Gnosticism and the Church in relation to the New Testament

What was is what is, and what is is what will be. There's nothing new under the sun! This was said by the Old Testament sage - And learned sages of all times and peoples usually repeat the truth: “history teaches,” or, as one of our domestic historians said, “it is an explanation of the present and an example for the future” (Karamzin), and simple and pious people also add the words of David’s psalm: “We have remembered the ancient days and learned” (Ps. 142:5). In further lines we will talk about the nineteenth century and an example for the twentieth century. What might be most interesting to representatives of theological scholarship in the second century? The most interesting and most important is the intense struggle that the Christian Church waged against Gnosticism; after all, it was in this struggle that theological science was born. Gnosticism was some kind of amazing interweaving of scraps of Hellenic philosophy with the myths and mysteries of Eastern cults, such an interweaving that even scientific specialists could not understand it. find it difficult to unravel it and are often inclined to declare the question of the origin of Gnosticism and the question of the classification of Gnostic systems completely hopeless. There were many Gnostic teachings. Ancient church polemicists compare Gnosticism with a monster similar to the Lernaean Hydra, in which two new ones grew in place of the severed head, and they say that Gnostic systems appeared like mushrooms 2 . Modern scientists, who are more lenient towards all heretics in general, liken the variety of Gnostic systems to the bizarre outlines of evening clouds, illuminated by the farewell rays of the setting sun 3 . It is important for us to note only that Gnosticism was not simple rationalism 4 . No, it was a religious movement that combined religion and philosophy. The Gnostics, with their doctrine of three kinds of people, were aristocrats, but rationalism is always highly democratic. Gnostics are compared to Freemasons 5. They were looking for a mysterious revelation; the depths of gnosis, but to their teaching, are open only to those who pneumaticoV anJrwpoV 6. However, Gnosticism did not provide a new revelation in the strict sense of the word 7 . The Gnostics adopted Christian revelation for themselves and called themselves true Christians, 8 and hence the dispute between Gnosticism and the Church about the New Testament books of the Holy Scriptures and the question of their interpretation. The Gnostics used the books of the Holy Scriptures on a wide scale. As Tertullian put it, the sayings of the Holy Scriptures were to the Gnostics what the garments of sheep were to ravenous wolves 9 . As can be seen from the Gnostic letter of Ptolemy to Flora preserved by Epiphanius, they wanted to test every word of theirs by the teachings of the Savior 10, they tried to compile evidence in their favor not only from the Gospel and apostolic words, but also from the law and the prophets 11, without evidence from Scripture they did not dare to preach about anything 12. But the Gnostics approached the New Testament books with their own already established systems; they, says St. Irenaeus of Lyons, as if in a false dream, they invaded the Scriptures, making up their own assumption (idian upoJesin anaplasamenoi) 13. Not everything in the New Testament writings could be favorable to Gnostic constructions, and it was necessary to somehow adapt the Scriptures to their teachings. The distortion of Christian teaching necessarily entailed damage to the very sources of this doctrine 14 . And, indeed, all those who wrote against the Gnostics testify that they first of all distorted the very text of the Holy Scriptures 15. When the Holy Scripture was cited to denounce the Gnostics, then, according to the testimony of Irenaeus, they began to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were incorrect, different in presentation (varie sint dictae) 16. Therefore, the Gnostics considered themselves to have the right to reject some books of the New Testament, and one of their sects rejected some, and another rejected others 17. Some rejected the writings of the evangelist Luke 18, others rejected the Gospel of John 19. The Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew. “Those who separated Jesus from Christ” preferred the Gospel of Mark. The followers of Valentinus used primarily (plenissime utentes) the Gospel of John 20. Heretics, says Tertullian, do not accept some Scriptures, and what they do accept, they distort with insertions and omissions, adapting them to their teaching. Heresy, if it accepts the Scriptures, does not accept them in their entirety - non recipit integras 21. And Hippolytus says about Apelles that he took from the Gospels and from the writings of the apostles only what he liked (ta aresconta) 22. Along with this, some Gnostics had more sacred books. “Followers of Valentine,” writes St. Irenaeus, - without any fear they offer their writings (conscriptiones) and boast that they have more Gospels than there are. They have reached such insolence that they title their recent work “The Gospel of Truth,” although it in no way agrees with “The Gospel of the Apostles, so that they do not even have a Gospel without blasphemy” 23 . In general, among the Gnostics, according to the testimony of the same Irenaeus, an untold number of apocryphal and forged (noJwn) writings circulated, which they themselves compiled 24, placing there various dark and mysterious traditions, even those “ineffable verbs” that St. ap. Paul, being caught up into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2) 25. In addition, according to the testimony of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the Gnostics sometimes left aside the order and connection of the Scriptures and “severed the members of truth.” They rearranged and reinterpreted the words of Scripture: “Collecting words and names scattered in places, they transferred them from a natural connection to an unnatural one” 26 . “These people,” says St. Irenaeus, - they stitch together old women’s fables and then, tearing out words, expressions and parables from here and there, they want to adapt the sayings (ta logia) of God to their fables” 27. This reminds me of St. father, as if someone, having dismantled the mosaic image of the king and rearranged the stones, made an image of a dog or a fox and said: this is the most beautiful royal image! 28 Elsewhere St. Irenaeus, to illustrate how arbitrarily the Gnostics treat the text of Holy Scripture, gives an example where Herakles is described in verses selected from the Iliad and Odyssey and cleverly chosen 29 . To Tertullian, the arbitrary treatment of the books of the New Testament by the Gnostics also recalls various writers of his time, who more centonario composed entire poems - centons 30 - from the verses of Homer or Virgil. Among the Gnostics there was a special person who is in vain considered a Gnostic; This is Marcion. Marcion's position is special 31. He was a man not of speculation, but of practice. He wanted to reform the Church, which, in his opinion, had distorted Christ’s teaching back in apostolic times, introducing elements of Judaism into it. Marcion thought of himself as a church reformer 32. This God-fighting giant (o Qeomacos outos gigas), as Clement of Alexandria calls him 33, took a more decisive and frank path of tendentious criticism of the text of the Scriptures 34. Coming from his main thought about the complete contrast of the New Testament to the Old 35, Marcion threw out from the text of the New Testament books everything that contradicted his opinion 36. Tertullian says about Marcion that for the sake of his teaching he committed murder over the Scriptures, using directly and openly machaera, non stylo, a sword, not a style, not a pen, but an ax 37 . Marcion manifeste ausus est circumci-dere scripturas - he dared to openly circumcise the Scriptures, St. says about him. Irenaeus 38. In general, church polemicists of that time used verbs such as chop, circumcise, circumcise, and forge to denote Marcion’s cheeky critical techniques. Not in individual words, but in entire sheets, according to Tertullian, Marcion threw out the original text 40, and St. Irenaeus briefly summarizes the overall result of such decisive “critical” work: “Marcion and his followers turned to truncation (ad intercidendas) of the Scriptures, not recognizing some of them at all, and abbreviating the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul (decurtantes) and considering only as genuine (legitima) what they thus abridged” (minoraverunt) 41. Marcion convinced his disciples that he was more worthy of trust than the apostles who betrayed the Gospel; He himself gave them not the Gospel, but a particle (particulam) of the Gospel, eliminating, in particular, what was written about the birth of the Lord 42. Having chosen from the Church Scriptures what he pleased, Marcion compiled his canon of sacred books 43 . This New Testament of Marcion contained the Gospel, redone from the Gospel of Luke 44, and ten (except for the pastoral and to the Jews) epistles of the apostle. Paul, also shortened at the discretion of Marcion 45. The ancient church polemicists did not exaggerate at all when they said that Marcion was engaged in “cutting” the Scriptures and in this work he used not style, but a sword: modern science fully confirms all this. There are only 1151 verses in the Gospel of Luke, and as can be seen from the painstaking research of Theodore Zahn, Marcion completely omitted 324 verses and made various changes in 60 verses; in addition, there is no definite information about 190 verses; so that only half of the text of the canonical Gospel of Luke can definitely be said to have been adopted by Marcion into his anonymous Gospel 46 . Such was the “free” attitude of the Gnostics, especially Marcion, towards the canon and text of the New Testament books. But in another, no less crafty way, according to Tertullian, the Gnostics laid their hands on the truth, giving false interpretations of what they accepted in its intact form 47 . Not everything in Scripture, according to the Gnostics, was equal. The most radical was the view of the Valentinians, but to which not only the apostles, but also the Lord Himself spoke, sometimes from the Demiurge, sometimes from the middle, and sometimes from the heights (a medietate, interdum autem a summitate fecisse sermones) 48 . What guided the Valentinians in dividing the Scriptures into these three parts is completely unknown; obviously, only by his own arbitrariness 49 . In essence, the so-called accommodation theory, which is very widespread among Gnostics, comes quite close to this view. According to this theory, Jesus Christ and His apostles did not always speak clearly and definitely, but adapted to the state in which their listeners were 50. Christ Himself taught the apostles in images and parables, and only sometimes separately, clearly and definitely, and not to everyone, but only to those who could perceive the complete truth in its pure form 51 . And therefore, almost all of Scripture is like a riddle and a parable that cannot be understood literally, and in the words of Christ: “seek and you will find,” the Gnostics saw a direct commandment to look for the mysterious meaning hidden in Scripture 52 . But this meaning can only be found through allegory, and so we see that not only parables, but also the historical parts of the New Testament were subject to allegorical interpretation by the Gnostics. “Having taken hold,” says St. Irenaeus, according to the proverb, makes ropes out of sand; they try to attach (prosarmozein) to their positions with an air of probability the Lord’s parables, or prophetic sayings, or apostolic words, so that their invention does not seem to lack any evidence” 53. “Parables and allegories, which by reciprocity (to amjibolon) can be attributed to many things (eiV polla elcein) through explanations (allegorical), they sometimes with great violence and cunningly adapt (ejarmozonteV) to their fiction” 54. Using the allegorical method of interpretation, the Gnostics found in the Holy Scriptures everything that they tended to look for there 55 . Mainly in the first book of Irenaeus “against heresies”, in Excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti and in various fragments we see a whole series of Gnostic interpretations of the New Testament, with one interpretation more bizarre than the other and even one passage sometimes interpreted differently 56 . Let's give a few examples. “Wherever the word “age” or “century” (aiwn, h aiwneV) is used, everywhere they find an indication of this eon,” complains St. Irenaeus. Thirty aeons are indicated in Scripture by thirty years in which the Savior did nothing explicitly 57 . The Gnostics saw the work of the twelve aeons (thV dwdecadoV twn Aiwnwn) in the fact that the Lord, being 12 years old, talked with the scribes, as well as in the election of the twelve apostles. The remaining eighteen aeons are indicated by the fact that the Lord, after resurrecting from the dead, remained (diutrijenai) with the disciples for eighteen months. In addition, the two initial letters of His name Jesus, i.e. ioth (i) and it (h), according to the Gnostics, allegedly indicate eighteen aeons. The first letter in the name of the Lord Jesus - jota (i) means ten aeons, which is why the Savior said: one jot or one line will not pass away until all 58 are fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). The Gnostics saw the doctrine of the apostasy of the twelfth aeon in the apostasy of Judas, the twelfth apostle, in the suffering of the Lord in the twelfth month of the year, in the healing of a bleeding woman after a twelve-year illness 59 . Another example. The parable of the vineyard (Matthew 20:1–16) says that the owner went out to hire workers at the first, third, sixth, ninth and eleventh hours. If you add up these numbers, you get thirty, and this, according to the Gnostics, is an indication of thirty aeons 60. The above examples, which are not among the worst, 61 show how far the Gnostics went in the allegorical interpretation of the New Testament books, and one can fully agree with Tertullian that such an interpretation harmed the truth no less than the corruption of the text itself. It remains for us to add that Marcion did not at all want to know the allegorical interpretation and was a supporter of an exclusively literal understanding of the text 63 . And other Gnostics, on occasion, stubbornly insisted on the literal meaning, if it was favorable to their teaching 64 . This was the attitude of the Gnostics towards the New Testament. The church writers had the task of protecting the apostolic heritage of the Church from enemy attacks, as well as establishing their own, church attitude towards the books of the New Testament. How did the church writers of the second century accomplish this very important task? First of all, attention is drawn to the fact that church writers of the second century were very little involved in the legal development of isagogical issues; they generally claim that the Scriptures have their origins from the apostles, 65 as if in passing they note that this or that book of the New Testament was written by a certain famous person, 66 but the question of the canon of sacred books, detailed proof of the authenticity of this or that book, the history and criticism of the text, in a word, isagogy in our sense of the word, church writers almost do not deal with it. Four cardinal points, four main winds, four faces of cherubim, four types of animals, four main covenants - all this, but in the opinion of St. Irenaeus is quite sufficient to prove that there can only be four Gospels, 67 and St. Irenaeus feels right to call those who introduce more or less types of the Gospel 68 ignorant and impudent. But instead, church writers express their principled view of Scripture and all disputes about it. According to Tertullian, one should first of all reason only about who the Scriptures belong to (cujus sint Scripturae) 69 in order to prevent anyone to whom they do not belong 70 from accessing them. The Scriptures belong only to the Church 71 ; heretics do not need to be allowed to compete about Scripture; they are not Christians and have no right to the Christian Scriptures 72 . The Church may ask heretics: who are you? You are not mine, what are you doing with me? You, Marcion, but what right do you have to cut down my forest? With whose permission, Valentin, do you transform (transvertis) my sources? By what power, Apelles, do you change my borders? Why are you others sowing and grazing here at will? This is my property. I've owned it for a long time. I have a firm foundation from the authors themselves, to whom the Scripture belongs (ab ipsis auctoribus, quorum fuit res). I am the heir of the apostles. Of course, they disinherited you forever and rejected you as strangers, as enemies 73 . Tertullian puts forward mainly against Marcion his favorite argument of prescription, argumentum praescriptionis: what is ancient is the truth 74. According to Tertullian, the argument of antiquity is the only reliable one in resolving the question of the authenticity of the Gospels, otherwise there will be no end to mutual reproaches about the forgery of the Scriptures. But there is no doubt that the Church Gospels are older than Marcion’s Gospel. There were Gospels in the Church before Marcion, and Marcion himself, when he belonged to the Church, recognized the Church Gospels, and he composed his own only after he was expelled from the Church and fell into heresy. And therefore it is Marcion who is the distorter of the Gospel, which circulated in the Church from the time of Tiberius to the time of Antoninus 75. Thus, the Church is the custodian of the books of the New Testament. What has long been preserved in the Church is undoubtedly authentic. The Gospel is the pillar and affirmation of the Church (stuloV cai sthrigma EcclhsiaV) 76, but the Church also preserves Scripture, Scripture and the Church are inseparable from each other. This unshakable confidence replaced all esagogical research for church writers of the second century. And therefore, writes St. Irenaeus, one must resort to the Church and be brought up in its bosom and feed on the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church is planted as a paradise in this world. Therefore, “you may eat from every tree of paradise,” says the Spirit of God, i.e. eat of all the Scripture of the Lord 77 . In the Church there is genuine observance of the Scriptures, without adding or subtracting, and reading of the Scriptures without distortion 78 . We find more discussions about the interpretation of Holy Scripture among church writers. First of all, they decisively reject both the Valentinian view of Holy Scripture 79 and the theory of accommodation 80, and then they give, so to speak, an immanent criticism of Gnostic exegesis, revealing the “confusion and absurdity, inconsistency and tension” of their interpretations 81, the tension of the meanings they invented for the numbers found in Scripture 82. Finally, they point out the arbitrariness with which the Gnostics attached a certain significance to some numbers and events, but did not attach any significance to others, completely similar ones. The Gnostics, for example, say that a bleeding woman healed after twelve years of illness indicates the twelfth suffering eon. Although this interpretation is strained and unclear, so be it. But from the Gospel we know that the Lord healed another woman after eighteen years of illness, and a paralytic who had suffered for thirty-eight years. Why do not these faces represent the eighteenth or thirty-eighth suffering eon? If everything accomplished by the Lord is a similarity to what is in Pleroma, then this similarity must be observed in everything 83. But along with this, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian attempt to establish some principles of church exegis. First of all, they argue that the Scriptures of the prophets are not all parables and images; much is said more clearly than daylight, without any allegory. The prophets used allegories only sometimes 84. And every allegory must be understood first of all literally. It is necessary for a thing to exist in itself before it is taken as an image for another 85. If we turn to the Gospel, we cannot agree here that the Lord always spoke in parables. Christ did not and did not always speak in parables to everyone. True, the Lord sometimes spoke to His disciples in parables, but Scripture always adds in such cases: He spoke to them in a parable. From this we can see that the Lord usually spoke without a parable. In addition, the Lord Himself often explained parables 86. The true interpretation of Scripture must start from what Scripture itself says clearly and definitely. Pauca multis, dubia certis, obscura manifestis, i.e. little to many, doubtful to the known, dark to the clear - these short words of Tertullian perfectly express the essence of everything that we find in anti-Gnostic writers on the issue of interpretation of Holy Scripture 87. Parables can admit of interpretations (absolutiones) by me, but who would not agree that to assert anything from them in research about God, leaving aside what is known, undoubted and true, is the work of foolish people rushing into danger? Doesn't this mean building your house not on a solid, strong and openly lying stone, but on crumbling sand? 88 That is why heretics, with their interpretations, tie an insoluble knot (nodum iusolubilem) 89. It is impossible to interpret parables on the basis of what is itself said unclearly and unobviously 90 . They receive clarification from what is clear, understandable and consistent with each other 91. He who explains the incomprehensible to the understandable interprets Holy Scripture safely, and the parables will then receive the same interpretation from everyone, and the truth (veritatis corpus) will be preserved intact and without damage 92 . Parables in Holy Scripture are recognized, but the blasphemous meaning (thn blasjhmon upoJesin) that is imposed on them is not accepted 93 . In addition, one should not strive to ensure that every little detail in the parables is interpreted 94. And in general, there is no need to try to learn everything you want from Scripture. There is much we do not know and cannot know, and therefore we must leave it all to God 95. “If in this way we leave some of the questions (zhthmawn) to God, then we will keep our faith and remain safe, and every Scripture given to us by God will turn out to be consonant for us, and the parables will agree with what is said directly (diarrhdhn) and what is said clearly will serve to explain the parables (epilusei taV parabolaV), and in the polyphony of expressions a single consonant melody will be felt, praising God with songs who created everything” 96. Thus, church writers apparently attached very important importance to their exegetical principles, but this is only apparently. The fact is that the allegorical method of interpretation was not an invention of the Gnostics. This was the general scientific method of the time 97 . This method was used by the Stoics to interpret the poems of Homer 98 . This method of interpretation was applied to the Old Testament by Philo, who did a lot both for the development of this method and for its dissemination 99 . Church writers of the second century fully mastered Philonov's method of interpreting the Old Testament, mastered not only hermeneutics, but also exegesis itself 100. The allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament in the second century was called "gnosis" 101 . One might even argue that the allegorical method was necessary in the ancient Church 102 . Even after this, it was preserved for a long time in the Church, mainly among ascetic writers, who apply all biblical events to spiritual life, and in homiletical works the allegorical method makes itself known to this day 103. And it is very remarkable that Irenaeus himself, when interpreting St. Scripture entirely uses the method of his opponents, whom he so sharply condemned 104. One has only to look at examples of his interpretations, for example, the marriage of Moses to an Ethiopian woman 105, the story of Lot 106, Christ washing the feet of the disciples 107, Balaam’s donkey 108, etc., and it seems that St. the father completely forgot those wonderful rules that he himself so persistently recommended to the Gnostics. It is in Irenaeus that we first encounter an allegorical interpretation of the New Testament 109. The allegorical method of interpretation is not alien to Tertullian 110. Thus, when interpreting the Holy Scriptures, church writers used the general scientific method of their time, but this is only because they did not at all consider the scientific study of the Holy Scriptures to be the highest, much less the only way to comprehend Christ’s truth; they did not think at all that living truth was achieved by scientific methods. As a matter of principle, Tertullian even refuses to conduct a scientific dispute with heretics on the basis of Scripture. In this dispute there can either be no victory at all or it is unlikely 111. If you argue from Scripture, you will only damage your brain and stomach, you will lose your voice and go mad from the blasphemy of heretics 112 . And in general we need to remember that faith saves, not the study of the Scriptures. The study of the Scriptures satisfies curiosity and brings glory to learning. But, exclaims Tertullian, cedat curiositas fidei, cedat gloria saluti! Let curiosity give way to faith, let glory give way to salvation! Let them not grumble or let them calm down! 113 Where there is true faith, there is true Scripture, there is its true interpretation: 114 But true faith is only in the Church, 115 and therefore the knowledge of the truth cannot be separated from church life. Truth is not achieved by studying the Scriptures with the intellect of an individual 116 . The true understanding of the Scriptures is not separated from the general church life: “In the Church there is only the correct (legitima) and careful, safe and free from blasphemy interpretation of the Scriptures and the excellent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge and more glorious than prophecy and superior to all other gifts.” 117 More reasonable than the Scriptures is one of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit living in the Church, and therefore it is impossible outside the Church 118. So to speak, the creative self-consciousness of the Church is expressed in the “rule of faith” (regula fidei), i.e. in the symbol 119, which is one and unchanged 120. Among the heretics, the newest teachers try every day to think of something new, which no one has thought of before 121. Wanting to be more sophists of words than disciples of truth 122, heretics without a Church, without a mother, without a fatherland, without faith wander like exiles 123 and worthily fall into the pit of ignorance unnoticed by them, always seeking and never finding the truth 124. Not so for a church person. For him, greater or lesser knowledge, according to the understanding, does not consist in changing the very content of the rule of faith (even on the illusory basis “from Scripture”), but in carefully examining what is said in parables and agreeing with the content of faith (iceioun th thz pistewz upo Jesei) 125. Faith lies in the “rule”... To know nothing contrary to the rule of faith means to know everything. You can satisfy your thirst for curiosity as much as you like, as long as you don’t contradict the Church, its “rule of faith” 126. Therefore, with regard to faith in the Church, everyone is equal. “Neither one of the church leaders who is very strong in word (en taizecclhsiaiz proestwtwn) will say anything different in comparison with this rule (for no one is higher than the Teacher), nor will one who is weak in word belittle the tradition. For since faith is one and the same, then he who has a lot to say about it does not add, and he who has a little does not detract from it” 127. External knowledge in general does not have a particularly great value, for only the grace-filled life of the Church leads to salvation. A simple believer (idiota religiosus) is much better than a blasphemous and shameless sophist 128. “Therefore, it is better and more useful to remain simple and ignorant and to approach God through love, rather than considering ourselves to be much knowledgeable and very experienced, to turn out to be blasphemers of our God... And that is why Paul exclaims: “knowledge puffs up, but love edifies” (1 Cor. 8:1); not that he condemned true knowledge (veram scientiam) about God - otherwise he would first of all blame himself - but he knew that some, being puffed up under the pretext of knowledge, abandon the love of God... and therefore, cutting off their vanity with such knowledge, he says: “knowledge puffs up, but love edifies”... So, it is much better if someone, without knowing anything, without comprehending a single reason why any of the created things was created, believes in God and abides in His love, than, being puffed up with such knowledge, to fall away from the love that gives life to man; (it is better) if he does not pursue any other knowledge than the knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, crucified for us, than to fall into wickedness through cunning questions and subtle speeches (minutioloquium; another thing: multiloquium - verbosity) 129. This is what the Church of the second century answered the Gnostics through the mouth of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian. The Gnostic, guided by his religious interest, approached the source of Christian revelation with the vessel of his reason and drew from there all his “endless genealogies”, drew everything he wanted, using the allegorical method of interpretation and sometimes not even stopping to change the text itself. Church writers placed the books of Christian revelation in inextricable connection with church life itself. The preservation of the books of the New Testament by the Church guarantees their authenticity, and only the universal self-consciousness of the one Church of Christ gives an infallible interpretation of these books. And by their example, the church writers of the second century showed that any scientific method of interpreting the Holy Scriptures is completely legitimate and good, but it will lead to the truth only that scientific researcher who places the universal self-consciousness and the grace-filled life of the Church above his personal understanding. When reading their works you feel – and you can’t help but feel! - that they, the founders of church theological science, lived in the Church and fervently believed in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church 130. They bequeathed this faith to all their successors in the field of church theological science. The culprit of all heresies and delusions, the apocalyptic dragon, the ancient serpent, deceiving the entire universe (Apoc. 12:9), this serpent, despite all his undoubted talent and extensive practice for 7419 years, very often, one might even say constantly repeats himself. Just as the Gnostics of the second century in the books of the Holy Scriptures sought justification for their religious systems, so afterward non-church people sought in them justification for their philosophical and scientific constructions, and more recently for their socio-economic and political teachings. As if from a cornucopia, the most terrible accusations of the Church are pouring out that it has distorted the teaching of Christ; The Church is blasphemously called the restorer of hell, destroyed by Christ. In place of “church Christianity,” new teachings are being created, which are called “the only true,” “Evangelical” Christianity. These teachings are growing like mushrooms. So what? All these brave and proud reformers of the Church have to use the methods of ancient Marcion with the only difference that they often want to serve only one “free” science and are completely silent about religion 131. Doesn’t all this New Testament Sperkriticism, which autocratically and unrestrictedly dominated Western Protestant scholarship until the end of the last century, when a comforting reverse movement towards tradition began, especially in the works of Zahn and Harnack 132, really remind one of Marcion’s sword? And did more advanced scientific methods keep those who did not want to know the authority of the Church from going astray? No, when they begin to interpret the New Testament independently of the Church, even without the allegorical method they achieve no less unexpected and arbitrary results than the Gnostics of the second century. Over all centuries, the wise saying of Clement of Alexandria has been fully justified: “People given over to passions violate Scripture in accordance with their wishes” 133. Has not the genius of the German people given us the artistic image of an “independent,” independent and learned interpreter of the New Testament? A cramped Gothic room with high arches. Faust reasons: I'll take the original and open it, With true feeling, I became hungry Translate for me into native speech. (He opens the volume and gets ready) It is written: “In the beginning was the Word.” So I became! How can I continue again? Can I give such honor to a word? If the outcome of heavy thoughts is correctly illuminated, It is written here: “In the beginning there was only the mind,” On the first line you need to strive, So that the pen doesn’t get lost! Is the mind the power that created everything by moving it? I will put: “in the beginning there was power”, But the moment my hand was about to write, I have a feeling that I won’t end up with this. Suddenly I see light! The spirit opened my eyes! And I write: “In the beginning there was a feat” 134. But this is not an artistic image, but the historical fact closest to us, in which Goethe’s artistic image seemed to be embodied. True, the situation is completely different. Low wide room. To the left of the front door hangs a simple coat. There is no icon; A scythe hangs in one corner, and a shovel stands in the other. An old man sits at the table in simple clothes and, frowning his large eyebrows, writes. This is Leo Tolstoy, as depicted in the famous painting by I.E. Repin (“Gr. L.N. Tolstoy in his study in Yasnaya Polyana”). The Yasnaya Polyana Faust reasoned differently when interpreting and translating the prologue of Ev. John, gave his reasoning the appearance of a learned philological work. So what? As a result of all his reasoning, the following translation of the first verses of Ev. John: “The beginning of everything was the understanding of life. And the understanding of life became for God, and the understanding of life became God” 135. We can even claim that the ancient Marcion seemed to live again before our eyes. That ancient Marcion was from Pontus, about which Tertullian says so many unkind things, 136 - our Marcion lived in the Tula diocese, in the Krapivensky district, about which nothing particularly bad can be said 137 . Both of them - Marcion and Tolstoy - accused the Church, but they themselves began precisely with the “cutting off” of the Gospel. Marcion, as mentioned above, threw out from the Gospel everything that is said there about the birth of Christ, and in Tolstoy’s “summary of the Gospel” there is nothing about the birth of the Son of God from the Virgin Mary. Tolstoy also cut off the end of the Gospels, which speaks of the resurrection of the Son of God from the dead. Moreover, Tolstoy himself said that it is reprehensible and even godless - are you thinking of distorting the Gospel? - no, to accept it in its entirety, and therefore Tolstoy threw out from the middle of the Gospel everything that seemed “unnecessary” to him, 138 and the Galilean Teacher was thus forced to say only what the Yasnaya Polyana false teacher commanded Him. Thus, observing the latest attacks on the Church, you see that all of them are not new at all. When people want to interpret the Gospel without the Church, they follow the path of Marcion and the Gnostics and very soon remain completely without the Gospel. And therefore, we, together with the church writers of the second century, can openly and loudly proclaim the truth that in the Church only the actual observance of the Scriptures and their correct interpretation, for, according to the Apostle, it is not an individual in his egoistic rational isolation, but the living Church of God with her conciliar consciousness that is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Scripture is only for those who are involved in church life. And outside the Church and without the Church there is no Holy Scripture! The position - “The Church has the truth” is the main thing that anti-Gnostic writers reveal and substantiate in their polemical works. See prof. Bolotova V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg. 1910. Pp. 171, 185–187. Harnack A. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte, Bd. 1.4-te Aufl.Tubingen. 1909. S.267 fig. Friedrich Loofs. Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichechte. 4-te Aufl. Hallea. S.1906. §16, 3. SS. 106–107. Thomasius. Die Dogmengeschichte der alten Kirche. 2-te Aufl. Eriangen. 1886. S. 77. Irenaeus. Contra haereses. I.29. 1;I.30.15. Migne, P.G., t.7. coll. 691 V. 704A. The Works of Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, ed. in Russian translation of Archpriest P. Preobrazhensky. St. Petersburg, 1900. Pp. 98, 108. Hippolyt. Philosopher V. 11. Migne, P.G., t.16, col.3159B. Wed. St. Epiphany of the Cypriot Panaria, 31.1. Creations. Ed. Moscow Theological Academy. 4.1. Moscow, 1863. Pp. 277. Thomasius. Die Dogmengeschichte. S. 83: Wie Nebelgebilde, auf welche die Sonne einzelne Strahlen wirft, sehen wir diese mannigfaltigen gnostischen Systeme an. As Dr. insistently states. Joseph Schwane. Dogmenheschichte der vornicanischen Zeit. 2-te Aufl. Freiburg im Breisgau. 1892. § 74. S. 459. Prof. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. Issue 2, pp. 179–180. A more detailed description of Gnosticism as a religious rather than a rationalistic phenomenon is given by lic. theol. Rudolf Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. Gottmgen. 1901.SS. 84–85. 98–103. 162–164. Comp. prof. V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church. Vol. 2. Page 174–175. A.Harnack. Dogmengeschichte, I. SS. 249–155. This is exactly the conclusion Rud comes to. Liechtenhan after a thorough study of the position of prophecy in the various Gnostic sects. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. SS. 5–42) Hippolytus tries to prove that the Marcosians are not Christians, but Pythagoreans (Philos. VI 52: ou Cristou maJhtaV, alla PuJagorou. Migne, PG. t. 16, col. 3282B). Obviously, they considered themselves Christians. The Naassenes only called themselves Christians (Philos. V. 9: cai esmer ex apantwn anJrwpwn hmeiV cristianoi monoi en tu trith pulh apartizonte, to musthrion cai criwmenoi ecei alalj crismati ec ceratoV wV Dabid. Migne, PG., t. 16. coil. 3159–3160). When the Gnostics were called heretics, they protested, as is known about the Valentinians. (Iren. Contra haer. III. 15. Migne, PG., t.7, col. 918A-B. Works. Page 273). Marcion and Valentine turned to the Church several times until they were finally excommunicated. (Tertullian. De praescriptionibus, cap. 30. Migne, PL., t. 2, col. 49A). The Marcionite Megephius, in a dispute with Origen, insists that he is a Christian (See Dosputatio Origenis cum Megethio Manichaeo, 1, 8. Dr. S. P. Caspari. Kirchenhistorische Anecdota nebst neuen. Ausgaben patristischer und kirchlichmittelalterlicher Schriften, 1, Christiania. 1883. pp. 12–13). Srvn. Epiphanius, Ianarius, 27. 3: they (the Carpocrats) appropriated to themselves the name Christians and the pagan peoples are seduced by them. Creations. 4.1, page 1X2. Tertull. Adv. Valentinianos, cap. 27: plane et ipsi imaginarii Christiani. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 620A. De praescr. cap. 4. Migne, P.G., t. 2. col. 18B. Ptolom. Bpist. ad. Floram. 10: meta cai tou canonisai pantaV touV logouV th to SwuthroV didaucalia. Epiph. Ilaer. 33. 7. Migne, P.G., t. 41. col. 586C. Creations. Part 1, page 374. Irinaeus. Contra hacr. I 36 Migne, PG., t.7., col. 477A. Essays. Page 29. Tertull. De resurrect, carnis, cap. 63; hae (haereses) sine aliquibus occasionibus Scripturarum audere non poterant. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 934B. Cfr. de praescr. cap. 15: Sed ipsi de scripturis agunt, et de scripturis suadent. Aliunde scilicet suadere non possent de rebus fidei, nisi ex litteris fidei? Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 33Ä sine scripturis (haereses) esse non possunt. col. 65A. Contra haer. 1. 9, 3. Migne, PG., t. 7, col. 544A. Essays. Page 48. Tertull. De praescr. cap. 38; hae (haereses) sine aliquihus occasionibus Scripturarum audere non poterant. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 934B. Cfr. de praescr. cap. 15: Scd ipsi de scripturis agunt, el de scripturis suadent. Aliunde scilicet suadere non possent de rebus fidei, nisi ex litteris fidei? Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 33Ä sine scripturis (haereses) esse non possunt. col. 65A. For details on the attitude of the Valentians and Basilides to the New Testament writings, see Theodor Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Bd. I 2. Eriangen und Leipzig. 1889 SS. 718–763, 763–774. Contra haer. I. 2, 1. Migne, P.G. , t-7, col. 846A. Works, p.221. See Contra haer. III. 11, 9. Migne, P.G., t. 7, col. 890A. Writings, page 250. Contra haer. III. 14, 3. Migne, P.G., t. 7,coil. 915 916. Works, pp. 270–272. Contra haer. III. 11.9. Migne, P.G., t. 7, col. 890V. Works, p.251. Contra haer. III. 11, 7. Migne, P.G., t. 7, col. 884B-C. Works, p.248. De praescr. cap. 17. Migne. P.L., t. 2, col. 35A. Cfr. Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. 16. Migne, P.G., t. 9, col. 533B.C. Philosopher VII 38. Migne, P.G., t. 16, col. 3346A. Contra haer. III. 11, 9. Migne, P.G., t. 7, col. 891A-B. Works, p.251. Contra haer. I. 20, 1. Migne, PG., t. 7, col. 653A. Works, page 80. On the pseudepigraphic literature of the Gnostics, see Liechtenhan "a. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus, SS. 43 figg. Hippol. Philosopher V8: tauta, fhsin, esti ta tou pneumatoV arrhta musthria, a hmeiV monoi. Migne, P.G., t. 16, coll. 3146C-3147A. Cfr. Tertull. De praescr. cap. 24; hocsealiquahaeresis sequi affirmat. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 43A. Iren. Contra haer. 11. 30, 7. Migne, PG., t. 7, col. 819–820. Writings, pp. 202–203. The Armenian writer of the 5th century, Vardapet Eznik von Kolb, testifies to the same thing about the Marcionites. See his essay “Against Sects”. Book 4, ch. 3. German translation loh. Michael Schmid "a. Bibliolhek der alien armenischen Literatur in deutschen herausgegeben von der Wiener Mechitharisten-Congregation. Bd. I. Wien. 1900. SS 180–181. Epiphanius reports about the Kayans that they had the work “Anabaticon Paulou”. Haer. 38. 2. Migne, PG., t. 41, col. 656D. Creations, part 2, page 86: “And in the name of the Apostle Paul they invented another work, filled with impermissible speeches, which is also used by the so-called Gnostics; This work is called “Pavlovo’s ascent,” having found a pretext for this in the words of the apostle that he ascended to the third heaven and heard unspeakable verbs, which it is not flattery for a man to speak (2 Cor. 12. 2, 4). And these, they say, are ineffable verbs.” Contra haer. 1. 9, 4. Migne, PG., t. 7, co). 544A-B. Works, page 48. Contra haer. 1. 18, 1. Migne, PG., t. 7, col. 521, 524. Works, pp. 41. Contra haer. 1. 8, 1. Migne, PG., t. 7, col. 521A-B. Works, pp. 41. "This is what one did, describing in Homer's verses Herakles, sent by Eurystheus for the hell-hound, - for nothing prevents them from being cited as an example, because the techniques (epiceirhsewV) of both are the same. He said this, and, moaning piteously, sent him out of the house (Odis., X, 76). The husband of Herakles, the performer of wonderful feats (Od. XXI, 26), Husband Eurystheus, Perseid is a descendant of Sthenel (Iliad. XIX, 123), to lead the Dog from Erev from the terrible god Hades (Il. IV, 368). He set out on the road, like a mountain dweller - a lion, proud of his strength (Od. VI, 130), He was quickly escorted through the city by all those close to his heart (Il. XXIV, 327), young virgins and young men, the long-suffering elders (Od. XI, 38). Weeping for him inconsolably, as if going to death (Il. XXIV, 328). And Ermias and the bright-eyed Athena gave help (Od. XI, 625), Knowing his kind brother, and how concerned he is in his soul (Il. II, 409). that Homer composed them on the same topic? But he who knows Homer’s songs recognizes these verses, but does not recognize the content; for he knows that one of them is said about Odysseus, another about Priam, and another about Menelaus and Agamemnon 194. Migne, PG., t.7, col. Works, p. 48. All these examples and reasoning are literally borrowed from Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Haer. 31, 26, 31. Creations, part I.e. 325–326. 336–338. De praescr, cap. 39; One can still see how a completely different story is compiled from Virgil, and the content is applied to the verses, and the verses to the content. So, for example, Osidius Geta sucked (exsuxit, another reading expressit) from Virgil his entire tragedy “Medea”. One of my relatives borrowed from the same poet, among other works of his pen, the “Picture of Cebet” (Pinacem Cebetis). Homerocentons are usually called those people who compose their works from the verses of Homer, like centonaries (more centonario) from many located here and there, collecting one body (ex multis hinc inde compositis in unum sarciunt corpus). Migne, P.L., t. 2,coil. 64–65. See Thomasius, Die Dogmengeschichte. S. 81. Friedrich Bohringer. Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchenge-schichte in Biographieen. 2-te Aufl. 2-er. Bd. Die alte Kirche. 2-er Theil. Irenaus, der Bischof von Bugdunum, oder die Lildung der altkatholischen Kirche und Kirchenehre im Kampfe mit dem Gnos-tizismus, Stuttgart. 1873. S. 371. Th. Zahn. Geschichte des neutes-tamentlichen Kanons. 1 2, SS. 586 fTgg. R. Liechtenhan. Die Offen-barung im Gnosticismus, S. 34. F. Loots. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 17, 1. SS. 111–112. V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church, II, p. 226–227. A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte. I.S.292. Cfr. A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte. 1, SS. 303–307. F. Loofs, Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte, § 17, 3. S. 113. Th. Zahn. Geshichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1 2. S. 596. Pierre Batiffol. L'eglise naissante et L'catholicisme. 3rd med. Paris. 1909. pp. 277. 281. 282. Epiphanius says about Marcion that he, the son of a bishop, was excommunicated from the Church by his father, came to Rome, and when he was not accepted here, he said: “I will split your Church, and will cause a schism in it forever. And in fact, he caused a considerable split, but he did not split the Church, but he himself broke away from those who believed him. Haer. 421–2. Creations, vol. 2., p. 127–130. Marcion openly separated from the Church and founded his own church (see Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV 4. 5. De came Chr. cap. 2. Migne, PL., t. 2. coil. 394C-D. 396A. 801A), which existed for a long time. Epiphanius writes: "Marcion, having deceived a great multitude, formed a school, and it continues to this day in many forms. This heresy is still to this day in Rome and Italy, in Egypt and Palestine, in Arabia and Syria, in Cyprus and in Thebaid, and even in Nereid and in other places. For this evil one in these countries has acquired great power through his deception. " Haer.42.1. Creations, part 2, pp. 127–128. Strom. III.4. Migne, P.G., t. 8. col 1129A. Cfr. R Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus, SS. 81–83. Tertull. De praescr. cap. 30: Marcion Novum Testamentum a Vetere separavit. Migne, P.L., t. col-50A. Adv. Marc. 1. 19Legis et Evangelii proprium et principale opus est Marcionis. Migne, ibid., col. 293 A. Ea sola dcrelinquunt, quae adversa sibi esse non intellcxerunt. Disputatio Ongenis cum Megethio Manichaeo. II, 18. S. P. Caspari. Kirchenhistorische Anecdota. 1. p. 57. De praescr. cap. 38: Marcion exerte et palam machaera, non stylo usus est: quoniam ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confccit. Migne. PL., t 2. coil. 62–63. Contra haer. 1. 27.4. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 689B. See Iren. C'ontra haer. 1. 27.2: id quod est secundum Lucam Hvangelium circumcidens. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 688V. The same 111.11.7. col. 884B. 111.14,4: Marcion ct qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas conversi sunt Scripturas. col. 906A. 111.14,4: quod est secundum Lucam... decurtantes. col. 916C. Tertull. De praescr. cap. 37: quo denique, Marcion, jure silvam meam caedis? Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 61B.Ady. Marc. JV.1: Evangehum... quod interpolando suum fecit. Migne, P.L., t. 2. col. 390A. JV.2: Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse, quern caederet. col. 392C. 1V3: connittiturad destruendum statum evangeliorum. col. 393C. ad Evangelii depravation cm. col. 394A. De carne Christ, cap. 2: origmalia instrumenta Christi delere Marcion ausus est PL., t. 2,coil. 800–801. Disputatio Origenis... 11.18: Marcion... adulterasset Scripturas (Caspari. Kirchenhistorische Anecdota, 1. p. 57). Epiph. Haer. 42.12: parecoye polla twn melwn, Migne. PCi.,t.41,col. 81 FOR. Adv. Marc. VI 7: De manibus haeretici praecidentis non miror, si sillabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducit. Migne P.L., t. 2,col.548B. Contra haer 111.12.12 Migne, PG., t.7, col. 906A., Works, p. 263.Cfr. 111.3, 1, 7, 9. Ctr. Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV5eis (i.e. Hev. Matt. Mr. and Jo.). Lucae polius institerit. Migne, P.L., t. 2. col. 396B De carne.Chr. cap. 3.PL., t. 2, col. 803B. Contra haer. 1. 27.2. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 688B. Works, p. 96. Gfr. Hippol Philosopher. Vll.31: Varcion thn genesin tou SwthroV hmwn pantapasi parhthsato. Migne, P.G., t. 16., col. 3335 A. A detailed study of Marcion's relationship to the text of the New Testament and an overview of the contents of his canon is given by Theodor Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I 2. SS. 585–718. Zahn also gives experience in restoring Marcion's New Testament. Bd. II. 2. SS.455–529. Marcion himself is nullum adscribit auctorem to his Gospel (Tertull. Adv. Marc. IV 2. Migne, PL., t. 2, col. 392C.), but this was precisely the distorted Gospel of Luke, as Th. Zahn'a. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1. 2. SS. 620–622. Epiphanius writes: “I will move on to what was written by Marcion, or, better said, forged (erodiourghmea). For he accepts only the Gospel of Luke, truncated at the beginning (pericecommenon apo thz apehz) because it tells about the conception of the Savior and His coming in the flesh. But not only did he cut off the beginning, damaging himself more than the Gospel, but also at the end and in the middle he cut off many words of truth, and added other things beyond what was written. And he uses only the outline (tj caracthri) of the Gospel of Luke. He has ten epistles of the holy apostle; only he uses them, and not everything written in them, but he cuts off some chapters in them, and changes others.” Haer. 42.9. Migne, P.G., t. 41, col. 708B. Creations, part 2, p. 141. Epiphanius devotes two (Haer. 42:11–12) very extensive chapters to the analysis of Marcion’s New Testament. Creations, part 2, p. 144–254. There is positive evidence about the absence of Luke in Marcion's Gospel. 1.1–80. OK. 2.1–52. OK. 3, 1 b-Lk. 4, 15. OK. 4.17–22. OK. 4.23 b- 26. Lk. 4.41. OK. 5.39. OK. 6.19 b. OK. 6.23 a. OK. 7.29–35. OK. 8,19,40–42 a. 49–56. OK. 9.26 b, 27, 31. Luke. 10.12–15. OK. 11 29–32,42, 49–51. OK. 12, 6, 7,24,27, 28. OK. 13, 1–9, 29–35. OK. 15.11–32. OK. 17.7–10. OK. 18, 31–33. OK. 19,9,27, 29–46. OK. 20.9–18, 37, 38. OK. 21.18. 21–24. OK. 22, 3. 14 a, 16–18, 35–38, 49–51, 70. Lk. 23, 34 b. 43. Insertion or omission of certain words in Luke. 4, 16.34. OK. 5, 14,36–38. OK. 6, 17, 20, 31, 36, 46 (?). OK. 7, 10. OK. 8, 18,21,28. OK. 9, 30. OK. 10.4, 11.21.24.25. OK. 11.2–3.42. OK. 12,1,8,9,32,38. OK. 13.28. OK. 14.16. 21. OK. 15, 10. OK. 16, 12,17, 26. OK. 17, 2, Lk. 18.25.19.10, 26. OK. 20,19,35–36. OK. 21, 8, 13, 27. 30, 32–33. OK. 22.14, 70. OK. 23, 2, 3, 56. OK. 24, 6, 21, Luke. 25, 37, 39. There is no information about the following parts of Luke. 4.36–39, 44. OK. 5, 15–17. 25–26, 28 30. Luke. 6, 18, 32–33, 34 b, 47–49. OK. 8, 24 a. OK. 9, 36–39. 42–43. 45, 49–51. OK. 10.2 –3.7a.7С-9а. 17–18,20,29–42. OK. 11, 10 .19b.23 26, 34–36, 44–45, 48, 53–54, Luke. 12.33–34, 49b, 50. Lk. 13, 22–24. OK. 14, 1–11. OK. 15, 1–2, 24–35. OK. 16, 8 – 9b. 10. Lk. 17, 11, 23–24, 33–37. OK. 18, 15–17. OK. 19, 47–48. OK. 20, 40, 45–47. OK. 21.1–4, 25b. 26. Lk. 22.2, 6–7. 9–13, 21, 22a., 24–30, 39–40, 42 46, 48, 52–53, 65, 68, 71. Lk. 23, 4–5,13–17,26–33,34a,3742,47–49. OK. 24.8, 12. 21b-24,27 29, 32–36, 48–53. Th. Zahn. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1, 2. S., 704 Anm. In his reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel, Zahn places Luke. 3.1a. OK. 4, 31–34, 16, 23a. 28–30, 40, 41, 42–43. OK. 5.1–13, 14, 18–23, 24, 27, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36. OK. 6.1–17, 19a, 20–22. 23 b-29, ZOa-31, 34a, 35–46. OK. 7, 1–28, 36–50. OK. 8.1 –18, 20 –23a, 24b-39, 42b-48. OK. 9.1–22, 24, 26a, 28–30, 32–34, 35, 40–41, 44, 46–48, 52–56, 57, 59–62. OK. 10, 1.4–5.7b, 9b-11, 16, 19.21–28. OK. 11.1–9, 11–19a,20–22, 27,29,33, 37–43, 46, 47, 52. Luke. 12, 1–5, 8–14, 16–20, 22–23, 30–32, 35–49a, 51, 53–59.13, 1021, 25–28. OK. 14, 12–14,16–22. OK. 15, 3–10. OK. 16, 1–7, 9a, 11–31. OK. 17.1–4. 12–14a. 4, 27. 17, 14b-22, 25–32. OK. 18.1–14, 18–30, 34–43. OK. 19, 1–9a, 10–26, 28. Luke. 20.1–8, 19–36, 39.41–44. OK. 21.5–17, 19–20.25–35a. 37–38. OK. 22,1,3–5,8,14 –20, 22b, 31–34, 41,47, 52–64, 66–67, 69–70. OK. 23, 1–3, 6–12, 18–25, 33. 35–36, 44–46. 50–56. OK. 24 1–7. 9–11. 13–21a, Luke. 25–26, 30–31, 37–41, 47. Geschichte des neutestam. Kanons. 11. 2. SS. 45–494. In this reconstruction, the verses that were altered by Marcion are printed completely in their modified form - Srvn. prof. M.D. Muretov. Ernest Renan and his "Life of Jesus." St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 394–396. Tertull. De praescr. cap. 38: Alius manu scripturas, alius sensus expositione intervertit. Neque enim si Valentinus integro instrumento uti videtur. non callidiore ingenio, quam Marcion, manus intulit veritati. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 62C. cap. 17: Ista haeresis... si aliquatenus integras praestat, nihilominus adversas expositiones commentata convertit, col. 35A. De resurr. carnis, cap.63: vel stylo vel interpretationecorrumpens. P.L., t. 2. col. 934A. Cfr. Irenaeus. Contra haer. I 36 paratrepontez taz epmhneiaz, cai radionrgountez exhghdeiez. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 477A. Works, p. 29. III.12,12: Reliqui... Seripturas quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt. PG., t.7. col. 906B. Iren. Contra haer. 111.2,2. Migne.PG., t.7, col. 847A. Works, p. 221. Gfr. I. 7, 3: they explain the prophecies, believing that some were spoken by the Mother (apo thz mhtroz), others by the seed (apo tou opirmatoz), and others by the Demiurge. And Jesus, they say, also spoke one thing from Soter, another from the Mother, and another from the Demiurge. PG., t.7, coil. 516B 517A. Works, p. 39–40. Hippolytus reports similar things about the Naassenes. Philosopher X9: cai omou d autou lelalhcenai taz treiz ousiaz toiz trisi genesi. Migne, P.G., t. 16, col. 3419B. Liechtenhan makes the assumption that what Jesus said from Soter was collected from the Valentinians in the Euaggelion alhJeiaz, so that the division of the words of Jesus into these three classes had to do with the church canonical Gospels, and not with the “Gospel of Truth,” which by its very name could no longer contain anything imperfect coming from the Demiurge. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. SS. 69–70. But Iripaeus calls the “Gospel of Truth” “in nihilo conveniens apostolorum Evangeliis” (Contra haer. 111. 11.9. Migne, PG., t.7. col. 891 B), and therefore we can rather recognize, together with Zahn, this “Gospel” as a special additional Gospel. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. I 2, S. 750. Cfr. SS. 748–750. For this theory, see Irenaeus. Contra haer. 111.5,1,2. 12,6,13. Migne, P.G., t.7. coil. 858–859. 898С-899В. 907А-В. 907А-В. Works, pp. 227–228. 256–257.263–264. Excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti, 66: o Swthr touz apostolouz edidasce, ta men prota tupicwz cai musticwz, ta de ustera parabolicwz cai snigmenoz, ta de trita swjwz cai umnwz cata monaz. Migne, P.G., t. 9. col. 689C. Cfr. Iren. Contra haer. II. 27.2:et ipsi testantur dicentes in abscondo haec eadem Salvatorem docuisse non omnes, sid aliquos discipulorum, qui possunt capere, et per argumenta, et aenigmata, et parabolas ab eo significata intelligentibus. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 803C. Works, p. 189. See also 1 3.1. col. 468, p. 26. Tertullian polemicizes in detail against this use of Christ’s words. De praescr. Sarr. 8–12. For how the Gnostics argued for the need for an allegorical interpretation of Scripture, see Carola Barth. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments en der valintinianischen Gnosis. Leipzig. 1908. SS. 11–16. Contra haer. 18.1. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 520B-521A. Works, p. 41.Cfr. Liechtenhan's remark. Die Offiinbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 71. Anm. 1. Contra haer. 13.6. Migne, P.G. , 1.7. col. 477B. Works, p. 29. Cfr. Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus. S. 78. Th. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamenthchen Kanons, I 2. S. 720. So Matt. 10.38. OK. 14.27. Mk. 10.21, according to the Gnostic explanation given by Irenaeus (Contra haer. 1.3,5. Migne, PG., t.7, col. 476A. Works, p. 28), points to eroz, (what is eroz - see 1, 2,4), precisely to its fastening (thn edrastichn) activity, but in Excepta ex Theod. 42 (Migne, PG., (. 9. col. 680A). Matthew 10.38 gives a different, very vague explanation, where the cross is already compared with the body of Jesus. Cfr. S. Barth. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments... SS. 25–26. Contra haer. 13.1. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 469A, 468A. Works, p. 27, 26. Contra haer. 13.2. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 469A-B. Works, p. 27. Contra haer. 13.3. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 469–473. Works, p. 27–28. Contra haer. 13.1. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 468A. Works, p. 26. Other examples of Gnostic interpretation in Liechtenhan. Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus, SS. 72–75. Brochure by S. Barth. Die Interpretation des Neuen Testaments... presents almost exclusively a collection of examples of allegorical interpretations, especially SS.3–9,16–32. De praescr. cap. 17: Tantum veritati obstrepit adulter sensus, quantum et corruptor stylus. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 35A. Cfr. De resurr. carnis, cap. 63.PL..,t. 2, col. 934A. Origen often talks about this. De princ. IV,9: Grajh... wz pros to yilon gramma ezeilhmmenh (Migne, PG., t. 11. col. 360B). Selecta in psalm, horn. 5.5 en psal. 36: legem secundum litteram tantummodo intelligentes (PG., t. 12, col. 1364C). Comment in Math. t. XV,3: O Marciwn... jascwn mh dein allhgorein thn yrajhn (PG., t. 13. col. 1261A. Cfr. not. 98. coil. 1261–1262D). Th. Zahn. Geschichte des neutest. Kanons, 1, 2. S. 587 Anm. 2. Tertullian sometimes defends the allegorical understanding of the text against Marcion. Adv. Marc. 111.5.14. IV, 20. Migne, PL..t. 2. col. 354A, 362A, 436B. In the dialogue with Magefy there is such a dispute. I, 1: Adamant, dixit: Spirtalem dicis esse sensum scripturis, an purum et historicum nec aliud aliquid intrinsecus continentem? Megethius dixit: Puras dico et hoc tantum, quod scriptum est, habere, nec quicquam aliud... Meg. dixit: Ubi scriptum est, esse parabolas, ilia spiritalia sunt, cetera vero historica. Caspari, Kirchenhislopische Anecdota. 1, p. 11. The Gnostics wanted to understand the prologue literally. John. Iren. Contra haer. 1, 8.5. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 532 sqq. Works, p. 44 46. “Also maliciously, they said: if heaven is the throne of God, and earth is His footstool, and heaven and earth, as it is said, will pass away, then as if with their coming God must also pass away. sitting on them, and therefore He is not the Most High God.” Here Irenaeus already reproaches the Gnostics for puttingant Deum more hominis sedere. Contra haer. IV,31. Migne. PG., t.7, coil. 979C-980A. Works.p. 323. Iren Contra haer. 111.11.1. IV.34,1,35.2. PG., t.7, coil. 344A, 857B-C, 1083C, 1087C. Works, p. 220, 226,414, 418. Tertull. Adv. Marc. 1V,2. Migne, P.L., t, 2, col. 392B. Iren. Contra haer.III. 1.1. Migne, PG., t.7, coil. 844B-845B. Works, p.220. The testimony of Irenaeus is given by Eusebius. NOT. V. 8. Similar remarks are scattered throughout different parts of Tertullian’s work adversus Marcionen. Contra haer. III. 11.8. Migne, PG., t.7, coil. 885–890. Works, p. 249–250. “In this state of affairs, all those who distort (oi aJetountez) the idea of ​​the Gospel and introduce types of the Gospel more or less than what have been said are vain and ignorant and, moreover, impudent.” Contra haer. III.11.9. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 890A. Works, p. 250 Cfr. V.30,1: “such a one will certainly undergo no small punishment, which will be the one who adds or subtracts anything from Scripture” PG., t.7, col. 1204B-S. Works, p. 510. De praescr. cap. 19. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 36A. De praescr. cap. 15. Migne PL., t. 2,coil. 33B-34A. De praescr. cap. 38. Migne PL., t. 2,coil. 62B. De praescr. cap. 37: non esse admittendos haereticos ad incundam de Scripturis provocationem... Ita non christiani nullum jus capiunt christianarum litterarum. Migne, P.L., t. 2. col. 61B. Cfi. cap. 45: certis et justis, et necessariis praescriptionibus repellendas a collatione Scripturarum. P.L., t. 2, col. 74A. De praescr. cap. 37. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 61B-G. Adv. Marc. IV 4: id vertus, quod prius. Migne, P.L., t.2, col. 395B. IV5: veritas falsum praecedat necesse est. col. 397A. IV4: In quantum cnim falsum corruptio est veri, in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum. Prior erit res passione, et materia aemulatione. col. 394B. Cfr. De praescr. cap. 31. col. 5 IB. Adv. Marc. IV 4: Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum; ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem, quod antiquius reperietur; et ei praejudicans vitiationem, quod posterius revmcetur?.. Quod ergo pertinet ad evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio ejus inter nos et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcionis est, quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit; cum et pecuniam in primo calore ndei catholicac Ecclesiae contulit, projectam mox cum ipso posteaquam in haeresim suam a nostra veritatedescivit... Emendator sane Evangelii a Tibenanis usque ad Antoniana tempora eversi, Marcion solus et primus obvenit... non divinae auctoritatis negotiom est haercsis, quae sic semper emendat Evangelia, dum vitiat. Migne, P.L., t. 2,coil. 394B–395A. Iron. Contra haer. 111.11.8. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 885A. Works, p. 249.Cfr. 111.1,4: fundamentum et columnam fidei nostrae, col. 844A. c. 220. Contra haer. V.20.2. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 1178A B. Writings, p. 488 Contra haer. IV.33.8. sine Fictione Scriplurarum tractatio plenissima, neque additamentum neque anlationem recipliens, et lectio sine falsatione. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 1077B. Works, p. 409. Iren. Contra haer. IV.35.2: perfection and deficiency, knowledge and ignorance, truth and error, light and darkness could not be combined in one. The Lord never spoke from height or from imperfection (nunquam modo quidem di principali, modo vero de subjecta deminoratione) and was not at the same time a teacher of knowledge and ignorance (Migne, PG., t.7. col. 1087–1088. Works, p. 418). 11.35.2: All Scripture is from one God; the prophets did not speak at the inspiration of various gods (PG., t.7, col. 838A. Works, p. 216). Iren. Contra haer. III. 51–2. The apostles did not hypocritically adapt their teaching to the listeners and did not give answers that agreed with the opinion of the questioners; they did not invent fables for the blind according to their blindness, for the weak according to their weakness and for the erring according to their error... Such a course of action is not characteristic of those who heal or give life, but rather of those who cause disease and spread their ignorance. A doctor, wanting to heal a patient, will not act in accordance with the whims of the patient. The Lord Himself spoke, not adapting to the old opinion of those questioning, but in accordance with the saving teaching, without pretense and partiality... Our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth and there is no lie in Him. And the apostles, disciples of the truth, are also alien to all lies; for falsehood is not united with truth, as darkness is with light, but the presence of one excludes the other (Migne, PG., t.7. col. 858–859. Works, pp. 227–228). III.12,6: The coming of the Lord will turn out to be unnecessary and useless if He came in order to allow and preserve everyone’s previous opinion about God (PG., t.7. col. 899A. Works, p. 257). III.5,3. The entire apostolic history testifies that the apostles did not adapt to the opinion of those they taught. The apostles taught the pagans to leave vain trees and stones, which they revered as gods, and to honor the true God (PG., t.7, coil. 859C-860. Works, p. 228); they boldly said that their gods were not gods, but idols of demons. The apostles also boldly told the Jews that they were the murderers of the Lord. (III.12,6, Migne, PG., t.7, col. 899B. Works, p. 257). If the apostles had preached hypocritically, they would not have suffered, but since they preached the opposite to people who disagreed with the truth, they suffered. Obviously, they did not abandon the truth, but preached it with all boldness to the Jews and Greeks (III.12,13, PG., t.7.col. 907B. Works, p. 264). Tertullian has similar arguments in de praescr., starting from ch. 20, but Tertullian directs his speeches primarily against the Gnostic teaching about secret tradition. Iren. Contra haer. 11 24: Apertissime consternationem, sive confusionem, et instabillitatem scientiae eorum, et extoutum demonstrant. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 788. Works, p. 178. Contra haer. 11.24.1: manifista est impudenter extorta supputata. Migne, P.G., t.7. col. 79 IB. Works, p. 179–180. 11.24,3: in Scripture, each number is repeated several times, so that anyone, anyone, can borrow from Scripture not only the octagon, ten or twelve, but also any other number, and pass it off as an image of the error he has invented (PG., t.7, col. 793B. Works, p. 181), such as, for example, the number five. See generally 11.24,1–6. Contra haer. 11.23.1–2. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 786–787. Works, p. 176–178. Si enim quae a Domino facta sunt, typos esse dicunt eorum, quae sunt in Pinveomate; typus in omnibus debet servari... Insulsum autem et inconveniens est omnino dicere in quibusdam quidem servasse typum Salvatorem, in quibusdam autem non servasse. Tertull. De resurr. carnis, cap. 20. Migne, P.G., t. 2,coil. 867 B-C, 868C, 869A. Tertull. De resurr. carnis, cap. 30: Nam etsi figmentum veritatis est imago in imagine ipsa in veritate est sut; necesse est esse prius sibi quo alii configuretur: de vacuo similitudo non competit, de nullo parabola non convenit. Migne, P.L., t, 2, coil. 884B-C. Cfr. cap. 20. col. 867C. Tertull. De resurr. carnis. cap. 33. Migne, P.L., t. 2,coil. 888A-B. De pudic. cap. 17: pauca multis, dubia certis, obscura vanifestis adumbrantur. Migne, P.L., t. 2,coil. 1068B. Cfr. Adv. Prax. cap. 20: oporteat secundum plura intilligi pauclora. P.L., t. 2. col.203A. De resurr. carnis, cap. 21: encerta de certic et certic et obscura de manifestis praejudicari. P.L., t. 2. col. 869B. On Tertullian's exegetical principles see Adhimar d'Ales. La theologie de Tirtullien. Pans. 1905. p. 245 et suiv. Iren. Contra haer. II. 27.3, Migne, PG., t.7. col. 803C-804A. Works, p. 189. Iren. Contra haer. II. 10.2, Migne, PG., t.7. col. 735B. Works, p. 132. In this case, as many interpreters of the parable will be (qui absolvent parabolas), so many truths will turn out to be mutually contradictory and confirm opposing teachings (contrana sibimel dogmata statuentes). Contra haer. 11.27.1. Migne, P.G., t.7. coil. 802C-803A. Works, p. 188.Cfr. 11. 10.1: a question cannot receive a solution through another that itself still requires a solution, and among people who have sense, an ambiguity (ambiguitas) will not be explained through another or a riddle through another most difficult riddle. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 735A-B. Works, p. 132. Contra haer. 11.10.1. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 735 V. Works, p. 132. Contra haer. 11.21.1. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 802C. Works, p.188. Contra haer. 19.4. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 545V, 548V. Works, p. 49.Cfr. Tertull. De pudic. cap. 9: non ex parabolis materias commentamur, sed ex matenis parabolas interpretamur. Migne, P.L..t. 2, col. 1049A. Tertull. De pudic. cap. 9: dog valde laboramus omnia in expositione. Hujusmodi enim curiositates et suspecta faciunt quaedam, et coactarum expositionum subtilitate plerumque didu-cunt a veritate. Migne, P.L., t. 2. col. 1049A. Iren. Contra haer. II. 28.2 Migne, PG., t.7. col. 804 sqq. Works, p. 190–191. Ctr. Tertull. De pulic. cap. 9: malumus in Scripturis minus, si forte, sapere, quam contra. Migne. P.L., t. 2, col. 1051C. Contra haer. II. 28.2 Migne, PG., t.7. col. 806 B-C. Writings, pp.191–192. Cfr. II 261 –3. V 202. PG., t.7, coil.800–802. 1178B. Works, pp.186–188, 488–489. “For that time, this exegetical technique (of allegorical interpretation) seemed as strictly scientific as now, for example, comparison of texts and philological research... In that era, allegorical interpretation received full credit.” Prof. V. V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient Church, vol. 2, p. 177. On this see Alttestamcntlichen Abhandlungen, herausgegeben von prof. Dr. Nikel. Heft 1–2. Der Einfluss Philos auf die alteste chnstliche Exegese (Barnabas, lustin und Clemens von Alexandria), bin Beitrag zur Geshichte der allegorisch – mystischen Schriftauslegung im christlichen Altertum von Dr. Paul Heinisch Munster i.W.1908.SS.12–14. P.Henisch. Der Einfluss Philos. S. 29. P.Henisch. Der Einfluss Philos. S. 42. Barnab. 6, 9: ti de legei h gnwsiz, maJete. 98: tiz oun h doJeisa auij gnwsiz; (and further the well-known allegorical interpretation of the number 318). CM.Henisch R. Der Einfluss Philos. SS. 30–36. Dr. lohannes Feipoldt. Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. 1-er Th. Leipzig. 1907. SS. 20 23. The allegorical method was necessary already because the Church, having rejected Judaism, adopted the Old Testament, where they found prototypes of New Testament events. However, one can perhaps agree with Harnack that in the fight against the Gnostics they learned to use allegories with some caution. Ueber den sogenannten zweiten Brief des Clemens an die Korinther. Zcitschnft fur Kirchengeschichte. 1876. Bd. I (H. 3) SS. 344, 360. Cfr. F. Bohringer. Die alte Kirche, 11 2. S. 411. Contra haer. IV. 20,12.Migne, PG., t.7, col. 1042B. Works, p. 377 378. Contra haer. IV. 31.1–2. Migne, PG., t.7, coil. 10681070. Works, pp. 402–403 Contra haer. IV. 22.1. Migne, PG., t.7, coil. 1046–1047. Works, pp. 380 381. Fragm.23. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 1241 V. Works, p. 538. See also interpretations of the Court 1626 (Fragm. 27. PG., t.7, col. 1244B. Works, p. 539), 2 Kings. 6.5–7 (Contra haer. V. 17.4. Fragm. 28.PG., t.7, col. 1171 A. 1244C. Works, pp. 483, 539), Court. 15.11 (Fragm. 42. PG., t.7, col. 1260A. Works, p. 544), Matt. 5.5 (Contra haer. V. 9.4. PG., t.7, col. 1146–1147C. Works, pp. 463–464), In. 11.43. 44 (Contra haer. V 31. PG., t.7, col. 1156В-С. Works, p. 471), the history of Jacob (C'ontra haer. IV 213. PG., t.7, col. 1045–1046. Works, p. 379), the history of Tamar (Contra haer. IV. 25.2. PG., t.7, col. 1051A-B. Works, p. 385), etc. Let us give an extenso interpretation of the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13:19). “Christ, having hidden himself in the heart of the earth in the grave and within three days grown into the greatest tree, stretched out his branches to the ends of the earth. The twelve apostles that grew from Him, becoming flowering and fruitful branches, became a refuge for the nations, like for birds of heaven, and, covered with these branches, everyone, like birds gathered in a nest, became partakers of the saving and heavenly poverty that came from them.” Fragm. 31. PG., t.7. coil. 245A. Works, p. 540. There is therefore not the slightest reason to agree with those who write that “St. Irenaeus, when interpreting various passages of Scripture, adheres mainly to the literal meaning, and generally tries to avoid the so-called allegorical or allegorical method of interpretation.” The dogmatic system of St. Irenaeus of Lyons in connection with the Gnostic teachings of the second century. Orthodox Interlocutor. 1874. vol. 2, p. 226. See Heinisch P. Der Einfluss Philos. S. 40. See Adhemar d'Ales. La theologie de Tertullien. p. 250–251. De praescr. cap. 19: Ergo non ad Scripturas pruvovocandum cst; nec in his constuotuendam certamen, en quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est. aut par (parum) incertae (a). Migne, P.G., t. 2, col. 36A. De praescr. cap. 17: nihil proficiat congresio Scripturarum, nisi plane ut stomachi quis ineat eversionem, aut cerebri... Et tu quidem nihil perdes, nisi vocem in contentione; Nihil consequeris, nisi bilem de blasphematione. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 35A,B. De praescr. cap. 14: Fides, mquit, tua te salvum fecit; non exercitatio Scripturarum... exercitatio in curiositate consistit, habens gloriam solam de peritiae studio, Cedat curiositas fidei, cedat gloria saluti. Certe nun obstrepant aut quiescant. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 32A. CT cap. 7, col. 24A. De praescr. cap. 19: Ubi apparuerit esse veritatem disciplinae et fidei Chnstianae, illic ei it veritas Scripturarum, et expositionum, et omiiium traditionurn Christianarum. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 36A-B. The Church is entrusted with the light of God, it preaches the truth; she is the seven-candle lamp bearing the light of Christ (Iren. Contra haer. V.20,1. Migne, PG., t.7, col. 1177B. Works, p. 488). There is a clearly defined truth in the Church (Tertull. De praescr. cap. 9. PL., t. 2, coil. 26B-27A). Truth must be sought only in the Church (Ircn. Contra haer. 111.4,1, PG., t.7, col. S55A. Works, p. 255). The woman of the Gospel was looking for drachmas inside her home, so the truth should be sought only in her Church - in nostro, et a noslris, et de nostro (Tertull. De praescr. cap. 12. PL., t. 2, coil. 30B). She received the truth from the apostles and, being the only one in the whole world who has preserved it well, passes it on to all her children. (lien. Contra haer. Vpraef, PG., t.7, col. 1119A. Works, p. 445). The truth is transmitted by the Church, and only what is true is what the Church conveys (Contra haer. 111.3,4, PCi., t.7, col. 852A. 853A (no Greek text). Srvp. Works, p. 224). Outside the Church - outside the truth extra verilateni, id est, extra Ecclesiam (Contra haer. IV337., PG., t.7, col. 1076B S. Works, p. 409). “Tertullian’s classic work de pracscriptione haereticorum directly boils down to this position: in matters of faith, it is not subjective research that matters, but only the decision of the Church, because only in it is the apostolic and generally ancient teaching preserved infallibly.” Dr. Karl Adam. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertiillians. Forschungcn zur Christlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte, herausgegeben von Dr. Hhrhard und Dr. 1. P. Kirsch. VI Bd. 4 Heft. Paderborn. 1907. SS. 26–27. Iren. Contra liaer. IV.33.8. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 1077B-1078A. Works.p. 409. St. Irenaeus of Lyons constantly speaks about the Holy Spirit living in the Church, so that, according to his teaching, the entire life of the Church is a manifestation of the Spirit. See Contra haer. 1I1 171, 2, 3; 24, 1. I V.31.2. 33.9. V. 1.1; 8.1; 11.1; 182; 20.2. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 929C. 930A. C-D. 966B. 1009A. V-S. 1078B. 1122С. 1141B-1142A. 1150С. 1173A. 1178С. Works, p. 284, 312, 403, 410, 447, 459–460, 467, 485, 489. Through the Holy Spirit, Christians see, hear, and speak (V. 20:2). The Holy Spirit gives knowledge of the truth (IV. 33.7. PG., t.7. col. 1077A. p. 409). Having received the faith from the Church, we observe it, and through the Spirit of God it always, like a precious treasure in a beautiful vessel, retains its freshness (juvenescens) and makes the very vessel in which it is contained fresh. For this gift of God is entrusted to the Church, like the breath of the creation for animation, so that all the members who receive it are quickened... For in the Church, it is said, God has ordained apostles, prophets, teachers and all the other activities of the Spirit (universam reliquam operationem Spiritus), of which all those who do not agree (concurrunt or currunt) with the Church, but take their own lives in bad ways, do not participate. teaching and the worst way of acting. For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace, and the Spirit is truth (111.24, 1. col. 966A-C, p. 312). Tertullian constantly speaks about the Holy Spirit living in the Church. Apol. cap. 39. PL., t. 1.coil. 471–472. Decult. fimin. lib. 2.cap. 1. PL., t.1, coll316A. De poenit.cap.10. PL., t.1, col.l245A. De praescr. cap. 13: vim Spiritus sancti, qui credentes agat.PL-, t.2, coil. 31A. Cfr. Cap.28. col. 47A. Cfr. K. Adam. Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians. SS. 35–36. For this “rule of faith” see Th. Zahn. Glaubensregel und Taufbekenntnis in der alten Kirche. Skizzen aus dem Leben der Alten Kirche. 2-te A&P. Eriangen und Leipzig. 1898. SS. 248 figg. A. Harnack. Dogmengeschichte. I.SS. 354. figg. Tertull. Devirg. vel. cap. 1: una omninoest. sola immobilis et irreformabilis. Migne, P.L., t. 2, col. 937B. Cfr. De praescr. cap. 14.PL.. t.2. col. 31 V. Iren. Contra haer. I. 21, 5: qui recentiores eorum agnoscuntur, affectant per singulos dies novum aliquid adinvenire, et fructificare, quod nunquam quisquam excogitavit. Migne, P.G., t.7. coil. 667B. 670A. Works, p. 84.Cfr. I. 21, 1: “jsoi gar eisi tauthz thz gnwmhz mustagwgoi, tosautai cai apolntwseiz. PG., t.7. col. 657B. Celsus said: Eiz plhJoz oparentez, andiz au scizontai, cai temnjntai, cai staseiz ecein ecastoi Jelonsi. ai upo plhJouz palin dustamenoi, sjaz, autouz elegcousi, enoz, idiaz eipein, et) coinwnountez, eige coinwnousi eti, tou onomatoz. Origen. Contra Celsum. 111. 12. Migne, P.G., t. 11, col. 933B. Anthemius of Nicomedia said the same thing later about the Gnostics and heretics in general: cainotera allhlwn parepenohsan te cai paredwcan toiz up autwn hpathmenoiz.. eJoz gar toiz aireticoiz ta allhlwn ujairetsJai cai prosexeupiscein cainotera. Anthimi Nicomediensis episcopi et martyris – De sancta Ecckesia. 6. 4. Giovanni Mercati. Note di letteratura biblica e cnstiana antica. Studi e testi. 5. Roma, 1901. p. 96. Iren. Contra haer. 111.24.2. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 967A. Works, p. 313. Tertull. De praescr. cap. 42: Heretics differ among themselves even regarding their rules of faith (regulis suis), since each in his own arbitrary way changes what he received, just as the one who handed it to him compiled it in his own arbitrary way. The Valentinians are allowed the same as Valentinus, the Marcionites the same as Marcion, namely: to introduce new things into the faith at will (fidem innovare)... Migne, PL., t. 2, col. 70A -B. Cfr. Adv. Hermog. cap. 45: Hermogenes describes the state of matter as he himself is in - unsettled, mixed, seething, with an unclear movement, hasty, boiling, Migne. P.L., t. 2, col. 264A. Cfr. Iren. Contra haer. 111.24,1–2: they do not feed for life from their mother’s breasts, they do not use the purest source emanating from the body of Christ, but they dig broken wells for themselves from earthly ditches and drink rotten water from the mud, withdrawing from the faith of the Church, so as not to convert, rejecting the Spirit, so as not to come to their senses. Having become alienated from the Truth, they are naturally carried away by any error, excited by it, but at times thinking differently about the same objects and never having solid knowledge, wanting to be more sophists of words than students of truth. For they are not founded on one stone, but on sand, which contains many stones. Therefore they invent many gods and always have an excuse to seek (the truth) - since they are blind, but can never find it (Migne, PG., t.7, col. 966C -967A. Works, pp. 312-313.). V.20.2: they walk unsteadily along many and different roads (vane et multiformiter et imbecille), not always agreeing with each other regarding the same things. PG., t.7, col. 1178A. Works, p. 488. Iren. Contra haer. V.20.2. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 1178A. Works, p. 488. Iren. Contra haer. 1. 10.3. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 553B. 556A. Works, pp. 50–51. Tertull. De praescr. cap. 14: manente forma ejus in suo ordine (in Chapter 13 Tertullian has just expounded the “rule of faith”), quantum libet quaeras et tractes, et omnem libidinem curiositatis of fundas. Fides in regula posita est... Adversus regulam nihil omnia scire est. Migne, P.L., t. 2,coil. 31B, 32A. Iren. Contra haer. 1. 10.2. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 553A. Works, p. 50. Contra haer. V.20.2. Migne, P.G., t.7, col. 1177C-1178A. Works, p. 488. Contra haer. 11 261. Migne, PG., t.7, col. 800A-C. Works, p. 186. St. Irenaeus “with his whole being, mind and heart, penetrated into the faith of the Church, how she was devoted to him and how he understood it. He seeks to group its most important provisions and make them accessible to general understanding. But, justifying its content for believers with possible arguments, he reveals in his work the amazing tension of faith and religious life, preserving faith in its simplicity and strength, its practical tendency and warmth. He remains all the time in the area of ​​spiritual life, religious feeling and mood, and moral activity.” Prof. N.I.Sagarda. The newly discovered work of St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “Proof of the Anoctolic Sermon.” Christian Reading, vol. 223 (1907, part 2), p. 880. Although the church writers used the same method of interpretation as the Gnostics. but it was their churchliness that saved them from Gnostic errors. Cfr. Thomasius, Die Dogmengeschichte, S. 135. Cfi-. Th. Zahn. Cieschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I. 2. S.651. “There was a time - and the general public is still in it - when it was believed that the oldest Christian literature, including the New Testament, should be thought of as a series of forgeries and deceptions. That time has passed. For science, this was an era during which it learned a lot and after which it must forget a lot. But the results of further research in the “reactionary” direction go beyond the boundaries of what could perhaps be called the average state of modern criticism... I do not hesitate to use the word “reactionary” (“rucklaufig”); after all, things must be called by their proper names, and in the criticism of the sources of ancient Christianity we are undoubtedly in a reactionary movement towards tradition... The time will come - and it is already coming - when they will worry little about deciphering literary-historical problems in the field of early Christianity, because what is generally established here will become generally recognized - namely, the essential right of tradition, minus a few significant exceptions.” Adolf Harnack. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, 1-er Bd. Leipzig. 1896. Vorrede, S.S. VIII, X-XI passim. Cir. Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament von Adolf Harnack. 1 Heft. Lukas der Arzt der Vertasser, des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte. Leipzih. 1906. Vorwort. SS. Ill IV. Strom. V.11,16. Migne. P.G., t. 9, col. 533A. This idea is repeated many times and very decisively in the writings of the patrists. "Faust" by Goethe. Translation by A. Fet, part I. Moscow. 1882. p. 82. Let us cite the original text of this wonderful passage: Mich drangt''s, den Grundtext aufzuschiagen, Mit redlichem Gefuhl einmal Das heilige Original In mein geliebtes Deutsch zu ubertragen. (Er schlagt ein Volum a inund schickt sich an). Geschrieben steht: “Im Anfang war das Wort!” Hier stock ich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort? Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmoglich schatzen, Ich muss es anders ubersetzen. Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erieuchtet bin, Geschrieben steht: im Anfang war der Sinn. Bedenke wohl die erste Zeile, Dass deine Eeder sich mcht ubereile! Ist es der Sinn, der alles wirkt und schafft? Es solle stehn: im Anfang war die Kraft. Doch, auch mdem ich dieses mederschreibe, Schon warnt mich was, dass ich dabei nicht bleibe Mir hilft der Geist! Aut einmal seh ich Rath Und schreibe getrost: im Anfang war die That! Goethé's Werke. Bd. 5–6. Berlin, 1873. S. 43. Compilation and translation of the four Gospels of Count Leo Tolstoy. Edition Elpidin M.K., vol. 1. Geneve. 1882, p. 19, 21, 24. But in the “summary of the Gospel” this text is read differently: “The understanding of life became the basis and beginning of everything. The understanding of life is God.” Published by the book publishing houses "Update" and "Intermediary". St. Petersburg, 1906, p. 21. Adv. Marc. 1. 1. Migne, P.L., t. 2,coil. 271–272: Sed nihil tarn barbarum ac triste apud Pontum, quam quod illic Marcion natus est. However, mutatis mutandis, we can repeat the words of Tertullian given in the previous note. “The reader must remember that not only is it not reprehensible to remove unnecessary (!?) passages from the Gospels, to illuminate one by another, but on the contrary, it is reprehensible and godless (???) not to do this, but to consider a certain number of verses and letters sacred.” Summary of the Gospel. Preface to the Geneva edition of 1890, p. 9. In ed. 1906 instead of “reprehensible and godless” there is “unreasonable”, p. 9. Compare the combination and translation of the four Gospels, vol. 1, p. 11. Tolstoy and Marcion also have in common the denial of the Old Testament, but according to Marcion there is only one apostle. Paul was a true apostle, others are pseudoapostoli et judaici evangelizatores (Tertull. Adv. Marc. V. 19. Migne, PL., t. 2, col. 552C), and in Tolstoy the apostle. Paul ended up among the “founders of the Christian Talmud” because he, “without thoroughly understanding the teaching of Christ” (that’s how!), introduced the doctrine of tradition into Christianity, and this principle of tradition was the main reason for the distortion (?) of Christian teaching and misunderstanding of it (see the preface to the Geneva edition of the “summary”, p. 12). Blaming the ap. Paul in misunderstanding the teachings of Christ, Tolstoy again repeats Marcion, who, according to St. Irenaeus, convinced his disciples that he was more worthy of trust than the apostles (Contra haer. 1. 27.2. Migne, PG., t.7, col. 6S8B. Works, p. 96), and boasted that he was the corrector of the apostles (111. 1.1. PCi., t.7, col. S44B. Works, p. 220); and in general the Gnostics considered themselves wiser not only than the bishops, but even the apostles (111. 2,2 dicentces se non solum presbyteris, sed ctiam apostolis existentes sapientiores. PG., t.7, col. S47A. Works, p. 221). A trial lecture on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, given at the meeting of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy on May 3, 1911. You might be interested in: