Feedback on student essays

Contents About the essay of student A. Kryazhimsky on the topic: “On the authenticity of the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke” About the essay of student P. Alferov on the topic: “The Gospel teaching on marriage (in connection with modern judgments about it)” About the essay of student P. Vvedensky on the topic: “Soteriology of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian” About the essay of student A. Kryazhimsky on the topic: “On the authenticity of the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke” The extensive essay by student A. Kryazhimsky consists of two parts: the 1st part defends the authenticity of the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke in their entirety; The 2nd part is devoted to the defense of the authenticity and originality of individual passages in the first two chapters or the question of their intactness. The first part examines and refutes the views of the old rationalists Eichhorn and Baur and the newest scientists Resch and Conrady in detail and Völter, Usener, Hillmaim, Hilgenfeld, Feine and Wittichen - more briefly. The second part examines in detail the question of the authenticity of the passage regarding the supernatural conception of the Lord (see: Luke 1, 34–35), the song of the Virgin Mary and the song of praise of Zechariah. The final chapter provides its own solution to the perplexities raised by the peculiar character of the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke. This very special character of the two chapters of the third Gospel attracted the attention of many scientists of old and new times. To explain this character, many different hypotheses have been created regarding the origin of the first two chapters, starting from the 5th verse of the first chapter. The bright Old Testament coloring of both the content and the language of the first two chapters led many to the conclusion that they could not have come from the pen of Luke, who in his entire Gospel and in the prologue of the Gospel (1, 1–4) left many clear traces of his Hellenistic education and his literary techniques and tastes. On the other hand, a micrological analysis of style reveals the presence of stylistic features of Luke in the first two chapters. Hence, for example, Harnack’s conclusion [about] the authenticity of the first two chapters, their belonging to the Evangelist Luke. But the same Harnack counted up to 14 words and combinations characteristic of Luke’s style in the song of the Virgin (see: Luke 1:45–55) and concluded that the song of the Virgin and the song of Zechariah were composed by Luke himself. In addition, for reasons of a textual nature and according to some internal data, Harnack and some others considered it possible to make the assumption that the psalm compiled by Luke was put into the mouth not of the Virgin Mary, but of Elizabeth, so to talk about the songs of the Virgin Mary means to make a double mistake. Over the past 15 years, a whole literature has grown up around this issue of the song of the Virgin Mary, in the form of both extensive and small-scale journal articles. They are trying to declare the idea of ​​the supernatural conception of the Savior to be a later insertion, a reflection of later church Christology. Without any textual data, they cite many internal considerations - about the inconsistency of the thought with the ideas of the evangelist himself, about its contradiction to other places in the Gospel. The importance of the issue to which Mr. Kryazhimsky’s essay is devoted becomes quite clear. An important question in itself is associated with great research difficulties. There is a lot of multilingual literature. The opinions and reasoning behind these opinions are very different. The reasoning always goes either in an area that is too subjective or in the area of ​​micrological research. It should be said about Mr. Kryazhimsky’s essay that in its high scientific qualities, in the seriousness of the scientific formulation of the matter, it fully corresponds to the importance of the subject. The author, with selfless patience and hard work, met the many difficulties of his work. He carefully studied a large amount of scientific literature, mainly in German, weighed, compared and evaluated the various views of scientists, subjected them to criticism and verification, and thought a lot about the issue as a whole. The result of an intense year-long author's work was his extensive work, rich in content and serious in its scientific formulation. The essay is extensive, but written concisely. Each page clearly shows the attentive reader what painstaking work lies at the heart of the work. There are no long extracts or summaries of other people’s reasoning, but a negative opinion is briefly presented, its scientific arguments are carefully checked and weighed, and one’s own judgment is expressed. Wide awareness of the issue in the specialized scientific literature and a serious scientific formulation of the matter are the main advantages of Mr. Kryazhimsky’s work. The nature of the literature subject to study by the author was such that it did not allow him to rest on trust in any particular authority and tie his learned boat to his ship for a whole year. The author did not have a manual that would take the question in such a broad formulation and resolve it in the desired sense and direction. Mr. Kryazhimsky dealt with works almost exclusively Protestant and often sharply negative. The author had at hand only three Russian books - A. Polotebnov, M. Bogoslovsky and a study by Professor M. Muretov on the genealogy of Christ (M., 1904). Of these, only in the last could he find a serious and authoritative, although made for other purposes, criticism of the Resch hypothesis. True, in negative works there is mutual criticism, sometimes exhausting the question. The author takes advantage of this mutual criticism. But, firstly, this criticism had to be treated very carefully, since criticism often led to even more negative conclusions, and secondly, there was still a lot of room for the manifestation of authorial independence. I consider it necessary to note that the author is serious and independent even when he follows others. He follows his learned leaders into various fields, even the most specialized ones, and explores both style and Tradition. He has entire pages filled with the Greek text of Luke with parallels to it from the Old Testament, a study of the features of Luke's style. Where his learned predecessors left him, he takes up the concordance himself (edited by W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden. Edinburgh, 1899) and works independently. But he also rewrites what was done before him onto the pages of his essay only after checking and correcting. Here, each line requires several numbers; Therefore, you need to discover concordance, count words and combinations. This work of the author is noticeable only when comparing his work with the works of his predecessors. Example: the following information is given about the verb ὑποστρέφειν - “in Lk. 21 times, Acts. 12 rubles, otherwise N.Z. 4 rubles.” In Harnack - ὑποστρέφειν steht bei Lucas im Evangelium 22 mal, in der Apostelgeschichte 11 mal: im ganzen übrigen Neuen Testament steht es nur dreimal, und zwar nirgends in den Evangelien 1 (Das Magnificat der Elisabet. Berlin, 1900. S. 12). The author checks everything himself and changes the numbers. Even if Harnack’s words – “nirgends in den Evangelien” 2 – remain valid, since what the author of Mk. 14, 40 is doubtful (instead of ὑποστρέψας; א BLDacff 2 k sor 3 they read ἐλθών, which reading is also accepted in some critical publications; the author, obviously, did not understand the concordance of the signs W H R), but for the reviewer the independence and painstaking the hard work of Mr. Kryazhimsky. And how many references he made that the reader cannot notice because they did not give anything new - only the author himself knows about this. In Mr. Kryazhimsky’s work there are also completely independent sections where he does not have any sufficient aid. This is the section devoted to the criticism of Ludwig Conrady’s book (Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte Jesus’. Göttingen, 1900), which the source for the Gospel story of the childhood of Jesus indicates in the Proto-Gospel of James. The great advantage of the work is that the author constantly tries to stand on his own two feet, and does not limit himself to slavishly copying the works of others. By noting the most independent sections of Mr. Kryazhimsky’s work, we do not at all want to say that these are the only sections that are valuable in the work. We will not even say that these departments are more valuable than others; they only most convincingly testify to the seriousness of the author’s attitude to the matter and his ability to give his work a real scientific presentation. Evaluating the entire work of Mr. Kryazhimsky, regardless of its independence, evaluating it from the point of view of the content contained in it in general, we must say that it all represents very necessary and valuable work. Negative science has already said a lot on the issue of the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke, but church science has not yet given any answer to the latest theories and hypotheses. The work of Mr. Kryazhimsky should be the first experience of this kind. It brings into consideration new questions or old questions, but in their newest scientific formulation. From here the work of Mr. Kryazhimsky receives important apologetic significance; it is directed against the latest attacks on the truth, attacks that have not yet been reflected by church science. In courses, for example, on dogmatism, objections to the ever-virginity of the Mother of God are examined, but the objections are old, belonging to Helvidius or the anti-wildcomarianites. The newest anti-Dicomarianites - Hillmann, Harnack, Hacker and others - have put forward a whole series of new objections to the truth of ever-virginity and want to declare the most important gospel testimony (see: Luke 1, 34-35) inauthentic. The answer to these newest objections can be found in the work of Kryazhimsky. Or take another question about the song of the Virgin Mary. There is already a special literature, but in Russian theological science, it seems, not a single word has yet been said on this fifteen-year-old issue. An extensive treatise, which uses the best scientific literature on this question unknown to Russian theological science, is contained in the work of Mr. Kryazhimsky. But at first glance, the negative conclusions of, for example, A. Harnack’s brilliant brochure “Das Magnificat der Elisabet” may seem completely convincing and unshakable. So, almost all sections of Mr. Kryazhimsky’s work raise new, modern questions, and the work itself therefore receives the interest of scientific novelty. True, the essay, due to the nature of the issues discussed and the strictly scientific way of discussing them, cannot count on a wide range of readers, however, undoubtedly, in some parts it can satisfy the needs of more than just the always close circle of specialists. The mass of work spent by Mr. Kryazhimsky on the study of an important and new issue for Russian science, of course, should not be wasted. We consider it unnecessary to say that Mr. Kryazhimsky, for his extensive and strictly scientific work, fully deserves the degree of candidate of theology. The reviewer considers it his duty to state that Mr. Kryazhimsky is morally obliged to improve his real work, publish it, and the degree of Master of Theology will then be his legitimate reward. But the author should not delude himself into thinking that he has already done almost everything. No, we will say frankly: only a beginning has been made, which allows us to hope that the author can achieve a fitting end. There is still a lot of work ahead. The essay requires improvement in various respects. It may be necessary to expand somewhat on the topic itself. In its present form, the work is not devoid of various shortcomings, some imputable to the author, some irresponsible and, in any case, excusable. Although the work examines a very large amount of literature, it does not completely exhaust this literature. You can point out dozens of books and articles that remained unknown to Mr. Kryazhimsky. The most important of them are Dr. Hellmuth Zimmermann. Evangelium des Lukas. Kar. 1 und 2. Ein Versuch der Vermittlung zwischen Hilgenfeld und Harnack. Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 1903. S. 247–290; M. I. Lagrange. Le récit de l'enfance de Jésus dans S. Luc. Revue biblique intemationale. 1895. P. 160–185; Völter. Die evangelischen Erzählungen von der Geburt und Kindheit Jesu. 1911; Wilkinson. A Johannine Document in the first chapter of St. Luke's Gospel. Especially (recommended by Harnack - Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1913. No. 1. Sp. 7-8) articles by the American scientist J. Gresham Machen - The hymns of the first chapter of Luke (The Princenton theological review. Vol. X. 1912. P. 1-38) and The origin of the first two chapters of Luke (Ibid. P. 212-217). The author will find some additions in Zimmermann’s work. Völter and Wilkinson will require analysis and refutation. Machen’s articles will force him to look at the stylistic analysis of the first two chapters of Luke somewhat differently than Harnack and Zimmerman, as well as Mr. Kryazhimsky himself, look at. In addition, the author, while studying the specialized literature on the issue, did not pay any attention to general manuals - courses on isagogy, exegetical commentaries, etc. The author, we repeat, worked quite hard. Some of the literature on the issue was inaccessible to him, and its absence in the essay, of course, cannot be blamed on the author. But to finish the work, you will have to re-read, perhaps no less than what you have read so far. The question of the song of the Mother of God should be completely exhausted in the work, but now the author, in his rather extensive treatise, has examined the question far from being completely complete. The author's presentation of negative opinions is concise. This is good. But the presentation cannot always be called complete. This is already a disadvantage. At the same time, critical analysis is often unfounded and, in any case, insufficient. In the author’s essay addressed to rationalist deniers there are many very energetic censures: “impudence”, “delirium”, “unworthy of a serious scientist”, “arrogance”, “shamelessness”, etc. Perhaps such courtesies from Mr. Kryazhimsky are right for the scientist-deniers, but somehow it is noticed that the tone of his criticism increases as the persuasiveness and content of his argument decreases. The author's critical research and conclusions on various issues could be corrected and challenged in many ways. But we consider it unnecessary to do this, because we do not look at the work as final. The author himself will add and change a lot when he reads literature that he has not yet read. The author’s limited familiarity with the New Testament scientific discipline as a whole is often reflected in the essay. In passing, the author had to touch on various areas of New Testament scholarship, some special preparation was required, and in some places it was not enough. First of all, the author's lack of knowledge in the field of textual criticism is striking. He never makes independent references in critical editions of the New Testament text, and when he takes these references second-hand, he takes them incompletely and with many errors. Thus, on the basis of Gillmann’s article, the following information was made regarding Lk. 2, 5: “In some, mainly eastern ones (Sinaiticus, Vatican, Ephraim, Cantabrigienza – sic!) it stands: “σύν Μαριὰμ τ ῇ ἐμνηστευμέν ῃ (or μεμνηστευμέν ῃ) αὐτῷ "in others, mainly Western (for example, Alexandria), - " σύν Μαριὰμ τ ῇ ἐμνηστευμέν ῃ αὐτῷ γυναικί ". But the first reading, adopted by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, has for itself א B C* vid D L Ξ 1. 131.2 pe e f q** perus sax sah cop syr sch arm Eus dem cdd 2 et steph the second reading has for itself A C 2 vid Γ Δ Λ unc 9 al pler a b c ff 2 l q* vg go syr p aeth Eus dem ed Chr 2, 420 et 421 Chron 380. Where are the predominantly Western codices here, when here are Syrian and Ethiopic translations, Eusebius, Chrysostom, etc.? The author omitted detailed information, apparently because sigli turned out to be Chinese writing for him. Having mentioned the Ephraim Code (C) in the first case without any reservation, in the second case the author wisely kept silent about it; otherwise he would end up reading the same code differently. Adding “*” to “C” in the first case, and “2” in the second, and “vid” in both cases, apparently, does not tell the author anything. On the next page the author makes another note: “If you believe Häcker, in one Syrian palimsest (palimpsest - of course!) there was (and now it doesn’t?) “σύν Μαριὰμ γυναικί αὐτοῦ.” What does this mean: “according to Häcker”? Readings of the Syriac text can also be seen in recent commentaries, for example, in “The International Critical Commentary” by Alfred Plummer. Then, how could Greek words appear in the Syriac palimpsest? “In one”... How many are there? The author, obviously, has not heard anything about the famous Syrus Sinaiticus, although in the manual from which this information was taken, he is directly named. The author here, contrary to his custom, does not include any quotation and refers to Häcker completely in vain; he has nothing like that. Information about reading Syr. Sin. he took it, undoubtedly, from an article by H. Usener (Geburt und Kindheit Christi. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 1903. S. 17), where he directly named der von Miss Agnes Smith Lewis entdeckte syrische Palimpsest vom Sinai 4. The author obviously had not heard of this discovery by Miss Lewis. Analyzing Gillmann's argument for reading γυναικί rather than ἐμνηστευμέν ῃ, the author concludes: “So, Hillmann’s reading of II, 5 has no basis.” Really none? Discussing on the next page about readings with γυναικί and without γυναικί in parentheses, the author notes: “We personally still lean towards the latter.” Personally... but to say that, you need to be recognized as an authority in textual criticism. It would be much more thorough and convincing to note that this very reading is accepted in the best critical editions of the New Testament - Tischendorf 8 ed. (7 with γυναικί), Tregelles'a. Westcott and Hort, E. Nestle. After these authorities, what does the personal opinion of student Kryazhimsky mean? We read a similar statement from Mr. Kryazhimsky regarding the reading of Luke. 3, 22, where Gillmann suggests the originality of the quotation from Ps. 2.7. The reasons given by Gillmann are conveyed in too truncated form. Regarding the reading of Yἱοῦ Θεοῦ in Mark. 1.1 the author notes: “True, in some codices the last two words are missing, but still this does not give us the right to throw them out, as the critical editions of the New Testament do (the Glorious translation, for example, has them).” Obviously, the author did not look at the critical editions of the New Testament; otherwise he would have seen that the codices have the words Yἱοῦ Θεοῦ, except א * 28.255, and critical editions, omitting these words, like Tischendorf, or placing them in the field, like Westcott and Hort, follow the ancient paternal quotations. But this reference to refuting the “critical editions” of the Slavic translation is especially magnificent! About reading Luke. 1.78 says: “Only two codes have the reading “ἐπισκέψεται” - Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, while the rest of the codes have the aorist form.” The author again did not look at the critical publications and did not quite understand Gillmann, whom he uses in this case (Jahrb. für protest. Theol. XVII. 1892. S. 212), why the state of affairs is presented inaccurately. Firstly, the reading of ἐπισκέψεται is not confirmed by the Codex Sinaiticus in general, but only by its initial reading ( א *), while in the proof ( א s) it is read yokyukyōuato. Secondly, in addition to א * and B, codex L reads ἐπισκέψεται. Thirdly, the reading of ἐπισκέψεται is confirmed by the translations of sor syr sch arm zoh (go visitat). Tischendorf reads ἐπισκέψετ o, Westcott and Hort – ἐπισκέψεται ; This is the same reading on the field by Tregelles. The examples given show that Mr. Kryazhimsky has little knowledge of textual criticism. Several facts can be pointed out that expose a lack of familiarity with the history of the New Testament canon and with the history of the New Testament Scriptures in general. Thus, the author attributes the Muratorian fragment to the half of the 2nd century. The author traces the history of denial of the authenticity of the first two chapters of Luke to Schmidt and Eichhorn. But it can be traced back to the 16th century, to the Calvinist John Bodin and continued by Evanson (The dissonance of the four Evangelists. Ipswich, 1792) and Iones (Ecclesiastical researches. London, 1803). The anonymity of Marcion’s “gospel” could be explained differently and better than is done; Marcion was not the son of a presbyter, but of a bishop. After all, the author had Epiphanius Haer before his eyes. 42.1 and he himself says that from here he borrows information about Marcion. But Epiphanius calls Marcion’s father a bishop. Is it possible to counter Eichhorn’s opinion that the Marcionites say nothing about their teacher changing the Gospel of Luke, using the testimony of Irenaeus Contra haer. III, 1, 1; 2:2 about the fact that heretics present themselves as correctors of the apostles, and consider themselves wiser than the apostles? It can hardly be said that Marcion was careless in his task of tendentious textual criticism. The author speaks briefly about quoting the canonical Gospels from Justin the Philosopher, but this is a big question. Several special studies were devoted to him in Russian theological literature about 25 years ago. Conrady's hypothesis is closely related to his views on the Proto-Gospel of James (see his article - Das Protev. Iacobi in neuer Beleuchtung. Studien und Kritiken. 1889. S. 728 ft.). These views of Conrady are considered unsuccessful. The author would do well to note that the modern scientific assessment of the Proto-Gospel is as follows: Für die ältere evangelische Literatur ist aus dem Protev. nichts zu lernen 5 (A. Harnack. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. 1-er Bd. Leipzig, 1897. S. 603). We also read: “If you believe the same Folter, in the so-called “Styometry” of Nikephoros published by Boor, among the Old Testament apocrypha there is an essay entitled “Ζαχαρίου πατρὸς Ἰ ωάννου.” The author, apparently, is inclined to consider other representatives of science to be scammers who should not be trusted even a penny (see the distrust of the translation of Conybeare from the Armenian language). But if you don’t believe it, you can check it. In this case, the author revealed only unfamiliarity with such a well-known monument as Nikephoros’s “Stichometry”. The Germans even publish it in manuals for practical exercises, see for example: Analecta by E. Preuschen. R. 64. The author writes about Conybeare that he “found in the library of a monastery two manuscripts containing a commentary by St. Ephraim the Syrian to (on?) Diatessaron of Tatian in Armenian" (what is in Armenian? Diatessaron or commentary?). Obviously, the history of Diatessaron and Efremov’s commentary on it is poorly known to Mr. Kryazhimsky. The note Conybeare read by him dates back to 1902, but a commentary on the Diatessaron was already published in 1896 even in Russian translation in the 8th part of the works of Ephraim the Syrian. And the author himself, on the same page, mentions Aucher’s translation of the Armenian manuscript, published in 1876. Conybeare did not find anything at all; manuscripts of Ephraim's commentary on the Diatessaron were found without him and much earlier than him. Mr. Kryazhimsky did not carefully read Conybeare’s article in Zeitschrift fur die neutestam. Wissenschaft, 1902 and said things that he would not have said if he had been more knowledgeable about the history of the Diatessaron. Here we should again note the unnecessary distrust of our autorak scientists. “In the afterword to the commentary,” he writes, as if (and not in fact?) there are such words of St. Ephraim..." Noting all these errors and inaccuracies, we do not forget for a minute that they are all completely understandable and excusable in student work. But you can point out something less excusable. Thus, the author sometimes disrupts the flow of his reasoning and research by inserting foreign elements. The presentation and criticism of Resch's thoughts regarding the prologue of the Gospel of John are inserted out of place. They should have found another place or put them in the form of a special large note; now they give the impression of an insertion. The analysis of Conybeare's reference to the afterword of Ephraim the Syrian's commentary is, although placed in a note, but this note is attached without any connection to discussions about the ideological content of the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke. Conybeare's article concerns external evidence. True, on the following pages the author provides evidence from Justin, the Muratorian fragment and others in favor of the authenticity of the first chapters of Luke. But even this evidence is completely out of place here. The author himself admits that here he is making, as it were, an addition to what was said above. It is, of course, inconvenient to separate homogeneous evidence, but it is better to place it side by side. In the section on the songs of the Virgin Mary, one inaccuracy in expression is striking. Several times the author expresses himself as if his opponents were expressing the idea that the song of the Virgin Mary belongs to Elizabeth. The thought of Harnack and others like him is not at all the same. On one of the pages, the author, next to an incorrect and inaccurate expression, quite correctly formulates Harnack’s thought about the song of the Mother of God: “Composed by Luke himself, it was put into the mouth of Elizabeth, and not the Mother of God.” If this is Harnack’s thought, then is it possible to talk about the “hypothesis that the song of the Virgin Mary belongs to Elizabeth,” as the author says on the same page, just three lines above? The author remains unknown to the reading of “Elizabeth” in the Armenian translation of Irenaeus Contra haer. IV. 7.1, about which see the note in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1906. Mr. Kryazhimsky had to constantly deal with sources and manuals in foreign languages. Some of the German manuals are written in very difficult language. The translation required selfless patience. There is, of course, nothing incredible or sad about the fact that he sometimes failed in translations: So, the German – “Freie Gnade” is translated: “free grace”. From Adv. Marc. IV, 4: “ei praescribens auctoritatem, quod antiquius” – translated: “time is the authority for what is ancient.” But Tertullian is talking about the authority of the Church Gospels, as opposed to the “gospel” of Marcion. Here “quod est secundum nos” is translated: “what is in harmony with our teaching,” and this phrase is enclosed in brackets, whereas in Tertullian it is a definition of the word evangelium. A line below it says about Marcion that in the first fervor of faith he gave his abilities (strengths) to the Catholic Church. Not strength or ability at all, but money; in Tertullian’s original – pecuniam, and did not give, but contulit. “Aenderung zu Gunsten” is translated: “change according to inclination” (?) 6. “It is not strong, but it is well attested.” In Harnack’s original – “ist nicht stark, aber gut bezeugt” 7. “Zechariah expresses the events that happened to him in song.” In Gillmann: “Zacharias bricht nun angesichts der ihm widerfahrenen Ereignisse in einem Lobgesang aus” 8 . “It didn’t ripen at night.” In Nehë “ist nicht aber Nacht gereift” 9. "Countless number." At Spitt'ä “unzählig oft” 10. “Beziehung auf Johannes” – “relation to John” 11. The subject discussed by Mr. Kryazhimsky in his dissertation is such that it is difficult to write about it in an easy and eloquent style, but, I think, stylistic roughness could be avoided, and there is an abundance of them in the essay: "The reason for their inauthenticity." “It was forbidden to make idols.” “Marcion’s rejection of the Gospel is clear.” "Can be delivered." "Department for relevant verses." "Broad fantasy." "In relation to Herod." “Bring through your research.” “Attribute to Joseph”, “attribute 1.27 to Joseph”, “more imprisoned”. Finally, let's note some little things. The list of sources begins with concordances by E. Hatch and N. Redpath and W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden. But are concordances sources? These are the most typical benefits. It is not entirely convenient to quote Ignatius the God-Bearer and Justin the Philosopher from Migne, and Meyer’s commentary from the fifth edition, when there is already a ninth. For some reason, the beginning of Marcion’s “gospel” is given in Latin twice, based on Tertullian. If you cite the original, then you need to cite the Greek, at least according to Tsan’s reconstruction. Marcion wrote in Greek. So does Luke. 16, 17, adapted by Marcion, is quoted from Tertullian in Latin. The author of Bona fide quotes the 51st chapter of the treatise De praescriptionibus haereticorum as belonging to Tertullian himself. But Tertullian owns 45 chapters in this treatise, as noted in the Migne edition, which the author used (see: col. 74). By the way, citing the words of the 51st chapter, the author quotes: col. 39. Need: col. 89. Regarding the word σπεύδειν, the author notes that, in addition to the writings of Luke, it is found only in 2 Pet. 3:12, but he does not notice that in the Apostle Peter σπεύδοντας has a completely different meaning than in Luke. In this case, the author simply did not carefully read his leader Harnack, who writes: steht es im N. T. nur noch ein einziges mal, aber transitiv 12 (Das Magnificat der Elisabet. S. 14). Incorrect citation: Hillmann. Op. cit. S. 248–250. Needed: S. 246–247. For some reason, the appearances of the Angel to Zechariah and the Annunciation are called intimate events. The author says that the matter of Jacob “The Gospel calls Mary, since, of course, the latter appeared in the eyes of everyone as the wife of Joseph,” and quotes Matt. 13, 55; Mk. 6, 3. Of course, there is nothing like this in these places. James is there called the brother of the Lord, but Mary is called the Mother of Jesus only, and not of James. All the comments we have made, in general, do not in any way diminish the merits of the work reviewed. Hardly anyone could have avoided such mistakes in such an extensive and serious first scientific work. The reviewer made his corrections and comments, guided more by the desire to honor with due attention the mass of serious scientific work that he encountered in the essay. The seriousness and rich content of Mr. Kryazhimsky’s work aroused unflagging interest while reading and kept the reader in a pleasant tension of thought. Devotion to the scientific work and selfless diligence, not faint-hearted in the face of a lot of work and not shying away from it, characterize the student Kryazhimsky and do him honor, and allow the reviewer to have a strong hope that he will have pleasure in reading the even more perfect printed work of Mr. Kryazhimsky. The handwritten work that has been read can only be responded to with the most decisive praise; it should be called an outstanding candidate’s essay and, as such, highly valued. About the essay of student P. Alferov on the topic: “The Gospel teaching on marriage (in connection with modern judgments about it)” In his essay, student Peter Alferov sets out to clarify the Gospel teaching on marriage by interpreting relevant passages of the Gospel and by comparing this teaching with the mutually opposing views on marriage of L.N. Tolstoy and V.V. Rozanov. The Gospel says very little about marriage. Christ spoke about marriage only in response to the question: “Is it possible to divorce your wife?” It is natural, therefore, that Mr. Alferov also turns to the apostolic epistles, and, moreover, not with the sole purpose of explaining the Gospel teaching. The author interprets the relevant Gospel texts well: he clarifies the terminology and provides many ancient church and patristic interpretations. The author speaks in particular detail about divorce, and analyzes Catholic views on this subject, which he became acquainted with in the book A Otto - Die Auslegung der neutestamentlichen Texte über die Ehescheidung. Münster, i. W., 1911. For the reader of the essay, it is absolutely clear that the author worked and thought a lot about his work. However, it cannot be said that he thought through his question to the end. There is some contradiction in the first chapter of Alferov’s essay. The author says this about marriage: “Marriage, in its idea, is indissoluble and should be only one in the life of every person.” But, ending his polemic with Catholics, the author writes: “The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, having indicated the perfect example (?) of true marriage, in His mercy, condescending to human weakness, indicated the only reason for divorce - the wife’s adultery.” So what? Shall we dissolve the marriage or indissoluble? Did Christ teach about marriage in its ideal moral essence, or did He only correct the Old Testament law of commandments? The author seems to oscillate between these two significantly different points of view on the work of Christ. The author seems to forget that Christ speaks about marriage and divorce in the Conversation on the Mount, where He contrasts His New Testament ideals with the Old Testament truth of the scribes and Pharisees. In the same first chapter of the essay, the author scattered a lot of very practical and correct thoughts, but, unfortunately, these thoughts are mixed with others, already of a legalistic nature. The author paid tribute to the “accepted” and widespread interpretations of those people who, even in the Gospel, tend to find a legal code, rule upon rule and commandment upon commandment. In the same first chapter of Alferov’s work, one more drawback can be noted. The author seems to be tied to certain New Testament texts and does not consider the issue of marriage in connection with the more general ideas of the New Testament. Even from the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, he seems to tear out verses 31 and 32, paying little attention to the main ideas of Christ’s Discourse on the Mount. The author’s attention is not attracted by the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was not born from marriage. Meanwhile, the author does not hesitate to even consciously make digressions from the topic in order to “paint the picture of married life that is created on the basis of the Gospel ideal.” “True,” the author admits in this case, “there are no direct indications of this in the Gospel, and our task will be, as it were, a slight deviation from the topic.” In the second chapter, Mr. Alferov sets out and analyzes the judgment about the marriage of L.N. Tolstoy, and in the third he sets out and analyzes the judgment about Rozanov’s marriage. In these chapters, the author presents the views of the writers he is interested in especially well: his presentation is concise, consistent and expressive. Weaker critical remarks, where Tolstoy and Rozanov's references to individual Gospel texts are mainly analyzed. Mr. Alferov’s essay presents three views on marriage: Evangelical, Tolstoy’s and Rozanov’s, but no comparison of these views is given; the reader himself must guess about the advantages of the evangelical view; the author only refers to what was said in the first chapter. In addition, in the last two chapters there are also deviations to the side. [So] the author briefly outlines Tolstoy’s religious and moral philosophy; [in addition] we see a whole section: “V.V. Rozanov’s judgment on sex” [and further] characterizes Rozanov’s “Christian concept”. Diverting from the topic, the author begins to write about Tolstoy and Rozanov in general, without regard to the Gospel teaching on marriage. There are also minor errors in Mr. Alferov’s essay. He also deals with questions of a textual nature, revealing enough ability to understand the critical apparatus of the 8th edition of Tischendorf, but he apparently cannot independently understand the authority of this or that reading: having made a detailed textual reference to Matt. 19, 9, Mr. Alferov suddenly writes the following conclusion: “The first reading of “μὴ ἐπὶ πορνεί ᾳ” must be recognized as more reliable in accordance with the scientific authority of Prof. N. Glubokovsky ". In the reference to Matt. 5, 32 the author did not understand Tischendorf’s reference to Basil the Great: “Bas. 3,297, allud”, that is, alludit – he conveys: “Vasily 3,297, not serious” (?!). In the interlinear translation of Tischendorf's edition, the author does not understand the words spectat and spectant, which he translates as “considering” and even “being considered.” [In the essay] it seems that the author of the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew in the 8th volume of the Explanatory Bible was prof. And P. Lopukhin, and the author of the commentary on the Gospel of Mark in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, herausgegeben von prof. Th. Zahn, called Theodor Zahn himself. In In. 14.15 Mr. Alferov reads the commandment of chastity. [In addition, the work] confuses the concepts of monogamy and monogamy. The author cites the words of Athenagoras as proof of the indissolubility of marriage, but does not notice that Athenagoras in this case says something more, since he calls the one who departs from his first wife, even if she dies, a hidden adulterer. Bringing Matt. 5, 48: Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect, the author exclaims: “This is the way to achieve salvation!” Where is the path in these words? For some reason, the words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:18) are presented as the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage. It is in vain that the author thinks that St. Cyprian in Epist. 62, 4 (Ph. 4. Col. 370) speaks of an unchaste mood: the author would not have asserted this if he had more carefully read the entire letter of the Holy Father to Polygonius about virgins and noticed those measures that the Holy Father advises to apply to virgins. (“According to a strict examination of the virgins...” This can hardly be applied to the mood!) The words of the Pharisees are cited as authority (John 9:31)! We read: “L. N. Tolstoy, if we are not mistaken, fully subscribes to the understanding of πορνεί ᾳ im inklusiven Sinne.” Undoubtedly, the author is mistaken: there is absolutely nothing in common between the interpretation of παρεκτὸς λ ό γου πορνείας in the inclusive sense by Catholic authors (for example A. Otto) and Tolstoy’s interpretation of these words. Finally, there are also incorrect expressions in the essay. "In connection with the terminology of the word σάρξ". "Tertullian explains the second marriage as an act against the will of God." “Establish their differences.” "The sentence expressed by Christ as common." "Rozanov's view of marriage." Mr. Alferov’s essay begins with these words: “The question of marriage undoubtedly occupies one of the largest places among cultural institutions.” But all these expressions are only rare exceptions; In general, the essay is written in completely literary language, it is written simply and vividly, it is easy to read and with interest. It is clear that the author was engaged in the development of his question with passion and unflagging interest. Mr. Alferov's work is not filled with raw material; All material went through the author's personality and processed independently. Even when the author speaks in someone else's words, he takes the best and most expressive. Mr. Alferov’s essay, as indicated above, is not without shortcomings; There are significant shortcomings. But the merits of an essay can reconcile the reviewer with its shortcomings. Student Petr Alferov is worthy of a candidate of theology degree. About the essay of student P. Vvedensky on the topic: “Soteriology of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian” The essay by student M. Vvedensky represents not so much a scientific research as a theological argument, a dissertation in the proper sense of the word. The author read and reread the writings of John the Theologian and reflected on them. But he approached the works of John the Theologian not without preparation: he constantly remembers church and patristic soteriology, why he reads the provisions of this soteriology from the New Testament Theologian and explains and supplements his soteriology with dogmatic judgments of church writers of later times. The author makes especially diligent use of the works of St. Athanasius the Great. But Mr. Vvedensky did not only read the works of John the Theologian himself, but also studied them, using a variety of scientific aids. However, the author maintains in his work the character of reasoning; the essay was written almost completely without the usual “scientific apparatus”. Mr. Vvedensky’s references to scientific works are rather random: he refers to them only where they provided him with some kind of service. From the beginning to the end of the essay, Mr. Vvedensky leads a continuous chain of reasoning according to his own plan. Mr. Vvedensky usually does not take into account the opinions of those who think differently about the theology of John. The teaching of Saint John the Theologian is presented in the work fully and comprehensively. In a short preface, the author notes “that in the matter of salvation the person of the Savior occupies a central position,” and therefore the author, first of all, sets himself the goal of understanding the teaching of John the Theologian about the Person of the Savior, but first clarifies the doctrine of the Logos, as it was revealed in philosophy. However, the author limits himself only to Philo’s doctrine of the Logos, about which he writes the first chapter, based entirely on the work of Prof. M. D. Muretova. The second chapter sets out “the teaching of John the Theologian about the Face of Jesus Christ as the incarnate Divine Logos.” At the end of the chapter, the author raises the question of the purpose of the incarnation. “If the Son of God came in order to save the world - σωτηρεῖν - to make it whole, healthy, then the world was obviously in a painful state, which is why it needed salvation.” From here the author makes the transition to the teaching of the Apostle John about evil and sin in the world. The third chapter of the work is devoted to this teaching. In the fourth chapter, the author speaks of Christ as the Redeemer of the world. In the fifth - about the fruits of the redemptive work of Christ. The sixth sets out the “doctrine of human salvation.” The order of the essay's chapters may be objectionable. Why, for example, did the author divide the teaching about the Face of Christ and His work into two chapters, between which he inserted a chapter about sin? We also cannot agree with the author that in the history of the doctrine of the Logos we can limit ourselves to the teaching of Philo alone. It should be said at least briefly about the Logos in Greek philosophy and rabbinic theosophy. After all, the author sometimes resorts to rabbinic theosophy. In addition, Philo’s teaching about the Logos in the author’s work stands somehow apart. The author did not say anything about why he, writing about the soteriology of St. John the Theologian, needed to write about Philo of Alexandria. The first chapter of Mr. Vvedensky’s essay begins with “Philo is a representative of Alexandrian syncretic philosophy.” And it ends: “Now we can move on to the teaching of John the Theologian about the Logos.” It can be said that all borrowings from the book of Professor M.D. Muretov, which filled the first chapter, remained completely without a trace for the further content of the work. The titles of the 4th and 5th sections of the work should be called decisively unsuccessful, where we see terms completely alien to the theology of St. John - “Redeemer”, “redemptive work”, these terms are not an accident for the author; he is inclined to interpret the teaching of John the Theologian about salvation in the sense of the teaching about redemption, exaggerating for this purpose the poorly understood concept of the “Lamb of God.” Introducing terms alien to him into the theology of the holy Apostle John, the author sometimes substitutes John’s content for these terms. Mr. Vvedensky calls the deep secret of the redemptive work “the creation of a new, most perfect creation.” The author usually looks at the work of Christ as the creation of a new life, in which “Christians become a new creation, possessing all those benefits of eternal life that are truly embodied in our Savior.” “In Christ the eternal Divine life and the new creation in the person of His human nature were revealed to the world. People got the opportunity to be part of this life.” A number of these thoughts, of course, are difficult to subsume under the concept of atonement. But the author also has another series of thoughts that have little agreement with those noted. “According to the biblical view, death is not only a natural consequence of sin, but also God’s punishment, the result of God’s curse of all creation. Consequently, Christ, having voluntarily accepted upon Himself all the natural consequences of sin and vice, placed Himself under the curse of God.” “In the entire matter of salvation, the suffering, sorrow and death of the Lord Jesus Christ occupy an exceptional position. In relation to the Lord, they were a great sacrifice of His selfless love. In relation to people, they are a means of turning to God and salvation. Hence (?) the suffering of Christ the Savior was the great sacrifice that He made for our salvation.” On the last page of his work, Mr. Vvedensky speaks “about Christ as a sacrifice made for the salvation of the world,” leaving the concept of ἱλασμ ό ς without any clarification. But suddenly in the last lines we read: “This sacrifice of Christ is a miraculous force in the history of the world. She created a new humanity, which, being not of this world, reveals in its life the perfection of its Creator God.” How exactly sacrifice creates a new humanity is something we could not understand in Mr. Vvedensky’s essay. And in general we think that the concepts of “sacrifice” and “new humanity” are taken from different ideological areas. The introduction by the author of excessively legal elements into the soteriology of St. John the Theologian deprives the very soteriological system of the Theologian of certainty. However, we may owe this impression to the shortcomings of the author’s presentation. The author writes simply, but his judgments are not always clear and definite, and his reasoning is not always harmonious and strictly consistent. The author can also be reproached for the fact that he clarifies only some of the concepts of the soteriological system of St. John the Theologian, leaving most of them without any special clarification. The author does the same with the Greek New Testament text: in some cases he interprets it, albeit briefly, in others he simply cites Greek phrases next to Russian or Slavic ones, it is unknown for what purpose. Revealing that he is well-read in patristic literature, the author sometimes seems to forget about John the Theologian: at times it seems that he begins to expound the doctrine of the salvation of St. Athanasius the Great. Meanwhile, the author, apparently, did not sufficiently use the commentary on the Gospel of John the Theologian in the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. As minor shortcomings in Mr. Vvedensky’s work, one can point out that he very often forgets to put quotations under the line, sometimes puts incorrect quotations, and generally quotes the books used inaccurately. [And] the author distinguishes between instinctive and conscious faith. What could this mean? It must, however, be recognized that the indicated significant shortcomings of Mr. Vvedensky’s work are explained by its very nature. In such matters as the question of salvation, everyone has his own views and always reveals his own individuality. Writing a theological treatise that satisfies others is incomparably more difficult than compiling a scientific theological study. The very fact that the author undertakes to clarify the most important teaching of any theological system should be given him great credit. Mr. Vvedensky’s demonstrated awareness of patristic theology and the ability to independently theology about salvation according to the writings of the Apostle and Evangelist John gives him every right to receive the academic title of Candidate of Theology. Stands in Luke. 22 times, in Acts. 11 times, in the rest of the New Testament there are only 3 times, and nowhere in the [other] Gospels. – Approx. ed. Nowhere in the Gospels. – Approx. ed. A decoding of textual sigils and abbreviations can be found by referring to the reference apparatus of critical editions of the New Testament (for example, Novum Testamentum Greace et Latina. Ed. 27th Nestle-Aland. Stuttgart, 1994) or the work of Bruce Metzger “Textology of the New Testament” (Moscow, 1996). – Approx. ed. Discovered by Miss Agnes Smith Lewis Syrian palimpsest of Sinai. – Approx. ed. There is nothing to learn from later evangelical literature in the Proto-Gospel. – Approx. ed. It should be: “change in favor.” – Approx. ed. It should be: “not in large volume, but well proven.” – Approx. ed. It should be: “in view of the events that happened to him, Zechariah burst into a song of praise.” – Approx. ed. It should be: “overnight, however, it did not gain clarity.” – Approx. ed. It should be: “countlessly often.” – Approx. ed. It should be: “relation to John.” – Approx. ed. It appears in the New Testament only once more, but in... - Approx. ed. You might be interested in: