About the second letter of St. Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians

Thus, the author in vain exalts existing obstacles, but this also helps the success of the work, because it arouses special tension and unrelenting thoroughness in scientific research. The latter focus: a) on isagogical-exegetical problems and lead to clarification of the historical position of 2 Thess. and to interpret it b) from the textual-philological and c) biblical-theological side. Everywhere here there is no doubt that serious efforts have been made towards depth, comprehensiveness and thoroughness of coverage, although they are not always crowned with various successes, which - in general - are satisfactory and quite valuable. Let us consider these parts from the indicated points of view. Rybinsky, The religious influence of the Jews on the pagan world at the end of the Old Testament and at the beginning of the New Testament history and the proselytes of Judaism. Kyiv 1898, p. 56), allowing non-existent “proselytes of the Torah” 2). These classes did not actually merge with each other, and the first of them served only as a preparatory to the second, embracing all non-Jews who, in various forms, showed their attraction to the veneration and cult of the God of Israel, but did not officially belong to Judaism and in the eyes of the latter were considered actually pagans (Prof. Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes in Zeitalter Jesu Christi III, Leipzig 41909, S. 174–175; Prof. Dr. Joseph Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte I, Freiburg im Breisgau 1900, S. 518–519). And the Writer decisively distinguishes them when he draws to us (XIII, 43) προσηλύτων, clearly expressing that “reverence” alone does not yet establish real proselytism, which - otherwise - would be assumed with it by itself - without any special additions. But this singularity would be fictitious if the Apostle had Power, and there were two of them. In this form, the thesis of Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov (used by and Prof. D. Fritz Barth, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Gϋtersloh 1911, S. 22–23; Prof. D. Johann Weiss, Das Urchristentum I, Gϋttingen 1914, S. 216) is untenable, since it does not agree with the fact of sole apostolic solitude in a reasonable time. Another formula is not entirely certain, that Timothy was also in Athens (Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 4). В предшествующем стихе о нем не говорится. Правда, в апостольской речи доминирует форма множественного числа, и о. Vl. Н Страхов склонен понимать ее в буквальном смысле (стр. 18, 121–122, 269). Его наклон в эту сторону простирается столь далеко, что для 1–2 Фесс. it allows us to talk about the authors (p. 49) in the person of all three evangelists named there (p. 26). Although later this judgment is limited to more precise instructions (p. 269), we must not forget that precisely in view of the usuality of 1 pers. plur. even prof. George Milligan (p. 132) gives co-authorship to several apostolic assistants in 1-2 Thess., as well as in several others (eg, for 1 Cor. calls Sosthenes "joint author of the letter" by Prof. W. M. Ramsay in The Expositor 1900, I, p. 26). And if we assimilate to him even the denial of Timothy’s coming to Athens, then - in my opinion - this is closer to the apostolic self-testimony in 1 Thess. The same thing happened with λόγοςʼом, which – “in contrast to πνεῦμα – means the spontaneous expression of one’s own thoughts” (pp. 36, 322) in the form of “oral news” (pp. 39, 40, 45–46, 47, 115). This is “simple human speech” (p. 323), but in this case it is incomprehensible how it could acquire such an impressive and exciting authority along with “prophecy”? One can agree that πνεῦμα was authoritative in itself and did not need an apostolic sanction, which was desirable for an ordinary human word. But what did it consist of and was it sufficient? - this is not directly obvious and is revealed only by remarks about ὲπιστολή. Then, Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov states (p. 36): “it is impossible further to understand the first epistle here by ὲπιστολή also because ὲπιστολή stands here without a member, and therefore cannot point to a specific, well-known message of the apostle, i.e. in this case on 1 Thess." But this is empty pettiness, devoid of any weight, since there was no need for any special definiteness here, since then there was one and only apostolic letter to the Thessalonians: - why and for whom would it be special to define something so definite in itself for everyone? And in 2 Thess. II, 15 St. Paul writes διʼ ὲπιστολῆς, although, of course, he thinks of his message (J. Ev. Frame, p. 284; Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 12, 15, 154), quite definite, as actually existing. In appearance, the reference is somewhat more impressive (cf. Fr. Tillmann, S. 9, 1; Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 12, 133, 166), which - when referring to 2 Thess. II, 2 to 1 Thess. - “the handwritten note and warning against inauthentic messages in 3:17 are deprived of the motive that would make this note and warning understandable” (p. But when mentioning ὲπιστολή, there is absolutely no indication of the possibility of literary counterfeits similar to it, which would be more appropriate to notice in the immediate context than to talk about later - without a direct correlation with the motivating reason. It would seem that for Fr. Vl. For N. Strakhov, such intense fear of falsity is least conceivable. We know that he stubbornly rejects its very possibility due to the factual inadmissibility of this in those days (see above, p. 13). But, of course, the Apostle should have known and understood this no worse than he. And then deliberate warnings would be factually unfounded and theoretically incredible. As a result, we would have to completely agree with those authors who see in 2 Thess. III, 17 evidence of the inauthenticity of the epistle, as belonging to a later, non-apostolic period (p. 131; Dr. G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Radical Views about the New Testament, by S. B. Black, London 1912, p. 73). However, the apostolic words are not of this nature at all. Fr. himself Vl. N. Strakhov rightly notes (p. Strakhov connects διὰ τῆς ὲπιστολῆς with τῷ λόγῳ ήμῶν, meaning the real, written apostolic word, and if the disorderly members of the community do not listen to the latter, then the rest should have them in mind (pp. 375–378). Understanding is possible (J. Ev. Frame, p. 309), but not the only one and not the most probable. It was immediately obvious to everyone that we were talking about the next written order, so expressive designation of this turned out to be completely unnecessary. On the other hand, the duty to “notice” erring brothers did not require an apostolic command, but was a self-understood Christian duty. Naturally, it was fulfilled in Thessalonica, and that is why I learned about the unfortunate abnormalities of St. Paul, to whom the Thessalonians reported. Further measures were necessary to establish proper order, which was endangered even by the very jealousy of the zealous correctors. It is truly and successfully defended (J. Ev. Frame, p. 310) that in 2 Thess. III, 15 the main emphasis is on μὴ... They were declared in the liturgical assembly guilty of disorder on the basis of the Apostolic Epistle and, as healers, they were subjected to the discipline legislated in it (III, 14) - excommunication from fraternal communion. This understanding is all the more possible because it answered the practical need to replace the strict punitive measures of rejection with the healing influence of saving love. If it is said (by Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov on p. 375 and see Bishop Charles J. Ellicott, St. Paulʼs Epistles to the Thessalonians, London 41880, p. 133) that for this purpose the arrangement τοῦτον διὰ (τῆς) was more natural and simple ὲπιστολῆς (without a member), then this is hardly true, for the emphasis is not on persons who are completely known to everyone, but on the very means that predetermined the entire modus agendi. And oh. Vl. N. Strakhov can least of all justify himself with grammatical subtleties, since he immediately speaks (regarding the combination of τῷ λόγῳ ήμῶν with διὰ τῆς ὲπιστολῆς without a connecting τῷ, about which see Bishop Charles J. Ellicott, p. 4133b) that “the apostle handles freely the construction of classical grammar” (p. 376). However, regardless of any interpretation, there is no doubt that St. These were miraculous signs, and they, both at the beginning and after, remained convincing along with the word of teaching and written admonitions. As for the connection with the intense “parousian” yearnings, after their conversion the Thessalonians began to expect the Son of God from heaven, delivering them from the coming wrath (1 Thess. I, 9-10), which was not excluded by 1 Thess. These same factors persisted in them and then, when a “parousia” aggravation developed. Obviously, the latter was fed by previous sources, and in this case, the root of the eschatological crisis was not in the new, extraneous causes that created it, but in the internal experiences of the Thessalonians themselves, who saw something special in the old due to their inner mood. This helps to better understand and more accurately evaluate the whole picture. Finally, from here the relationship between 1 and 2 Thess. The former message was misinterpreted and exaggeratedly applied by readers who were strongly associated with certain erroneous associations. Under such conditions, this written document would simply be inconvenient and even unsuitable for further explanation. These should have been directed not to comment on the early message, because it objectively did not contain the matters under discussion, but to the disclosure of these latter. But for them, only what was already known to the Thessalonians from the Apostle beyond the letter and was communicated to them orally could serve as a basis. Naturally, the evangelist now does not refer to 1 Thess. and appeals to oral preaching itself, returning to experienced impressions, which now did not have their original vividness and were recorded in writing earlier. Hence it is natural and rational that 2 Thess. does not rely on 1 Thess., is based on oral data and is devoid of intimate fervor, revealing a certain formality (see Father Vl. N. Strakhov, pp. 47, 48–49, 53, 94 and cf. Prof. George Milligan, p. LXXXIII; J. Ev. Frame, p. 34; Eugéne de Faye, Étude sur les origins des églises de l'age apostolique, Paris 1909, p. 242). On the contrary, 1 Thess. necessarily reflects all the spontaneity of ignited mutual love (cf. Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov, p. The speeches on this subject are even too lengthy and somewhat obscure the significant fact that all the similarities cover no more than a third of the content of 2 Thess. (see Prof. George Milligan, p. LXXXIII), and in other respects the latter is both original and Paulinistic, which is why it has all the literary rights to an independent historical existence next to 1 Thess. in equal apostolic dignity. In this combination, the intended method turns out to be more of a critical quibble. Such an impression is somewhat hasty and would require support from the other side to be affirmed. We know that the former defender of 2 Thess. - American professor Arthur Cushman McGiffert came to deny it mainly due to its literary proximity to 1 Thess. (see J. Ev. Frame, p. 42). Actually, here lies the whole root of the temptation against 2 Thess. (Prof. D. Dr. Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum, Tübingen 21912, S. 358 ff.), which would be completely indisputable if it were not for the preceding 1 Thess. (Prof. D. Adolf Jülicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Tübingen 5–61913, S. 56). In turn, Prof. Ad. Harnack authoritatively testifies that all the doubt is caused by the mystery of such a close connection of 2 Thess. from 1 Thess. (op. cit., S. 561), when the later is an incomprehensible dittography of the earlier (S. 575), meanwhile it is silent about it and, drawing a completely different perspective, tramples or distorts it (S. 561). The only salvation is the hypothesis that in fact 2 Thess. was the first or was written at least simultaneously, and the authenticity will be unshakable (S. 573). This theory is also discussed by Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov (pp. 54–55), but in a different context - chronological in nature and partly in relation to critical attacks. Here it loses its solidity and is eliminated with a light heart, like a vain or biased fantasy. From this point of view, some even believed that such an idea would find no further serious advocates (Prof. George Milligan, p. XXIX). It turns out completely different if this is the main apologetic argument. Then it acquires exceptional significance and must be assessed in terms of its importance for a scientifically objective solution to the issue of authenticity. And here there are also respectable voices in favor of Professor Hell. Harnack (Willoughby C. Allen and L. W. Greensted, Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, p. 112-113) and special experiments in detail to justify that both epistles are saved only by changing the present order between them (J. C. West, The Order of 1 and 2 Thessalonians in The Journal of Theological Studies XV, 57: October, 1913, p. 66-74); It is even categorically accepted that 2 Thess. appeared earlier, written in Athens and published with Timothy (Prof. D. Johannes Weiss, Das Urchristentum I, S. 217 ff). O. Vl. N. Strakhov, of course, could not know these later works and does not mean even during textual research about II, 13 (pp. 351–352), where for prof. Hell. Harnack is required to read (instead of ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς) ἀπαχῆς (S. 575 ff.), accepted by some other authors (e.g. Prof. Bernhard Weiss, Das Neue Testament III, Leipzig 21902, S. 516; Prof. H.B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, London 31911, p. 180); - but it was reasonable to expect that the author would look deeper into this subject and illuminate it in the aspect of apologetic defense. It is inappropriate to go into detail here, and we have the right to limit ourselves to brief remarks. With any rearrangements, both messages will be chronologically close and prof. Hell. Harnack must admit that 2 Thess. written simultaneously with the 1st or even a little after it, although sent with one messenger (S. 563, 564, 570, 572, 574, 575). The human inclination towards disintegration was too clear to him, and even out of simple foresight, the Apostle had to immediately establish a merger, and the latter was also required by the fundamentally dogmatic consciousness of the actual obligatory mutual unity of all the redeemed according to Christian existence itself, which is necessarily a fraternal and solidary union of grace. The projected bifurcation is simply unthinkable - both 1 and 2 Thess. They only put forward new aspects in the mood and development of readers, where variations in positions and differences in lighting are quite acceptable. Then there will be no need to change the accepted routine, since all the relations of that time are unknown to us (Prof. Ad. Harnack, S. 573) - and hypotheses of this kind lose even apologetic interest, although they contribute to a more in-depth understanding of the subject. Criticism precisely affirms this very thing, further developing with logical immediacy that 2 Thess., obviously, represents only a later processing of 1 Thess. They also find the inconsistency that St.’s own work. Pavel motivates both with a desire to not be burdened and as a role model. This, of course, falls under the category of children's criticism - in the same way as children demand that a story should always be told in the same words (cf. Prof. George Salmon, A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, London 41894, p. 366, and see Prof. Robert Johnstone, On Principles of Evidence in Critical Inquiry: with special reference to the New Testament, Edinburgh 1913, p. 19 sqq). However, Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov argues differently that such a duality of illumination is quite acceptable (p. 130), although in fact it did not exist, because the example boiled down to the conviction that no one should burden another unnecessarily. It is stated that the “author-forger” would have used Paul’s characteristic expressions and would not have used less usual ones (p. 133), but without the latter, not a single forgery has been done throughout the world, and in this case no one is preaching that the imaginary falsarian of 2 Thess. – except 1 Thess. The whistleblower does not want to understand his opponent and fights with artificial absurdities. Of course, no one ever thought that Judaism invented the belief that the enemy of Christ, as the true Messiah, would be a godless Jewish pretender. But it is indisputable for everyone knowledgeable in the subject that before Christianity and independently of it, there was in Judaism the concept of a false mission, which found many historical incarnations, but in the literal sense this is the idea of ​​​​the Antichrist, which, when applied to Christianity, received a different application, even clearly anti-Jewish. Such premises of Busset are theoretically correct, why for 2 Thess. II from ancient times (see, for example, St. Ephraim the Syrian in His Works, part VII, Sergiev Posad 1913, p. 245) are accepted by many scientists (see Prof. Fr. Godet, Introduction au Nouveau Testament: Introduction particuliere I. Neuchatel 1893, p. 208–209; Prof. Auguste Sabatier, LʼAporte Paul, Paris 31896, 110–111; St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things, London 1904, pp. 218–219; Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments II, Calw und Stuttgart 1910, S. 334; Rev. Prof. James Moffatt в The Expositorʼs Greek Testament, p. 16, 17; Lic. Dr. Martin Dibelius в Handbuch zum Neuen Testament III, Tübingen 1911, S. 33; Prof. Ad. Jülicher, Einleitung sn das Neue Testament, S. 5–6 52; J. A. M'Clymont, New Testament Criticism, p. 242). The denial of the identity of the Antichrist with Satan is emphasized. That the second will act in or through Antichrist (p. 56–57), nicknamed “the first-born Satan”(?) 6 and awarded (according to Western nomenclature) the entire “Marcion’s Bible,” when only the New Testament was sectarianized by him, and then Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov repeats the incomprehensible and hardly acceptable maxim that textual “changes could have happened before the dissemination of individual Pauline epistles, but at this stage of the New Testament canon they are completely incredible” (p. 73). Due to all such shortcomings, the closest characteristic of the language of 2 Thess. is not completely accurate. In favor of “its complete independence in comparison with other epistles of St. Paul" are put forward ἃπαξ λεγόμενα, and two categories are incomprehensibly distinguished between them - the words "found only in 2 Thess.", and those "which are found only in 2 Thess. and which are not in other epistles of St. Paul" (p. 78). The difference is not obvious to everyone. The author wants to say that the first - except 2 Thess. - not in the New Testament in general, and secondly - in all the other Pauline epistles. There is a lot that is puzzling or incorrect in all this. In the first category, σημειοῦν is named instead of σημειοῦσϑαι and ἔνϑειγμα, ϰαλοποιεῖν and ὑπεραυξάνειν, which supposedly “neither the LXX nor the Greek authors have them” (p. 78). Only the first is correct here, since all these three terms are known among Greek writers (see, for example, Heinrich Ebeling, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Hannover und Leipzig 1913, S. 149, 219, 406) and are found in the ordinary speech of the apostolic age, ὑπεραυξάνω appears several times in later Greek, and ϰαλοποιέω is found in the version of Lev. V, 4 (Prof. George Milligan, p. LIII) and would deserve special discussion from the side of its peacocking properties. To do this, it was necessary to remember τὸ δὲ ϰαλὸν ποιοῦντες Gal. VI, 9 and on the issue of word formation, refer to ϰαϰοποιέω 1 Peter. II, 14 and frequent ϰαλῶς ποιέω in the papyri (Prof. George Milligan, Selections from Greek Papyri, Cambridge 1912, p. 7, 58). As for the 11 words of the second category, we must assume that all of it appeared through oversight or misunderstanding - from the voice of scholars who reject the Pauline origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews. O. Vl. N. Strakhov, with many examples (pp. 74, 77, 78, 133, 326, 377), convinces that such a view is alien to him, but there are enough other cases of vain oblivion when it would certainly be necessary to remember that message (see, for example, pp. 316, 325, 341, 351). In it, out of 11 named words, ἀναιρεῖν Х, 9, ἐπισυναγωγή Х, 25 (cf. J. Ev. Frame, p. 245) and μιμεῖσϑαι ХIII, 7 are used. Regarding the Paulinistic properties of the language, the philological and doctrinal similarity with the missionary speeches in Acts should be highlighted. (Prof. George Milligan, p. LXIV), very significant for the early apostolic epistles in various respects. After everything that has gone before, it is not surprising that the final conclusions on this subject are not indisputable. The conclusion is not very favorable that “the second epistle to the Thessalonians is generally written in a clumsy language, not as literary as the other epistles of Paul. There are almost no traces of that extraordinary liveliness of language, that simplicity and naturalness, that brevity and conciseness of speech that are characteristic features of the epistles of St. Pavel. The lack of these characteristic features is explained by the Old Testament coloring of the epistle” (p. 82). In 2 Thess. “there is no correct construction of periods, but there is only a simple, from a grammatical point of view, completely incorrect, stringing of thoughts” (p. 80). This is both harsh and inconsistent if we immediately read (p. 82) that “the style of the message is figurative, visual, characteristic of a prophetic language, or generally eastern” (?), than. Of course, a very bright liveliness was created; Likewise, after that we read about some reflections of poetic speech (pp. 301, 302) and the Attic language (p. 318). Here there would be a solid basis for broad observations and important conclusions of the most varied nature, all the more valuable since this moment, being significant in the history of early Christianity, is almost completely forgotten by researchers. And oh. Vl. N. Strakhov, using only a philological scale, exaggerated the “Old Testament coloring.” In any case, along with it there were other factors that directly and more strongly contributed to the linguistic originality of 2 Thess. in its individual individuality. One of them deserves special mention of its direct suitability for interpretation itself. It has long been stated (see Prof. J. Rendel Harris, A Study in Letter-Writing in The Expositor 1898, IX, p. 168 sq. and cf. XII, p. 404) and supposedly well restored (Rev. Prof. W. Lock in James Hastings in The Dictionary of the Bible IV, Edinburgh 1902, p. 744, 1), which is 1 Thess. partly responds to the letter of the Thessalonians and sometimes reproduces it 9. This conjecture, which was previously possible for other Pauline epistles, 10 is no less possible for 2 Thess., and has recently been applied to it not without success (see J. Ev. Frame, p. 19, 21, 219, 220, 288, 290, 295) when explaining some characteristic details (for example, expressive ὀφεἱλομεν I, 3, II, 13, ϰαϑὼς ἄξιον I, 3, αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς I, 4, ϰαί in εἰς ὃ ϰαί I, 11) and in eliminating exegetical difficulties (III, 1–5), meanwhile, this assumption does not at all contradict ἀϰούομεν III, 11, where only knowledge is stated without precise qualification of a particular method, oral or written (cf. J. Ev. Frame, pp. 220, 306 and Prof. Ernest De Will Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the New Testament Greek, Chicago 1893, p. 10 § 16: “The use of ἀϰούω meaning I am informed is more nearly a proper Present for Perfect”). It seems to us personally that the rather mysterious sayings of 2 Thess. will be more natural in origin. II, 2, if we see in them a reflection of written formulas in the address of the Thessalonians themselves to the Apostle, for whom the answer to their language was clear, although we, not knowing the latter completely, must limit ourselves to probability. The final phrase ώς ὃτι ἐνέστηϰεν ή ἡμέρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Κυρίου) resembles a direct quotation, with ώς marking the apostolic judgment 11, and ὃτι emphasizes the literalistic precision of the thesis. Then some of the gloominess of this combination disappears (cf. Freidrich Blassʼ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 4-te Autl. besorgt von Dr. phil. The last example is directly in contact with exegesis and refers to a deliberate consideration of it as the main subject of the entire author’s work. With all the previous preliminaries, this part is well prepared, satisfactorily provided, and here it acquires a solid scientific basis for itself. Naturally, on such a solid foundation, it itself is established with scientific impressiveness. It adopts and implements all mandatory exegetical norms. These are the three main exegetical requirements, so that 1) the commented text is established, 2) revealed according to its closest philological meaning, and 3) illuminated from the ideological and subject side. All these conditions are systematically applied. Vl. N. Strakhov, turning us to the most particular characteristics of his work from these sides. Textual issues presented a very difficult task, for for 1–2 Thess. there are 600 Greek manuscripts (J. Ev. Frame, p. 55), and in addition there are many side benefits in the form of various translations and patristic quotations. The material involved is sufficient, and I cannot blame him for the special sensations that Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov. Following his most venerable leader (see “Journal of meetings of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy” for 1911, p. 102), in a later critical study he literally repeats his ultimatum that “the excision of Slavic textual criticism is not only a general scientific, but also a patriotic duty of all Slavic theologians involved in the interpretation of the Bible” (see “Theological Bulletin” 1913, No. 11, p. 637). This is too solemn and so exaggerated that it loses its scientific imperative. The Slavic translation, of course, is subject to the closest supervision of Slavic scholars, but only to the extent of its true merit. It is clear that with them, the Slavic translation in particular loses the right to even be systematically mentioned in the textual apparatus, since this would be a vain quantitative accumulation in favor of what is already reliable independently of it, and is not supported by it one iota beyond that. When we have the original itself, a copy is completely unnecessary; in the absence of the first, the second loses its authority, however, this case is unprecedented and would simply speak of some remote suitability of the Slavic translation for the reconstruction of the Greek review it offers. From here it would in no way follow that it would be textually-critically fruitful for the establishment of certain particular readings, which are established on evidence of value directly incommensurable with it. The exegetical significance of the Slavic translation is somewhat higher, giving its own interpretation of Greek sayings and assigning a certain interpretation to them, although it is clear that even here the true role will be very small, since it is not provided with either justified solidity, or venerable antiquity, or consistent systematicity. For all these reasons, we consider the partial textual use of the Slavic translation to be simply clogging and damage to the scientific apparatus without any fruitful results. The latter could still be achieved if for each New Testament book taken, the entire Slavic translation of it was taken in its entirety and illuminated according to its general features. Then, tested and processed material would gradually accumulate for a scientific characterization and textual assessment of the entire New Testament Slavic translation, but, of course, for the needs and types of exegesis, this is neither a fundamental nor a patriotic duty, serving secondary purposes. Rather, it would be our patriotic mission to be thoroughly familiar with general scientific textual criticism and to strictly apply it in exegetical writings. In this regard, we are most in need, because we are not far from primitiveness: – our textual knowledge is weak and shallow, and textual-critical techniques are random and unfounded. This is where it would be necessary to work with special diligence for the sake of the objective interests of Russian science. And one cannot help but sympathize with Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov shows great care in this area with continuous textual-critical comments and interpretations. However, they lack substantive clarity and fundamental consistency. The author does not give any general overview of the textual materials, depriving himself and the readers of proper scientific orientation, while there are indications that he himself did not comprehend everything with clarity. Hence, inaccuracies, fluctuations, inconsistencies, and vagueness are inevitable, although Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov had a particularly advantageous advantage in the existence of a special textual work (Friederich Zimmerʼa, Der Text der Thessalonicherbriefe samt textkritischem Apparat und Kommentar nebst einer Untersuchung der Individualutät und der Verwandschaft der Textzeugen der Paulinishen Briefe, Quedlinburg 1893), and this convenience is found extremely rarely and was so great for the author that he no longer pays much attention to similar works of the modern patriarch on New Testament exegesis, Berlin professor Bernard'a Weiss'a. With such benefits one would expect better results and fewer defects. The most critical publications are not always named and characterized correctly. It is stated (to II, 8) even “Elsevier from. Bible" (p. 339), but such high honor does not belong to these Leiden printers, the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, who published the Greek New Testament (1624, 1633, 1641, 1656, 1662, 1678). Then not all options, conjectures and authorities are given. It raises many difficulties I, 10 and - in particular - the verb ἐπιστεύϑη, which can lead to despair with its external unsuitability to the context (cf. Prof. George Milligan, p. 92). The author makes extensive research (pp. 307–309), but does not say that due to the hopelessness of the situation, the most competent Prof. F. J. A. Hort recommended ἐπιστώϑη (The New Testament in the Original Greek: Notes, p. 128 and Text, p. 579), which is sometimes noted (ad. loc) as a variant (Prof. Alexander Souter, Novum Testamentums graece, Oxonii 1910), as supported by some later authorities (mss. 104 and 469, from XI and XIII-XIV centuries, and Amrosiast). For II, 11, along with πέμπει and πέμφει, Beza’s reading of πέμφῃ is not noted (p. 346), and for II, 8 it is not shown (p. 339) that Westcott-Hortʼa has ἀνελεῖ in the text, now accepted by Prof. Hermann von Soden. The objective criterion for evaluating textual materials disappears - and we are directly told without proper critical justification that in ΙΙΙ, 13 “the form is ἐϰϰαϰήσητε, despite the fact that it has been better attested than the other two [ἐνϰαϰήσητε and ἐγϰαϰήσητε] is, apparently, a later amendment” (p. 374). Now space opens up for individual subjectivism, and “internal probability” (p. 346 to ΙΙ, 11) and hypothetical conjecture (p. 145.1) are already put forward before us. On the contrary, what is most accepted by a famous writer is completely natural for him and therefore much more probable. This is true not only for similar passages, as Prof. George Salmon argued in relation to the Synoptics, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Dublin 1897), but also as a general textual-critical guide. Rarity, by its very unusualness, arouses legitimate doubt and can prevail over the ordinary only with especially strengthened and superior certificates. Evasion of these simple requirements is accompanied by inevitable retribution. To illustrate, we note that in ΙΙΙ, 6 the “less common Alexandrian form” παρελάβοσαν is adopted (p. 370 note), but this is actually a Hellenistic ending (cf. Blass-Debrunner, Grammatik, § 84, S. 49) and it is so isolated in papyri, which immediately arouses scientific suspicion (Prof. James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh 31908, p. 52, and in German Einleitung in die Sprache des Neuen Testaments, Heidelberg 1911, S. 76-77), as appearing through an error of vision in connection with the previous παράδοσιν (W.-H., Notes, p. 172), and must yield primacy to the normal παρελάβετε (see Prof. George Milligan, p. 113; J. Ev. Frame, p. 300). Under the described conditions, it is quite natural for the work under consideration that particular textual-critical reconstructions of Fr. Vl. Insurance policies are sometimes unstable and unclear. In ΙΙ, 8 of the four options ἀναλοῖ, ἀνειλεῖ, ἀναλώσει and ἀνελοῖ he accepts the second (post-classical fut. from ἀναιρέω), adopted by the latest publishers on the basis VAR, since “it is already found in Isaiah 11:4 and therefore deserves preference over the others” (pp. 339–340). The argument is all the less convincing because not all aspects of the case are captured and covered as they should be. Against ἀναλοῖ it is argued that “in Origen, according to this reading, further follows ϰαταργεῖ” (p. 340), but here the importance is not in “correspondence”. And the fact is that the obvious deviation for the form of the last verb also suggests for the first. But he refers that “the simple ό ϰύριος would be the only one in both epistles to the Thessalonians,” and “the reading ό ϰύριος Ἰησοῦς seems to be more characteristic of St. Paul,” why “one might think that the original reading was ό ϰύριος Ἰησοῦς” (p. 339). But the claim of extraordinaryness for 1–2 Thess. title ό ϰύριος is downright strange when Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov accepts it in other places and everywhere refers it to Jesus Christ (pp. 351, 360, 363, 387.1). Such an important point would require more detail and attention. The title (ό) ϰύριος is typical of the Macedonian Epistles of Paul (J. Ev. Frame, p. 279) and - in particular - of 2 Thess (p. 25), as a title for the Lord Christ (Prof. George Milligan, p. LXVII, LXXX). From this, very significant conclusions are acquired, which are formulated by science in the form that “in terms of frequency of use, the name ϰύριος or ό ϰύριος can be considered distinctive for both of these messages, where it occurs 22 times - 8 with a member and 14 without it. 36), - this title henceforth becomes a short and full designation of Christ as Lord God, risen, glorified and exalted.” On the contrary, the combination ό ϰύριος Ἰησοῦς, which in its height and richness of content seems to have occurred by divine inspiration, is found only 9 times in our epistles, and for all others a comparative rarity of use is stated (see Prof. George Milligan, pp. 136-139). We see that our author - not a solid textual critic - in the analyzed case did not reveal either accuracy or breadth of research in exegetical justification. However, the latter is carried out according to the scientific method and rightly always starts from philological research, which should be primary in relation to the sacred writer, strictly observing even subtle shades, for example, between ὄς and ὄστις (J. Ev. Frame, p. 235), the intense intensification of εἴπερ (p. 228 and Prof. George Milligan, p. 89) etc. Therefore, special care of this kind is legitimate, although sometimes it is too exaggerated if grammatical details completely crowd out any interpretation (see for 2 Thess. ΙΙΙ, 14-15 pp. 375-378). However, for the most part, philological exercises are normal and useful, although they are not without some peculiar features. According to custom, Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov exaggerates here too that “our message is generally Old Testament in color” (p. 351) and the phrases in it are formed by analogy with the Old Testament (p. 362). This scale applies in general and in particular. There is no need to see a Semitic influence in the arrangement of grammatical terms, since this is a fairly common emphatic arrangement, very significant in our case. In it, all the emphasis is focused on action with decisive denial, but all the turmoil was caused precisely by its imaginary presence, as an ongoing fact. Therefore, it is natural that this negative point is brought forward, and the whole structure of the phrase, with its peculiar irregularity, rather suggests that here the parous slogan is again being reproduced in the written formulation of the Thessalonians (see above pp. 36–37). The author is also not all well with the genitives, for he admits that “the genetic (and?) connection φεύδους designates miracles by their origin and action, namely, they come from the devil, the father of lies (John 8:44), they are produced not by divine, but by demonic power (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. V, 28, 2), and their action is to seduce people, to spread lies among them” (p. 344). In this case, the idea of ​​origin is eliminated for ΙΙ, 3 not by the special, Heuraistic properties of the genitive, but by the very essence of things, since birth from destruction is actually unthinkable. With all this, the relationship of sonship to her is also indisputable, when she is, as it were, naturally born, being inherent in nature (cf. Prof. Father I.V. Borkov, On the signs of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, Kazan 1906, p. 354). The whole reason for destruction lies precisely in the fact that this being is such in its very qualities, received initially or later perceived in the dignity of the factors that determine the entire personality. In the strictest sense, the “son of perdition” is Satan (in the Gospel of Nicodemus, chapter 20 in Joh. Car. Thilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti I, Lipsiae 1832, p. 708: τῆς ἀπωλείας, διάβολε), but the traitor Judas is similar to him (John XVII, 12), who allowed himself to come into internal contact with him (John XIII, 27). In all cases a predominant quality is put forward (cf. Bishop Charles J. Ellicott, St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, London 41880, p. 109), but the latter is determined by the origin of this particular individuality in its emergence or actual formulation. Of course, this also predetermines the final fate, but it is already remote, which is why in our example the idea of ​​a disastrous fate is expressed mediocrely (cf. Prof. George Milligan, p. 99), although it is quite undoubted 13 . The Hebrew passage of the genitive (cf. Winer-Lünemann, Grammatik, § 34b, Amn. 2, S. 223–224) lies in ideological concepts, and not in its form, and does not at all confirm the author’s constructions. In other cases, grammatical Hebrewization turns out to be completely illusory. About II, 10 we read that “genet. ἀδιϰίας, according to Jewish usage, is placed here instead of an adjective and means ἀπάτη or deception in its essence, i.e. this deception is named because it is the opposite of justice” (p. 344). This, not entirely intelligible, interpretation is provided by references to “Winer-Schmiedel, 30, 8; Blass 35, 5", but the first, speaking of the Heuraistic imitation of genit. qualitatis, we do not mention 2 Thess. II, 10, just as it is not found in Blass’a or in the second edition quoted from our author (S. 100–101), nor in the later treatment of Albertʼa Debrunnerʼa (Göttingen 1913, S. 101–102). Also in Winer-Lünemann (S. 222) and in Winer-Moulton (A Treatise on the Grammar of the New Tetament Greek, translated, with Large Additions and Full Indices, by Rev. W.F.Moulton, Edinburgh 31882, p. 297), and in other places both the first (S. 178) and the second (p. 236) defend a completely different meaning: “deception, which leads to untruth." Due to the generality of the subject, we also note that in terms of genitives, always called genetivi by the author, it is found in Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov has enough nebula. For III, 5 he rejects the subjective character in ἡ ἀγάπη τοῠ ϑεοῠ and ἡ ὑπομονὴ τοῠ Χριστοῠ "in the sense of the love of God [God] towards believers" and "the patience of Christ [Christ], revealed by Him in enduring suffering." “Genetivus objectivus” about “love of God” and “hope in Christ” is preferred, for “this understanding of both genitives best corresponds to the grammatical structure and logical meaning of the apostolic speech. The expression ϰατευϑύνειν τὴν ϰαρδίαν with the following preposition εἰς... denotes the life attitude or behavior of all those to which they have directed their hearts, i.e. in this case, a life of love for God and hope in Christ. Thus, two genitives are genetivi objective... This example already testifies to the properties of the author’s exegesis, which is sufficient to highlight in connection with philological research. Based on I, 4–5 o. Vl. N. Strakhov clarifies (p. 286 ff.) the relationship between Christian sorrows and the kingdom of God in the sense that the former condition the latter for a person, and those are something present, this is the future. But here, first of all, there is no reasoning why in Art. 4 ὑπέρ (τῆς ὑπομονῆς) notes stutus praesens, and in Art. 5 (ὑπέρ ἧς – τῆς βασιλείας) – futures. In this case, the indicated mutual conditionality will be unsecured, and it is not protected through ἀνέχεσϑε, which only states “the persecution currently taking place” (p. 237) and does not at all guarantee worthy success; in turn and logically-objectively, ἔνϑειγμα cannot mean “pledge” (p. 288), as it is equally incorrect lexically (see Prof. George Milligan, p. 87; J. Ev. Frame, p. 226) for active proof by factual beliefs (cf. Rom. III, 25–26. 2 Cor. VIII, 24). Then the general conclusions also waver, allegedly “the kingdom of God is in the closest pragmatic connection with grief” (p. 236) and “suffering” and is “the result of the free efforts of man,” meaning “the future, perfect and free from evil, the state of all things” (pp. 290–291). All this is not confirmed by the verb ϰαταξιωϑῆναι. He acquires passive energy - “to be recognized as worthy, deserving of reward” (p. 291), from which it necessarily follows that a happy “result” depends not on “free effort”, but on the final decisive judgment, before which - in itself - “who will stand”? It is clear that the author's thesis is exegetically shaky and theoretically would require more careful formulation regarding the kingdom of God, in which some kind of “double reward” is assumed (p. 317). In other such cases, the interpretations leave the impression of gloom and fragility due to the lack of philological, contextual and ideological analysis, if, for example, it is said that in I, 11 “εἰς ὃ cannot be taken in the final sense” and its “final meaning in our place ... is weakened by the following sentence of the goal” (p. 309), although this states only a weakened sense of purpose, and the connection of the parts, with special emphasis on εἰς ὃ, can even give it an enhanced finality (cf. J. Ev. Frame, p. 238–239). According to Fr. Vl. N. Strakhova, “one cannot conclude that the idea of ​​eternal torment is alien to the New Testament and in particular the apostle. Paul" if "the expression ὂλεϑρος ἀιώνιος (and) is not found either in the New Testament in general or in the epistles of St. Paul in particular” (p. 302). Suspicions of this kind are idle already because we are talking about the very beginning of the sacred writing activity of the Hellenic evangelist, and everywhere it is necessary to accept the entire set of concepts, where the term αἰώνιος undoubtedly has the meaning of direct eternity (see Rev. H. A. Kennedy, St. Paulʼs Conceptions of the Last Things, London 1904, p. 316 sqq. and cf. with us, The Gospel of St. Paul the Apostle according to its origin and essence I, pp. 331, 180, 388, 337, 593, 788, 337; II, pp. 379, 1069, 613, 633). It is added that “ἀπό in conjunction with ὄλεϑρος occurs ... in the sense of removal, separation and loss” (p. 304), but in all four New Testament examples (1 Cor. V, 5. 1 Thess. V, 3. 2 Thess. I, 9. 1 Tim. VI, 9) there is no such connection at all. At the same time, it is interpreted quite extensively (p. 303–304) and about ἀπό for I, 9, although one would simply have to appeal to the fundamental principle of the entire phrase in Isa. II. 10 ff., 19, 21. The author forgets here about the biblical “coloring”, as in I, 10, where he does not quite intelligibly defend that in this verse “the expression should be understood in the sense that not only the believers themselves will be glorified, but the Lord Jesus Christ, and that this glorification of the Lord and amazement before Him will manifest itself in contrast to the atheists, by whom the name of God is blasphemed, in the saints and believers, in them it will become visible, it will be revealed in them, so that the δόξα of the Lord will come from them and the contemplation of this δόξα will cause amazement towards Him.” The great mystery of this interpretation is further enhanced by the fact that “it is not clear on whom the Lord will make such a majestic impression,” and “the difference between οἱ ἅγιοι αὐτοῦ and οἱ πάντες οἱ πιστεύσαντες is very artificial and far from the simple and immediate meaning of the text,” “but on the other hand, it is wrong to consider this difference in names as completely devoid of special meaning” (pp. 305–307). All these interpretations rather obscure than clarify the apostolic words, in which essential phrases reproduce biblical speech (see Ps. LXXXVIII, 8 and LXVII, 36; Isa. XLIX, 3), and the parts are located completely according to Hebrew-biblical parallelism and therefore express one thought only with different variations, which were required to be set off against the general background of the whole picture. The grammatical structure of Ι, 10 resembles Ι, 4 and returns to it. A comparison of the author's comments reveals considerable inconsistency in mutual weakening. In the first, the subject of the verb is considered dominant in comparison with the dependent definitions: “not so much the believers themselves, but the Lord Jesus Christ.” A similar thing would be expected there, that “we” - the Apostles - would be glorified more than “you” - the readers. However, this understanding is rejected in favor of another, that “not only others glorify the Thessalonians, but even the apostles themselves, who should have been somewhat reserved towards their disciples, in the fullness of their joy cannot but boast of their spiritual creation” (p. 282–283), “praising the Thessalonian community over those communities where the adoption of Christianity was not accompanied by such torment” (p. 286 and cf. 284). This interpretation is supported mainly by the fact that αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς contains a contrast to other praisers and especially puts forward “we ourselves” among them. It is true that the said combination does not mark reciprocity, but contrast, however - contrary to our author (p. 282) - in it “the emphasis lies” not on ἡμᾶς, but on αὐτοὺς (see J. Ev. Frame, pp. 223–224; Bishop Charles J. Ellicott, p. 495). Then such a remote adversatism is eliminated, which is unlikely because both sides do the same thing for the same reasons, equally praising the Thessalonians for the “wonderful state of Christian life” (p. 283). The energetic emphasis of the “actor himself” in comparison with his accomplices refers to a closer and closer group, held together by the unity of a common connection, where they are inseparable, although they differ in a certain gradational division. The latter is indisputable for everyone in terms of factual evidence and did not need special shading. But in fact, only some vague generalization of both appears, supposedly “the apostle prays that the Thessalonians remain faithful to the divine calling accomplished through the apostolic preaching, and are worthy of the final future calling and, mainly, that the already accomplished ϰλῆσις τοῦ ϑεοῦ will remain with them unchanged... Christians, due to a bad life, can lose divine mercy and the grace-filled fruits of their first calling” (pp. 310–311). It is somewhat surprising how two, separately incorrect, views can produce something correct when combined. This in itself is not entirely natural and therefore is not fully maintained, because, in the end, everything comes down more to preserving what has been received. This connotation is provided by the fact that ἀξιόω in the New Testament “everywhere means” not “to make worthy,” but “to consider worthy, to recognize as worthy” (p. 310). This understanding (cf. p. 50) is predominant, but for our case it will be pure pre-occupation without special justification, since the rejected meaning is not allowed due to the denial of the futurity of the calling, and this must be proven in advance; meanwhile, the idea of ​​“honor” is very consistent with future glorification. It turns out to be a logical circulus vitiosus, in which the author was spinning because he did not formulate both competing views with clear clarity. According to one of them, we are talking about declaring Christians worthy of the fulfilled calling if they are faithful to it (cf. J. Ev. Frame, p. 239–240); in another way, it is interpreted about the final outcome of the calling (Prof. George Milligan, p. 93), which expresses a long-term state (Eph. ΙV, 1), embracing (according to Theophylact) τὴν διὰ τῶν πράξεων βεβαιουμένην ϰλῆσιν (Bishop Charles J. Ellicott, p. 4104). O. Vl. N. Strakhov is more inclined towards the first solution, but leaves him in considerable bewilderment regarding both conceivable possibilities: if a vocation actually exists and is preserved, then how can we talk about being enrolled in something worthy of actual real dignity, indisputable by its very existence? If it does not exist or it is desecrated, then it is even more strange to consider and recognize it as worthy. On the contrary, it is quite normal that what is worthy is awarded an appropriate crown, strictly proportional and adequately real. This is their similarity in content, that the second is the exact embodiment of all the promises of the grace-filled calling, but there is also a difference that the fullness of grace is still anticipated and will actually be achieved in the future for the feat of a whole life, as an actual reward. This means that the author correctly states the shades in the content of ϰλῆσις, but hesitates in properly combining them, which is why his overall concept is quite illusory. In many other cases, there is no desirable comprehensiveness in the characterization of the most important terms and in a clear description of each of them with a strict distinction from related and similar ones. We find this, for example, regarding II, 11 (cf. above p. 41); If there is not a typo here in the book, then there is a lot of confusion in the reasoning, for “internal probability speaks for πέμπει, which was turned into πέμφει simply in order to express the idea of ​​future punishment in the most grammatical form. But this does not require the future tense, because praesens πέμπει does not mean that the action is already taking place in the present. In support of this understanding, πέμφει, used in the futuri form to denote future punishment, is referred to in verse 7... However... πέμπει... must also refer to the future tense” (pp. 346–347). Along with this, it categorically testifies that “ἐνέργεια is power or action” (p. 347), but these ideas are not identical and not interchangeable, and sometimes diverge so much that the question arises about one of the two, of which only the first is accepted by the author himself a little higher (p. 343). This is a purely Paulinistic New Testament saying, meaning the internal action of God (Eph. I, 19. III, 7) and Christ (Col. I, 29. Philip. III, 21), would deserve a more careful depiction, and due to its rarity in the Greek Bible (only in Most. Sol. and 2–3 Macc.) for this purpose a comparison with δύναμις is more suitable. Although both of them are sometimes associated together (Wis. Sol. XIII, 4. Eph. III, 7), the fundamental difference between δύναμις and ἐνέργεια, as a potential and an active force, is always preserved (J. Ev. Frame, p. 268). Of course, all this is highly significant in showing that those who are perishing will exhibit harmful activities similar to the satanic work of the “son of perdition.” Consequently, those who are mistaken will perish not because of external violence or the latter’s charm, but because of the inner affinity of their perverted nature. The same generality of descriptions is noticed regarding νοῦς as “the intellectual side of human nature” (p. 320), τὸ μυστήριον (p. 240: “the mystery of lawlessness should be understood as lawlessness itself”), difficult to distinguish among us hitherto (S. Savinsky, Eschatological conversation of Christ the Savior, Kyiv 1906, p. 270) σημεῖον, τέρας and δύναμις, of which only this is said about the third. That it “is used independently of both named concepts” (p. 343). Even about the cardinal term παρουσία, exclusively characteristic of early Christian sentiments, it is briefly stated that this “word for the second coming of the Lord is found in St. Paul only in both letters to Thess. and in 1 Cor. 15, 23 ... In addition, παρουσία in the same meaning is used in the epistles of James, 2 Peter and 1 John” (p. 318). But this listing is not accurate (cf. F. Prat, La theologie de Saint Paul II, Paris 1912, p. 509.1), for it forgets about the Gospel of Matthew (XXIV, 3, 27, 37, 39), and does not reveal the most basic feature. Everyone knows that according to the grammatical energy παρουσία, used in classical secular literature for the actual implementation (realization) of a given idea (Pastor Heinrich Dieckmann, Die Parusie Christi, Geestemünde 1898, S. 22), there is actually “presence”, praesentia - and for the matter it is important to establish how the new additional moment of “arrival” was added (H. Dieckmann, S. 78), the author’s first shade is completely overwhelming (p. 341). The simplest evidence would suggest that it was a kind of terminus technicus for visiting kings and great men (cf. Prof. George Milligan, The New Testament Documents, London 1913, p. 89) and for pagan theophanies (see Prof. James Moffatt in The Expositor's Greek Testament, p. 49), and further shades (see Prof. D. Adolf Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, S. 2–3228 ff.) are revealed by distinguishing from similar ἐπιφάνεια, ἀποϰάλυφις (G. Milligan, St. Paulʼs Epistles to the Thessalonians, pp. 145–151), of which the first is in vain completely and directly equated with παρουσία (in Fritz Tillmann, Die Wiederkunft Christi, S. 18), although in fact it coincides (cf. in Prof. S. M. Zarin, Modern discoveries in the field of papyri and inscriptions in their relation to the New Testament, p. 81–83, and in Christian Reading 1914, No. 6, pp. 819–822). Then the typically individual nature of this concept and its specially Christian incomparability would be revealed more clearly, since - in contrast to secular usage - it states not the appearance of something completely new and not the temporary nature of this event, but the constant concrete revelation of an always existing energy, the highest mode of unchanging action. Christ inseparably remains with the believers and then will only be glorified with them in the triumph of his kingdom. The idea of ​​παρουσία is affirmed on the co-presence of the Lord to us, and not at all on our co-existence with Him in God in heaven (EF. II, 1–7; Col. III, 1–4), from which it is incorrectly deduced (in Dozent P. Olaf Moe, Paulus und die evangelische Geschichte, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der Evangelien, Leipzig 1912, S. 206) equation with ἀποϰάλυφις, in which this association is indisputable, although with a significant isolation of the single personality of the Redeemer. These observations would better reveal the sinister figure of the antagonist, whose secret is also given and will only later be revealed specifically, as a hidden force of evil nesting in the world and relentlessly opposing good. This internal alienation of light and darkness will be resolved in the end by an external crisis, where only the accomplices of the evil one, who even now carry destruction in the depths of their hearts, will perish. The most important points in the concept of χαρις are not touched upon by Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov to the proper extent, and nothing is given about ἀγάπη except general words (pp. 279–281), meanwhile, it would be very valuable to know that even if this term was born in the depths of revealed religion, yet outside of it, absolutely clear traces have not yet been found in secular Greek usage, but for biblical writings it is so characteristic that in all the fullness of its deep meaning may be considered theirs (Prof. George Milligan, The New Testament Documents, pp. 58–59; cf. Passouʼs Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache völlig neu bearbeitet von Wilhelm Crönert, 1 Lief., Göttingen 1913, S. 25, and – especially – Proff. J. H. Moulton und G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament I, p. 2). Close to this, χάρις is proclaimed as a “new formation of the apostle,” as “a combination of ordinary Greek and Jewish greetings,” to which the entire sum of New Testament designations is adopted here (pp. 274–275). At the same time, it is not shown or seen in what way a simple welcoming formula has grown into lush and rich flowers of Christian grace. Its noted origin from the Greek salutation χαίρειν was already accepted by Theodore of Monsueste, who brought ἐν ϑεῷ πατρί closer to the everyday ἐν ϰυρίῳ of written addresses (Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in Epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, ed. by H. B. Swete, vol. II, Cambridge 1882, p. 2; ad. I Thess. I, 1), and then from this all further predicates are derived as purely logical extracts or foreign layers that speak only of the external determining influences of Paul’s Charistology. Such combinations are all the more possible since this is a favorite and typical formula of greetings in Paul’s epistles (cf. Prof. Marcus D. Buell, The Autographs of Saint Paul, New York 1913, p. 13, 15 sq.), and it is quite permissible to understand it epistolary if, according to Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov – the latter “are in the nature of correspondence” (p. 114) and accurately reflect the prevailing norms and techniques of epistolography of that time (see Prof. Paul Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur, S. 411–417). However, a careful study confirms that χάρις is a New Testament-Paulinistic term in the salutations of the epistles (cf. Prof. Lic. Dr. Friedrich Zimmer, Die neutestamentliche Briefform in “Zeitschrift für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben”, herausg. von Chr. E. Luthardt VII, Leipzig 1886, S. 443–453), which in the Apostle of Languages is not of Hellenic (Greek) origin, was chosen for deep reasons and spiritualized (cf. Prof. George Milligan, St. Paulʼs Epistles to the Thessalonians, p. 4), and “not even his feelings can be lowered to the level of earthly contemplations Greco-Jewish greeting, nor to lift the first readers to the highest heights of Pauline piety, where the feeling of dependence on the absolute will of God is inextricably linked with a grateful and joyful consciousness of His forgiving grace and with a sense of peace in a heart reconciled with God. In fact, the (welcoming) words (apostolic) embrace the entire rock of religious feelings from one to the other... Just as χαίρειν and είρήνη, each in itself, can speak of salvation, so too do readers wish in χάρις ϰαἰ εἰρήνη, but in the deepest Christian sense, when everything is given in grace and peace” (see Gillis P. son Wetter, Charis: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ältesten Christentums, Leipzig 1913, S. 201–206: Zu χάρις in den Brief-Crüssen). In all these and similar cases, there is a commonality of the author's terminological and theological-theoretical constructions, for which we can also point out the somewhat pale and dull remarks about πίστις (pp. 362–363), ἐν Κυρίφ (p. 364). Sometimes this instability is increased by equal vagueness in verbal definitions. We read (to ΙΙ, 1) that “ἐρωτᾶν in classical Greek is always used to denote an interrogative request (?!) = to ask (interrogare), but in the New Testament it is used to mean ask = rogare and implies a close and equal relationship between those who ask and those who are asked” (p. 317). But the first should have shown the unsuitability of classical parallels in general, the second required a special clarification of New Testament usage. For it hitherto the influence of the Hebrew verb schaal was usually referred to, but is now attested by papyri (cf. Prof. George Milligan, Selection from the Greek Papyri, Cambridge 1912, p. 97, No. 39), which ἐρωτάω Hellenistically expressed the idea of request and invitation (Prof. George Milligan, The New Testament Documents, p. 51). Then, at Fr. Vl. N. 278, 4) the author has made it difficult for himself to understand the parts related to him in such a department (pp. 3–12), where - in his words - “the whole period is built very heavily” (p. 276). The duty of the Apostle is qualified by the addition of ϰαϑὼς ἂξιόν ἐστιν, and - according to Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov – “this introductory sentence designates apostolic gratitude as one that fully corresponds or is equal to ... what is discussed below, i.e. the actual progress of the Thessalonians in the Christian life” (p. 279). But this is what moral objectivity consists of: that it is actually justified and proportional to the “nature of things,” and St. Paul could not admit that he would deviate towards downplaying his accomplished merits. The whole apostolic speech is outlined completely differently when - contrary to our author (p. 278, 4) - “we consider the distinction between δεῖ and ὀφείλειν correct.” Then the personal behavior of the evangelist will be ensured by objective reasons and will be determined by them in his being, from which we further obtain that ϰαϑὼς, having a somewhat cavalier connotation in the Apostle (cf. Prof. Friederich Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen 21902, S. So we get that a strictly formulated conviction of this kind is assumed to be communicated by the readers, and this is most likely in a written document (see above p. 36), which is why in the analyzed phrase there is an antithetical reflection of the corresponding passages of the Thessalonian letter (cf. J. Ev. Frame, p. 220–221). III. Biblical and theological constructions, especially eschatological ones Some elasticity of textual-critical and philological-exegetical analysis is also found in the theological-dogmatic constructions provided and defended in different interpretations. In this regard, the reasoning regarding I, 12 is significant, where - according to the author - “we are not talking about God the Father and God the Son, but about the one divine hypostasis - about Jesus Christ, who is called here Lord and together our God” (pp. 313-314). This conclusion is directly incalculable in its importance, and it is motivated in a rather surprising way, that grammatically this “controversial issue” “cannot be precisely and definitely resolved,” however, the proposed interpretation “from a grammatical point of view is possible and very probable,” although “the inclusion of predicative definitions in a goal sentence beginning with ὄπως is impossible, as a crude tautology, if we count τοῦ δεοῦ and τοῦ ϰυρίου designating one Jesus Christ,” why “these predicative definitions are best combined with the verbs of verse 11: ἀξιώσῃ and πληρώσῃ” (pp. 314–315). The confusion and vagueness of this argumentation are obvious without any further words. In truth, here entire mountains are established on the tip of a broken needle. Meanwhile, it would be extremely important if it were revealed that St. Paul, from the very beginning of his evangelistic work, proclaimed the absolute deity of Christ, and recently converted readers were able to comprehend this highest truth from a simple hint, “controversial” even for strict science for almost two thousand years... This is so wonderful that it seems theoretically unlikely for this historical era, whence it is natural that the consistent supporters of this view reject - because of it - the authenticity of 2 Thess. (eg Prof. Ad. Hilgenfeld). This observation alone should prompt greater caution in constructs; meanwhile, they are devoid of any serious basis. O. Vl. N. LXIV) and in it the member does not have any special indicativeness, which would be quite natural only with a significant predominance of the formula ϑεὸς ήμῶν, but the latter is common only in greetings, testifying here to its stereotypical stability. For this reason, in all other cases, the member cannot extend his influence to the additional increases associated with this combination. On the other hand, we know that ϰύριος is also used inarticulately as termini technici (see above, pp. 44–45), which does not require special qualifications and is completely independent. All these philological data indicate the peculiarity of both names and refute the author’s considerations “from a grammatical point of view.” As for general theology, in addition to what has been said, it is enough to refer to the context. The immediately preceding one expresses a prayer for the Christian success of the readers, “may the name of our Lord Jesus Christ be glorified in them,” and in this association it would be most natural and useful to note the divine greatness and absolute glory of the Savior. This would serve as an incentive and encouragement for Christian zeal, motivating it with divinity and connecting it with the success of spiritual growth. In fact, all this is assumed below, where such a concept is both too unexpected and very inconvenient, since the Apostle could not elevate grace to Christ alone with the removal of the Father. We are talking about the glorification of Christ, and it was accomplished through the grace of Christ and was resolved into indirect self-glorification. An objective means is expected, which is found among Christians in the grace of God, bestowed from the Father in the Son. This, of course, does not dispute the divinity of Christ, which is undoubted in the very term ϰύριος, a purely religious one (cf. Prof. Joh. Weiss in Meyerʼa 9V, S. 5–6 to 1 Cor. I, 3), but it had to be sought differently. The result would be more convincing, although not so spectacular, if it were to illuminate more clearly the undoubted fact that Christ is depicted as a source of grace on a par with God and, therefore, also has an inherent divinity, why the Son is sometimes (II, 16) called even earlier than the Father (J. Ev. Frame, p. Strakhov - here is “the center of gravity, the main and original thought” of the message (p. 32), in which the second “chapter undeniably forms its very grain” (p. 101), and “the entire content, in essence, is exhausted by the presentation of eschatological views and the depiction of the moral and practical significance of labor in the earthly life of a Christian” (p. 87). According to this understanding, this subject is discussed in detail and illuminated from various points of view, with special consideration being given to the eschatology of 2 Thess. (pp. 136–255) and mention of the church of God (pp. 256–266), not to mention many additions and repetitions in the exegetical part. The author follows a historical-critical path, a general “historical overview of the department under consideration” (p. 137), but in fact gives a systematic grouping, which does not provide a general picture of the historical development of views. when their very change would be both mutual criticism and objective assessment. All views are less satisfactory than those of Prof. A.D. Belyaeva (On atheism and Antichrist I, p. 467), - are classified into five headings under the influence of Western models, from which extremely unfortunate designations are borrowed (pp. 137 ff., 186). Thus, the interpretation of the apostolic words in the sense of a prophecy about the last days of the world is called “dogmatic,” and the mythological, which sees in them a reflection of ancient mythology, is called “traditional-historical,” etc. This does not in the least contribute to the distinctness that is especially desirable in matters so delicate and complex, containing many different elements. It must be resolutely stated that Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov worked a lot and carefully collected a rich supply of all kinds of information on the basis of sufficient manuals, not always reliable 14, but carefully verified from primary sources. There are gaps and inaccuracies in particulars, but they are not significant. For example, fatherly judgments are reproduced diligently and in detail, although for some reason Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov quotes the blessed one. Theodoret in Latin (p. 168) and completely in vain extols the exegetical method of the Antiochian school (pp. 163-164). Despite all this, there is no immediate, direct connection with the apostolic text being interpreted here, since we are talking most of all about the Antichrist, and in St. Paul, even this very name is never used (p. 224). In any case, these general concepts, which have special research (in our work by Prof. A.D. Belyaev, On atheism and the Antichrist, vol. I, Sergiev Posad 1898), would require exegetical adaptation, as is done here in fundamental theological interests (for example, in Prof. Fr. N.V. Petrov, On the Antichrist in “Prav. Interlocutor” 1912, no. 2, pp. 159–187, and printed as a brochure, Kazan 1912). Without this, all the enormous information in this and other parts does not bring us directly closer to the matter and hardly helps much in understanding it. Fullness and relief are not achieved everywhere. It is reported at length that Protestantism of various shades found the embodiment of the apostolic picture in papism (p. 179 ff.; cf. Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 146), just as they are still trying to scientifically convince that the papacy is τὀ ϰατέχον and the pope is ὁ ϰατέχων (cf. F. Prat, La théologie de Saint Paul I, p. 116; “Biblische Zeitschrift” 1913, IV, S. 437), but is very poorly outlined in Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov's reverse application to Lutheranism (pp. 179, 246; cf. Lic. Dr. Hans Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im späteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik: ein Beitrag zur Theologie Luthers und zur Geschichte der christlichen Frömmigkeit, Leipzig 1906). It is not possible to agree with the author’s thoughts on everything, sometimes they are not formulated satisfactorily. Bansen’s premise is not accepted, allegedly “the religious mode of representation is characterized by the fact that it always has a connection with the existing, partly assimilating it, partly discarding it, partly transforming and reinterpreting it” (p. 213). Without trying to penetrate into the full depth of this rather mysterious phrase, the reader involuntarily recalls the bold statement (cf. above pp. 62–63) of Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov that “every prophecy bears the stamp of its time” (p. 250) and that “the second chapter [2 Thess.] from its ideological side is the work of St. Paul, inspired by the ideas of the Old Testament, developed on the basis of early Christian ideas and supplemented by divine Revelation" (p. 255). As if one thing is quite similar to the other, yet it is opposed. The note about “guesses about several editions of the Apocalypse” (p. 217) and the clearly implausible idea that “they tried to identify (?) all types of pagan worship with the Jewish cult” and Antiochus Epiphanes and (killed on January 24, 41) Caligula (p. 255), about the second of which there are other inaccuracies 15 . In the “historical-critical interpretation” it is not approved that “representatives of this trend pursue one scientific and exegetical goal to establish as accurately as possible what exactly the apostle meant by the mysterious concepts of the second chapter and in what natural way he came to his eschatological thoughts” (pp. 139 and 201). Outwardly obstinate “naturalness” ceases to be too seductive after recognizing the exaggerated connection of every prophecy with the era and can be understood in relation to the external disclosure in accordance with the religious-historical genesis of the corresponding forms of prophetic communication. Otherwise, the stated goal is certainly correct, because it constitutes the proper task of any rational exegesis, although the ways and means may be false. And it is least legitimate to depart from a hopeless confession, which “for the apostle himself. Paul's teaching of the second chapter [2 Thess.] was the result of revelation (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; Gal. 1:11; Cor. 12:1-4) and he did not think about its origin. He did not analyze where he received these thoughts from, in the image of which he created them, “bearing in mind the signs taken from his time and understandable for his time.” “We, who have rich apocalyptic literature, can ask ourselves these questions and we answer them” (p. 250). To get an acceptable meaning from this, it is necessary to attribute this proud tirade to the “origin” of the external apocalyptic concept, but this is what the historical-critical school also strives for, which only finds that this appearance exhausts everything without the slightest trace in favor of a frank character in content. In addition to such a sad result, this method is scientifically correct, and the author is in vain to suspect the very formulation of the question, “in what sense can we talk about the dependence of the teachings of St. 242); he “will come from a pagan environment and in origin and in his ungodly activity will be similar to Antiochus Epiphanes, in whose hatred towards the chosen people of God the prophecy of Daniel was first realized” (p. 331). However, “the text of the apostolic teaching does not give us very definite instructions for resolving the question of who the Apostle Paul had in mind when depicting the Antichrist: a pagan tyrant or a Jewish false messiah” (pp. 246–247). This ambiguity also concerns other significant points. “The mystery of lawlessness” exegetically designates lawlessness itself (pp. 239–240, 336), the embodiment of which will be the Antichrist (p. 247), and “ἀνομία is generally paganism, which has no concept of the law of God and does not want to know it,” and embraces all “moral debauchery” (p. 242). But then it will turn out to be very mysterious, from what will there be a further “retreat” with such final degeneration, meanwhile the term used notes that “the designated events in their essence were already known to the readers of the message” (p. 332)? 261–262, 265). This construction is also allowed regarding the paganism of the retreat (E. H. Askwith, An Introduction to the Thessalonian Epistles, p. 116, 130, 133; Prof. Adolf Hausrath, Jesus und die neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, Berlin 1908, S. 391 Amn; Prof. D. Dr. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, zw. Aufl. perplexities that were crushing for her. In it, the expectation of anti-Christian fury is associated with the desecrating trampling of the Jerusalem sanctuary, but the premonition of this disaster did not at all arouse such fears among the Christians of that time and was resolved only by their peaceful and voluntary removal from Jerusalem (Eusebius Ts. I. II, 5). Such an association does not find its roots in Christian sentiments and does not explain them at all, either in origin or in nature. We have to appeal to Judaism, and the author says that the evangelist directly took from it “ready-made ideas” (p. 258), stemming from “specifically Jewish consciousness” (p. 261), grown on Jewish soil and reflecting Jewish hopes (p. 264). Strakhov emphasizes that the Apostle did not have “any written apocalyptic sources” included in his composition (p. 265; cf. 258–259, 266). But the question here is completely different, that the surviving monuments are evidence of the then circulating beliefs and sentiments that are conceivable among Christians and could determine the method of apostolic depiction, since about this “für sie (die Thessalonicher), nicht für uns, hat Paulus geschrieben” (Prof. Caspar René Gregory, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig 1909, S. 659). It would be much more significant and useful to note that for the evangelist the example of the Lord has always been the norm (cf. J. Ev. Frame, p. 304 to III, 10) and His eschatology (Prof. George Milligan, p. 173) was so dominant in the oral tradition about the Antichrist (p. 158) that Matt. XXIV is considered a direct commentary on 2 Thess. II (p. LXI, 1), where everything is rooted in the edification and tradition of the Savior (Dozent P. Olaf. Moe, Paulus und die evangelische Geschichte, S. 214; Prof. C. Toussaint, Epitres de Saint Paul, p. 135; Prof. Auguste Sabatier, L'Aporte Paul, p. 3109-110) and sometimes seemingly directly preserves (in III, 10) ἄγραφα of Christ (see D. Alfred Resch, Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis in “Texte und Untersuchungen” N.F.XII, Leipzig 1904, S. 409–410). The author mentions that “the development of the apostolic teaching about the Antichrist was significantly influenced by the Old Testament prophecies about the deification and self-deification of monarchs” (p. 244) and that “this teaching was created on the basis of the Old Testament prophecies and the prophecies of Jesus Christ himself” (p. 247), but does not clarify the relationship of these factors, does not analyze them specifically and does not reveal either the methods, character, or degree Judeo-apocalyptic influences. On all these points there are gaps and shortcomings reaching the point that the 4th book of Ezra (XIII, 5) is quoted (p. 231) in Latin from the German work of Prof. Busset, when it would be simpler and fairer to turn to our Slavic-Russian Bible, where it is available to everyone under the name of the 3rd book of Ezra. We are told that “the phrase ὁ ἄνϑρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας can only be fully understood on the basis of the Jewish phrase” (p. 241 ff.) and is specifically anticipated by the Old Testament prophecies. Among these is the book of Daniel, on which the anichrist’s resistance to God is supposedly “based [in the apostolic words]” (p. 243), meanwhile, being a prophecy about Antiochus Epiphanes (pp. 244, 331), it is drawn almost as a direct description of him along with the image of the books of Maccabees (p. 213). Hence, the personality of this king comes too close to the Antichrist, and on this occasion we read the following: “just as then there was a religious and political retreat (political insofar as betrayal of the holy covenant of God and submission to the pagan king was combined with betrayal of the national government established by God), which gave birth to Antiochus Epiphanes, the bloodthirsty king, the enemy of God and His sacred order, the prototype of the Antichrist, and in In Christianity, before the coming of the Antichrist, there will be a religious and political falling away from the New Testament of God with people, from faith in God and in His Christ and from the eternal Divine order, which has its expression in the state organization, because all power is from God (Rom. 13: 1) and every Christian is obliged to submit to it” (p. 237). We do not know such a concept from sources, and in principle it is quite doubtful in its internal and factual improbability. Judging by the “betrayal of the holy covenant and the divinely established government with subordination to the pagan king,” of course, apparently, it was a Jewish “apostasy,” but Antiochus Epiphanes, as a non-Jew, could not be a “product” of it, and it itself did not have such terrible proportions and did not at all justify the wicked attempt, which caused a heroic rebuff and contributed to the religious and moral upsurge of Judaism. Of course, there is no need to talk about the pagan “retreat,” for it was not at all extraordinary and conditional in relation to Antiochus Epiphanes. In this case, the author’s interpretation suffers from vagueness and instability and therefore, while itself in need of clarification, does not help in the least to comprehend the New Testament images. The results regarding Jewish eschatological views are even less encouraging. Here about. Vl. N. Strakhov firmly denies that “the eschatology of the New Testament in general, the eschatology of the apostle. Along with this, there was another current that developed into the purely satanic figure of Belial and gradually moved closer to a parallel view, where through it the elements of Babylonian mythology, which is reflected in Jewish and Christian eschatology, more deeply penetrated. This merger took place on Christian soil until the year 50, and then (for example, in the Ascension of Isaiah) Nero’s legends are added in the form of the infusion of Belial either into the living Nero or into Nero redivivus. 2 Thess. II, 1-12 does not contain Neronic layers and therefore is an indicator of the transitional stage of syncretism and will refer to the 40-50 years of the 1st century, providing historical authenticity for the entire message (cf. Prof. R. H. Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah, London 1900, p. LXI sqq.). This reconstruction is theoretically valuable in that it provides a subject-genetic concentration of scattered apocalyptic fragments and, in a holistic unification, receives support for the objective-historical interpretation of Paulinistic contemplation as a real and living beginning of its era, where it had actual roots for dominance and influence, starting from the fundamental premises of Jewish apocalypticism (Prof. R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity, London 1899, p. 380). We see here the vital factor in the immediate actual situation and can, from a proper historical perspective, more directly comprehend its origin, influence and significance. Our author does not have such a generalization, and - strong in criticism - he is not so decisive and clear in his positive coverage of Judeo-apocalyptic data. What is important here is, first of all, that in early Christianity and in the Apostle Paul, the idea of ​​the sail dominates exclusively, and only in connection with it are all other related phenomena allowed. But it is precisely the second coming of the Messiah that is impossible for Judaism and is not suggested in the monuments 16. Along with this, it is very doubtful that in the Jewish contemplations of the 1st century there was a clear figure of a personal “Antichrist”, as a religiously impure man of lawlessness 17 . On the contrary, the concept of a collective anti-messiah for the totality of the enemies of Jehovah and the people of God completely prevails there. If one does not consider the Testament of Dan V, 10, where a correction by a Christian hand is likely, then almost for the first time in “The Assumption of Moses” individual features appear in the description (Chapter VIII) of the evil king of the kings of the earth, who will initiate a cruel persecution of the law and its worshipers, forcing them to idolatry (see R. H. Charles, The Assumption of Moses, Lohdon 1897, pp. 28-32). It is no less indisputable that the political side dominates in this image, if, for example, in 3 (4) Ezra V, 6 it is said that “then will reign the one whom those who live on earth do not expect.” III, 63–77, Belial is brought out, who will come from the Sebastians and will perform great signs, even raising the dead, and will seduce many Jews and wicked people, but by the will of the great God will ultimately be burned along with his followers (see Prof. E. Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments II: Die Pseudepigraphen, Tübingen 1900, S. 186); however, here there is a fair suspicion that we are being depicted as Simon the Magician, and this refers to Christian influences. In any case, this is the only evidence in comparison with the dominant political themes. The latter are also stated to be connected with the Nero sagas, which again I would like from Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov has a more positive and adapted depiction. It is still proclaimed that this legend “firmly took hold of the popular imagination” (George Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century, London 1913, p. 174) and in early Christianity was associated with the expectation of the final end (see Gustav Hoennicke, Die neutestamentliche Weissagung vom Ende, Gr. Lichterielde – Berlin 1907, S. 41), meanwhile it was not particularly widespread. Everything is exhausted by the following facts. Nero himself admitted that he would live at least 75 years and - after being deprived of the throne - would rule for a long time in the East (Sueton. Nero 40), after the death of the tyrant there was a rumor that he had not died and would soon return (cf. Dion Chrys. Or. 21), and King Vologeses earnestly asked to honor his memory, as in general the Parthians tended to support the Falserons (Suet. Nero 57 and cf. Tacit. Hist. I, 2), who appeared for the reason that “there were various rumors about the death of Nero, and therefore many imagined that he was alive” (Tacit. Hist. II, 8). The first Falseron, who soon after the death of his original excited Greece and Asia Minor, was a slave from Pontus or a freedman from Italy, a singer and zither player, similar in face to Nero; on o. Kitne (now Fermia), where he was brought by a storm, was killed (in 69) by the soldiers of Calpurnius Asprenatus, appointed governor of Galatia and Pamphylia by Galba (Tacit. Hist. II, 8-9; Cass. Dion. LXIV, 9; Zonar. XI, 15). After 20 years, a certain Falseron enjoyed great sympathy among the Parthians, who received strong help from them and was barely betrayed by them (Suet. Nero 57), perhaps. identical with Terence Maximus, who under Titus had the support of the Parthean commander Artabanus (Zonar. XI, 18 and cf. Tacit. I, 2). The comparisons noted would be important in addition to the previous chronological conclusions, defining the entirely religious character of the apostolic eschatology and postulating for it an appropriate genesis. Without this, the entire apocalyptic concept, while remaining mysterious in its historical origin, turns out to be not entirely clear in its actual relations among the Thessalonians. We hear that the latter focused on “pictures of the end of the world” (pp. 33, 105), but their mood is depicted very vaguely. It is more instilled and substantiated that this thought “produced in the Thessalonian community not simple excitement, but outright fear and fright” (p. 34), while “belief in the immediate proximity of the second coming of Christ” caused “great fear” and “completely frightened” (p. 69) the Thessalonians, who “lost peace of mind and sobriety of thought” (p. 107), for they themselves were not sure of their salvation” (p. 353 and cf. 321). But “it is known that the first Christians, together with the Apostle, who strongly desired to unite with Christ, lived, especially under the influence of strong persecution, with the thought that the day would soon come when their oppressors would be punished, and they themselves would be rewarded with the Kingdom of God, for which they suffer and will receive the crowns of the righteous (cf. 2 Thess. 1:5). It is known that the day of advent, or still the day of the Last Judgment, was for Christians a synonym for redemption and liberation and that the thought of judgment could not act on them as a fear, in a depressing way” (p. 35). “This coming, according to the faith of the Thessalonians, was to reward them for all their suffering. That’s why it was eagerly awaited” (p. 45). And in general, “the first Christians were characterized by a joyful expectation of the last day, as a day of redemption, liberation from earthly suffering, and not as a day of condemnation” (p. 321). Here the above-described excitement receives a somewhat trivial motivation, that “the day of the Last Judgment had an effect on middle-class people, who may have been the majority, precisely by fear, creating some kind of confusion in them, either simply from the upcoming change in their usual way of life, or directly from the fear of the day of judgment, as the day of reckoning for their deeds” (p. 35). It turns out that some kind of unhealthy fog reigned in the souls of the Thessalonians, and hence for 2 Thess. a rather crude formulation is made of “the main goal is to calm the readers and curb their enthusiasm” (p. 46), which in the sense of “excessive excitement is as dangerous as apathy” (p. 47). For this reason, “the preaching of a working Christian life” was put forward (p. 11), but contrary to it, “a hostile and contemptuous attitude towards the activities of everyday life” developed and “a disorderly idle life intensified” with an “excessive increase in beggars” (pp. 44 and 48) in the Thessalonian community, “consisting mainly of small traders,” although “the labor question did not exist there” (p. 14). But such an increased and ubiquitous eschatological yearning in paganism by the half of the first Christian century is extremely exaggerated 20 and does not reveal the matter at all, since this would not indicate the origin of this view in all its Christian typicality, but only why this view has found such wide circulation. In these interests, they appeal to the “known understanding,” leaving unresolved the main thing, where it arose and how it was established, since the evangelist himself did not proclaim or instill it categorically. Of course, he did not forget to mention the coming of the Lord and the readiness for it, but in front of everything he invariably stood the dogma of the redemptive-renewing rebirth of humanity, which was a society of redeemed and holy people. On this basis, shouldn’t one have sooner come to the conclusion that now the threat of a heavy upheaval in the universe is directly eliminated, and salvation has been finally achieved or will settle for a calm crown in the gradual organic resolution of the grace-filled process? It is no less certain that the source of this eschatology was not in the pagan past, since its heritage is considered a simple material of assimilation for the existing Christian consciousness, which itself acted on various influences, revealing to them only a certain place - more - in a formal sense and always coloring with its light. Everything external and incidental could only affirm and strengthen the parousian intimacy, which was assumed in advance, because it was felt and experienced by everyone in the depths of Christian existence, as its organic reflection. This means that the source for this was in the very Christian mood, in which a completely natural echo stood out here. Consequently, here we have a special internal state that arose and developed on Christian soil in a psychological way. From this point of view, the whole course of education 21 is quite clear. Initially, this was a wait for the Lord - just as we wait for the return of our loved ones and the people we personally need. But along with this, the inner consciousness of its rebirth suggested that the soul was suitable for marriage and joyfully strives to meet its Heavenly Bridegroom, Whom alone is not enough to complete the grace-filled union. The feeling of deprivation was inextricably linked with the feeling of readiness to be resolved by the desire for direct, intimate communication. Everything rested on an internal transformation, which was complete and demanded its crowning in complete indissolubility with the Lord, not paying attention to the surroundings and dismissing them as something external and inappropriate. All leading Christians should have felt no differently. The Kingdom of God was not an external institution for them, but was an internal creative force transforming their entire spiritual being and rapt from earth to heaven. It is enough to take the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost and immediately regenerated by the one Spirit of God to guess the mood that gripped us. This was an exception from the usual order. Everything here is revelation and inspiration - a complete and inexplicable miracle. When others are caught up in their own affairs, they are alien to these earthly concerns, carrying all the riches, provisions and joys in their secret places. Convinced of their deliverance and reconciliation with God, Christians have everything within themselves. For them, the future is already in the present, being independent of everything earthly and striving only for the speediest discovery, when internal co-heirship will be an actual reign with the Lord. Naturally, they are interested in one question: “How long, Lord?” and are confident in the nearness of their Savior, since His presence with them is certain, and through them throughout the whole world. In this case and in the last, everything is before His face. Only on one side is the kingdom of the saints, on the other is the working mystery of lawlessness. Therefore, the judgment of God is not far from everyone, either justifying or accusing, but this testified to the immediacy of the final crisis in the struggle between good and evil, Christ and Belial. Here everything, both outside and inside, spoke of Christian completion and directed exclusively towards it. It is clear from this that when for us the Gospel serves as the beginning of a new world order, for the early Christians it was the end of the past and the gift of the future itself, which they already had in actual possession in the bliss of the present. Before them and in them was the fullness of times, the fulfillment of God's intentions, and the outpouring of the Spirit of God delighted them to the point of contemplating the open heaven and the Angels of God descending on them through the Son of Man. Naturally, the appearance of Christ was for them not so much His “coming” as His “presence” - παρουσία 22 - in a new form of royally glorious discovery among His co-heirs. And this “news” was perceived by the early Christians as immediate possession and was necessarily accompanied by the expectation of a near completion in the imminent coming of Christ, in which sense the Lord’s teachings on this matter and the instructions of the Apostles were now naturally understood. This served as an echo of early Christian feelings and testified to them, but was not a “dogma of redemption” (Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov, Faith in the proximity of the “sail”, p. 41) and was not at all a dogmatic statement of a theoretical nature, exposed by history even then, when the ancient skeptics objected in bewilderment: if the fathers took away the blessing, everything abides from the beginning creation (2 Pet. III, 4), for “we have grown old, but nothing like this has happened to us” (1 Clem. 23, 3). In fact, it is not at all true that St. Paul was convinced of the immediate appearance of Christ, hoping to certainly live to see it (Dozent P. Olaf Moe, Paulus und die evangelische Geschichte, S. 213; Lic. Kurt Deissner, Auferstehungshoffnung und Pneumagedanke bei Paulus, Leipzig 1912, S. 14), waiting in his generation (E.C. Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, p. 263, 265; Prof. Arthur C. Headlam, St. Paul and Christianity, London 1913, p. 27, 30), and even thought about subduing the whole world to the cross, including the pagans (Fritz Tillmann, Die Wiederkunft Christi, S. 128-129), and then was forced to change his entire eschatology (cf. Percy Gardner, The Religious Experience of St. Paul, London 1911, pp. 137-138) 23 when he asserted only one thing, that one should always and at all times wait for the Lord. Of course, the complete denial of parousia intimacy in early Christianity is achieved by forceful means of exegetical interpretations (in Fr. B.-M. Haghebaert, Lʼέpoque du second avenement du Christ in “Revue Biblique” III [1894], 1, p. 71–93), however, the opposite judgments are too exaggerated. We are not talking about a theoretical doctrine, but about a life mood, which was a reflection of the great and all-pervasive action of the grace of salvation in the early Christians, their high internal rise in the consciousness of an ever-ready to be with the Lord and with an ardent desire for this. This is the best evidence of their renewal, since internal purity was measured and regulated by the criterion of dignity for union with Christ, rested on a complete feeling of saving rebirth and was accompanied by unshakable trust in God's promises about the unwavering kingdom of glory and goodness. From this side, the parousia focus of the Apostle Paul and the early Christians was not at all an “innocent delusion” (Prof. Archpriest F. I. Titov, p. 251; see also F. Prat, La thέologie de Saint Paul I, Paris 1908, p. 108–109) or “an obvious illusion” (P. M. Magnien, La rέsurrection des morts dʼaprès la première έpître aux Thessaloniciens in “Revue Biblique” N. S. IV [1907], 3, p. 366), which had to be curbed as dangerous enthusiasm (see above 77). This only happens when this tension comes out of impatience, out of dissatisfaction with inertia (2 Peter 3:9), because it speaks of a lack of what is desired in oneself and of the desire not to create it with inspired zeal, but only to receive it from outside. In itself, it stems from the fullness of the Christian faith - unshakable, self-devoted and angelically bright, which cares only about always being worthy of the Lord, waiting for Him every minute in all the armor of God, girding with the truth and putting on the armor of righteousness (Eph. 6:14), constantly seeing Him before itself in peace of conscience, for it fully bears its future in the present. This is the reason why the mystery of the coming glorious kingdom is not presented to us with clarity, since “the only thing needed” equally prevails in this age and in the future. This is all we should think about, firmly remembering that “the Lord is near” (Phil. 4:5). It is a matter of experience to show what relationship exists between this inner omnipresence of Christ and His actual reign. On this side, a certain gradualism is necessary in the divine revelation itself, since, wanting to be the property of history, it adapts in its discovery to the level of perception and in its depths is always full of darkness, being shrouded in a veil of prophetic imagery. The horizon is expanded by the course of events, and people are enlightened by life itself. It is clear in them - therefore - the imperfection of knowledge, which is not yet a delusion. Here the fundamental truth on this subject always remains unshakable, that the Lord will not touch the promise (2 Peter 3:5), even if it is reflected differently in human feelings. The early Christians had an expectation of intimacy, but this conversion of negative “immediacy” into positive “speed” was a consequence of their elevated inner mood. The latter embraced all Christian firstborns and was accompanied by similar results, from which it is natural that parousia tension is dominant in the first-born church and is rightly considered typical for it. It arose together with the most grace-filled rebirth and was a natural seal of detachment from the world and ascension to heaven in an indissoluble union with Christ. In this way, similar aspirations grew on purely Christian soil among the Thessalonians, who, having turned from idols to serve the living and true God, immediately looked for His Son from heaven for deliverance from the wrath of the future (1 Thess. 1:9–10), as among the Jewish Christians, baptism was directly associated with the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment (Heb. 6:2). Being strictly Christian and normal, this feeling spoke of the determination of internal renewal, confirmed its pomp and purity and imperatively encouraged “to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. II, 12) in all your everyday dispensation. And the more intense this attraction, the stronger its transformative and disciplinary influence. As weakening, inertia and lukewarmness are stated (cf. H. Dieckmann, Die Parusie Christi, S. 76). Whenever the second appearance of Christ actually happens, it is all the same and it is not given to us to know, but since the Lord is near us, then we must always be in purity of conscience, integrity of thoughts, truth and joy of our grace. Now they are merging. Because what is expected is considered present. But in reality, the second was not achieved at all, and - that means - human tension weakened in its flight and came to terms with the present as completely sufficient. Then it was inevitably deprived of the encouraging inspiration drawn from the divine purpose itself, and was left with its limited means of brief Christian experience before the last historical crisis, in which the formidable prospect of a condemning and overwhelming greatness naturally opened up. Here, the embarrassment of one’s own helplessness is also understandable, whereas previously the latter was absorbed by the power of God and drew from it rapturous joy. Apparently, there was a fall in the initial spiritual soaring, and this was necessarily accompanied by an affect of timidity and fear when the spiritual flight weakened to the level of empirical ordinaryness, where a person well and instinctively understood his poverty and therefore, in cowardice, was lost from his own insufficiency. He began to fear because he lost the joyful confidence of his descent, when he considered the expected to be exhausted in his present. The feeling of confusion was not an external or incidental appendage, but was contained in the very fact of the fall and flowed from it. Therefore, the whole mystery is in this very event, which we must find out by its origin and conditioning factors. The Thessalonians were convinced of the immediate coming of Christ. The Evangelist decisively eliminates this opinion, entirely referring to the fact that there are no mandatory preliminaries yet. About the latter, it is expressively noted that, while still with them, the Apostle told them this (II, 5). And reasonable speeches were not fleeting, but on the contrary were ordinary (for ἔλεγον see Prof. George Milligan, p. XXXVIII: “he had been in the habit of speaking”). Equally, they were not so gloomy or brief, they represented “precise and detailed instructions regarding the coming day of the Lord” (Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov, p. 10), if their limited additions by St. Paul concludes with unshakable confidence: and now - ϰαί νῦν - holding together (ІІ, 6), emphasizing that chronologically now (Prof. G. Milligan, pp. 100-101; J. Ev. Frame, p. 262) readers are well informed by a simple apostolic reminder at the present moment 24. Although this did not happen without the instigation and complicity of the Jews, the dominant role belonged to the Hellenes, who saw sufficient motive for resuming the persecution. Naturally, for them the basis could be primarily political, as evidenced by the direct correlation with the previous attack. And during Pavlov’s visit, the latter was justified by the political accusation that “the world’s troublemakers... act against the commandments of Caesar, considering another king [namely] Jesus” (Acts 17:6, 7). This means that something similar happened later, only it was no longer completely fictitious, for it captured the entire community and prompted Hellenism to rise menacingly against its fellow tribesmen. From this it necessarily follows that some of the Thessalonian Christians - with the great sympathy of the entire brotherhood - saw political harbingers of the revelation of the judgment of the Lord and the establishment of the kingdom of God. And in this direction there is enough combustible material for thirsty parous tension. In it, the new wine of the faith of Christ mercilessly crushed the old Judeo-Hellenic wineskins of the ancient socio-religious structure and urgently required other forms for its rich and powerful content. But the soul had not yet learned to think that what it sought must be created through its own efforts of personal transformation, and rather expected that it would be from above, like the grace that revived it. The Apostle did not directly eliminate this with his mysterious speeches about times and years (1 Thess. V, 1 ff.), but with a decisive and exceptional emphasis on the surprises of the coming of the “day of the Lord” he even encouraged people to listen carefully to the rustle of a creeping thief. In fact, there was almost a resolution of thunder, which is why the one-sided mind irresistibly anticipated a fierce storm and fell into confusion in advance from the uncertainty of whether it would be saved or destroyed. And, indeed, the political-religious horizon was far from prosperous at that time and the barometer was rapidly descending towards the fatal term “thunderstorm!” St. Paul spoke of a general apostasy: - but was not undeserved persecution from fellow tribesmen a sad testimony that paganism has completely fallen away from goodness, since it demonically tramples it in principle and application? Now - with this gloomy tragedy of satanic fury - Judaism hid behind the scenes, but continued its anti-Christian and godless work, for did not the preacher himself proclaim (1 Thess. II, 16) the final wrath against him from God? The sphere for the appearance of the “man of lawlessness” seemed to be completely ready, and an alarming thought was diligently looking around. She understood all his extraordinary nature in connection with the external power required to implement grandiosely terrible and universally disastrous plans, and who was higher and more powerful than the emperor, and was there even a shadow of doubt about this? It is said that the son of iniquity “will be revealed” - and this was quite suitable for the personality of the then reigning (January 24, 41 - October 13, 54), elderly (born August 1, 744 a C.U., 10 years before Christ) and outdated Caesar Claudius (see Tacit. Annal. XII; Suet. Claud.; Cass. Dion. Lx). For this reason, there is not the slightest need to look for extraneous agents to understand the Thessalonian eschatological complications, which would require external conditions and collateral factors. This eliminates the need for a special apocryphal apostolic letter, unnecessary for literary and contextual reasons (see above, p. 16 ff.). But then all further guesses of this kind about one or another eschatological influences, which could be carried away and charm the Thessalonians with their seductiveness, are also abolished. Science must be content with what is sufficient and has no right to complicate its tasks with unnecessary or unknown things, whether it be something empirical or extraordinary. In this regard, the Thessalonian episode is revealed in its typicality from the early Christian elements and therefore provides neither reason nor room for other interpretations. Against this, they still cite the fact that in the entire depiction the evangelist uses a kind of secret writing (Prof. Dr. Moritz v. Aberle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, S. 184: “...sich einer solchen Darstellungsweise, welche einer Geheimsprache gleichkommt, zu bedienen”), and in II, 6 he expresses himself cautiously regarding “restraining” (Prof. B. Jowett, Essay on the man of sin 2 Thess II in The Epistles of St. Paul I, p. 3100), allegedly because it contained political allusions, and by revealing them he did not want to bring administrative malice upon himself and the readers (Prof. George Milligan, p. 101; Rev. R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh 1903, p. 42; Prof. C. Toussaint, Epites de Saint Paul I, Paris 1910, p. However, it is hardly possible to catch this shade in the entire analyzed passage with the inclusion of II, 6. In relation to it, two assumptions are possible. Or one is reminded of what was reported earlier and now only explained: - in this case, there is not the slightest secrecy here for reasons of political prudence no less than in other points, for the Thessalonians knew the whole matter in advance, and the Apostle did not need to expand on what would be the simplest and most natural reason for his “secrecy.” Or the readers only now understood τὸ ϰατέχον: – then “in no way” was it political. This decision would essentially coincide with the Thessalonian conviction and, somewhat postponing the period, would strengthen the early Christian thought in the previous mood, elevate and sanction it, and provide rich combustible material for parousian ardor. Let τὸ ϰατέχον still dominate: - but with a certain political variability of the state system and with the fleeting alternation of its bearers, the constant possibility of a world catastrophe would be an eternal source of severe fluctuations, as has always happened in history with such dispositions, and due to them. St. Paul, wanting to bring sobriety, would have gone against his immediate intentions, because an extra 10–20–50 years of political restraint would rather prolong and inflate the general tension, and would not at all ensure either the peace of mind of believers or the peaceful development of Christian life. For these reasons, the apocalyptic revelation of the Apostle turns out to be neither a political illustration nor a historical fortune-telling, but remains a religious prediction. It is an object of faith, but not at all vision, and directs souls to moral wakefulness, “so that the day like the thief may not overtake us” (1 Thess. V, 4), and so that careless drowsiness is not punished with a fair sentence (Matt. XVI, 3): hypocrites, you know how to judge the heavens, but you cannot tempt the signs of the times. On the other hand, the apostolic words strive to accustom and cultivate sensitive receptivity to the harbingers of the dawn of the coming of the Lord “with glory and much power.” The entire speech is a prophetic edification, which is why in the immediate context it is preceded and accompanied by admonitions of a moral nature. As a result of all this, we obtain the extremely important result that the apostolic explanation to the Thessalonians about the “day of the Lord” is pure prophecy in all its parts and must be understood in this proper sense. Naturally, if here we cannot achieve certainty, and everyone must agree in advance with the blessed one. Augustine, that alius sic alius autem sic apostolic obscura verba conjectant, just like he himself, with all his passionate desire to penetrate into them, achieved only a disappointing result: ego prorsus quid dixerit [Apostolus] me fateor ignorare (De civitate Dei XX, 19 in Corpus scriptorium ecclesiasticorum latinorum vol. XL, pars II, Vindobonae 1900, p. 447, 472). It is necessary, of necessity, to confine ourselves to the main and basic, remembering that “prophecy is itself the glass through which the prophet looks forward into the future” (B. Jowett 1. cit. I, p. 396). And for any true prophecy it is required not to unravel it in its most specific content, since this would mean seeing something that does not yet actually exist, i.e. to see what does not exist and arbitrarily or dreamily create this unknown. The main thing for him will be to comprehend directly the meaning of the prophetic anticipation on the basis of itself and - therefore - in addition to external additions and side comparisons. LXXXVIII, 23: υἱὸς ἀνομίας), which, being completely destructive, already at its very occurrence will impart to it its destructiveness, inevitably and inevitably bringing on final destruction (cf. Apoc. XVII, 8, 11: εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει). The enemy of God, being homo legum nullarum (Jos. Knabenbaer, p. 135), will contain disastrous lawlessness, which will be prepared in advance and contained in ἀποστασία, as lawlessly destructive in its essence and influence. Now we find that the fatal retreat will be characterized by lawlessness and perniciousness, although they will be more concentrated and more clearly personified in a terrible individual. Then it is easier to comprehend the very nature of this act by its actual properties. This could not be the abandonment of nomism by the Jews (cf. Acts XXI, 21: ἀποστασία ἀπὸ Μωυσέως) 25, since it is precisely attachment to it that threatens the irrevocable wrath of God (1 Thess. II, 16), and its oblivion will serve as a reliable and a happy guarantee that all Israel will be saved (Rom. XI, 26). By their very contradiction to the former - these results absolutely exclude for ἀποστασία the guess of Israel's falling away from the law, but it is no less incredible that the Apostle would allow for Judaism in the future a perversion even greater than the present one (1 Thess. II, 14 ff.) 26, meanwhile, he foresees precisely a saving revival. It is hardly necessary to refute (for example, J. Ev. Frame, p. 251) that paganism had nothing to lose in the sense of the loss of any obligatory sacredness. According to the mutual conviction of the writer and readers, they previously had only false service to dead idols (1 Thess. I, 9), and in any case they did not have such a saving source, which they had to hold on to for the sake of self-preservation, since it cannot be abandoned without the most dangerous and irreparable misfortune. Contrary to this, with ἀποστασία, the Apostle assumes in what is left the greatest good, the deprivation of which is as much as completely lawless as it is inevitably disastrous. It is clear to the point of irresistibility that for St. This is the natural property of a given subject, and therefore he is inevitably doomed to destruction, in its very inception perceiving its infection (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας), which will be destructive for all adherents. Here the dominance of principled anti-Christian hostility will be revealed, but whoever is so bitterly opposed to the absolute good will be even less shy with the relative. Due to this, the described subject will turn out to be unlimited and complete ὀ ἀντιϰείμενος (ІІ, 4), being an opponent of everything good in essence, as insignificant before him. The basis here is a proud exaltation with an immense superiority of hostility 27 over everything that is revered as divine and sacred even in paganism. Although the latter is not alien to the blasphemer and is a product of his early destructive influence, he will crush this too, aiming to eradicate the very feeling of religiosity with all the inclinations of any reverence for God. Judging by the mention of the “verbal god” (cf. 1 Cor. VIII, 5), which there is neither reason nor probability to attribute (with Lic. Dr. Martin Debelius in Handbuch zum Neuen Testament III, S. All this rather speaks of a satanic prophet of a new religion with claims to unlimited universalism, which makes him far superior to the “anti-messiah (Antichrist) of the Jewish apocalypticism,” who is in vain drawn here (Prof. Rudolf Knopf, Die Zukunftshoffnungen des Urchristentums, Tübingen 1907, S. 13). But there are no suitable conditions yet, because there is an obstacle to its discovery (B. Jowett 1. cit I, p. 399: “it was restrained by a superior power”). At this point we have approached almost the most mysterious term of the apostolic teaching, where the field of exegesis is full of incessant struggle and presents more corpses among the battles of undisciplined imagination and intolerant fanaticism than lasting scientific acquisitions. In advance, one must limit oneself to the nearest probability, without going beyond the immediate textual data. They contain a very characteristic remark of St. Paul (II, 6): and now (ϰαί νῡν) holding together, in order to appear to him in his own time. But earlier the Thessalonians thought that the day of Christ had already actually arrived, and - therefore - they would learn what they needed only now, after and on the basis of the proposed written explanations. They contained the key for them as much as for us, although they still possessed oral information of the preliminary apostolic edification about ἀντιϰείμενος (ΙΙ, 5). Therefore, we have the right to look for materials for the solution in the previous speech and are obliged to rely on it. There is no doubt, first of all, that τὸ ϰατέχον is an obstacle for the anonymist and eliminates his being by its very existence 30, or is contrary and hostile to him by nature. In this case, this is something essentially the opposite, and since there is evil there, there will be good here 31. But we have seen that the harbinger of the revelation of the lawless will be the religious-Christian apostasy, as a direct preliminary, as the environment that naturally gives rise to it. From here we have that τὸ ϰατέχον will be the dominance of the antithetical principle, or the supremacy of the Christian principle of faith in the Redeemer, who in His Gospel showed everyone the saving path to deliverance from the wrath of the future. This is the power of the gospel, reviving and gracefully renewing the sinner and not letting go of all the evil and God-defying things that are hidden in damaged and perverted human nature. It acts not so much through the opposition of self-defense and attack, but rather through the internal power of transformation of every soul, narrowing the scope for the influence of evil and gradually depriving it of convenient soil. From this side, the debate about the most suitable meaning in the verb ϰατέχειν loses its sharpness, where until now scientists have split into two, assimilating to it either the energy of ϰωλύειν, or the idea of ​​ϰρατεῖν (see J. Ev. Frame, p. 250–261). O. Vl. N. Strakhov accepts the first (pp. 253, 335; Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 137), but in essence this is conditioned by the second and is inseparable from it, for it can only hinder because it has a secured strength in advance. It is precisely the moment of dominion, of dominion that most suits the essential dignity of the Gospel of Christ. As long as it rules over the minds and hearts of peoples, retreat in the sense of its rejection is also impossible. Everywhere τὸ ϰατέχον is the negation of ἀποστασία and parallels the falling away. And the latter is being prepared and will happen in our earthly regions among the human race, which is why the reverse functions are also concentrated in this same sphere. To endure their heavenly heights and to see supranatural principles is contrary to all ideological associations (cf. Prof. Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament 3I, S. 170) and is allowed by tendentious prejudice in the mythological basis of the apostolic picture, sometimes occurring outside of such a fundamental preoccupation 32. But it is no less true that the anomist is inspired by religious motives and only through them will he begin to produce general anarchy, which will be secondary and collateral, always subordinate to the fight against God and imbued with its elements. Therefore, we cannot agree with Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov that the anomist is primarily a political figure, meanwhile ἀνομία is applied to religious impiety (p. 245). Accordingly, the traditionally old and widespread understanding that “holding,” referring directly to Roman power (Rev. R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, p. 44; Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Thigs, p. 219), signifies political power (Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov on pp. 254–255; see Jos. Knabenbauer, pp. 141–142, 148) 33, when all world teleology will be determined by cosmic factors, even divinely established ones. In ἀποστασία there is no doubt not a political upheaval (E.H. Askwith, An Ihtrjduction to the Thessalonian Epistles, p. 130, 133), but a religious perversion (Prof. A.D. Belyaev, On Atheism and the Antichrist I, p. 976 ff.; I. This undoubted parallelism of members illuminates what follows for us. If ή ἀποστασία is connected with ὁ ἄνϑρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, although it does not specifically designate an “apostate” (as in St. Ephraim the Syrian in Works VII, p. 245), then something similar should be in the second a series where the reciprocity of the parts will be equal. But there the embodiment of the general in the particular and individual is stated, which is why absolutely identical proportionality is obligatory here too. This means that ὁ ϰατέχων accompanies in comparison with τὸ ϰατέχον and individualizes it, being a typical concentration and a living carrier, or the embodiment of good 34. It is clear that they do not coincide with each other due to continuity itself. Then ὁ ϰατέχων is not Christ at all (cf. Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 143), for He precedes His gospel, which arises from Him and is directed towards Him, and will remain with the faithful until the end of the age and will never be “taken from among them.” 35 We are given something subsequent and personifying for the Gospel, with which it was actually in the era Apostle of tongues (ϰατέχων ἄρτι). The apostolic picture of the last times is limited to a few essential elements about the world’s falling away from the Gospel after its dominance in the universe, and all this is fully given in the teaching of Christ. From here the internal agreement of the apostolic instruction with the prophetic prophecies of the Lord is revealed, since He has already outlined all the most important moments of the impoverishment of faith and love in humanity after the worldwide preaching and before the tribulation of “those days.” From this, the apostolic word acquires similar authority. It should, however, be noted that there is no complete triumph, but the image of Christ serves as a kind of background for the apostolic one, where the general outlines acquire concrete completeness in individual figures outlined with striking convexity. In this case, this is not a simple literary and poetic deduction, since it is necessary to know the whole situation in advance in order to discern in broad and unclear strokes typical personalities with strictly individual qualities, despite their extraordinary nature. This especially needs to be said about the central one in the man of lawlessness, who rewards us in all demonic reality only under the pictorial pen of Pavlov. Consequently, before us are not logical constructions and arbitrary layers, but new materials of equal dignity, since by their fundamental agreement with the foreshadowings of Christ they are raised to the sanctioning authority of the Divine Son (cf. I.V. Borkov, On the signs of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, p. 242 ff.). Then it is irresistible that an additional source of apocalyptic-eschatological contemplations and messages of St. Paul could only be a special revelation of God, why all other aids are permissible in relation to the form itself. With our positive coverage of the apocalyptic section under discussion, we create objective criteria that are mandatory for its fundamental understanding. First of all, it turns out that parousian aspirations developed from Christian principles and in their further application led to eschatological unrest. The initial intensity of passionate hope was gradually imbued with a mood of sufficiency of what we have, according to that natural feeling that if what we expected is not given, then it is already in existence, because it is necessary for existence itself. Such a leap was too hasty, since in fact it followed that the future must be prepared by one’s own efforts through appropriate transformation. Nevertheless, such a transition is quite natural due to the very exaggeration of the parousia state, which - in the absence of experience - fell into the immediate extreme that what was so desired was real. With this man, he was left with the resources of only ardent hopes without his own saving acquisitions. It is not surprising that instinctive helplessness arose in the Christian environment, and along with it, enthusiastic joy began to give way to fearful confusion, and the day of retribution was already outlined in its formidable aspect of just retribution and personal responsibility before it 36 ​​. In this regard, the Thessalonian complication does not require external influences in its origin and fundamental content. But in this case, the solution for it had to be found in its own circle of independent Christian views. A careful examination of the text undoubtedly convinces of this, since all the cardinal elements of the apocalyptic concept are purely Christian in nature and are based on the eschatological prophecies of the Lord. It all boils down to the fact that before the second coming there will be a terrible religious and moral anarchy, but it is not there yet, but first there must be a widespread dissemination of the Gospel, which by its supremacy keeps people in the law of God and prevents the explosion of revolutionary atheism. And the more there are, the more they suppress the main thing, obscure it and distract attention, depriving it of concentration, insight, sharpness and clarity. The result is an impression that is too complex and heterogeneous, and therefore scattered and superficial. The shadow side of the essay lies in the lack of proper concentration of all the data, but from here it is irresistibly obvious that this does not come from a lack of them, but from completeness. Thus, in the analyzed work, its undoubted scientific merits are naturally brought forward. One of them is clear from the immediate connection and is the most important in the book. It consists in the wealth of materials that relate to all essential issues and are collected with diligent care, which is why once again one cannot help but regret that the Jewish apocryphal-apocalyptic monuments were not utilized, and in the field of Judaism the information is scanty and vague 37 . In everything else, there is an abundance of subject matter, and the moral merits of the author are significantly enhanced by the fact that we are dealing with a wide variety of branches and disciplines. Of course, it is in vain to pretend and one cannot be a comprehensive specialist, but Fr. Vl. N. And in principle, this attitude is correct, since this is not scientific knowledge of the language, but simple natural knowledge of it, which in itself does not create scientific competence, undermining and belittling it in all foreign language researchers. And modern scientific literature is sometimes introduced for dubious reasons, if, for example, it is utilized for the sake of the fact that it is “instructive as a characteristic of the pedantic German mind and scholastic German learning” (p. 109). The author needlessly embarrasses himself, forgetting that his book is not a collection of literary curiosities, which appear to him for the reason that he unlawfully belittles and trivializes the demands of testing thought, where - according to their strength - everything is serious and important, why the opposite can only indicate a lack of thoughtfulness into all the depths of the subject and the demands it evokes. A critical assessment of various works is not always correct if it is said that “Borneman’s German commentary is the best and most complete of all existing commentary (comments?) on both epistles of St. Paul to Thess." (p. 140). O. Vl. N. Strakhov, literally reproducing even these words from his English manual (E.N. Askwith, An Introduction to the Thessalonian Epistles, p. 106, 1: “this is the best aud fullest commentary on the Epistles that has yet appeared”), could only express them in relation to the interpretations that were at his fingertips, but even then he would not have met with general agreement. In other cases, rather vague references 40 and inaccurate designations of works 41 and authors 42 are given. But among the masses, punctuality and thoroughness prevail, sometimes even unnecessary in bibliographic 43 and biographical information 44 . However, it is indisputable that Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov has collected and studied an extensive cycle of direct and remote benefits 45 and uses them with judicious prudence, although sometimes he unreasonably imitates them even in external techniques 46 . Everything was directed towards finding abundant and best information for the most clear and comprehensive coverage of one’s own research problems. It was necessary to extract only what was suitable and subject everything to a thorough critical test in terms of the scale of compliance with its tasks and scientific objectivism. In this sense, the author is constantly accompanied by constant criticism. But for further success, she herself must be calm and impartial. This condition is met to a sufficient extent, although it would be necessary to delve more deeply into the historical foundations of the origin of various negative opinions and theories and more accurately present their internal self-justifications. Without this, they are not always correctly portrayed as having no basis and internal consistency, and the assessment turns out to be one-sided and unconvincing. Yes, oh. Vl. N. Strakhov objects (p. 206): “If τὸ ϰατέχον denotes the Roman political system and ό ϰατέχων its representative, the Roman emperor, as some representatives of modern historical interpretation recognize, then how can the Roman kingdom be the kingdom of the Antichrist and an individual representative of this kingdom the Antichrist himself?... One excludes the other.” The latter is obvious not only for our author, and the defenders (not always rationalistic, for example, Prof. D. Dr. Paul Feine, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, S. 19) of the refuted views foresaw this long ago, eliminating possible self-contradictions in various ways - such as the fact that in Christian views on Roman power there was an evolution when the initial favorable judgment was replaced by a reverse one under the influence of bitter experience of government oppression. But such examples of polemical defects do not obscure the general impression; criticism is guided by scientific motives and pursues completely objective goals. Petrograd 1915, VI, 18 (Friday) The author could have obtained accurate data on this subject from the dissertation of Prof. N.I. Novosadsky “The Cult of Kavirs in Ancient Greece” (Warsaw 1891), that its cradle was Samothrace (p. 42), where there were Samothrace Kavirs (and exactly three: 2 male and 1 female, although initially, perhaps, in the form of a male dyad), revered as deities of light in the dignity of savior gods (p. 45 ff.); in Macedonia, where this cult penetrated no earlier than the 4th century. Before Christ, its center was Fassalonica-Thessalonica (p. 142). Surely they were not produced by the author from the German die Proselyten des Tores?!.. See Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov on page 12, 1: “Σεβόμενοι are proselytes who have the right to be present at Jewish worship, the so-called “proselytes of the gates” (“Torah”). Different from them were the “Hellenes,” pure Greeks, who before converting to Christianity were real pagans,” and cf. D. G. Wohlenberg in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Herausg. von Prof. Th. Zahn XII (Leipzig 1909), S. 3: “Es würden also von den regelmässig zum jüdischen Gottesdienst sich haltenden eigentlichen Proselyten (“Tores”), den σεβόμενοι, “Hellenen”, unterschieden werden reine Griechen, welche bis dahin noch ganz und gar im Heidentum gestanden hatten.” "Proselytes of the covenant" (gerej hab-berith) belonged to another class - "proselytes of righteousness." Not only Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov (Faith in the proximity of the “sail”, p. 29 seq.), but also in some other authors, for example, Rev. R. D. Sha w, The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh 1603, p. 36 sq. Both of them refer to Renan, but greatly exaggerate in comparison with the latter (Ernst Renan, LʼAntechrist, Paris 1873, p. 321–339; Der Antichrist, Leipzig 1873, pp. 255–269), who only talks about confusion in the interregnum after Nero to Vespasian (p. 323; p. 256). For this purpose we have in mind and partly utilize the treatise On the Belief in the Coming of Christ in the Apostolic Age y Prof. Benjamin Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans: Translation and Commentary (London 3 1894), p. 53–66. See above on pp. 55–56 et cf. also James M. Campbell, Paul the Mystic: a Study in Apostolie Experience (London 1907), p. 108–109. See and Prof. Heinrich Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Die Jesu und des Urchristentums (Tübingen 1913), S. 423, 426, and we have spoken about this in detail, The Gospel of St. Apostle Paul on his origin and essence II (St. Petersburg, 1910), p. 921, etc., for which see book. III (St. Petersburg 1912), p. 52. Therefore νῦν in Art. The 6th can in no way be a simple transition formula, as Prof. thinks. James Moffatt in The Expositor's Greek Testament, p. 49, but contrary to this see Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 137 However, B is also inclined towards this. Jowett 1.cit. I, p. 3 101. See Rev. R. D. Shaw, The Pauline Epistles, p. 43, 46; Rev. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, p. 218 et cf. Fritz Tillmann, Die Wiederkunft Christi, S. 131. In II, 4 ἐπί means “against” and equally applies to both preceding participles connected by a common member: cf. Prof. Paul Wilhelm Schmiedel in Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament bearbeitet von Prof. D. H. J. Holtzmann u. And. II, 1 (Freiburg i B. 2 1982), S. 37; Prof. Ernst v. Dobschü at Meyer'a 7 X, S. 274; J. Ev. Frame, p. 255–256. Wed. even I.V. Borkov, About the signs of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 144, 356; 145. See above at Art. 67 words St. Ephraim the Syrian only says about the Antichrist (Creations III, p. 3 222) that “The Jews will await his coming...; Most of all, the murderers of Judah will honor and rejoice at his reign.” This means that one cannot understand here the future implementation of the divine plan for Israel’s entry into the fullness of the pagans (as Fritz Tillmann, Die Wiederkunft Christi, S. 144 ff.). Therefore, it is in no way possible to identify τὸ ϰατέχον also with the future ἀποστασία, about which see also Jos. Knabenbauer, p. 143. For example, J. Ev. Frame, r. 258–259. Likewise, F.Prat sees in ὁ ϰατέχων the Archangel Michael with the heavenly army (La théologie de Saint Paul I. p. 117); also Lic. Dr. Hans Preuss, Der Antichrist, S. 12. Accordingly, in “hold” Dr. th. K.A. Heinrich Kellner (Catholic) sees "Petronius", legate of Syria, considering the emperor (16 March 37 - 24 January 41) Caligula to be a "man of lawlessness" (Jesus von Nazareth und seine Apostel im Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte, Regensburg 1908, S. 320-321, 323). If - according to the true German pronunciation - the author correctly writes (p. 51) Laurent, then for the same reason he should have accepted Bousset vm. the impossible “Busse” (pp. 93, 102, 201, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233) and – Weizsäcker vm. "Weizsäcker" (pp. 100, 204). “Spitta” (pp. 100, 120–123, 201, 258) is possible for Spitta only in southern German, but he is a Hanoverian and therefore Spitta, like Holsten, is not “Holsten”, namely Holsten (p. 99), for this is a Mecklenburger “Tregelles” (pp. 298, 339) is completely incorrect for an English surname publisher of the Greek New Testament, Quaker Tregelles, having a Russian phonetic equivalent in Tregelles. Not only the Dutch van der Vis (= van der Vis) and van Manen (van Manen) turned into the Germans “Van der Vis” 9 p. 51, 99) and “Van Manen” (p. 102), but even the famous Berlin professor, who died miserably on January 15 (2), 1914 Hermann Freiherr von Soden, creator of the newest critical edition of the Greek New Testament, received (p. 99) a distorted Dutch nickname “Van Soden (van Soden)” vm. von Soden. In vain also Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov writes “Walafrid Strabo” (pp. 174, 176, 177). Unfortunately taken from Lunemann and strange (p. 179, 1) “Faber Stapulensis” is Jaques Lefevre dʼEtaples, 1536: see Fr. Lichtenberger, Encyclopedie des sciences religions VIII, p. 69–77; Wetzer und Welte ʼs Kirchenlexikon 2 IV, Sp. 1179–1182; Prof. Michael Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexikon I (München 1907), Sp. 1413; The Catholic Encyclopedia IX, p, 114–115; H. Holtzmann und R. Z ö pffel, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 2 I (Braunschweig 1888). S. 258. This applies to the remarks (pp. 51, 2) about the exegetical works of Hugo Grotius, i.e. the Dutch statesman and theologian Hugo de Groot (b. 1583, IV, 10, 1645, VIII, 28). The same is true for “Gammond” on page 187, 3. However, it is completely unclear why the dissertation (now professor and priest) I.V. Borkov, On the signs of the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Gospel and Epistles of St., was completely omitted. Apostolov (Kazan, 1906), when here the entire second part is most devoted to 2 Thess., meanwhile, the work of S. Savinsky, Eschatological conversation of Christ the Savior (about the final destinies of the world), Kyiv 1906 should also be included. Thus, for example, the English edition of the (Greco-) Latin commentaries of Theodore Mopsus. quoted (pp. 167–168) by "s" (Seiten) and even (167) "s. 51. Anmerk", as for the Latin Tacitus is given (p. 208, 1)"s. 153 f.”, and in biblical texts and in other similar cases for the “following” verses and so on. German abbreviations “f” or “ff.” are systematically used. (see pages 4, 9, 11, 39, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 81, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 94, 97, 102, 110, 111, 116, 121, 125, 129, 130, 132, 133, 143, 147, 158, 159, 161, 163, 167, 181, 182, 203, 214, 215, 220, 222, 223, 224, 237, 242, 247, 250, 251, 255, 260, 269, 270, 280, 281, 285, 290, 293, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 304, 307, 311, 313, 316, 319, 320, 321, 322, 330, 332, 333, 334, 347, 349, 355, 357, 358, 359, 362, 364, 369, 371, 372, 383, 384–386, 389, 390). In addition to “situation” (see above on page 5), we can also mention, for example, “disposition” (page 29). See for this purpose pp. VI, 4 (Paul and Silvanus are “leaders of a new religious movement”; the former “loved Timothy ... for his honest attitude to his duties”), 5 (Philip is a “famous gold-mining city”), 6 (about missionary “stations”), 7 (“among the Roman colonists and Greeks in Thessalonica there were a lot of Jews,” although “the majority of the Thessalonian population consisted of pagans"), 21 ("the Thessalonian "community" seduced" by the Apostles), 27 ("fearing further deception"), 31 ("such an epistle as the second letter to the Thessalonians cannot be a simple exercise in Pauline style"), 48 ("the flight of the preachers of the Gospel"), 49 (2 Thess. "would be false and incomprehensible"), 56-57 (the whole speech about Marcion leaves impression of confused copying), 60 (in Διδαχή “reference” to 2 Thess.), 62 (“reliable references” in St. Justin). On page 23 we read that in 2 Thess. there is “a definite indication of the objects through which this excitement arose,” but Fr. Vl. N. Strakhov least of all considers them worthy of “gratitude.” However. In addition to the carefully noted typos, sometimes quite minor, there are still a few undoubted or probable ones, for example, page 201 “from biblical extra-biblical teachings” with the omission of “and”; p. 203 “Central Asia”, apparently, vm. "Front". You might be interested in: