Experience of Russian processing of material for the biography of St. Apostle Paul

The second great journey of St. ap. Paul with the preaching of the Gospel (Acts XV, 40 - XVIII, 22). Experience of historical and exegetical research of priest D. Glagolev. Tula 1893. Country. III-336-XII. Price 1 ruble 75 kopecks. The purpose of this essay was clearly defined by the title itself; but according to the custom of Russian authors - to make from their private work something grandiose, colossal and decisive in an entire scientific field - and Fr. D.S. Glagolev expanded it unnecessarily to obvious detriment in the performance of his direct duties. He is not content with the desire to “present the experience of the history of the second great journey of St. ap. Paul with the preaching of the Gospel” (page I), but his intentions extend to the point of “providing (at least somewhat) valuable material for future worthy life writers, biographers of the great Apostle of Languages” (page III), who are thus made dependent on his work and are invited in advance to due gratitude... The humility of Fr. Glagolev, as we see, is far from without pride. At the same time, he expresses the need for “rich, thorough and varied knowledge and subtle critical ability”, for the possession of “pure life” 1, “strong literary talent, rich and pure religious and poetic inspiration.” Naturally, he does not dare to assimilate such and such numerous perfections and refuses in advance to “satisfy the requirements that exist in this case.” Already in the very formulation of the goal there is something wrong, fatal for the entire essay. To paint yourself the broadest and most tempting prospect and immediately testify to your poverty and weakness means deliberately imposing on yourself a burden that is too heavy for your shoulders, and therefore not carrying it where it should be. Why take it and why not take something more suitable and easy to implement? Then the successors would have real support for further constructions, meanwhile, now, adjacent to Fr. Glagolev, they will forever suffer over the old cart, which will hardly move from this. But in any case, since the second missionary circle is presented as material for a complete biography of the Apostle of Languages, it would be necessary to expect that the author would accurately determine its significance in the general course of the life and missionary service of Paul and in the history of the early Christian Church. This expectation is all the more natural because Fr. Glagolev deliberately seeks “an opportunity to speak about the circumstances immediately preceding the departure of St. ap. Paul on his second journey” (pages 1, 1). In fact, we find nothing of the kind, because everything “to say” comes down to setting a “probable date for determining the time.” There are no attempts on the part of the author in this direction, and he does not seem to be aware of the important issues that are associated with this period. We need not deal with this subject in a bibliographical report, but we must note that until the extraordinary significance of Art. 36 and 40 of the fifteenth chapter of the book of Acts, the story of Paul and his missionary exploits will remain unclear and incomprehensible at its most essential point. Likewise, at the end of the study, the final results are not presented, and it does not actually lead to positive and direct results, but ends abruptly. It turns out something without beginning and end (unless you consider that this word is printed in capital letters on p. 336) of his existence - and the snatched episode is not inserted into the framework that Fr. Glagolev with such relief. Therefore, joining completely with the wishes of the Reverend. Archangel Nikanor, at a master's debate on the subject of the book under discussion 2, on the continuation of work on the study of the life of the Apostle Paul, we allow ourselves to express the hope that in them the position of the taken department in the general course of the ministry of the evangelist of tongues will be determined with greater care. But, without giving the work expected according to the plan itself, Fr. Glagolev still remembers his promises and tries to live up to them. In these interests, he diligently resorts to the help of “religious-poetic inspiration” and, thanks to his services, tries to fill all the gaps in historical news and revive their dry punctuality from an excess of “pure” inspiration. There are numerous examples of this scattered throughout the pages of the book, and they all make a rather depressing impression. First of all, they do not satisfy the requirements of the legality of scientific assumptions, which are permissible only in cases of necessity, while the author often makes them without any need, for the sake of the integrity of the “biography.” It goes without saying that they sometimes do not have the necessary supports and hang directly in the air. From here comes a harmful mixture of the truly historical with the fantastic, or at least the unlikely. So, on page. 50 we read: “Having added Timothy to himself, St. Paul probably (why and where?) told him the hierarchical degree of deacon. For a presbyter, Timothy was still young (and did his youth - 1 Tim. IV, 12. 2 Tim. II, 22 - prevent him from becoming a bishop?). Endowed with such a degree, Timothy could be more useful to the Apostle 3 than if he had remained a layman.” On what, however, does this “opportunity” rest? To “more useful”? But why is this and why then were not Pavlov’s other companions ordained deacons, which is undoubtedly known about most of them? Who and where said that Timothy was a deacon? And if so, on what grounds is this timed to coincide with his election to the staff? All these questions do not confuse the author, and he continues with conviction - but without conviction: “One must (!) think that the dedication of Timothy took place in a solemn meeting of all the local Christians, united for the Eucharist, celebrated by St. Paul in the concelebration of local presbyters appointed by the Apostle during his first journey... At the dedication of Timothy, from the lips of those embraced by divine inspiration, the very prophetic voices were heard about which St. Paul subsequently reminded his beloved disciple,” etc. All this is picturesque, but just as dreamy. However, here it is clear that the speech is “hypothetical”. This is not the case in other places, and oh. Glagolev walks with purely giant steps. For example, he discusses evangelism in the Philippian meeting houses: “St. Luke does not (sic!) convey to us the contents of Paul's speech, but... one can guess that he began his sermon with a speech about the Messiah promised to Israel... Having expressed to his listeners positions that were already well known to them, St. Paul had the opportunity to announce to them a truth that was still completely unknown to them: the promised Messiah had already come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth... There is no doubt that here the preacher considered it necessary... to clarify them (messianic prophecies)... The whole speech, as one must think, ended with the announcement of... spiritual blessings "... (page 126). The author should not have forgotten that there is a huge distance from a “possible (subjective, in which case everything is possible for others) guess” to an “undoubted need.” According to him, Lydia “evaded the exact fulfillment of all the prescriptions of the Jewish ritual, since the form did not have the same meaning for her as the essence, and since she joined Judaism, expecting something better” (p. 127): again fortune-telling, and not entirely plausible ones at that, meanwhile categorical “since” are put! In other cases, Fr. Glagolev, with no less virtuosity, reverses his considerations. We find an interesting example of this on p. 331, where he tries to “restore the deeply touching picture of the farewell kiss of St. Paul with his beloved Corinthian children about Christ Jesus who appeared before him to listen to the last pastoral word.” “One must think,” writes the author, “that the Apostle’s heart expanded, and that from his lips, just as during his Milesian farewell to the Ephesian elders, a deeply touching speech poured out. In this speech, one can guess, he reminded his listeners of how he proclaimed to them the wisdom of God... The last minutes of his stay with the faithful should have given rise to the expression of feelings of a joyful nature.” It’s just difficult to sort through all these piles of “shoulds,” “cans,” “shoulds,” which all have the same price of personal “fortune telling” without any “necessity.” And, we repeat, the book under review shines with the luxury of such passages. And regarding them, often as much is unknown “why” as “why”, because the layering of hypotheses is arbitrary, without proper scientific necessity. In sad contrast to these facts is the observation that Fr. Glagolev forgets about his “sinces” exactly where the ego is really needed. He reports in detail about Paul’s stay in Iconium and Antioch of Pisidia (pp. 51–56), although, as he notes, “about the journey here in the XVI chapter. (the book of Acts) says nothing.” It would seem that he will try to substantiate his idea in the most solid way if he steals the spoils from the hands of those who want to deal with the events of Pavlov’s first missionary circle. Contrary to all expectations, the required arguments modestly lurked under five stars 4 on page. 50; here we read: “but one cannot think that the Apostle, who set out to visit the brothers in all the cities where he had already preached the word of God with Barnabas, passed by such settlements as Iconium and Antioch, which stood on the great road of Asia Minor and were especially rich (!) in Christians.” Why is it “impossible” if “it is not said?” The author tries to find his support in Acts. XV, 36; however, it is very unreliable 5 - and he soon breaks it mercilessly when he writes: “but ap. Paul, although shortly before this he had declared to Barnabas his desire to go through all the cities in which they preached the word of God, now, however, changed his original intention and decided to go along a completely different path, leading to countries where the word of Christ’s gospel had not yet been heard” (p. 57). This about. Glagolev completely ruins what he created earlier, and presents himself as a criminal. Naturally, the observant reader will not believe him, yet he is right and, at least, not defenseless (cf. Acts XVI, 4-5). Let us not mention that - according to Acts. XVI, 2 – ap. Paul had the testimony of brothers in Lystra and Iconium about Timothy, which would have been impossible if he had not been in the latter. Let us also not stress the fact that this verse was needlessly omitted from due attention when deciding the question of the place of origin of Timothy (page 39 ff.). We mean to note another side in the work under discussion. In our opinion, to obvious and great harm to the cause, Fr. Glagolev did not fulfill his most essential task - studying the sources that would be useful to him. Once he casually mentions - in support of his assumption - the “acts of Paul and Thekla,” referring them to the end of the second century (p. 54), and calms down on this. Meanwhile, this is a very valuable monument, deserving much greater honor. His dignity has been sufficiently revealed by Prof. Ramsay in his new work “The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170,” which already in the year of its publication (London 1893) required two editions. True, this document has come to us in suspicious company with apocrypha, and they constitute the fruit of Gnostic fabrications of the second century, so dubious that it is difficult to distinguish true from false in them even in those points where traces of historical truth are felt (cf., for example, the sermon of St. Thomas before the Indian king Gundaphorus in “Acta Thomae”). The “acts” we understand are not immune to these shortcomings. And in them the names of persons well-known in apostolic writing - Demas, Hermogenes, Onesiphorus - are too sharply and exaggeratedly brought to the fore. Factual errors, such as the confusion of the two Antiochs and the placement of the Roman ruler in Iconium, along with clearly Gnostic tendencies, at least in views on marriage and meat - all this betrays the hand of a later writer and, at that, not an entirely skillful one. Nevertheless, this monument is much higher than those similar to it that the Gnostic narrator Clever Kharin provided us with. Most of the details are very plausible, doctrinal motives remain in the shadows, and even attempts to obscure free creativity are not entirely successful. The grain of the story in any case dates back to the first century, unless it comes from the time of Paul himself: this conclusion is more than a simple hypothesis. It is much more difficult in different editions - in the Greek text, Latin and Syriac translations and in the instructions of (Pseudo-) Chrysostom and Basil of Seleucia 6 - to catch the original type, to decompose the bizarre amalgam of all sorts of layers into its component parts and distribute them chronologically and in order of merit. However, Ramsay has already made quite a successful experiment in this direction. It is important here that the “acts” mention Queen Tryphena, who accepted Thekla in return for her dead daughter. She belonged to the house of the Pontic king Polemon and was born from his marriage with Pythodoris and therefore was the granddaughter of Mark Antony and the cousin of Claudius. Since the enthronement of Caligula in 37, she ruled Pontus together with her son (also Polemon), who, having matured, gradually limited her influence and finally completely removed her from power. From the year 54 (after the death of Claudius) she, apparently, was completely eliminated from the political arena. From many other random features, it irresistibly follows that the author of the story knew well the political history of Asia Minor, and in the early Christian era it changed so often, unexpectedly and sharply that only a chronologically close person could not confuse all the details. From this we conclude that the acts in their original form arose soon after the events described and, therefore, retain echoes of genuine legends. And they tell us that from Antioch Paul moved to Lystra, on the way he met a short man and came with him to Iconium (to Onesiphorus). Then the maiden Thekla became carried away by his speeches and refused the arranged marriage. The preacher was punished and expelled, and the bride was handed over to the care of relatives. But then she followed her enlightener and here she ended up in the palace of Queen Tryphena. In these facts Fr. Glagolev finds material to fill the gap in Luke's news. He uses them accidentally and without proper reasoning, and therefore arbitrarily and unreasonably. The whole point is that - for reasons of the life of Tryphaena - the episode of Thekla refers to the first missionary journey of the Apostle of Languages, as indicated by his return to Antioch, unthinkable during the second. The same, of course, needs to be said about Onesiphorus (in Fr. Glagolev on pp. 54–54) - with the interesting addition that the story about him is a later growth 7 . So: the author failed to identify his source and applied it inappropriately and incorrectly. Unfortunately, this is not the only exception, although it is very typical. Let us point out, as an example, the absence of textual criticism, for Fr. Glagolev mandatory for reasons of a special kind 8. True, he quite boldly denounces Code D, but it turns out that he knows it only from references from Meyer, Lange and Stier (pp. 2, 1. 141, 2. 143, 6): was it really impossible to study it even according to Tischendorf? Meanwhile, he draws very broad conclusions. Thus, he believes that Acts. XV, 33 “unsuccessfully inserted later.” Therefore, Silas, in his opinion, went - after the publication of the statute of the Apostolic Council - together with Judas to Jerusalem and, having gone here, “hastened, as one must think (semper idem!), to the main church of Syria” (strn. 2 n note and 2. 17-18). The hypothesis is quite interesting, however, not original and not probable. But let her “need” Fr. Glagolev: - then allow me to see all the arguments. It would be all the more desirable since the named bilingual manuscript VI (codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis) is rich in data about the Pavlov missionary travels and has attracted much attention from scientists. It is enough to mention the publication of Dr. Scrivener (1864) and the works of Prof. Rendel Harris's. If we add to this that, according to the judgment of the late Hort 9, it arose in northwestern Syria or Asia Minor and, according to the (exaggerated) opinion of Ramsay 10, occurred no later than the year 150, reveals a close acquaintance with the churches of Asia Minor and reproduces living traditions about the exploits of Pavlov in these provinces: then it will be clear how inevitable a scientific consideration of it was. At the same time, the question of its veracity in private testimony is extremely controversial and, for example, Ramsay values ​​​​this list very dearly, exalting its real significance. In any case, his humiliation regarding the strength of Art. 33 both unfounded and reckless. In our opinion, it is unshakable for any skepticism, which is not limited to the arithmetically blind and stupid calculation of manuscripts and is far from the slavish cult of the uncials alone, for without it the story of Luke is impossible, since in Art. 40 The Force would appear as a strange Deus ex machina, as if falling from the sky. And such interpolated remarks from the Writer are not entirely unusual. From what has been said, it is at least clear that Fr. Glagolev, having drawn up an extensive plan for himself, did not provide himself with the necessary sources for its implementation and therefore often resorts to the aid of his imagination, which, fortunately, has little productive creativity. The immediate reason for this is that many and irreplaceable aids, mainly from English literature, are unknown to him. We in no way impose on Russian scientists the obligation to absorb both mosquitoes and camels of foreign theological historical-critical-exegetical writing. On the contrary, we are convinced that others would have saved themselves from many depressing troubles and sorrows if they had left the “twelve languages” to rest peacefully on the shelves of library cabinets and - when they invaded - dealt with them at least in Kutuzov’s style. But for the subject under consideration, this is a completely special matter: here not only new coverage is given, but also new material, and without it all these annoying “can”, “must”, “must” are simply offensive. We will see examples of this below. In the meantime, in connection, we note that in other places the author’s armor has become very rusty. Thus, in his speech about the Epistle of Barnabas, he refers to articles in the “Orthodox Review” (for him, cf. p. 4, i) and “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” for 1860 and 1862 (p. 13, 3), but - not to mention their qualities - so much scientific water has flowed from that hole that in its stream they are washed away and covered with sand and not so essays. In his judgments about Dionysius the Areopagite, he is guided (p. 242) by the “extensive research” of the late Bishop Porfiry of the Uspensky, meanwhile his authority on the issue of the “Areopagite” is very doubtful and his “without obligation” (note 1) means very little 11. Carried away by “biographical” desires that served him poorly, Fr. Glagolev, naturally, made it difficult for himself to punctually carry out his direct tasks. We mean chronology and topography. The work itself opens with themes from the first area. The author apparently understands their importance and in this insight surpasses the related work of the recently deceased Fr. archim. Gregory 12. However, this aspect has not been carried out systematically, and sporadic attempts are far from possible perfection. Let us consider the most detailed information about the “probable date” of the beginning of the second missionary circle. O. Glagolev tries to approach it by defining the “interval” that elapsed between the Apostolic Council and the moment of departure (pages 1–2). He puts three months on it (page 3), thinking that Judas and Silas remained in the capital of Syria for one month (page 2), and “the stay of the ap. Paul should not be considered too long,” for for him “St. The writer uses the smallest unit” - after some days (Acts XV, 36). This theory of “the smallest quantities” hardly has sufficient application in the present case and from the point of view of the author himself, who allocates even more events to this period than necessary. Firstly: he argues fairly, although not entirely convincingly (p. 2.2) – contrary to his predecessor Fr. Gregory 13, - that now the famous Antioch clash between Peter and Paul took place, and it - according to Gal. II, 11 ff. – suggests: a) the coming of Jonin’s son to the capital of Syria and his initial communion with the Hellenes; b) the appearance of “some from James”, which produced a revolution in the general course of life of the Antiochian Christians; c) hypocrisy, which “gradually” captivated all the Judeo-Christians up to and including Barnabas, 14 and d) the reproof of the Apostle of Tongues when he saw that they were walking incorrectly towards the truth of the gospel. And all these “units” are not the smallest, but Fr. Glagolev added another new one, that Silas managed to go to Jerusalem and return back, which also required more than a day. Then: the legates of the Apostolic Council remained on the banks of the Orontes “time” (χρόνον) - a very vague expression, for which it is necessary to take into account that, having read the conciliar letter, they “with many words” consoled the brethren and confirmed (Acts XV, 30-33). Finally, a fair amount of time passed after the “confrontation.” Negotiations with Barnabas, the debate over Mark and the election of other employees did not take place in a few moments, of course, because it was necessary to draw up a different plan for the journey (cf. p. 21). We now see that talking about “small things” should be done with great caution, and for this, “one must think” alone is not enough. Yes – and besides that – what follows from this “gap”? Is the date of the Jerusalem Synod an undeniably firm terminus a quo? It turns out not - and the author is forced to establish it approximately, which would be much better to do before all reasoning. We will not go into the details of this issue. Let us only note that it was processed by Fr. Glagolev is very weak. Here he takes only the news about Aref (the only correct spelling) in 2 Cor. XI, 32, in order to obtain, through the addition of 14 years, the chronological point of the Apostolic Conference. And this fact has not been studied satisfactorily, and it is not clear whether Paul left Damascus at the beginning of the Petrean king’s rule over him or after “not even a few days” had passed, and this may cause a hesitation not for “three months”, but for a whole year and a half. Moreover, this is not all that would be desirable to use for the chronology of the Apostolic Council, where the author does not fully distinguish between relative and absolute notation, the interaction of which should have been the guiding principle for placing the various events of Pavlova’s life. So: both intermedium and terminus a quo are indicated speculatively, without the necessary grounds, meanwhile Fr. Glagolev boldly concludes from this that in Corinth (Acts XVIII ch., the Apostle was from “half of Oct. 52 to the second half of April 54” (p. 8). The accuracy is amazing, but it is extremely suspicious after the previous “most likely.” One cannot help but express particular surprise that the author mentions the weeks of Daniel completely ex abrupto and does not no applications (strn. 7–8): you just become confused, why are they disturbed?! This, in fact, exhausts the entire chronology of the work under consideration, and this, undoubtedly, is the “smallest unit,” since one cannot attribute anything to the random and unfounded indications that “the Apostle stayed in Galatia for at least two months” (p. 108). The author does not even always fulfill his tempting promises. So on page 83.2 we read: “Paul was in Cilicia, as we said above, at the beginning of January,” but this opinion is not confirmed by anything except the apodictic statement (page 29): “We believe that the journey (through Cilicia) fell at the beginning of January, so that the Cilician region could then seem very pleasant and hospitable to travelers.” However, all this simple dreaming has not yet been revealed with possible factual evidence. The one and a half year Corinthian period is determined no less hypothetically, and we are talking about. Glagoleva is very categorical (pp. 8.3 and cf. 329–330). After all this, we feel we have the right to say without hesitation that the chronological part of the topic has been dealt with without proper satisfaction, although, in our judgment, it should have constituted the main task of the work. The same conclusion is true in relation to topography. Our words may seem unexpected to some readers, because Fr. Glagolev often depicts in pictures what stones cut Paul’s feet, what sun scorched his head, what dust ate his eyes. But all this belongs to the field of his own creativity. We note that first it would be necessary to determine how the roads actually ran in a given area in that era. In its absolute sense, this problem - with many other questions - was, of course, beyond the power of the author, but he could choose the best sources, the knowledge of which was obligatory for him and would have done him a great service. For example, for travel to Asia Minor there is a good guide in the work of the named prof. Ramsay “The historical geography of Asia Minor” (in the IV volume of the publications of the Koyal Geogiaphical Society, London 1890). Without careful study, judging and dressing him up will be more than risky. At the same time, Fr. Glagolev does not consider all the indications and hints with due care. He quite punctually depicts Paul's journey through Galatia (page 62. 108 ff.), but omits the difference in the expressions of Luke “through Phrygia and the Galatian country” and “the country of Galatia and Phrygia” (Acts XVI, 6. XVIII, 23) - for the first and second visit - and does not take into account the not uninteresting options in these places 15. Along with this, it should be noted that he cares little about the accuracy of topographical and geographical terminology. Thus, he writes both “Lystra” (strn. 37.41, etc.) and “Listra” (strn. 44–45. 51, etc.) - and the disagreement between the Slavic and Russian (unstable: cf. 2 Tim. III, 11) translations of the book of Acts has not been reconciled, although it is immediately evident 16. This means that topography 17 near the island. Glagoleva is quite lame and needs radical healing, and she, like the chronology, was significant and not a “small unit” of his work. In the strongest opposition to this stinginess in what is necessary is wasteful generosity in what is unnecessary. We are not talking about repetitions (cf. pp. 35 and 36); there is a lot that is simply superfluous (cf. page 93 ff.). It is enough to mention - after the weeks - that the author speaks in detail 18 about Jewish synagogues (page 24 ff.), which, in his opinion (page 27), “not only prepared the pagans for Christ - they often prepared them better than even many of the sons of Israel, but also offered the preacher of Christianity the most convenient way to achieve his goal,” meanwhile, “the path of the Apostle was determined by the location of not synagogues, but Christian churches” (p. 28); then why bother talking about the former? Verbosity about. Glagolev is especially evident in the depiction of Paul’s state of mind, in the detailed description of the details of topographical hypotheticals, the history of countries and cities, the nature and composition of nationalities, etc. At the same time, he. Naturally, it forces more demands on him than from a simple referent pursuing his own private goals. Since he comes out fully armed with documents and interprets them without regard, one can hope for complete thoroughness on his part. But even here sometimes bitter disappointment awaits us. For example, he talks about the Galatians at excessive length - and yet he does not understand when and why they got to the Asia Minor plateau, for only the following is reported about this: “they passed throughout Greece, crossed (why?) somewhere (from Greece?) through the Hellespont, and settled (immediately?) in the northwestern reaches of Asia Minor” (p. 72). And briefly, and decisively, and not at all clear! Fr. talks at even greater length. Glagolev (page 63 ff.), who exactly were the addressees of Pavlov’s Galatian Epistle: – the Gauls or the inhabitants of the entire Roman province formed under Augustus? We agree with him in recognizing the first part of the alternative, but his arguments are both outdated and unreliable. For brevity, let's call Prof. Ramsay 19, who sharply defends the opposite opinion and - along with his opponents 20 - acquires respectable adherents (cf. The Church Quarterly Review, p. 366. 372. 373). Let us recall - by the way and for illustration - about his “hot” correspondence on this subject with the famous Schürer on the pages of “Theologische Literaturzeilung” for 1893. It remains for us to note the exegetical element of the book under discussion. One of her advantages at this point is that this side is revealed in her more thoroughly than in Fr. Gregory. However, this is not without its drawbacks - in the sense of excesses and arbitrary haste. So, about Philip. I, 8: “God is my witness that I love you all with the heart of Jesus Christ,” Fr. Glagolev thinks (page 144, a) that “the heart of Christ is, obviously, that love of Christ for people, which was poured out into the heart of the Apostle by the Spirit of God” (Rom. V, 5). It cannot be said that the interpretation is intelligible to readers... II in the long speech about “glossolalia” not all is well. The author interprets it to mean “knowledge of foreign languages.” We will not argue, but for this it would be necessary to explain why - on the feast of Pentecost - the Apostles were considered “foreign verbose” and “Jews” (Acts II, 7-8. 10)? This time. Then. According to Fr. Glagolev, the gift of tongues “served not so much for the edification of the church, but for the establishment in Christianity (! – and the Apostles?) of the glossolal itself,” and was communicated “for the sake of his instruction and confirmation in the truth” (pp. 318. 319). Firstly: how is this possible? - remains undisclosed, although the very unusualness of the interpretation should have prompted deliberate thoroughness. Secondly: how to apply this hypothesis to the state of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost (and at other times), for Fr. Glagolev claims (page 311) that this glossolalia is “one and the same” with that mentioned in the letter to the Corinthians? Finally, this understanding does not agree with the equal judgments of the author, who says (p. 310): “the gift of tongues was absolutely necessary (cf. also on pp. 311, 16-17) to the Apostles in order to fulfill the command of the Lord given to them: “Go and teach all tongues”... How would the gospel be preached to all creation if the preachers did not have the gift of tongues”? There are so many ambiguities in just one point, and it is far from the only one! Here is another example of this kind in the speech on Gal. IV, 13, where it is said that Paul preached the gospel in Galatia “first” because of the weakness of the flesh. This expression about. Glagolev undergoes a lengthy examination (pp. 81–106) - and yet the reader is left with a lot of bewilderment. We formulate only a few. He compares the said saying - together with some scientists - with the testimony of 2 Cor. XII, 7 about the dirty trick of the flesh (p. 82d and treats them as if they point to one subject; but such a connection is not at all obvious, and therefore it was necessary to argue in advance why this comparison is accepted. Meanwhile, the author writes, without asking any questions, as if this itself is clear or is a scientific dogma, although the “to be and not to be” of the entire department depended on this. Many different opinions are cited and analyzed with a noticeable claim to the completeness of the review. However, not all aspects of the object are seen here. This is clear from the fact that Prof. Ramsay 21 found it possible to make a new assumption (about which those who wish can read in his book), and it is inseparable from the understanding of the term “Galatia” and - therefore - is important in other respects as well. in a thorough revision, which was all the more natural to expect since here the author often sails on a philological boat, sometimes a very fragile one. In any case, she leads him to such a pier, where he discovers for himself support for the conclusion that “a thorn in the flesh, the angel of Satan” means “all those external disasters, illnesses, beatings, insults, reproaches, popular uprisings that St. Paul as a result of his apostolic labors” (page 97 v.). This is, of course, true for Gal. IV, 13. But how can it be applied here? - absolutely incomprehensible. Did the Apostle really begin to preach in Galatia amid persecutions, of which not a little is mentioned in 2 Tim. III, 11, what – when interpreting the author – would be necessary? Was it really because of all these horrors that his evangelistic activities began on the shores of Sangaria and Galis? And what was tempting in this for the listeners, for further (v. 14) it is written: “but you did not despise my temptation in my flesh and did not abhor it”? Were these external oppressions in the flesh, and not against the flesh? The difficulties will not decrease, unless they increase, when we take another reading, very authoritative and defended by indisputable scientists, namely: καὶ τὸν πειρασμον υμῶν (your temptations) ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου. Therefore, Fr. Glagolev does not make the necessary applications of “his entire (extensive) speech.” To my great surprise, lines of a completely different nature and meaning emerge from his pen. They literally read like this: “Often suffering from the oppression of a “thorn in the flesh,” the Apostle was tormented by it very much during his stay in the country of Galatia. From the last to Gal. it is clear that St. Paul was struck there by some kind of physical illness (Gal. IV, 13–15), undoubtedly one or another consequence of his apostolic labors (i.e., how is this?). Despite the suffering of the body and the weak hope of success in preaching among people from whom it was easy to expect that the preacher’s plight would inspire them with contempt for his person, the apostle. Paul...decided to begin preaching” (page 106). So: the weakness of the flesh is a disease. What, then, does all your further reasoning and bold conclusions have to do with it?... We now know that Fr. Glagolev did not fulfill the geographical-topographical-chronological-exegetical 22 task as much as the life-descriptive one, and his work gives the impression of chasing two birds with one stone, the result of which is well known to everyone... In addition to all this, he does not possess the qualities necessary for a “biography writer,” in which he is far inferior to Fr. Gregory. He has neither the liveliness nor the productivity of imagination required for holistic and relief reproduction; he does not have a light and captivating brush. His images are pale and unfinished; his speech is drawn-out and tiresome. His language is somehow artificial and resourceful, or even “revolving.” His expressions are sometimes simply masterly in their “refinement.” Here are some for illustration. “Considerations (that Silas was a Jew of the dispersion) do not meet 23 with any sufficient grounds and may not be accepted” (p. 19); how skillfully it is said that you will not understand; should or not and what will be the only fair thing?!.. “The Christians who lived in Antioch and in general in the Antioch region were in constant communication with their capital” (page 23), but this city was such for them, meanwhile, the author understands Jerusalem. “In the books of the New Testament, the most striking in depth and animation (!) depiction of the vileness (?!) and insignificance of paganism belongs to St. to the Apostle Paul" (page 31, 1); have mercy: - is it possible to say that?! “Wishing to make the present path for myself less dangerous and not particularly noticeable” (p. 33); “have taken possession of relatively ap. Paul... quite the opposite terrible intention to stone him” (p. 35); “the village is located in one of the depressions of a huge mass of an extinct volcano” (page 39); “the need (for Timothy to join) ... was felt by the apostle. Paul, since, meanwhile “... (page 46), etc. (cf. pages 27. 48. 58. 96 110 al.). Sometimes you even come across random insertions, as if made by someone else’s hand and crept into the text without revision from the margins of the manuscript; Wed commanding someone to “distinguish” (p. 61, 2) “tear down” (p. 113, 4). I will not be silent, but I will cry out too much that the entire book is a complete outrage on the art of typography. In this regard, the entire work causes so much annoyance in the reader that he involuntarily exclaims like the Apostle Paul: “has the author become his own enemy,” being so irritated by the typographical untidiness? We are not talking about the fact that every writer who values ​​​​his work must naturally take care of its external serviceability: - opinions about this, obviously, are different... It is much more important that the list of “errors” (at the end) does not exhaust all their immense wealth and notes only insignificant ones, which were not worth mentioning; but the charms remained in all their beauty, making it difficult to use the study. At the same time, you often wonder: where are the pranks of the “Printing House of the (Tula) Provincial Board”, where is the oversight of the proofreader, where is the oversight of Fr. Glagolev or his mistake? I offer samples at random from this abundant treasury. Strn. 8, 1: “Zlat. Frankf. , Bes. 21, t. 5"; What is this mysterious name and what does it mean? Place of publication? Strn. 11, 2: “Chrysostom, Sequence. XXXII demon.”: again it’s not clear! Strn. 54, 1: “St. Jerome,” but here, it seems, all Orthodox Christians agree with the opinion of Metropolitan. Philaret 24 that “this is a learned man, recognized as a saint in the West, familiar with the East.” And the author himself writes in other places “Blessed. Jerome” (cf. p. 85), and in this case: from which papist did you borrow the previous quotation, who deceived you, and why is your hand not accustomed to correctly depict such a famous name? Strn. 16, 5: “Irenaeus Cont: Haer (31)”, which book? Or does it equal III, 1? Who is this “Born.”, cited along with Lachmann and Tischendorf (page 20, 1.58, 2)? F. A. Bornemann, Saxon pastor who edited the 1848 edition of the Acts of the Apostles? How and where to find “Aube II Apoll. de Tyana" (note 5 to page 30 on page 31)? Strn. 113, 3: “Theophilus preface. to evang. from Luke": Theophylact? – Stern. 148, 2: “Strub. VII poison. 35": gap(s)? It’s time, even during the Russification of Οἰκουμένιος, not to imitate the vulgar “economy” (p. 106), which is already beginning to be abandoned in learned transcription 25 . On page 307, 2 it is reported: “in the half of the 1st century. BC in any case, one can assume the activity of Simon, the father of the Gnostic sects,” but this insidious “before” is a blatant absurdity! An even more curious surprise is on the last page 336, where we learn that - at the end of the second missionary circle - Paul from Caesarea “hurried to Jerusalem, which he now visited for the third time after his conversion.” Here, of course, the printing house is not to blame, and the underlined expression was in the author’s manuscript en toutes lettres, but it inspires us with the greatest horror. The fact is that - according to the clear testimony of the book of the Acts of the Apostles - until now, from the moment of his calling, Paul had already been in Jerusalem three times (1: Acts IX, 26 ff. Gal. I, 18. 2: Acts XI, 30. XII, 25; 3: Acts XV, 2 ff. Gal. II, 1 ff.) and this is his fourth visit ( Acts XVIII, 22). Is this really a slip of the tongue or a lapsus calami? It would be more pleasant to think this way, but someone else might find another explanation, very plausible for Fr. Glagolev is extremely unprofitable. We know very well that many critics reject Luke’s episode about the embassy of Barnabas and Saul on the occasion of the Jerusalem famine - sometimes completely (Zeller, Hilgenfeld), sometimes partly, because Paul, sent by the Antiochians, allegedly did not reach Jerusalem (Bleek, Ebrard, Neander, Meyer and - with hesitation - Ammon); some believe that the Writer, due to the poor quality of his sources, falsely made two trips out of one 26 - to the Apostolic Council (De Wette, Schleiermacher). Perhaps the author reasons in a similar way: - then grant us all the reasons. If not, it’s a rotten word for which you need to answer. It is conceivable that it was said in someone else’s “German” voice, but is such dangerous carelessness excusable? And is Fr. Glagolev doesn’t know that “nemtsevi” needs to be read with a large supply of stones in his bosom and with David’s sling in his hand?.. We have finished, but we would not like to leave the reader with the unfavorable impression that our cursory and non-special remarks may cause in him, which far from exhaust all the features of the book being analyzed. We do not in the least wish to humiliate its merits and do not eliminate them by pointing out its shortcomings. We talk in detail about the latter only because they better serve to determine the true value of any scientific work, which the author expresses every intention of in his short “preface.” Some merits of Fr. Glagolev are undeniable. There is no doubt that he collected quite a wealth of material and read a lot. And one only needs to regret that not all benefits reached his hands and not all were available to him. This is all the more regrettable because sometimes the most important and best works remained unknown to him, which would have helped to avoid many mistakes, opened a new look at the subject, otherwise illuminated it and saved him from reading a lot of different insignificances. And it was necessary to limit oneself in this regard, because - due to the multitude, complexity and diversity of the issues raised - it was not possible to study all the literature. Therefore, it would be more prudent to allocate several aspects to the general task for research, but not to set plans that are broad and difficult to implement according to the “requirements that apply in this case.” With everything only about. Glagolev extracted a lot of useful material from his heterogeneous reserves, which was far from easy, since he often had to turn to secondary leaders who worked for their own special purposes, alien to the problem being analyzed. The information obtained is systematized and arranged, although not entirely harmoniously, but still orderly. The author writes calmly, albeit monotonously, and with a desire for objectivity - without excesses of polemics and tendentiousness and without such tempting attempts at forced originality. He always wants to stand on the basis of church tradition and - when conflicts occur - he expresses himself with extreme restraint and caution; for example on page 242, 2: “nothing obliges us to agree (and?) with the opinion of I. Chrysostom,” as if Damar (Acts?VII, 34) was the wife of Dionysius the Areopagite. Of course, here too a lot was taken from others, not independently verified and therefore assessed unsatisfactorily and used incorrectly. O. Glagolev cherishes all the paragraphs of his extensive program and he pays equally serious attention to all of them, however, not always balancing it to the proper extent and rewarding the secondary more than it deserves, with insult to the most important. The author has good philological training and in this area he sometimes comes across practical comments and apt observations. Due to all this, for the non-special Russian public, for whom the disassembled book is most closely intended, the essay by Fr. D.S. Glagoleva presents a useful work that sufficiently embraces and reveals its subject. And with this relative recommendation, we are pleased to conclude our brief review of the work of our recent student friend. This idea is not developed by the author, but James Drummord, who writes (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatian, London 1893, p. 3), can complete the necessary conclusions for him. “In the Apostle Paul we often deal with the deepest religious experiences, and those who do not have anything akin to them cannot hope to comprehend them. When a difficulty of this kind is encountered in a certain place, the best thing is to wait and not try to impose an unsatisfactory interpretation on it.” See about this in the report on this dispute, Assoc. A.P. Shostin in the October book of the “Theological Bulletin” for 1893 (page 138 ff.). The author's spelling of this term - with a capital or small letter - is not stable, but - in excerpts - we always try, if possible, to preserve the spelling of the quiche in question. We do not understand why the author chose this archaic method for his notes and why he left such a convenient digital system. Hence, he has an amazing confusion in his remarks, sometimes making quotation simply impossible and constantly complicating it. Because this definition refers to “the original goal of the (second) journey of the ap. Paul,” but – according to Fr. Glagolev (page 21) - “Barnabas’s separation should have significantly (i.e. in what respect?) changed the entire plan.” For the Greek text, see Grabe (according to the Bodleian mns.) in Spicregium I, 93, and Tischendorf (according to the three Parisian mns. in Acta Apost. Apocrypha, 40; Latin - also in Grabe, 120, and for the same mns. Syriac - in Rait, in Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (I, original and - II. 116 – translation. See Ramsay, p. 374 428 et a sim. Wed. article "... in Asie Mino" in the July 1893 The Church Quarterly Review, p. 376–383. Work (not brilliant) Bernh. Weiss's “Die Aposteloe chiente lexiktische Une a nimgen und Texthersteliung” (in Texte und Untersuchungen IX, 3–4 Lpzg. 1893) was published after the publication of the book by Fr. Glagoleva. The New Testament in the original Greek by B. F. Westcott and † G. J. A Hort. Introduction (in vol. II), Cambrige and London 1882, p. 108. The Church, p. 151–165 et passim. Wed. another link page 16 2 on the “Dictionaries” of Verkhovsky and Solyarsky on the question of legends about the life of Vanava. On page 22, 3 quotes from Livanius and Philostratus, the author takes from “Prav. Sob. 1876. vol. 1 and art. 12”, but doesn’t he know where the implied article was “taken” from? The third great evangelistic journey of the Holy Apostle Paul. Sergiev Posad 1892. For a brief review of it, see No. 44 of the “Church Bulletin” for 1892 In view of this, what is assumed by Fr. Glagolev (p. 144) “especially obvious”, but unknown to me, Mark’s hypocrisy could not be the reason for the temporary dislike of the Apostle Paul, who clearly indicates completely different motives (Acts XV, 38). In general, the entire extensive section regarding “chagrin” (XV. 39) represents (page 14 ff.) an attempt to justify both evangelists, when neither of them is guilty: and this should not be about this... It is equally in vain that the options Ἀντιόχεια ἡ Πισιδία η τῆς Πισιδιας are not taken into account, and the author forgets to report that Antioch was the government and military center of the southern part of the vast “Galatian Province”. The same instability applies to “Asia” and “Asia”. In connection with this, it can be noted that the author also pronounces the word “false brotherhood” incorrectly in Russian. It should be mentioned that in a book that has every chance of being distributed to a non-specialized public, a geographical map would be necessary. Maybe oh. Glagolev was stopped by the same considerations that Fr. wrote about. Gregory in 1192 (page 10) “The author had a strong desire to attach to his work a geographical map of the third journey of St. Apostle. Paul with indications in miles and stages (?) of the distances between the places he visited then;... but the difficulty of the work and the high cost of printing the map forced (and) the author to abandon his dream.” Such luxury as the newest “Map of Palestine” published by the “Orthodox Palestine Society” sparkles, of course, is beyond the power and means of a private person. However, why not use the services of lithography or zincography, which would not be nearly as expensive? True, it would be necessary to discard various ideas, such as dried up lakes, extinct volcanoes, famous groves, but at least there would be at least something, and not nothing, in which many readers would find themselves helpless. At the same time, Fr. Glagolev, who loves thoroughness, does not refer to the “curious” book (priest) A.V. Nikitin (Jewish synagogues as places of public worship, Kyiv 1891), about which see the review (in some particulars - hasty) add. A. A. Dmitrievsky in the April and May books of the “Orthodox Interlocutor” for 1893. The Church, p. 13–15 et passim. See F. H. Chasé's insightful article "Calatia of the Acts: A Criticism of Professor Ramsay's Theory" in the London magazine The Expositor, December 1893 (IV ser.. vol. 8. No. XLVIII), p. 401–419. The Church in the Roman Empire. p. 62–74. 86. Cp. "The Church Quarter. Rev., p. 369. Wed. still, as on strnn. 43–49 the author discusses the conversion of Timothy. In his judgment, the Apostle considers himself “even obliged” to do this so that his colleague can preach the abolition of this rite with greater success. The assumption is unnecessary, and the logic is both dangerous and insidious. Why is Zimmer’s formula Titus – Titius (Acts XVIII. 7) – Silvanus-Sila not analyzed here? On the dogmatic dignity and protective use of the Greek seventy interpreters and Slavic translations of the Holy Scriptures, Moscow. 1838, pp. 12. Wed. eg "Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Councils and Holy Fathers." Vol. III, 2. Moscow 1877. Page. 305 approx. Even such a moderate writer as James Drummond, in his popular exposition of Galatians, considers (p. 79) “it is probable that the writer of the book of Acts erred in saying that St. Paul went to Jerusalem during a famine.” You might be interested in: