St. Paul the Apostle in the centers of the classical world

First up. Paul preached the Gospel of salvation in Asia, and his activity took place exclusively among the old, which considered many millennia of historical life, the east. But there was another world - the Western one, which had also already gone through a grandiose stage of historical development and worked a lot in the field of historical education and preparing humanity for the truths of Christianity; however, he was still not at all touched by the preachers of the Gospel. Meanwhile, this world was even more important for Christianity than the eastern world, because it was it that developed the best forms of community life and those cultural principles that were to form the basis of the life of the new emerging world, renewed by Christianity for humanity. Greece gave this world the highest gifts of culture, and under her influence humanity in its highest representatives was united spiritually on the basis of Greek literature, science and art, and Rome sealed this unification with the amazing genius of its jurisprudence. In them, humanity achieved everything that the human mind with its natural powers was capable of. But, despite all the brilliance of cultural and political development, humanity has never felt such a burden in life as during this period of its highest prosperity. It looked like a rich man who, under the luxury of his rich, bejeweled dress, wore a sick heart. The reason for this internal illness was that he did not have the main life-giving principle, precisely such a religion that would be able to revive him. The old national religions, long shaken by philosophical skepticism, have lost their meaning even for the masses, and therefore that spiritual emptiness has set in, which is more painful than death itself, because it is contrary to the moral nature of man. It is not surprising that all peoples felt an extraordinary spiritual burden from which they sought to free themselves, although they did not know where deliverance could come from. And deliverance was already coming to them, and the great apostle was the evangelist about it, whose mission specifically consisted of opening the door of faith to peoples who had hitherto stood outside the direct economy of God. In the book of Acts there is no exact message about how in the mind of the ap. Paul had the idea to go preaching about salvation to the peoples of the great west. As a highly educated person who had the opportunity at the school of his teacher Gamaliel to become acquainted with the literature and history of the Greco-Roman world, he, of course, had enough information about this great world of peoples who, after centuries of wandering, were to enter the kingdom of the Heavenly Father, but still this world was alien to him both in origin and in faith. This was the world of the “goyim” who were in darkness and the shadow of death, and if with the appearance of the Savior Christ in the world the light was supposed to shine on the pagans, then, of course, only after the sons of Abraham. That's why ap. Paul first addressed his preaching specifically to the children of Israel, and for this purpose he made his first great apostolic journey through the cities of Asia, preaching in synagogues. But then he arrived in Troas, which lay on the Asian shore of the Aegean Sea. This seaside city, which stood on the ashes of ancient Troy, was one of the busiest trading points between Asia and Europe. Ships constantly sailed from here to all the ports of the Mediterranean Sea, carrying the products of the old Asian industry, and in turn ships arrived here, bringing the raw products of the young, still living from the fruits of Mother Earth, semi-barbarian peoples of the distant west. And in this lively point of world intercommunication, founded by Alexander the Great, who with his genius appreciated the full significance of this hitherto forgotten place, took place in the soul of the apostle. Paul's decision to travel with the preaching of salvation to another part of the world - Europe. It is not difficult to understand the state of mind of the apostle when, after his journey through the cities of Asia, filled with anxiety and difficulties, he arrived at this final destination of the Eastern world. The countries of the East have already heard the piety about salvation. But could the salvation intended for the whole world be limited to the East? Over there, beyond the blue sea, where the sun goes every day, there still live a huge mass of peoples who were hitherto in darkness and the shadow of death and for whom now the time has come to also join the light of saving faith. After all, Christ himself once said in a conversation about the pious centurion that nations would come to Him from the east and west (Matthew 8:11). The spiritual genius at that moment was occupied with thoughts that were in some sense akin to those that once flashed through the head of the political genius. If Alexander the Great, standing on the ashes of the famous Troy and founding a new city on it, indulged in the dream of how to unite all the peoples of both the eastern and western worlds into one comprehensive monarchy, in which, under the leadership of a single king, peace and prosperity would come to the troubled land, so now the great apostle, standing on the same historical ashes and looking at the ships sailing to the distant west or returning from it, could not help but indulge in lofty thoughts about how to unite all these peoples into one spiritual brotherhood and form from them one all-encompassing kingdom, namely the kingdom of the Lord Christ, our Redeemer, from slavery to sin and death. According to his custom, ap. Paul, of course, did not limit himself to self-reflection, but while examining the city and its sights, he talked with different people and asked experienced people about these countries of the Western world that interested him, and in this way the ground could be prepared in his soul for the vision that he had, which decided his intention to move into this new world, with the great gospel of salvation. About this vision, the author of the book of Acts says the following: “And there was a vision to Paul at night (in Troas): a certain man, a Macedonian, appeared, asking him and saying: come to Macedonia and help us. After this vision, we immediately decided to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel there” (Acts 16:9-10). This passage is extremely remarkable, because it tells in brief words about the greatest world-historical event, and reports it exactly as is typical of the greatest historians, who have the miraculous ability of two or three features to illuminate the deepest process of world-historical development with lightning-fast zigzags. St. Luke, with his characteristic amazing conciseness of style, as in many other places, and here, makes only, so to speak, historical touches, leaving the reader himself to reproduce the entire historical picture from them. In general, the picture is easily reproduced, but its particulars cannot but provide a wide area for speculation and guesswork. An extremely interesting question, for example, is: what kind of Macedonian was he who came to the ap. Paul in a night vision with a request to him to evangelize the Greek world? Like ap. Did Paul know that it was a Macedonian and not someone else? According to the exact meaning of the text, one can think that about this ap. Paul concluded not from the speech of the stranger who appeared to him, but directly recognized him by appearance. Meanwhile, it is known that in appearance or clothing the Macedonians were generally no different from the rest of the Greeks. On the contrary, they tried in every possible way to resemble their fellow Hellenes in everything, and one might think that in general they dressed the same as other Greeks who lived along the shores of the Aegean Sea. Thus, it remains to assume that ap. Paul recognized the Macedonian who appeared to him right by his face; therefore, it was some or outstanding Macedonian, whose facial features ap. Paul could have seen in some image (on coins, statues and similar monuments) or it was a person whom the ap. Paul himself saw somewhere face to face 1. In the first case, the most natural assumption is that in the vision of the ap. None other than the great Macedonian Alexander the Great himself appeared to Paul, the thought of whom could occupy the apostle of nations when he, while staying in the city he founded, reflected on his historical exploits and brilliant plans, and whose images he could see both on coins and on statues that adorned the city. And this assumption involuntarily captivates the reader with its historical grandeur, on a completely understandable psychological basis. But the newest scientist, commentator and researcher of the book of Acts, Ramsay, leans towards the second alternative and thinks that the ap. In Paul's vision, the Macedonian was personally known to him. Who was this? In solving this question, Ramsay comes to the curious conclusion that this person was none other than the author of the book of the Acts of St. Luke. “Everyone admits, and we have reason to think, that he (St. Luke) personally knew this city. Then, Paul, whose life was spent in the eastern countries and who arrived so far to the west only a few days ago, was hardly personally acquainted with the native inhabitants of Macedonia. Therefore, the thought itself suggests that Luke himself was seen in the vision, and when you begin to read this passage with this thought, it takes on a new meaning and greater beauty. As always, Luke does not achieve the effect of the artificiality of the syllable. He conveys only bare facts in their simplest form, and leaves it to the reader himself to grasp the causal connection between them. But we can imagine how ap. Paul arrived in Troas undecided what to do. As a seaport, it formed a link between Asia and Macedonia. Here he met the Macedonian Luke, and, impressed by his personality, falling asleep, he saw in a vision a Macedonian he knew, calling him to preach to his country. Beyond this we cannot penetrate the veil with which Luke has closed himself." 2 And indeed, everything in this narrative is so brief and mysterious that only on the basis of assumptions can one make certain guesses regarding the relationship between the great apostle and his biography. One thing can only be concluded that, thanks to one of those accidents that often bring complete strangers together during a trip, sometimes establishing relationships between them that have a profound impact on their entire subsequent lives. In Troas ap. Paul met with Luke, the latter won his sympathy, appeared to him in a night vision, and this event was accepted by both of them as a heavenly sign calling them to preach in Europe. From that time on, Luke left everything and followed his teacher. We do not have positive data to confirm these circumstances, but this guess is tempting and, perhaps, permissible. Apparently Luke, although obviously familiar with Philippi and considered it his city, did not have permanent residence there. His meeting with Ap. Paul's life, therefore, was not simply the result of a chance trip from Philippi, and he was probably one of the many Greeks who at all times sought their happiness away from their homeland. His acquaintance with medicine is obvious from the words of the ap. Paul: “Luke, the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14), as well as from the very peculiarities of his language 3 and therefore it is quite natural and probable that his meeting with the apostle. Paul could have happened on this very basis, if Luke lived for a long time in Troas and was well known there (as a doctor). In any case, from that time on, the “beloved doctor” became forever attached to his great patient and became his almost inseparable companion in his apostolic travels and labors. From here the very form of the further exposition of the book of Acts receives a special meaning. Hitherto St. Luke spoke about the labors of the apostles as an outside witness in the third person; from that time on, he himself identified with the events being narrated and narrated in the first person: “we”, “us”, etc. This, obviously, is not a simple literary form, but a fact testifying to the personal participation of the narrator in the events he recounts from the life of the great apostle of nations. Having briefly informed about the decision to go preaching to Macedonia, St. Luke then describes the actual route there. “So, starting from Troas, we arrived straight to Samothrace, and the next day to Naples, and from there to Philippi: this is the first city in that part of Macedonia, a colony. We stayed in this city for several days” (Acts 16:11–12). Here, first of all, the interest with which St. Luke notes the seaside ports of Samothrace and Naples, which formed a port for Macedonia. He is distinguished by a truly Greek love for the sea, that feeling that necessarily develops in any people capable of development when they settle near the sea and especially along the shores of this wonderful Aegean Sea, which beckons with its beauty, involuntarily developing sensitivity to the influences of the surrounding nature in general. The Aegean Sea is so tempting with its regular winds and regular calm at sunset, when the water seems to freeze and the surface looks like oil - dense, sparkling and dark, that you just want to walk on it. To a certain extent, the abundance of maritime details could also be explained by the loving interest with which St. Luke dwelled on his travels in the company of St. ap. Paul, but this would not fully explain the facts. One has only to compare the description of St. Luke's journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem (which journey, one might assume, must have been especially vividly preserved in his memory) or from Puteoli to Rome with stories about his sea travels, and one is involuntarily struck by the fact how dry and stingy he is in the details of the overland journey, just as generous in the details in the descriptions of his travels by sea. Here, with amazing love, he notes all sorts of details - the direction of the wind, currents, the appearance of the shore - he describes how the island of Cyprus rose from the sea, like the shore of the island. Krita was very close to the ship, as mountains rose above him, from which a squall unexpectedly flew in. But at the same time, it is clear that although the author loves the sea and accurately notes all the details related to sea navigation, he himself is not a specialist in maritime affairs, not a real sailor. His interest in the sea arose from his natural and national character, and not from his special occupation. Philippi was not a coastal city and was located at some distance from the sea inland, but this important city, nevertheless, was in constant communication with the outside world, and since the sea was the main means of communication, Philippi had its own harbor or port, which was Macedonian Naples. As usual, Ap. Paul did not stop at the port, but went straight to the city of Philippi itself, as the center of local life in the country. The description of the significance and dignity of this city in the book of Acts is extremely remarkable, and its character cannot be explained by the fact that it was precisely required by the special task of the historian. Here again the explanation lies in the character of the author himself, who was personally interested in Philippi and was distinguished by the passion characteristic of every Greek to be proud of his own city. This was partly reflected in the fact that the author attaches perhaps even more importance to Philippi than it actually had, since this city was still only in the process of its growth. Since ancient times, the main city of this part of Macedonia was Amphipolis. Subsequently, Philippi completely surpassed its rival, but at this time, according to the general consciousness, Amphipolis was considered the first city, and the city of Philippi was only still striving for this and was considered the first only in the opinion of its own inhabitants. These cases of rivalry between two or even three cities because of rank and the title of “first” are well known to any researcher involved in the history of Greek cities, and although we have no other evidence in favor of the fact that Philippi had already begun at this time to lay claim to the title of “first” city, yet the testimony of St. Luke in itself is quite sufficient in this regard. The descriptive phrase he uses, like a flash of lightning, illuminates a generally dark area of ​​​​local history and reveals with amazing clarity all the details of the matter for those who have an experienced enough eye to grasp the nature of the history of Greek cities with all the vicissitudes of rivalry between them. It is generally interesting to note the fact that St. Luke, completely obscuring his personality in the very narration of the events in which he participated, could not, however, hide his passion for his city, and here again anyone familiar with the Greek people recognizes a true Greek. This feature lies both the strength and at the same time the weakness of the Greeks, and it was this quality that most of all determined their very history: it gave them the strength to successfully fight against foreigners, and at the same time it prevented them from uniting into one strong, politically united people 4 . After Philip's description of St. Luke proceeds to describe the events themselves that marked their stay in this city 5. “On the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the river, where, as usual, there was a house of prayer, and, sitting down, we talked with the women who had gathered there. And a certain woman from the city of Thyatira, named Lydia, who sold scarlet, and who worshiped God, listened; and the Lord opened her heart to listen to what Paul said. When she and her household were baptized, she asked us, saying: if you have recognized me as faithful to the Lord, then enter my house and live with me. And she convinced us” (Acts 16:13–15). The omission of the member before the word river (ποταμὸν) serves as one of these shades that indicate familiarity, revealed by the hand of a person who knew Philippi well. The Greeks lowered their penis in front of well-known and frequently mentioned places or objects. On the first Saturday, the evangelists went along the river bank to the usual place where the Jews of the city of Philip, as well as the Greeks, who were inclined to Jewish customs, gathered for prayer. Apparently in Philippi there was no synagogue in the proper sense of the word, this indicates that the Jewish community there was very insignificant, and in the rest of the story the Jews are not mentioned. The woman they met there, Lydia of Thyatira, who lived in Philippi, is an interesting person in many respects. Thyatira, like the Lydian region in general, was famous for its dyehouses; we know about the dyers’ guild from inscriptions. Lydia sold at Philippi purple-dyed garments taken from Thyatira, and, without any doubt, she was in good relations with some firm of her native city, of which she was the agent. In ancient times, many types of clothing were woven directly in their full form, and in general there was much less cutting and sewing of fabric than is done now. Lydia, of course, also sold less expensive types of clothing; but as a saleswoman of “purple”, the best type of goods of this kind, she obviously had a first-class trading establishment. She probably had significant capital, without which it would have been impossible to trade such items. Since her husband is not mentioned, and she herself was the owner of the house, she was probably a widow, and in this case can be cited as an example of the freedom with which women usually lived and worked in Asia Minor and Macedonia. Lydia probably became an adherent of Jewish religious rites in her hometown. There was a Jewish colony in Thyatira, which had a significant influence on the city, and under their influence a mixed cult was formed - half-Jewish, half-pagan, which in the Apocalypse (Rev. 2:20) is called “the wife of Jezebel” 6. “It happened that when we were going to the house of prayer, we met a certain maid possessed by a spirit of divination, who through divination brought great income to her masters. Walking after Paul and after us, she shouted, saying: these men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation. She did this for many days. Paul, indignant, turned and said to the spirit: in the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her. And the spirit went out that same hour” (Acts 16:16–18). In ancient times there was a widespread belief that divination or ventriloquism, which the maid apparently practiced, was the result of supernatural influence, and this divination implied the ability to predict the future. The girl herself believed this. But of course, this area is so mysterious that science is not able to penetrate into it and must accept it as a fact, still waiting to be explained. But the fact is that one way or another the girl had the gift of insight and this brought her masters a fair income. But in the face of the aliens, with her painfully sensitive soul, she sensed the presence of a completely new force, much more powerful than the one with which she herself was possessed, because this new force was the power of the Most High God, capable of delivering from all spiritual slavery. And she was delivered from her severe obsession 7. When the Apostle Paul turned to her and ordered the spirit in the name of his Teacher to come out of her, the girl was extremely embarrassed and lost her communicative power. When she subsequently tried to speak, as she had done before, she found herself unable to do so, and after a few days it became obvious that she had completely lost her former ability to predict. Along with this ability, her influence on the superstitious population disappeared: the people stopped coming to her in order to find out their fate, to find guidance in the search for lost objects, etc. Thus, the significant income that she gave in favor of their masters ceased, and these latter, knowing who caused them this loss, sought revenge. This was by no means a rare motive for inciting persecution of the Christian Church in later times, and at this stage, when Christianity was still an unknown religion, it was likely to arouse opposition to itself among the pagans simply because it affected the interests of some individual or class of the population. “Then her masters, seeing that the hope of their income had disappeared, seized Paul and Silas and dragged them to the square to the rulers (ἄρχοντες).” And, bringing them to the governors (praetores), they said: these people, being Jews, are disturbing our city" (Acts 16:19-20) "and preaching customs that we Romans should neither accept nor practice. The people also rebelled against them, and the commanders, tearing off their clothes, ordered them to be beaten with sticks. and, having given them many blows, they threw them into prison, ordering the prison guard to guard them tightly. Having received such an order, he threw them into the inner prison and hammered their feet into stocks” (Acts 16:21-24). It is hardly possible that verses 19 and 20 had the final form that the author would have given them. The expression used by the author to designate the authorities of the city is somewhere between the Greek and Latin form, between the usual Greek term for the high council of commanders in a famous city (ἄρχοντες) and the usual Latin name (στρατηγοί, praetores), as if the author had not quite decided which of these two expressions should be used. The title "praetor" was not technically precise, but was often used as a honorific title for the highest authorities of a Roman colony. And since St. Luke, as usual, revolves in the sphere of the usual colloquial form among educated people in relation to such subjects, and not in the sphere of strict technical accuracy, so he wrote it as it really was. It is impossible, and there is no need, to establish precisely whether the servants' masters were really Roman citizens. They speak here as representatives of the population in general. The actual coloni settled here by Augustus when he founded this colony were probably far outnumbered by the native Greek population (incolae), and it is clear that in the colonies of the eastern provinces the Italian colonists soon merged with the local population, lost their distinctive character and even forgot their language. The exact legal attitude of the native population towards the Roman colonists is unknown. But it is known that the former occupied a kind of intermediate position between ordinary provincials and the Romans or Latins (when the colony was a Latin colony like Antioch). These colonists were one of the instruments with which Rome tried to introduce the Roman spirit and mood into the provinces, to Romanize them, and the accusation brought against the Apostle Paul, and the scene that followed, serve in this living, photographically faithful picture as proof that the inhabitants of the city were proud of their Roman title and in fact called themselves Romans, and their superiors praetors. The Apostle Paul on other occasions pointed out his rights and Roman citizenship, why didn’t he indicate here? It is obvious that the praetors made a lot of noise on this occasion. They looked at this whole affair as a kind of treason or, as they said in Greek, “wickedness” (ἀσεβεία), in the horror of loyalty, they tore their clothes and then, with a noisy, significant look, which Horace mocks in the person of the imaginary praetor of one provincial town (Sat. I, V, 34), declared: “the entire edifice of the empire was shaken to its foundations by this indecent behavior of the accused individuals!” In a word, the praetors of the city of Philippi ardently set to work, and the population, like true Romans, rose up as one man to defend the country against its dangerous enemies. Under such circumstances, could it be hoped that the protest of the Apostle Paul would be heard? Yes, perhaps it was made, but it was not heard, since the whole matter took on an extremely disorderly and incorrect character. At this point, the mention of the first person of the writer stops; the author was not arrested along with the apostle. Paul, and therefore could no longer speak in the first person about what was happening in prison. He did not accompany the Apostle Paul further, but remained in Philippi, as his main apartment, until the apostle returned there, after which he again begins to speak in the first person in chapter XX (Acts 20:6). It is natural to think that he remained in Philippi because of his obvious suitability for the work of preaching in that city, and his success there was so remarkable that he was “commended in all churches for his gospel” (2 Cor. 8:18). “About midnight Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God; the prisoners listened to them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundation of the prison shook; immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s bonds were loosened. The prison guard, waking up and seeing that the doors of the prison were open, drew a sword and wanted to kill himself, thinking that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, Do not do yourself any harm, for we are all here. He demanded fire, ran into the prison and fell in trepidation to Paul and Silas, and, leading them out, said: my lords! what should I do to be saved? They said: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you and your whole house will be saved. And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And, taking them at that hour of the night, he washed their wounds and immediately was baptized himself and all his household. And when he brought them into his house, he offered a meal and rejoiced with all his house because he had believed in God” (Acts 16:25-34). There are several difficulties here that present themselves to anyone upon first reading this passage. First, the opening of doors and the destruction of bonds by an earthquake may seem incredible. But this can seem incredible only to those who understand doors, like the doors in our dungeons and prisoners chained at the hands. Anyone who has ever seen a Turkish prison will not be surprised that the doors opened: the doors there are simply locked with a bolt, and the earthquake, passing under the soil, pushed the doorposts apart from one another, so that the bolt fell out of its brackets, and the doors opened. Prisoners were tied to the wall or shackled in wooden blocks. And the chains of the deck must be separated from the wall when it has shaken so much that cracks have formed between the stones. During the great earthquake of 1880 at Smyrna and in 1881 at Scio, an extremely capricious effect of the earthquake was observed, which sometimes acts like a playful, good-natured ghost, and sometimes completely reveals its horrors. Secondly, why didn’t the prisoners run away when their shackles were removed? This question naturally arises in the minds of those who are familiar only with the northern race, with its concentrated persistence in achieving a goal and with its characteristic presence of mind. Among the semi-eastern peoples in the Aegean countries, an earthquake usually gives rise to panic, and hence it seems quite natural that in this case the prisoners did not rush to escape when such a favorable opportunity presented itself. In addition, they were only partially liberated, and at the same time they had only a short moment for action. The keeper of the prison was also awakened by the earthquake and ran to the outer door; perhaps he was one of the warriors, or at least knew some Roman discipline, which did not allow him to become confused. His cry for torches was answered by the Theogenites, a kind of policemen who helped guard the prisoners, and thus the favorable opportunity for the prisoners soon passed. Thirdly, all this happened at midnight, so the prison guard had to shout about the torches. How could the Apostle Paul, from the inner section of the prison, see that the prison guard intended to kill himself? We must suppose that the inner part of the prison was a small room, which had neither a window nor any other opening except the exit to the outer and larger compartment of the prison, and that the outer prison, therefore, had one large door in the opposite wall, so that if there was any, however faint, starlight in the sky, and still more if the moon was shining, then the person at the outer doors could be clearly visible to one whose eyes were accustomed to the darkness, while the keeper prison could only see the impenetrable darkness in the prison. The prison guard answered with his life for the prisoners entrusted to him, so when he saw the open doors, concluding that they managed to free themselves, open the doors and escape, he preferred death by his own hand to judicial red tape, dishonor and shameful death 9 . In his subsequent actions towards Paul and Silas, the jailer did not act illegally; he was responsible for the safety of his prisoners whenever they were required of him, but it was left to him to guard them as he thought best. “When the day came, the governors sent the city servants to say: let those people go. The prison guard announced this to Paul: the governors have sent an order to release you; So come out now and go in peace. But Paul said: we, Roman citizens, were publicly beaten without trial and thrown into prison, and now we are being secretly released! no, let them come and take us out themselves. The city servants recounted these words to the governors, and they were frightened when they heard that they were Roman citizens. And, having arrived, they apologized to them and, leading them out, asked them to leave the city. They came out of prison and came to Lydia, and when they saw the brothers, they taught them and departed” (Acts 16:35–40). The sudden change in attitude towards them on the part of the praetors is remarkable. Yesterday they placed the prisoners under strict guard; the next morning they send lictors to release them. The author of Beza's codex was aware of this inconsistency, so he inserted the following explanation: “when the day came, the praetors (gathered together in the square and remembering the earthquake that had occurred, became frightened and) sent lictors.” A distinctive feature of St. Luke's service is that he does not give explanations, but simply conveys facts. It is possible that the earthquake aroused in the governors a superstitious fear about the incorrectness and arbitrariness of the order they made yesterday, or perhaps they themselves seriously thought about their action, especially if Paul and Silas actually invoked their rights as Roman citizens. Whatever the reason, there can be no doubt that St. Luke's intention was to present the opposite 1) between the order sent to the prison guard in the evening and the order given to him at night; 2) between the humble apology of the praetors in the morning and their arrogant actions the day before; 3) between the actual fact that the praetors neglected Roman order and law, and their noisy display of their efforts to protect themselves from insults to the majesty of Rome. But how did the same praetors who ordered them to be beaten and imprisoned now themselves ask them to leave the city? In Beza's text, the request of the praetors is stated in more detail and with obvious truth: “remove from this city, so that they do not revolt again, and do not loudly accuse you before us.” The weakness of the municipal government in the cities of the Aegean regions was a constant source of danger to public order, and Beza's text perfectly guesses the state of affairs, and with great art sets off the naive desire of the authorities to avoid an unpleasant matter, inducing the innocent and weaker party to submit to injustice, and retire from the city. In Acts 16:37, the common text expression “without trial” does not fully express the Apostle Paul's thought, because it assumes that the praetors would have the right to condemn Paul to scourging after due trial. But under no circumstances could the praetors give the order to scourge him. In fact, a formal court would only aggravate their offense, making it more conscious. This offense could be partly justified by the fact that it was committed out of ignorance, and the Apostle Paul would, of course, undermine this excuse by saying that they made no attempt to investigate the circumstances of the case. Nevertheless, the Greek expression is quite clear and can only be translated by the expression “without trial” or “without formal charges.” A parallel case occurs in Acts 22:25, where the Apostle Paul asks the centurion: “Are you allowed to scourge a Roman citizen, and even without trial?” The same idea is here, that the matter was further aggravated by the fact that it was committed without proper formal charges. Meanwhile, Paul, as a Roman citizen, undoubtedly knew his rights, and it is quite clear that he could not use exactly the words that are conveyed by the narrator. When we look at the circumstances of the case, we immediately see what the matter is. No civis romanus would claim his rights in Greek - the very thought of it is impossible. The Apostle, of course, declared these rights in Latin, and we can reasonably believe that the officials of the Roman colony must undoubtedly have understood Latin, since the official language even in the much less important colonies of Asia Minor was Latin. The phrase that the Apostle Paul used was, in all likelihood, “re incognita” - “without judgment or examination of our case.” St. Luke, apparently with a purely Greek attitude to the subtleties of Roman custom, translated this Latin expression with a term which, in some circumstances, could serve as a completely sufficient reproduction of it, although not here, and not in Acts 22:25. The entire stay of the Apostle Paul in Philippi, apparently, was short-lived; it is determined by St. Luke in the sense of several days, so in general, obviously, it was not possible to do much in this city, either before the incident with the soothsayer, or after the imprisonment that followed. If the missionaries were in Troas in October 50, then they probably left Philippi before the end of that year. From Acts 16:40 it is probable that there were several other Christians in Philippi besides the members of the house of Lydia. It is remarkable, however, that St. Luke makes no clear reference to any other converts to the faith. No doubt, before the departure of the Apostle Paul, the question was discussed between them where the next center of his activity would be, and attention was turned to Thessalonica, probably due to the fact that there were Jewish settlers, whose synagogue represented a good beginning for the work. In accordance with the instructions that were given to the travelers when they left Philippi, they were to travel along the Roman road through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica 10. “Having passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they went to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. Paul, as was his custom, went in to them and spoke to them from the Scriptures for three Sabbaths, revealing and proving to them that Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and that this Christ is Jesus, whom I preach to you. And some of them believed and joined Paul and Silas, both of the Greeks who worshiped God, a great multitude, and of the noble women not a few” (Acts 17:1-4) 11. The High Council of Powers in Thessalonica is given the curious and rare title of “politarchs” and this is confirmed by the inscriptions. This place presents many difficulties both in the text and in interpretation. Many manuscripts and translations recognize three classes of hearers other than the Jews, while the accepted text unites the worshipers of God and the Hellenes into one class of “God-fearing Hellenes.” In this case, many reasons show the error of the later reading and the falsity of the principle which led Tischendorf, Westcott, Gort and others to place almost unlimited confidence in these manuscripts. From Acts 17:4 verse it is clear that the Apostle Paul moves in his preaching to a wider area than the synagogue, and the passage of time suggests the spread of his activity to the entire population of the city (called here by the strictly correct term, Greeks). Between these two opposing groups: Jews and Hellenes, there is also an intermediate class of “God-honorers” - proselytes, and in conclusion, another group of noble women of the city is indicated. In Macedonia, as in Asia Minor, women occupied a much freer and more influential position than in Athens, and it is quite consistent with undoubted facts that such an advantage belonged to them in these three Macedonian cities. On this journey a more precise distinction than before can be noted between the short period of preaching in the synagogue and the longer period of general activity. The three Sabbaths mentioned in Acts 17:2 may be understood in the sense that they embrace the entire period of activity within the synagogue; this precise designation of time may be understood to indicate that the usual strife with the Jews occurred at Thessalonica earlier than on previous occasions. That considerable time was spent in the wider activity is proved both by its success and by the evidence of the first two chapters of the first letter to the Thessalonians, which cannot justifiably be attributed only to the work in the synagogue or to the short missionary work among the population in general. The Apostle Paul clearly points to a long, very successful activity in Thessalonica. His desire to return there, his dissatisfaction with the unexpected obstacle to this, is explained precisely by his success: he always sought to take advantage of favorable circumstances for business. Then the Apostle Paul mentions that the Philippians sent him aid twice (Phil. 4:16). One can reasonably think that some gap passed between these sendings (especially in view of the fact that the Apostle Paul had to work to support himself. See 1 Thess. 2:9). The probable period of his stay in Thessalonica can be considered the period from December 50 to May 51. “But the disbelieving Jews, having become jealous and taking some worthless people from the market place, gathered in a crowd and disturbed the city and, approaching the house of Jason, tried to bring them out to the people. Not finding them, they dragged Jason and some brothers to the city leaders, shouting that these world-wide troublemakers had come here, and Jason received them, and they were all acting against the command of Caesar, considering another king, Jesus. And they alarmed the people and the city leaders who were listening to this. But these, having received a certificate from Jason and the others, sent them away” (Acts 17:5-9). The description of this rebellion is more detailed than the previous ones. The lower class, the least educated, the most slavishly devoted to paganism from the most vulgar and superstitious side, were the most fanatical opponents of the new teaching, while the political leaders were by no means inclined to take active measures against it, and the more educated people, apparently, made converts of themselves. The preaching of the Apostle Paul made an impression on men of all classes, but only on women from the highest families. This difference is obviously explained by the fact that poorer women were more influenced by pagan superstition. A similar difference is mentioned in the narrative of the sermon in Berea (Acts 17:12), where many noble Greek women and the male population in general were inclined to the new teaching. One might think that this rebellion was more serious than what the words of St. say about it at first glance. Luke. The expression of the Apostle Paul in the first letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:11-16) shows that a strong, dangerous and long-lasting hostile mood was aroused among the various classes of the population, which led to the rebellion. The charge brought against the Apostle Paul was subtle and extremely dangerous. One hint of treason against the emperor was often enough for the death of the accused. This accusation forced the politarchs to take some measures, because if they had not done this, they themselves would have been accused of treason, as caring too little about the honor of the emperor. Under previous emperors, many such accused people were killed. The measure taken by the political leaders was the mildest that could reasonably be taken under the circumstances: they demanded a guarantee from the accused that they would no longer disturb public peace. Such punishment was customary under Roman law, on the basis of which it became common practice in provincial cities like Thessalonica. Ap. Paul, obviously, deeply felt the inconvenience of his sudden premature separation from the church in Thessalonica; it was at the same time so promising and still so inexperienced that he desperately wanted to return to it, as he himself says about it: “But we, brethren, having been separated from you for a short time in face, and not in heart, we tried with the greater desire to see your face. And therefore we, I Paul, wanted to come to you once or twice, but Satan prevented us” (1 Thess. 2:17-18). What does this strange expression mean: “Satan hindered us?” Where did the Apostle Paul, who wished to return to Thessalonica, find an insurmountable obstacle on his way? Was it personal danger that prevented him, or was it some subtler satanic machinations that prevented him from coming to Thessalonica? It would be inconsistent with the language of the Apostle Paul to interpret in this case the word “Satan” in the sense of the mob that exposed him to danger and was still raging against him. In a completely different form of speech, he points to the opposition that he often experienced from the street, uneducated, rude and superstitious urban population (1 Cor. 15:32). Thus, describing the troubles from the Ephesian mob, he says that he fought with a “wild beast.” This term is an interesting mixture of Greek and Roman ideas and is quite consistent with the mixed education of the Apostle Paul as a Roman citizen in the audience of a Greek philosopher. In this audience he could become acquainted with Plato's comparison of the mob with a dangerous wild beast, and from the life of the Roman Empire he became acquainted with the mortal struggle of convicted criminals with wild animals in the circus. But the person who calls the street rabble by this term could only use the term “Satan” here about some more subtle and dangerous enemy, which was much more difficult to overcome. Since the guarantee against disturbing public peace was taken from Jason and his accomplices, the main Christians in Thessalonica, this obviously meant that they were obliged to prevent the very cause of the confusion, that is, the Apostle Paul from arriving again in Thessalonica. This cunning measure put an insurmountable barrier between the Apostle Paul and the Thessalonians (ἐνέκοψεν according to the strong term used here). As long as the city authorities continued to occupy this position, he could not return, he was helpless, and Satan had power. His only hope was to change the policy of the city authorities. They would not remain in power for long, and perhaps their successors would have acted differently. But the political leaders undoubtedly thought that they acted gently in this case and at the same time successfully eliminated the cause without subjecting anyone to any punishment. This interpretation of the term "Satan" as referring to a measure taken by the city authorities against the gospel of God is quite consistent with the figurative use of the word in the New Testament. “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas by night to Berea, where they arrived and went to the synagogue of the Jews. The people here were more thoughtful than those in Thessalonica: they accepted the word with all zeal, daily examining the Scriptures to see if this was exactly so. And many of them believed, and there were quite a few honorable Greek women and men. But when the Thessalonian Jews learned that Paul had preached the word of God in Berea, they came there, stirring up and disturbing the people. Then the brethren immediately sent Paul away, as if he were going to the sea; and Silas and Timothy remained there. Those who accompanied Paul accompanied him to Athens and, having received orders to Silas and Timothy that they should quickly come to him, they set off” (Acts 17:10-15). Here, as in Thessalonica, a wider influence is clearly implied, going beyond the circle of the synagogue, (namely in Acts 17:12), so that we must understand that the Apostle Paul also preached to the Greek population. The greater nobility in the behavior of the Berean Jews was that they were free from that envy which infuriated the Jews in Thessalonica and many other places, when salvation was as freely offered to others as it was to them. The manner in which the Apostle Paul was forced to retire from Berea. obviously, it was quite similar to the method used in Thessalonica, and this is probably the reason why there is no special mention here of either rebellion or accusations of treason against the emperor. According to custom, we notice with what ease St. Luke bypasses the difficulties and dangers that drove the Apostle Paul from place to place. From Acts 17:15 it must be concluded that Silas and Timothy carried out the command given to them and went to join the Apostle Paul, otherwise there would be no need to mention such a command if it had not been carried out. Completely in the style of St. Luke has this peculiarity that, when he mentions the intention, he leaves it to the reader himself to guess that the intention was carried out. In addition, from 1 Thess. 3:1 we learn that Timothy was sent by the Apostle Paul from Athens to Thessalonica, from which it is clear that he was with him. It cannot be denied that the message in Acts 18:5: "when Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia" at first glance means that they arrived from Berea only after the departure of the Apostle Paul from Athens and followed him to Corinth, where they met for the first time since his departure from Berea. But calculation of time shows that this could hardly be so: it would not have taken so much time to complete this journey; we will see that Silas and Timothy joined with the Apostle Paul in Corinth after an embassy from Athens to Thessalonica and Philippi. The question naturally arises: why did the Apostle Paul set out from Berea alone, leaving Silas and Timothy behind him, and at the same time immediately upon arriving in Athens send orders for them to come to him with all possible speed? At first glance, there seems to be some inconsistency here. But both of these difficulties are resolved by a comparison between Acts and the book of Thessalonians. The Apostle Paul wanted to “immediately and again” return to Thessalonica and was waiting for news of whether the obstacle put before him had been removed: Silas and Timothy remained there apparently in order to receive news (perhaps about the mood of the new city authorities) and bring it to the Apostle Paul, but they could not bring him this news until they themselves received orders from Athens. The Apostle Paul left Veria without any definite plan, “having been led by the brethren to the shore,” and the further journey to Athens was decided already at the pier. The stay in Berea, together with the sermon in the synagogue of the city, as well as the rebellion, presumably lasted for several months. The Apostle Paul arrived in Athens approximately in August 51, which is proven by the chronological data of his stay in Corinth. Now we will follow him to this famous center of the Greek-classical world. 12 Although in the visited cities of Macedonia, ap. Paul was already partly in contact with the classical world, but there this world did not yet appear before him in its entirety, and the great apostle of languages ​​had to deal only with mixed Greco-Roman-Jewish elements. But here before him was Athens - the famous center of Hellenic culture, the “eye of Greece”, from where, according to the general idea, the light of mental knowledge spread throughout the entire civilized world, the city of Hellenic wisdom, before which people bowed in reverence and for initiation into the secrets, to which inquisitive young men flocked here from all over the earth. It is not difficult to imagine with what feelings the great apostle approached this famous city. At the school of Gamaliel, he had the opportunity to study this wisdom, like all gifted natures; of course, he was carried away by the best representatives of Greek philosophy and poetry, as far as the universal human genius was expressed in them, and knowing how gifted young people from all over the earth flocked to the very source of this literature, he himself, probably, with the dreaminess characteristic of young people, longed to someday visit Athens, as the center of the entire classical mental movement. Since that time, much water has passed under the bridge, the ardor of youth has cooled, and a great revolution has taken place in the spiritual life of the apostle, thanks to which his mental horizons have expanded to infinity, since an ineffable light opened before his soul, illuminating before him such mysteries of existence that were inaccessible to even the greatest representatives of human wisdom, and however, when he now approached Athens, the memories of his youthful years could not help but resurrect in his soul, and he entered the famous city with a trembling heart. The story of St. Luke's account of his stay in this city is filled with the deepest historical interest and is distinguished by details that characterize with amazing accuracy the contemporary state of Athens. “In Athens, Paul was troubled in spirit at the sight of this city full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with those who worshiped God (proselytes), and daily in the marketplace with those who met” (Acts 17:16-17). In this description, first of all, attention is drawn to the very image of the personality of the ap. Paul, which bears all the signs of the influence of the surrounding Athenian life on him. St. Luke depicts before us a man who was “all things to all people” and who, while in Athens, became a kind of Athenian and adopted the usual Socratic method of general free reasoning on various mental issues in the agora, that is, the market square where all social and intellectual issues were discussed among the Greeks, and the author of the book of Acts shows him to us in such a light and such an atmosphere, which in their clarity, subtlety and grace are completely Attic in nature and tone. The author who wrote this story obviously deeply understood the amazing mobility in the character of the ap. Paul, the incomparable freedom and ease with which he moved in every society and preached to so many diverse peoples within the Roman Empire, and to prove this it is enough to compare, for example, the tone of chapter 13 with the second half of 18: between these narratives there is the same difference as between Phrygia and Athens. Only a writer imbued with the deepest sympathy for his subject could master the tone of the narrative with such perfection as St. Luke. In Ephesus ap. Paul taught “in the school of Tyrannus”; in the city of Socrates, he discussed moral issues in the market square. What an incongruity it would be if these methods were rearranged! But the narrative, following the activities of the apostle from city to city, does not take a single extra or rash step, among the mass of all kinds of details, and this serves as decisive proof that all the events presented in the narrative constitute a picture of real life. As a person familiar with Hellenic wisdom in the person of its greatest representatives - poets and philosophers, ap. Paul, naturally, looked with great interest at the sights of this city, in which these famous sages lived and acted. And the apostle himself clearly testifies to this in his speech to the Athenians, in which he among other things tells how he came and examined their shrines (Acts 17:23), which in the language of the Jew largely means “the sights of the city.” But Athens at this time was no longer the Athens of Socrates, since in reality this city now lived only in the memory of its past greatness. However, the Socratic method was deeply rooted in the soil of Attica, since it was akin to the very nature of the Athenian population. The memory of Socrates could never die in Athens, and his spirit, so to speak, still hovered among the people even during the apostle. Paul, although the wise scholars at that time already felt more strongly the influence of that spirit, the exponent of which was Herod Atticus 13. Therefore, among the people in the market square, ap. Paul reasoned using the Socratic method, but when the wise men themselves appeared on the scene, they demanded that he reason in the sense of this last rhetorician. When ap. Paul walked and looked at the sights of the city, he was interested in its monuments and its famous university, which attracted talented youth from all over the world, but this interest was soon suppressed by the indignation that was aroused in him by the many idols or statues of various gods and heroes standing everywhere. In this center of world education, among the audiences where philosophers had taught for centuries that only superstition tends to confuse an idol with the divine nature, idols appeared to the eye of the observer in even greater numbers than the apostle had ever seen. Pavel. Although he arrived in Athens only for a while, until he received favorable news from Thessalonica, in order to return again for preaching work in Macedonia, his heart was so overcome with indignation that he could not remain silent during the short time that he intended to stay in Athens. He began to reason in the synagogue with Jews and proselytes, and in the market square he entered into Socratic conversations with everyone he met. At the same time, one cannot help but notice that Ap. Paul, here, as in Thessalonica, Berea and other cities, did not abandon the dual nature of his mission and in every city he first preached to the Jews. But if in Berea and Thessalonica the preaching was accompanied by significant results, this was not the case in Athens, where the preaching did not produce the proper fruits. This, however, is explained by the shortness of the apostle’s stay in this city. His entire stay in Athens hardly lasted more than, and probably even less than, four weeks and was interrupted by a major event, which the historian of his actions describes in detail. The reason for this event was his reasoning, delivered before representatives of the university in Athens 14, which St. tells in detail. Luke in the following verses: “Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to argue with him; and some said: “What does this fuss want to say?” (spermologist, ignorant plagiarist), and others: “he seems to be preaching about foreign deities,” because he preached Jesus and the resurrection to them. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and said: Can we know what this new teaching is that you are preaching? For you are putting something strange into our ears. Therefore, we want to know what it is? All the Athenians and the foreigners living among them (who made up the listeners) did not spend their time doing anything better than talking or listening to something new. And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and spoke” (Acts 17:18–22). Everything in this narrative is highly characteristic, because it immediately takes us to ancient Athens, with their lively mental life, with their greed for various news and the struggle of philosophical parties, which had eroded in their actual philosophical content, but continued to proudly speak under the banners of their old teachers and dress up in the philosophical cloak of the former giants of philosophical thought, of which only words and pitiful scraps remained. These philosophers still wore long hair, but according to the proverb, they had short minds, and their wide philosophical cloaks, fluttering in the wind, served only as a visual symbol of the frivolity of their philosophy, in which, in the local expression of Cicero, everything was (κάτω ἄνω) “upside down.” Tired of listening to each other's pompous rhetorical exercises, which passed for the name of philosophical reasoning, they eagerly listened to every new preacher, hoping to hear from him something new or witty and original. They did not fail to listen to the sermon of St. Paul, but how amazed they were when they learned that he was preaching some teaching completely incomprehensible to them. With the inclination characteristic of small minds, they wanted to immediately bring him under the banner of one of their philosophical schools, outside of which they did not imagine the possibility of philosophical thinking, but all their efforts were in vain, because the teaching of this unknown stranger not only did not fit their favorite templates, but even sounded like something completely unheard of and incomprehensible. Then the philosophers were lost in surprise and incoherently expressed their opinions about the new preacher. These are their opinions of St. Luke deliberately compares each other, and in this one cannot help but notice a shade of subtle sarcasm regarding the inability of these self-important teachers of humanity, with all their mental acuity, to agree among themselves even on the content and meaning of the teachings of St. Pavel. The first of these opinions is highly characteristic. It contains a word that is an example of purely Athenian vulgar wit, namely σπερμόλογος, it is obviously directly grabbed from the lips of the Athenians. This word was used in Athens in two senses: firstly, it was the name of a small bird that picked up lost grains along the roads, and secondly, a worthless person of the lower class, with vulgar manners, with a connotation of the idea that he lived at the expense of others, like those loafers who idly wander around the markets and embankments to pick up everything that might accidentally fall from the carts with treasures passing there. Hence this word, as a term of current wit, meant unconditional vulgarity and inability to rise above the most despicable level of life and behavior. It was often used in relation to the life of slaves, because the spermologist was close to the type of slave and stood below the ordinary level of a free person. Associated with it was the concept of picking up all sorts of garbage and rags, and in the literary field - the concept of plagiarism, without the ability to properly use thoughts further borrowed from others. In ancient literature, plagiarism was not strictly condemned; if the author borrowed with skill and borrowed thoughts and words, he enjoyed success. Only that author was subject to literary condemnation who, having failed to properly use borrowing, thereby revealed his ignorance and his literary mediocrity. In general, it is always extremely difficult to accurately determine the meaning of current popular wit; for this it is necessary to delve deeply into the very tone of the everyday life of this or that people and restore its entire mental physiognomy. In the mouths of philosophers, this word could mean that the new preacher had not taken up his own business, that he was not prepared by his education to discuss philosophical matters, and therefore, speaking with these reasonings, he could only imitate the tone of the method and terms of real philosophers. Farrar renders this word in the sense of “gatherer of crumbs of learning,” and this translation is apt, but the shade of actual walking wit is lost in it. The Russian term “sueslov”, by which this word is conveyed in the Russian translation, is perhaps closer to the original, although it also does not express the fullness of its meaning. In order to be better convinced of the content of the teachings of the new preacher, philosophers found it necessary to “bring him to the Areopagus.” The newest interpreters are generally inclined to think that St. Paul was taken to the mountain where the Areopagus was meeting 15 so that in this calm atmosphere he could make a speech before the crowd of Athenians in the place where the council, which took its name from the mountain, used to sit for the solemn trial of the murderers, and that view, based on ancient testimonies, like the testimony of St. John Chrysostom and Blessed. Theophylact, that ap. Paul was subjected to a formal trial before this council, rejected on the grounds that in all this action there was nothing typically judicial, there was no formal accuser or accusation, and in the very speech of the apostle. Paul did not say anything that was in the nature of self-defense, and it was addressed not to the court, but in general to the listeners of the Athenians. These grounds completely undermine the view that the scene described in Acts 17:19-34 was a formal legal proceeding. But, on the other hand, the idea that the assembly of the Athenians went to the top of the mountain as a convenient place to hear the speech is even more unsatisfactory. The top of this small hill, by its very smallness of volume and the complete openness of its position, would be the most unsuitable place for this; and it was not the custom of this people to go to such a place for such a purpose. Prof. Curtius, in his famous essay 16, paved the way for a true view of this whole event, which, in his opinion, could only take place in the market square. And it would be inconsistent with the patriotism and pride of the Athenians if they took the stranger, whom they treated with such complete contempt, to the most famous place of Athenian religious and national history, and there allowed him to speak before them. It is true that the Athenians were frivolous and flighty in many respects, but their frivolity was always combined with a strong sense of pride in their national dignity and the historical glory of the city, and this feeling would have been indignant at the very thought of some stranger talking to them about some foreign deities in the place where the goddess Athena herself presided over the highest court of her beloved people and where legal proceedings were still solemnly taking place. in the most serious cases, such as murder. It is also impossible to accept the interpretation that this place was actually chosen by a small group of philosophers who retired there with a new preacher in order to calmly listen to him, away from the hustle and bustle of the street life of the big city. This whole scene and speech breathes the air of the agora, the open, free, ebullient life of Athens, and not the calm atmosphere of a philosophical study or classroom, and the tone of the opinions expressed in Acts 17:18 is not the tone of philosophical interest and careful reasoning, but sounds of contempt, hostility and jealousy. Moreover, it would be incongruous to address philosophers with such statements as are made in Acts 22:3. The philosophers themselves did not dedicate altars to the “Unknown God” and looked at such actions as simple superstition of an unreasonable people. Speech by Ap. Paul is extremely skillful if it is addressed to a mixed audience of the people in general, but it would be unskillful and inappropriate if the listeners were only philosophers. The very language of the narrative clearly shows that the ap. Paul was brought into the council, not just taken to the mountain. “And Paul stood among the Areopagus,” as it is said in Acts 17:22, and “went out from among them” (Acts 17:33), the one who came out from among them obviously stood among them. In this scene, full of Attic spirit and containing typical words of Athenian walking wit like “spermologist,” it is necessary to assume some distinctive Greek meaning behind every detail, and the expression: “Paul stood in the middle of the mountain” would be nonsense in Greek. He stood among the council of a great and noble, although not friendly, assembly, just like St. Peter stood “in the middle” of the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:7). And in general, in the book of Acts and in the Gospels there are many similar expressions that explain the meaning of the expression in question. The philosophers “took” the ap. Pavel. When a person, and especially an educated one, goes so far as to lay his hands on another, then obviously he is very excited about something, and this expression must have some special meaning for a writer like Luke, who carefully weighs every word. This word appears in him in various senses, sometimes in the sense of friendly encouragement to a person in a lonely and difficult situation, as in Acts 9:27 17 and Acts 23:19 18, but (and this more often) it means a hostile action, as in Acts 21:30, Acts 18:17, Acts 16:19 19. It is used in the latter sense in this case as well. The philosophers evidently had a stronger feeling than mere contempt, mixed with some degree of curiosity, if they resorted to such an action as laying hands on a strange preacher. In any case, when taking him to the city council, which was in charge of matters of public peace and decency, they did not act at all like his friends and sympathizers, and therefore one must assume that they took him there and took him there with hidden or even open gloating. What was their purpose in doing this? Any attempts to explain this scene as a formal trial fail, and should fail. Even the idea of ​​a preliminary investigation does not fit the circumstances of the case, because if this were so, it would be contrary to the methods of description known to us in St. Luke, that he did not preserve in his narrative a single outstanding feature of the trial itself. To properly understand this position, we must remember that in Acts 17:18-19 ap. Pavel spoke among lecturers and professors of the university. This is precisely the whole interest of the scene, which is unique in the entire book of Acts. The Apostle Paul was in various positions and acted in many phases of modern life. Here only he appears in the setting of a famous university, debating with its brilliant learned representatives, and here, as in any other position, he applies his usual adaptability to circumstances and moves among them with such ease that it is as if he had grown up among them. Two questions involuntarily arise in view of the subsequent scene: why did ap. Was Pavel brought to the council? and what were the philosophers' intentions in taking him there? It is clear that ap. Paul seemed to the philosophers to be one of those many ambitious teachers who came from everywhere to Athens in the hope of finding fame and fortune in this famous center of education. Meanwhile, the Council of the Areopagus had in its hands certain powers to appoint or invite lecturers in Athens, and it had some control over the lecturers in the interests of public order and morality. Unfortunately, we have almost no data at all to understand what the advantages and legal rights of a lecturer appointed in this way were and to what extent or how a foreign teacher could find access to lecturing in Athens. In any case, recognized lecturers had certain advantages. The well-known fact that Cicero persuaded the Areopagus to issue a special decree inviting the Peripatetic philosopher Cratippus to the position of lecturer in Athens, naturally indicates that this thereby provided him with some advantages and benefits. However, in Athens, foreigners were undoubtedly given access to lecture at the university with great ease, since the large majority of Athenian professors and lecturers were foreigners. Therefore, from the description of the event in question in Acts 17:18-31, it seems to be possible to conclude that recognized lecturers could bring any foreign lecturer to the Areopagus and demand from him that he give a due account of his teaching and present evidence of its true character and direction. When philosophers led the ap. Paul to the council in order to give the highest university tribunal satisfaction in his legal capacity, then they were probably guided by the hope that an unpleasant rival would either be afraid of this venerable meeting, or his teaching would not stand the test and would be recognized as unsuitable for teaching as a teaching that runs counter to the established direction of philosophical teaching (and it is known that in the normal course of affairs there is no meeting that would be more conservative than the tribunal of a university with a large historical past). The government in Greek cities had significant control over the entire educational system for both boys and young men, who were educated in classes and schools of varying degrees, successively moving from one to another. There is sufficient reason to believe that in Athens this control belonged precisely to the Council of the Areopagus, both in relation to the lower and higher schools. It naturally flowed from the ancient duty of this council to supervise the morals and customs of the citizens, public hygiene and state doctors, and also to prosecute offenses against religious ritual (although serious charges of impiety and the introduction of a foreign religion were considered not by the Areopagus, but by the popular courts), and in general this control is akin to that control over public peace and order which belonged to it during the period of Roman rule. In addition, Quintilian cites a case in which the Areopagus punished one boy for tearing out the eyes of quails, which naturally indicates his jurisdiction over youth. During discussions that were rhetorical in nature, an important feature at this time was that, in addition to officials, listeners from the people in general (corona) were usually present. The influence of this kind of listeners is familiar to every student of the literature of that time, and Pliny the Younger says that even the lawyers of that time spoke more for the purpose of gaining the approval and applause of these listeners from the public than to influence the opinion and verdict of the court. And this is completely understandable. In the absence of printing and therefore the difficulty of disseminating known ideas to the public through written works, the heralds of these ideas had no other opportunity to influence society than in this way, and in this case, approval and disapproval on the part of the listeners was to a large extent a public verdict on all mental endeavors. St. Luke, therefore, could not omit the presence of this kind of public even in his short narrative, and he does make an allusion to it in Acts 17:21, where the form of the past imperfect tense is important in this regard. St. Luke here does not describe at all the character of the Athenian people (which would require the present tense form) next to the element already described; he brings another element to the stage. While the philosophers, with some malicious intent, insisted on the need to subject the new preacher to a due test, the mixed crowd of Athenians and foreigners living in the city were guided simply by curiosity. In this very description of the Athenian crowd one cannot help but notice a certain shade of contempt, quite natural in a Macedonian, since these two peoples never loved and even despised each other. In this case, such an attitude on the part of St. Luke to the Athenians was not undeserved, because the Athenians appeared before him with their usual frivolity and frivolity, which even earlier gave Cyrus a reason to speak of them as foolish children idly spending time in the markets. Characterizing the mental physiognomy of the Athenians, Caps in his essay “University Life in Ancient Athens” says: “The people were generally greedy to listen to something and they flocked (to the audience), as in our time they flock to some popular preacher or actor performing in provincial cities; The epicures accepted invitations to a verbal feast and hurried to the theater to judge, as critics, the selection of images, the elegance of style, and, in general, the harmony and balance of periods." 20 Just like St. Luke says the Athenians not only loved to listen, but also to make witty criticisms. Brought to the council of the Areopagus, the great apostle, contrary to the expectations of the philosophers, was not at all embarrassed, but, standing in the middle of the Areopagus, delivered that famous speech, which St. sets out in detail. Luke. This is the speech. “Athenians! I can see from everything that you seem to be especially devout. For, passing and examining your shrines, I also found an altar on which it is written “to an unknown God.” This, which you honor without knowing, I preach to you. God, who created the world and everything in it, He, being the Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in churches made by hands and does not require the service of human hands, as if He needed anything, Himself giving to everything life and breath and everything. From one blood He brought forth the entire human race to inhabit the entire face of the earth, assigning predetermined times and limits to their habitation, so that they would seek God, lest they feel Him and find Him, although He is not far from each of us: for in Him we live and move and have our being, as some of your poets said: we are His race. So, we, being the race of God, should not think that the Divinity is like gold, or silver, or stone, which received its image from human art and invention. Therefore, leaving the times of ignorance, God now commands people everywhere to repent, for He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness, by the Man He has appointed, having given proof to all by raising Him from the dead" (Acts 17:22-31)... In this famous speech, every word reveals a man with a brilliant, all-penetrating mind, who could apply his arguments to the mental mood of all kinds of listeners, trying to influence them by pointing out those very facts that could be of particular importance in their eyes. In this case, app. Paul had to generally determine the position of his listeners, so to speak, in the family of the human race among the various peoples who lived on earth and were in one way or another in relation to the Creator and Provider. Therefore, the preacher takes a high point of worldview and, before his Athenian listeners, developed an entire “philosophy of history”, in which he put forward a particularly interesting question in a philosophical sense about the relationship between knowledge and will. It is known that Socratic philosophy was constantly concerned with resolving the question of "knowledge" on which the entire system of virtues was based, and in some of Plato's early dialogues the view is held that virtue is knowledge, and vice is ignorance. And in general, Greek philosophy never understood the true relationship of will and character to “knowledge.” The Greek philosophers could hardly admit and could never properly understand that a person can perfectly know something good and not put his knowledge into action, that he can refuse to know when knowledge is quite accessible to him, and that this refusal produces a harmful, corrupting influence on the entire make-up of his moral character. Applying to this direction of philosophical thought, ap. Paul, in his Athens speech on the question of the relationship of the pre-Christian world to God, takes a completely different point of view than the one he later took in his letter to the Romans (Rom. 1:19-32). In this last passage he admits (as briefly analyzed by Lightfoot) that the pagan world “might have known God through His works. The pagans refused to know Him. They argued and blinded their hearts... Therefore they were given over to wickedness... and they not only did wicked deeds, but even admired those who did them.” Here we have full recognition of that fundamental fact in human nature and life, which Aeschylus expressed in his greatest drama, Agamemnon, 21 as his own concept, different from the usual Greek view: “an impious deed gives rise to others similar to it: crime, by its very nature, tends to give rise to new crimes, and at the same time a depraved, impudent will, which, like an irresistible spirit of malice, takes possession of the whole home." But in his speech to the Athenians, St. Paul says that “God leaves behind times of ignorance,” and these times are characterized as a period when people tried in every possible way to find God and, not finding Him, worshiped an “unknown God.” As a result of this, he not only did not essentially reproach the Athenians for their religious ignorance and delusions, but spoke in an approving tone about their religiosity and identified the God whom he came to preach to them with the god whom they worshiped in their religious blindness. And taking advantage of their religiosity, he only tried to direct it to the true goal, i.e. to conscious worship of the God who created the world and everything that is in it. One cannot, of course, demand that in a short speech the ap. Paul expressed the entire system of his theological and philosophical worldview, but what he expressed was quite enough for the Athenians to understand the essence of the preaching of this unknown teacher. Unfortunately, their attention was only enough for that part of the speech in which he expounded his philosophy of history, but as soon as he moved on to a positive presentation of the fundamental truths of Christianity, talking about Christ and the resurrection from the dead, the frivolous crowd, led, of course, by philosophers, rose up, and the speech was interrupted. “When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, and others said: We will hear from you about this at another time. So Paul went out from among them. Some men, having approached him, believed; among them was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damar, and others with them” (Acts 17:32–34). The apostle's speech, therefore, remained not fruitless if it had a beneficial effect even on one of the members of the Areopagus. It is interesting that among those who applied there was also one woman. She is not said to be of noble birth, as was noted regarding the women who converted in Thessalonica and Berea. This difference again points to the truth of life. In Athenian society, noble women from good and respectable families did not take part in intellectual and political debates, so they did not have the opportunity to listen to the apostle. Pavel. But this freedom was fully enjoyed by the so-called heterae, women predominantly of foreign origin, and Damar probably belonged to their category, whose very name (probably the vulgar form of damalis - heifer) reveals in her a woman of foreign origin. Despite these appeals, ap. Paul became convinced that nothing more could be expected from a people in which the spontaneity of religious belief had been undermined by philosophical skepticism. Therefore, he left Athens with a certain feeling of bitterness in his soul regarding how misguided philosophy could harden the hearts of people. From that time on, he himself generally stopped resorting to the philosophical method in preaching. Subsequently responding to the unfavorable comparison made by the Corinthians between his preaching and the more philosophical style of Apollo, he wrote to them that he “decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) and in defending his method, he more than once spoke with bitterness and severity about the unsuitability of the philosophical method and about the foolishness of philosophers or wise men in general. “After this Paul left Athens and came to Corinth; and having found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy, and Priscilla his wife, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome, he came to them; and, due to the same craft, he stayed with them and worked; for their trade was making tents. On every Sabbath he spoke in the synagogue and convinced the Jews and Greeks. And when Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit to testify to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 18:1–5). St. Luke, with his classic brevity of expression, does not use a single word in vain. Therefore, if in (Acts 18:1), instead of simply saying: “After this Paul came to Corinth,” he also inserts an apparently unnecessary phrase: “Leaving Athens,” then, of course, he had his own reason for this. By this he wanted to indicate that the removal of ap. Paul from Athens was, as it were, violent, accomplished under the pressure of some coercive circumstances, just as the removal of Aquila from Rome was forced as a result of the decree of Emperor Claudius. The very expression χωρισϑεὶς ἐκ τῶν Ἀϑηνῶν is identical here with the one used to denote the removal of Aquila from Rome. In view of this, the assumption naturally arises that the Areopagus, at the insistence of the philosophers, recognized the sermon of St. Paul was harmful to popular morality and forced him to leave the city. In view of this, it is likely that he stayed in Athens for only three or four weeks, no more. The personality of Aquila and his wife Priscilla mentioned in Acts 18:2 is interesting in that it opens a page from the history of the Roman Empire. Aquila and Priscilla had recently arrived from Rome, as a result of Claudius' decree expelling the Jews from Rome. Suetonius says that this exile was caused by a series of disturbances, “produced by the actions of Chrestus,” and, in all likelihood, by this Chrestus 22 we must mean “the leader of the Christians,” whom the people mistakenly believed was still alive. In the early stages of the history of Christianity in Rome such an error was quite natural, and Suetonius reproduces the words that he found in a document of that period. As Dio Cassius testifies, it was so difficult, due to their large numbers, not to allow the Jews into Rome that the Emperor Claudius did not actually expel them, but established stricter rules regarding their behavior. From this it would seem that the edict was invalid in practice, but Suetonius is a reliable authority that the edict was partly carried into effect, and it is likely that some of the Jews obeyed it, and among them was Aquila. Neither Suetonius nor Cassius Dio give the exact time, but Orosius says that it was in the ninth year of the reign of Claudius, that is, in the year 49. But one might think that there is a mistake for a year, and therefore the edict must be attributed to the end of the year 50, and thus Aquila arrived in Corinth six or seven months earlier than the ap. Paul, who arrived there in September 51. In the message about Aquila, attention is drawn to the fact that St. Luke, with unusual detail for him, talks about his former fate. This thoroughness cannot be understood as simply a pictorial detail. St. Luke mentioned his stay in Rome because it had a certain bearing on the subject of his narrative. After some time (during most of which the Apostle Paul was in the company of Aquila in Corinth and Ephesus), St. Luke reports the apostle's intention to go to Rome (Acts 19:21). This idea was probably expressed by Ap. Paul before, and Aquila could inform him in detail about the events that took place in Rome “under the influence of Chrest,” and this acquaintance with the state of affairs in Rome showed him how important it was for him to go directly to the great centers of Roman life. In his letter to the Romans (Rom. 15:21), the apostle himself says that from Rome he wanted to go further to Spain. This intention shows in the clearest way that in the soul of St. Paul already had the idea that Christianity was to become the religion of the entire Roman Empire. Spain, more than all other conquered countries, was Romanized, as can be seen from the Edict of Vespasian (from the year 75), issued shortly afterwards, by which the Latin legislative code was introduced everywhere in Spain. From the center of the Roman world, the apostle wanted to go to the main seat of Roman civilization in the west. In Corinth, as in other cities, ap. Paul first of all preached to his fellow Jews in the local synagogue. “But when they resisted and cursed, he shook off his clothes and said to them, “Your blood is on your heads; I am clean; From now on I am going to the pagans. And he went from there and came to a certain God-worshipper named Justus, whose house was near the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians, listening, believed and were baptized. The Lord, in a vision at night, said to Paul: Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will harm you, because I have many people in this city. And he remained there a year and six months, teaching them the word of God” (Acts 18:6-11). As an outstanding feature of this narrative, one can point out that it draws a very clear line between the period of activity in the synagogue and the period of preaching to the pagan population of Corinth. This is due to the importance of the city itself. Corinth stood on the high road between Rome and the east, and therefore was one of the largest and most influential centers of the Roman world. Macedonia in this regard occupied a completely secondary place, although one of the roads to the east passed through it, and therefore ap. Upon his arrival in Corinth, Paul was ordered to stay longer in this city, and St. Luke precisely determines the exact time of his stay there. It must be assumed that the Corinthian Jews reacted to the apostle. Paul with extreme hostility if he was forced to take unusually harsh measures against them, such as shaking off the dust from their clothes and using a strong spell. And the fact that, after such a decisive break with the Jews, he chose as the site of his preaching a house located near the synagogue itself, and, moreover, in complicity with its former leader, indicates his determination to force the Jews, one way or another, to recognize the folly of their rejection of the gospel brought to them. Titius Justus (as he is more fully called in some manuscripts and translations) was apparently a Roman or Latin, one of the coloni who settled in Corinth. Like the centurion Cornelius, he was a proselyte and attended the synagogue. His Roman citizenship could open the ap. Paul had access to the more educated class of the Corinthian population. As for the head of the synagogue or the so-called arch-synagogue, in the Corinthian synagogue there was apparently only one, and when Crispus converted to Christianity, a successor was appointed to him. There were several arch-synagogues in Antioch of Pisidia, and to explain this, Reinach showed, on the basis of one Smyrna inscription, that in Asia Minor this title did not mean a position, but was simply an expression of special dignity, respect, like “the most influential person in the synagogue.” Sermon of St. Apostle Paul in Corinth was the occasion of an event which throws a curious light on the attitude of the Roman administration towards Christian preaching at this initial stage of its development. About this St. Luke says the following. “Meanwhile, during the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia, the Jews unanimously attacked Paul and brought him before the judgment seat, saying that he was teaching people to honor God not according to the law. When Paul wanted to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews: Jews! if there was any offense or malicious intent, then I would have a reason to listen to you, but when there is a dispute about doctrine (and not about deeds), about names and about your law (and not Roman law), then sort it out for yourself; I don't want to be the judge of this. And he drove them away from the judgment seat. And all the Greeks, seizing Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, beat him before the judgment seat; and Gallio was not in the least worried about it” (Acts 18:12–17). Achaia was ruled by a proconsul from 27 BC. to 15 A.D. and then from '44 onwards. It was a province of the second class and was governed by Roman officials who had already held the office of praetor and, in general, before the consulate. Corinth was now the main city of Achaia and the residence of its rulers. In this event we have an interesting point of contact between New Testament history and Roman history. Gallio was the brother of the famous Seneca and shared the vicissitudes of his fate. Seneca was out of favor from 41 to 49, but in 49 he was returned from exile and appointed praetor for 50. Pliny mentions that Gallio received a consulate, which was probably given to him after his proconsulship in Achaia. In his official life, Gallio was probably praetor for at least five years before going to Achaia, but, unfortunately, we do not have any data on the basis of which we could conclude in what year exactly he held the position of praetor (in any case, he could not have been in it in the period from 41 to 49 - the time of his famous brother's exile): as an older brother, he probably occupied it before Seneca. We still have no other evidence that Gallio ruled Achaia, but the message of St. Luke is confirmed by one fact mentioned by Seneca, namely that Gallio caught a fever in Achaia and undertook a journey to change the air 23. As for Gallio’s attitude towards the local Jews, it reveals in the ruler a man for whom Roman law, with its demand for truth, stood above all else. If Gallio treated the Jews so disdainfully, then either they themselves failed to properly frame their accusation, or he, with his penetrating gaze, immediately realized that their accusation against Paul was a simple manifestation of their religious intolerance. From Gallio’s brief speech we can conclude that he, as an attentive ruler, had already made the necessary inquiries regarding the nature of the teachings and activities of the newly-minted preacher and had already come to the conviction that there was nothing in him that was actually dangerous for the Roman government and contrary to Roman law. It is likely that the Jews, in their accusation of the preacher they hated, tried to cast a shadow of political unreliability on him, as happened more than once in other cities (as, for example, in Philippi and Thessalonica - Acts 16:21, 17:6-7), but Gallio, already having proper information about this whole matter, immediately in his speech limited their zeal, indicating this matter its true dimensions, how a purely internal issue of the self-governing community of the “people of the Jews in Corinth.” This whole event is so interesting that it would be extremely desirable to have more detailed information about it, which, however, St. Luke, with his usual brevity, does not give us. In any case, it can be concluded from it that Gallio adhered to the broad and noble views of his brother regarding the policy of Rome in relation to the various religions of the province. The Greeks, who always hated the Jews, did not fail to take advantage of the ruler’s obvious lack of sympathy for them and captured and beat Sosthenes, who, having been appointed arch-synagogue in place of Crispus, undoubtedly took an outstanding part in this matter. Gallio did not pay any attention to this lynching, which probably seemed to him to be fully deserved by these worthless disturbers of public silence, the Jews, hated by every decent Roman 24 . Gallion's decision in the case of ap. Paul, whom he defended from the hostility of the Jews, was very important both for the further activities of the great apostle and for determining the general attitude of the Roman authorities towards Christianity. Obviously, at this stage, the Roman government treated Christianity without any hostility and saw it as one of the local religions, which, according to the principle of Roman law, were given equal protection to all. As a result, his stay in Corinth constituted an entire era in the life of St. Paul, who, under the influence of a favorable attitude toward himself from the Roman authorities, finally drew up a plan for missionary activity, for which a wide field opened up throughout the Roman Empire, that is, in essence, throughout the entire civilized world. Wherever the Roman eagle victoriously penetrated, the preachers of St. Cross, and not only there, but further, to the ends of the earth. From Corinth ap. Paul went to Syria, and Ramsay continues to monitor his activities there. But we will not follow him, since this would go beyond our intended goal: to acquaint our readers with new scientific commentaries on the book of the Acts of the Apostles in that part where it comes into contact with the classical world in its main centers. We think that to get acquainted with this kind of commentary, what has been stated is sufficient, and from the presentation presented, readers could see how much the latest research in the field of classical antiquity sheds light on the facts of New Testament history and how much even in the smallest details they confirm the truth of the story of St. Luke, whom true impartial science rightly places among the first-class historians of antiquity along with Thucydides and Xenophon. The negative school, accustomed to disparage the sacred writers as inaccurate, unintelligent retellers of legends about long-past events and facts, poorly understood and untested by sound criticism, under the influence of these irresistible proofs of the amazing accuracy of the narrative of the book of Acts, it will be necessary to make a significant amendment to their views in order to maintain their dignity in the eyes of true science, the heralds of which are in favor of the reliability of the sacred. writers are such luminaries of classical knowledge as Ranke, Curtius, Ramsay and others. That what is meant here is not any Macedonian in general, but some specific Macedonian known to the author, this, according to Ramsay, is indicated by the very expression of the text: ἀνὴρ τις, in lat. quidam, as St. Luke usually follows the very name of the person, for example, “a certain man named Ananias” (Acts 5:1), “a certain man named Simon” (Acts 8:9), etc. In this case, Ev. Luke, as it were, deliberately kept silent about the name of the implied person well known to him. Ramsay, Paul the Traveler, p. 203. See Hobart; The Medical Language of St. Luke. Ramsay, however, advises using this work with caution. Considering the author of the book of Acts to be a Macedonian, Ramsay diverges in this case from the tradition, which, based on the testimony of Eusebius, considers him an Antiochene. But this legend, without sufficient reason, refers to Eusebius, who himself, obviously, reporting the tradition he heard, expresses himself very vaguely. He does not say directly that Luke was an Antiochian, but expresses himself as follows: “Luke, by his origin, is from those who are from Antioch” Ἁντιοχείας (Ecclesiastical History III, 4). This vague and vague phrase seems to have been deliberately chosen in order to avoid a direct statement that Luke was an Antiochian, and in fact it means that Luke was not personally an Antiochian, but belonged to a family that could someday live in Antioch. The latest researchers are therefore inclined to think that this is. the tradition is based on a confusion between Luke and Lucius, one of the members of the Antiochian church (Acts 13:1), and Ramsay finds this assumption very probable. The name Luke, perhaps, could be a popular form of the name Lucius, but other than the name, these two persons have nothing in common with each other. At the same time, the name Luke could come from different names, representing a shortened form of the name Lucius, Lucilius, Lucian or Lucan. The Latin names Lucius, Lucilius in Greek were rendered as Λεύκιος and later Λούκιος, and this change approximately occurred in 50–85 AD, although occasionally Λεύκιος is found later than Λούκιος. It is remarkable that Λούκιος has a later form. See Ramsay. Paul. p. 209 and 389. What follows is a faithful reproduction of Ramsay's learned commentary on Acts 16-18. There is no need to conclude that Lydia and the members of her household were baptized on this first Sabbath day. From verse 14 a certain interval must be assumed, although the narrator is generally quite vague about time. Lydia was present at the prayer meeting on this first Sabbath day, and became a constant listener to the new sermon, and finally all the members of her house were converted along with her. Ramsay's interpretation of this passage is understandably confusing, and therefore we do not present it in full, limiting ourselves to only a brief presentation of the general idea. 1 Cor.8:18, which place, according to ancient tradition, already referred to St. Luke. At the same time, it is clear that he previously did not have his own home in Philippi, because, together with Paul, he took advantage of Lydia’s hospitality. In Beza's code, verse 30, a small detail is noted that speaks volumes about the well-disciplined character of the prison guard, so that it can even be considered genuine. The prison guard first turned his attention to his work and made sure that his prisoners were safe, then he took care of Paul and Silas and brought them out. It seems highly improbable that a Christian in later times should have introduced the gloss that the prison guard took care of his prisoners before he took care of his own salvation; It was rather in the spirit of the later times to be embarrassed by the situation that the prison guard had done just that, and therefore to throw the place away. In Acts 17:1 the verb διοδεύσαντες from the word ὀδος is a verb denoting a Roman road. In Acts 17:4 καὶ τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπείσμησαν. καὶ προσεκληρώϑησαν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ Σιλὰ πολλοὶ τῶν σεβομενων. καὶ ἐλλήνων πληϑος πολὺ. The texts are approaching Beza's code. Christian reading. 1896. No. 11–12. pp. 417–443. Herod Atticus - famous Athenian rhetorician, b. in 104 A.D. He had a huge influence on the mental life of his contemporary society and talented young people from all countries flocked to his audience. Among his students were the future Roman emperors Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus, and Antoninus Pius elevated him to consular dignity in 143. Herod Atticus, as a rhetorician, gave the entire mental direction of his time a more rhetorical than philosophical character. By the way, we think it would be useful to make a small note about this term. At one time, we were criticized by the Kazan professor Ya. Bogorodsky for the fact that in our “Biblical history in the light of the latest research and discoveries” we used the name “university” in application to Egyptian and generally ancient schools of wisdom, and called teachers professors. In this terminology, our critic saw “a misunderstanding of the spirit of ancient life.” At the same time, to justify ourselves, in addition to general arguments, we also cited examples of such authorities as Rawlinson, Farrar and others who use similar terms. Now we can add to them the authority of Ramsay, who freely uses a similar term in application to the Athenian philosophical school, and who, as enjoying European fame for his research in the field of the ancient classical world, of course, hardly anyone except perhaps the Kazan professor can blame for “misunderstanding the spirit of ancient life.” Cm. about this in our polemical article, in the appendix to volume III of our “Biblical history in the light”, etc. (New Testament). See also the following special study by Capes with the characteristic title: “University Life in Ancient Athens”... Areopagus comes from the words ὁ Ἄρειος Παγος, as in everyday conversation between the educated classes the supreme council was called instead of the full, difficult to pronounce form of its name - ἡ ἐξ Ἀρείου Πάγου βουλή. Examples of the abbreviated name of this advice can be seen in the classics. Thus Cicero says in Attibus I, 14, 5 Senatus Ἄρειος Παγος that “our senate is the true Areopagus.” Cicero could have learned this abbreviated name during his six-month stay in Athens, and therefore he even appended the name Areopagus to the court in Nat. D. II, 29, 74; Rep. I, 27, 43. Then in one inscription from 50–100 A.D. (Cavvadias, Fouilles d’Epidaure I p. 68, no. 206) we find the phrase: Ἄρειος Παγος ἐν Ἐλεοσῑνε λόγους ἐποιήσατο. Here, as in other places, St. Luke in his narrative uses expressions that were in use among the educated classes of the population. See this abstract, entitled “Ap. Paul in Athens” in our translation in “Christian Reading” for 1894. “Barnabas took him (Saul) and came to the apostles.” “The Commander of a Thousand, taking him by the hand”... “They seized Paul and dragged him away”; “All the Greeks seized Sosthenes and beat him”; “The gentlemen grabbed Paul and Silas and dragged them to the square.” In all these places in the Greek original, the same verb appears, ἐπιλαμβάνω, which is rendered differently in Russian: sometimes in the sense of taking, sometimes to grab, in accordance with the tone of speech in one place or another. Capes, University Life in Ancient Athens. Agamemnon 730 et seq. This passage, unfortunately, was subjected to terrible distortions on the part of various publishers: Paley turns it into a careful family tree, and Vekklein completely eliminates from here the corruption of the will, which is the key to the philosophical position of Aeschylus. Chrestus - Chrestos, as the Roman writers called Christ, apparently incorrectly deriving this name from the Greek χρηστος instead of χριστος. This is not an isolated case of a sacred historian filling in the gaps of civil history. He did the same in relation to Lysanias, the tetrarch of Abilene, whose very existence Strauss denied and based his mockery of the “little mistakes” of St. on this. historian. The newest discoveries have undoubtedly confirmed and confirmed the testimony of St. Luke. See art. Vigouroux in "Christian Reading" 1893, I, pp. 98 et seq. 1 Corinthians 1:1 mentions Sosthenes as being involved in the composition of this epistle, a fact which has more than once led to strange misunderstandings. Some understood this scene to mean that Gallio, having decided the matter not in favor of the Jews, nevertheless allowed them, as a form of consolation, to beat one of the Christians, which turned out to be Sosthenes. Under the influence of this idea, the word "Greeks" is omitted in Acts 18:17, so that the subject is meant to be "Jews." But such a course of action is unthinkable in a Roman ruler, and therefore the text of the minor manuscripts restores this scene in the form in which only it can be understood. In Corinth, there were probably two such individuals with the name Sosthenes with whom the Apostle Paul had to deal: one was a Jew, and the other was an outstanding Christian or, perhaps, a Jew who later converted to Christianity.