, the essence of which lies in the fact that the believer is mysteriously united with Christ and in Him actually acquires the rights of sonship with God, freeing himself from all the prerogatives of free heirship. In faith, the active element of vital fusion with the divine source, from which renewing rebirth emanates, is especially brought forward. This result is perceived through faith, and is not produced by it in its own right, since it is given in addition to it in the very redemption of Christ, which we assimilate. It is now obvious that in the apostolic preaching faith is not at all portrayed as a purely intellectualistic energy and is not attributed to it its own salvation, which belongs to a genuine historical act and through it only reaches people. Further, is it permissible to insinuate that such a view of the saving power of faith in the death of Christ is a subjective theoretical fiction, but even with this tendentious interpretation one will have to agree that St. Pavel is very far from philosophical-realistic intellectualism. His premises are contrary to the latter, for he believed in the saving power not of his conviction of a fact, but precisely of the fact itself, even if it did not have such dignity. The fundamental principles in the apostolic construction of the gospel of Christ do not indicate the philosophical inclinations and influences of the Apostle. The same is true for the most important dogmatic points. However, for the idea of ​​God, they try to argue the opposite. They say that in Rome. I, 19 St. Paul does not note what is subject to knowledge, but what is accessible to him according to natural abilities, in contrast to what is beyond their capabilities and communicated only by special revelation. There are two sides to the deity - the knowable and the unknown. The first is characterized later (I, 20) as comprehended through consideration of the world, but in the abstract all this is invisible and then becomes a mental model for empirical reality, which is realized in present phenomenality. This asserts the difference between the prototypical and the actual. It turns out the antithesis of God and the cosmos, in the spirit of Philo and the Neo-Pythagoreans. These “philosophical reminiscences” convince us that “among the sources for Christianity and its life ideals, Greek philosophy also takes its place of honor.” – Such a major conclusion does not correspond to the real data and is achieved with considerable force. The most important thing in this interpretation is debatable; it is stated that it is not a subjective act of mentally - distracting comprehension of the Creator through creation, but there is an appositive disclosure, and serves as an objective description of the state of “invisible things” before their realistic expression. Briefly: this is supposedly the essence of the still “invisible thoughts of God”, later embodied in the universe and contemplated in it. But such a relationship is grammatically impossible due to the very arrangement of words in the sentence, for which an unnatural interweaving of combinations is designed, where it jumps to something distant from the nearest one, and this seems to be chasing after it, but is logically completely disconnected. Is such a strange confusion possible for a literary experienced author and is it legal to impose it when there is no need for it? It would hardly be reasonable to answer in the affirmative. For this, we would have to allow a new stretch, contrary to the original, as if, of course, God’s “mental plans” for created phenomenality, meanwhile, the text directly names the properties of the Almighty in his eternal power and divinity... However, even with the rejected interpretation, it actually turns out nothing more than that the ideas of created existence were in the mind of God even before the creation of the world. In this position, undoubted for everyone, there is nothing specifically philosophical, and it in no way justifies the Platonic-philonic understanding of the very essence of God. There are not sufficient elements for this in the original, which rather excludes such speculation. There it was categorically assumed that the deity is certainly inaccessible to limitation: it is inexpressible neither in word nor in deed and therefore in its essential truth is not revealed at all and in any form - ordinary phenomenality or special imagery. Here the very possibility of adequate reflection is denied, as Philo actually witnessed by relegating biblical revelation to the level of a ghostly shadow of secondary divine qualities. The Apostle, distinguishing what is naturally comprehended from what is openly communicated, clearly certifies that the second exactly reproduces the unknown features of the essentiality of God, which itself is entirely revealed in the incarnation of the Son of God. The apostolic point of view is diametrically opposed to Plato’s and Filonov’s. It is inevitable that this fundamental dissimilarity is reflected in the worldview. Here they usually try to find in the Apostle of Languages ​​the dualistic views that entered the Hellenistic-Jewish consciousness through the mediating influence of pure Hellenism, from which they received the convictions in the adversariness of God and man, God and the world, the spirit of God and human flesh, spirit and matter, as well as the necessity of sin according to human nature itself. We are energetically indoctrinated that the doctrine of the impurity of the sensory world reproduces the concepts of the Orphics and Neopythagoreans, matter as a living force is characterized in the spirit of ancient philosophical views, and the dualistic isolation of spirituality and physicality is transferred to Christian ethics from paganism. In such an image, everything emanates pagan-philosophical elements, but the fidelity of the picture itself is extremely suspicious. An insurmountable obstacle and living denunciation of such hypotheses is the greatest fact of the Incarnation, which irresistibly demonstrates the compatibility of the divine with the created with the possibility of sanctification of the entire human composition, as solidary in all its parts. This directly eliminates the dualism theologically - cosmic and anthropologically - psychic, since the Apostle’s flesh is not at all a sin in itself, and regarding their relationship he does not agree with Palestinian Judaism, exceeds the Old Testament, is independent of Philo and is generally deeply original. Naturally, the arrows of skepticism are directed at this cardinal point of Christian dogma. Nowadays it is even exegetically substantiated that the doctrine of the incarnation was not original in Christianity, was invented later and arbitrarily introduced into the New Testament, which is why it is easily distinguished from it. But at the same time, subjective exegetical stretches are allowed, without which it will be unshakable that in the era of the origin of the New Testament writings this truth already had dogmatically-compulsory clarity, and then it is much more likely that it comes from the Apostles themselves, since a radical change in a short period is historically very doubtful. In any case, the ground for decisive denial is certainly shaky, and one cannot rely on it in such controversial issues. Further interpretations are possible, and there is no shortage of them. Sometimes it is argued that the idea of ​​virgin birth, undoubted for the New Testament, taken by Christianity from Judaism, penetrated into the latter from the sins of the Egyptians, where there were completely identical thoughts. It is added to this that the Redeemer himself did not speak about His pre-worldly pre-existence, and here the Apostle Paul gives simply “Christomythologie” (Cristusmythologie), when, according to Greek ideas, the Savior is depicted as the realization of the archetypal person and the historical personality in Him is neglected, for all the importance is in the fixed ideal. This is considered all the more probable since the apostolic gospel has long been a direct reflection of Philo’s doctrine. Everything here is covered in a biased and false way. First of all, it is necessary to agree that true God-manhood was unknown to paganism. The latter was entirely confined to the sphere of the human, the difference between which and the divine had not yet become clear. Therefore, the more directly the divine came into contact with the human, the more it was only another form of this human; divinity dissolved in humanity and disappeared, which is why there was no support for the incarnation of God - and this is the impassable gap between Platonism and Christianity. With such disparity, neither dependence nor borrowing is possible, as long as there are no suitable materials and hostile elements dominate. Apparently, the concept of “Son of God” does not come from paganism, and its roots were not in Athens. References to pagan theophanies are especially unfortunate and expose the futility of critical interpretations. There, one’s own incarnation was not proclaimed at all, and when tilted in that direction, one simply got deified humanity. With a more energetic highlighting of the moment of individualistic incarnation, a completely impersonal ideality of divinity was put forward, which only with this discovery receives personal certainty. There is again no personally active deity, and therefore it is absolutely impossible to admit that the recognition in the Son of God of an organ in the creation of peace (1 Cor. VIII, 6) arose under Greco-philosophical influences. There is no doubt that there is a radical difference here, for even in pre-mundane existence the Lord has personal activity. Naturally, as a divine personality, He could not be a simple archetytic form, remaining in ideal isolation from the historical Christ. When two personalities are taken, either mutual independence in existence or complete fusion is conceivable for them. since the Apostle of Languages ​​establishes the closest relationship between the heavenly and the earthly, we must accept that he does not allow separation between the archetypal and the empirical, but confesses absolute identity through the unity of the subject, which appears in two forms, being always unchanged. Philosophically, Plato’s premises are rejected in principle, since the coincidence of the ideal with the real, which they deny, is affirmed. From all sides it is unshakable that Christ is, of course, depicted in St. Paul is not at all pagan if the Apostle considers Him to be divinely pre-existent, according to the testimony of the Lord about His absoluteness. The truth of the Incarnation eliminates cosmological dualism, but it also shakes anthropological dualism. Since God assimilates everything human, then a weaker opposition of the physical to the spiritual is impossible in the latter; Where there is no absolute contrast, there is also relative incredible. This undermines in advance the opposite judgments, as if the evangelist, professing Hellenistic anthropology, taught about the sinfulness and mortality of the flesh in such a way that Greek influences are tangible, for he has the first “evil principle” with anti-divine energy and is dualistically hostile to spirituality. In this case, the analogies go further. A distinction is made between the spiritual, the spiritual and the flesh. From this it is easy to guess that the apostolic doctrine comes close to the Platonic trichotomy. But as for the latter, its presence in St. is still completely controversial. Paul, where an allusion of this kind occurs accidentally (1 Thessal. V, 23) and has no philosophical acuteness. In Platonism, soulfulness was a necessary link for the dualistically irreconcilable spirituality and materiality, while the apostolic text states their harmonious, holistic combination with equal suitability and ability to perceive divine sanctification. All these features are alien to trichotomous platonism. Fleshness is not at all considered actively – hostile and naturally – sinful. By its nature it is passive and acquires sinful vitality through spiritual relaxation, when the spirit is immersed in the carnal sphere and turns instinctive carnal functions into sinful lusts. Here the connection is only empirical, but there is no sense of dualistic adversativity in it, which the Apostle did not profess, which is why there is no dependence on Hellenism. The sinful fleshiness of the evangelist is a purely ethical value, and in this area the Hellenic influences of naturalistic amartology are incredible. Due to the strength of this, both the normal spiritual state and deviations should have been depicted differently, and then in vain the similarity in the concepts of conscience and innate moral law (Rom. II, 14 ff.) with the opposition of the flesh to the spiritual (Rom. VII, 25), where even the later Stoic concepts do not coincide with Christian ones, is noted. The apostolic view in amartology is purely biblical. Any other interpretation leads to many oddities. They testify that the evangelist adhered to the views of rabbinism here and in many other points, for example, about the vanity of creation with man (Rom. VIII, 20 ff.), or about the flesh in the sense of jetzer hara. The origin of evil in the world is also commented on rabbinically, but it turns out that on this subject the Apostle notes (in Rom. V, 12 ff.) two irreconcilable explanations, and the last source of sinfulness lies in the human will; in this case, original sin will not be a Pauline or Augustinian creation - the church idea does not come from here, just as it does not exist in Christ the Savior. The result is a strange chaos of contradictory and ununited opinions, hardly conceivable together in one healthy head. In fact, the actual predominance of sin in the world is erected by St. Paul to the fall of Adam, in which all people sinned, taking into themselves the hereditary infection, but individual imputation occurs with the personal complicity of everyone. In this sense, genetic researchers also admit that the Hellenic evangelist taught on this issue more mystically than naturalistically, which is why even during rebirth he puts forward a mysterious act of mystical combination with the Lord - the Deliverer. The Apostle has a rather undeniable connection with the everyday narrative, and - according to the latter - he, admitting the possibility of death in human nature, considers it a generational punishment for ancestral sin, which was precisely original and is depicted (in Rom. VII, 12 ff.) not just actual, but directly hereditary. Here the evangelist is completely original and reveals his radical difference from Judaism, where only the original evil desire (jetzer hara) was accepted and original sinfulness was denied, and legalistic self-justification was allowed for individual sins, since they are completely erased by repentance, the suffering of the righteous, etc. This means that in St. Paul does not have a purely rabbinic theology, from which it is quite in vain that apocalyptic eschatology with its crude realism and the chiliastic doctrine of intermediate messianic dominion is imposed on him, for it is proclaimed (and in 1 Cor. XV, 22 ff.) the resurrection not of “Christ’s” only, but of all. The echoes of Hellenism are equally disconcerting, since everywhere we find a combination of freedom and necessity. At the same time, everyone has scope for their own activity in the matter of religious and moral growth. Naturally, the messianic kingdom of God is, of course, not (exclusively) eschatological, as if it is realized naturally by an external divine power only at the end of time. Writers who are far from ordinary church traditions state the predominance of eschatological concepts in the New Testament and in Jesus Christ, but it is recognized that both the Savior and all New Testament sources talk about preparing the future triumph of glory already in the current conditions of earthly existence. In particular, the Apostle Paul accepted both aspects here - eschatological and moral, seeing the gradual revelation of the kingdom of God in humanity through the church of Christ. On this side, eschatological tension, so strong in early Christianity, is not a purely theoretical speculation and was not at all an external borrowing or a passing historical phenomenon, but served as an expression of dogmatic faith in the supreme dominion of a just God and in the triumph of a moral world order, which is why, in this capacity, it remains dogmatically obligatory for Christianity forever. The properties of a person determine his future, and anthropology, of necessity, is in solidarity with the eschatological doctrine. Hellenization of the first inevitably requires corresponding changes in the second. It is not surprising if it is said that earlier St. Paul pharisaically believed in the resurrection of bodies, using the ready-made rabbinic analogy of sown grain, or he allowed for a direct posthumous union with Christ when endowed with a special internal corporeality, which was sometimes preached in Judaism, in the spirit of which optional immortality was assigned to the New Testament, for - along with the idea of ​​a general uprising - Jewish authorities taught about the complete destruction of sinners and only for the righteous they guaranteed future revival, depriving it even of their am-haarez. But in fact, the evangelist has neither the ontological death of the wicked nor the physical optionality, and in eschatology he is most original and has made such significant changes that external similarities and foreign borrowings are equally excluded here. He also does not have immediate posthumous endowment. Therefore, they think that only then St. Paul accepted Hellenic speculation and developed Hellenistic eschatology, where liberation from the body of death is understood dualistically - physically. Here posthumous incorporeal nudity is proclaimed, and the posthumous fate is illuminated (in 2 Cor. V, 1 ff.) according to Plato, who, undoubtedly, treated immortality higher and more perfectly than all the pre-Christian sages. The original realistic messianic expectations, thanks to Hellenic participation, gave way to spiritualistic aspirations that ensured messianic benefits for the departed. However, Christianity is much more realistic. It is not just a school professing a known system, since the Founder is not a simple herald and bearer of a new doctrine. Christ was God in the flesh, and the second served here as a necessary means of approaching people. Then the latter will not be faced with the abolition of their carnality, but the most complete transformation according to the type of the body of Christ. For St. For Paul, Christian life was one and integral, or spiritual-bodily, which is why bodily death - with spiritual immortality - necessarily referred to the resurrection by the power of the Lord. Then the idea of ​​parousia is obligatory and natural, proclaimed by the evangelist with determination, although he was not guided solely by it in his missionary activity, as if living entirely in eschatology and striving to convert the world until the coming of the Lord, for - in accordance with Christ - he never said that the latter would certainly happen immediately. The Apostle did not recognize justification without renewal and vice versa, and therefore his parousian aspirations did not weaken the activity of Christian work in him, as is accepted even by the authors who see in Paul’s ethics an enthusiastic anarchy, because of which this moral teaching was rejected by both Catholics and Protestants. On the contrary, the direct result of the apostolic views is that the future life should be new, heavenly. In this regard, Pavlov's independence from Hellenism in the depiction of 2 Cor. V, 1 word. it is all the more indisputable that nowhere is the influence of Hellenic dualism with the dominance of hostility and contempt for the flesh felt. Posthumous nudity, of course, is more ethical and from this side refers to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bretribution, and in order to complete the history of the earthly kingdom of God, the coming of Christ and judgment are obligatory. In this hope, everything is focused on a lifetime of moral preparation, so that later our humble body becomes capable of becoming conformed to the glorious body of Christ (Phil. III, 21). The Christian eschatological ideal lies not in the naturalistic immortality of eternal psychic continuation, but in ethical and religious likeness to the God-man. This process begins with spiritual adoption - ours by grace, continues with complete assimilation into spiritual-physical individuality and culminates with its spiritualization in the uprising of spiritual physicality. The constant and everywhere presence of this somatic element convinces us that - like psychology - St. Even in eschatology, Paul only formally comes into contact with Hellenism, but at all points of convergence he differs from it ideologically. This protects the dignity of all apostolic theology, for in it eschatological concepts were of great importance. In the latter, sufficient stability is noticed, and variations in the depiction of eschatological points are explained by personal experience, and not by outside influences or borrowings. Therefore, internal consistency dominates in Paul's eschatology, highlighting especially clearly the falsity of the tendentious thought about the gradual dogmatic development of the evangelist. In the Old Testament there was no holistic and complete teaching about the posthumous state of people. Here the Apostle of Tongues is original, and the rigor of his eschatological system must convince of objective solidity, as evidenced by close agreement with Christ. If this general observation is correct, particular analogies cannot give a different result. All parallels are too petty and random. Thus, consonances are noted (in 1 Tim. II, 11. 12) with Philemon (361 - 263) and (in 1 Cor. VI, 7) Menander (342 - 291) and from here they guess about the apostolic love for the poets of the new comedy, finding other coincidences with the first ( 1 Tim. II, 9 - 12. Heb. IV, 12. Col. III, 25 and 1 Tim. III, 3. 8; Tit. II, 3) and with the second (in 1 Cor. XV, 33). – The very need for external aids has not been proven here, since the thoughts developed were generally accepted, sometimes, due to their simplicity, they were easily acquired by everyone and in some shades are depicted in a new light. The subordination of a woman to a man was considered an axiom, and that she should be adorned more with modesty than with jewelry, and that drunkenness is a vice, especially indecent for selected persons - all these were commonplaces, self-evident to everyone. On the contrary, it is shameful for Christians to judge the pagans (1 Cor. VI, 7) and the inevitability of retribution for the offender (Col. III, 25) is justified from Christian principles that believers are holy and they have one judge - the Lord, who is impartial and knows all human secrets (Heb. IV, 12 - 13). In all other examples, the impressiveness is no higher. When the evangelist commands to avoid foolish arguments (Tit. III, 9), when he says that death is desirable for him (Phil. I, 21), when he testifies to the sincerity of his preaching (2 Cor. II, 17) or doubts the suitability of a bad steward for church positions (1 Tim. III, 5), - in all these cases the assistance of Aeschylus (525 - 456) is hardly needed for such tangible truths. If, for the apostolic sayings, Odysseus and Pythagoras (for 2 Thessal. III, 10), Homer and Hesiod (for 1 Tim.), Ovid, Horace and Euripides (for Rom. VII, 15) are cited at once, then why not recognize here the general current maxims that are allowed even without such justifications (in Gal. V, 15)? For the equation of the Church with the bodily organism (1 Cor. XII, 12. 21. 24. 25. 26. 27. Rom. XII. 5), is it necessary to read Livy (Histor. II, 23), since the parable of Menenius Agrippa was on everyone’s lips in ancient times, was the idea itself contained in the spiritual inventory of the Roman monarchy and was applied in a theological sense by the rabbis? Reproachful and reproachful allusions to philosophy are possible, but is it necessary to accept direct literary acquaintance with Epicureanism, since it was quite widespread and known in Palestine? There is no more dependence on philosophical luminaries, starting with Socrates. That human knowledge is far from imperfect (1 Cor. VIII, 2) - this has always been confessed besides Socrates (c. 469 - 399), whose school in vain adopted the Christian concept without national citizenship, and universalism turns out to be a product of the Hellenic genius. But Christianity is created on religious soil and is not bound by naturalistic conventions, and therefore - contrary to the idealism of lofty Hellenism - it does not deny or distort the existing limitations in themselves, reigning over them. Christians have always triumphed in their faith in another world, meanwhile Socrates is cold and reserved towards immortality, although he recognized the gods and allowed religious veneration according to paternal customs. There are numerous parallels with Plato (427 - 347), however, they are also of an extremely general nature, although Jewish authors stubbornly insist that St. Paul, having learned dualistic anthropology from this philosopher, precisely through the influence of Platonism, strengthened the antinomianism inherited from the Jewish diaspora, brought it to the point of violent intolerance and began to preach the exclusivity of faith. That the Apostle foresaw his death (2 Tim. IV, 6), felt the obligation for himself to preach (1 Cor. IX, 6) and the purity of his evangelistic behavior (2 Cor. VII, 2) - this is only confirmed by personal experience. That present knowledge is not enough (1 Cor. XIII, 12), that one should not repay evil to anyone (1 Thessal. V, 15), that all people are servile (Acts XIV, 15), are almost axioms. On the contrary, when death reveals the acquisition (Phil. I, 21) of the best in being with Christ (I, 23) and when it is suggested to test the strength of one’s faith (2 Cor. XIII, 5), here in the very phrases purely Christian tones are heard, which are heard no less loudly in the commandment about “warming” the gift of God (2 Tim. I, 6), - for which the natural analogy with life-giving warmth is used, as without the “Apology of Socrates” it is undoubtedly for everyone that God works for the good of his chosen ones (Rom. VIII, 28). The close connection of knowledge with virtue (Col. II, 2. Eph. IV, 18) is understood by the Apostle in a non-Platonic way, for the rational element does not have such authority for him at all; freedom, by virtue of an unwritten internal law, in contrast to the deadening letter (Rom. II, 15), is not at all Platonic, since for the evangelist it is not a natural property of nature, the voice of which creates only universal responsibility, and this is a religious property received along with the achievement of sonship with God. The vanity of creation (Rom. VIII, 20 ff.) is, of course, not in the spirit of Plato, since the latter was alien to the biblical and apostolic idea that all this happened through the fault of man and will disappear with his glorification. There is no doubt that for St. Paul, the kingdom of God was the “highest good,” from which the similarity with Platonic contemplations is argued, but here in vain (in Rom. VII, 18, etc.) is identified with the deity, which in Christianity is not thought of abstractly, but with all personality. The Truly Existent was not a simple ideality for the Apostle, which is why the picture of the reflection of the glory of the Lord and our transformation during contemplation (2 Cor. III, 18 - IV, 4) cannot be a copy of Plato’s (in Phaedr. 209 D - 253 C). All coincidences are completely uncharacteristic and do not indicate literary dependence. For example, the equation of an angry crowd with a wild beast (1 Cor. XV, 32 and 2 Cor. I, 8 - 9; cf. Acts XIX, 28 ff.), far from indisputable in the apostolic writings, of course, did not require scientific reference in the works of Plato, as long as it was clear to everyone, at least from observations of circus competitions and in speech it was not rarely used. It is rightly emphasized that St. Paul, having a negative attitude towards Greek wisdom, did not feel any special impulses towards Hellenic philosophy, did not particularly care about reconciliation with Hellenism and did not have the need to refer to it in his work. For this reason, we must consider all apostolic consonances to be accidental, while they would undoubtedly convince of the closest literary contact for the 4th century, when they were carried away by Platonism. We must not forget that the Apostle was a Jew, but one cannot exaggerate the Greco-philosophical influences on the Jewish diaspora even in Alexandria. Among the advisers of the Apostle of Languages, Aristotle (384 - 322) is not forgotten. The most surprising thing is that his moral teaching is especially put forward, so disparate from the Christian one. The concept itself (in Philip. IV, 8) is traced back to Hellenic sources, and the inspired characterization of virtues (in 1 Cor. XIII) is assimilated to the influence of the Nicomachean Ethics, according to which meekness is praised (Philipp. IV, 5). In the Aristotelian spirit, the virtuous rises above the law (Gal. V, 23) and in nature itself the highest moral regulator is revealed (Rom. II, 14.15) - with the same assessment of the dignity of conscience. Despite the external similarity, the deeper the internal disparity. Aristotle's description of the virtues is very precise and does not raise any confusion in its main principles. For this philosopher, virtue was actually the middle between two extremes, but the Apostle saw in it complete devotion to one principle with the rejection of the other. To find the intermediate edge, you need to know the entire field to the peripheries and have the determination of free will to stay at the middle and central point. Everything here is determined freely - by rational self-condemnation, the development of which was the final goal of human existence - and for Aristotle, man was an autonomous creator of virtues. St. Paul found perfection only in God, which is why all human valor could only be based on the reflection of divine properties in believers, as the fruit of the Spirit of God itself. With such a fundamental difference, identity in a particular characteristic, which was the evangelist's (in 1 Cor. XIII) a complete outpouring of Christian enthusiasm, is absolutely unthinkable. With moral human autonomism, all moral resources are drawn from natural reserves, where nature is the natural legislator, and its guardian is conscience. In both respects, the Apostle deviates from Aristotelian formulas: with him the latter is rather a passive indicator of moral fluctuations, and its far from impeccable sensitivity is capable of becoming completely dulled; natural law does not have absolute imperativeness and itself receives clarity in the interpretation of the positive law (of God), which Aristotle decisively opposes. Hence, the internal discord of human duality and struggle is similar in the apostolic depiction (Rom. VII) except in appearance and disparate in essence: it grows and intensifies from moral awakening and spiritual enlightenment, being resolved by complete human helplessness, while the philosopher motivated these difficult spiritual collisions with the relaxation of ignorance and saw all salvation in spiritual vigilance. It is clear that Aristotle relied exclusively on the power of knowledge to facilitate the acquisition of solid moral skills. Without this, true virtue is incredible, and the philosopher inevitably realized that moral dignity itself is not at all the same among people. With this insight, any analogy between the apostolic citizenship of heaven (Heb. XII, 22. 23) and the Platonic-Aristotelian polity disappears: it is true that the Apostle uses family traits for his concept (Eph. III, 15. IV, 16. V, 23. Col. I, 18. II, 19), but it itself is raised to heavenly prototypes when philosophy confined itself to this sphere and in practice sanctioned narrow nationalism where Christianity erected and established a grace-filled universality. Aristotle had only a premonition of Christian ideals, and due to the formal and logical similarity, we should not lose sight of the fact that foreknowledge does not at all testify that what he expected was precisely its implementation or a copy of it. Rational sophistication did not reach Christian brightness and postulates religious insight. Heraclitus (about 470 - 475 BC) advocated for it quite a bit, who in the era of pre-Christian darkness gained special love and widespread popularity almost even because of his famous “darkness.” Did this passion also affect the Apostle? Guesses of this kind are natural in the relation of the evangelist to Philo, Stoic in views, and through him or directly in connection with Stoicism, akin to Heraclitean theosophy, which underlay it and was the foundation of Stoic physics. Stoicism was in many ways a return to Heraclitus. Thus, the (pantheistic) logology widespread by the Stoics was adopted from here, as well as the doctrine of divine fire and the unreality of human perception due to world fluidity. And already at the beginning of the 17th century. close similarities were noted with a sufficient number of factual illustrations (for 1 Cor. XV, 32. 2 Cor. VII, 2. Philip. III, 20), but the latter were borrowed from forged Heraclitian letters of later origin, 1708, and therefore the opposite dependence is permissible - on the apostolic writings. Otherwise, you will have to deny the authenticity of the latter in advance, and this will be tendentious preoccupation. But besides this, a closeness to Heraclitus is revealed even in the main parts of the Epistle to the Romans. At the same time, this document is also questioned in the relevant sections (chapters XII - XVI), especially the Epistle to the Ephesians, which is demoted to the extent of almost a compilation of Heraclitean philosophemes, although its biblical originality is defended. This opinion seemed all the more legitimate since philosophical assistance for the Epistle to the Ephesians is also allowed by authors who do not think about the Apostle’s direct acquaintance with the opinions of Plato and Aristotle. Zeal in this direction goes so far as to suggest to us that “Heraclitus’s parallel to a well-known Christological passage in the Epistle to the Philippians (II, 6 – 11) is so close and striking that it is hardly accidental and makes the guess of a genetic connection probable.” The similarities are as follows. “In the style of his mystical-theosophical speculation, Heraclitus imagined that the absolute could reveal its highest state, descending into the lower spheres of existence, submitting to suffering and even death, and when its virtue was thereby attested, it returned to its original position.” – The consonance here is purely verbal. The Apostle speaks only about a change in the form of being, always identical to itself, but not in being itself, why death itself is for this new image the greatest revelation of humiliatingly embodied obedience; it is clear that exaltation was neither the goal nor the reward for the deity and is characterized from this side solely in the sense of a blessed fate for our Christ-imitation, for which the fact of the crown of the Lord serves as an ideal of aspirations. On the contrary, with Heraclitus, who raised all existence to (feather) fire, it turns out that the divine principle itself transforms, becoming accessible to passion in an essential way, and already in the form of a gift it acquires the former, as lost and did not belong. This view is completely unapostolic and - at the best assessment - is depicted as purely pantheistic or, of course, alien to St. Pavel. Naturally, his contacts with the Ephesian philosopher cannot extend to theological centers and must be limited to the peripheries. The most analogies were selected in this direction. In the evangelist, the redemptive deliverance of Christ is more than once described (Col. I, 20. Eph. II, 11 - 22 and cf. IV, 3) in the dignity of reconciliation in comparison with former hostility, and in Heraclitus they were considered the basic terms of existence, where everything comes from discord and where all harmony is determined by the existence of opposites. Accordingly, the latter is exalted as the supreme law of cosmic well-being - and in the Apostle we encounter (in Eph. IV, 16) an unusual term. The whole task of ordering cosmic struggles will be to achieve a measure of harmonious balance among them - and for St. Paul is precisely recommended and commanded (Eph. IV, 7. 13. 16 and cf. Rom. XII, 3. 2 Cor. X, 13) in the sense of the boundaries of human moral and religious efforts. Everything in the world fluctuates with instability, but the path of elevation is the same as the path of descent (cosmologically from fire to earth through water), although the direction is the opposite; hence the Heraclitean principle. And in the apostolic image (Eph. IV, 8 – 10) the descent and ascension of Christ are put forward as if to contrast the pagan image, which was only (IV, 14 and cf. VI, 11). The connection here is all the more likely since the Heraclitean theory is also reflected in some Jewish views. The apostolic adaptation takes on a polemical tone, with a deliberate warning against the Epheians' infatuation with their philosopher. The latter especially instilled the obligation to submit to the world mind and affirmed antitheticality in everything, and St. Paul, in the interests of the opposition, energetically emphasizes the vanity of the pagan mind (Eph. IV, 17 and cf. Rom. I, 21) and the darkness of the mind (Eph. IV, 18), which, only enlightened by grace (I, 18), achieves “the light in the Lord” and escapes the former darkness (V, 8). In this combination for St. Paul (Eph. IV, 14) in truth was the “windy” teaching of those who are called for the resourceful application of the Heraclitian doctrine of world fluidity, and for these people the whole life, indeed, was “a game of dice, if Heraclitus categorically proclaimed it. 1709 From our abstract itself it should be clear that all these rapprochements are extremely strained and sometimes almost completely unnatural. Such a refined attitude towards Heraclitean concepts is incredible even in the sense of refutation. Even if we accept the identity, it was still not a specifically Heraclitean term, so that it would be permissible to characterize the original theory, where the image of “game” was used only symbolically and did not exhaust the entire essence. Moreover, “wind” does not mean fluid instability in the Apostle, but the swift force of lies for infant heads. The contrast of light and darkness is natural and common among biblical writers, and its Heraclitian understanding could rather lead to the conviction that in Christianity Heraclitian contemplations and St. Paul authorizes them. Heraclitus revered the world mind pantheistically as a truly divine principle; for the evangelist this was only illusory, but not at all vain, since true divinity was understood. Heraclitus affirms the circulation of being and non-being and transformation in the latter during the transformation from top to bottom and vice versa; the Hellenic evangelist ascertains the integrity of a single subject, in which ascension refers to descent, while the latter does not condition the former ontologically, for this state existed before it. Almost according to the Hegelian template, world hostility was for the Ephesian mystic an essential moment of cosmic existence, which was maintained by the presence of antitheticalities. The apostle did not consider discord a property of life itself; it was only an ethical deviation, always allowing for a return to the norm. Therefore, for him the ideal lay not in the harmony of extremes, but in the elimination of one by the other, and the apostolic “measure” was not the middle of balance, but the fullness of the absoluteness of Christ. All these small differences more clearly highlight the fundamental dissimilarity of the approaching views. For Heraclitus, who fought against popular religion and its fragmented deities, everything is built on the foundation of pantheism with shades of dualism, when the divine principle penetrates, enlivens and enlightens fluid phenomenality, but cannot triumph over irresistible materiality, 1710 why the world, having no beginning, does not find the last end, but is periodically transformed by fire. These ideas are absolutely alien to the apostolic mind, and for him everything that came into contact with them was dogmatically unacceptable, such as, for example, Heraclitus’ ethics, which was based on physical pantheism. Behind these flaws, only general consonant maxims will remain. But here we must remember that the authority of the Ephesian philosopher rose highly in the later, Hellenistic era, and his sayings circulated widely and were often encountered; under these conditions, such coincidences do not at all indicate direct literary use. St. Paul again frees himself from philosophical dependence. And free authors agree that it is now being tendentiously exaggerated, since characteristic cases of agreement concern insignificant points, such as the maintenance of soldiers (in 1 Cor. IX, 7), the worship of God for good (Rom. VII, 18, etc.), the glorification of virtue (Phil. IV, 8), the recognition of spirituality, sincerity and carnality, 1711 praise of “contentment” with cash (Phil. IV, 11) supposedly historically, a call to attention to the lessons of nature (1 Cor. XI, 14), and from here one cannot at all conclude about the invasion and influence of Greek ideas. And these latter differ not only in that they were theories; it is much more important that the theoretical views themselves were radically disparate, sometimes internally contradictory, for example, on the question of conscience 1712 or regarding morality, for ethics was “evidence of decline, not renewal of life” precisely in Stoicism, which, due to internal weakness, was unable to produce a spiritual revolution in the world, as is clear from the contrast between Paul and Seneca. Christianity was neither the perception nor the application of alien doctrines, even though it was prepared by them. 1713 It created from its own depths its own special religious existence, which should be equally original and incomparable with pagan models. Here the other side of the subject is outlined, where dogmatic conviction turns into a spiritual disposition, inseparable from its expression in reverence. This is the area of ​​​​mysterious understanding of religious relations in a feeling of evangelical devotion to the Supreme Being. In paganism, this sphere was embraced by the mysteries, and they are used to clarify the primacy of Christianity. Nowadays these influences are so exaggerated that some try to trace all Christian sacraments to pagan rites. This scale also applies to Paul’s gospel, where similar contacts are seen. Of course, it is more likely for everyone that the Apostle did not personally see the mysteries and was not initiated, but this does not eliminate their influence. Already Philo tried to mystically illuminate the Jewish religion in his philosophical interpretation of it and used it for this serious effort, as he allegedly used this manual even in his non-original logology. For Judaism's own, something similar is equally permissible if it is said that the "magi" were priests of Mithras or Mazdaism. This means that the Apostle Paul could have borrowed from this publicly available source, and then the Stoics had many contacts with mystical parsism, for example, in the doctrine of God - fire and the final world conflagration. Finally, around the Christian era, the mysteries were very widespread, and their terminology was assiduously adopted by the Hellenistic people; the diversity in the content of the mysteries fully corresponded, since they were not purely Greek and bore traces of foreign origin. Thus, in Mithraism there were layers of Iranian, Babylonian, Asia Minor, Hellenic, from which they discover indirect contacts with Babylon, which has long influenced Asia Minor, even in the sacraments of the Eucharist and baptism, and others are found in the Apostle Paul (in Rom. XI, 36) formulas of Egyptian-Greek mysticism or bring Pauline Christology closer to the Brahmanian doctrine of Krishna, for both are dominated by the idea of ​​returning from the prevailing dualism to the primordial unity. The cult of Mithras was widely dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, penetrated to the west, prevailed among soldiers and slaves, and, under the patronage of the Caesars, became the permitted, almost dominant religion of the Roman state; for the 3rd century, even the question is raised whether there were not more Mithraists then than Christians? Cilicia and Tarsus served as prominent stages in this movement. Therefore, it was not difficult for the Hellenic evangelist to become acquainted with the mysteries, at least in Cilicia and in Tarsus, where he lived from childhood and then, according to promise, for about two years, so that the influence of this city affects even the apostolic Christology. Mithraism is associated with Parsism, but the latter has long been in Asia Minor, and therefore the former was firmly established here, entering into a close community with local religious and cult beliefs - especially with the cult of Cybele, which also reached Rome. In the Cilician capital there was the birthplace and center of Parsi mysterism for the Asia Minor regions, in which it acquired great weight and wide scope. Under the above conditions, it is considered completely natural that during his preaching St. Paul was influenced by the mysteries and Mithraism and adapted to the mysteric language, using (for example, in 1 Cor. II, 6 ff. Heb. VI, 4) its vocabulary and often (Col. I, 26 and passim. Philip. IV, 12) giving corresponding metaphors. Of course, the Christian faith was first established in the lower strata, but it was in them, first of all, that all Orientalism found shelter. From different sides for St. Paul, there was scope for mystical influences on him, and there were no obstacles to eliminating them either in himself or in the being of the influencing elements. Of course, the Apostle lived and thought in the spirit of Christianity, but the latter was not a self-contained and uniform value. On the contrary, the evangelist is the son of the syncretistic period, and the apostolic teaching was also syncretism, where Orientalistic - mystical and Hellenistic - philosophical elements were uniquely generalized in the form of a mixture of Judaism, apocalypticism, Hellenism, mysteries, and popular pagan philosophy. True, they say that for a rabbinist the entire New Testament appears to be a rabbinic haggadah, and all of Christianity turns out to be one of the stages of the evolution of Judaism, so much so that all of Paul's theology was taught in advance in the rabbinical schools of Jerusalem and the letter to the Romans is covered by rabbinic sources in all the most important points. Let this be an exaggeration, which is rightly rejected. Now it is important for us that even with the close genetic proximity of Paulinism to Judaism, the former is not at all completely isolated from outside intrusions, for they had support in the latter. Thus, the Haggadah is depicted as being similar in ethics to Stoicism, which Strabo also equated with Judaism, and Sadduceeism is directly related to Hellenism. From here, a stoic-materialistic metaphysics could penetrate into Paul’s system, embracing the deity itself and subordinating it to the despotism of an unchanging fate, which is why the idea of ​​domination is adopted by Paul and even the Apostle himself is considered a fatalist. Other observations are also drawn to this, as if - in comparison with Old Testament demonology - in St. Paul here has more orientalistic layers, when he fills the air with demons (Eph. II, 2), “the elements of the world” (Gal. IV, 3.9; Col. II, 8.20) he reveres as special angelic beings. Along with this, Stoicism is brought into relation with Heraclitus, being connected with the latter by some philosophical concepts, but this philosopher comes into contact with Judaism through the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, for its author is called pseudo-Heraclitus, seeing in it also Platonism and Egyptian reflections. On the other hand, it is emphasized that the Apostle used this non-canonical creation, and if its writer was a disciple of Philo, then St. It was not difficult for Paul to become acquainted with the Alexandrian theosophist himself, who, like “a double-minded man” (James I, 8), united in himself two worlds - Jewish and Hellenic - even in the concept of deity and had his influence in the development of religious and philosophical views. We see that the Jewish principles of Paul's gospel do not in the least eliminate the most varied attacks. And this is quite natural, since later Judaism was involved in the syncretistic process of decomposition and mixing of ancient religions, the introduction of many borrowings was complicated, having lost its natural integrity, and in eschatology it became a “gathering point for alien elements.” It is not surprising that Jewish premises could lead to such a Christian construction that some declare the whole of “Christianity” to be a model of religious syncretism. In any case, it is true that Judaism itself drew closer and brought others closer to Hellenism, and this, in turn, was also not united. Syncretism akin to the views of peoples and imparted its diversity to the then Hellenism, which accepted many orientalistic elements, was colored by spiritualistic monotheism and imbued with spiritualistic monotheism and was imbued with expectations of special revelation and vice. This later Hellenism reflected the syncretic process of “theocracy” and clearly affected modern philosophy, which became the bearer of religious-syncretistic and monotheistic ideas. It is undeniable that the monotheistic features here are greatly exaggerated when the ancient world of the Hellenistic era acquired favor or direct attraction to biblical monotheism, but still one cannot but agree that religious-philosophical thought was in a mysterious ferment, preparing for religious renewal. From this side, Christianity is portrayed as a natural continuation of syncretistic-Hellenistic religiosity, and such “ancient religion is the real Old Testament of our Christianity.” 1714 It is quite natural that, without in the least abandoning the Judeo-biblical premises, the Apostle joined the Hellenistic movement and adopted a lot from it. This is, for example, the Stoic concept of freedom in general and from the law in particular, or the complication of the Jewish idea of ​​original - hereditary sin of the Hellenistic doctrine of sinful carnality and personal imputation, while the Jewish concept of “yetzer gara” saw the root cause of sinfulness in God himself, as its creator. Subsequently, they find no less consistently that if Christianity preaches the general resurrection and does not allow optional immortality, then this is a deviation from rabbinism, where the idea of ​​​​the resurrection of some righteous people prevailed, and Paul’s concept of resurrection in another body was a concession to Hellenism in comparison with rabbinic doctrines, where bodily identity for each person is ensured by the preservation of an incorruptible bone from him in the earth. In connection with Hellenic dualism, they consistently state in the Apostle Paul echoes of some world-hatred and asceticism with a destroyed view of women and marriage. Let us assume that all these judgments are dominated by tendentious inaccuracies or distortions. There is no dualistic asceticism at all, because regarding the flesh the evangelist teaches in such a unique way that this concept is recognized as his personal property, acquired not by borrowing from the Greeks, but by individual experience. What is most affirmed about life after the resurrection is that it will not be purely illusory and will retain a certain connection with the body. Freedom for the Apostle is not at all autonomy or arbitrariness, not even a psychological quality, but a property of Christian life, which is why it is explained from it in its origin and content, so incomparable in Christian morality - especially on the issue of love for enemies. It is also incorrect that Stoicism, having ennobled the meaning of work, elevated the dignity of women, equating them to men, contrary to Judeo-biblical oppression. On this subject, practice among the Jews has always been higher than law, and the Old Testament religion did not in the least humiliate women, as is noticeable in later Judaism, but Christianity directly elevated the personality of women. However, all these are just private mistakes, and the most important thing remains that Paul, starting from Jewish principles and preserving them, was brought into ideological connection with syncretistic - philosophical religiosity. Finally, the availability of this source to the Apostle is also indisputable. It is sometimes accepted that he had a good Greek education and, from illustrations from pictures of lists and wrestling, they conclude that he had a Hellenic knowledge, emphasizing the likelihood that Saul took advantage of the amenities and benefits of the University of Tarsus. At the same time, they find in him, as a Greek who wrote in Greek, literary language, good style and art of speech. Then all means are available to penetrate into the treasures of philosophy, but opposing views do not eliminate it. They say that Paul was from a poor family, did not receive a systematic school education in Greek and then, to quote current proverbs, did not prepare for missionary service by studying Plato and Aristotle or reading poets and philosophers, but only used the speech and wisdom of the Greeks in his evangelistic interests, in which we see in him only a weak philosophical touch, without a consistent system. The apostolic Greek language is not at all artificial - literary, but more popular, although not directly vulgar - with significant kinship to the LXX translation, which is especially important here, because without it Paul will be incomprehensible either in theology or in activity. Given his weakness in the Greek language, the Apostle was forced to resort to the services of assistants and interpreters, of whom Luke, identified with Titus, sometimes stands out. These collaborators and scribes allegedly actively participated in Pavlov’s writings and contributed to their success in literary and substantive terms, but these are still simple letters. In these interpretations and fortune-telling there is again a lot of subjective and arbitrary. For example, the influence of scribes could not possibly be significant for the ideological content, and the apostolic epistles resemble private letters only in their introductions and endings, but not at all in their central parts. With all this, we must not forget that the bearer of religious-intellectual syncretism in the Hellenistic era was not school, but popular philosophy, and Paul could well have borrowed from it, even without possessing special Hellenic culture. As a result, it appears that Christian Paulinism is genetically close to its contemporary religious and philosophical heritage and is enriched from it. But there - with the strong spread of secret cults - mystical influences and movements dominated, which were to leave their mark on the apostolic views. Hence it is stated that - positively or negatively - Christianity is represented (Col. I, 13 f. II, 15) under the images of the mysteries and imperceptibly begins to comment on their type due to their close similarity. From the use of this mystical tropology it is concluded with conviction that concepts drawn from Orphic initiations are also reflected in Christian dogma. Christianity, having absorbed and adapted Mithraism, receives a mystical understanding, which, extending to baptism and the Eucharist, transfers it into the circle of mystical-theurgic religiosity, and Greek culture provides significant assistance to Christian development. Hellenic mysticism is established, and with it Christian teaching turns out to be a profound change in comparison with the original views. Even the central idea of ​​the Logos as a mediator is in some way a reflection of the doctrines regarding Mithras. This reinforces the daring idea that everything in Christianity, beyond Judaism, owes directly to myth. The true fact is obscured by a mythical fog and becomes doubtful in its existence at the most cardinal points. Thus, the gospel story of the Last Supper, the Battle of Gethsemane, betrayal, scourging, crucifixion and resurrection supposedly has a dramatic origin, being actually not a story, but a reproduction of a mystical drama, and the latter imprinted the ancient religious practice of human sacrifice, echoes of which are still heard today. Others find that baptism and the Eucharist are based on a primitive animist-spiritualistic concept, which was embodied distortedly in other naturalistic religions. From this it is clear that the roots of such a teaching will not be at all in Christ and not in the Gospel. The genesis of the Eucharistic views turns out to be completely special: - at first it was only an Essene - Persian rite, and only then a sacrament was formed under the influence of the cult of Mithra, where there are so many parallels regarding the cup and bread. This interpretation is also correct for baptism, which acquired sacramental significance in view of the fact that all Christian sacraments arose under the influence of the mysteries familiar to St. Paul in Cilicia. Here the question naturally arises about the consistency of such a biblical view, and we are told that the apostolic history of the Eucharist is absolutely alien to the worldview of the Lord, who did not establish either this sacrament or baptism, and since both of them were turned into special sacraments, this introduced a particle of pure paganism into the circle of Christian views. And the blame for this falls on the Apostle Paul: he was the first Christian theologian, but he preached an enthusiastic mysticism that was kept “outside the sphere of intellect,” and accepted non-historical traditions about Christ. In this mood, it is not surprising that the Hellenic evangelist, familiar with Mithraism in Tarsus, became infected with the bacilli of the mysteries that then saturated the entire air, where the whole atmosphere was saturated with Orphic and Mithraic mysterism. As a result, his entire Christian system was imbued with mythological elements of purely pagan origin, and the Christian religion was in danger of degenerating into miraculous mysteries. These radical judgments find no solid justification either in points of principle or in detail. Mystery in many ways remains mysterious until now. There are benevolent interpretations that they contained pure primitive religious beliefs, which in mystical mystery were saved from pagan obscuration. Such well-intentioned apologetic utopias, in any case, are not confirmed for the mysteries by the living facts of historical reality. The latter was not at all guided by biblical tendencies. Objectively, calm research reveals that - in their essence - the mysteries were entirely and systematically built on ontological dualism, trying in vain to achieve reconciliation between God and the world, good and evil, light and darkness; they were imbued with and fed on these contrasts, unable to unite or destroy them. It can hardly be argued with success that Christian foundations are completely anti-dualistic, since everything here rests on the incarnation and is directed towards the establishment of the closest union of heaven and earth. Hints to the contrary are needlessly and erroneously exaggerated. They say that the apostolic doctrine of sinful flesh was borrowed from mysterical contemplations, while for them this sinfulness was naturalistic when St. Paul motivated it not by carnality, but understood and interpreted it ethically, approaching the general biblical view, which in him acquires the most clear revelation. It is now obvious that in the apostolic concept there was not even a point of support for the application of the mystical categories. Naturally, there are no such cases, based on a careful analysis of the facts themselves. Contrary to this, they note as an indisputable phenomenon that the entire Christian economy is described as a “mystery” or “mystery”, and this last name by the Apostle characterizes the essence of Christianity and Christian teachings (Rom. XI, 25. XVI, 25. 1 Cor. II, 1. 7. IV, 1. XIII, 2. XIV, 2. XV, 51. Eph. I, 9. III, 3 f. V, 32. Col. I, 26. 27. 2 Tim. III, 9. 16 and Wed. VI, 14 - 16; Christianity, of course, adopted the external forms of pagan worship, but transformed and filled them with its own content, as we see in doctrinal terminology. It is possible that in particular ready-made phrases and sayings, Paul’s expressions (Rom. XIV, 26) about the eternal God, are borrowed, but this does not predetermine either dependence in origin or coincidence in meaning. Therefore, and regarding this, there is no need to be deceived by external consonance. The word itself with a similar content has already been found in biblical non-canonical books and in Jewish apocrypha, departing far from mystical precision and having its own characteristics in apostolic use, where it denoted the actual mystery of God’s unknown plans regarding redemption (Col. I, 26. Eph. I, 9. III, 3. 4. 9), but in Christ the rots became a living reality, are assimilated by everyone and for everyone is clear. The Apostle’s concepts almost merge, which is why the second becomes disparate in comparison with the mystical concepts of that time. Here a radical difference is revealed, for Christianity is now not darkness, but a revelation (Rom. XVI, 25. 26) in a tangible reality for everyone, when mysterism was accessible in its secrets not even to all adepts and completely eliminated women; Mithraism was distinguished by dark isolation and was a kind of Freemasonry. In Christianity, this most important moment of pagan-mysterical mystery was eliminated, so that the apostolic language turns out to be paradoxical, since it meant not the strict secret of a close circle, but a bright truth, clearly communicated and freely perceived. From this it must be certain that St. Paul could not equate himself with the hierophant of the Eleusinian mysteries in the dignity of the bearer of divine secrets, if the evangelist transmitted more than revealed them, since they were already revealed in the fulfillment of the feat of Christ and in the life-giving existence of the Church of Christ. The tricks to bring the Apostle closer to the mystagogue are extremely unsuccessful. For them, the letter to the Christians is attracted by Philip (IV, 12), where, supposedly, every touch of this kind is very impressive, because this Macedonian city, built on the Thracian border, lay on the path of the initial movement to Greece of the mysteries of Dionysus and, perhaps, Demeter; in the mountains closest to it there was a church of Dionysus, whose name also bore one hill; others even guess that the Philippian servant, possessed by the spirit of divination (Acts XVI, 16 ff.), was a hierodula or priestess of the Church of Dionysus. All this argumentation is easily destroyed by a simple reference that the term of interest is deprived of specially mystical shades and is depersonalized to the current concepts of learning (see Philip. IV, 11) and knowledge (IV, 12). For St. For Paul, Christianity was not a cultic mystery, impenetrable to ordinary eyes; it is not analogous, for example, to the cult of Mithra - and even the initiations themselves are completely different, since among Christians they are preceded by direct instructions in dogmas. Categorically mentioned (1 Cor. xiv. 16. 23) about the presence in Christian churches of “ignoramuses”, incapable of comprehending inspired glossolalic broadcasts, and they even had a place for them. Adapted to the pagan religious-cult organization, they tried to understand by this class a group of “alien” people not belonging to the union, but the decisive difference from the “infidels” (1 Cor. XIV, 23) suggests that these were not unbelievers, but persons already capable and ready to respond with heartfelt consent to Christian callings. In these properties, they are significantly similar to the “simpletons” (am - haarez) known in rabbinic theology, who are not sufficiently knowledgeable in the highest legalistic-ritual wisdom, however, it is difficult (cf. 2 Cor. XI, 6) to attribute the apostolic witness to poorly educated Christians from the “dark” crowd, for they are not directly included in the composition of the Christian community, being somewhat external to it - like the pagans (see. 1 Cor. xiv. 23). Therefore, it is much more reasonable to assume “catechumens” here, even after baptism, for in early Christian times it was not only preceded, and sometimes only accompanied by a catechumen, but both of these moments were closely related to each other, and the Christian catechumenate has always been a serious study. Christian deliverance was alien to mystical exclusivity and therefore did not have the character of closed accommodation to the chosen ones. At this point the question concerns the saving action itself and the corresponding Christian institutions. In the first respect, the term is especially put forward as magically - mystical; Considering it taken from the mystical vocabulary, they associate this word with the mystical or higher acts of the final purification of candidates (on the eighth day) to the mystical contemplation (on the ninth day), and the apostolic expressions (1 Cor. II, 6; Philip. III, 12. 15. Col. I, 29; Heb. II, 10, VI, 1) comment in this sense. Believers are, as it were, a caste of “perfects” in the likeness of those who have ascended to the mystical heights and separated from the dark crowd. These echoes are emphasized in the apostolic terminology that Christians will be “consecrated.” Those blessed are depicted as a solid mass of owners of a secret hidden from others, like simpletons who have not penetrated the mystical sanctuary. But this contrast is not maintained phraseologically and would require a slightly different turn of phrase. The whole interpretation is based on a false foundation, as if in his ecstatic enthusiasm the evangelist believed that the entire fullness of Christian grace is immediately perceived when all believers are equally approximate and do not have gradations in the degree of moral growth; St. Paul allegedly forgot reality and saw only his utopia, in which there were no moral classifications in practice. All of this is partly exaggerated and partly actually unfair. Grace decisively recovers from previous sinfulness and fully delivers all its privileges of real sonship with God. From this point of view, the redeemed are fundamentally all-perfect and form the sacred kingdom of the chosen ones. Nevertheless, this real right requires its own ethical implementation, and in it many variations are even inevitable, just as the children of the flesh exercise their prerogatives of undisputed and unlimited heirs differently. If the Apostle did not always speak energetically about this side, it was not at all out of denial of it, but out of constant concern for it, for which he put forward an obligatory ideal. Moral differences are categorically assumed and affirmed, since everywhere there is evidence of different assimilation of Christian goods. Accordingly, he allows both errors and improvements in Christians, not considering the revival to be completed subjectively due to enthusiastic passion. There will not be a reproduction of the Hebrew tham (thamiru, schalem), but is used precisely in Greek in the sense of the Latin adultus, without any relation to the mysteries, where the contrast of dedication and complete alienation prevails. The Apostle points only to those who have been more morally successful in the grace of Christ, objectively perfect for everyone forever, and loses all mystical overtones, completely belonging to Christian messianism. Christian superiority occurs in redemptive ways by reflecting the greatness of Christ, which in the God-man was not simply an accepted initiation into the mysteries of God, but was the acquisition of personal achievement. Naturally, this is also obligatory for the redeemed, which is why for them not everything ended in a mysterious rebirth. On the contrary, the mysteries, not striving to communicate higher knowledge, were exhausted by magical - cult actions, when all personal participation was limited to the passive performance of certain cult acts, directly leading to magical unity with the deity. Given the dependence on mystical contemplations, similar features should have been found in apostolic dogma. But of the Christian institutions, the closest to the mystical procedures were baptism and the Eucharist, which could become vehicles for the penetration of mysterical concepts into the original Christian views. The dispute now focuses on these points. It is believed that it was here that the greatest influence of the mysteries was, especially the Eleusinian ones, in the spirit of which St. Paul interpreted these acts differently from their early Christian understanding, radically deviating from the latter and even allowing for gross superstitions. With their sacramentalism, the successors of Christ soon betrayed the original messianism and, deviating from the Gospel, joined the dominant religious syncretism, the important role of which in religious movements is obvious, for example, from the Babylonian - astral influences on rabbinism. Thus, already in Paul (1 Cor. X) and John (Evangel. X) there is a sacramental element in the influence of the mysteries, familiar to the former from Mithraism in Cilicia, although at that time the whole atmosphere was saturated with mystical vapors, and in Asia Minor Orientalistic magic dominated along with all the secret teachings. Hence the attitude of Christianity to the cult of Mithra and others, and especially in the sphere of the sacraments, where the Apostle of Languages ​​- contrary to Christ - turns out to have mysterical - magical acts. In this capacity, both sacraments - baptism and the Eucharist - do not at all belong to the basic elements of Christianity, which is why even Islam claims to be the best exponent of the latter in comparison with the Catholic understanding, burdened with Greek philosophy and the mysticism of St. Paul as a “lover of Hellenism.” In particular, baptism is supposedly depicted by this Apostle mystically (Rom. VI) as a means of introducing a new life, and here borrowing is seen from the Eleusinian cult and from the mysteries in general. Let’s not talk about imaginary transformations in Christianity: - they are not at all provable according to the New Testament writings and are completely arbitrary in this matter, where the most important moment of participation in the Triune God is stated as if the testimony about it (in Matthew XXVIII, 19) is of later origin and the Savior did not give such a commandment, and the Christian Trinity symbolizes the three cultural elements of the ancient world - Judaism, Greece and Rome. But they say that in this area there was more scope for all sorts of additions, and St. Paul (in 1 Cor. X along with John VI) was among the first to poison Christianity with the infection of modern paganism, which, reflected in his teaching on baptism, then poured into the joy of the Church in a wide wave. However, the analogy itself is certainly illusory even for the central idea and rests on a false assumption, as if the mystical illumination was thought of as a new birth; in parallel to this for St. Paul speaks about the magical meaning of the name of Jesus in general and about its incantatory power at baptism, and the latter receives a purely magical dignity, which is also acquired by the Holy Spirit, to which the evangelist reduced all Christian existence, although previously only extraordinary actions were acquired by Him. To justify these connections and interpretations, they cite the fact that the hierophant of sacramental ablution was a new person, for he now received a new name. But in fact, this person always retained his name and only during sacred ceremonies, he lost it, became nameless and was designated not by him, but by this position of hierophant. And there is all the less talk about mystical rebirth since the mysteries do not involve forgiveness of sins for those initiated through them. At the same time, the correlation itself disappears - and the champions of mystical commentary are forced to accept that the Hellenic evangelist assimilates his own mysterious and mystical power to baptism, like all of early Christianity, not allowing for magical elements, thinking sacramentally. Baptism was not a simple symbol, but for such needs there was all the less incentive to turn to the mystical ritual, since it was much closer to use the Jewish practice, where the baptized proselyte was equated with a baby, which was much closer to use the Jewish practice, where the baptized proselyte was equated with the baby on the first day of his life, i.e. was recognized as a newborn or spiritually reborn, and in this way Orientalistic traits could enter completely independently of the mysteries. 1715 Otherwise, the apostolic mysticism of baptism was rooted in the very essence of Christian beliefs regarding the grace-filled renewal of union with Christ and was opposed to mysterism simply because it rested on the dualism assumed in the mystical atonement. In Christianity, a powerless slave is transformed into a powerful heir, from which it necessarily follows that he has achieved a filial position, when in the Eleusinian and Orphic mysteries everything was resolved by the communication of special names that opened access to the bliss of other worlds. But Christian sonship with God is the entire property of the Son of God and is acquired by all others, obviously, only through real participation in him, when the believer, becoming His brother, turns out to be a child of the Heavenly Father. Here the act of mysterious union with Christ during the very grace itself is dogmatically obligatory; since it occurs during baptism, it is natural that the latter acquires the dignity of mystery. From this point of view, all attempts to assert apostolic independence from the mysteries are theoretically unacceptable and in fact erroneous solely by the fact that the evangelist himself did not recognize baptism as a sacrament and saw in it not a mystical act, but actually only a ceremonial rite for witnessing the faith through a special confession. But here the sacrament is unfairly understood in a purely magical sense, and St. Paul is forced to believe in the magical sacrament in general. There is no doubt that the Apostle did not share such views and armed himself against their practical application (for example, among the Corinthians); for him it is not a formula for magical exorcism. However, the essence of the matter is not at all exhausted by simple symbolism. The whole importance lies in achieving redemption, and it is acquired by the feat of Christ, as a fact. Let the latter, supposedly, be illuminated according to biblical-Jewish premises and therefore not force one away from Mithraism. Even with this one-sided interpretation, it remains indisputable that for grace-filled Christian action it is necessary to penetrate to the redemptive source in the Lord the Deliverer, when, merging with Him, Christians necessarily share in His suffering in their lives. All this requires a mysterious act of mystical communion with Christ, and co-resurrection is certainly preceded by “burial” (Rom. VI, 4. Col. II, 12), which, rooted in the essence of the matter, can least of all be a reflection of mysterical concepts. This ethical revival is not at all identical with the physical immortality of mystical hopes and the endowment in Christ gives a completely Christian meaning, revealed by St. Paul with individual independence. The Apostle has an exclusively Christian logic, based on historical fact and extracting everything only from it; 1716 the evangelist only reveals and applies to specific requests what was contained in the teaching and in all the exploits of Christ. Pavlov's mysticism simply characterizes human passivity when blessed and in this case reproduces a genuine event, according to which the Apostle forms his own language. He did not copy the mysteries, if, contrary to them, he does not consider (in 1 Cor. I, 17) baptism the primary function of his ministry. Terminological consonance does not at all equal objective coincidence. And if this sacrament is tropically called sealing (2 Cor. I, 22. Eph. I, 13. IV, 30), - in this act there is no echo of the mystical rites even according to the court of the defenders of their influence, 1717 since among the Jews circumcision was proclaimed as the seal of election and covenant with God, and sometimes this name was adopted by them even to proselyte baptism, although Jewish religiosity did not allow strict sacramentality, why the latter circumstance eliminates the idea of ​​Jewish dependence, for this rite does not is considered sacramental in Judaism and had a symbolic - moral meaning, according to which it, of course, comes into contact with the Christian sacrament, as is somewhat similar to it in John the Baptist. It cannot be argued that mystical ritual crept into the Christian environment of apostolic times. In these interests, it is usually noted that the Corinthians - not contrary to St. Paul - “they baptized the dead for the sake of” (1 Cor. XV, 29), i.e. they performed baptismus vicarious, supposedly in imitation of mystical models. This is an extremely dark place, and special care is required in its interpretation. 1718 The apostolic speech even allows for interpretation in the sense of a logical argumenti ad absurdum, that since there is no resurrection, then baptism will be for the kingdom of the dead. However, the literal understanding - about baptism in place of a deceased catechumen - is resolved with the same result, for hints of similar pagan religious customs are extremely rare and extremely vague, and baptism itself for the dead is completely unknown in paganism. For this alone, it is impossible for the Apostle to assimilate such an idea. But even if it is true that the Corinthians allowed a special baptism for their dead in the manner of the medieval “mortuary dinners” and adopted its magical effect. And in this case, it does not at all follow from here that the Apostle Paul sanctions such an understanding and that he himself saw baptism as an opus operatum. This is completely unfair, for the evangelist, while adaptively using the Corinthian practice, certainly does not approve of it and rejects it in essence, and at the same time eliminates all pagan associations. The success of reverse interpretations is not helped by the belief in the strong mystical overtones of the entire fifteenth chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. The examples given do not in the least protect this bold judgment. To explain the truth of the resurrection, the evangelist uses the analogy of sown grain (1 Cor. XV, 36; cf. John XII, 24), but, not being Jewish-rabbinic, this illustration was not mysterical, as it was completely natural and widespread. The apostolic use of it is, of course, excellent, since in the mysteries in this way it was symbolized not the expectation of an uprising, but a blissful stay in the bosom of the earth. Eschatological contacts are not found at all. Even if we assume similarities in the eschatological view of the entire otherworldly future, it is still unshakable that in the assessment of sin and in the exaltation of the factor of the redeeming love of the Heavenly Father there is not the slightest similarity with the mysteries, and convergence on this point is in vain, why Christian concepts are not dependent on the mysteries, the veneration of heroes and kings and in general on pagan word usage, expressing religiously - ethical deliverance, and then it is not superfluous to emphasize that if the cult of the Caesars spread everywhere in the Roman state, it was always hated by Christianity, where the veneration of saints grew not on the basis of pagan heroism, but from martyrdom. The individualistic egoism of personal self-preservation in Greek eschatology was alien to Israel, which professed the triumph of the particular only together with the whole. Christianity holds both of these moments in harmonious indissolubility and is directly incomparable in its originality. Christian development does not take place in individual isolation, but with the totality of all members - and, St. asserted these truths. Paul, more than anyone else, worked in favor of the ethical vitality of the church, as an organically grace-filled force in which salvation is achieved and realized, why for him is extra ecclesiam nulla salus, even for this they accused the Apostle of embarrassingly literalistic orthodoxy and self-important infallibility, even of a tendency to despotic violence against the conscience of others, despite all his diplomacy. But, in any case, here too the original Christian independence of St. Pavel. There is equally little real affinity with the mystery cult regarding the Eucharist, for which various new theories find a direct connection. This leads to the energetic influence of mysterism; 1719 in the spirit of the latter - the previous view was completely transformed and from the Hellenic evangelist comes a new sacramental construction, according to which believers in this act unite with Christ exactly as the Greeks through their sacrifices with Dionysus or Artemis. The Lord Himself did not institute the Eucharist at all, and it was taken from paganism. Actually, Paul introduced it as a sacrament of Christ and “mystically materialized it,” and yet it was his exclusive innovation, where, due to his attention to the mysteries, the evangelist reworked the historical data about the Lord’s Supper. And if others reject the presence of a crudely materialistic understanding in the Apostle, it is still admitted that he did not view the Eucharist mystically and thereby contributed to its transformation into a sacrament. Here it is assumed in advance that the latter was not at all for Christ himself - and hence an attempt arises to prove that St. Paul, the Eucharist is also not a sacrament, the idea of ​​ex opera operato is alien and therefore is not genetically connected either with the Eleusinian mysteries or with the cult of Mithras. By eliminating all Judeo-pagan analogies, they completely take away any “mystery” from the Eucharist, which for the Apostle will be a purely symbolic act, where the death of Christ is remembered, just as in baptism a new Christian life is simply witnessed by a special ceremony. But there is hardly any need to expand on the fact that in this interpretation we have a reverse exaggeration towards the other extreme. The apostolic expressions are too decisive, and they can only be smoothed out by a violent reinterpretation, as if the rapprochement of the cup with blood and the bread with the body of Christ appeared to St. Paul, according to the requirements of literary rhetoric, does not contain its own real content. It is indisputable that the Eucharist affirms both the mysterious communion of believers with Christ and the special effect of this on the former. This opens up space for theories, as if the evangelist understood the Eucharistic meal in a magical-mysterical sense. However, there are even more errors and distortions here. An analysis of all the details does not support such a view. If they say that in the speech about the “transfer” of what was received from the Lord regarding the supper (1 Cor. XI, 23) the Apostle uses sacred-mysterious vocabulary, then this is a stretch: - denotes symbolic acts of “handing over” the mystical secrets to the adepts, in particular the presentation of some sacred objects, whereas in the apostolic text we are talking about teaching imparted by the “traditional” method, widely practiced in Judaism The latter had a certain kind of catechism for proselytes - with dogmatic, ethical and eschatological content, and those who converted had to learn this compendium of their new faith in advance. In general, such an idea is undoubted, from which it is quite plausible that a similar symbol of a Christian character was soon formed for the same purposes in the depths of early Christianity and is noticeably reflected in St. Pavel. The fundamental truth of this theory is confirmed by gradual ascent from later evidence: it follows from them that in the Christian Church the basic Christian doctrines were “transmitted” orally to the catechumens, and just before baptism, a redditio symboli took place on their part in a solemn confession; An equally indisputable fact is for the 2nd century tradition evangeliorum, but - in one form or another - it existed in apostolic times. Here lies the fundamental difference between the Christian sacraments and the mysteries by their very nature and purpose, for the former were certainly associated with open and precise teaching and served to consolidate it in the personal life of everyone through a graciously mysterious influence, while the latter suppressed the didactic element and concentrated everything on ceremonial contemplation. For the present case, it is important that “tradition” for the Apostle Paul means a purely Christian act of preliminary knowledge of the basic Christian truths, while in the mysteries a later moment is thought of - more - of a symbolic nature. The Eucharistic supper is portrayed as entirely Christian. And since it is mentioned (1 Cor. XI, 25), it directly follows that this was not a random improvisation due to external influences, but was connected with the very essence of the apostolic life, precisely as Christ’s, being a mysterious act of unity with the Lord. It is obvious that St. Paul proposes the establishment of Christ, where there was certainly something sacramental. The Evangelist only reveals and applies it to specific needs, and allows the influence of the mysteries on early Christianity to be hardly possible, for one would have to agree that it had already introduced the elements of paganism into the true Gospel of Christ, for example, regarding the supernatural birth of the Savior. The Christian supper was a remembrance of the Lord's sacrifice itself and reflected it in itself. It is inevitable that with the mystical coloring of the first, the same features should have appeared in the depiction of the second, as is allowed for the apostolic depiction of the death of the Lord and for some details of His resurrection (for example, on the third day). In these types it is indicated that the “perfection” of Christ’s salvation is acquired by “tasting” precisely death (Heb. VI, 9. 10), and on the path to “perfection” Christians are called “enlightened”, “those who have tasted” the gift of heaven, the good word of God and the powers of the future age, “participants” of the Holy Spirit (VI, 1. 4. 5). All these features are commented on in mystical terminology, which is very consonant with the apostolic one. Despite all this, there is no material similarity, for in the mysteries the ceremonies meant were only preparatory to the full initiation of the candidates, and in Christianity the Eucharist is the highest seal of our graciously real life with God in objectively mysterious contact with Him. The cup and bread were not of such importance in the mystery ritual. There is even an opinion that only formulas of this kind were simply read and do not indicate the actions of drinking and eating. But if this happened, in any case, there was a preliminary act towards the revelation of higher illumination, crowned with sacred contemplation. This difference is connected with another, that this mystical action was single and was not repeated, symbolizing the anticipation of the expected blissful life. Then the ancient Christian agapes will not be mystical, as they are original in essence. Similarity completely disappears due to the lack of ideological similarity and close dependence in symbolism. In all respects, the mysteries are far from Christian sacraments, alien to crude realism, and could not have had a substantive influence, at least allowing knowledge of them by the Apostle, despite the fact that Mithraism was certified in Tarsus only for the 3rd century and in general came into closer contact with Christianity only in the 2nd, which is why its influence in Judaism or in early Christian circles is incredible. Sacraments at St. Paul's mysteries are not only superior, but also incomparable in all fundamentals. All analogies are random and any parallels do not in the least indicate subordination. On the outer side, the mystery procedures were designed to impress, without providing teaching, just as they did not contain dogmatic doctrine. They also think differently, as if there was a real theology or dogmatic system with solid fundamental principles. But it must be agreed that this is only a scientific interpretation and was not an open, clear preaching. 1720 The didactic element, of course, was absent from the essence and practice of mysterism. In any case, it was given too subordinate a meaning, when the symbolized truth was communicated without the slightest evidence, because there was no formal instruction. As a result, “the pagan mysteries awakened a thirst for deliverance in the hearts, but the mystical rites did not contain what was communicated,” and in moral terms they proclaimed and gave rise to apathy. They did not require moral disposition, but only ritual purity, which resembled Levitical rather than Christian practice and was understood as dualistic. Victims did not play a major role in them, when the moment of sacrifice prevails in the apostolic Christian concept. For all these reasons, the invasion of transformative mystical influences into Christianity, which remains independently original in the essential points of theology, is unthinkable - and we are deprived of the right to see in the Christian sacraments an adaptation of pagan mysteries, alien to them in their entire meaning. At the same time, St. Paul and the Christians of the apostolic age generally had an aversion to everything pagan and were least inclined to consciously borrow, and in the mysteries, apologists already noticed their pagan competition with Christianity, since they had long been recognized as a stronghold of paganism with all its superstitions. Unintentional impacts on St. Paul or John are also incredible because they were so original. In New Testament writing there could only be external contacts in particular points, which served as accidental supports for later mystical battles, and they cannot be denied 1721 for the disciplina arcana and church-linguistic formation; however, exaggerations should not be allowed here, since even defenders of the Eleusinian influence on Christian ritual emphasize a significant difference - in mystical pantheism, and in the cult of Mithras, imbued with naturalistic polytheism, all the foundations were exclusively pagan and fundamentally hostile to Christianity. The special dignity of the latter is not at all in borrowings, and it was not through them that the new faith defeated the world, which bowed before its internal integrity and originality. Here any similarity is deprived of genetic persuasiveness, for mysterism did not have and did not provide a redeeming Christ. For the New Testament itself, all analogies are, of course, artificial, and behind the phonetic consonance one should not forget about the material disparity, which is why hypotheses about contact in doctrines and rituals are unacceptable, although this would not be so surprising for the ritual part, for example, from similar Mithraism in the later period of the history of the Church. The mystical language receives a different content, radically transforming the vocabulary, which in the New Testament books does not contain material traces of mystical terminology. With such mutual isolation, Christian heralds had no need to touch upon the pagan mysteries even in polemical interests. For Mithraism this conclusion is all the more likely because St. Paul hardly came into contact in his evangelistic field, for the entire sphere of Hellenism (in Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, Bithynia, in the internal provinces of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt) and he himself were closed to this cult. There were different areas of distribution. However, it is precisely from polemical needs that they try to argue for a closer relationship of the mysteries to the New Testament writings, on which through this, supposedly, new and bright light is shed. Despite all appearances, these experiments turn out to be inconclusive. The letter to the Ephesians is drawn from the consideration that the Ionians who moved to Asia Minor retained ties with their native mystery cults, and Heraclitus of Ephesus already touched them. A special atmosphere of mystical charm was created, and St. Paul wages an energetic written struggle, defeating all the mystical seductions of speculative fantasy and practical destructiveness. He categorically warns against being carried away by this insidious art (Eph. IV, 14) and mercilessly exposes all the dark sides (V, 1 - 14. Rom. I, 21 ff. 1 Cor. VI, 9 - 20. 2 Cor. VI, 14 - VII, 1), inviting (in Eph. VI, 11 ff.) Christians to unite in militia Christi in the likeness of the mystics of Isis. 1722 Of course, the mysteries were not devoid of moral shortcomings and were gradually complicated by many serious abnormalities, but besides them, there were enough of all sorts of vices in pagan societies, and therefore special characteristic data of a mystical nature were required. They are found in two signs that this depravity is 1) associated with religious practice and 2) sanctified or covered up by it. In this form, mystical moral deviations receive the typical appearance of Heraclitus’s justification, where the philosopher, castigating abusus pessimus optimi, allegedly did not hesitate to excuse all cynical immorality with the depth and seriousness of their symbolized idea, without stopping before the most absurd paradox that “good (good) and bad (evil) are one and the same,” if heavenly and earthly things are equal. The apostle, of course, was familiar with the national Ephesian thinker, and he naturally had a desire to destroy such harmful and dangerous tricks. Contrary to them, he insists (in 1 Cor. VI, 6 - 20) that if in their crudely naturalistic service of the mysteries the pagans fell into disgusting carnal furies, then Christians, on the contrary, for the sake of the resurrected “Author of life” must preserve their bodies in purity for the future resurrection. The evangelist, indeed, brings forward primarily carnal sins, and in such a combination it is theoretically permissible (for Eph. IV, 19) even to correct for carnal perversions instead of rare and unclear ones. The religious motivation is also undeniable. Despite all this, the supposed predicates are not found. All anomalies are depicted as widespread, and not exceptional, due only to certain cult relationships. Other tones are visible in the religious overtones, for the described lewdness is declared to be the punishment of religious delusion and is in no way justified by it, but they themselves brand it with their shame. Therefore, there is no place for Heraclitus’s apology, the very reality of which is very doubtful, 1723 just as there is no hint that all these student activities are even considered worthy of some apology. All in all, it seems more likely that well-known sad phenomena are taken, which could all the more easily be maintained, practiced and developed with a certain religious plausibility, that Stoicism often justified popular religious beliefs with all their dogmatic-moral defects. It is somewhat more significant that they are brought (in Eph. V, 8 ff.) under the antithesis of darkness and light, which played such importance in mystical processuality and symbolism. But these images were too common and had long been accepted in biblical use, while mystical depravity was not always shrouded in darkness and presented from its best side as an imitation of the productivity of creative divine forces. A detailed comparison is inevitably distinguished by subtle boldness and does not carry the desired persuasiveness, without which the entire interpretation collapses on its own, as the fruit of pure artificiality, since in general pagan influences could only affect the periphery of Christianity. The mysteries were to some extent the completion of all previous religious development, and were, as it were, “the last word of pagan (proper ancient) religions,” reflecting and combining the most diverse syncretistic elements. Perceiving all this, the Apostle Paul, on the foundation of the religiosity of Christ, would have erected a new floor - a kind of mysticism of Eastern religions, which, with their strong influence, caused a deviation in the views of the disciple from the preaching of the Lord Savior. In particular, even in Tarsus, the evangelist allegedly became imbued with the mystical elements that determined the characteristic understanding of baptism and the Eucharist, for, for example, in the cult of Mithras there were many similarities to these Christian sacraments. But in Judaism, baptism had only a symbolic meaning, and in apostolic theology it is depicted as sacrament, although there is no doubt about the significant dissonance of this magical act with the conversion and justification of a person by faith. Therefore, the external participation of outsiders is obvious here. And many directly proclaim that the Pauline concepts of baptism and the Eucharist were borrowed from the Mysteries, while others see them at least as adapting them to the Mystery ceremonies and moods of that time. We have sufficiently revealed that such constructions cannot be considered objective. What is hidden behind them is nothing more than that Christianity, even in the pagan world, found support for itself in similar attractions, where monotheism and spiritualism were visible in the thirst for a new revelation. However, the necessary material for satisfaction was not available, and all impulses of religious seeking were resolved by the strange fantasy of Hermeticism and mystical ceremoniality. From here many religious associations of all kinds were formed, but - given their origin - the latter were not progress even in comparison with the official cult, and even less could serve as a source for primitive Christianity, if it stood at all far from Greco-Roman culture, although it was moving closer to it. As for the mysteries, no historical connections with Christian institutions can be indicated for them, in which even in later times their influence is greatly exaggerated. The Apostle Paul uses the term itself completely differently and does not at all apply it to religious ceremonial actions, never once denoting baptism or the Eucharist in this way. Moreover, Mithraism in the first Christian century hardly penetrated into the sphere of Hellenistic-Roman culture and did not reach Jewish culture at all, and bloody rituals in mystical cults begin only in the second century. The natural conclusion will now be that it is historically very implausible to allow Mithraism to invade early Christianity and to assimilate for it creative activity in Paul’s gospel on the issue of the sacraments. The Apostle does not assign any magical dignity to the latter, since baptism does not act mechanically ex opera operato, and in the Eucharist it is not attributed to its very elements of purely magical power. All these examples clearly demonstrate that St. Paul did not keep special accounts with the mysteries, without borrowing from them for dogmatic constructiveness. Drawings with them clearly indicate that the apostolic gospel was not vague - mystical contemplation. It was a distinct doctrine, firmly regulating the Christian life and giving it lasting forms. At the same time, Christianity acquired the typicality of a vital factor, acting with moral and religious obligation, inextricably from a whole complex of prerogatives that ensure and protect its existence, normalizing compatibility with other legal phenomena. Here Christianity necessarily comes into close contact with the field of Greco-Roman law and had to be consistent with it. How was this adaptation reflected and did it not force some theoretical accommodations in the teaching itself? These questions are quite natural. They have long been aroused, and their solution brings no little exotic enlightenment to the mass of details, but sometimes leans towards a legal reinterpretation of the apostolic teaching. In both respects it is urgent to consider the subject in appropriate detail. Sufficient legal competence of St. Paul is very likely. Being a Roman citizen, in his activities he revealed both the legal knowledge and the genius of a Roman statesman and organizer, appearing more Roman than Greek. Neo combined theoretical insight with practical art in using legal factors, from which it is clear that he knew all this well, for which he had every incentive and convenience. Roman citizenship provided great legal privileges. The latter, of course, were clear to every owner and St. Paul was already reminded by the duality of his names, which he bore from childhood, for Latin was officially mandatory for a Roman citizen. The Apostle felt himself a civis Romanus, he always and clearly understood his advantages, and in order to comply with them, legal experience was necessary in accordance with the requirements of life itself. Therefore, it is usually agreed that - as a civis Romanus - the Hellenic evangelist was a legally knowledgeable person and not only knew all the rules on this part (for example, Lex Portia), but was generally initiated into legal wisdom. There were no obstacles to this in the Latin language. True, there was no direct need for it given the widespread international dominance of the Greek language, which was the official language in the East, since Roman laws and decrees, even before being sent to the eastern provinces, were translated in advance in Rome or even compiled in Greek. However, it cannot be categorically stated that in the provincial areas they did not write Latin at all. On the contrary, in the East, the official language of Roman official paperwork was Latin, and Greek was allowed under the emperors as a secondary language. The Latin language was mandatory for a Roman citizen, who only under a Roman name could appeal to Caesar to protect his rights and had to refer to them only in Latin, and not in Greek. The wills were set out in proper Latin speech, and the government insisted on this, despite its poor distribution. However, Latin was not completely isolated within national boundaries. Despite all the antipathy of the Greeks towards it, it invaded the Greek dialects, penetrated far and wide into the East and even made its way to Palestine, where around the time of the second Temple of Jerusalem some knowledge of it was stated in Jewish circles, and then Latin words were commonplace. With such accessibility, the Apostle had to take advantage of it all the more in the interests of the success of his mission in the Greco-Roman world, which he entered in dignity and under the protection of Roman citizenship. In his missionary travels, he stayed in the Roman colonies, meanwhile, in them - under the dominance of the Latin-Roman atmosphere - even incolae were forced to study Latin. Based on all this, it is assumed that the use of the latter was even hereditary in the family of St. Paul, who spoke Latin well and could speak, personally defending himself in court. The complete denial of this is not justified by factual grounds, even if the Apostle’s legal erudition was considered superficial. From his childhood, the evangelist was saturated with the legal elements from his environment and was subject to their influence, since his language reveals the formative influence of the experiences of the legal life of the city of Tarsus. It was as if a Roman lived in him, finding support in the former nomist. The legal skills of the 1725 rabbinic theologian involuntarily reflected in Christianity a tendency towards legal coverage and expression with attentiveness to extra-Jewish law. The Apostle sometimes speaks (for example, in Col. II, 14 - 15. 2 Cor. II, 14 - 15) as civis Romanus, using images of Roman citizenship, and in his personifications a legal character is noticeable, which emanates more from Roman legal views than from rabbinic ones. In him one sees a mind saturated with legal philosophy, and so sophisticated legally that bliss. Augustine, calling him a jurist of divine law, compared him with the famous Roman lawyer of the era of Alexander Severus (III century) Paul (Julius Paulus), an opponent of Papinian (Aemilius Papinianus). From all sides it turns out that the influence of the Roman law was much closer and more direct, the traces of which in the apostolic writings are higher and more distinct than the literary and philosophical contacts, even if the legal terminology did not prove that the evangelist studied these disciplines systematically. In many ways, “the jurisprudence of everyday life” served, sometimes revered as the only source of apostolic legal erudition, but the latter is depicted in such skillful sophistication that it can compete with any school sophistication. St. Paul is the most difficult to understand, supposedly because it requires legal competence. Under these conditions, it is natural that Roman legal concepts affected the dogmatic work itself. It especially highlights the Apostle of tongues. They say that without him, Christianity would have remained simply a Palestinian sect, about which we would hardly have known anything without this “Jewish Pascal.” It is to him that all dogmatic constructiveness belongs, and he gave a logical and dialectical justification for the religion of Jesus. In him we have the main person who formulated the Christian system. But he was a Roman citizen who must have legal knowledge in order to live according to his prerogatives, which were based on certain legal principles. The legal aspect is almost inevitable in apostolic thinking, and therefore it is natural for the latter to participate in dogmatic argumentation. And we are told that, in preparing the way for people to accept redemption, Roman law contributed to the dogmatic formation of Christian teaching through internal influence on the development of Christian doctrine, and legal ideas were felt even in those cases where Christian constructions deviated from their prototype. Things went very far in this direction. In the question of salvation, the former Pharisee is presented with a process of legal justification in the Sanhedrin, and from here the whole theology receives a “forensic” or judicial flavor, all the colors of which are borrowed from the Roman legal reserves. Everything is illuminated legally, as if it certifies justification “at the expense” of Christ. This means that the most central Christian point acquires a Roman legal character, imparting this property to all dogmatic particulars. As a result, a decisive conclusion is drawn that if for St. Paul the theologian's father was the Old Testament, his mother is Roman jurisprudence. It goes without saying that such a view gives too one-sided coverage of Christianity in terms of its historical origin and dogmatic essence, where there turns out to be a lot of legal fictitiousness that is not justified by the facts or distorts them. This judgment can affect all Christian foundations, undermining the old ones at the very root. We must test attempts of such revolutionary importance against immediate examples. The most important illustrations of this kind are usually found in the letter to the Galatians. In this sense, they have now begun to comment on the apostolic argumentation (III, 15 ff.) regarding the relationship between the promise of the Messiah and the Law of Moses, trying to confirm the hypothesis that this document was written in Rome. The very preface that it is said “according to man” (III, 15) is understood as indicating the legal nature of the speech. In it St. Paul is trying to convince us that legalistic institutions do not take away the power of the promise, which is compared to a testament. In the treatise, in relation to the latter and regarding inheritance, even those who deny the influence of Roman law on the essence of Paul's theology see a reflection of legal methods and Roman systematics. For a testamentary deed, the possibility of cancellation by the maker is allowed - and the evangelist, excluding the testator from the prohibitory restriction, discloses only that in the case under consideration there was no such destruction. The vow of God retained all legally testamentary energy, for in it the inheritance was formally “sentenced” and the future recipient was precisely named in a certain “seed,” which satisfied the casuistic scrupulousness that in such orders must necessarily mean certa, without which the entire act became legally invalid. Until the time of realization of this right, everything bequeathed was only haereditas jacens, and here it is absolutely impossible for extraneous use. For this reason, the law will be simply a surplus addition, and - as a pactum adjectum - it turns out not to be a new will, sweeping away the old one, but (introduced under Augustus) a codicil devoid of testamentary compulsoryness. The truth of this judgment is justified by the fact that in the Law of Moses there is no most important testamentary moment (Gai Inst. 2, 229: Ante heredis institutionem inutiliter legatur, scilicet, quia testamenta vim ex institutione heredis accipiunt, et ob it velut caput et fundamentum intalligitur totius testamenti heredis institution) in heredis institution, without which a testamentary decision is legally void, because persona incerta was not allowed (Gai Inst. 2, 238: Incerta videtur persona, quam per incertam opinionem amico testator subicit). The special legalistic role is revealed by the dignity of Moses. This title is not given to him for mediation between God and the people. Of course, the period of “testamentary rest”, when the leader of Israel with the nomistic institution was an active exponent of the will of God. He is the mediator for the interval between the promise (Abraham) and the fulfillment (Christ) and in this dignity of the bearer of the law is the “representative” (Vertreter) of the divine decrees. But since this is persona interposita for two facets, which without this would have merged together, hence it is undoubtedly that in them there is only one God, why only promise and fulfillment will be identical, and the law turns out to be a transitory insertion. The analyzed interpretation thoroughly emphasizes the legal connotation of the apostolic interpretation, but with its clever stretches it turns it almost into casuistic sophistry. This already indicates that not everything here is exegetically solid and unshakable. All the detailed justifications are extremely weak, but even if they were completely solid, they would not at all prove that only those who necessarily wrote in Rome could have used Roman legal illustrations. The mention of the “seed” contains a lot of fortune-telling, which is certainly not given in the text. It categorically ascertains nothing more than that the promised heir is personally unique, which is why he was previously (Gal. III, 16) called quite accurately as Christ. On the contrary, there is not the slightest hint that it is only due to this property of singularity that the promise acquires testamentary strength. This numeric limitation was not required at all, and the will was legally immutable at heredis instituto, even if it authorized several persons to inherit. With the truth of this thesis, the appearance disappears, as if by contrast it is put forward that a law without such a condition is devoid of testamentary obligation. The Apostle is completely silent about this, and in fact it would be a blatant untruth to assert that the Sinaitic norms did not appoint heirs when all the executors could have been heirs. That legalism was an intermediate—temporary institution—this is expressed by St. Paul clearly, but does not at all follow from the mediation of Moses. The idea of ​​“representation” for the intermediate ineffectiveness of a testamentary act (persona interposita) is not contained in the word itself, which in Philo is used with the usual sense of mediation for two different parties, which connotation lies at the very basis, although the latter, meaning testament, is not alien to the Apostle of Old Testament associations and is therefore understood (in Gal. III, 15) by different commentators in a threefold sense. Any other side associations are unnecessary when the closest legal meaning provides everything necessary for thought. 1726 If we agree with the projected interpretation, then it turns out that the testator is not excluded from speech, as soon as he himself gives his “representative”. This will will be no less testamentally true than the first. Accordingly, this is sometimes understood in the sense of a special testamentary disposition, but terminologically this is not justified, and in essence it is completely incomprehensible to us why a new act does not abolish the previous one with which it is not consistent in content. Of course, the testator himself actually had the right to change his will and make it different, but only another, an outsider was not allowed to either take away its legal force or make a new order of equal legal nature against the one given in the testament itself. All this is expressed with decisiveness by the Apostle Paul, who (in Gal. III, 15) excludes the author of the testamentary will from any degree regarding its transformations. It is no less mysterious that the unity of the divine definition does not extend beyond its own representation. In this part, legal interpretation introduces great confusion, forcing one word to simultaneously express different ideas, far from being similar - either a “representative” of a single person, or a “mediator” for two. And even moreover, the whole matter is obscured by a completely arbitrary assumption, as if through mediation the Apostle Paul concludes that Angels are among the many who are responsible for the law, and such Hellenistic ideas were already known to him in Judaism. This contradicts the very essence of the issue, where the opposition and comparison of the covenant and the law were possible only with the thought of their identical primary source. All these and other legal nuances are not extracted from the facts being commented on, but are forcibly imposed on them. In the passage under consideration, the evangelist states the simplest truth that a will, not formally marked by the testator himself, is not destroyed by later random orders and must be implemented in all legal rigor. But this was the case in all legal communities, and to illustrate such an axiom there was no need to disturb Roman jurisprudence. Therefore, it characterizes human relations more by contrast with divine ones than by their legal impressiveness. The latter is taken in the most general terms and, while illuminating the subject under consideration, does not provide the Apostle with materials for the doctrinal development of the teaching. We find this in the question of the hereditary state of the pagans before Christian grace (Gal. IV, 1 ff.). Then they were in the family of an heir, who in the period of “youth” is in servile bondage, despite legal dominance over all family benefits. This state can be traced back to the Roman legal order, according to which paternal power (patria potestas) suppressed children with its limitlessness to the point of slavish humiliation, for it even represented the “right of life and death,” which is why “emancipation was considered an act of mercy on the part of the father.” However, these paternal prerogatives are exaggerated in vain, since they were conditional and relative, and in their abstract severity they were absolutely not suitable for depicting grace-filled Christian sonship, which is free and does not allow even the shadow of slavery. 1727 With this exception, it is necessary to accept for the apostolic speech that the father is not alive, but is considered dead, and his son, being an orphan, is an actual heir and in no way possible only in the future. Only now he is not an adult and is under the supervision of “trustees” and “housekeepers” (IV, 2). Here again we see Roman legal-technical terminology. At the same time, it is indisputable that it is not maintained with legal inflexibility. In the apostolic phrase, guardians (tutores) and trustees (curators) are usually distinguished: the first, during the period of guardianship (tutela), represented a legal personality by the incompetence to legal acts of the heir due to his infancy, the second, during the guardianship (cura), only confirmed and sanctioned the legally legitimate acts of the young man, 1728 who, due to immaturity, is not fully experienced and needs good authoritative guidance. These guardians changed successively and could not be present at the same time, meanwhile at St. Pavel seems to allow their combination. An extraneous statement was legally necessary in order to maintain continuity in the patria potestas, which, continuing until the death of the father, was obliged to provide for itself for the period until the successive power achieved legal competence. The latter was acquired upon termination of guardianship, and therefore the father was free to appoint only “tutors” for a certain time (Justin. Instit. I, 14), without extending to “trustees.” The Apostle rather thinks the opposite, closer to Jewish practice and not allowing one to agree that he thought according to legal Roman norms, although in terminology he did not observe technical clarity and consistency. Further, it is no less clear that the timing did not depend on paternal arbitrariness. In the old days, they were determined empirically and then determined at the age of 14 (for a boy) or 12 (for a girl) to end childhood and at 25 to reach adulthood. The epistle to the Galatians expresses the opposite about “the father’s servant.” To eliminate difficulties, they say that here too the evangelist speaks Poroman, but not with technical precision. They guess that he, of course, has the period for which, according to the law, the paternal will can extend in the election of “supervisors” for a minor son. Of course, it is obvious that then the whole mention would be strangely unnecessary, since it was unnatural to associate paternal power with these acts, which are completely beyond its control. This idea is not justified grammatically either. In the analyzed phrase, it presupposes genitivus subjectivus or auctoris, but it always certifies the subject who serves as the culprit for the taken thing, why he himself produces it, but is not limited to it. Consequently, we have a predetermined decision that comes from the father and is established by him, and not by a law external to him, which unconditionally binds personal desires. All this does not fit the Roman legal and testamentary conditions. To this they object that such cases were not directly prohibited, and their possibility is theoretically permissible. Such a judgment is not convincing, because it lacks solid support. For this purpose, they refer to the lack of exact dates for guardianship terms in the literary evidence on the issue under consideration, but this only indicates that these terms fluctuated somewhat and allowed individual adaptations, although the latter were strictly regulated by legal regulations. Here the Apostle rightly states the distance from Roman testamentary correctness. Therefore, others accept the reflection of the local Celtic law that prevailed among the Gauls (Caeser. de bello gall. VI, 19) and was preserved among the Galatians. 1729 And there is a lot of hypothetical guesswork here. News Gal. (I, 55) is erroneously reinterpreted. It actually says that the patria potestas over wives and children among the Galatians completely coincided with Roman legal requirements. It follows from this that if the latter did not grant parents the rights to set limits for the adult autonomy of their heirs, then the Asia Minor Celts did not have these privileges either. As soon as we agree to the opposite conclusion, it will turn out that St. Paul is not bound by Roman legal templates, evades them and combines them with foreign elements. As a result, we have that in the apostolic doctrinal structures there is no dependence on the Roman legal technical plan. The Evangelist operates with general legal concepts and with them illustrates the dogmatic truth that Christians (from the pagans), being recipients of the promises as children of God, resemble natural inheritance by ancestral sonship. Is there anything specifically legal in this? The answer puts forward (by Prof. W. M. Ramsay) new parallels in Greek law proper - with application to the theory that the addressees of the Epistle to the Galatians are not thought of as Celtic northerners, but as residents of the Roman province of Galatia and, in particular, its southern part, where the Apostle was preaching the Gospel on his first evangelistic journey. The very possibility of such an interpretation cannot be rejected. Of course, in Asia Minor, Roman legal norms functioned and were familiar, but they did not completely supplant Greek features. On the contrary, the Roman legal regime gave the latter sufficient scope in its eastern provinces. In them, native laws were maintained along with Roman ones, and in the cities of the Syrian coast, from the beginning of Roman times, it was Greek law that was predominant, established and established along with the colonization and Hellenization of the eastern regions adjacent to the Mediterranean Sea. Rome - according to its usual policy - made a lot of adaptations in its legal structure, which was introduced in the conquered countries (Asia Minor). With such preliminaries, the detailed convergence of the legal elements of apostolic theology with Greek legal forms is undoubtedly serious, for which we can also recall that Greek law is revered as one of the main sources for Roman law, or both are traced back to common foundations, but in both cases the second naturally refers to the first - by direct or genetic relationship with it. For analogies in the apostolic letters with Greek law, the following most important points are noted. 1) Pagan Christians are venerated by St. Paul (Gal. III, 7) sons of Abraham, undoubtedly because they are heirs of his faith. Inheritance and sonship are drawn as correlatives, and one can be mutually inferred from the other. It is necessary to introduce such a legal order that only sons (natural or adopted), but not daughters or strangers, inherit; here it is unmistakable for every heir that he is necessarily a son, which is why the legal concept of a will is always associated with the idea of ​​adoption, which determined the inheritance. This ancient system was violated by the Romans by allowing inheritance without adoption and continued to function on the territory of Asia Minor precisely through Greek law, where extraneus heres was allowed for a will only under the condition of a testator of legal adoption during his lifetime (adoption inter vivos), and even the Greek will was not so much an institution of inheritance as the adoption of an heir. It is also important that the prerogatives of true heirship are acquired only by the (male) seed (Gal. III, 16), and this was the male generation, again in Greek law. 2) According to the Roman legal norm of the apostolic era, the will was private and secret, so that it could always be destroyed and changed by the testator. St. Paul certifies for this document absolute irrevocability, which was sanctioned only by Greek law, for there the will, handed over for safekeeping to official institutions, was public and was not subject even to the maker himself. 3) In guardianship and guardianship the Roman influence was more noticeable, but the form proposed by the Apostle was more permitted by Greek legal practice, known from one Syrian monument. In general, Greek law dominated in guardianship for a long time, and we know about the Roman curator under a will only from an extremely obscure mention from the later, Severian time. All these arguments are far from inviolable. I) Accurate research indicates that in Attica from the 4th century and in Greece in general from the 3rd century BC. Chr. the testator could freely appoint a stranger as heir without adoption formalities. It is true that adoption in the interests of inheritance was known to the Greeks from ancient times, while a will in this capacity was formally recognized already in the 6th century. It is clear that in inheritance law the second grew and developed from the first, which is why it retained its connection with it. However, the latter gradually weakened, and was violated due to the religious beliefs that conditioned it, which even before had not at all adopted such exclusivity to the Greek views, as if the son was certainly thought of as the obligatory heir of all his father’s property. And Solon does not categorically express that inheritance by will is permissible only in the case of adoption; at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd centuries, testamentary heredity is directly separated from adoption. Finally, the actual analogy with any adoptive process is not at all indisputable for the apostolic text under consideration and was not intended by the evangelist, for in him the linguistic Christians are sons of Abraham simply in the sense of heirs of his covenant (cf. Rom. IV, 11 ff. 16), but are adopted not by him, but by God (Gal. IV, 5-6), as children of the promise from the free one after rebirth in Christ Jesus (IV, 28. 31). II) Attic laws did not at all require unconditional publicity and delivery to official institutions of the formal will, which was only at first public, then became private and secret and usually was hardly brought into official places for protection, if so far we know of only two cases of this kind. Likewise, for all wills, lawful acts of cancellation or modification were not prohibited, which were fully permitted for the testator himself. The opposite would simply not be natural and is not at all required by the Apostle, for he speaks of the complete inviolability of a will not for the administrator himself, but only for other persons. III) The Greeks legalized one guardianship, and when Roman guardianship penetrated to them, they did not find an equivalent word among themselves. There is no correspondence with Greek institutions here. All the presented considerations show that the apostolic doctrine was not entirely created by Greek legal logic. It was based on different principles and for clarity used legal illustrations of living, publicly available experience. There are no legal specialties in other points of the apostolic argumentation. Of these, the concept of adoption, so important in apostolic Christian dogma, comes closest. They significantly expanded the rights of the owner in choosing heirs, but it was here that the biblical view developed and protected the common interests of the people of God, suppressing the personal freedom of the testator. From this it is concluded that adoption is borrowed from Roman law, and adoption serves as an example of the influence of Roman law on theology and worship of God, for this metaphor took a constructive part in the dogmatic formulation of Christian teaching. Adaptability is a Roman legal concept, and therefore the subject itself is illuminated through it in a legal spirit. Naturally, Christians are portrayed as heirs and children simply adopted. True, their condition is sometimes real - an actual improvement in life compared to the previous period, but we must not forget that the adoptive member also became a “new creature” in the host family. Here the term receives technically - judicial force in the most important apostolic expressions (Rom. III, 4. 5. 19. VI, 7), which is why the idea of ​​justification in Paul's disclosure acquires more actual dignity than it consists in cash. Accordingly, for the Apostle, revival does not mean conversion in a change of hearts, but actually an adoptive change in relations according to legal privileges. The decisiveness of such conclusions is ensured by the analysis of particular exegetical examples. Analysis of the latter should clarify the issue with finality. For these purposes, many arguments are drawn from the epistle to the Romans, especially from chapters II - IX, where Roman legal terminology seems to predominate. The evangelist uses all the legal subtleties and takes from them materials for his theological speculations. Penetrating into the recesses of spiritual life, St. Paul saw in it the discord of different aspirations, and the forced inclination towards goodness is suppressed by evil desires, which are only irritated and aggravated by legalistic suggestions. 1730 A higher law was needed - and it was communicated by Jesus Christ (Rom. VII - VIII, 7). In this case, the Apostle, according to the Roman legal schemes, distinguishes (in Rom. II, 14 ff.) first of all, jus natural et jus gentium. 1731 It was rooted in the natural properties of human nature and was essentially universal - humanitarian. But the Romans adapted these principles to their national-selfish benefits and developed a narrow aristocratic Quirite law, which extended its beneficence solely to Roman citizens. Over time, this privileged isolation necessarily had to face the pressure of universal human demands and allow them into its sphere. The legal mediator of this invasion was a special praetor (praetor peregrinus), who regulated international relations according to simplified norms of the natural conditions of human society, based on the natural properties of all people. Gradually, a praetor's law is created, hostile to Quirite exclusivity and freer in spirit, which opens access to inheritance - except for the autocratic (sui) - to all children (liberi), and through representatives of Stoicism, adopted first by the jurists, this order becomes a subject of surprise and is ensured in its legal importance. Stoic philosophy generally influenced Roman law in legislation and jurisprudence, but here its special merit was that it contributed to the identification of jus gentium with jus natural, eliminating the extremes of closed Quirite aristocracy. This process, supposedly, was presented to the apostolic gaze, when the evangelist depicted the conflict of two laws and declared the grace-filled reconciliation to be the triumph of the “law of Christ” (Gal. VI, 2), similar to the predominance of jus gentium through repeated participation. St. Paul applies Roman legal schemes to Old Testament Jewish nomism and, equating it with Quirite law, judges it (Rom. II, 14) pejoratively, and describes the ground for Christian unification (Rom. II, 15) according to jus gentium. It turns out that Christian grace is understood by the Apostle as the displacement of the previous law by a new one, or in the form of a legal metamorphosis. Here Christian deliverance is conceived (in Rom. VI, 16 - 23) as liberation from slavery. But in fact, now there is only a return to the natural autonomy of everyone according to jus naturale. The intermediate period is crossed out and not taken into account, which is why it seems as if the original state was continuous. At the same time, the Apostle disposes of the original legal institution. A Roman citizen, captured by foreigners and deprived of his freedom, along with it lost all the prerogatives of the civis Romani. This was, of course, the greatest cruelty, but the Roman could not be softened without special tricks, for “there always lived in him a precise and even picky formalist.” A legal fiction was invented that a prisoner of war simply remains outside the borders of Roman territory and cannot exercise his rights in a barbarian country, but they are secretly retained by him in full and intact and are inevitably discovered in a convenient environment. Hence, in Roman jurisprudence, jus postliminii developed, according to which the one who was released was again recognized as a perfect Roman citizen and his “legal life continued as if he had never been in captivity,” and the one who remained there was considered dead from the moment of his captivity. All Christian redemption is depicted under the form of jus postliminii, and St. Paul supposedly understands this analogy when characterizing the benefits of redemption delivered to believers. To receive them, it was necessary to have the necessary rights, which the pagans did not have before, being in sinful carnal enslavement. There was necessarily a change in this bondage, and it is depicted by the Apostle under the Roman legal form of ransom adoption. This is categorically mentioned in the apostolic text (Gal. IV, 5), which suggests a process similar to adoption per aes et libram. The act of mancipation was a very dramatic scene of an imaginary litigation between two persons over a third in front of witnesses. It took place with seven persons (not counting the seller, but including the all-container - libripens - c emptor familiae) and was, as it were, a purchase of a famous subject for a certain value, symbolized by scales and a piece of copper. At the end of the negotiations, the buyer touched the disputed person with a stick (fistula) and pronounced the formula for appropriating him as a slave or son. If later misunderstandings arose, one of those present certified the true nature of the former act, which could equally liberate and enslave. All these features were allegedly reflected in the apostolic depiction of Christian salvation. The latter is sealed by the Spirit (Gal. IV, 5 - 7), which for us serves as a legal adsertor in libertatem or libertatis, showing that we were redeemed precisely for freedom, and His seven gifts parallel the seven witnesses of the described Roman legal act. Here the Spirit confirms our personal statement with His agreement with us, and therefore His voice in favor of our sonship is called (Rom. VIII, 14-16) testimony. Christians for the Apostle were adopted according to Roman legal requirements. All its rituals are necessarily performed upon introduction into the Christian brotherhood. It is inevitable that baptism turns out to be a legal act of legalization of this identification. In this property, the regenerating - renewing “bath of being” is depicted as a condition for achieving heirship (Tit. III, 5 – 7) and, obviously, is accepted as an adaptive process that provided a stranger with hereditary rights only through adoption. The sign of the cross, accompanied at this sacrament by the words of acceptance of a new member into the Church, can be equated to the mentioned touch through the fistula. The Apostle Peter puts forward another legal side when baptism is called (1 Peter III, 21) “a questioning of a good conscience.” here, stipulatio serves as a means of rapprochement, where, to establish an obligatory relationship, a verbal exchange of solemn questions and answers was carried out between the believer (stipulator = stipulans; reus stipulandi) and the debtor or his deputy (sponsor, promissor), who undertakes and gives security (causa) for this through a formal promise. By this analogy, in baptism Christians commit themselves to God with a clear conscience to pay for the gifts of grace that have been bestowed upon them. At all points, Christianity is delineated legally, and its immediate action must be no less legal. Adoption is made to create hereditary powers, which - like it - are revealed according to Roman legal schemes, 1732 and not according to biblical Jewish law. Two features are characteristic of the words of St. Paul on this subject (Rom. viii. 17). All adopted children are also heirs. This order was not permitted by Jewish primogeniture and was sanctioned only by Roman jurisprudence. Along with this, the baptized are called “joint heirs with Christ” and, therefore, not only expect, but now participate in inherited possession. This principle is again affirmed by Roman law, for it did not at all profess the later testamentary dogma that nemo est heres viventis, although according to it hereditas viventis nulla est. On the contrary, the Roman family was a union that, even in order to preserve the family cult, could not be interrupted for a moment. Therefore, from a certain period, everyone in it had complete and equal family-legal competence. All property was not personal, but family property, and only the senior paterfamilias was in actual control for the general benefit of the family. Upon the death of the head, sui haererdes 1733 do not so much inherit his property as acquire free control over their part, being the successors of the deceased in property power and in relation to the family sacra. The Apostle alludes to this legal theory to his Roman readers. Here the idea of ​​death, inconvenient for the Lord Savior, was eliminated, since inheritance among the Romans was participation inter vivos, and not a change of mortis causa. Because of this, Christians still co-inherit. With all that, these are still more legal prerogatives, the implementation of which requires a special act - or “putting in the position of sonship”, already formally legalized. During the Roman adoption there was also a public consolidation of it, for example, through entry into the house with filial rank and dignity. In this tone and St. Paul says (Rom. viii. 23) that all believers look forward to the consummation of their sonship upon deliverance from the body through the solemn recognition of their active sonship. Another apostolic note about the sealing of Christians with the Holy Spirit for the teaching of inheritance also leads to such an understanding (Eph. I, 13.14). A simplified testamentary rite of Quirite practice is imitated. By her, for hereditary adoption, no ostentatious sale in a ceremony with aes et libra was required; everything was limited to a written will sealed by seven witnesses, from which copies were made and placed in the official archives. In this tone the evangelist speaks of the “sign” of the Spirit as a testimony, serving as an indestructible security for our inheritance until the pledge of redemption is crowned by the predominance or actual inheritance itself. In the latter there will be praise for the glory of the Lord, just as adopted slaves at the funeral of an emancipator were the best glorification for him, from which the custom of too many deathbed liberations developed, which long before Pavlov’s time were allowed no more than the established numbers. All the various examples convince us that when viewed from the aspect of heirship, Christianity in its theology was no less subject to Roman legal influences than when illuminated from the point of view of sonship. The apostolic teaching is strongly imbued with legal elements, when the grace-filled benefits are almost directly converted into legal advantages awaiting implementation. Is there any undoubted basis in the apostolic gospel for such an extreme legal interpretation? The whole question centers on the concepts of sonship and inheritance, of which the former preconditions the latter. If this was required by the fact itself, then one cannot think that everything here was created legally, because in reality it often happens that what actually happened is rejected by the law or gradually develops it for itself. In the Christian sphere, precisely this kind of actual self-affirmation is observed. 1734 The task of human existence is that people, being creatures of God’s love, should be true children of their Heavenly Father, participating in His bliss. These normal relations were destroyed, and humanity fell into a slavish helplessness, necessarily deprived of filial wealth. Naturally, the latter must now be acquired again by reaching an earlier level. The former property turns out to be an object subject to perception from the owner, or through inheritance from him. On the other hand, for this purpose the former filial dignity is necessary, and after loss it is acquired only through adoption. From this we see that both analyzed ideas are rooted in the very essence of biblical theology, based on the concepts of fatherland in the deity and sonship in the creature. They were considered to be real data and do not need any legal aid for their emergence and development, flowing directly and with logical rigor from the entire biblical and theological worldview. The same is true for the reverse process of grace-filled restoration. In his sinful slavery, man was completely incapable of his own liberation. This indicated that in general everything cosmic was not competent for such a mission, and therefore the intervention of a divine figure was inevitable. For this reason, the Only Begotten Son is sent down, who obtains for people what they have lost, eliminating and making amends for the faults and shortcomings that oppressed them. It is natural that He receives all the benefits, and the latter can be received by others only with the closest approach to Him until mutual (mysterious) fusion, when the believer is actually one with Him. Since this is the Son of God, then the Christian also assimilates the divine filial prerogatives. Redemption for the one favored is accompanied by sonship, which is inextricably linked with actual inheritance (Gal. IV, 3-7). Again we find that the Apostle depicts the real course of the Christian revival according to its genuine factors, which are stated in all their integrity. There is no room here for the intrusion of formal - legal speculations that were supposed to create actual relations, while in Christianity they were available. Christian “childhood” does not equal legal adoption and is not limited to the term and concept of this kind in Roman law. On the contrary, this is a real possession, which is not called “sonship” only for the reason that in its origin it is mediated by God’s own Son and is secondary in us by reflection from Him, being truly free in people, not legally conditioned by an act of God’s mercy. Of course, with such a derivative of dignity through union with the Lord, our gain will be participation in His redemptive property or joint heir with Him, although quite real. This decisively ensures a bright future - and, positing the realization of ideals there, Christianity introduced a completely new element in comparison with the prevailing self-satisfaction in the existing empirical sphere. Through Christian sonship it asserted a gracious universalism in a world of nationalistic isolations and divisions. This was not at all an unnatural attempt to found some kind of ephemeral brotherhood by denying the very foundations for it in natural brotherhood by birth, for it was built on the gradual actual transformation of human nature itself, which was renewed by grace for a corresponding change in all life. It is clear that Christian influence should have had a beneficial effect on the social liberation of people from mutual slavery. They say, of course, that Philo and the literature of the Diaspora elevated humanity and universal love to the fundamental dogma of Jewish morality, however, this is theoretically unfair and is not confirmed by actual results. But, allegedly, the emancipation of slaves is not a matter of Christianity, but was prepared by Roman law, which preached and cultivated the principles of equality, freedom, etc. Humanity has been established since the time of Augustus in addition to Christian participation, as well as charity. There is some truth in this, but there is even more exaggeration and distortion here. For ancient humanity, work itself seemed destructive, and the slavery that performed it was considered a necessary condition, so that philosophy allowed the latter, and nowhere was a clear and confident hope expressed for the destruction of this order. Despite the legal mitigations, the situation of slaves in Rome was difficult, and here they hardly went far ahead of the law. The freedom-loving words of a few bright minds remained only beautiful maxims, even if libertine was considered not fully capable. Even the religiosity of that time is not enough here; in the Hellenistic period, it was the dominant force, but without true religious influence due to its internal poverty, for it divided people more than it united, unable to achieve the proper unification of faith and morality, and otherwise degenerated into phrase-mongering, manticism and theurgy. Everywhere there is a deceptive shadow without the content and influence that was needed for a religious and social revolution. On the contrary, Christianity undermined all the roots of the institution of slavery and virtually eliminated any possibility for its very existence, without the need for extraneous external evidence of legal formalism. In particular, for the Apostle of Languages, slavery was an abnormal phenomenon, so Onesimus is clearly inspired to omit Philemon. From all the above observations, the result will be that, describing Christian justification and grace, St. Paul depicts with photographic fidelity a real event, testifying to the actual perception of filial advantages with corresponding benefits. From here a new Christian life begins in the justified, functioning exclusively according to filial energy. Christian morality could have been theoretically anticipated before, but in practice it is a purely Christian product; it is based on sonship, and this is gleaned from the Lord the Redeemer, which is why the Apostle nowhere describes or recommends it as one’s own, but is always presented as Christ’s. Christianity of the apostolic type is a real phenomenon and is alien to legal fictitiousness, although it is full of the highest and indisputable rights. This determines the second feature that its legal definitions are not imposed from the outside, since they are actually contained in it. It is clear that they must be different from others in nature, since the object itself is original. And this feature is equally undeniable. Christian adoption is not actually accomplished by the Father, for it is acquired through the Son, when the Most High only sanctions the real privileges of those blessed. This idea is not at all in harmony with the laws of Roman adoption and presupposes a different relationship. Their essence is clarified from the fact that in fact there is actual recognition of the reality of filial merits in justified ones. Consequently, God has always been a father for them and now reveals His fatherly love, finding in them real assistance for it. It seems that earlier they themselves blocked her path with their worship. On this side, the Apostle establishes everything on the dogma of the true and continuous fatherhood of God to humanity, which is restored to its filial title, although this is not just a restitution in intergrum according to legal norms, since in grace there is great scope for the development of the former natural prerogatives. The whole process is depicted by the evangelist in the form of the return of prodigal sons to their father’s roof. This scheme is not Roman-legal, but biblical-theocratic. Adoption, not the meaning of adrogatio, is unknown to Jewry, but biblical contemplation incessantly proclaimed the truth of the universal paternal goodness of God, the realization of which St. Paul states in Christianity, guided here by the norms of biblical theology. The Apostle’s ground is completely different, which is why differences in particulars are inevitable in comparison with Roman legal technique. Thus adoptio rather approaches Greek concepts; Equally, the term itself was then quite widespread and the image fixed by it is so familiar to everyone, 1735 that the help of Roman jurisprudence turned out to be unnecessary and could only confuse its technical sophistication. In fact, it turns out that in the fundamental points of his Christian view of the gracious deliverance of the Apostles of tongues, he was not at all dependent on Roman legal norms. Their influence, of course, is exaggerated in other matters. Of course, to successfully spread the Gospel, the evangelist took advantage of the conveniences of the Roman imperial organization, but it would be extreme to conclude that the Christian Church was practically the Holy Roman Empire. This later Roman Catholic ideal is in vain carried over into the apostolic era. For her, the proposition that the ecclesiological concept developed according to the idea of ​​Roman imperialism is also incorrect. External similarity is exaggerated unfairly. The concept of the unity of all parts in organic integrity had support for itself in a ready comparison with the body and was in fact affirmed on the fact that Christians everywhere retained their dignity only by their inseparable presence in Christ and therefore were mutually united in Him to the point of organic indissolubility. St. Paul could not copy unless it was a copy of a fact exactly reproduced by him. There was no need for him to be protected by Roman legalism in other cases, due to the clarity of the matter itself. They say that, referring before the Corinthians to the unheard-of incest even among pagans (1 Cor. V, 1), he specifically meant Roman law. For this reason, the adulterer’s guilt is not usually commented on, but as if the stepson had just married his stepmother when she divorced his father. However, this interpretation is hardly solid and does not eliminate the simple truth that incestuous relationships have always been disgusting to pagan feelings. To do this, it was not necessary to appeal to Roman jurisprudence, which was far from being generally known in such subtleties on Greek territory among the Roman colonies, which were governed like Po-Romans, but lived in their everyday life according to the local legal system. There are even fewer contacts in matters of civil and political nature. Here they put forward apostolic remarks about political power (Rom. XVI, 1-7), considering them almost the most important of everything written by St. Pavel. They are seen as an authentic interpretation of the words of Christ, but from the side of a born Hellenist, who in all his activities was conditioned by the Hellenistic spirit. This means that the sayings of the Lord receive a scientific Hellenistic formulation according to the prevailing views on this. Imbued with them, apostolic reasoning acquires such a character that it becomes the design of the principles of social economy and political law. It's all almost fantastic. Actually, one thesis is revealed that legally functioning authorities have divine origin or permission. This doctrine is exclusively biblical and was not preached in such a form by pagan jurisprudence. As for the practical commandment of obedience to the secular power, then, flowing from theological motivation, this suggestion was conditioned by all evangelical experience (cf. 1 Tim. II, 2), when the Apostle found support and protection for himself in his Roman citizenship and in the Roman authorities. The active participation of Roman legal consciousness in Paulinistic theology is not revealed. And, undoubtedly, the idea that in the New Testament entire books had legal purposes turns out to be exaggerated if they renew the old hypothesis that both writings of St. Luke were actually petitions of appeal to protect the accused Apostle. In particular, it is assumed that the Acts of the Apostles was compiled for the legal confirmation of the legality of Christianity, and the 3rd Gospel is an apology for Paul’s sermon, serving “to defend the cause of Christianity and Paul” and seeking to legally justify the pagan mission in favor of the Christian faith, as religionis licitae. It is difficult to believe such legal enslavement that, for the sake of the legal scrupulousness of St. Paul allowed modifications to the biblical texts. The example refers to Gal. III, 10, where - instead of LXX - it is read (for Deut. XXVII, 26), supposedly to indicate that what is quoted is recorded in a legally binding document. It must be agreed that this shade is not at all clear and did not require such corrections, for 1) everyone knew that the Old Testament law was set out in writing or in writing, and 2) it was previously mentioned that the words given were written down. In any case, another reason is no less possible. The genuine mention of “this law” did not fit the apostolic argumentation, which meant not individual nomistic acts, but the entire law-positive content of the Old Testament. Naturally, this is taken from Deuteronomy. XXVIII, 58. XXIX, 20 (21) a more convenient expression, which caused a slight change, since for the book it was more appropriate to talk not about the words, but about what was written in it. A careful analysis convinces that (Greco-)Roman legal concepts and norms did not condition the dogmatic formation of the apostolic Christian system in its content and internal structure. According to the apostolic understanding, Christianity itself created its own law and used the ready-made law to the extent of its suitability, transforming it according to its own type. Materially, it is independent in the absolute originality of its founder in the Redeemer, as the Only Begotten Son of God. This result is fully applicable to the general question of the relationship of apostolic theology to Greco-Roman culture, with all its richness. For St. Paul, the head of the entire Christian religion was the Gospel of Christ crucified, and this was considered foolishness in the eyes of the then civilized society. On this side, the evangelist himself had to reject arrogant human wisdom, which is why the significant impact of the latter is incredible and is not found to a noticeable extent. There are fewer Hellenic reflections in the New Testament writings than even in the Mishnah. Apart from external illustrations, often superfluous and even unnecessary, 1736 they do not find in the Apostle the languages ​​of incorporation and use of Greek-philosophical terminology for ideological justification. He has neither the fundamental lack of Hellenic culture nor a purely scholastic dependence on Greek thought. Secular ideas did not occupy an important place in the thoughts of the evangelist, and his doctrine was not a transformed borrowing from Greek philosophy. Christian originality in being is such that in the entire New Testament there are no deliberate additions from Hellenism. And about St. Paul, it is indisputable that he did not accept the spirit of this world (1 Cor. II, 12) and - obviously - did not allow theological creativity into the process. Therefore, the authors who affirm the later Hellenic invasions of the Catholic Church categorically testify that this Apostle is far from a Hellenic genius, and his understanding of the Gospel is independent in its deepest essence from the Hellenic elements. Their participation is exaggerated unfairly and tendentiously. External influences and layers were not significant, and Paul’s teaching remains evangelical in everything – Christ’s. In general, Christianity took advantage of all previous development, but did not grow out of it directly and itself made a radical revolution in it. The seed was exclusively his own, and even the soil was completely ennobled by a new factor. True to reality - St. Paul could not extend his Hellenic-Roman connection beyond the use of accumulated materials as a means of making his gospel preaching more suitable for human perception. Subjectively, it was an accurate reflection of the fact of divine redemption and, in comparison with any culture, was the wisdom not of this age, nor of the princes of this age, but of God, which is proclaimed not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. II, 6 - 7. 13). St. Petersburg 1890, Х, 19 (Tuesday) – 1904, XII, 17 (Friday); 1910, I, 6 (Wednesday). The New Testament only reproduces the ethical sublimity of Talmudism, although the author thinks of the Talmud itself that it is a product of the dark times of reaction (S. IX), considering it a disaster if they continue to see in it the key to the Bible (S. VIII ff). It further follows that Christianity itself, being also syncretic, turns out to be for religious-historical understanding simply the highest point of previous development. It is believed that the Jewish civilization is Babylonian at its core, admits Babylonian influences - in the eastern forms of ideas in Paulinism (S. 5), in the history of the ridicule of Christ before the suffering of the cross (S. 21 ff.), regarding analogies with the sown grain (S. 23 - 24), about the appearance of the Messiah the Deliverer (S. 27 ff.), for Col. II, 15. Eph. VI, II lines. (S. 42), in the stories about the Nativity of Christ (S. 46 ff.), part for 1 Cor. XI, 10, since the commandment for women to cover their heads in liturgical meetings is traced back to mythological ideas (S. 114 - 115). In view of what has been stated, it is all the more significant that the author finds the resurrection of Christ unprecedented, devoid of any parallels (S. 43). The Babylonians associated the seventh day with the sun goddess, as if it were more likely to find in the Babylonian Sabbath an analogy with the Christian Sunday, as the “day of the sun,” than with the Jewish Sabbath. The identification of Marduk and Archangel Michael, supposedly representing the Messiah, is rejected, but this denial does not exclude the mutual genetic dependence of these concepts - the second from the first; but there is also a categorical assumption of the direct correlation of the equality of the concepts of Archangel Michael, the Angel of Jehovah and Christ (Messiah), taking into account the influence on them of the legends about Marduk, in Jewish apocalyptic kinship of contemplations regarding Archangel Michael and the Messiah. In this regard, efforts to prove that there is no dualism in Parsism and that it preaches precisely monotheism are especially tendentious and no less vain. It is argued that the very idea of ​​the immortality of the soul, in detachment from the body, arose in Israel under the influence of Persian ideas. The history of the Jewish people - from the Babylonian reverence to the first era of Tanaent, where it is said that “The Essenes were the true founders of Christianity”, for “they laid the foundation of Christianity”, others find similarities in the Lord Savior himself, and Joseph of Arimathea is ranked among the Essenes, sometimes they say that the conciliar Epistle of James came out in Rome from Essene-Christian circles no earlier than 150 AD r. Chr. In the same sense, the idea of ​​Logos is sometimes commented on, as if it generally had its root in Mazdaism, but was received by Christianism through the Alexandrian Platonic Jews. In particular, such a mediator was Philo, whose “Word” is not considered by many to be a person, but they believe that it was formed from the Targumic Memra and served as the basis for Christian teachings about the incarnation and the Trinity, which is why in rabbinical literature - except for the Targums - Memra is not mentioned at all, and - in view of the application of logology to the doctrine of propitiatory reconciliation in Christ - Akiba protested against such concepts. Sometimes the entire Esseneism is considered a purely Jewish transformation, just as - in particular - only a Jewish variety is seen in Essene eschatology. Against exaggerations in these rapprochements, one speaks in favor of a not new assumption about its genetic connection with the side Semitic message of Israel and specifically with the Rechabites. As you know, for the Jews, circumcision was and remains the seal of their sacred covenant with God. Proof of this is not superfluous even now. Thus, it is said that Aryans lived in Galilee, which is why Christ was supposedly not a Semite in the flesh, but an Aryan; the same can follow for the Apostle Paul, if it is agreed that he came from Giskala. Sometimes it is even assumed that the mother of the evangelist could have been Roman. All these similar guesses are eliminated by the clear testimony of the apostles. This is partly recognized, although it is stipulated that - with the union of law and religion in Judaism - here the second imparts its character to the first, and not, on the contrary, meanwhile, in fact, it is the latter that is more fair, since “in Pharisaism, where especially religious life was relegated to the sphere of law, this combination of religion and law in the law poisoned religion, for law gives religion the imprint of an external, forced action, makes all moral provisions equivalent and reduces all religious life to the eternal process between God and the believers,” the Pharisees and Sadducees, as exponents of the state of the religious life of Judaism before the appearance of Christ. The author defends the “oral law” as contemporary with the Sinaitic legislation; although there is no doubt that - in its content - the Talmud partly existed already in the pre-Maccabean era, but, of course, the idea that in its current content it is older than the New Testament is a complete fallacy. However, the last mention sometimes does not actually refer to the writings of Homer, but is interpreted in the sense of “Tagebucher”. When persecuting Jewish teachers, the Romans found support from Jewish informers and traitors. Such was precisely the Jewish apostate, formerly a very eminent teacher, later nicknamed Acher, who helped the Roman officials in tracking them down. He kicked children out of schools and forced them to learn trades; he betrayed every circumvention (by the Jews) of Roman laws and brought unspeakable disaster upon his fellow tribesmen. All this looks like slander and only testifies to the bitterness that strict rabbinists had towards all manifestations of freedom and liberalism in the field of scholastic legalism. similar to it in meaning and internal motives is Deutsch’s newest attempt at the international congress of orientalists in Algeria (April 19–27, 1905) to prove the truly strange idea that the name Elisha ben Abuya means “Jesus, son of the Father,” why the whole legend supposedly refers specifically to Christ. In the same sense, the Pharisees are also extolled, who continue in later rabbinism and revive all of Judaism with their principles, since it is stated about them that they were true democrats and constituted the party of progress. But for an objective judgment about the matter, see G. Skardinitsky, that the Pharisees were actually “representatives of Orthodox Judaism, who were zealous about observance of the law and built their entire lives on its demands. However, it should not be concluded from this that in the “diaspora” the Hellenic formation was too deep, the latter was distinguished by its surface, if the oppositional view, which arose only after the 70s, managed to prevail against the LXX so quickly. Chr. Jewish writers still state this about Philo, emphasizing that Judaism did not honor him and even considered him a traitor, believing that, in his views, he actually gravitated towards Christianity. The pious in Palestine, in their entire spiritual mood, must have considered the translation of the Torah a national misfortune. This translation was approved by Elieler and Joshua “out of distrust of the badly damaged translation of the LXX,” and Gen. was applied to Aquila’s work. IX, 27: “May God spread Japheth, and may he dwell in the villages of Seth.” Jewish writers admit that the text of the LXX was corrupted and distorted (allegedly by Christians at the time of its prohibition by Jewish authorities (at the beginning of the 2nd century). The travel of the anti-Christian embassy to Antioch by rabbis Elizer, Joshua and Akiba considered it their task to “preach” in favor of Judaism, the Jewish “apostolate”, which had a certain organization and showed such extraordinary activity that Akiba allegedly surpassed even the Apostle Paul in relation to missionary wanderings. About the Jews sending out their legates to spread the rumor that Christ was not resurrected, but only that His body was stolen. Just as today, the Jewish authors agree that there was a Jewish “apostolate” for the sake of (anti-Christian) propaganda. At the same time, Christianity is accused of a crude understanding of legalism. Akiba has no hint of supernatural events under the Messiah, and the controversy regarding the comparison of the latter with Melchizedek is directed against Christians. This is a saying of Hillel, the son of Samuel ben Nachman, 4th century (Halel is not the eldest, but the later rabbi). 70 (about Johanan ben Zakkai) - with the remark that Isaiah’s prophecy about Immanuel was correctly attributed to the son of Hezekiah. So, it is assumed that Trajan allowed the construction of the church, but Christians prevented this. But it is sometimes claimed about Philo that he supposedly taught about original ancestral hereditary sin, which Judaism, in fact, denied and denies. Denying the relationship of the “minims” with the Judeo-Christians, it is argued that Christianity did not come from the Pharisees, but from religious and philosophical circles close to Judaism, but alien to Pharisees and Sadducees, why it is closer to Essenism, as a strictly anti-Pharisee phenomenon and more Hellenic than a Jewish being, although Christianity is not from the Essaean school and the teaching of Christ is completely different. They also admit that “works of evangelical literature” are also thought of here. Then it is possible to classify “external books” as Christian publications. At the same time, even obvious fables were erected. Yes, in Berachot. IX, 5 it says: “in all the final doxologies pronounced in the church, they said “from the ages”; when the minas began to incorrectly teach that there is only one world, they decided to read: “from century to century.” This is completely unfair to the Menaea when they mean by them “heretics, Gnostics, Judeo-Christians,” and then, without any factual basis, they apply these words to the Sadducees. The anti-Christian tendencies of the Talmud are resolutely rejected by Dr. M. Duschak, but how little convincing he has is evident from the reason given by the author that “before Costantine the Great, Christians were only a Jewish sect, of which the Jews were almost not at all afraid.” The found oldest (Jerusalem) form of the prayer “Shemonesre” (18 petitions) contains (in the 12th petition) a direct mention of “Nazarenes”, from which it is concluded that already around the year 100 the Jews practiced prayerful and church “cursing” of Christians. Regarding the polemical and denigrating hints in rabbinic literature against the Apostle Paul, it is directly stated that Judaism took measures against the penetration and spread of Paul’s antinomian ideas. A contemporary of Simon ben - Johia Issi ben - Yehuda, “during the first dissemination of the teachings of the Apostle Paul, they gave a “sharp rebuke” to his preaching about the law (Old Testament). It was also said (R. Huna) that Greece is superior to Rome in three things - in laws, language and writing (in artistic images). It is quite possible to understand this evidence in the sense that all members of the Sanhedrin in total or some of them, but not each individually, must have known 70 languages. Along the river Jochanan (III century) members of the Sanhedrin only had to understand foreign languages. “God gave revelation not in one language, but in Hebrew, Roman, Arabic and Syriac.” However, in Sota Tosef. 7, 7 Ripple (i.e. Jude I) says that the recitation of the Shema is only permissible in the sacred language, although others have explicitly used and defended Greek for this very case. In this sense, and based on this episode, it is fair to conclude that in Palestine the people everywhere understood Greek, comparing Paul’s position with how if an “Englishman”, having arrived in Wales (Wallis), spoke to the local residents in Welsh, and the natives, of course, would “calm down even more,” because they expected to hear English speech; Likewise, the apostolic word caused a special silence precisely because of the surprise that the evangelist addressed himself in Hebrew, when everyone thought that he would use the Greek language. In this sense, meaning the Greek rhetorical and logical sophistry, which seduced with deceptive reasoning and false conclusions. Thus, it was said that there were 180 synagogues in Jerusalem, and each had a school for teaching the Bible and a school for studying “tradition,” but all of them were destroyed under Vespasian (70 - 79). Therefore, nomistic pursuits could suppress even the most natural duties. Eg. Berachorth 3b stated that while David “was immersed in study, some wise men said to him: Our lord and king! After all, Israel needs food, and he answered them: go for yourselves and feed each other. According to some, this means that the rich should financially support the poor, but others - and, it seems, more justly - give this meaning: it is better for children to starve than to leave the house of study.” Scientists are prophets. According to the quoted Talmudic testimony, Jerusalem was destroyed because children did not attend school and scholars were neglected, while the world is held together by the breath of schoolchildren. The following commandment is attributed to Moses: “Let the children, first of all, memorize the laws; this is the best education for them and the basis for well-being.” In the case of the Apostles of Acts. V, 34 ff. Gamaliel did not reveal liberalism at all, but only diplomatic wait-and-see. The same is true in relation to Hillel, for whom the influence on Jesus Christ is still confirmed, at least in the teaching of love. On the contrary, objective considerations lead to the following conclusion: “to compare Hillel with Jesus on the basis of their gentleness is to ignore the fact that Hillel, more than anyone else, contributed to the creation of that “tradition of the elders” that Jesus rejected; in understanding the form of religion, Jesus and Hillel stood at opposite poles of thought.” Christ was independent in his teaching from Judaism, but on the contrary, rabbis often use the preaching of Christ in their own interests, and all of Christianity influenced the formation of the Jewish system. Not without right, for example, they guess that the relatively frequent use of the name “Father” in relation to God by the rabbis of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries could be precisely a reflection of Christianity. This is the assumption. For this reason alone, the statement that “Luke VI, 16 – 17 speaks not of a Hebrew text, but of a ready-made written Aramaic targum of the book of Isaiah, which Jesus Christ used,” is unfounded. This is also allowed in relation to the story about the statue of Aphrodite. Only the news of Jerome’s commentary on Philim is quite correct. 23 that Paul's parents were actually from Giskala, rejecting later evidence that the Apostle himself was from there, but it should be noted that 1) it is in the first case that Jerome speaks hesitantly - by ear - and 2) admits the idea of ​​Paul's relocation from Giskala as his homeland, for if the church writer understood no more than that the Apostle, even being born in Tarsus, received and held the state of Judea according to origin from the Jewish city of his parents, in this case it is inappropriate and incomprehensible to mention that it began from “youth”, when in fact it would have belonged from birth; on the contrary, it is completely natural to note that Paul followed the exile “state” of his parents (being) in his early youth. However, there is an opinion about the Giskal origin of only Pavlov’s parents. Therefore, it is impossible to accept the interpretation that the events of 65 BC mean. Chron., when the migration from Galilee to Tarsus took place, and it is supposedly possible that Paul’s father was captured and then released by Pompey. We are talking about the Jews. This interpretation is extremely doubtful. The apostle wants to highlight his unusual success by comparison with undeniable superiority, meanwhile, this was undoubtedly not at all for his homeland - Tarsus, but precisely for the glorious family of Israel. For Gal. I, 22 – 23 is forced into an equally arbitrary conjecture that “the Christian community subjected to Paul’s persecution was no other than the community of Jewish separatists (i.e., Jewish Christians) in Tarsus, why Paul’s peers and fellow tribesmen could be Tarsians.” Tarsus, being a vast city with a large population, had an Oriental and Hellenic character, and both of these elements were mutually balanced. Let us add that it is possible to admit in Rome the existence of a “station” (for assembly) of a colony of Tarsians. Centers and societies of fellow countrymen and people of other faiths in imperial Rome of the 1st – 3rd centuries. It is impossible, however, to exaggerate this comparativeness to the point that the speech about the grafting of a wild olive tree (in Rom. XI, 17) suggests an impossible and unnatural case. On the contrary, this example is completely natural and justified by actual practice. The latter is clearly established for Paul by his statement in Acts. XXII, 29. It is fair to note about these words that one cannot agree that they are less applicable to the case if Paul, already in childhood, received Roman citizenship at the same time as his parents. Possession of Roman citizenship is also indicated by the appeal or - according to the exact technical usage - Pavlov’s “provocation” to Caesar (Acts XXV, 10. 11. 12. 21. 32), from which the entire course of events of the last period of the life of the Apostle of Languages ​​is explained. In the Descriptor, the transition from one name to another for the Apostle of Languages ​​indicates a change of sources, although this is done appropriately in the course of the events themselves. It is assumed that such a Jewish “tribe” arose in Tarsus around 171 - 170 BC. Chr. under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 - 164), and this city, previously called Parthenea, began to be called Antioch on the river. Kidne. Hesitating on this point, saying that it is “far from certain” that it was the father who received Roman citizenship, and not the grandfather, who could have acquired it through a purchase; on the other hand, it is considered “more likely that this citizenship was granted to Father Pavlov in the usual manner during the reign of Augustus.” The Roman citizenship clearly shows that Pavlov's father was not just a rich and influential Tarsian, but that he took an active part in the life of the city and in this way achieved the highest position. As the son of a Roman citizen, Paul initially had to have a Roman title and a triple one: praenomen, nomen and cognomen. since the latter was everywhere the most common designation of a person (Caesar, Cicero), it is not surprising that only the cognomen - Paulus, and not the gentile (family) name (nomen), which, like the cognomen, the Apostle inherited from his father, was preserved, and his praenomen, which Paul’s father, as a Roman citizen, gave him on the 9th day, i.e., did not survive to us. every other day - according to the name of the Hebrew." As a Roman citizen, Paul had nomen (ancestral) and praenomen (personal), probably taking it from the Roman official who gave his family this citizenship; as a Roman citizen, he required nomen and praenomen. The Apostle Paul, as a Roman citizen and the son of one, had a full name - praenomen, as well as nomen and cognomen: - there is no doubt or question about this. But among the Jews there was no more popular Roman than Julius Caesar, there was no other who did not show more favor to them and whose death they mourned so much. The Apostle's father received Roman citizenship from Caesar, who visited Tarsus in 47 BC. Chr. If so, then in this case he would have taken the name Gaius Julius, and nomen Julius would necessarily have passed to his son, and probably also praenomen Gaius. It is not without interest, in the sense of indirect confirmation, that this nomen occurs twice together with the cognomen Paulus or Paula in the Lycaonian inscriptions, among which it is not at all found that any other Roman nomen is associated with Paulus. This is a cognomen or family name, for, declaring Paulus to be a nomen, the nomen gentil is considered unknown to the Apostle. (=nomen) and praenomen, namely the dentile name, i.e. nomen or generic. Paul, being the cognomen of the Apostle, was not predetermined by his nomen, which is why there is no reason to think that he was (in his nomen) Aemilius - Emilius, as some suggest. We must also remember that “life in Rome was very expensive,” and yet St. Paul stayed there for two whole years at his own expense (Acts XXVIII, 30), although not without the help of friends. As is known, Jewish scholars also emphasize that there is a very close similarity between the aggadic exegesis of Christ and Paul, but in fact the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament writings was only messianic and here had an unshakable support for itself in the fact that the Old Testament is directed specifically to Christ, that the exegesis of Paul is based not on Jewish methods, but on the assumption the Messiahship of Christ, who took the place of the Torah for the Apostle. Paul had a mixed education, which he received - as a Roman citizen - in the lecture room (lectre - room) of some Greek philosopher. Based on Porphyra’s hostility towards Paul, we conclude that she is Hellenic incivility. The pagan philosopher hated the Apostle not for his anti-Hellenistic Judaism, but because he had all the potential to become the best in Hellenism, but nevertheless despised him. There is no doubt that this was always only after nine years, since Judaism believed that until this age a person does not sin, being morally irresponsible. This means that it cannot be argued that Paul remained in his parents’ home no longer than 12 (13) years; he moved to Jerusalem in his youth. It is believed that there was no time for Hellenic education during rabbinical training, while the latter could require the former in addition to itself and for its own purposes. But, of course, there is no reason for this that the rabbis practiced a more arothematic than acroamatic method of teaching. In this sense, it is still argued that Paul only after the failure of his preaching among his fellow tribesmen and in view of the opposition of the latter turned to the pagans, but at first he allowed them only as “proselytes of the gates,” i.e. subject to the acceptance of Noah's commandments, and antinomianism appeared later, as a result of the conflict with the Jews and the “foremost” Apostles. But at the same time, it is certainly doubtful that during this period the missionary activity of St. The Apostle Paul was performed in the Jewish spirit. Allegedly Christianity and St. Paul only appropriated the fruits of the synagogue’s activities, which is why the second was not actually the Apostle of Languages. In the same spirit, it is emphasized that Pavlov’s sermon was based on Jewish propaganda and followed in the footsteps of Jewish proselytism. By stating Paul's practical sobriety in missionary activity, it is refuted that the Apostle of the tongues was an enthusiast - not only because of exalted visions, but also because he supposedly wanted (or even hoped) to convert the whole world in two years. Of course, out of attention to the interests of the Christian mission, the Apostle Paul continued to remain unmarried, although for a learned Judaism this was certainly not impossible. Before turning to the pagans, Paul had long been propagating among his fellow tribesmen and (former) co-religionists in favor of the messiahship of the Lord Jesus, but he was defeated, and it was precisely this difficult experience, and not theological reflexes, that sent him to the pagans, where he moved due to the actual course of things. For St. Chrysostom Apostle Paul was “teacher of the universe”, “mentor of the pagans”, “great preacher of truth, praise of the universe..., organ of the Lord”, “mouth of Christ, lyre of the Spirit”. This was required not without the prevalence of popular philosophical knowledge in the then Greco-Roman world, known to the Apostle Paul. Attention is drawn to the similarity of Athenian speech with Rome. I, 18 – 20, where, referring primarily to the Greek world, the Apostle appears as “a thinker, Greek-educated, but at the same time still brought up Jewishly and feeling Christianly. It is not superfluous to add that in the words of Acts. XVII, 28: about Him we live and move and are, some find similarities with the sayings of Epimenides, and his name is associated precisely with the history of “anonymous” Athenian altars. Like quotes from Arat, Menander and Epimenides - these sayings are understood, for example, by Blessed. Jerome. Epimenides understands the main lie of the Cretans to be their belief that Zeus died and was buried in Crete. St. John Chrysostom in terrae inotum, et in divitem et Lazarum (or De Lazar. VI), 9: “Paul the Apostle is the chosen vessel, the church of God, the mouth of Christ, the lyre of the Spirit, the teacher of the universe, who went around the earth and the sea, who plucked up the thorns of sins, who sowed the seeds of piety, the one who is richer than kings, more powerful than the rich, stronger than warriors, wiser philosophers, more eloquent than rhetoricians. Some imagine Paul as an evangelical theologian of the 19th (20th) century, and even at the age of 12-13 he was almost like a university candidate with a wide range of all kinds of information, that he had “a deep acquaintance with the Greek world in language, literature, philosophy, morality and religion” almost from infancy. So, to Rome. The Apostle Paul accepts a certain similarity between the pagan knowledge of God and the revealed one, just as the paganism of that time was not completely without religion, which is why the evangelist recognizes in it a certain presence of good. At St. Paul is a reflection of his everyday and cultural interaction with paganism back in Tarsus. This alone shows that there is not the slightest need to admit that on this point the Apostle was dependent on the view of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon. And in general regarding the apostolic teaching (in Rom.) about man’s natural knowledge of God and about the natural moral law. It is as if it is not clear from anywhere that Paul also studied with Greek teachers, since he does not have information that “he could not have acquired through dealing with the people or by reading the known Jewish scriptures.” So are the extreme Dutch theologians, although it should be noted that this theological trend is losing credit and influence even in Holland itself. It is impossible to push New Testament literature into the depths of the 2nd Christian century. The generally accepted Hellenistic language is the first instance for clarifying and understanding the language of the LXX and the New Testament, and the biblical language must be interpreted from the course of development of the Hellenistic language (S. 8). About the artificially rhetorical structure of the Epistle to the Hebrews, although with a special tendency, namely: he sees the same stanza in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon and from here concludes (p. 236) that the writer of it and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the first, having appeared around the 50s BC. Chron., although others directly say that the New Testament contains no quotations from non-canonical books. Pavlova's messages are not literary works at all, but purely personal messages for a close circle, the essence of random notes. Only conciliar epistles are precisely epistles in the proper sense, and Pavlov’s are only private letters, which is why the latter are works of a temporary nature (S. 23) and do not have permanent dogmatic importance (S. 24). He published only private letters, without thinking at all about the immortality of his works and their addition to the Old Testament canon (S. 127), since these are not literary messages (S. 119. 127), not just “persononliche Stimmungszeugnisse” (S. 121). It is refuted that the Apostle Paul does not have epistles: the latter appeared, of course, on random occasions and were an appeal from heart to heart, but we are talking a little about general Christian principles - with a binding obligation for all Christians, why these works resemble edicts and rescripts; They also replaced the believers with the absence of an external center for an authoritative association, that Paul’s epistles are not at all random letters and that they are intended for a wide circle according to the apostolic “kissing” concludes to some canonical purpose of the epistles, thinking that they were read during the evening service. Completely denying Paul as a rhetorician, assert that the Apostle nevertheless took care about the form of his epistles (S. 9) and further remarks regarding them (S. 12) the following: “but the greatest stylist is not the one who least violates school rules, but the one who finds the most successful expression for what lives in him.” The Apostle Paul has artificial forms and methods of argumentation. It is argued that from a literary point of view, Pavlov’s epistles are brilliant examples of world literature and the author lacks nothing to call him a real writer (S. 11), and his stylistic and rhetorical features reveal his familiarity with and confident use of the rules for constructing speech accepted in rhetorical schools (S. 13); in the same way - as is said about the language of Luther and Goethe, this is also true for the Apostle, for he shows exemplary dominance in linguistic means (S. 7) and, for example, with purely creative freedom replaced Semitic concepts and words with various Greek synonyms. Paul did not touch upon the “classicist-reactionary current,” i.e. Atticism, and, as it seems, not a single secular book made a lasting influence on him (S. 59), and now no one admits lexical influence from the language of the ancient Atticians - Plato and Demosthenes (S. 74), just as not a single quote from apocryphal literature is accepted from him (S. 68), that the Hellenic evangelist allegedly knew the “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs”, according to Origen , as if in 1 Cor. II, 9 from the Apocalypse of Elijah; generally finds echoes of the apocrypha in him and John. For all that, this author also notes that he was well-trained and generally literary, and at the same time was not non-Hellenistic or vulgar (S. 13.41), that in some words and phrases one’s own reading or treatment of educated and well-read people is assumed (S. 17. 59), since “expressions of an educated language” were not alien to the Apostle (S. 41). Such an assessment is all the more permissible because it was not just an impersonal transitional stage, but has its own individually specific characteristics. If at the same time it is stated that philologists do not want to know anything about the language of the Holy Spirit (S. 253), then this is too formalistic a point of view, not justified by facts, for example, in “Semitism” and in Stoic writing, where the linguistic aspect and content mutually determined each other. In some places of his epistles (for example, 1 Cor. XIII. XV. Rom. VIII, 28) St. Paul rises to the heights of classical forms and fascinating brilliance in language. The Apostle of Languages ​​is, to a certain extent, a poet who undoubtedly has a natural sense of rhyme (S. 118), which is why the parallelism of the psalms is sometimes noticed in him (S. 124). The author allows only one exception, as if there is something genuine only in the letters to the Corinthians, Romans and Philippians (S. VI. 324ff.). From the historical Paul, probably not a single line has survived to us, and all of Paul’s literature appeared, as it were, under Trajan, which is why the current Pauline epistles do not serve as the primary sources of Paulinism. Where art in cursive writing in Luke is connected by the author with the study of medicine. Note that based on 2 Cor. XII. 8 and Wed. VIII, 18, as if Titus and Luke were brothers. This dubious interpretation is very artificial, because the second one was then much more famous and authoritative, and therefore it would be more appropriate to call him by name. The metaphor of “creation” as applied to religious and moral development entered the Christian language under the influence of St. The Apostle Paul, who used it in a moral-philosophical (and not concrete) sense (p. 386), as he was the first to introduce the analogy of the stadium and the circus (p. 367) based on the impressions of city life in cultural Hellenistic Tarsus (p. 365). Attributing the new foundation of the latter to 177 BC. Chr. The words about this city in Strabo are misunderstood, which testifies only to the fact that the university of Taraeus was provincial, because only natives were its students, which is why the geographer here praises not the university institution in comparison with Athens and Alexandria, but the inhabitants. The Apostle Paul also belonged to them, but his Roman citizenship, which was a special family privilege, was not established on Tarsus; as such, he was recorded in one of the Roman “tribes,” which he has hitherto indicated in the sense of “a fellow tribesman, a fellow Israelite.” The Apostle, having acquired it by inheritance, immediately received three names with praenomen and nomen, with the Latin cognomen Paulus replacing the Hebrew. Saul. This means that the last two were original and equal, as the combination convinces of this (in Acts XIII, 9). Likewise, it is to the Hellenic evangelist that we owe the development as a Christian theological term. The Apostle Paul “exceeds his acquaintance with Hellenic education. And the quality of his speech has signs that he possessed a procedural (secular) education, which is why the Epicureans and Stoics could not resist him when, in refutation of them, he intelligently read the inscription on the altar, in which instead of “the known” it was said “to the unknown God” (Acts XVII, 23), he read with the art of a rhetorician.” In this regard, it is extremely characteristic that the Apostle Paul does not limit himself to the accepted Greek usage of the term, but tries to highlight in them the main, essential and most suitable assessments. Likewise, in speaking about conscience, the evangelist uses not so much the usual; in speaking about conscience, the evangelist uses not so much the usual usage as word production, through this approaching the understanding of the ancients (pp. 29. 70 - 71. 91). At the same time, it is not clear that the Apostle Paul, who rightly reveres paganism as a fall from God, was guided in characterizing the former by the views of the Wisdom of Solomon; then all the analogies and reinterpretations that are based on the assimilation of this book, which preserves the Hebrew faith, the ideas of the thousand-year kingdom, pneumatic immortality, the intermediate state in Shiol - Hades - while denying the Greek idea of ​​​​immortality, disappear by themselves. It must also be added that this non-canonical creation, in any case, has a biblical-Jewish basis. The Apostle Paul showed the phenomenon of Hellenism in psychology, in views on the flesh and spirit and in the allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. General History of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity to the Present, p. 157. These judgments are usually associated with the idea that Judaism in the age of Christ was highly syncretic. On the other hand, rejecting the exaggerated pressure on original Christianity from Hellenism, they admit that the latter was then “strongly Orientalized.” All this provides room for theories about Eastern influences on the early Church. Among these, Babylon especially stands out, having long influenced Palestine in theology and nomism and Asia Minor (p. 180). It is quite closely connected with the Bible, taking more reflections from the Apostle Paul than from Christ (S. 19), as well as in general from the Hellenic evangelist and in the New Testament writings it is more difficult to distinguish temporary layers from the divine content (S. 19). In particular, this thesis is illustrated by the analysis of the Christian “week”, which is based on a Jewish prototype, and the latter itself is dated in a Babylonian source, even if it has suffered changes. The most energetic example for this is the Jewish Sabbath, which is directly traceable to the Babylonian model. Along with this, many others now consider Buddhism to be the “father of Christianity” and are looking for the roots of apostolic Christology in the mythology of ancient cultural religions. They do not simply emphasize Buddhist reflexes in the gospel history, but try to find even almost verbal quotations from John. VII, 38. XII, 34. A careful analysis here also convinced that in the parallels of interest there is nothing specifically Indian, forcing the idea of ​​dependence, which does not exist in relation to the primacy of Christianity. The influences of alien religions are unnecessarily exaggerated, and for the Buddhist elements they are brought to the point of absurdity. Until now, it is often asserted that John the Baptist was actually an Essene saint and preacher, and Christ stood very close to Esseneism and almost directly came out of it. Why are Essene influences reflected in Christianity in general and in the Apostle Paul? All these tendentious exaggerations are rejected even by supporters of “free theology.” Thus, defending authenticity and appropriating Philo’s idea of ​​the participation of Angels in the creation of people (S. 359), they especially put forward his concept of the ideal man (S. 359), but this is also supposed to be the Christ of the Apostle Paul, who thought of the Lord even in human form. The result was a purely mythical type, molded into a pagan-Christian saga about the supernatural birth of the Savior (S. 202). This undermines all the historical roots of the real existence of the Redeemer, and His creation is pushed back into the depths of the 2nd century (S. 9 – 10). All sorts of fantasies are played out on this basis. They say that initially the Apostle was not talking about a living person, but about the metaphysical theospheme of the pre-Christian period (S.9. 124), where both terms (“Jesus” and “Christ”) denoted a special divine being (S. XVII, 32.67), and the first indicated a miracle worker, a preserver - a deliverer (S. 34. 38), as a “Nazarene” noted a savior (S. 36 - 40. 41 – 70). Here the New Testament sources lie in pre-Christian Gnosticism, and, perhaps, reach Babylon (S. 151). These ideas, which had been circulating for a long time, then took the form of a special cult, which during the period of two centuries (from 100 BC to 100 AD) was widespread among the Jews, mainly among the Hellenists, being transmitted and practiced “mysteriously” in various “mysteries” (S. 30). If Jesus really ever existed, then He was not at all an opponent of Judaism, as can be seen from the Jewish parallels to the Talk on the Mount (S. 23), and this enmity comes only from Paul with like-minded people (S. 73 - 74). It was the latter who made Christ out of Jesus (S. 33), becoming the founder of a new world religion (S. 48 ff.), but what was later thought of in the tendentious interests of Catholic Paulinism (S. 49 – 50). Logological predicates from Stoicism, Philonism, etc. were gradually added to all this. When God appeared as the saint of His seed or Logos, why does the entire evangelical parable serve simply as a modification of an older allegory about creation, but in the expressions of the logological doctrine. Hence, the resurrection of Christ does not affirm an actual fact, but describes the creative act of God awarding his Son with power over the world in the dignity of his deputy. If all this seems to be a real story in the New Testament books, then - in addition to the Eastern tendency towards concreteness - the desire to find factual support for their hopes played a role here - especially after the fall of Jerusalem, which shook all Jewish hopes. It is clear that such a transformation could not be completed quickly, and the Epistle to the Romans enshrines the result of a long process, while other letters of Pavlov capture only the traditions of the religious consciousness of the gradually emerging liberal Christianity. – All the above considerations are purely mythical. First of all, the second or last Adam in the apostolic teaching is the exalted Christ, Who, even after His departure to the Father, was for the Holy One. Paul is an ever-living force, always holding a vital and effective meaning. Only for this reason did He actually replace and abolish the primordial one with the unconditional superiority of his feat, which supposedly extended to the world of spirits. In our opinion, it is closer here that it is Platonism that underlies Philonism, and its contact with Stoicism is more external and is expressed in its own terminology. Stoicism penetrated even into Palestine, although the latter and later Hellenism in general contained quite a few Orientalistic elements (S. 130); on the other hand, we must not forget that the then popular Greek philosophy was cultivated not only in Athens and Alexandria, but even moreover, it was preached in the streets and squares everywhere, for example, in Tarsus and Antioch (S. 151). This philosopher apologized for suicide, proving that death is not evil at all, since it saves from carnality and delivers from the body, and the first is a burden, the second serves as a prison for a person, from where self-mortification is inevitable and salutary. It is rightly pointed out that morality, which was the most important thing in Stoicism, itself supported religion here, and not vice versa, as is the case in Christianity. This is, undoubtedly, also on the other side: among the Stoics, love for one’s neighbor rests not on the union of the will, but of the minds, and that is why it becomes egoistic. Ɨ B. N. Chicherin also emphasizes that - for all its similarities with Christianity - Stoicism also has a fundamental difference even on the issue of universal brotherhood and mutual love, since among the Stoics these sentiments manifest themselves more in internal complacency than in active love for the benefit of others (History of political teachings 1, p. 77). According to Cicero, Stoic philosophy remained sterile for politics, and practical people - even those who were admirers of their (the Stoics') teachings - found nothing in their writings that would be useful for citizenship. From this side there can be no internal similarity between the Apostle Paul and Stoicism in psychology in general. In this regard, the following observation is remarkable, emphasizing “the undeniable affinity of the preaching of Jesus with the philosophy of the Stoics, noting points of similarity in the ideas of divine providence (providence), about God as the Father, in reverence for God, in the religious justification of morality, regarding the meaning of individuality, about slavery, regarding the assessment of actions by intentions, etc. (S. 133 - 140), and, in the end, decisively confirms the fundamental differences (S. 142 – 144), why he directly excludes the material influence of Stoicism on the teaching of Christ (S. 144). Many emphasize that the Apostle refers more to an organism or an organic whole, although in connection with materiality, why such a “body” fully allows for spiritualization and in itself is not at all ethically opposed to the divine or spiritual. The Apostle Paul does not even have ethical dualism with a materialistic overtone, for even if he recognizes the connection between the flesh and sin, it is not at all the case that the second is a sinful principle. Therefore, it is completely in vain to bring together the Stoic concepts of carnal sinfulness, dualistic (S. 148 - 149) and ascetic (S. 149) with the apostolic gospel, when he himself notes on the first point a closer source in the teaching of Christ and in his own experience, and - with such different prerequisites - the apostolic doctrine of complete renewal or complete renewal cannot contain Stoic shades. the rebirth of man, despite efforts to bring them closer (S. 150). In this regard and in view of the analogies with 4 (3) Esdras. VII, 28 Apoc. Baruch 74, about the finitude of the kingdom of the Messiah, it is noted that the Apostle Paul, being a son of his time, “could not completely free himself from the shackles of religious popular opinion, from the bonds of the Jewish fundamental principle.” However, the Savior Himself always said that he came from the Father, to do the will of the One who sent him and will come to Him, and therefore at this point one can more likely find the agreement of the evangelist with Christ. Don’t forget, you are an actor and you play a role in the play assigned by the author. If the play is short, so is the role; if the play is long, so is it. He will give you the role of a beggar, try to create his type more accurately, as well as the type of a cripple, a high government official or a private official: of course, it is your responsibility to fulfill your roles, and it is another’s to distribute them. For example, let us point out that one moral is ascetic leadership, which is incorrectly learned by the teacher. Nile of Sinai is undoubtedly a reworking of the Stoic image. Allegedly, this correspondence was fabricated by a Christian in order to “recommend Seneca’s writings to his fellow believers for the sake of their stylistic advantages.” It is not superfluous to add that modern science, allowing in Virgil’s fourth eclogue echoes of specifically messianic premonitions, elevates the latter to a mediocre or more direct influence of biblical messianic expectations. In some small details Prof. W. M. Ramsay makes slight inaccuracies, mixing this Athenodorus with another, slightly older Athenodorus, who died in the house of Cato in 60 - 50 BC. Chr., how he himself corrects these particulars. Even during Seneca’s lifetime, Publius Scyllius accused him of being a man without any rules, an empty reciter who owed his rapid rise and enrichment only to his cunning. In this sense only and only with such limitations can the considerations of Prof. V.V. Bolotova. On the contrary, according to Ad. Harnack’ and, during the Nero genius, caused by the Jews, Christians were persecuted precisely as Christians (S. 296 - 297), and for the Romans it was important to find out who the actual arsonists were, and accordingly they interrogated the accused, they accused themselves as Christians. All these conclusions are certainly confirmed; under Nero, Christians differed from the Jews, who caused persecution against them, and during interrogation they directly declared themselves as such (S. 124), which is why the accusation against them was directed at odium humani generis (S. 133), i.e. on their Christian confession (S. 138), and they were condemned and persecuted for Christianity (S. 141 and cf. 144 - 145. 146). It is in vain to talk about the imaginary persecution of Christians under Nero, whereby Tacitus allegedly confused them with the Jews, although (by misunderstanding) many members of the Christian community in Rome were executed then. D. V. Znamensky does not agree with our opinion about the absence in Judaism of the dogma of a pre-existing Messiah, obviously only due to a misunderstanding regarding the content of this idea, where we think of the supermundane separately - the real divine being, for the latter is not recognized for Jewish theology by this author himself. The matter will not change in the essence even if we agree that unfavorable judgments about proselytes in Judaism were determined by historical circumstances and especially prevailed after the destruction of Jerusalem, for this view was not contrary to Jewish-rabbinic dogma, but was fully justified by it. However, the question of the Sabbath is expressed in favor of independence from Babylon; the Babylonian Sabbath was not a day of rest, but a day of appeasement of the wrath of the gods. Of all the radical changes introduced by Christianity into the social life of mankind, the new position given to women was perhaps the most remarkable and the most fruitful in results. In pseudo-Solomon, who supposedly significantly influenced the Apostle Paul, he finds philosophical elements and in particular the Platonic-Pythagorean doctrine of the pre-existence of souls and similar reflections in ethics (S. 188); but the first is disputed both for the pseudo-Solomon’s book and for rabbinism (p. 95), and others reasonably note that in general it is in vain that even the truth of the resurrection is considered an extraneous and radically transformative news for genuine biblicalism, for the book of the Wisdom of Solomon retains that biblical feature that the resurrection of the dead (saints) with their bodies is allowed (p. 54 - 56). The Bible was based here on its own idea regarding the origin of the soul (about which for the paternal period, see V.F. Davydenko). In ancient times, this idea was especially inspired by Clement al., who, among other things, found in the Apostle Paul an acquaintance with the Sibyls and Hystaspes. Paul's epistles were something between private notes and literary works of this kind, which is why these are letters, but not private ones, addressed to one person. There is something original in the form of Pavlov's writings. Here it is allowed at Ap. Paul's relationship with the myth of the divine first man, which passed into Judaism from Orientalist speculation. It is not visible and should not be thought that St. had realism in depicting the resurrection and everything that followed. Paul is crudely Pharisaic and the resurrected body is depicted as completely identical to the previous, earthly one. To the author of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, which again justifies the dependence of the Apostle on the latter, but even recognizing such acquaintance, others still state that the evangelist was outside the influence of this non-canonical document on the issue of paganism. The actual game of checkers is indicated, and then, according to an old misunderstanding, the game of dice is also thought of. Heraclitus states pantheism with the opposite of dualism (S. 746), but the latter is also visible in anthropology, for the soul is bound in the body (S. 710), where it has fallen from the higher spheres and from where, upon death, it either goes to hell or turns into one of the demons (S. 713), although the Ephesian philosopher does not share generally accepted views on hell. On the issue of trichotomy and against its adoption by the Apostle Paul, cf. at o. F. A. Stukova. A note regarding the meaning of the teaching of Holy Scripture about the tripartite composition of man in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1885, part 1, pp. 255 - 262, and for biblical psychology cf. at Iv. A. Olesnitsky, The Teaching of the Old Testament on the immortality of the soul in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1882 There are connections here with philosophical, stoic ideas, as well as with universal humanitarianism. Cynics and Stoicism prepared the ground for Christian seeds, but what they had in common was not a result of borrowing, but was then a widespread spiritual heritage. The Apostle Paul and Seneca, while agreeing with each other in many ways, did not know each other and equally drew similar elements from the education of that time, imbued with Stoic elements. Prof. F. Fr. Zelinsky states “the development of Roman philosophy as the ancestor of Christianity,” referring to “a study of the time when the ancient world was tiredly and anxiously looking for religious answers and created a number of philosophical, monotheistic religions: one of them, victorious, belonging to antiquity in flesh and blood, is Christianity.” Through Judaism, strong influences from Orientanism penetrated into the Christian environment, which were later transformed by the Apostle Paul. Is this why Jews, Mohammedans, and Hindus have an invincible aversion to Christian baptism as a sacrament? It should also be noted that in the mysteries the “sealing” was not accomplished through anointing, but through burning with a hot iron. It cannot be seen and the whole phrase understood metaphorically - in relation to those “who accept the responsibilities and consequences of their identification with a Christian organization, or devote themselves to a life of deprivation, suffering and even death.” Moreover, the Apostle allegedly says (in 1 Cor. XI, 23 ff.) that all the details were received by him by revelation (p. 5). So, Ɨ ep. Khrisanov, recognizing in the mysteries the presence of well-known teachings expressed by them - for example, about the immortality of the soul - however, agrees that this was not a distinct and proclaimed doctrine. In this sense, we had a lively exchange of opinions between Ɨ K.I. Silchenkov and prof. I.V. Popov, and the first put forward Christian independence more, and the second, without denying it, noted historical conditionality. Noting such a rapprochement, allowed by some, that if analogies are needed for such a natural comparison in the Apostle, then they could be given, for example, by Pres. Solomon. V, 19 and Isa. LIX, 17, why there is no need for pagan mysterical models. On the relationship between sacramentum and militia, see S.P. Znamensky in the Theological Bulletin, 1909, No. 4, pp. 550. 562 ff., although this author thinks that sacramentum is not equivalent to sacrament, to which the Latin saying arcana disciplina would be more suitable (p. 572). It should be noted that the saying about the identity of hell with Dionysus is understood to mean that they are equal, since origin is established on destruction, life on death, which is why the application of this maxim to orgies is understood in the sense of their censure, and not their justification. Taking this into account Acts. XXII, 24, they believe that - due to ignorance of the Latin language - the Apostle at first did not understand the Latin order of the captain about scourging and guessed about it only later, when he was stretched with belts, but the whole narrative rather convinces that both sides could be explained quite unhindered. If St. Paul did not protest immediately, but for other reasons, as in other cases (see, for example, Acts XVI, 37. 38). They, of course, must be even higher and more significant in the eyes of those who have hitherto accorded Saul the dignity of a member of the Sanhedrin. For this alone, it cannot be included here that Mithras was sometimes called in Greek, and the latter title was asserted on him not according to legal-everyday, but according to dualistic-metaphysical premises. The gospel of Christian freedom in the letter of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians. But it goes without saying that Christians, being now completely empowered, were once not all “young” in terms of their hereditary rights, for the pagans did not have them at all, and therefore we can accept that the Apostle Paul means the Jews themselves. Of course, terms outside the testamentary sphere had other meanings, for example, curator received a fiscal meaning. Referring to the instructions of the Roman lawyer Gaius, it is believed that in the mention of “the father’s servant,” the Apostle Paul reproduces legal relations that have not yet completely disappeared and, perhaps, were even before his eyes (among the Galatians?) This is an image of Rome. VII, 7 – 25 refers to the Christian period of the apostolic life, but quite a few exegetes still see here the experience of Saul before his conversion and one of the preparations for the latter. Ancient law, pp. 37. 41 – 42 about their relationship, and “jus natural or natural law is nothing more than jue gentium or the law of peoples, presented in the form of a special theory” (p. 410 and only in modern times does the latter become confused with international law, the classical expression for which the Romans had jus feciale, i.e. commercial law or diplomacy (p. 42). About jus eivile, jus gentium and jus natural, as well as the difference between them. It is not superfluous to note here that wills were not contracts, but laws - only private ones. Ɨ N. P. Bogolyubov ibid., pp. 22: “They were called their heirs (sui haeredes) in Rome. right, persons who were directly under the authority of the testator at the time of his death, and from that moment were considered to have taken possession, when other heirs had to express this entry by a special act.” Therefore, even objectively, to the scientific Protestant consciousness, it seems undeniable that the Apostle Paul’s justification, of course, is an imputation towards a renewed, righteous life. This eliminates the accepted conclusion that this is “a new word, which the ancients did not have, nor does the LXX, and which belongs to Ap. Pavel. So for 1 Cor. IX, 7: “What warrior ever serves on his own pay?” Rev. James Moffatt quotes (Two Classical Parallels in The Expository Times XX, 4) the phrase An. Claudius from his speech before the Senate during the Veii war: “Moieste ante ferebat miles, se suo sumptu operam reipublieae praebere,” but it goes without saying that the Apostle Paul notes a fact that was directly known to himself and the Corinthians. “Paul's acquaintance with secular literature is well justified by his successful quotations from Aratus (Acts XVII, 28), Menander (1 Cor. XV, 33) and Epipenides (Tit. I, 12), a probable reference (in 1 Cor. XII, 12 - 27) to the parable of Menenius Agrippa in Livy, and also recognized in Prof. V. M. Ramsey’s apostolic commitment to Athenodorus of Tarsus, whose influence was so great on Seneca that from here there were very striking parallels between the evangelist and the Stoic philosopher.” You might be interested in: