St. Apostle Paul and philosopher Seneca

The question of correspondence between St. The Apostle Paul and the philosopher Seneca. – Assumptions about their mutual dependence, but Seneca was essentially a Stoic, but otherwise not original; analysis of particular analogies. – The question of slavery, humanitarianism, universality and the position of women. - Conclusion. 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 1 provides a good illustration. Already in distant Christian antiquity, there was a strong conviction about it in close contact with Christianity 2. Evidence of this is his well-known correspondence with St. Paul 3. It is now indisputable to almost everyone that it is not genuine 4 . Its actual monuments seem to be no different from those of Jerome 5 and, without referring to even earlier ones, 6 allow us to judge the motives for the invention. They do not see the tendency of anti-Paulinistic Ebionism 7, which created the Clementine figure of Simon the Magus 8, 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 9. 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 the acceptance of such a simple forgery, which we must think that it arose from the existing confidence in the Christian tendencies of Seneca 10. Therefore, here we have a Christian creation 11 and, of course, for Christian purposes 12. For them, the dilemma is permissible that either Seneca is recommended to Christianity 13, or the latter to that. Nowadays the second solution prevails - to attract the educated pagan classes to the Christian truth, 14 although this will be pure triviality, supposedly this is calculated to ensure the glorification of St. Pavel is 15. This view is justified by the documents themselves. In their features, the letters under consideration are characteristically similar to other apocrypha 16 and are thereby 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 artificially invented and tendentious idea of ​​egoistic Christian zeal 17, which did not want to allow the good in paganism to develop in it independently. This was only the mood, 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 leading through the beautifully pagan to the excellently Christian, which is akin to and has long been approved of 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 age of the birth and development of Christian apologetics 18. 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 works and most contributed to their preservation amid the later persecution of pagan literature, 19 and for us it serves as an indicator of the vivacity of conviction in the philosopher’s Christian disposition. This conjecture has long been rooted in Christian educated society 20 and reached such tension that the Council of Tours in 567 directly refers to Seneca 21, as did Constantine. in a speech to the Nicene fathers, he quotes the 22 fourth eclogue of Virgil 23. We see that the hypothesis of the mutual proximity of Seneca and St. Paul is bequeathed to us by Christian history 24. And one cannot necessarily consider it false. If some declare the correspondence to be the fruit of ignorant unreason 25 and consider the thought itself to be simply satire 26 , then others do not find anything surprising here, stating the close contact between the philosopher and the Apostle 27 and admitting the possibility of a relationship between them 28 . The latter circumstance has long attracted scientific inquisitiveness, and in its interpretations three trends have emerged: 1) Seneca and Christianity were historically independent, 2) the Roman Stoic influenced the second, and 3) vice versa 29. The first possibility ensures the actual independence of the Hellenic evangelist, who supposedly drew similar elements from the then education, imbued with Stoicism 30, but it is also resolved with the result not in his favor. The fact is that the ideological coincidences of both in general and in particular 31 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 32, which was available to him as a man of science in secular sciences 33, although the latter is sometimes denied 34. A particular fact will be an indicator of the deep penetration of the apostolic into philosophical spheres with considerable borrowings from here 35 then the ancient guess 36 about the direct subordination of the apostolic ideas to 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 37, 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 38 dominated, and the system of this Tarsian, who died in his hometown around 7 AD. Chr., could have a strong influence on Seneca 39. On the other hand, the latter also necessarily attracted sympathetic attention. Carried away by external rhetoric 40 to exaggerations and deviations from logical consistency 41 - this was still a great mind, although infected with the phrase 42 of an affected style 43. Being the Ovid of prose writers 44 , whose speech often sounds with rhythm 45 , he was the patriarch of all literary revival in all branches 46 . Seneca was a brilliant and important representative of Stoicism of the imperial era 47 - with the predominance of common moral and religious beliefs 48. According to our views, we see here a new and unique phenomenon 49, in which the breath of the Christian spirit is so often heard 50. This philosopher resembles biblical revelations more than all the Greek and Roman classics 51, and not one of them was so close to Christianity 52, with which he merges more closely and more often than others 53. 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 54. In this connection, the assumption that St. Paul knew and utilized the works of Seneca, and this one was original 55 and extended its influence not only to exhortatory moral instructions, but also to metaphysical premises 56 . The philosophical impact goes so far that even the words of forgiveness on the part of the dying Christ (Luke 23:34) sometimes come close to Seneca's maxims 57. This caricatured extreme does not yet 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, hence the inevitable fundamental dissimilarity with Christianity 58 . Lactantius also said 59 that he was the most strict Stoic (acerrimus Stoicus) 60, and the latest investigations indicate that his difference from the ancient principles is more only quantitative 61. General definitions about Stoicism entirely apply to him. Essentially, Seneca, despite the religious-individualistic language 62, was a pantheist. If he allows for the existence of God 63 , then actually as a world soul 64 merging with nature 65 , and when distinguished, He is depicted as the organizer of the world according to immutable laws, for Him no less obligatory than for the creation itself 66 . This idea is entirely Stoic, but not at all Christian. This is the only meaning - divine-rational determinism - one can accept personal providence 68 from a philosopher who, according to his metaphysical principles, professed strict fatalism 69, where inexorable fate is installed in the place of teleology 70. 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 71, which is why he, on this side, has everything good from God 72. With all the energy of his judgments about human weakness, Seneca did not admit innate sinfulness 73 and directly recognized that the wise can be not only on a par with Jupiter 74, but also higher 75, for he surpasses 76 in his virtue 77, since it is acquired by personal effort 78. Here everything supersensible was useless 79, and Stoic tendencies tend to make God completely unnecessary 80, so that He and the soul are treated in a tone of cold indifference 81. Cosmological doctrines are purely Stoic 82 and are accompanied by the natural result that in ethics Christian humility is suppressed by the convinced boldness 83 of irresistible pride 84 which is crowned with isolation. Man rises to divine heights through his moral activity, which brings down the deity to himself 85 , and only through this is he connected in equal dignity with others, fully revealing his virtues only in this environment 86 . Selfish arrogance was the basis of moral activity 87 and is resolved by the sharpest contempt for everyone who is not wise according to the Stoic model 88 . Of all the Stoics, Seneca is the most imbued with an aristocratic contempt for the ignorant crowd 89, for these are slaves 90, from where his universalistic love is not alien to strong egoism 91, since he considers himself worthy only of philosophers 92. He generally could not stand weakness and tolerated the cruelty of killing freaks 93 . The philosopher preached for a select few, and his teaching was not at all intended to be universal 94. And if it is sometimes said that it was Stoicism that especially prepared Christian universalism 95, 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 96. This exclusivity is associated with a certain moral indifference, whereby stoic apathy 97 already turns into Epicurean ataraxia 98 and generally favored quietism 99 . Seneca does not see a true concept of sin 100, which is not directly related to the deity 101 and does not determine human mortality 102. Naturalistic understanding, alien to moral illumination, 103 predominates, and shades of the latter kind are found only when deviating from the system 104. But even here - among the impulses of humble humiliation - one can see everywhere self-confidence in one’s own ability to triumph in virtue, which is motivated autonomously in spite of Christianity, which elevates it to God 105. At this point Seneca again reveals his greatest fidelity to the Stoic demands in ethics 106, so different from Christian doctrine 107. The whole trouble is a simple lack of means to overcome the oppressive burden, and it lies in the flesh, which binds the soul with the shackles of the body 108 and is a punishment for a person 109, like a heavy cross of constraining and overwhelming passions 110. According to these features, Seneca in anthropology has developed quite a bit from the ancient Stoics 111 and, more than them contrasting soul and body 112, noticeably leans toward Platonism. In its anthropological dualism, the teaching of Nero's educator is completely inconsistent with the apostolic 113. His influence in the ethical field was reflected by an involuntary admiration for the carnal-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 114. The latter, concentrated precisely in the body 115, 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 116 and there was not the slightest possibility for the incarnation of God 117; if divine assistance was allowed here 118, then exclusively through the medium of the human mind 119. All paths to escape were closed, and Seneca found a way out only in the “open doors” 120 of suicide, 121 which he recommends more energetically and more often than other Stoics 122, glorifying him almost to the point of ecstasy 123. All hopes of salvation were exhausted by the philosopher with the slogan about the convenience of opening a vein for everyone 124, but this was in radical contradiction with all Christian norms 125. 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, from which the idea of ​​self-destruction 126 was born, which caused a strong spread of suicide in Roman society 127 . Most fully reflecting his era in his activities and literary works 128 - at this point Seneca was “a true representative of a morally exhausted generation” 129 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 130. 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 131. However, all these points are covered differently. Death itself is commented on in the spirit of Platonic dualism, as liberation from unnatural bonds 132. What follows is shrouded in rather thick darkness. There are expressions of hope for a better life 133 and in this they find an approach to Christianity with a denial of the disintegration of the psychic principle in individuality 134 . But there are absolutely no guarantees for such a happy success. For Seneca, the soul was a body 135, 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 137 and not believing in it with firm determination 138, he preferred not to know whether there would be anything beyond death 139, and was more inclined to the idea of ​​complete mental destruction 140, although he did not preach a crude denial of Panaetius 141. Even if there are glimmers of faith in an afterlife, there is still no ethical understanding, since it does not note the shades of moral reward for life's feat 142. In such a combination, all analogies with the apostolic gospel will be only external. This is indisputable 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. 5:1). This act of dissolution is illuminated by Seneca in a Platonic way in the sense of liberation from prison and soaring into pure supersensible regions 143. 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 certainly 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 144 and judgment 145. 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 146. Everything is resolved by absorption in the pantheistic abyss, where fatal necessity reigns and where there is neither Christian eternity nor biblical teleology 147. 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 148 and do not have a Christian physiognomy at all, being a Stoic theory 149 that developed from his own philosophical principles 150. From this side, it is fair to recognize the mutual independence of complete independence in comparison with Christianity 151 and St. Paul 152. With such disparity, all points of similarity will be illusory 153, and according to his Stoic convictions, Seneca had to reject them as inconsistent with his philosophical doctrines 154. It is clear that all such parallels, being artificial 155, but testify to the closeness of the apostolic to Stoic principles, and they especially reveal a significant difference between Christian hopes of self-devotion from the hopeless calculations of Stoic arrogance 156, but despite the exaggeration of coincidences, for example, in ethical-physical terminology 157. With such an assessment, it is even doubtful that Stoicism was even a preparatory historical moment in its philosophical schemes 158. For Seneca, only personal influence is permissible for those moments that were not stoic, but original. 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 159 and great inconsistency 160 are often undeniable. He takes a lot from others without strictly adapting to the requirements of his school 161 . Its construction is quite unsystematic 162, and Stoicism takes on an eclectic character 163, which distinguishes all the main modifications 164. 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 165. 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 166. And these analogies of the Christian and apostolic gospel with other ancient thinkers are no less 167 why they see no need at all for Senekin’s manual. 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 168 . 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 169 and about the rising of the sun over criminals 170, about athletes, about the innate law in man (Rom. 2:14) 171, about the church of God in us, about internal freedom in the face of external enslavement were quite accepted or are concluded in for himself no more than what anyone could obtain by his own observation and reflection 172 . 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 173, wanting to limit philosophy to the predominance of moral tasks 174 and reducing it to practical morality 175 so that the sage is a practical worker of an ethical nature 176, while the theoretical aspect is smoothed out 177 and is not inextricably linked with the practical 178. In views on human frailty there is again an undeniable deviation from Stoic foundations 179. 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 here, in disagreement with Stoic monism 180. 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 occurs, and the Stoic sage resolves artificial equilibrium through suicidal dissolution. The Apostle, even with a very lively attraction to Christ, did not allow himself such thoughts and preferred to remain on earth for the benefit and benefit of others (Phil. 1:23). 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 put forward, but they were formulated exclusively according to anthropological needs and revealed in strict accordance with them 181. 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 raised to the Lord the Redeemer, as the creator of the fields of spiritual and moral life, unconditionally assured in its triumph. Similar moral maxims turn out to be at least disparate, and literary dependence is not permissible for them 182. 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 183. From here it is fair to guess about biblical influences, which are not at all surprising 184 in this era when (in I–II AD) religious syncretism 185 dominated. We have already argued that in Stoicism, which has always remained Asian in tone, 186 there are sufficient biblical-orientalist echoes 187. Naturally, they are also found by the Roman philosopher. He also had special favorable conditions for this. More than once the idea was expressed that more than one drop of real Semitic blood flowed in him 188 . This is quite possible for a native of Cordoba in Spain, where there were Phoenician settlements in the north, and from Cadix to Granada the Phoenician language dominated 189. In the works themselves there are considerable contacts with the Old Testament writings 190, and they are so characteristic that they imply some acquaintance of Seneca with the LXX and Jewish teachings and institutions 191. In connection with other data, it is further stated that the philosopher was interested in Judaism all his life and was knowledgeable about it 192, although he treated Jews harshly and contemptuously 193. 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 Orientalist-biblical tradition 194 . 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. 6:7), that having brought nothing into the world, we can bear no more, is reminiscent of Seneca’s saying (Epist. CII, 25), but in shades it is more suitable to biblical contemplations (Job. I: 21, Eccl. 5:14) 195. 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 here particularly close convergences are found, 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 contemporaries, and in the course of their lives they were brought into some mutual contact. Therefore, sometimes it is still argued that both directly and indirectly the philosopher must have known about Christianity 196 and the preaching of its great Apostle 197, then instilled the adopted Christian traits into Stoicism 198 and served as a mediator of Christian fertilization for the latter 199. 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. 1:12). During his two-year bond, the evangelist contributed greatly to Christian success. Roman Judaism immediately received him unfavorably (Acts 28:21), 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 in wider layers (Phil. 1:13), not excluding the court spheres, where among the employees of different ranks there 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 200. Of course, it is not possible to accurately establish his connections with the Apostle using historical calculations 201, and we are not able to indicate a specific chronological term for them 202. However, this is still no 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 fanatical religious hostility to its paganism 203 , but the private mistakes of Roman writers should not incline to undermine the authenticity of their testimonies 204 . The very error is a reliable guarantee that this news comes from an early period, when the Christian identity was not obvious to all Christians, and therefore was not thoroughly comprehended by the pagans, who partly confused them with the Jews 205. From all these considerations it follows that for pagan Roman society Christianity was not completely unfamiliar in its basic religious views 206 . 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 207 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 208, nor about the other Apostle 209 and knew nothing about the Christian faith 210. Rather, the opposite is plausible, that the philosopher knew about Christianity 211, to which his home’s relations are quite possible, 212 and then there will be no compelling reasons to deny any contact with the Hellenic evangelist 213. This thesis is all the more strong because the newest defenders of the apostolic influence on Nero’s educator, without allowing for mutual literary dependence between him and St. Paul 214, comment on analogies with the New Testament only with oral knowledge 215. The latter is not rejected by supporters of completely different trends, although they add that it did not leave the slightest trace in Senekin’s philosophical system 216 . 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: qnod verum est, meum est 217. In all this, Seneca probably has, if not direct borrowings, then at least Christian “infiltrations” 218, which are even more conceivable from Marcus Aurelius 219. This also ensures apostolic independence from the Roman Stoic philosopher 220. Another indirect confirmation is important here. The chronology of the writings of the Senekins has not been precisely clarified, 221 and they cannot be compared in detail with the facts of the apostolic life, which is also not entirely clear chronologically. Nevertheless, it is characteristic that most of the striking parallels with the sayings of St. Paul falls on the later works of Seneca 222, 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 diametric properties 223. 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. 8:35) are not accidental 224, but indicate a direct assimilation 225 and precisely by the Apostle (resp. later anonymous) from Seneca 226. 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 227. And careful examination reveals that even these points of greatest affinity are with St. Paul has a different character and is referred to their own origin from the beginnings of Christ, where they find for themselves the only source and exclusive meaning 228. And if it is natural for the evangelist that, knowing about Stoicism, he uses its monuments in front of the corresponding audience of the Athenian Areopagus 229, then this circumstance should not at all be interpreted in the direction of Stoic obligation, which rewarded 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 230. There was no true vitality in them, sufficient at least for personal rebirth, so that there would not be a rare contradiction between theory and practice 231, whereas in theory every Stoic must necessarily live according to his own principles 232. They did not save Nero’s teacher from grave vices 233, and suspicions or accusations haunted him from time immemorial 234, supported by many factual data 235. Although many of his merits and merits are also undeniable, 236 they still say that he was more of a clever artist than a philosopher, 237 or an empty phrase-monger-stylist, 238 who cared little about the personal implementation of his lofty formulas 239. Seneca's true apology will be that he was the son of his time 240, to which Stoicism 241 and in his ethical views 242 were so consistent. 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 you assume a Christian in him, then he wrote in a pagan way” 243, just as Goethe’s judgment that the Stoics are Christians among pagans 244 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 245, and by deviations from them he revealed only the languor of the spirit and melancholic desires 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 foreseen by everyone fibers, for he 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, 246 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 selfishly proud stoicism there was no constructive creativity capable of reviving and transforming the world 247. 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 they say that Christianity inserted this brilliant leaf into its Gospel from here... Such an assumption is now all the more possible because they are trying to derive Christianity from the desires of the proletariat 248 and connect it with the sagal news of the freedom-loving uprising of slaves 249, when for the sociological view 250 it will not be an individual act, but a cultural-historical form of global development 251, whose roots go back to movements in ancient slavery 252. What was specific was that among these fighters someone named Jesus stood out 253 and they retained the veneration of the cross as an instrument of execution and torture from enemies 254 , 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 255 . With such a genesis, later Christianity without the historical Christ 256 then 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 257, and its members were simply speaking things (along with dumb and inanimate) 258 and - in case of unfitness - were freely given over to death 259. Even Plato does not impose punishment for the murder of slaves 260, Cicero found cruelty towards them legitimate 261, while Aristotle, not seeing any will or reason in them 262, bases this institution on human nature itself 263. In Rome, a slave had no rights and was barely recognized as a human being 264. In truth, being one of the worst fruits of sin, slavery gave rise to immorality 265. This is not at all what we see among the Stoics, in particular among the Romans, who worked hardest on this task 266 , focusing primarily on practical morality 267 , just as in general the ethical problem 268 always played the most important role for them, and in it the principle of universal brotherhood and mutual love 269 was brought to the fore. According to Seneca, this was the gentlest sect 270, and its social ethics especially resembles the lofty apostolic universalism of fraternal solidarity and grace-filled equality 271. The teacher of the cruel Nero reveals a delicate softness 272, and the gentle tones of mercy dominate in him, sounding Christian notes 273, as if learned by St. Paul 274. Here he is superior not only to Cicero, but also to Socrates himself 275. His speeches 276 were often beautiful 277 and were not at all an imitation of the Christian gospel of forgiveness and goodness 278 . Having suffered a lot from the cruelty of masters in his servitude, Epictetus directly commands to love slaves 279, who were no longer counted among things 280. The Stoics were the inspiration for Greco-Roman legislation in this area until Constantine. 281 and are emphatically declared to be the forerunners of Christian morality on this point 282 . It was the law, under the influence of the Stoics, that erected the principle of universal natural equality 283, and Christianity from here adopted the policy of theoretical recognition and practical mitigation of slavery 284, although in fact it did not improve its social position 285, and the Apostle Paul was completely indifferent to this social abnormality 286. In this area, the historical merits of Stoicism 287 are undeniable, and in its nature lay the denial of slavery, although, for example, Posidonius allowed the latter 288. However, there is no need to exaggerate the matter to the point of darkening Christian originality. This school taught about universal brotherhood 289 . Seneca's stoic utopianism dreams of humanitas - in a supranational union of all people 290 - 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 291, and the stoic religiosity of views was only conditionally relative 292. Otherwise, all the supports of Stoic universalism and humanitarianism were purely naturalistic. They were gleaned primarily from the identity of human nature 293, which is equally related to God in everyone 294. This also involved the sameness of the conditions of earthly existence, when for everyone there is a common mother - the world 295, everyone enjoys the natural benefits of air, light, etc., and a common fate awaits everyone 296. Here the entire rationale turns out to be physiological, psychological and sociological. The religious aspect is almost completely absent 297 - 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 oppositions of peoples, did not provide a higher unification 298 . Therefore, the Stoic universal brotherhood is the purest abstraction 299, where the ideas of humanus and humanitas, developed on Roman soil thanks to Panaetius, could not hold out for long 300; here cosmopolitanism led not to vital activity, but to apathetic contemplation 301. True, ἀπάθεια, which was the highest good for the Epicureans, served as the beginning of progress among the Stoics 302, as in Christian asceticism 303, 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) 304, and St. Stoic ἀπάθεια 305 was generally alien to Paul. 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 306. Hence it is logical that all the Stoics actually spoke out for slavery 307 and treated it with contempt 308 - except perhaps Epictetus 309. Not a single writer of antiquity even had the hope that this shameful institution would ever be abolished 310, although everyone felt its formidable depressingness, and on behalf of the masters Seneca said: “our slaves are our enemies” 311. And this most humane thinker, rejecting slavery 312 and striving for actual mitigations 313, ultimately feared accusations of shaking social foundations 314 and himself found his liberal speeches careless to the point of recklessness 315. Then the Stoics could only deny the living evidence - and, arguing that only the soul 316 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 317 . Therefore, even with the closest analogies to the apostolic reasoning (for example, in 1 Cor. 7), we have from them only abstract theoretical dreams 318. Such utopias are always lifeless and do not bear fruit. We know that forced emancipation in the United States of North America produced a truly beautiful legal fiction and has not yet even eliminated the social division between coloreds and whites 319 . The ancient world, where only Jewry 320 stands out for its comparative softness, had even less means to transform its system; he needed help from outside 321, and it was not Stoicism that provided them, but Christianity 322. 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 your slavery (1 Cor. 7:21), the new religion did not caress at all with a simple mirage of freedom. The Apostle had no enthusiasm at all and no practical inconsistency with the actual set of conditions 323 if he certified the presence of this good in the face of its real absence 324 . No, in the divine sonship of the 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 everyone 325. Here was the best implementation of the principle without vain and empty shocks 326. If this was not discovered immediately, the success achieved is the most striking illustration of the creative power of Christianity 327, which has always taken all measures to undermine all slave institutions 328, containing principles hostile to them 329. The apostolic teaching not only imperceptibly led to such deliverance 330, but was also deliberately directed towards this, for in St. Paul's aversion to slavery 331 is undeniable due to its ever-present abnormality 332 . Here the evangelist is a conscious revolutionary 333 who created in a slave 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 334. Life went far ahead of doctrines, which could hardly keep up with it 335. 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 first talking about love for enemies, 336 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 337. For her, virtue seemed too soft if it did not allow one to feel its cruelty, while condescension approached weakness 338, goodness is still inferior to the legal norm of suum cuique 339 and Seneca does not allow forgiveness 340. This coldness deadened the most energetic drives and killed them in the bud. It was associated with a school-like, proud aristocracy, which did not allow the Stoics to successfully work for the public good 341 and - in particular - for the dark lower masses of the people, for they despised it with sectarian intolerance 342 . Finally, the ancient world looked too destructively at external physical labor 343, which Aristotle despised 344, and Panaetius considered unworthy of a free person (Ci se g. De offic. I, 150) 345. It is not easy to comprehend when it is proclaimed that Christianity has taken its motto “labora!” 346 from Roman philosophy, since the Romans in every possible way neglected this activity 347. 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 348 completing the biblical view of attention and leniency towards slaves 349 . 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 350 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 in the nature of Judaism there is rooted a humanitarian disposition towards all people 351 as brothers 352, why the neighbor in it is not only a compatriot 353, but every person 354 - even a pagan 355, since by serving God, the latter is likened to the (high) priest of the Most High 356. Judaism is dominated by universalism 357, according to which all humanity must be loved, 358 and these principles are still professed unchanged 359. The ethics of not only Hillel 360, but also other rabbis 361 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 362 . Judaism is based on love for neighbors 363 as its foundation 364 - and Christians borrowed this commandment from it 365. Rabbinicism taught to love pagans 366 and enemies 367, and after it the Lord repeated this truth 368. Only because of this contiguity is Christianity universal, which is generally unthinkable historically without the Judaism of the Mishnah and Talmud 369, for in itself - as a church - it is imbued with the narrowest particularity 370, meanwhile Judaism is completely and uniquely universal 371. 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 372, and only in this way is it superior to other religions 373, having learned from rabbinism all its sublime truths 374. After the Old Testament Bible, the New Testament is considered the most monumental and great product of the Jewish genius 375. Christ was a Jew by birth and by conviction 376 , like a Pharisee 377 and a disciple of Hillel 378 , whose faith became His religion 379 . The identity of Jewish and Christian morality 380 by coincidence in doctrine, humanitarian love for neighbors 381 is inevitable then, as evidenced by the parallels to the Talk on the Mount 382. Christianity, both in its essence and in its missionary conquests, is decisively indebted to Judaism 383. Even Paul's Christ remains the actual God of the Jewish people 384, and - except for suffering on the cross - everything here comes from the rabbinical circles of the Diaspora 385; the Pauline image of the Savior reflects the later Jewish type, which is changed only by a few real features of the historical personality 386. 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 388 and was an active propagandist among the uncircumcised 389 , but in his “renegade” he achieved success in the pagan world only among proselytes 390 , rejecting the law, although he retained the Jewish catalog of sins 391 . Christianity embodied the Jewish messianic expectations and the moral aspirations of the Haggadists 392 , and therefore it belongs entirely to the history of Judaism until their final separation 393 . As for the latter, Christianity gained dominance here, but the right was forever retained by Judaism 394, for the former does not flow from a pure rabbinic spring, but from the dark popular Greek eschatology, which invaded the true contemplation of the Jews 395. In its further development in Paul, this Christianity represents a mixture of orthodox Jewish, apocalyptic and Hellenistic elements, mysteries and popular Greek philosophy 396; there was no internal integrity, and such a conglomerate, of course, was accompanied by all sorts of fermentations of consistent development 397 . Hence the distortions in it, extending to the point that in the very concept of God, Christianity allegedly put forward the moment of motherhood instead of the Fatherland, professed by Judaism 398 . The same is true in morality, where Christ agrees with rabbinism and yet deviates in principle and consequences 399, radically changing the character of the Decalogue 400, which is why all New Testament ethics 401 is radically different. This means that Christianity only preaches love for one’s neighbor in a reflected and distorted way, having borrowed it from Judaism 402. On the contrary, the Talmud is “the purest source of the brightest humanitarianism” 403 and at this point serves as the best focus and highest realization of all Scripture even in its prophetic content 404 . But for now, nothing more is certain than that the Talmud enshrines the doctrines of Pharisaism 405, which became the religious-dogmatic symbol of all later Judaism 406. 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 407, and this was the crown of the gradual progressive decline of prophetic ideals 408, 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 409. 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 messianic, and in its nature does not at all coincide with the Jewish one. In Christianity, everything comes from and is arranged from above by divine redemption in the Son, while Judaism depends so little on supreme help that it itself evokes the Messiah through legalism, repentance, charity, etc. 410. According to the categorical statements of its official teachers, this is a religion of self-justification of people through themselves 411, and therefore it does not know redemption and does not need it 412. Naturally, the messianic idea does not have an absolute soteriological necessity in Judaism, which generally prides itself on the absence of irrational dogmas 413. There was never any inclination in him to seek a heavenly Deliverer 414, and rabbinic sayings regarding him are almost isolated 415. 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 416, good and providential for his people. The “Apocrypha” are more silent about him 417 than they reveal 418, and Philo interprets it extremely vaguely 419. With such prerequisites, there are no necessary supports for the domineering and divinity of the Messiah 420. In all the relevant literature, hints of his celestial pre-existence are subtle in their sporadicity and obscurity 421 . There is no clear conviction on this subject 422, which did not exist even in closed party circles 423; for example, for the book of Enoch, attributed by some to the beginning of the Christian era 424, it is more likely a person 425 or a righteous martyr taken to heaven 426. The actual idea of ​​the messianic redemption of Israel 427 preexisted, and in this sense, the Messiah is also in heaven only ideally 428, but not at all really - as an original divine principle 429. This position is also true for the apocrypha 430. In fact, only the embodiment of the ideal in earthly conditions is permissible, when divine destiny becomes a tangible reality. This will, of course, be a real person, but only she is not at all superhuman 431 and not at all divine 432, but a human 433. Indications regarding divinity belong to post-Tannaitic monuments and are assimilated into the influence of Christianity 434; the latter is quite possible, for sometimes it is much more likely that Judeo-rabbinic formulas reflect and copy the sayings of Christ 435 than vice versa; the Talmud knows and refutes Christianity 436 and supposedly reproduces (in Schabbatli 30b) the arguments between Paul and Gamaliel 437. In his real-historical existence, the Messiah is portrayed as the bearer of national aspirations 438 and imbued with the political aspirations of Judaism 439. Hence, national-political features 440 are exclusively predominant, often of a crude nature 441. The Jews were waiting and looking for a political Messiah, as an avenging king 442, and in his mouth, “a kingdom not of this world” 443 was completely unthinkable for them. He is the concrete realization of political dreams 444, all the preliminaries to him are of a political nature 445 and his mission is simply earthly 446. In general, the Jewish Messiah never appears exclusively as a spiritual king, 447 and the political connotation is nowhere completely erased from the Tannaites, 448 since this very idea was born from political-national inclinations 449, conditioned historically. This is how everything is depicted in the Talmud, and this is the orthodox and final authority of Judaism 450. The same is true in non-rabbinic monuments: according to the Ascension of Moses, the Deliverer is an instrument of divine vengeance, 451, in the 4 (3) book of Ezra, everything is imbued with chimerical impulses of revenge, 452, with which the Apocalypse of Baruch agrees, 453, and the Apocalypse of Abraham reduces the entire role of the Messiah to the gathering and unification of the scattered Israelites 454. The national-political element permeates the entire messianic eschatology of Judaism 455, and the directly political ideal of the messianic reign 456 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 457, as was expected and tried to be achieved, for example, under Bar Kochba 458. Bearer of the worldly crown 459, king and moral hero, political and spiritual leader of the Jewish people: - such is the Jewish ideal of the Messiah among the Tannaites, that is, almost until 220 AD. Chr. 460, but even in apocalypses he appears everywhere in an aura of glory and victories 461. Its prototype is Moses 462, and all tasks are exhausted by national-political interests and have neither a goal nor a redeeming value. Judaism did not even ascribe to its Savior the power and strength to forgive sins 463 and did not need his atoning sacrifices, which is why the death of any Messiah could not contain propitiatory dignity 464, in the Christian sense. Jewish authors say that the idea of ​​a suffering Messiah is not in the ancient tradition 465, and hints of it appear after and as a reflection of Christianity 466, and a secondary image of the Messiah - the son of Joseph 467 - arises. The suffering Messiah is only an individual concentration of the sorrowful political fate of Israel and, being a product of national history 468, was generated by Hadrian's persecution 469 and first arose after the surrender of Bettar 470. הבלי משיה or הבלו של משיה never point to redemptive messianic suffering, but mean only “suffering” times, which are necessary to precede and implement the national Jewish triumph in the universe 471. In all of Judaism there is neither a propitiatory-suffering Messiah 472 nor a messianic-individual redemption 473 . 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 474, 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 475, for in rabbinic God is “our father” only for the Jewish people 476. All Jewish ethics, based on earthly ideals 477, takes a narrowly particularistic direction 478 with an inclination towards national hostility towards everything foreign 479 - and even the Diaspora 480 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, 481 but this, of course, is not characteristic of everyone, even in Israel. True, it is sometimes emphasized that only in Christianity and in the Apostle Paul wisdom 482 has all the religious and ethical importance, and in Judaism moral practice 483 is higher than theory and knowledge, however, for the latter, erudition is certainly mandatory for legalistic activity to be truly justifying. Therefore, the circle of “neighbors” does not include all Israelis 484, as can be seen from the relationship of Jewish Orthodoxy to the am-Haarez 485. 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 486 and turn out to be a “cursed people” (John 7:49). 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 130 487, 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, 488 while for rabbinism it is absolutely certain that an am-haarez cannot be a Hasid 489 and, therefore, is deprived of all the benefits of orthodox Jewish religiosity. This requirement certainly applies in all other similar cases. The ten tribes of Israel lost the convenience of legalistic correctness: they were scattered across different countries 490 and did not return 491, and therefore perished among foreign nations (Akiba) 492 and almost all were destined for hell 493. Likewise, proselytes are dubious in their innovation and cause controversy in the assessment of the rabbis 494: others (for example, Simeon ben Lakish) speak in favor of them 495, but it seems that unfavorable views 497 prevail - especially in Pharisaic circles 496 - that it is an extraneous appendage 498 capable of all sorts of unnaturalness 499. All the more, any deliberate deviation causes intolerance, as is clear in the examples of Elisha ben Abuya 500 and the Menaea, by which we mean free-thinking Jews and Jewish Christians 501. Private inquiries of one’s own inquisitiveness were met with rebuff and rejection. This is precisely where illegal literature developed in the cycle of apocryphal-non-canonical writings, which is why they are declared not truly Jewish 502. Apocalyptic documents found fertile soil among the am-Haarez and spread among the lower strata 503. These are popular monuments 504 and partly of Judeo-Hellenic origin 505 . But it is known with what condemnation of anathematism rabbinism treated these works 506 and how to this day it is intensifying to connect Christianity 507 with them, proclaiming it a continuation of the Hellenistic religiosity 508 of the diaspora 509 . 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, with which the newest advocates of Jewish reform replace dogmatic-legalistic religiosity. 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 510. In traditional Judaism, love for neighbors, as people in general, is unknown in practice 511. Evidence of a different nature is isolated and lacks authority. If, for example, Jochanan 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 512. 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 513. Rabbinicism does not know the dogmatic commandment of love for one’s neighbors 514 and even less preaches it towards one’s enemies 515 , and therefore modern Judaism can only insist, contrary to theory and history, that this allegedly does not exist in Christianity 516 . As a result, we find that the sense of universal humanity among the Jews was inseparable from nationalistic particularism 517. This is quite natural, since Israel could realize the ideal of equal God-createdness or creatureliness of all people only through religiosity, which was conditioned nationalistically by the very law 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 518, 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 519. On the contrary, it produces religious-factual 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 520. 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 very principles, 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 521. But Judaism never recognized fundamental asceticism 522, and therefore, leaning towards it in the marriage issue contrary to rabbinism 523, the Apostle allows for an admixture of pagan Gnosticism and even Persian dualism 524, for later Judea was undoubtedly influenced by Persia 525 and Babylon 526, with the latter allegedly being noticeable and in the Gospel depiction of the life of Christ 527. With asceticism 528, to which they try to reduce even the humility of the Lord the Savior 529, the evangelist looks at marriage in general and in his defense of celibacy he committed the greatest error 530. The derogatory view of the apostle on this point is explained by a reflection of Hellenic dualism 531, since St. Paul, in the spirit of Philo, held disdainful and negative views on all bodily needs and on women 532. On the contrary, the Stoics advocated the equality of the latter with men, 533 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 534. Greece, through the mouth of Aristotle, spoke out almost with cynicism 535, Rome did not go far for the better 536 and did not provide religious full rights to women 537, although religion wanted to fight against civil and legal inequality 538; finally, Judaism, more benevolent in this matter 539, largely belittled the female sex 540 and fell from the truly biblical pomp of the Old Testament religion 541, which created the family 542 and was the predecessor of Christianity 543. However, it must be added that in practice the actual position of women in Judaism 544, in Rome 545 and Greece was higher compared to theory 546, but the latter interfered with the progress of life and drowned out its voice. Only Stoicism revealed exceptional freedom and courage of flight, and supposedly 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 überflutende Germanentum) 547 . 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. 3:28). Here it is created solely and entirely on Christian soil, and its independence from everything pagan is obvious from the fact that - in agreement with pagan and heretical practice - it excludes women from all priestly (hierarchical-hieratic) functions 548. 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 relative natural weakness, which they always disdained 549. Hence it is quite natural that even Seneca was actually no stranger to derogatory contempt for women 550. Christianity, proclaiming the principle of individual salvation of each and every one, puts forward and sanctifies the individuality of a woman 551, why she is highlighted in the religious sphere already in the Gospel and in the subsequent Christian mission 552, and then her social position 553 changes significantly. The religious originality of the Apostle Paul on this subject is undeniable. 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 554 and did not suffer from ascetic intolerance 555, which is completely absent in relation to women 556, although from childhood he had before him sad examples of extreme female promiscuity in the city of Tarsus 557. 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. 7: 1, 7, 8, 25 ff.). In this practical setting, conditioned historically by many other factors, the Apostle’s preference for celibacy does not at all indicate contempt for women 558, for there were no influences of dualism 559 involved here. As for the actual view of marriage, according to the natural side of St. Paul idealizes him least of all (1 Cor. 7:1), 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 the natural organic-social institution to the level of a Christian sacrament (Eph. 5:22) 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 things, 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. For his works, see Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et gomanorum Teubneriana: L. Annaei Senecae opera quae supersunt recognovit et rerum indicem locupletissimum adjecit Prof. Fridericus Haase, vol. I-III, Lipsiae 1881. 1884. 1897. Regarding textual and literary tradition, see Prof. Alfred Gercke, Seneca-Studien in „Jahrbücher für classische Philologie“ herausg. von Prof. Dr. Alfred Fleckeisen: XXII Supplementband, 1-tes Heft (Lpzg 1896), S. 1 ff. French translation: Oeuvres complètes de Sénèque le philosophe avec la traduction en français publiées sous la direction de M. Nizard, de l’Académie française, Paris 1867. In German, casting y B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album. Weltfrohes und Weltfreies aus philosophischen Schriften. Nebst einem Anhang: Seneca und das Christentum. Freiburg im Breisgau 1899. In Russian translated by F. I. Sadov: 1) Letters of Seneca (in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1884 No. 1, pp. (69–76), 76–81, No. 2, pp. 115–123, No. 3, pp. 163–177, No. 4, pp. 234–239, no. 5, pp. 330–343, no. 7, pp. 395–400, no. 9, pp. 502–511, no. pp. 600–614, pp. 657–659, pp. 30–44, pp. 87–98, pp. 126–132, pp. 168–182, pp. pp.271–279, no. 19, pp. 361–370, no. 21, pp. 405–410, no. 22, pp. 450–452, no. 1885 No. 2, pp. 90–98, No. 6, pp. 291–296, No. 7, pp. 336–346, No. 9, pp. 528–538 No. 14, pp. 97–101, No. 17, pp. 295–302, No. 22, pp. 493–496, No. 23, pp. 50–63) and 2) On the benefits (Do benificiis) of L. Annaeus Seneca to Ebucius Liberalia (in the journal “Faith and Reason” 1889 No. 22, pp. 454–474, No. 24, pp. 554–562; 1890 No. 2, pp. 85–108, No. 5, pp. 236–248, no. 7, pp. 313–326, no. 9, pp. 382–408, no. 15, pp. 110–134, no. 330–340, no. 21. pp. 383–390, no. 24, pp. 523–538; 1891 No. 16, pp. 169–186, no. 20, pp. 356–364; 1892 No. 3, pp. 113–120, No. 13, pp. 27–38; 1893 No. 10, pp. 471–478, no. 12, pp. 568–576, where the translation breaks off at the 36th chapter of the 6th book). For Christian traditions and responses to Seneca, see Prof. Ludwig Friedländer, Der Philosoph Seneca in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 239 ff.; Johannes Kreyher, L. Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zum Urchristentum, Berlin 1887, and according to the Russian presentation by Prof. Al. P. Lebedeva, Pagan philosopher Seneca in Christian tradition in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1888, No. 1, pp. 155 words; Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 239 words This correspondence in a new review was published in Eugen Westerburg, Der Ursprung der Sage, dass Seneca Christ gewesen sei; eine kritische Untersuchung nebst einer Rezension des apokryphen Briefwechsels des Apostels Paulus mit Seneca (Berlin 1881), S. [37–42.] 42–50, and in Russian by prof. Al. P. Lebedeva, On the correspondence of the Apostle Paul with the philosopher Seneca in the “Orthodox Review” 1883, No. 1, pp. 136–141. Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 393 suiv. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 305–306. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 381. 473. Prof. Dr. Chantepie de la Sayssaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte II (Freiburg i. Br. 1889), S. 284. Prof. Dr. Theodor Zahn, Art. „Paulus, der Apostel“ in Realeneyklopädie von H e r z o g-H a u s k XV (Lpzg 3 1904), S. 61. Prof. Ludwig Friedländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 239. Eng. Westerburg, Der Ursprung der Sage, dass Seneca Christ gewesen sei, S. 8 ff. and Prof. Al. P. Lebedeva in "Prav. Review" 1883, No. 1, pp. 120. 123. F. Prat, La théologie de Saint Paul I (Paris 1908), 23. † F. W. Farrar, Seekers of God (St. Petersburg 1898), pp. 254 words Gaston Voissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 364 words Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 243 words and in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Spiritual Academy” 1905, No. 5, pp. 112–113. †Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church II (St. Petersburg 1908), pp. 39. See and Prof. Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristliehen Litteratur bis Eusebius II, 2: Die Chronologie der Litteratur von Irenaeus bis Eusebius (Lpzg 1904), S. 458. It is Johannes Kreyher who claims that the current correspondence is forged and comes from Merovingian times, but there was also a genuine one back in the 4th century: see Prof. Al. P. Lebedeva in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1888, No. 1, pp. 166–167; 167–176. Against the opposite understanding, shared by Prof. M. M. Targyeva (The Legend of the correspondence of the philosopher Seneca with the Apostle Paul in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1895, No. 2, pp. 46 pp. 58. 60. 61), see also Prof. Th. Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 2 (Erlangen und Leipzig 1892), S. 615. So Hug. Westerburg, Der Ursprung der Sage, dass Seneca Christ gewesen sei, S. 31 ff. (cf. Prof. Al. P. Lebedev in “Prav. Review” 1883, No. 1, pp. 130. 134–135. 136) for the basis of the correspondence, and against this, see prof. M. M. Tareeva in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1895, No. 2, pp. (50 lines) 57 lines See more about this Lic. Hans Waitz, Art. “Simon der Magier” in Realencyklopädie von Herzog-Hauek XVIII (Lpzg 3 1906), S. 351–361. †J-B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10 329–333. Herd. Chr. Bam, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 478–479. So does W. S. Teuffel, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Lpzg a 1875), S. 646 (§ 289), Anm. 9. Th. Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet lind sein Verhältnis zum Christentum, S. 6. It is also stated by † J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10,329. Prof. Mich. Baumgarten even claims (Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Cliristenthum, S. 25) that this correspondence was allegedly fabricated by a Christian in order to “recommend Seneca’s writings to his fellow believers for their stylistic advantages.” Amédée Fleury, Saint Paul et Sénèque II, p. 255 suiv. Th,. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentliehen Kanons II, 2, S. 621. Prof. Martin Scham, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur bis zum Gesetzgebungswerk des Kaisers Justinian II, 2 (München 2 1901), S. 314. Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur II, 2, S. 458–459. Cp. more Ad. Harnack about the book Eug. Westerburg in “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1881, Nr. 19, Sp. 448. See also Ferd, Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 479. So Prof. Ludwig Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sitten geschickte Roms in der Zeit von August bis zur Ausgang der Antonine III (Lpzg 1 1871), S. 535; III (Lpzg 5 1881), pp. 601–602. Here, Ad's guess is indirectly confirmed. Harnack’a (in “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1881, Nr. 19, Sp. 446. 447. 449 and in Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur II, 2, S. 458–459; cp. † Prof. V. V. Bolotov, Persecution of Christians under Nero in “Christian Readings” 1903, No. 1, pp. 63, 10, that the original of Paul’s letters was Greek and fabricated between 200 and 250, and all correspondence appeared in Latin in the 4th century. July 19, 64) insulae are usually understood in the Tacitian sense of a mansion house, and the falsifier allegedly reinterpreted this term in the meaning of regiones or city blocks (see Eug. Westerburär, Der Ursprung der Sage, dass Seneca Christ gewesen sei, S. 17 and Prof. A. P. Lebedev in “Prav. Review” 1883, N 1, p. 127), but in this case it is necessary to keep in mind that in the Greek papyri there is also a distinction between οίκος = whole house and οίχος = set of rooms = a number of rooms: see Rev. Prof. James Hope Moulton, Notes from the Papyri in “The Expositor”. 1903, p. 117. So does Prof. Martin Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur 11. 2, S. 4 448, as well as Ad. Harnack in “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1881. Nr. 19, Sp. 448. See F erd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 378. 379. Prof. Hermann Schüler. Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit I, 1 (Gotha 1883), S. 455. Cm. Labbei Sacrosancta concilia t. V (Lutetiae Parisiorum 1671), col. 856; Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio IX (Florentiae 1763), coi. 795C. Cp. y Amédée Fleury, Saint Paul et Sénèque I, p. 14; Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 1 47; J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10,270. See Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte herausg. von der Kirchenväter-Commission der Königl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Eusebius I herausg. von Prof. Dr. Ivar A. Heikel (Lpzg 1902), p. 18t sqq. Cp. and Gaston Coissier. Roman religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 209. It is not superfluous to add that modern science, admitting in Virgil’s fourth eclogue echoes of specifically messianic premonitions (Prof. R. S. Conway, The Messianic Idea in Virgil in “The Hibbert Journal” V, 2 (January 1907), p. 308-328), elevates the latter to the mediocre (Ref. Prof. J. B. Mayor, Virgil and Isaiah: an Inquiry into the Sources of the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil in “The Expositor” 1907, IV, pp. 289–311) or more directly (Prof. W. M. Ramsay, The Divine Child in Virgil: a Sequel to Professor Mayor’s Study ibid. 1907, VI, pp. 551–564: VIII, p. 97–111) to the influence of biblical messianic expectations. Wed. by S. Govorov in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1888, No. 1, pp. 23 words; I. A. Nevzorova, The morality of stoicism and Christian moral teaching, pp. V. Prof. Herrn. Sehiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit i, 1, S. 446. So does † Prof. Carl Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche (Freiburg i. V. 2 1892), S. 98. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 98. See prof. Al. P. Lebedeva in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1888, No. 1, pp. 176–181. See classification in W. A. ​​Betzinger, Seneca-Album, S. 198–205. Prof. D. Otto Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums (München 1 1905), S. 129. So Pasteur Pierre Farel, Senèque in “Revue de théologie et philosophie” 1905, Nr. 3 et 4, p. 320; 5, p. 453; 6, p. 530. 531. So O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum I, S. 2 30. See Ref. Prof. Robert Scott, Art. "Learning" in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings II (Edinburgh 1908), p. 21a. So F. Prat, La théologie de Saint Paul I, p. 20–21. Prof. Constantin Toussaint, Art. “Paul (Saint)” in Dictionnaire de la Bible publiée par F. Vigouroux IV (Paris 1908), col. 2190. So † Th. Lewin, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul I, p. 5 12–13. See about her and Amédée Fleury, Saint Paul et Sénèque I, p. 265. Rev. Prof. Benjamin Wisner Bacon, Art. "Wisdom" in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings II, p. 828b-829a. Cm. Prof. W. M. Ramsay, Art. "Tarsus" in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings IV, p. 687b. Prof. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, b. 2 354 and cp. we have higher on the page. 879. 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., as he himself corrects these particulars in the book: The Cities of St. Paul, their Influence on his Life and Thought; the Cities of Eastern Asia Minor (London, (7091 p. 216 squ. 442–443. †Prof. V. I. Modestov. Lectures on the history of Roman literature (St. Petersburg 1888), pp. 621. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 720. Ernest Renan, Der Antichrist: authorizierte deutsche Ausgabe (Lpzg 1873), S. 98–99 and in Russian translated by V.V. Chuiko in the collection: Historical and religious studies (St. Petersburg 3 1894), pp. 215. See and Prof. Ludwig Friedländer, Philosoph Seneca in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 225. 226. Even during Seneca’s life, Publius Scyllius accused him of being a man without any rules, an empty reciter, who owes only his quick rise and enrichment to his cunning: see † prof. P. N. Kudryavtseva, Roman women: historical stories according to Tacitus (Moscow 1875), pp. 193. Rev. R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles (Edinburgh 1903). p. 181. Prof. Friedrich Leo, Die römische Literatur des Altertums in Die Kultur der Gegenwart herausg. von Paul Hinne berg I, 8 (Berlin und Leipzig 1905), S. 356. 357, and Prof. Franz Skutsch, Die lateinische Sprache ibid. I, 8, S. 433. Especially on Seneca’s style, see Prof. Alfred Gercke in "Jahrbücher für classische Philologie": XXII Suppelementband, 1 Heft (1896), S. 133–151. Karl Schmidt, Geschichte der Pädagogik, S. 2 449 (after Bernhard). See † Prof. Dr. Friedrich Blass, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und römischen Kunstprosa (Paulus-Hebräerbrief-Pausanias-Cicero-Seneca-Curtius-Apuleius), Lpzg 1905, S. 135–144. George Auguste Simcox, A History of Latin Literature from Ennius to Boethius II (London 1883), p. 1. K. Martha, Philosophers and moral poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 20. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 695. prof. Dr. M. Ott in “Theologische Quartalschrift” 1870, 3, S. 364. F erd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 463. Prof. Mich. Baumgarlen, Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christentum, S. 99. Eug. Westerburger, Der Ursprung der Sage, dass Seneca Christ gewesen sei, S. 22. F erd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 386. 396. See † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. P. 10 278. 303. Bruno Bauer. Christus und die Caesaren, S. 2 60–61. Prof. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie II, pp. 160–161. See † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10,287. See and † prof. Cm. V. Eshevsky, Works I (Moscow 1870), pp. 499 words Divin, institut. 1, 5 in Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum, vol. XIX (L. Caeli Firmiani Lactantii opera omnia, pars I, recens. Samuel Brandt), Vindobonae 1890, p. 18. See † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10,270.3. 294 2. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 727. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 308.Ad. Bonhöffer, Die Ethik des Stoikers Epictet, S. 247 ff. TO . Martha, Philosophers and Moral Poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 66–67. Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 1,191. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 395. Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 1 201. See above, pp. 1014, 231. Charles Burnier, La morale de Sénèque et le neo-stoïcisme in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” XL, 6 (1907, Novembre), p. 545–547. For this, see Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 391. † M. Guyot, Collected Works IV (III), pp. 272. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 310. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 450 ff. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 393. 450. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 415. Cm. Prof. Ludwig Friedländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 243. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 386–387. Prof. Ludwig Freidländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 244–245. About the Stoics in general cp. † prof. Cm. B. Eshevsky, Works I, pp. 388. Epist. 53, 11 at Fr. Haase III, p. 111. Cp. at Prof. A. I. Sadova, Consciousness of human sinfulness and the need for its purification, observed among the ancient Romans in the “Christian Reading” 1901, No. 9, pp. 430. 431. See above, pp. 1016, 246. 1031, 279a. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie. S. 448–449. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 309.†Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 713. Prof. E.W. Mayer, Das christliche Gottvertrauen und der Glaube an Christus (Göttingen 1899), S. 7. Gaston Boissier ibid., pp. 387. Gaston Boissier ibid., pp. 378. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 706 ff. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 392. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 389. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 311. † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 148. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 453. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 374. Dr. Salomon Rubin, Die Ethik Senecas, pp. 74–75. Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 373. Privatdoz. Johannes Leipoldt in “Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte” XXVII (1906), 2, S. 142–143. Prof. Ludwig Friedländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 244. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 363. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 465. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 420. See † E d. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 235, 2 ἀπαθέιᾳ. W.Edw. H. Lecky, Sittengeschichte Europas übers, von Dr. H. Jolowiez I, S. 181. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 403. Ferd. Chr. Baur, ibid., pp. 406–407. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 411. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10 281 10 . Cp. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 18. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 321. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 419. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 713. Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 334 words Epist. 65, 21. 22 at Fr. Haase III, p. 141: Corpus non aliter adspicio quam vinculum aliquot libertati meae circumdatum... Contemptus corporis sui certa libertas est. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 433. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 408. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen Ш, 1, S. 3 707 ff. Ed. Zeller ibid. Sh, 1, S. 3 710. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 406. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 409. See 0. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum I, S. 2 31 ff. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 462. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 450. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum I, S. 2 40. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 727. Prof. Ludwig Freidländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 245 ff. Amêdée de Margerie in “Annales de philosophie chrétienne” LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 317.†Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 727. K. Martha, Philosophers and Moral Poets in Roman Times, pp. 47–48. Prof. Mich. Baumgarten, Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christenthum, S. 134. 136–137. Prof, Herm. Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit I, 1, S. 455. † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 153. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 396. Ferd. Chr. Baur, ibid., S. 393. Prof. E. D. Grimm, Studies on the history of imperial power I: Roman imperial power from Augustus to Nero in “Notes of the Historical and Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg University”, vol. LV (St. Petersburg 1900), pp. 430, words. 440, 441, 442. AI. Grant, The Ethics of Aristotle 1, p. 4 359. Prof. C. F. G. Heinrici. Das Urchristentum (Göttingen 1902), S. 68. Prof. E. D. Grimm, Studies in the History of Imperial Power I, pp. 431. Prof. E. D. Grimm ibid. I, pp. 450. † Prof. V. I. Modestov: Lectures on the history of Roman literature, pp. 619; The philosopher Seneca and his letters to Lucilius, pp. 21. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 711. Prof. Ludwig Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms Ш (Lpzg 1 1871), S. 624. 625. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 466. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 435. 436. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 440. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III,1, S. 3 708. †Ed. Zeller ibid. III,1, S. 3 712. 144–145. Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 1,215. Cm. Prof. Ludwig Friedldnder in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXY (1900), 2, S. 243. 247–249 and cp. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms III: 1 Aufl. (Lpzg 1871), S. 624; 5 Aufl. (ibid. 1881), S. 690. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 434. Ad. Bonh öffer, Epictet und die Stoa. S. 62–64. TO . Martha, Philosophers and Moral Poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 68. See above on page. 1020, 291; Prof. L. Friedlander in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 247; Charles Burnier, La morale de Sénèque et le néo-stoïcisme in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” XL. 5 (1907, Septembre), p. 392. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 317. See Prof. C. F. G. Heinrici, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther y H. Aug. W. Meyer VI, S. 8 191. In this sense, for 2 Cor. 5:1 see also Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Bousset. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments herausg. von Prof. Dr. Johannes Weiss II, 1 (Göttingen 1907), S. 161. Prof. Mich. Baumgarten, Lucius Annaeus Seneca und das Christenthum, S. 139–140. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 387. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 318. Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 316 words Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 441:3. See and Prof. Dr. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte II, S. 1 284–285. Prof. Al. P. Lebedev in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” 1888, No. 1, pp. 154. Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 475. K. Martha, Philosophers and moral poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 6. Prof. Aug. Ferd. Dähne, Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, S. 3–4. Priest N. Pobedimsky, Thoughts about God by L. A. Seneca in their relation to Christianity in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1901, No. 20. pp. 291 words Victor Faminsky in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1905, No. 5, pp. 113. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 119–120. Lic. Dr. W. Staerk, Nentestamentliche Zeitgeschichte II (Lpzg 1907), S. 133. This is against † Edw. Hatch, Griechentum und Christentum, S. 103. Dr. phil. Walter Ribbeck, L. Annaeus Seneca der Philosopher und sein Verhältnis zu Epikur, Plato und dem Christentum (Hannover 1887), S. 1–3. Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 19 words K. Martha, Philosophers and moral poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 167. K. Martha ibid., pp. 22. K. Martha ibid., pp. 20. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 466. † Prof. IN . I. Modestov, Philosopher Seneca and his letters to Lucilius, pp. 14. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, I, S. 3 712. 718–719. † F. W. Farrar, Seekers of God, pp. 270. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 385. 389. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10 279. 292. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Creek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 96. De ira II, 31:7 in Opera ed. Fr. Haase I (Lipsiae 1887), p. 74, et cf. by Victor Faminsky in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1905, No. 5, pp. 110. Victor Faminsky ibid. 1905, No. 5, pp. 111. Prof. D. Heinrick Weinel, Die Stellung des Urchristentums zum Staat (Tübingen 1908), 5. 62. Prof. Rudolf Steck, Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht (Berlin 1888), pp. 257–258. Prof. Dr. Ueberweq, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie I, S. 3 191 (§ 52). Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1. S. 3 699. Cm. Charles Burnier in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” XL, 6 (1907, Novembre), p. 521. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III. 1. S. 3 705. Ed. Zeller ibid. III, 1, S. 3 696. Ed. Zeller ibid. III, 1, S. 3 701. Ed. Zeller ibid. III, 1, S. 3 715. 717. Ed. Zeller ibid. III, 2, S. 3 236. See O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum 1. S. 2 37. See and Prof. S. Cheetham, The Mysteries of Pagan and Christian, p. 30. 31. See B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album, S. 197. Prof. Dr. M. Ott in “Theologische Quartalschrift” 1870. 3, S. 388 ff. 398 ff. Rev. Er nest F. Scott, Art. "Logos" in A Dictionary of Christ, and the Gospels II, p. 50a. Prof. W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, Their Influence on his Life and Thought: the Cities of Eastern Asia Minor (London 1907), p. 32. See page 1006 words 508, 478. 524, 640. Al. Grant, The Ethics of Aristotle 1, p. 4 351, 83. †J.B. Lightfoot. Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10,277. † Th. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte V (Berlin 4 1894), S. 63 and no translation † by B. H. Nevedomsky V (Moscow 1885), pp. 57. B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album, S. 213. R ud. Steck, Der Galaterbrief S. 264. Joh. Kreyher, L Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehung zum Urchristentum, S. 49. B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album. S. 198. J. G. I.ipman, Art. “Classical Writers and the Jews” in The Jewish Encyclopedia IV, p. 108b. Joh. Kreyher, l,. Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zum Urchristentum, S. 46 ff'. Al. Chiappelli, I caratteri orientali dello stoicismo, p. 31. B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album. S. 198 and cp. 21. See also Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 115. B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album, S. 211. Troplong, De Í influence du christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains (Bruxelles 1 1844), p. 28–29. Troplong ibid., p. 1 29–31. Wed. I. A. Nevzorov, The morality of stoicism and Christian moral teaching, pp. 174 words † J. B. Light foot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10 301–302. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 383. In this sense only and only with such limitations can the considerations of Prof. † be accepted. V. V. Bolotova in “Christian Reading” 1901 No. 1, pp. 50–75, and also cf. his Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church II, pp. 47. On the contrary, according to Ad. Harnack, during the Nero persecution caused by the Jews (Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Lpzg 1 1902, S. 41. 343. 381 and according to the 2nd ed. ibid. 1906, I, S. 50. 400; II, S. 32), 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 (according to Tacit. Annal. XV. 44) they interrogated the accused, and they declared themselves Christians. All these conclusions are certainly confirmed by Lic. theol. Dr. phil. E. Theodor Klette; he states that under Nero, Christians differed from the Jews, who caused persecution against them (Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero naсh ihren Quellen insbesondere nach Tac. aun. XV, 44 von neuem untersucht, Tübingen 1907, S. 25), and during interrogation they directly declared themselves as such (S. 124), why and the charge 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). Therefore, G. E. Zenger speaks in vain 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 (The Jewish Question in Ancient Rome. Warsaw 1899, p. 198, 1). Therefore, for them, it is very likely that Gaston Boissier (Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 375, 15) that the words of Suetonius (about which cf. † Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church II, pp. 46–47) Claud. 25: Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit (translated by V. Alekseev, St. Petersburg 2 1904, p. 242) taken from an official document, perhaps from a police report, and cf. Prof. Dr. Anton Seitz, Christus-Zeugnisse aus dem klassischen Altertum von ungläubiger Seite (Köln 1906), S. 22–23, which were also based on the Christians’ own confessions. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 374 words Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 1,144 suiv. F. W. Farrar, Seekers of God, pp. 37–38. Emil Aust, Die Religion der Römer in Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der nichtchristlichen Religionsgoschichte XIII (Münster i. W. 1899), S. 100. Charles Aubertin, Étude critique sur les rapports supposés entre Sénèque et saint Paul, p. 1 13. 178. Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 256 words 273. 278 words. 306 words and in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1905, No. 5, pp. 113. Holy N. Pobedimsky in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1898, No. 22, pp. 421–422. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. p. 10 300. 302.Rev. Edw, L. Hicks. Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 100. Amédée de Margerie in “Annales de philosophie chrétienne” LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 306–317. Cp. y Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt. Die antike Ethik, S. 154. W. D. Ross in Encyclopaedia Biblica IV, col. 4799. Prof. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, p. 2,356. Cp. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 376–377. Prof. Lic. Dr. Carl Clemen, Paulus, sein Leben und Wirken I (Giessen 1904), S. 12. W. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album, S. 214–215. † Edw. Hatch, Griechentum und Christentum, S. 103. Epist. 12 11 at Fr. Haase III, p. 24. Amédée de Margerie in “Annales de philosophie chrétienne” LXIX (Avril 1899), p. 13. About M. Aurelius, see also V. Rudnev: Emperor Marcus Aurelius, as a philosopher (in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1887, No. 20. pp. 385 and 400; Emperor Marcus Aurelius in his relation to Christianity (ibid. 1889, no. 13, pp. 17–36). Dr. Michael Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christenthum in „Theologische Studien der Leo-Gesellschaft“ herausg. von Proff. Dr. Albert Ehrhard und Dr. Franz M. Schindler I (Wien 1902), S/ 79–80. Prof. Dr. Otto Pfleiderer, Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophie in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher horausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele Ш, 1 (Halle a. Saale 1904), S. 51. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 30,291. † J. B. Lightfoot ibid., p. 10,298. See them in Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Caesaren, S. 2 47–48. 50–53. R ud Steck, Der Galaterbrief, S. 249 ff. Joh. Kreyher, L. Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zur Urchristentum, S. (61-) 72–97. Amédée Fleury, Saint Paul et Sénèque I, p. 26–77; 77–95; 95–125. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10 287–290. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 114–121. † F. W. Farrar, Seekers of God, pp. 261 words Priest N. Pobedimsky in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1901, No. 20, pp. 285–290. Rud Steck, Der Galaterbrief, S. 256. Rud Steck ibid., S. 259 ff. Cm. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10 304–308. † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10,290. K. Martha. Philosophers and moral poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 56. W.Edw. H. Lecky, Sittengeschichte Europas übers, von Dr. H. Jolowiez I, pp. 175–176. Cm. Prof. William L. Davidson, The Stoic Creed, p. 53. See about them and † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, p. 10 312. † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 149. For Tacitus, see † prof. P. N. Kudryavtseva, Roman women, pp. 90. 97–98. 138. 154–155. 174, 192–193. 194 words 227. See Prof. Ludwig Friedländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 205. 206 ff. 213–214. 215. 220. 222 ff. In favor of Seneca, see Prof. W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, p. 75–76. Prof. Friedrich Leo in Die Kultur der Gegenwart berausg. von Paul Hinneberg I, 8, S. 356. Against this, see Pasteur Pierre Farel in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1905, Nr. 3 et 4, p. 321 suiv. 345. Against this, see P. Farel ibid. 1905, No. 3 et 4, p. 328 suiv. See also B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album, S. 192, 2. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 470. W.Edw. H. Lecky, Sittengeschichte Europas übers, von Dr. H Jolowiez I, pp. 205–206. 223. † N. P. Bogolepov, The meaning of popular civil law (jus gentium) in Roman classical jurisprudence, pp. 63. See also B. A. Betzinger, Seneca-Album, S. 199, 1. See Prof. L. Friedländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 238. Prof. L. Friedländer in “Historische Zeitschrift” LXXXV (1900), 2, S. 242. Prof. E. Thoma, Rome and the Empire in the first two centuries of the new era - translated by Ya. I. Rudnev (St. Petersburg 1899), pp. 244. W.Edw. N. Leeky, Sittengeschichte Europas übers, von Dr. H Jolowiez I, pp. 173–174. 175. † Prof. V. I. Modestov, Philosopher Seneca and his letters to Lucilius. strn. 22. See Prof. about this. Ernst von Dobsch ütz, Art. “Sklaverei und Christentum” in Realeneyklopädie von Herzog-Hauck XVIII (Lpzg 3 1906), S. 427. See Prof. Ernst von Dobsch ütz, Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters (Lpzg 1904), S. 9. Pastor Dr. Albert Kalthoff, Die Entstehung des Christentums (Lpzg 1904), S. 13. Alb. Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem (Lpzg 2 1903), S. 3. Alb. Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem, S. 2 37. Alb. Kalthoff, Die Entstehung des Christentums, S. 23. Alb. Kalthoff, Die Entstehung des Christentums, S. 76. Alb. Kalthoff, Das Christus-Problem, S. 2 107. For this side of Kalthoff's views, see Prof. Otto Schmiedel, Die Hauptprobleme der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen 2 1906), pp. 105–113. For a view of slavery in antiquity, see Rev. R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles (Edinburgh 1903), p. 306 sqq. Prof. Lic. Dr. Carl Clemen, Paulus, sein Leben und Wirken II (Giessen 1904), S. 10. Prof. Ernst von Dobsch ütz, Art. “Sklaverei und Christentum” in Realencyklopädie von Herzog-Hauck XVIII 3, S. 425–426. †Prof. Cm. V. Eshevsky, Works I, pp. 474 words E. Teichmüller, Der Einfluss des Christenthums auf die Sklaverei im griechisch-römischen Alterthum, S. 6–7. See and Dr. Franz Vollmann, lieber das Verhältnis der späteren Stoa zur Sklaverei im römischen Reiche, S. 34. E. Teichmüller, Der Einfluss des Christenthums auf die Sklaverei, S. 9. Prof. Dr. Gotthard Victor Lechler, Sklaverei und Christentum I (Lpzg 1877), S. 20. Cp. and † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 51–52. Troplong, De l'influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, p. 1 31. Cp. and † N. P. Bogolepov, The meaning of popular civil law (jus gentium) in Roman classical jurisprudence, pp. 28 words 199 words See † prof. Art. V. Eshevsky, Works I, pp. 476. H. J. Bestmann, Geschichte der christlichen Sitte I, pp. 179–180. Th. Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, S. 2 125–127. 345.†Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 2, S. 3 690 ff. Prof. G. V. Lechler, Sklaverei und Christentum I, S. 13 ff. † Prof. Ohr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 93–94. Prof. Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus (Lpzg 1902), S. 74. In general, about slavery among the Greeks, cf. u † prof. M. A. Olesnitsky, Morality of the ancient Greek people in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” 1904, No. 6, pp. 220–221. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 588–589. † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 130–131. Cm. G. V. Lechler, Sklaverei und Christentum I, pp. 7–8. G.Aug. Simcox, A History of Latin Literature II, p. 15. Cp. I. A. Nevzorov, The morality of stoicism and Christian moral teaching, pp. 8–9. † B. N. Chicherin, History of political doctrines I, pp. 74. B. N. Chicherin ibid. I, pp. 76. Dr. Franz Vollmann, Ueber das Verhältnis der späteren Stoa zur Sklaverei im römischen Reiche, S. 9. Orello Cone, Paul the Man, the Missionary and the Teacher, p. 327 not. Wed. and I. A. Nevzorov, Morality of Stoicism and Christian Moral Teaching, pp. 77 words Troplong, De l'influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, p. 1 31–32. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 583. See Bruno Bauer, Christus und die Caesaren, S. 2 56–57. Amédée de Margerie in Annales de philosophie chrétienne LXIX (Juin 1899), p. 312. See and y † J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. p. 10 282. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, 8. 423 ff. Dr. Franz Vollmann, Ueber das Verhältnis der späteren Stoa zur Sklaverei im römischen Reiche, S. 8. I. A. Nevzorov, Morality of Stoicism and Christian Moral Teaching, pp. 61–62. Th. Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, S. 2 128–129. Th. Zahn ibid., S. 2 129–130. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 753. Dr. Franz Vollmann, Ueber das Verhältnis der späteren Stoa zur Sklaverei im römischen Reiche, S. 22 Troplong, De l'influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, p. 1 76. 0. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum 1, S. 2 35. Prof. Dr. Franz Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche I (Schloss-Chemnitz 1875). S. 169–170. Prof. D. Otto Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums (München 1 1905), S. 182. † Eduard von Hartmann, Das Christentum des neuen Testaments (Sachsa im Harz 2 1905), pp. 192–193. Prof Franz Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche I, S. 179 ff. See and † Ohr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 151–152. See y † V. N. Chicherina, History of political doctrines I, pp. 77. Wed. below page 750, 763. W.Edw. N. Lecky, Sittengeschichte Europas übers, von Dr. H. Jolowiez I, S. 219 ff. † N. P. Bogolepov, The meaning of popular civil law (jus gentium) in Roman classical jurisprudence, pp. 37. Prof. I. V. Popov, Natural moral law: psychological foundations of morality (Sergiev Posad 1898), pp. 418 words Epist. L. L. Senecae 88, 30 at Fr. Haase III, b. 251. Wed. Prof. Paul Feine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, S. 116, 5. Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca and their relationship to Christianity, pp. 202 words 233. †Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 1, S. 3 725. 726. †Ed. Zeller ibid. III, 1, S. 3 727. Dr. Franz Vollmann, Ueber das Verhältnis der späteren Stoa zur Sklaverei im römischen Reiche, S. 7–8. Dr. Franz Vollmann ibid., S. 13. Dr. Franz Vollmann ibid., S. 14. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Drei Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der alten Philosophie, S. 424. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 426. Ferd. Chr. Baur ibid., S. 428. Prof. D. O. Pfleiderer, Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophie in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher herausg von Fr. Michael Schiele III, 1 (Halle a. Saale 1904), S. 45. † Prof. C hr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 115–116. Cm. Prof. Dr. R. Reizenstein, Werden und Wesen der Humanität im Altertum (Strassburg 1907), S. 4. † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 150. † M. Guyot, Collected Works IV (III), pp. 240. S. M. Zarin, Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching I, 2: the experience of systematically addressing the issue (St. Petersburg, 1907), pp. 306. † B. N. Chicherin, History of political doctrines I, pp. 79. Rev. George Jackson, The Ethical Teaching of St. Paul in "The Expositor" 1905, XI, p. 376. Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik, S. 116. Prof. William L. Davidson, The Stoic Creed, p. 104. 165–166. Dr. Salomon Rubin, Die Ethik Senecas in ihrem Verhältniss zur älteren und mittleren Stoa, S. 82–87. See Epictetus Enchiridion..., trans. Gr. Poletiki (St. Petersburg 2 1767), rel. 151–152. Epicteti quae supersunt Dissertationes... illustravit Johannes Uptonus II (Londini 1741), p. 756–757. Theophrasti Characteres, Marci Antoniti Commentarii, Epicteti Dissertationes... emendavit Fred. Dübner (Parisiis 1840), p. 20. Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus of the Antonines, pp. 612. Epist. 47.5 at Fr. Haase III, p. 94. Cp. Troplong, De l'influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, p. 1 54 Victor Faminsky, Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca, pp. 215 words Dr. Salomon Rubin, Die Ethik Senecae, S. 87. Troplong, De l'influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains, p. l 55. K. Martha, Philosophers and moral poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 71, 2. Dr. Franz Vollmann, Ueber das Verhältnis der späteren Stoa zur Sklaverei im römischen Reiche, S. 10. A. Schmekel, Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhänge (Berlin 1892), S. 228. Cp. above str. 647, 734. Prof, Joh. Weiss, Die christliche Freiheit nach der Verkündigung des Apostels Paulus, S. 16–17. See also E. Teichmüller, Der Einfluss des Cbristenthums auf die Sklaverei im griechisch-römischen Reiche, S. 20. See Prof. S. V. Orelli, Art. “Sklaverei bei den Hebräern” in Realencyklopadie von Herzog-Häuck XVIII 3, S. 417–423. E. Teichmüller, Der Einfluss des Christenthums auf die Sklaverei im griechisch-römischen Reiche, S. 13. Cp. Prof. G. V. Lechler, Sklaverei und Christentum I, S. 27. On the relation of Christianity to slavery see Prof. Dr. Ernst von Dobschütz, Art. “Sklaverei und Christentum” in Realencvklopädie von Herzog-Hauck XVIII 3, S. 423–433; Prof. Franz Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche I, S. 179 ff. So does Prof. W: M. Ramsay, St. Paul in "The Expositor" 1902, VIII, p. 83. Rev. Percy Dearner, Art. "Socialism" in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings II (Edinburgh 1908) p. 645a-b. Cp. E. Teichmüller, Der Einfluss des Christenthums auf die Sklaverei im griechisch-römischen Reiche, S. 16, as well as Prof. G. V. Lechler, Sklaverei und Christentum I, S. 30; II, S. 1 ff. Dr. Chr. A. Bugge, Das Christentum 'ais Religion des Fortschritts? aus dem norwegischen übers, von 0. v. Har ling (Giessen 1900), S. 51. Rev. Edw. L. Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament, p. 183–184. Ad. Harnask, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, S. 122 ff.; 2 Aufl., I Bd (Lpzg 1906), S. 145 ff. Rev. R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, p. 326–327. So Prof. C. F. G. Heinrici, Der erste Brief an die Korinther y H. Aug. W. Meyer V, S. 8 233. H. J. Bestmann, Geschichte der christlichen Sitte I, S. 387. Th. Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, S. 2 145. Dr. C hr. A. Bugge, Das Christentum als Religion des Fortschritts, S. 28. Cp. and Ernest Renun, Les Apôtres (Paris 1866), p. 319 and y † B. B. Chuiko, Historical and religious studies, pp. 3 27. W. Edw. H. Lecky, Sittengeschichte Europas libers, von Dr. H. Jo1owicz I, S. 214 ff. 275 ff. See Gaston Boissier, Roman Religion from Augustus to the Antonines, pp. 577 words Wed. Prof. G. V. Lechler, Sklaverei und Christentum 1, pp. 19–20. Dr. Michael Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und im Christenthum, S. 11. 58 ff. E. Teichmüller, Der Einfluss des (Jhristeuthums auf die Sklaverei im griechisch-römischen Reiche, S. 14–15. K. Martha, Philosophers and moral poets during the Roman Empire, pp. 119. Dr. Mich. Waldmann, Die Feindesliehe in der antiken Welt und im Christenthum, S. 63 ff. Dr. Mich. Waldmann ibid., pp. 74–75. On the coldness of the Stoic sages to public affairs, see I. A. Nevzorov, The Morality of Stoicism and Christian Moral Teaching, pp. 66 words 87. Dr. Chr. A. Bugge, Das Christentum als Religion des Fortschritts, S. 24–25. Th. Zahn, Skizzen aus dem Leben der alten Kirche, S. 2 131. Rev. Prof. R. J. Knowling, The Testimony of Paul to Christ viewed in some of its Aspects (London 1905), p. 383. Dr. Salomon Rubin, Die Ethik Senecas, S. 83. Prof. F. Fr. Zelinsky, Ancient Christianity and Roman philosophy in “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology” XLV, 66 (Book I for 1903), page 51, and in the book: From the Life of Ideas III: Rivals of Christianity (St. Petersburg 1907), page 200. O. prof. I. I. Butkevich, Paganism and Judaism at the time of the earthly life of our Lord Jesus Christ (Kharkov 1888), pp. 43. In this sense, one must understand the comments of Dr. Edmund Friedemann, Jüdische Moral und Christliche Staat (Berlin 1893), pp. 13–14. Studien zur alttestamentliclien Einleitung und Geschichte herausg. von Dr. Carl Holzhey, III. Heft: Ehe- und Familienrecht der Hebräer von Dr. Theod. Engert (München 1905), S. 76 ff. Lic. J. Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie (Tübingen 2 1907), S. 124 ff. Rev. Prof. H. W. Moss, Art. “Slave, Slavery” in A Dictionary of Christ, and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings II (Edinburgh 1908), p. 641b-642a. Dr. Chr. A. Bugge, Das Christentum als Religion des Fortschritts, S. 32. Prof. Dr. Hermann Cohen, Die Nächstenliebe im Talmud: ein Gutachten dem Königlichen Landgerichte zu Marburg (Marburg 2 1888), S. 6 ff. 8 ff. N. I. Weinstein, Geschichtliche Entwickelung des Gebotes der Nächstenliebe innerhalb des Judentums (Berlin 1891), S. 10 ff. Prof. Emil G. Hirsch, Art. "Children of God" in The Jewish Encyclopedia VI (New-York and London 1904) p. 15b. N. I. Weinstein, Geschichtliche Entwickelung dos Gebotes der Nächstenliebe innerhalb des Judentums, S. 35 ff. Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Bacher, Dié Agada der Tannaitcn 1 (Strassburg 2 1903), S. 4 (but cp. 34–35). Harris Weinstock, Jesus the Jew and Other Addresses (New York 2 1902). p. 176. Kaufmann Kohler, Art. "Ethics-rabbinical" in The Jewish Encyclopedia V (New York and Loudon 1903), p. 248b. 249b. 250b. Israel Sack, Die Religion Altisraels nach den in der Bibel enthaltenen Grundsätzen dargestellt (Leipzig und Berlin 1885), S. 97 ff. Prof. Emil G. Hirch, Art. "Gentile" in The Jewish Encyclopedia V (New York and London 1903), p. 616 sqq. See also Kaufmann Kohler, Art. "Judaism" in The Jewish Encyclopedia VII (New York and London 1904), p. 366a. Cp. at Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching on the posthumous state and the final fate of people (St. Petersburg, 1904), pp. 81, 1. Kaufmann Kohler in The Jewish Encyclopedia VII, p. 366–367. Prof. Emil G. Hirsch, Art. "The Golden Rule" in The Jewish Encyclopedia VI, p. 21. Prof. Emil G. Hirsch, Art. “Attitude of Modern Judaism to the Gentiles” in The Jewish Encyclopedia V, p. 625. See about him and Dr. M. Duschak, Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud: eine vergleichende Studie im Geiste unserer Zeit (Brünn 1877), S. 24 Felix Perles, Bousset’s Religion des Judentums im neutestament-lichen Zeitalter kritisch untersucht (Berlin 1903), S. 59. Kaufmann Köhler, Zum Kapitel der jüdischen Wohlthätigkeitspflege in Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage A. Berline r’s, Frankfurt a. M. 1903. S. 195–203 according to the report of Samuel Poznanski in “Revue des études juives” XLVII, 93 (Juillet–Septembre 1903), p. 137, a equals cp. y the same K. Kohler’s., Artt. "Aims" and "Charity and Charitable Institutions" in The Jewish Encyclopedia I (New York and London 1901), p. 475; III (ibid. 1902), p. 667b sqq. Rabbiner Dr. Leo Bück, Das Wesen des Judentums (Berlin 1905), S. 154. Berthold von Schottenfeld, Was muss man von Talmud wissen? Berlin 1904. S. 62. Rabbiner Dr. Joseph Eschelbacher, Das Judentum und das Wesen des Christentum (Berlin 1905), S. 31. 34 ff. 153. Dr. M. Duschak, Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud (Brünn 1877), S. 37. Dr. M. Duschak ibid., S. 6. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum und das Wesen des Christentums, S. 74. 76–77. Rabbiner Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums mich Bibel, Talmud, Tradition und religiöser Praxis kritiseh dargestellt in Religionswissenschaftliche Bibliothek des Judentums herausg. von Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Heft. 2 u. 3 (Frankfurt a. M. 1907), S. 184. Dr. J. Goldschmidt ibid., S. VI. 122–158. 159–160. 175. 206. 211. 214–215. See also below pages. 669, 958. Dr. J. Goldschmidt ibid., S. 40 ff. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum im Urteile der modernen protestantischen Theologie (Lpzg 1907), S. 11. Oberrabbiner Dr. M. Güdemann, Das vorchristliche Judentum in christlicher Darstellung (Breslau 1903), S. 8. Cm. y Dr. Erich Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbiner: Jesu Bergpredigt und „Himmelreich“ in ihrer Unabhängigkeit von Rabbinismus (Lpzg 1904). S. 2. Israel Abrahams, A Short History of Jewish Literature from the Fall of the Church (70 C.E.) to the Era of Emancipation (1786 C.E.), London 1906, p. 15. Dr. Paul Rieger, Hillel und Jesus (Hamburg 1904), S. 11. Dr. Paul Rieger ibid., pp. 4–5. Dr. Paul Rieger ibid., S. 6. Dr. Paul Rieger ibid., S. 11. Dr. Edmund Friedemann, Jüdische Moral und christliche Staat (mit Anhang [S. 19–45]: Die Bergpredigt und die jüdischen Quellen; Auszug ans dem Werk: Les origines du Sermon de la Montagne par Hippolyte Rodrigues, Paris 1868), Berlin 1893, S. 6. Dr. Edmund Friedemann ibid., S. 8 ff. Hippolyte Rodrigues y Edw. Friedemann ibid., pp. 20–45. Dr. Jos. Eschelbaeher, Das Judentum im Urteile der modernen protestantischen Theologie, S. 47. Cm. Prof. D. Arnold Meyer, Wer hat Christentum begründet, Jesus oder Paulus? Tübingen 1907. S. 30. 34–35. Prof. D. Arnold Meyer ibid., S. 40. Prof. Lic. Wilhelm Lueken, Der Brief au die Philipper in Die Sebriftcn des Neuen Testaments herausg. von Prof. Dr. Johann Weiss II, 2 (Göttingen 1 1907), S. 142. Rev. R. Heber Newton, The Outcome of the Theological Movement of our Age in The Hibbert Journal IV, 2 (January 1906). p. 273. Prof. D. Arnold Meyer, Wer hat das Christentum begründet. Jesus oder Paulus? S. 43 Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen herausg. von Prof. Dr. A. B1udau, Heft 1/2: Jesus und die Heidenmission von Prof. Dr. Max Meinert, (Münster i. W. 1908), S. 214. Against this, see Prof. Dr. Adolf Jülicher, Die Religion Jesu und die Anfänge des Christentums bis zum Nicaenum (325) in Die Kultur der Gegenwart herausg. von Paul Hinneberg I, 4 (Berlin und Leipzig 1906), S. 78. Pfarrer Karl Stier, Paulus über die Sünde und das Judentum seiner Zeit in „Protestantische Monatsheft“: Neue Folge der Protestantischen Kirchenzeitung herausg. von 1). Julius Websky XI (I.pzg 1907), 3, S. 101 u. Anm. 1. James Darmesteter, Die Philosophie der Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes aus dem francösischen übersetzt von . J. Singer (Wien 1884), pp. 21–22. James Darmesteter ibid.. S. 22. Rabbiner Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Judentum in der Religionsgeschiehte der Menschheit (Frankfurt a. M. 1907), S. 98. So Salomon Reinach, Άωροι βίαιος θάνατος in “Archiv für Religionswissenschaft” IX (1906), 3–4, S. 319. 321–322; cp. about this “Biblische Zeitschrift” V (1907), 3, S. 293. Prof. D. Otto Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums (München 1 1905), S. 142. Prof. O. Pfleiderer ibid., S. 159. Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Judentum in der Religionsgeschichte der Menschheit, pp. 97–98. Dr. M. Duschak, Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud, S. IX-X. Dr. M. Duschak ibid., S. 53. Dr. M. Duschak ibid., S. 54. Dr. J. Elbogen, Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisiier mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Begriffe Gott und Mensch (Berlin 1904), S. 75. Bernhard Epstein at Dr. M. Duschak, Die Moral der Evangelien und des Talmud, S. IV. Rabbiner Dr. S. Kautz, Das Wesen des prophetischen Judentums: ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Propheten (Berlin 1907). S. 1. † S. Munk, Palestine: description géographique, historique et archéologique (Paris 1845), p. 514a. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum im Urteile der modernen protestantischen Theologie, S. 44. Prof. Lic. theol. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum: eine Geschichte des vorchristlichen Hcilsbewusstseins (München 1905), S. 482. Prof. Dr. Eduard König, Praphetenideal, Judentum, Christentum (Lpzg 1906), S. 16 ff. 44 ff. Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel, S. 638. Dr. Joseph Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten (Berlin 1904), S. 34 ff. Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 82. Dr. J. Goldschmidt ibid., p. 83. See Dr. Felix Perles, Was lehrt uns Harnack? Frankfurt a. M. 1902. S. 12 and see regarding this y Missionsprediger Karl Kunert, Was lernen Juden und Christen von Dr. Perles? Königsberg i. Pr. 1902. S. 4 ff. Pastor R. Billerbeck, Hat die alte Synoge einen präexistenten Messias gekannt? in "Nathanael" herausg. von Prof. Dr. Hermann L. Strack XIX (Berlin 1903), 4, S. 118. Prof. Dr. Eduard König, Talmud und Neues Testament in „Biblische Zeit- und Streitfragen zur Aulklärung der Gebildeten“ herausg. von D. Friedrich Kropatsehek III, 8 (Gr. Lichterferde–Berlin 1907), S. 13. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum und das Wesen des Christentums, S. 49 ff. 60. Pastor P. Billerbeck in "Nathanael" XIX (1903), 4, S. 106. Prof. Dr. Ed. König, Geiehichte des Reiches Gottes bis auf Jesus Christus (Braunschweig und Leipzig 1903). S. 309. Prof. Dr. Eduard König, Prophetenideal. Judentum, Christentum, S. 22. For 1 book. Maccabees, see V.P. Rodinkov, The First Book of Maccabees: An Isagogical Study (Kyiv 1907), pp. 15–16. See also Paul Krüger, Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums (Lpzg 1906), pp. 46–47. According to Prof. Dr. Emile Bréhier, even here the actual influence of Stoicism is reflected (Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie, Paris 1908, p. 7), for Philo was only dear to the eternity of the law of Moses (p. 10). In general, about this subject, see also Prof. Ludwig Blau, Art. "Preexistence of the Messiah" in The Jewish Encyclopedia X (New York and London 1905), p. 183b-184a. Prof. M oses Buttenwieser, Art. "Messiah" ibid. VIII (New York and London 1904), p. 511a, and for all apocryphal literature see Pfarrer Ludwig Couard, Die religiösen und sittlichen Anschauungen der alttestamentliehen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (Gütersloh 1907). S. 207–209. Pastor P. Billerbeck in "Nathanael" XIX (1903), 4, S. 98 ff.: 5, S. 121. 122. 125. XXI (1905), 4, S. 89. P. Billerbeck ibid. XXI (1905), 4. S. 90. 115. The current edition of the Book of Enoch dates back to the first years after Herod's death. at Lic. theol. Pastor Heinrich Appel, Die Komposition cies äthiopischen Henochbuches in „Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie“ herausg. von Proff. A. Schlatter und W. Lütgert X (Gütersloh 1906), 3, S. 101. P. Billerbeck in "Nathanael" XIX (1903), 4, S. 100. 101. 113. P. Billerbeck ibid. ХІХ (1903), 4, S. 105. 106. 109. 111. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 66. P. Billerbeck in "Nathanael" XIX (1903), 4, S. 100. Even this Jewish concept of the ideal pre-existence of the Messiah Rev. Owen S. Whitehouse assimilates the influence of Plato's doctrine of the archetypal man (see Art. "Messiah" in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hartings II, Edinburgh 1908, p. 174a). D. V. Znamensky does not agree with our opinion about the absence in Judaism of the dogma of a pre-existing Messiah (Teaching of St. Apostle John the Theologian in the Fourth Gospel about the Person of Jesus Christ, Kyiv 1907, p. 161), obviously, only due to a misunderstanding regarding the content of this idea, where we conceive of a premium, separate-real divine existence, for the latter is not recognized for Jewish theology and this author himself (page 164). Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley and Rev. G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue: an Introduction to the Study of Judaism from the New Testament Period (London 1907), p. 197. 199. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannai ten, S. 70. 71. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum und das Wesen des Christentums, S. 39. 40 ff. J. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes I: La théologie anteni-eéenne (Paris 4 1906), p. 43 P. Billerbeck in "Nathanael" XIX (1903), 4, S. 108. 116; 5, S. 121. 123. Prof. Dr. J. Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Lucae übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin 1904), S. 96. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 71. Prof. D. C. F. Georg Heinrici, Beitrüge zur Geschichte und Erklärung des Neuen Testaments Ш: 1. Bergpredigt (Matth. 5–7. Luk. 6, 20–49) begriffsgeschichtlich untersucht. 2. Aus Hinterlassenschaft des Petrus von Laodicea (Lpzg 1905), S. 15. Dr. Erich Bischoff, Talmud-Katechismus (Lpzg 1904), S. 7. 42. Dr. Erich Bischoff ibid., S. 45. M. E. Posnov, Judaism (Kyiv 1906), pp. 251. Lic. Dr. W. Staerk, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte II (Lpzg 1907), S. 85 ff. Rabbi Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, Art. "Theology" in The Jewish Encyclopedia XII (New York and London 1906), p. 136b-137a. D. V. Znamensky, Teachings of St. John the Theologian in the fourth Gospel about the face of Jesus Christ, pp. 162 words Prof. Dr. Eduard König: Prophetenideal, Judentum, Christentum, S. 52 ff.; Talmud und Neues Testament, S. 16–17; Geschichte des Reiches Gottes bis auf Jesus Christus, S. 315 ff. Prof. E. A. Vorontsov, The pagan myth of the Golden Age and the messianic aspirations of the Jews in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1905, No. 12, pp. 671 words Dr. theol. Philipp Friedrich, Der Christus-Name im Lichte der alt- und neutestamentlichen Theologie (Köln 1905), S. 69. 80–81. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 2. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., pp. 25–26. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 40. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 8. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., pp. 94–95. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 106. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 119. W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 205 sq. R.P.Fr. M. J. Lagrange, Notes sur le messianisme au temps de Jésus in Revue biblique internationale: nouvelle série II, 4 (Octobre 1905), p. 486. Fr. M. J. Lagrange ibid. nouv. série II, 4 (Octobre 1905), p. 501. Fr. M. J. Lagrange ibid nouv. série II, 4 (Octobre 1905), p. 503 suiv. Fr. M. J. Lagrange ibid. nouv. série II, 4 (Octobre 1905), p. 514. Prof. Joh. Gottschick, Art. “Reich Gottes” in Realencyklopädie von Herzog-Hauck XVI (Lpzg 3 1905), S. 785. Prof. Lic. Rudolf Knopf, Die Zukunftshoffnungen des Urchristentums in Religionsgeschiehtliche Volksbücher herausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele I, 13 (Tübingen 1907), S. 2. Cp. Vasily Gomerov, Revealing the Gospel concept of the Kingdom of God (Kyiv 1906), pp. 9. Dr. Erich Bisckoff, Jesus und die Rabbiner, S. 100. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 5. P. Billerbeck in "Nathanael" XIX (1903), 4, S. 108. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 65. Séraphin Protin, Le Messie souffrant dans la pensée juive in “Revue Augustinienne” VI année, tome X, No. 58 (Janvier-Juin 1907), p. 18–25. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 9. Prof. Dr. Paul Feine, Das Christentum Jesu und das Christentum der Apostel in ihrer AbgrMnzung gegen die Religionsgeschichte in “Christentum und Zeitgeist”: Hefte zu “Glauben und Wissen”, Heft I (Stuttgart 1904), S. 22. Rev. Prof Hugh M'Donald Scott. Art, “Pharisees” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings II, p. 354b. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 86. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 15. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 14. Prof. Moses Buttonwieser in “The Jewish Encyclopedia” VIII, p. 506b. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 16. 48. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 12 ff. 49. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 10. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 47. Rev. Owen C. Whitehouse in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings II, p. 173b. Dr. G. Hollmann, Welche Religionen hatten die Juden als Jesus auftrat? in Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher herausg. von Fr. Michael Schiele I, 7 (Halle a. Saale 1905), S. 53. M. E. Posnov, Judaism, pp. 254 words Pfarrer Ludwig Couard, Die religiösen und sittlichen Anschauungen der alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, S. 202 ff. Prof. Dr. Ed. König, Geschichte des Reiches Gottes bis auf Jesus Christus, pp. 315–316. Prof. Dr. Eduard König, Talmud und Neues Testament, S. 20. Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Judentum in der Religionsgeschichte der Menschheit, S. 66. 67. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 107. Lic. Alfred Juncker, Das Gebet bei Paulus in Biblische Zeit- und Streitfragen zur Aufklärung der Gebildeten herausg. von Lie. Dr. Boehmehr und Lic. Dr. Kropatcheck I, 6 (Gr. Lichterfelde–Berlin 1905), pp. 7–8. Ludwig Couard, Die religiösen und sittlichen Auschauungen der alttestamentlichen Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen, S. 155 ff. Ludwig Couard ibid., S. 138. 173 ff. Ludwig Couard ibid., S. 175 ff. 178 ff. Ludwig Couard ibid., S. 178. Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum, S. 507. Dr. J. Goldschmidt-, Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 56–58. Dr. J. Goldschmidt Das Judentum in der Religionsgesehichte der Menschheit, S. 2 ff.; Das Wesen des Judentums, S. 53 ff. 58 ff. 75. Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum, S. 507 See more about them Prof. Dr. Eduard König, Prophetenideal, Judentum, Christentum, S. 62 ff. Rev. G. Gordon Scott, Art. Art. "Am Ha'arez" in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings I (Edinburgh 1906), p. 52a-b. Dr. Erich Bischoff, Talmud-Katechismus, S. 47. Priest. Gregory Mozolevsky, Accusatory speech of our Lord Jesus Christ against the scribes and Pharisees (Warsaw 1900), pp. 19–20. Rabbiner Dr. Ignaz Ziegler, Der Kampf zwischen Judentum und Christentum in den ersten drei christlichen Jahrhunderten (Berlin 1907), S. 20–21. See Prof. for more details. D. Wilhelm Bousset in “Theologische Rundschau” X (1907), 11, S. 428–438 against A. Büchler, Der galiläische Am-ha-Arcs des zweiten Jahrhunderte, Wien 1906. Moriz Friedländer, Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament: eine Einleitung in die Psalmen- und Weisheitsliteratur (Berlin 1904), S. XI See “Christian Reading” 1855, Part II, pp. 107–158 in the article “On the fate of the ten tribes of the Israelite people after their dispersion beyond the Euphrates.” "Christian Reading" 1855, II, pp. 90–107. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching about the posthumous state and the final fate of people (St. Petersburg, 1904), pp. 84–85. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die mcssianischen Vorstellungen des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 7–8. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching about the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 62. See about this Prof. Ernst von Dobschütz, Art. “Proselyten” in Realencyklopädie von Herzog-Hauck XVI 3, S. 119–120. Rabbi J. Z. Lauterbach, Art. "Simeon ben Lakisch" in The Jewish Encyclopedia XI, p. 355a. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching about the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 84–85. Moriz Friedländer, Die religiösen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu (Berlin 1905), S. 32. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die mcssianischen Vorstellungen des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 80 ff. 82 ff. Prof. Iv. G. Troitsky, Talmudic teaching about the posthumous state and the final fate of people, pp. 94–95. (233.) Prof. Emil G. Hirsch, Art. "Proselyte" in The Jewish Encyclopedia X, p. 223b. Rev. Prof. Frank Edward Robinson, Art. "Proselyte" in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels ed. by James Hastings II, p. 444b–445a. The matter will not change in the essence if we even agree that unfavorable judgments about proselytes in Judaism were determined by historical circumstances (Prof. Dr. Friedrich Sieffert, Die Heidenbekehrung im Alten Testament und im Judentum in Biblische Zeit- und Streitfragen zur Aufklärung der Gebildeten herausg. von Prof. D. Friedrich Kropatsehek, IV, 3, Gr. Liehterfelde– Berlin 1908, p. 38–39) and especially prevailed after the destruction of Jerusalem (Prof. Dr. Max Meinertz, Jesus und die Heidenmission in Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen herausg. von Prof. Dr. A. Bludau, Heft. 12, Münster i. W. 1908, S. 46), for this view was not contrary to Jewish-rabbinic dogma, but was fully justified by it. Dr. Jos. Klausner, Die messianischen Vorstellungen des jüdiseheu Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, S. 115. Dr. Jos. Klausner ibid., S. 37. See more about him from Dr. Erich Bischoff, Talmud-Katechismus, pp. 79–78. See more about this from Dr. W. Kellermann, Kritische Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Christentums (Berlin 1906), pp. 71–91. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum im Urteile der moderneu protestantischen Theologie, S. 38. Prof. Dr. C. F. Georg Heinrici, Der litterarische Charakter der neutostamentlichen Schriften (Lpzg 1908). S. 23. W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 34. 211. W. O. E. Oesterley, The Jewish Doctrine of the “Last Things” in The Church and Synagogue X, 1 (January, 1908), p. 5. W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 204. See our book. I, pp. 833 words Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum im Urteile der modernen protestantischen Theologie, S. 39. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher ibid., S. 48. Against this, see Paul Krüger, Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums, S. 80–82. See Rev. G. N. Box, Some Rabbinic Illustrations on the New Testament I: Parables in “The Church and Synagogue” VIII, 3 (July, 1906), p. 87–89. Lic. theol. Paul Krüger, Abodah Sara. Der Misehnatractat „Götzendienst“ in Ausgewählte Mischnatraetate in deutscher Uebersetzung herausg. von Lic. theol. Paul Fiebig, Nr. 4 (Tiibigen 1907), S. 27. Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum, S. 490, 1 . Dr. Erich Bischoff, Jesus und die Rabbiner, S. 34. Prof. Dr. Eduard König, Talmud und das Néues Testament, S. 27. Prof. Dr. Eduard König, Talmud und das Neues Testament, S. 27 ff. Dr. Erich Bischoff, Talmud und das Neues Testament, S. 64–65. Dr. Jos. Eschelbacher, Das Judentum im Urteile der modernen protestantischen Theologie, S. 13. Cp above pp. 656, 814. Topu André, L'esclavage chez les anciens Hebreux: étude d'archéologie biblique (Paris 1892), p. 40. Cp. and Missionsprediger Karl Kunert, Rabbiner Dr. H. Vogelstein’s Vortrag: Die Anfänge des Talmuds und die Entstehung dos Christentums beleuchtet (Königsberg i. Pr. 1902), S. 6–7. See Prof. D. Wilhelm Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin 1903), S. 391. Dr. J. Goldschmidt, Das Judentum in der Religionsgesehichte der Menschheit, S. 77. Dr. Mich. Waldmann, Die Feindesliebe in der antiken Welt und in Christenthum, S. 3. 179. Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler, Art. "Saul of Tarsus" in The Jewish Encyclopedia XI, p. 85 a. 86a. Prof. Justus Köberle, Sünde und Gnade im religiösen Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum, S. 518–519. Felix Perles, Bousset's Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, S. 91. Rabbi Kaufmann Kohler in The Jewish Encyclopedia XI. p. 866.81a. Rev. Canon Foakes-Jackson, Foreign Influence on Israel's Development III: Israel and Persia in The Interpreter III, 3 (April 1907), p. 257 sqq. 267 sqq. Prof. O. Pfleiderer, Dio Entwicklung des Christentums, S. 10. However, on the issue of the Sabbath, he speaks out in favor of independence from Babylon and Prof. Heinrich Zimmern, Keilinschriften und Bibel nach ihrem religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang: ein Leitfaden zur Orientierung im sog. Babel-Bibel-Strcit mit Einbeziehung auch der neutestamentlichen Probleme (Berlin 1903), S. 30–32. According to Prof. Joh. Hehn (Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament, Lpzg 1907), the Babylonian Sabbath was not a day of rest, but a day of appeasement of the wrath of the gods: see Rev. R. H. Strachan in “The Exporitor” 1908, III, p. 287–288. See above pages. 988, 37. Prof. H. Zimmern, Keilinschriften und Bibel nach ihrem religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, S. 39–43 and cp. at Lic. Prof. Alfred Juncker, Das Christusbild des Paulus (Halle a. S. 1906), S. 14. Prof. Lic. Dr. Carl Clemen, Paulus, sein Loben und Wirken II, S. 107–109. Against this, see Prof. D. A. Schlatter, Jesu Demut, ihre Missdeutungen, ihr Grund in „Beitrüge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie“ herausg. von Proff. A. Schlatter und W. Lütgert VIII (Gütersloh 1904), S. 72 ff. So does Dr. Hans Balmer, Die Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus und die Seefahrtskunde im römischen Kaiserzeitalter (Bern-Münchenbuchsee 1905), S. 11. Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Bousset, Der erste Brief an die Korinther in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments herausg. von Prof. Dr. Joh. Weiss II. I (Göttingen 1 1907), S. 92. Prof. Dr. Theobald Ziegler, Geschichte der christlichen Ethik II (Strassburg 1886), pp. 85–86. James Donaldson, Woman; her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and Rome, and among Early Christians (London 1907), p. 133 sqq. Prof. Dr. Reinhold Seeberg, Ueber das Reden der Frauen in den apostolischen Gemeinden in the collection Aus Religion und Geschichte; gesammelte Aufsätze und Vorträge I: Biblisches und Kircheugeschichtliehes (Lpzg 1906), S. 124–125. †Prof. Cm. V. Eshevsky, Works I, pp. 527 words; III, pp. 346 words Prof. Cm. V. Eshevsky, Works I, pp. 474. Lic. theol. Leopold Zscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau in der ersten Jahrhunderten der christlichen Kirche (Göttingen 1902), S. 2 ff. Gaston Boissier, Roman women, their education and position in society (St. Petersburg, 1855), pp. 16–17. 53–54. Gaston Boissier ibid., pp. 45 words Gaston Boissier ibid., pp. 33 words Gaston Boissier ibid., pp. 36. See Studien zur alttertamentlichen Einleitung und Geschichte heraus.” von Dr. Carl Holzhey, III Heft: Ehe-und Familienrecht der Hebräer von Dr. Theod. Engert (München 1905), pp. 58–66. Lie. Dr. J. Benzinger, Hebräische Archäologie (Tübingen 2 1907), S. 110 ff. Dr. Erich Bischoff, Talmud-Katechismus, S. 53 ff. About her, see Privatdoz. Lie. Fritz Wilke, Das Frauenideal und die Schätzung des Weibes im Alten Testament (Lpzg 1907), S. 7 ff. Fritz Wilke ibid., S. 31. Fritz Wilke ibid., S. 51. Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley and Rev. G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 291. 297 sqq. Gaston Boissier, Roman Women, pp. 54. Lic. Leopold Zscharnack, Dor Dienst der Frau, S. 5. † Eduard von Hartmann, Das Christentum des neuen Testaments (Sachsa im Harz 2 1905), S. 189. 193. 190. James Donaldson, Woman, p. 163. See page above. 650. 763. Gaston Voissier, Roman Women, pp. 54. Lic. Leopold Zscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau, S. 8. James Donaldson, Woman, p. 148. 154. See Bishop John Wordsworth, The Ministry of Grace: Studies in Early Church History with Reference to Present Problems (London 4901), p. 257: “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.” Wed. and in the translation book of the licentiate Ed. Goltz, Women's Ministry in the Christian Church, Sergiev Posad 1907. James M. Campbell, Paul the Mystic: a Study in Apostolic Experience (London 1907), p. 183 sqq. James M. Campbell ibid., p. 179. Lic. Leopold Zscharnack, Der Dienst der Frau, S. 5 ff. 8.9 Cp. and “Biblische Zeitschrift” V (1907), 1, S. 75. James Donaldson, "Woman, p. 150–151. Rev. Prof. Robert Mackintosh, Marriage Problem at Corinth (1Corinthians VII. etc.) in The Expositor 1907, X, p. 361. Prof. D. Wilhelm Lütgert, Die Liebe im Neuen Testament: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Urchristentums (Lpzg 1905), S. 208–209.