The teaching of St. The Apostle Paul and the book of the Wisdom of Solomon on the origin and nature of paganism

With general remarks about the relationship of St. Paul and pseudo-Solomon Statement of dependency of St. Paul from pseudo-Solomon on the issue of paganism and their instability. Mutual independence of both authors, since they depict actual reality. The difference in the coverage and interpretation of the latter, in general and in particular, in the Apostle and in the non-canonical book. The evangelist’s faithfulness to his fundamental view, which did not change significantly due to outside influences. Conclusions from everything that preceded and indications for further “comparative” review of the Apostolic “Gospel”. Bringing St. Paul and pseudo-Solomon, found in the former the doctrine of predestination, covering with inevitability all sorts of “fatal” abnormalities of individuals and entire masses. But these interpretations are wrong. The apostle does not preach or allow individual predestination, 1 and without it personal responsibility for any religious deviations is inevitable for each person. This conviction typically characterizes the apostolic view of the apostasy of paganism, where they also note the genetic connection of the evangelist with the Hellenistic concepts of pseudo-Solomon. Here again we see solidarity between critics and Catholic champions of the biblical “apocrypha.” If the first say that the Apostle knew the book of Wisdom 2 and, moreover, indisputably 3, then the second assert the “certainty” of this fact 4. In any case, the fame of the non-canonical document of St. Paul is admitted by many with sufficient decisiveness 5 in the sense of anticipation 6 . It is said that the Christian writer diligently used the Jewish author 7 and is dependent on him 8 , having his source in him 9 . But the work of pseudo-Solomon comes down to Hellenistic influences, and hence the interpretation is not surprising, allegedly in the analyzed apostolic texts sometimes (for example, in Rom. 1:22) Greek and specifically pre-Socratic views 10 are understood, together with pre-Socratic cosmology 11, and the doctrine (Rom. 2:14) about the self-legitimacy of the pagans with various consequences comes close to Aristotle 12. In the end, it turns out that the evangelist, copying his original, exaggerated the matter and made it especially gloomy, contrary to the bright revelations of the Savior 13. This means that the Apostle himself deviated from Christ and directed others in the other direction of rational Hellenic contemplation. This is very important for understanding and assessing the entire Christian doctrine, and therefore it is necessary to analyze how fair the idea of ​​​​the participation of the Hellenistic elements is. They are assimilated by St. Paul through a Jewish anonymous author, so the question, first of all, should be about him. For a proper answer, it is necessary to state in advance that both writers are talking about strictly practical matters - the presence of paganism in its religious content and moral reflection among admirers. Then mutual literary obligatoryness will be inevitable only under the condition that the object of the images of the first was really inaccessible to the second or is reproduced by them with the same tendentious infidelity compared to the genuine phenomenon, when it is difficult to expect a random coincidence and literary borrowing is much more likely. What do we see in this example? About the Wisdom of Solomon they think that it arose - at least in Greek - on the banks of the Nile, stretching this idea to the extreme, as if the pseudonym softened its tones out of affection for its neighbors and in order to gain favor from them 14. There was rich material here for a pseudo-Solomonic picture of the religious and moral perversion of Egypt 15, which rivaled the depravity of Rome 16. The vanity of paganism is outlined to us in the forms of both the veneration of nature and idolatry itself, with the moral anomalies that flow from them. All these judgments found ample food in the surrounding reality and suggested themselves. Therefore, Philo, considering Nimrod the founder of a race of apostates, believes everything in falling away from the Creator with preference for the creature 17, and in the cult of gods and heroes he found “poetic and artistic fiction” 18. Least of all, he agrees with the mysterious Jewish accuser in that he does not so cruelly condemn and castigate reverence for demons as he does zoolatry 19 . The latter was a special Egyptian disease, and the Alexandrian theosophist compares all paganism with precisely this type of denial of true religion 20 . The plague of apotheosis has long been brought to the banks of the Nile, where the deification of the Pharaohs and Ptolemies was gradually established 21. In general, Egyptian superstition was famous even in Rome 22. And Tacitus (Hist. IV, 71) called the Alexandrians didita superstitionibus gens 23. Vices flourished luxuriantly in this contaminated soil 24 and their origin inspired the suspicion that sharecropping is the sum of all ethical shortcomings 25 . For all this, it is assumed that pseudo-Solomon interprets paganism based on living observations 26. Along with this, he does not acquire any special originality for which anyone else would not be capable of originality. True, there is evidence that in the Book of Wisdom this subject is illuminated philosophically, 27 but there are no strong arguments for this. Of course, we are put forward, supposedly (in XII, 8) the Stoic doctrine of human dignity in the morally fallen is proclaimed 28, but here the genuine biblical text is falsely commented on. About him we have reached the conviction that divine condescension towards sinners rests not at all on their inherent advantages, but on their creatureliness, when the Almighty simply has mercy on his creation 29 . The support of mercy will be outside of man and everything will be arranged contrary to his real qualities, meanwhile, Stoicism tried to draw from the depths of the human personality itself. Likewise, in all other particulars, pseudo-Solomon does not defend any original and consistent theories. Everything about him has the character of a simple visual illustration 30, according to random associations in the movement of the story and leans toward protecting the only truth of the great and holy Jewish confession. Naturally, he is guided by biblical principles, perceives them and applies them to his own purposes. Hence the significant proximity to biblical concepts. From this point of view, it makes no difference to us that according to some, the book of Wisdom speaks in the voice of the ancient prophets (for example, in 2:12; 15:10) 31, while others, out of special convictions, accept the reverse influence of its Greek processing (in 13:10–19) on the literary composition of Is. 40–44 32. The only important thesis here is that in discussing an empirical fact the author is standardized by biblical principles. The latter served as an unshakable standard for all the sons of the covenant and for all they had to be expressed in identical results of aversion to paganism. It is necessary that in this point we have a common place, known to every Jew 33 , which is why similar thoughts are found in various other Jewish documents, even if for speech about the law in human hearts they look for analogies in the Apocalypse of Baruch 34 . As a result, pseudo-Solomon does not have any wealth that could not be acquired independently. Therefore, for St. We are obliged to investigate Pavel, whether he could have obtained all the elements of his design on his own? With him we have the same components - in religious apostasy, with the deification of creatures, and in moral perversion. But it is indisputable that in both these respects paganism involuntarily attracted the viewer and especially deeply struck the Jew, whom it had already directly encroached on with its insane apotheoses of the Caesars 35 . True religiosity has disappeared, and an objective study of this era comes to the terrible conclusion that “the many different forms of worship that prevailed in the Roman world were considered equally true by the people, equally false by the philosophers, and equally useful by the government.”36 At the same time, a solid moral foundation was lost, and moral degeneration turned out to be in connection with pagan cults 37, as soon as we read about carnal abominations at nightly religious celebrations 38. Carnal furies reach monstrous savagery, and Jewish sources 39 , Sibyls 40 , pseudo-Heraclitian letters 41 , and the Slavic book (of the secrets) of Enoch 42 report to us about shameful unnaturalness. Paganism seemed to patronize licentiousness. This is confirmed by the impartial history of the entire pagan past. For Greece, such a sad truth is confirmed with all irresistibility 43, since there was almost not a single authoritative protest against pederasty 44, which the cynics and heads of the Stoic school proclaimed as an indifferent phenomenon 45, while Pliny (Hist. nat XV, 5) called the Greeks the inventors of all vices 46. In turn, Rome went even further in its naked cynicism 47 and destroyed children so mercilessly 48 that Seneca especially praises his mother Helvia 49 for preserving his life: child molestation was developed to the point of sophistication 50 and upbringing was corrupted at the very root 51 . Such were the fatal fruits of spiritual impoverishment, for popular religion, having become demonolatry inseparably from magic, 52 lost its dominance over human passions and itself began to bless and sanctify all “lusts of the flesh.” All this was before everyone’s eyes and therefore could be recorded by different persons with equal accuracy. From this side it is successfully emphasized that the coincidence of St. Paul (in Rom. 1:20 ff.) with the book of wisdom (13:1 ff.) extends to moments that are known even outside the Bible 53, just as we find truly similar images of pagan shamefulness in Juvenal. Ovid, Seneca 54. In this sense, the apostolic picture is distinguished by unconditional objective fidelity and is confirmed by many similar testimonies 55. Why do we need to look for a literary guide for it? After all, it would be strange to think that the evangelist could not himself describe a simple fact 56 , but it is no less erroneous to see a dead compilation where the living spring of indignant religious animation 57 bubbles up. Here the immediate feeling of the contemplator himself is heard everywhere, and by these properties we are obliged to agree that he had personal knowledge from his treatment of the pagans 58 . Particulars are no longer so important, and when observations in Antioch, which was a representative of pagan degeneration 60, or in Corinth, which victoriously competed with it, 61 are added to the sum of the impressions of Tarsus childhood 59, then we must rather accept that the Apostle had the most diverse experience, which the entire pagan world gave him in abundance in all ends and corners of the Universe. It is clear that the factual materials and the specially apostolic combination of them do not require a special source. But St. Paul is not limited to the role of a chronicler and takes on the tasks of a historical commentator. In this case, paganism attracted the closest attention. It turned out to be the primary object of Pavlova's missionary practice and was thereby evidenced in its correspondence to the Christian principles of salvation solely by the grace of pardon. Here every historical interpretation came into close contact with the deepest mysteries of Christian deliverance. Therefore, the Apostle offers us “a kind of philosophy of history” 62 not for the sake of mere scientificity and not as a side illustrative reference, but as an integral part of the gospel itself 63. In this regard, it is very significant if his literary connection with pseudo-Solomon 64 is affirmed to such an extent that it is impossible to assimilate the priority of St. Paul 65, who in the concept of God supposedly did not go further than Ezekiel, the psalms and the non-canonical monument being analyzed 66, from which the doctrine of the knowledge of God is borrowed 67. After this, it is not surprising to hear that the apostolic judgments about paganism (for example, in Rom. 1:19, 24) are deductions from the book of Wisdom 68. Naturally, such abstraction will be unsuitable for reality and distorts it. So can opinions arise? supposedly the evangelist attributed to human nature something that was found only in individuals 69 . Even a well-intentioned apology does not completely free us from this accusation, although it eliminates guesses about voluntary and involuntary apostolic exaggerations, for we know the pagan world in the light of Christian renewal only from the best examples of high minds, while the Apostle takes the middle level and, moreover, in contrast to the grace of Christ, which had to revive the pagan masses. However, in parallel to suspicions about polemical hobbies, 70 it is now assumed that for the sake of the immediate goals of St. When Paul himself described paganism, he focused exclusively on dark features and softened the harsh conclusions only later (in the 2nd chapter of Rom.) again according to special types 71. This means that something borrowed can be tendentiously incorrect precisely because of its very lack of originality. What do the texts say on this subject? The Apostle explains (Rom. 1:18) the wrath of God from heaven against the wickedness and untruth of men by the fact that the truth, having ceased to be an object of celebration, began to be expressed in unusual forms and was cruelly trampled upon in its practical application. The main thesis will be that paganism actually violated the religious sanctity of the knowledge of God. Obviously, the latter is accessible to him and was once a common property, if it is given even through consideration of nature leading from the creature to the Creator. In this case, paganism is a later phenomenon and will be a rejection of the true knowledge of God. But it is difficult to admit that the bad is deliberately preferred to the good and the second is rejected because of the first. It is necessary in advance that the beauty of this beauty is not felt in all its true charm, when then the ideal itself inevitably rises. The light fades before us precisely because we extinguish it. Mental clouding is motivated by practical neglect of a theoretical axiom and is accompanied by further intellectual dullness. And indeed, for the Apostle, the genesis of pagan foolishness is based on the practical untruth that people gave neither glory nor thanks to God and through this actually declared Him as unworthy of such distinctions. Here the vanity of the mind was inextricably combined with the meaninglessness of the heart, and all methods for accurately measuring the truth, for which all organs of perception were closed, were lost. In his apostasy from God, man himself assimilates the divinity of absolute wisdom and falls into final madness, because, taking the scale from the sphere of his limitations, he attributes divine greatness to created insignificance. It is inevitable that the latter receives imperative authority, and therefore ethical norms are drawn from the realm of the flesh-cosmic. Naturally, density develops with all its furies 72 . These are the cardinal features of the apostolic understanding. It confirms the historical primacy of true religion in humanity and the emergence of paganism is substantiated on practical grounds with the progressive aggravation of theoretical errors and practical perversions. In this we must distinguish and evaluate two sides - the objective truthfulness of the description and the internal consistency of the interpretation. In the first respect, it is indicated that, without having the goal of giving a purely scientific historical explanation, the Apostle is nevertheless correct in all particulars 73, and his fundamental view is confirmed by all religious-historical parallels, because all polytheistic forms grew out of monotheism 74, which is hidden behind all pagan religions 75. No less than that, the apostolic image is in agreement with biblical beliefs to such an extent that it supposedly runs through the entire Old Testament 76. Of course, there are no direct reports of pagan genesis. With all this, even authors inclined to theories of critical reconstructions of the Pentateuch state only two shades: in it, paganism is considered either a degeneration of the original (pre-Jehovah) knowledge of God, or a falling away from the true knowledge of God 77 . In both cases it will be clearly immutable that polytheism and idolatry are later forms 78 . Consequently, in the factual basis of his commentary, St. Paul does not reveal the subjective bias of external influence and adheres entirely to biblical contemplation. But it is also unshakable for psychological illumination, which is evidenced that it rests on a truly biblical idea of ​​​​the practical origin of religious pagan perversion in the area of ​​​​the heart and will, after which the intellect is affected and a progressive general infection occurs 79. Careful investigation also convinces us of the theoretical strength of the apostolic exegesis. If St. Paul is recognized as one of the greatest psychologists of antiquity, 80 then in the analyzed passage he presents a deep psychological analysis 81 that penetrates into the very essence of the disastrous process and therefore expresses it completely. Therefore, it is indisputable that - with all the lapidary conciseness - the evangelist describes the entire phenomenon in deeply truthful psychological terms 82. But this will, of course, also be objective accuracy 83 , from which it follows that the evangelist correctly characterizes paganism 84 as a falling away from God 85 , which is depicted with historical truthfulness 86 . The question concerns a serious illness, and St. Paul enjoys the fame of “the great pathologist of Judaism” 87 and could not help but discover these properties when applied to other historical quantities. And we have seen that the apostolic diagnosis is completely impeccable. Naturally, all painful predicates and results are noted no less flawlessly. Pagan alienation from God tends to the point that man gradually withdraws into the sphere of the cosmos and submits to its principles. Then the dominant one necessarily turns out to be cosmic fleshiness, which inevitably exhausts itself and in its very triumph bears its destruction of irremovable self-punishment 88 . All this is unmistakable, both in principle and in fact. However, for the Apostle these moments were dear only in connection with healing and did not have their own independent interest. It is clear that he speaks not so much about sin for the sake of clearly depicting it, but about the sinner himself, in whom the living concrete features of suffering are important for the success of healing 89 . Hence the plasticity of the image when copying reality in detail is natural. In this way, fundamental understanding does not turn into theoretical abstraction and is protected by factual inviolability, and realistic clarity loses its phenomenal randomness and acquires the impressiveness of a dogmatic warning. Through this, the actual characteristic is equated with the diagnosis according to the degree of fundamental certainty for the fact in question. As a result, it turns out that paganism, being a fall from God, fatally entails all sorts of carnal furies that kill the rational human person. For the pagans there was neither salvation nor excuse, since their religious existence, both in origin and in quality, was an eternal condemnation, and the actual exposure of pagan depravity was associated with the decisiveness of rejection of God. On all sides, defeat was irrevocable in this “giant apostolic struggle against pagan immorality” 90 . And if “polytheism never recovered from the wound that was inflicted on it by the hands of Paul,” 91 then this practical victory was achieved naturally by the fact that the phenomenon was correctly understood and aptly refuted theoretically. History was the best and unhypocritical guarantor of the apostolic analysis, and for him we now have that he captured the interpretation with both psychological and objective-historical accuracy, and in fact, he is based on the indisputable data of direct observation. Here external benefits are not required and are hardly acceptable. In turn, the Book of Wisdom was also based on its own experience and simply classifies factual material, without adjusting it to artificial subjective interpretations. So before us there will be two pictures, similar in content, but independent in origin. To accept the opposite, we must assume that in his composition the later artist imitated his predecessor. From now on, the task comes down to determining the literary reciprocity of two written monuments. On this score, even uninvolved scientists categorically state that here is the most striking example of the closest parallel between both authors, both in the course of argumentation and in the properties of details and in typical expressions 92 . But such literary slavery is always inseparable from objective distortion, because then a person looks at the subject through someone else’s eyes and sees it outside the real perspective, where only he retains his individual integrity. From this point of view, it is quite logical if, based on literary proximity, they conclude that at the point under study the influence was material 93 and was not limited to mere formality 94 . How is it revealed? First of all, the duality of differentiation and corresponding assessment is put forward. Pseudo-Solomon distinguishes the veneration of the heavenly bodies (13:1–5) from crude idolatry with the worship of despised animals (13:10 f. and cf. 12:24) and treats the first more softly (13:6: ἐπὶ τούτις ἐστὶν μέμψις ὀλίγη) than about the second (cf. 12:24). However, he also hesitates about refined paganism, because, condescending to religious ignorance (13:1:μάταιοι... θεού ἀγνωσία 14:22 ἄγνοια), he proclaims inexcusability (13:8) due to attention to the accepted opportunity knowledge of God (13:3 ff. and cf. 1:1,2), when people - instead of the normal comprehension and glorification of the Creator, proclaimed by all nature - obscured everything with their ἀὀιχίχ and χαχία (11:15, 1:1-5, 2:21). This original concept is also reproduced by the Hellenic evangelist, who also distinguishes the star cult (Gal. 4: 8–9) and seems to excuse it by ignorance (cf. 1 Cor. 12: 2), meanwhile (in Rom. 1: 18 ff.) he attacks idolatry in general and zoolatry in particular (1: 23, 25) with grave accusations and calls all ministers “irresponsible” (1:20). Assuming the accessibility of the knowledge of God (1:19–21) is similar to the Wisdom of Solomon - according to it, the Apostle assimilates the religious darkness of human guilt (1:18, 21 ff.) and directly mentions ἄδικία (1:18). It is not surprising that he uses identical terminology in his speech about theological epistemology in relation to the method (Wis. Sol. 13: 5: ἀναλόγως θεωρῆται. Rom. 1:20: νοούμενα καθορᾶται) and character (Rom. 1:28: ἐπίγνοσις. Most Sol. 13:1; 12:27: ἐπιγιγνώσκειν. Rom. 1:20 and Most Sol. 13:4 νοέν), as well as for qualifying deviation according to its essence (Rom. 1:21: ἐσχοτίσθη ἡ καρδία. Pres. Sol., 2:21: ἀπετύφλωσε αὐτοὺς ἡ κακία αὐτῷν) and the result (ἀσύνετος in Rom. 1:21 and Most Sol. 1:21). No less striking is the coincidence in the depiction of the consequences of religious error. According to pseudo-Solomon, in its immoral perversions it condemns itself according to the law of punishing like with like (11:15,16; 12:27). Eliminating the extremes of this application (11:15), and St. Paul equally emphasizes this proportionality of inevitable retribution (Rom. 1:28) when paying with all sorts of unnatural things for the unnaturalness of the fall from God (Rom. 1:26–27). To a similar extent, such consonance extends to stating the connection of paganism with moral depravity 95. The Jewish anonymous man sees in the first the source of all evil (Wis. Sol. 14:12, 27) and reinforces his conviction with a long list of sins (14:23–27), just as the Apostle adds a similar catalog (Rom. 1:24–32, esp. 29–31) 96. It is significant that here sinful examples are given and sorted out without a specific system, and yet both types come into contact with each other due to the emphasis on carnal anomalies. Rom.1:24) with a relief shading of various unnaturalness (Rom.1:26–27 and γενέσεος ἐναλλαγή Pres. Sol.14:26) and in indicating the consent of people 97 to these excesses (Rom.1:32; Pres. Sol.14:22) 98 . All these parallels, of course, cannot be denied, but in themselves they do not at all speak of material identity, requiring mutual dependence. It is true that pseudo-Solomon found in paganism the veneration of world elements and judged it not so strictly (13:2-3; 6-7), but for the Apostle this idea is far from indisputable. The question again focuses on τὰ στοίχεα τοῦ κόσμου (Gal.14:3,9), by which the pagans were once enslaved and to which they return again when they assimilate Jewish legalistic rituals 99 . They are thought to be natural forces of nature that acquired religious importance in pre-Christian humanity. We do not object to this understanding 100, just as the existence of naturalistic cults in paganism is undoubtedly for everyone. However, in this case, all consent is limited to joint testimony of an objective fact. On the contrary, disparity rather prevails in its assessment. The Jewish author expressively softens the severity of the censure, the evangelist is silent about such moments 101 and categorically stigmatizes slavery. True, this era is declared by him to be a period of youth - only there is no shadow of an apology in this, for minority is drawn in contrast with the ideal legal capacity of the subject, whose position becomes more bleak and difficult because of this, because enslavement is associated here with the consciousness of his illegality. This is where the mystery of this state comes from, requiring satisfactory motivation. Her St. Paul offers a reference to the prevailing ignorance of God, revealing to us why humanity did not take advantage of its prerogatives. Consequently, the point under consideration does not contain justifying energy. This provokes a very long speech about the reasons for the subordination of cosmic spontaneity. About the latter it is said that the pagans served “not according to nature gods” (Gal. 4:8). The latter are equated with demons 102, and this view is adopted by the Apostle not without reference to the non-canonical book, which supposedly does not share the contemptuous opinion of modern co-religionists about such a theory 103. So through St. Paul, the Hellenic-pagan judgment regarding the demonicity of the pagan gods entered and became established in Christianity 104. To this it is necessary to note that the Alexandrian origin and dignity of this doctrine is asserted with sufficient categoricalness 105, but not everyone is convinced of this, and others recognize the analyzed concept as Old Testament (cf. Jer. 3: 1) 106, which is why, with no less plausibility, the Wisdom of Solomon defends the diametrical interpretation of the apostolic view in the direction of theological emptiness paganism with the deprivation of real divinity 107. It is clear that any conclusions would be fragile. Then we are well aware that the idea of ​​the demonic nature of pagan deities is attributed to St. Paul is not with unconditional success and is rejected for reasonable reasons 108. Other authors 109 are also inclined to this conclusion. If they sometimes have a guess about demonic influence as one of the reasons for the emergence of Hebrew idolatry 110, behind which biblical writers and the Hellenic evangelist allegedly saw demons 111, then here is only an inaccurate and erroneous expression of another idea, supposedly demons seduce people through idols 112, although the pagan gods were unreal beings for the Jews 113. For the Apostle, they always remained ephemeral insignificances 114 and did not merge with the demons 115, who used idolatry cults for seduction 116, drew them into their networks 117 and strengthened their disastrous influence 118. With all this, this was already the case with the actual predominance of idolatry, which was used for insidious demonic purposes, and therefore the evangelist nowhere and in no way allowed the Jewish theory about the magical origin of idolatry through the influence of evil spirits 119. Obviously, at this point, paganism does not have the justification that it yielded to an irresistible demonic pressure. Then a suspicion involuntarily arises: is paganism itself guilty of its religious ignorance, historically irresistible and everywhere? This naturally leads us to the genesis of the pagan apostasy and back to the Epistle of Rome. In it St. Paul starts from the idea that the knowledge of God is accessible to the human mind and bases all his exhortations and accusations on this. Nevertheless, one cannot think that the self-sufficiency of natural knowledge of God is being defended and proclaimed. The truth contained in untruth is assumed to be given earlier than the latter, since it is darkened and suppressed by it. Due to the power of this, reverent contemplation of the greatness of the beauty of the Universe only contributes to the discovery of the hidden shimmer, for what God appears to people externally is clear in them internally due to the inseparability of what is intelligible in the Divinity (Rom. 1:19). From this side, natural knowledge of God is understood only as a reminder of what is trampled and forgotten. Irresponsibility remains relative and does not affect the root cause, which remains the unauthorized deviation from the original true light. In pseudo-Solomon, the most typical shades of the apostolic image are smoothed out. In his characterization, he fluctuates rather strangely in judgment and anything that is slightly derogatory is immediately called inexcusable (13:6, 8). According to this, his epistemological view is characteristically different from the apostolic one. The Jewish preacher is convinced that the pagans should and could comprehend God in his most important properties (13:3, 4, 9). But along with this, it is preached that they had no knowledge of God, and from visible perfections they could not comprehend the Existing One and the Author (13:1). Such a contradiction indicates that theoretical potentiality is really unfulfillable and, of course, because empirically people are vain by nature θεοῦ ἀγνωσία). In turn, this indicates the discrepancy between empirical tactility and spiritual impulses, which are delayed by opposing drives. Therefore, the brake will be anti-pneumatic density. And if it is impossible to directly formulate that supposedly pseudo-Solomon considers paganism contemporary with the very appearance of humanity, since real helplessness was not primordial for him, then it will still be unshakable that he saw all the trouble in carnal possession 120, and this point of view is completely different from the apostolic 121. It is also necessary to add that the common principles expressed by both writers were usually in the Old Testament (Deut. 4: 15-18; Ps. 8: 2, 4, 19: 2 ff.; 81: 8, 7 19-21; Isa. 40: 46; Jer. 10: 14-15), - and we have similarities only in a few terms. (δύναμις, etc.) 122, and on such a shaky foundation the broadest rapprochements of even greater strength are permissible, for example, at least with Philo 123. But the most important thing is that pseudo-Solomon actually denies the success of natural knowledge of God, while St. Pavel categorically allows it, but in a conditionally auxiliary role. Therefore, for the Jewish author, paganism was predominantly and almost exclusively the fruit of religious ignorance and turned out to be sinful not so much in its origin as in its real functioning, where again its pitiful ridiculousness with the formidable harmfulness of its influence is more striking. The writer does not ask the question about the last source of religious degeneration and does not offer us the actual genesis at all, limiting himself to a light grouping in the classification of historical forms of naturalism (13:1 ff.) and idolatry (13:10 ff.), of which the second comes down to the cult of the dead, flattering groveling before the authorities and in the selfish speculation of artist-manufacturers (14:15 ff.). He absolutely does not cover the most cardinal point about why pagan perversion began and what it is based on for its emergence. Contrary to this, the Apostle clearly emphasizes this point and reveals everything in the opposite tone of a gradual conscious trampling of the truth. This is almost a radical adversatism of fundamental beliefs. Their difference significantly exceeds verbal analogies, where the view of a non-canonical book, devoid of the depth of psychological analysis, turns out to be superficial and disproportionately far from the apostolate 124. 125 And other authors state that the Apostle Paul associates predestination with election. (G. Hoenicke, Art. "Prädestination I Schriftlehre" in Realencyklopädie XV, Lpzg 1904, S. 582), and the latter is consistent with universal salvation. (Rev. W. L. Walker, The identity of New Tertament Election with the Universal Offer of Salvation in "The Expository Times", XVI, I [October 1904], p. 21-23), since freedom is not eliminated by this predestination (G. Hoenicke I, cit. XV, S. 583-584), in which the “vessels of wrath” are condemned to destruction for their guilt (S. 585); world (S. 585). Prof. Oscar Hollzman Neutestamentliche Zeitgesschichte (Freiburg in B. und Leipzig 1895), s.34. See and Prof. J.G. Eichhorn, Eileitung in die apocryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments, S. 202. Edm Phleiderer: Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 312 1 . Heraklitschem Spuren auf theologischem, insbespondere altchristlishem Boden inner – und ausserhalb der kanonischen Literatur “Jahrbücher fürantishe Theologie” XIII (1887), 2, S. 182–207. Prof. J.A. Schmid, Dus Buch der Weisheit, S.20. Fr. Bleck in "Studien und Kritiken", 1853, II, S.340–341. G. Salmon Apocrypha ed. by Henry Wace I, p. XLII a, and equal to † Ven. Fr. W. Farrar: ibid. I, p. 408 and The Life and Work of St. Paul, popular ed., p.704 and translated by prof. A. P. Lopukhin in illustration. ed., pp. 827, prof. Frederice Henry Chase, The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1902). p. 221 1. , Heinrich Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israil IV 2, S.554. Edm Phlciderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S.308 1 ; “Ohne allen Zweifel wird dieseble [die Stelle Soph. 14, 22–31] wieder Römerbr. 1, 24–32 stark und hand greiflich benutzt, während die frühere hal banschuldigende Auseinnandersetzung der Soph. 13, 1–9 mit den griechischen Philosophen ebendaselbst bei Paulus Vers. 18–22 im gleichen Sinne ihre Nuchbildung findet. Insbesondere geht also das berühmte “φάσχοντες είναι έμωράνθησαν.” Römer 1, 22 im Nachklang von Soph. 13, 9 jedenfalls sachlich betrachtet in erster Linie anf die griechische und speziell vorsokratische Weltweisheit, ähnlinch vie Philos. IV; V. 1" O. Phleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 28 2. Herm. Lüdemann Die Anthropologie des Apostles Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb seiner Heilslehre S. 119. W. Rousset in “Theologische Rundschan” V (1902). 5, S. 185. Herm. Lüdemann I, cit., S 119 1, Ed Zeller, Die Philosophie der Greichen III, 2 3 S. 274 3 A. Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte II, S. 408 Edm Phlciderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 308 1 (see above on page 150). Edm Phlciderer, ibid, S. 302. 303. 304. 307–308. Edm Phlciderer, ibid, S.355. William Mackintosh The Natural History of the Christian Religion, p. 420: “The description of human depravity, in connection with the worship of idols, which is given in the first chapter of Romans, resembles so curiously, and in some points almost so verbally, the description of it in the 14th chapter of the Hellenistic (apocryphal) Book of Wisdom, that it helps to bear out… as to the Apostle’s acquaintace with Hellenistic Literature. But there is an exaggeration and one-sidedness in these descriptions, which we do not meet with in the teaching of Jesus." Prof. M.I. Karinsky. Egyptian Jews in Christian Reading, 1870. II, (No. 7), pp. 158. Wed. in Ernest Renan, Les Apôtres (Paris 1 1866), p.306. 317 and in a (bad) Russian translation edited by † V.V. Chuiko: E. Renan: Historical and Religious Studies, 3rd ed. (SPb., 1894), pp. 20, 26–27; Vorträge von Ernest Renan. frei bearbeitet von Dr. Gottfried Hessel (Lpzg, 1880), S. 15. Ernest Renan, Les Apôtres, p. 325–326 and in V. IN . Chuiko on page 31. Wed. s†S. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des A.T., S.153. Pfarrer Joh. Christ. Ludicig Georgii, Ueber die neuesten Gegensätze in Auffassung der Alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie, insbesondero des Jüdischen Alexandrinismus in “Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie” herausg. von Chr. Fr. Illgen IX (N.F. III) Bd (Lpzg 1839), 4, S. 76–77 Fred C. Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life (Oxford, 1895). p. 197. † Bruno Bauer, Philo, Strauss und Renan und das Urchristenthum (Berlin 1874), S. 89. On the ancient Egyptian veneration of the (genius) pharaohs, see Dr. A. Wiedemann: Die Religion der alten Aegypter (Münster i. W. 1890), S. 92–93; Art. "Religion of Egypt" in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings: Extra Volume, Edinburgh 1904, p. 187–188, O. Pfleiderer Dus Christushild des urchristlichen Glauheus in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, S. 19–20; Eduard Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums I (Stuttgart 1884), S. 64. 56. 84; Ep. Plato (Rozhdestvensky), The Ancient East in the light of Divine Revelation (Kyiv 1898), pp. 441, and for the Ptolemies see James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 182 and not .3. Fred C. Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life, p. 198. See also: Fred C. Conybeare ibid., p.198 On this see Fred C. Conybeare ibid., p. 345 1 See James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 207. Prof. M.I. Karinsky in “Christ. Readings", 1870. II, (No. 7), pp. 153. Ernest Havet Le Christianisme et ges origines IV, p.399. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 193: “scheint die Anerkennung der allgemeinen Menschenwürde in den sittlich gefallenen… stoischem Einfluss zuzuschreiben.” See above on page 719 ff. 743, 746. 749–750 Wed. Rud Cornely, Introductio specialis in libros sacros V. T., p.351. Ed. Riuss, Das Alte Testament übersetzt VI, S. 236. Rev Prof. D.S. Margoliouth, Lines of Defense of the Biblical Revelation, p.49 2 sq. and in The Expositor 1900, II, p.152 sq. Wed. and above on pp. 442 42. Prof. Paul Wernle Paul als Heidenmissionar (Freiburg i. B. Leipzig und Tübingen 1899), S.10. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus of Messiah I 2, p.82 2 and based on the translation of Father M. P. Fiveysky I, pp. 103, 3. For the cult of the Caesars, see Ven. Fred. W. Farrar, The Life and Work of St. Paul, popular ed., p.717–718 and translated by prof. A . P. Lopukhin in illustration. ed., pp. 843–845. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Wolks im Zeitalter Jesu Christi I 1, S.415ff. 421ff. II 2, S.14;530. 551f. 786=I 3 , S 494ff. 503; II 3, S.26; III 3, S. 74. 105f. 416. Rev. Septimus Buss. Roman Law and History in the New Testament (London, 1901), p. 304 sq. Wed. still with prof. P.S. Berdnikova. State position of religion in the Roman Empire I (Kazan 1881), pp. 40 pp., by prof. A l. P. Lebedeva, The era of persecution of Christians in the “collected works” 2 II (Moscow 1897), pp. 12 ff., and in my “critical notes”: On the issue of the Epistle to the Galatians in “The Wanderer” 1903, XII, pp. 951–2 and approx. 14th. Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Collapse of the Roman Empire, translated by 1 V.N. Nevedomsky I (Moscow 1883), pp. 37; Wed and Lymann Abbott The Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle (London 1898), p. 54 1 Seneca already spoke out in a similar way, judging by the sanctification of his thoughts by Bl. Augustine: see Seekers of God by F.B. Farrar in a (bad) retelling (from English) by F.V. Komarsky (St. Petersburg, 1898), pp. 73–74. Rev. J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 27 3. See Jacob Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe, s. 64. Dr. N. Klugmann, Vergleichende Studien zur Stellung der Frau im Altertum I; Die Frau im Talmud (Wien 1898), S.80. See Oscar Hollzman Neutestamentliche Zeitgesschichte, S. 25, 26, 27, 52. See Jacob Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe, S. 67, 68. For these letters see also Prof. A. Harnack Geschichte der altchristlichen Litterattur bis Eusebius I, 2 (Lpzg 1893), S. 864: 86, f equals Prof. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalner, S. 30. U † prof. A.N. Popov in “Readings of the Society of Russian History and Antiquities” 1880, III, pp. 95, 116 and by prof. M.N. Sokolova ibid. 1899, IV, pp. 9, 105. 35, 262. †Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum: Vorhale zur Geschichte des Christenthums (Regensburg 1857), S. 682ff. Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, ibid., S. 685. See also Privatdoc. H.J. Bestmann, Geschichte der christlichen Sittle 1 (Nördlingen 1880), pp. 185–186. Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum S. 689. Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, ibid., S.693. Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, ibid., S. 716ff. Wed. and Rev. Septimus Buss. Roman Law and History in the New Testament, p. 282–283 Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum S.717. Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum S.718ff. Even Seneca was accused of this (see Evgen Westerburg, Der Ursprnug der Sage, dass Seneka Christ gewesen sei [Berlin 1881], S.36, and [Prof. A.P.] L [ebedeva]. About the correspondence of the Apostle Paul with the philosopher Seneca in the “Orthodox Review” 1883, No. 1, p. 135), although, perhaps, there is more slander than truth (cf. Constant March, Philosophers and moral poets during the Roman Empire, translated by Mrs. M. Korsak, Moscow, 1880, p. 93; Johannes Kreyber, L. Annaeus Seneca und seine Beziehungen zum Urchristentum, Berlin 1887, S. 19), but in general The Stoics at this point gave too much scope to the operation of the principle of naturalia non sunt turpia (see † Prof. Chr. Ernst Luthardt, Die antike Ethik in ihrer geschiehtlinchen Entwicklung als Einleitung in die Geschichte der christlichen Moral, Lpzg 1887, S. 114), and the attempt (A. Farel 'i Sénèque d' après Tacite in “Revne chrétrenne” 1-er Novembre 1904, p. 379–394) to completely rehabilitate Seneca is rather biased. Joh Jos. Ign. . Döllinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, S. 723ff Cf. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus of Messiah I 2, p.252 and not. 2 and o. M. P. Fiveysky I, pp. 319 and approx. 2. Rev. Prof. Charles Bigg, A Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Edinburgh 1901), p. 137: “in spite of the fine language of the philosophers, the really popular religions in Greece and Rome were forms of divil-whorship, intimately blended with magic in all its grades” Cf. and Prof. W. Bousse t (about the book H. Weinel' I Die Wirkungen des Geistes usw.) in “Göttingische genehrte Anziegen” 1901, X (Oktober), S. 764: “der Glanbe der damaligen heidinschen Welt im Heilungs – und Wunderglauben aufging.” † Prof. C. L. W. Grimm in Handbuch zu den Apocryfen des A. T. VI, S.35. A. Immer Neutestamentliche Theologie, S. 2 285, 1. For Seneca, see † J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (London 10 1890), p. 289: Edward Hicks, Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New Testament (London 1896), p. 114–115. † Prof. A.B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 109–110 and in The Expositor 1893, VI, p. 418–419. For analogies, see Prof. W. Bousset'a Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalner, S. 401–402. Wed. also in George Finlay, Greece under Roman rule from the time of the Roman conquest until the fall of their empire in the east. (146 BC – 717 AD) translated by Sofia Nikitenko (Moscow 1887), pp. 12–13. It is also worthy of special attention that the apostolic image in Rom. Chapter 1 confirmed, for example, by the history of Madagascar: see The Expository Times, XV, 9 (Juine 1904), p. 306. A.B. Bruce loc. cit., p.133 and in The Expositor 1893, VII, p. 28. See also Prof. P.A.Yungerova, General historical-critical introduction to the sacred books of the Old Testament. (Kazan 1902), pp. 140 and in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1900, pp. 236. See Dr. Christian Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe (Lpzg 1888), S.3. Christ. Rogge, ibid., S.2. Prof. W.M. Ramsay also notes (The Cities of Paulin Churches in The Expositor 1901, XII, p.402) "Paul's experience of Greek life" - mainly in Tarsus, but the author goes to extremes when he asserts (p. 409) that - born and brought up among such a life - the Apostle first had the mission of preventing the Jews from sinking into paganism, raising the latter to the level of Judaism. Prof. C.F. Nüsgen, Geschichte der neutestamentlichen Offenbarung II: Geschichte der apostolischen Verkündigung (München 1893), S. 156. Prof Bernhard Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Berlin 2 1889), S. 152. Christian Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe, S. 6 2 Christ. Rogge, ibid., S.82. Henry St. John. Thackeray, The relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 226 1 Rudolf Stier, Die Apokryphen, S. 21. C.G. Montefiore, First Impressions of Paul in The Jewish Quarterly Review VI, 23 (April, 1894), p. 431. C.G. Montefiore, ibid, VI, 23 (April, 1894), p. 433. Joh. Christ. Carl Döpke, Hermenentik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller I, S. 207. Charles Serfass, Essai sur I'influence du paulinis me dans les réveils religieux (Cahors 1900), p. 61. See above on page. 6, 29. Equally Prof. Ernst von Dobsch ü tz reproaches that in his polemics the Apostle Paul paid the Jewish agitators in equal coin. (Die urchristlichen Gemeiden: sittengesschichtliche Bilder, Lpzg, 102, S. 118) and here he did not free himself from Pharisaic fanaticism (S. 116), but cf. in our book: The Gospel of Christian Freedom in the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Galatians (St. Petersburg, 1902), pp. 143, 1 and in “The Wanderer” 1902, No. 8, pp. 164, 1. Unfortunately, even P . Feine expresses that the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b“confining everyone under sin,” so offensive to the Jewish consciousness, is also understandable for us when considering the personal and historical circumstances of the time, and it serves as a unique form of expression for the doctrine of grace, which seems to be guilty of such exaggerations. (Jesus Christus und Paulus, S. 164). For all this see Rev. Thomas B. Strong, Art. "Ethies" in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings: I, (Edinburgh 1898), p. 785, not 1. Christian Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe, S. 33ff. D. Paul Wurm Religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen zum Alten Testament in "Beiträge zur Fünderung christlicher Theologie" III, 3 (Gütersloh 1899), S. 13ff. Christian Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe, S.34. Paul Wurm Religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen zum Alten Testament in "Beiträge zur Fünderung christlicher Theologie" III, (1899), 3, S.10. † Prof. Edward Richm, Alttestamentliche Theologie (Halle, 1889), S. 175. M.S. Palmov, Idolatry among the ancient Jews (St. Petersburg, 1897), pp. 4. Paul Wurm in "Beiträge zur Fünderung christlicher Theologie" III, (1899), 3, S.11. P. Wernle Paul als Heidenmissionar, S. 11 † F. Godet, Introduction au N.T.– particuliére I: Les épitres de Saint Paul (Neuchâtel 1893), p. 144. Prof. Alexey I. Vvedensky, Religious consciousness of paganism 1 (Moscow 19020, p. 229 and in the brochure: The meaning of paganism (ibid. 1900), p. 20 from the magazine “Faith and Church" II (1900), 1, p. 44. Paul Wurm in "Beiträge zur Fünderung christlicher Theologie" III (1899), 3, S 10. Cf. and A. Dufieux, Le sentiment religieux dans l'antiquité: le christianesme avant le Christ (Paris 1904), p. 384: “le paganisme, ce grand crime de l'antiquité, nest quʹ un oubli, l'oubli de la condition première de l'humanité” Christian Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe, S.2. Christ. Rogge, ibid., S.31. See also W.M. Ramsay, Shall we hear Evidence or not? in The Expositor 1902, IX, p. 179. So Prof. J. Welhausen, Geschichte Israels I (Berlin 1878), S. 442. (after the 5th edition entitled Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, S. 430. See also on page. 160 and approx. Rev. Robert J. Drummond, The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching to the Teaching of Christ (Edinburgh 1 1900), p. 131. Wed. in H. Hensley Henson, Apostolic Christianity, p.15! Rev. J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p.26 2. W. Sanday and A.C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. (51–)52 and cf. 267 2. Ed. Grafe in Theologische Abhadlungen C. v. Weizsäcker gevidmet, S. 286. Cf. and Arthur Titius, Die neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit II, S. 29, 2 Henry St. John. Thackeray, The relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, p.231 1 . Wed. and Edm. Pfeiderer: Die philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 314.Heraklitische Spuren auf theologischem. Insbesondere artchristlichen Boden inner – und ausserhalbder kanonischen Literatur in “Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie” XIII (1887), 2, S. 207. Wed and Rudolf Stier, Die Apokryphen, S.21. See also Edm Phleiderer: Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus S. 317, and in "Jahrbücher für protestantishe Theologie" XIII (1887), 2, S. 207-209, indicating the original source on Heraclitus. For this entire section see Ed. Grafe in Theologische Abhadlungen C. v. Weizsäcker gevidmet, S. 270–274, and hence Henry St. John. Thackeray, The relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 1 224–226. See also O. Phleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 79 2 u. Anm.1. See book I, pp. 694 seq., where interpretations are eliminated (for example, in Rev. Prof. George G. Findlay, Art. “Paul the Apostle” in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings: III, Edinburgh 1900, p. 721b), denying the content of τά στοίχεα τοῦ χόσμου is a physical moment, quite indisputable (see also Pastor Johann Walter, Der religiöse Gehalt des Galaterbriefes, Göttingen 1904, S. 146ff.); theories about the animation (in 1 Cor., 15:40 ff.) of stars (Prof. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalner, S. 316–317) and in general “elements” (G. Buchanan Gray. Art. “Angel” Encyclopaedia Biblica ed. by Prof. T. K) are also discussed there. , who, being pagan gods of the lowest order (Rev. Prof. Owen S. Whitchouse, Art. “Satan” A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings: IV, p. 410a), for the Apostle (for example, in 1 Cor., 10:20 ff.) allegedly were evil demons operating behind the screens of sharecropping (Prof. John Vassie, Art. "Demons" ibid. I, col. 1070. Pastor George Stoch, Paulus als Typus für die evangelische Mission, Berlin, 1896, S.19f., although in the latter (by the term δεισιδαιμονέστερος Acts. 17:22) (see book 1, pp. 673, 106 . 107) piety (Rev. R. M. Spence in The Expository Times XIII, 11 [August 1902], p. 553b. Rev. Prof. K. J. Knowling in The Critical Review XII, 5 [September 1902], p. 448 - contrary Rev. Prof. Fred H. Chase: cf. “The Expository Times” XIII, 10 [July 1902], p.435), as well as them, as the middle ones between the good and evil principles of creatures. (Privatdoz. Alfred Junker, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus I, Halle a. S. 1904, S. 96–97. 100–103), - as if the Old Testament law is being assimilated (Prof. Joh. Weiss, Die christliche Freiheit nach der Verkündigung des Apostels Paulus, S.14, and here vol.1, p. 707, 191, partly already Prof Dr. Johannes Schulthess, Engelweit, Engelgezets und Engeldienst philologisch und litterarisch erörter und auf die evangelische Gnade und Wahrheit zurückgeführt, Zürich 1833, S. 10.17.28f. 50. 61. 70. 72. 81. 113. 122. 126. 188. 204–205. 218), for whom they were (according to Gal. 4:2) ἐπιτρόποι (see about this in Joh. Walter, Der religiöse Gehalt des Galaterbriefes, S.155ff.) and (in 1 Cor. 2:8) the death of Christ (P. Feine Jesus Christus und Paulus, S. 296). In this regard, the apostle is credited with all sorts of fables on this subject, where in general so much instability is supposed that it is supposedly impossible to determine from the sayings of the Bible whether angels really exist or not (Prof. Dr. Bernard Weiss, Die Religion des Neuen Testaments, Sttutgart und Berlin 1903, p. 118), but others state that the idea of Satan and spirits was already in the early popular Israelite religion (see. Rev. G. Buchanan Gray. "Satan" in Encyclopaedia Biblica ed. It is stated that St. Paul accepted Jewish angelology and demonology (Privatdoz. Wilhelm Heitmüller in “Forschungen zur religion und Litteratur des Alten und Neuen Testaments” herausg. von Priff. W. Bousset und H. Gankel I, 2 [Göttingen 1903]; “Im Namen Jesu”; Eine sprach – u. religiongeschichliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, spiziell zur christlichen Taufe, S. 238. Lie Paul Fiebig, Talmud und Theologie, Tübingen und Leipzig 1903. S. 19) in almost all oddities. Such, for example, is the ugly fable of the carnal fall of the serpent-demon with Eve (F.R. Tennant, The sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, Cambridge 1903, p. 153. Emil. G. Hirsch, Artt. "Eve" and "Fall of Man" in The Jewish Encyclopedia V, p. 275b. 335a) with the assumption (for Gen. 6:1 ff.) carnal mixture of angelic powers with the “daughters of men” (E. G. Hirsch, Art. “Fall of Angels” ibid. V, p. 333a–b). Believing in this and finding the possibility of repetition, the Hellenic evangelist (in 1 Cor. 11:10) allegedly commanded wives to cover themselves for this reason. (Rev. Dr. Wm. Weber, Die paulinische Vorschrift über die Kopfbedeckang der Christem in “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie” XLVI [N.F.H. for 1903], 4. S. 496–497. Prof. Dr. Carl Clemen, Paulus sein Leben und Wirken, Giessen 1904, I, S. 72; II, 79) and thereby introduced for them a completely new custom, completely unknown to antiquity (Wm. Weber loc. cit., S. 493, 495). And the particulars are spoken of, allegedly in 2 Cor. 6:14–15. reflected Jewish views preserved in the “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” (Moriz Friedländer, Geschichte der judischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christenthums, Zurich 1903, S. 176, 4), and the Apostle even considered (in 2 Cor. 11:4) Satan to be black (cf. C. Clemen, Paulus II, S.79 and see D. Alfred Resch, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesn in ihrem gegenseitegen Verhältnis in “Texte und Untersuchingen” XXVII, N.F. XII, Lpzg 1904, S. 160, 1 .). Everything here is tendentious, exaggerated and incorrect, and as for the Old Testament law, the unity of its origin with the promise from a common primary source is clearly assumed (Dr. Anton Halmel, Ueber römisches Recht im Galaterbrief. Essen 1895, S. 6), since a conflict on the question of their relationship could arise only because they are both revered by the Apostle Paul for expressing the same will of God (S. 13, 1). So also, for example, Henry St. John Thackeray, The relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 145 1. See and on pp. 167, 1167 This is also admitted by D.V. Pospelov, Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, p. 316. So Prof W. Bousset (on the book of H. Weinel, Die Werkungen des Geistes usw.) in “Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen” 1901, X, S. 770, that this theory, which prevailed in educated Hellenism, “das Christentum unter dem Vorgang des Paulus übernahm”, and about the Apostle of languages ​​in this sense, see Prof. Bernh Weiss, Die Religion des Neuen Testaments, S. 126. For example, at Aug. Ford. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdischalexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie II, S. 69–70. C Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des A.T., S.8. So † Prof. W. Beyschlag, Hat der Apostel Paulus die Heidengütter für Dämonen gehalten? Halle a. S. 1894. S. 21. Accordingly, it is rejected (in Dr. Wilhelm Sturm Der Apostel Paulus und die evangelische Ueberlieferung II, Berlin. 1900. S.3) and that judgment (R. Kablisch ʹa) that in 1 Cor. 2:8 ἄρχοντες τοῦ αίωνος τούτου are “elementary spirits” (see also Acts 3:17, 13:27). M.V. Palmov. Idolatry among the ancient Jews, pp. 137 ff., but see pp. 170, 1186 M.S.Palmov, ibid., p. 41 ff. – 45–46. M.S. Palmov, ibid., pp. 46–47. M.S.Palmov, ibid., p. 51 I.A. Artobolevsky, The First Journey of St. Paul the Apostle with the Preaching of the Gospel (Sergievo Posad 1900), p. 297. Christian Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe. S. 79. Prof. Alexey I. Vvedensky, Religious consciousness of paganism, p. 224 and in the brochure: The meaning of paganism, p. 16 from the magazine “Faith and Church” II (1900), I, p. 40. Christ. Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe, S.55. . Prof. Alexey I. Vvedensky, Religious consciousness of paganism, p. 227 and in the brochure: The meaning of paganism, p. 18 from the magazine “Faith and Church” II (1900), I, p. 42. Christ. Rogge, Die Auschanungen des Apostels Paulus vou dem religiös-sittlichen Charakter des Heidentums auf Grand der vier Hauptbriefe, S. 40. Christ. Rogge, ibid., pp. 57–58. Christ. Rogge, ibid., S. 62. August Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel I (Hamburg 1832), S. 245, 1 Phil. Friedr. Keerl, Die Apocryphenfrage, S. 84. Phil. Friedr. Keerl, Die Apocryphenfrage, pp. 82–83. Phil. Friedr. Keerl, ibid., pp. 85, pp. 85, 339–344. Phil. Friedr. Keerl, ibid., pp. 43–44.