Период первый. Древне-Церковная литература времени мужей Апостольских
Machine translation from the original · Show original
As is known, the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century represent one of the least clear periods in Ancient Christian history. The writings of the holy Apostles, reflecting the successive moments of the historical destinies of the Church of Christ, from the time of its foundation until the end of the first century, make it clear that at that time an interesting and instructive page in the history of mankind was unfolding.
After the entire totality of the gifts of God appeared in the Apostolic Church in a concentrated and intense upsurge of spiritual life, the process of slow and complex development of gradual forms of Church life was to begin, ensuring the natural health and growth of the body of Christ on the basis of supernatural gifts of grace.
At the very beginning of this educational process we must encounter a brief but significant era of the greatest simplicity of Church existence, when the miraculous inspiration of the first witnesses of the New Testament ceased, and the completeness of the Church structure was not yet determined. In the history of the Church, this period is also of great importance, directly adjacent to the Apostolic Age, when, after the death of the Apostles, the Church was left without the personal leadership of the self-seers of the Word, their disciples entered the field of Church activity, and, so to speak, a completely independent application to life of the teaching preached by the Apostles began, through the formulation of this teaching and the development of the Church institutions founded by them.
The irresistible desire of Church historians to penetrate into the secrets of the life of the Church of this time is completely natural and understandable. But, unfortunately, in the absence of sufficient direct and definite data, these first pages of the history of the Christian Church, despite continuous and intense efforts to draw a living and completely accurate picture of the initial course of events in the internal and external life of the Church in their actual historical continuity, remain largely fruitless: the time of the initial growth of the Church remains shrouded in a difficult-to-penetrate darkness - it took place in complete silence, interrupted only by a few voices in a very small number of literary works. monuments. Although it is indisputable that not all the works written by the successors of the Apostles in the work of evangelizing and establishing Christianity have reached us, it is also undeniable that they wrote only a very small part of what was experienced at that time, and sometimes the great literary fruitfulness attributed to them hardly corresponds to reality.
The apostolic disciples left few literary monuments, and even those were of accidental origin. Therefore, the historian can only regret that the closest Apostolic successors very rarely turned to the cane and the charter. After all, they were direct disciples of self-visionists and ministers of the Word, they heard the living voice of the holy Apostles, proclaiming to them the revealed teaching; they saw the deeds of the holy Apostles, they knew well what the direct disciples of the Lord taught and how they organized the Church of Christ.
But this fact of insignificant literary productivity of the first generation of post-Apostolic times must be recognized as a completely natural phenomenon, which has its basis primarily in the fact that Christianity entered human life not as the result of human research, not as human wisdom and a human cause, but as a Divine Revelation and the work of God between people. It required faith; Therefore, Christian teachers taught the word of Christ and the Apostles not only with Gospel simplicity, but with the Apostolic spirit, filled with the anointing of tongues.
At that time there was no need for scientific substantiation of individual truths of faith; for members of the first Christian communities, a simple presentation of the Gospel teaching was enough. They had guarantee for his Divinity in memories of the Lord, His life and deeds, about the personality and miracles of the Apostles, as well as in the still ongoing spiritual gifts and in the inner feeling of the life-giving action of Divine grace. At this time, that first era of controversy had not yet arrived, in which words were adapted to ideas and then even partially took their place. Therefore, written activity, if it was not completely unnecessary, then in any case it was not urgently caused by life itself, for Christianity did not require literary propaganda. “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15), these were the last words of the Risen One.
Just as the Lord Himself only orally sowed the seeds of His teaching, so in the future the word or living preaching remained the main means by which the Gospel was planted and spread, and the Christian truth was introduced into the hearts and lives of people.
All the writings of the New Testament arose at the request of special circumstances and needs of a certain time and certain persons or communities, which had previously been instructed in the Gospel in the usual way, were acquired for Christianity by oral preaching: their purpose was to renew in the memory of previous oral conversations, to capture them more deeply and comprehensively illuminate them, and to strengthen them against false teachings and misunderstandings.
These guiding principles remained decisive in post-Apostolic times: preaching or the living word was a constant and common means of Christian instruction. The successors of the Apostles continued to be Evangelists, not writers, preachers, not historians. It was a time of intense practical, rather than literary, activity. Their written works were only occasional reflections of what was preached orally. They were too busy with the real and immediate matter to think about perpetuating in writing the current situation of the Church. This is the main reason for the paucity of literary monuments from the time of the Apostolic disciples.
Among other reasons for the weak development of their literary activity, it is necessary to point out that the time of the Apostles was still too close, whose authority was indisputable for true believers; their voices seemed to still sound vividly in the ears of Christians in different regions, which they enlightened with their preaching; Among the believers there were still many Christians who were either directly instructed by the Apostles and converted to Christ, or who generally heard their teaching and treated them.
To fully comprehend the effect of this fact, it is enough to remember what impression the Apostles made on everyone who interacted with them. Thus, Clement of Rome, whose bright and sublime character was far from being prone to enthusiasm, not only speaks of them with the greatest praise, but strives to reproduce their thoughts and recognizes their binding authority. Ignatius encourages himself by their example and draws in his Epistles a sharp distinction between the Apostles and himself.
Polycarp seems to have no other desire than to reproduce and repeat the preserved thoughts of the Apostolic teaching. Papias insists in very strong terms on the superior power of the Apostolic tradition of the living Apostolic voice against the vast but incorrect conclusions of those who stood outside their circle.
The Author of the Doctrine of the 12 Apostles, although he imagines the possibility of Apostolic ministry in his own time, nevertheless appreciates its dignity as highly as can be imagined, and says that the Apostles should be received as Lord. This impression of the authority of the Apostles prompted special restraint in instructions in general, and especially to those persons who, for example, were “the secret men of Paul the Sanctified” (Ignatius the God-Bearer, Epistle to the Ephesians, 12).
Saint Polycarp clearly points out this motive in his Epistle to the Philippians: “I am writing this to you, brothers, about righteousness, not because of my own claim, but because you yourself called me to it. For neither I, nor anyone else like me, can achieve the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who, being with you, in the presence of the people who were then living, zealously and firmly taught the word of truth, and after leaving you, wrote Epistles to you. By delving into them, you can receive edification in the faith given to you, which is the mother of all” (3).
Finally, the relationship between Christianity and paganism has not yet taken the form of a completely clear and irreconcilable struggle. Therefore, neither the internal life of the Church nor external relations made demands for the discovery of the forces and means that lay hidden in the depths of the Christian Faith. It was a conservative time, not a creative one.
We must not forget that both the first preachers of Christianity and the leading Christians were simple people, and not people of school, which is why, from this side, it is quite natural to have some disdain for the literary method of influencing the faithful.
As a result of all this, it turned out that after the immeasurable outpouring of Divine inspiration in the great creative age of the Apostles, a spiritual reaction seemed to set in, and for the entire period embracing the whole generation of the immediate successors of the Apostles, we have very few works that insufficiently illuminate the state of the Church at that time. These include: the Epistle known with the name of the Apostle Barnabas, the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the seven Epistles of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (to the Ephesians, to the Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrna and to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna), the Epistle of St. Polycarp of Smyrna to the Philippians, the Shepherd of Hermas, excerpts from the works of Papias of Hierapolis and the Teachings of the 12 Apostles.
These works are usually designated by a common name: “writings of the Apostolic men,” which clearly expresses the assumption that their writers are “Apostolic men” - οἱ ἀποστολικοι ἄνδρες, patres apostolici, viri apostolici. Who is designated by this name?
Tertullian divides the writers of the four Gospels into two classes, calling Matthew and John “apostoli,” and Mark and Luke “apostolici” or apostolici viri (Adv. Marc. 4:2. 3; De praescr., 32). In the same way, in the Epistle of the Smirnians with information about the death of Polycarp, this father is called διδάσκαλος ἀποστολικòς (16); and Irenaeus calls him ἀποστολικός πρεσβύτερος (epist. ad Florin. - Eus. Hist. eccl. 5:20). Clement of Alexandria calls Barnabas ὁ ἀπόστολος Βαρνάβας. In this case, the term generally denotes a direct personal connection with the Apostles.
The same historical connection with the Apostles is also evident in the name: “Apostolic Men,” which is applied specifically to persons who are undoubtedly known, or regarding whom one can reasonably assume that they were associated with the Apostles and borrowed their teaching directly from them, or, finally, to those who were contemporaries of the Apostles. How accurate is this designation and can it be accepted?
Although the meaning of the term "Apostolic Men" is based on the ancient use of the word "apostolicus", yet the whole expression does not appear until a comparatively late period. Its origin, or at least its general distribution, stands in close connection with the idea of collecting together the literary heritage of those men who labored in the field of Christ in the time immediately following the Apostles, and who presumably were all their personal disciples.
This idea and the idea of the expression itself were first introduced in the publication Coteleriusa (1672); in the title, however, he does not give this expression; although he approaches him: “S. S. Patrum qui temporibus apostolicis floruerunt opera"; but the closest publisher, Ittig (1690), already directly entitled his publication “Bibliotheca Patrum apostolicorum”, and from that time on this name became common. But Cotelerius and Ittig included in their editions only the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp and the "Shepherd" of Hermas, meanwhile subsequent publishers gradually began to expand the range of works designated by one title, adding the Epistle to Diognetus, fragments of Papias and the "presbyters" of Irenaeus, the martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp, the Roman Symbol and, more recently, the "Teachings" 12 Apostles”, but at the same time they left the name of the collection of these works unchanged: “Patres apostolici”.
From a practical point of view, meaning to bring together the most important parts of Ancient Church literature that belong to the immediate post-Apostolic time and fill the gap that separates the age of the Apostles from the time of the apologists, such a collection has its justification; but from a strictly scientific point of view, the designation of this collection by the general name “Patres apostolici” cannot be considered accurate. Only three authors - Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp - are indisputably recognized as “Men of the Apostles.”
Although the identification of Clement, the writer of the Epistle to the Corinthians, with the person mentioned by the Apostle Paul (Phil. 4:3) is disputed, the tradition that he was a disciple of one or both of the chief Apostles is early, constant and definite and is confirmed by the nature and content of the Epistle itself.
In relation to Ignatius, although the tradition which represents him as a disciple of John the Theologian is based on the authority of later documents, the early date of his life and his connection with Antioch, the main center of Apostolic activity, make his personal conversion with the Apostles more than probable.
Finally, Polycarp's right to this title turns out to be completely indisputable, since his own student Irenaeus claims that he was a listener of the beloved disciple of the Lord, and Irenaeus himself heard from his teacher several stories about the Apostle, which he carefully preserved in his memory. As for other works, their right to be called the writings of the Apostolic men is not so obvious, or, at least, is not recognized as indisputable by everyone. Here, first of all, we should be talking about the Epistle, known with the name of the Apostle Barnabas: his position is exceptional.
If his writer was a companion of the Apostle Paul, bearing the same name, then he should not be called an “Apostolic Man,” but rather an “Apostle,” which title is attached to him in Acts (14:14: “Apostles Barnabas and Paul”) and as Clement of Alexandria calls him in one place (Strom. 11:6: ὁ ἀπόστολος Βαρνάβας, compare: 11:7).
But if the writer was not the “Apostle” Barnabas, as is now almost the general opinion in Western Church history, then we have no evidence of his personal relations with the Apostles, although the early date of the Epistle, which was written in the continuation of the Flavian dynasty, makes such a connection of its author probable.
A similar consideration is significant in relation to Hermas, the author of the “Shepherd”: some (for example, Origen) identify him with Hermas, mentioned by the Apostle Paul (Rom. 16:14), while the author of the Muratorian canon attributes the book “The Shepherd” to the brother of Pius, who was a bishop around the half of the 2nd century and dates its composition precisely to the time of Pius’ bishopric.
The designation of Papias as an “Apostolic Man” is based on the testimony of Irenaeus that he was a disciple of the Apostle John (Adv. haer. 5:33. 4); but Eusebius already argued, although completely unfairly, that Irenaeus’ conclusions from the words of Papias are more than controversial, and that Papias’s teacher was not the Apostle John, but a presbyter of the same name (Hist. haer., 3:39). This conclusion of Eusebius is now accepted by many Protestant scholars.
Finally, the recently discovered monument “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” - one of the most important documents of the period under review, must be attributed to a very early time; however, it cannot be decisively asserted that its unknown author had a direct relationship with the Apostles, although he sets himself the task of reproducing their teaching.
As for the Epistle to Diognetus, its writing dates back to the time of the development of apologetic literature, to which this very monument belongs;
In view of this, so that the pre-established general name of all works combined into one group does not bind the freedom of scientific research in relation to their authors and to the time of their origin, it is necessary either to understand the title: “writings of the Apostolic men” as a symbol for the collection of all monuments of Ancient Church literature of the post-Apostolic period, adding? “so-called,” or it would be more correct to call the entire group “monuments of Ancient Church literature from the time of the Apostolic men,” which will only mark the period to which this literature belongs in terms of the time of its origin and their general character.
A review of the content of these works shows that their writers do not represent a specific “school” or “trend”: they are simply a group of writers whose works have the same characteristic features. The simplicity of Church relations in post-Apostolic times, the circumstances of the life and work of the Apostolic disciples determined the general distinctive properties of the works that arose at that time, both in relation to their external form and to their internal character and spirit. Due to the already noted conservatism of the post-Apostolic time, it was not sharply separated from the previous period in its literary monuments, although it differs from it.
When Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Thrallians, says that his Epistle is written "in the image of the Apostles," he gives it a characterization which is equally applicable to the Epistles of Clement and Polycarp: they are all written after the model of the canonical Epistles, especially the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, so that they may in some sense be regarded as an appendix to the New Testament.
Like the canonical Epistles, they are all caused by random reasons put forward by life itself and give an answer only to these particular requests, solving them in relation to the situation of the persons who needed these Epistles.
These works do not in any way set themselves the task of interpreting the topics taken didactically and completely - they pursue practical exhortation goals: their authors strive to present to believers in simple words the essence of the salvation revealed in Christ, convince them to obey the Church leaders and warn against heresies and division. Thus, the famous teacher Clement writes on behalf of the Church, in which he presides, in order to calm the disagreements in the Church of Corinth. The aged pastor of the Church of Antioch, on his path to martyrdom, expresses gratitude for his participation and gives instructions to those Christian communities with which he came into contact during his journey.
Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, having the opportunity to send a parcel to the Philippians (with the Epistles of Ignatius), finds it convenient, in response to their request, to write a few words of consolation and instruction. These are the reasons for the appearance of the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp. The same epistolary form is preserved in the Epistle of Barnabas, although its spirit is different: it does not represent a natural outpouring of feelings arising from personal relationships, but is rather a treatise clothed in epistolary form, with a clearly marked polemical purpose.
Other works which find a place in the collection of the Apostolic Men deviate from this normal type. The Teachings of the 12 Apostles is a primary guide to Christian life, Church discipline and worship. Hermas's "Shepherd" is the first Christian allegory on an apocalyptic basis, and Papias's "Explanations" are an early interpretation of some parts of the New Testament.
The "Apostolic Men" are rightly called not great writers, but great characters. Their style is artless; there is a lack of scientific order in the arrangement of material and system in their teaching. They are much simpler witnesses of the faith than theologians. They do not even care about simple completeness and clarity in presentation, because they consider the readers of their Epistles to be as knowledgeable and recognize what they are expounding as they themselves.
On the one hand, they reveal a remarkable depth and clarity of understanding in the depiction of the various truths of the Gospel with undeniable signs of special inspiration; on the other hand, they are alien to that scientific spirit that distinguishes the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries and makes them capable of accurately formulating the doctrine of faith, as a bulwark against incorrect speculation.
But although they show a lack of clarity of concepts and power of presentation, this is fully compensated by the simplicity that constitutes the charming side of their Epistles. If they do not have the precision of the scientific spirit, then they are free from its dryness. The intrinsic qualities of these Epistles secure for them a respect which is entirely out of proportion to their literary merits. These properties are especially revealed in those works in which we stand face to face with their authors.
Thus, the distinctive features of the writings of the Apostolic men are literary simplicity, outstanding religious imprint, pure inner Christian interest, completely untouched by the influence of Hellenic and Greco-Roman culture.
All these works, despite their small number and insignificant volume, are extremely important as works of the early Christian spirit, living and most reliable bearers of the Apostolic tradition, testifying to the certainty and stability of the basic elements of the Catholic Faith; they clearly certify that even during this period the original, bubbling source of Christian life was not “a thin and shapeless stream.”
The fewer of them have been preserved, the greater the importance each of them should have for researchers of the destinies of primitive Christianity, and especially in view of the fact that some of them were valued so highly in the Ancient Church that in many private Churches they were read in Divine service assemblies as Divinely inspired writings and placed in the copies of the Bible: the Epistle of Barnabas and the “Shepherd” of Hermas are at the end of Cod. Sinaiticüs, both Epistles of Clement of Rome at the end of Cod. Alexandrinus.
I. The Teaching of the 12 Apostles
Of all the hitherto known monuments of Ancient Church literature that arose in the time closest to the Apostles, if not in time of composition, then at least in content, the one closest to New Testament writing is the work known as “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles” - Διδαχή τω ν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων.
This monument became famous only in the second half of the 19th century. Its discovery and publication belongs to Metropolitan Philotheus Bryennius of Nicomedia. In 1873, in the library of the Jerusalem (Holy Sepulchre) courtyard in Constantinople, he found a Greek manuscript written in 1056, which contains, among other things, the Epistle of Barnabas, two Epistles of Clement of Rome, the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch in a lengthy Greek edition, and the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles.”
On the basis of this manuscript, Philotheus Bryennius published the text of the “Teaching” in 1883, prefacing it with extensive research on the history of the monument, its content, time of origin, meaning, and so on. Not a single literary discovery over the past century has caused such a strong scientific movement or been accompanied by such an abundance of works dedicated to it as this small monument.
Judgments about its content and significance for Church historical science turned out to be very diverse to the point of contradiction: all religious and scientific movements sought in it and found their teachings and views. But everyone agrees that attention to the monument is quite justified, since in its content, form of presentation, relationship to Ancient Christian literature in general and literature of a canonical nature in particular, and finally, in its significance for the history of dogmatics, morality and Church organization, it represents an extremely valuable acquisition as an interpretation of the most ancient evidence about the life and structure of the primal Church.
In the manuscript, the monument bears two names, namely in the table of contents of the manuscript: Διδαχή τω ν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων and in the text itself: Διδαχή κυρίου διà τω ν δώδεκ αἀποστόλων τοΐς ἐθνεσιν . Of these names, it is most likely that the spatial one is considered the oldest; it shows that the author of the work seeks to present in a concise form such important rules of Christian life and Church organization as the teaching of the Lord, taught through the 12 Apostles to the peoples of the pagan world.
I. 1. Contents of the Teachings of the 12 Apostles
The volume of the monument is almost equal to the Epistle to the Galatians and in the publication it is divided into 16 small chapters. On historical and literary grounds it is divided into two unequal halves: chapters 1–6 and 7–16, but according to its content four parts can be distinguished:
1) Moral (1–6) sets out the rules of Christian morality in the form of a description of two paths - the Path of Life (1–4) and the path of death (5); Chapter 6 is the conclusion to this part;
2) Liturgical (7–10) – about Baptism, Prayer, Fasting and the sacrament of the Eucharist;
3) Disciplinary (11–15) contains instructions regarding persons coming to the community - teachers, Apostles, prophets and wanderers; and sets forth the rules of life of Christian communities and in particular regarding the Eucharist, bishops and deacons, and the Ecclesiastical Court;
4) Eschatological (16) contains exhortations to be vigilant in view of the proximity of the Second Coming of the Lord and indicates the signs of this Coming.
1) The author divides his moral instructions into two parts: depicting the path of life and the path of death. “There are two paths, one of life and one of death, but the difference between both paths is great” - this is how the monument begins. Then the path of life is described in detail. “The way of life is this: first, love God who created you; secondly, treat your neighbor as yourself, and whatever you don’t want to happen to you, don’t do to anyone else.” These are the two main commandments of the Doctrine.
Moving on to a detailed calculation of the moral duties of a Christian, the author, mixing instructions with advice, sets out the duties in relation to neighbors and in particular in relation to enemies: he commands to bless those who curse and pray for enemies, to fast for those who persecute - “love those who hate you, and you will not have an enemy.” “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you will be perfect. If someone tells you to go with him one mile, go with him two; if someone takes your outer garment, give him your shirt too; if someone has taken what is yours, do not ask for it back.” It is necessary to give to everyone who asks and not demand back, for the Father wants everyone to be given from his gifts. “Blessed is he who gives according to the commandment,” but woe to him who receives, for if anyone takes when he has need, he is free from punishment; he who has no need will give an account of why and for what he took it.” Therefore, it is necessary to give alms selectively: “Let your alms sweat in your hands until you know to whom you should give” (1).
The second chapter lists in detail the prohibitions of everything that can cause harm to one’s neighbor: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not be a child molester, do not commit fornication, do not steal, do not engage in sorcery, do not make poison, do not kill a child in embryo and do not kill one already born; Thou shalt not covet what belongs to thy neighbor. Do not break your oath, do not bear false witness, do not slander, do not remember evil; do not be dual in thought, nor bilingual... Do not be selfish, nor a predator, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant... Do not hate every person, but rebuke some, pray for others, and love others more than your soul” (2).
From the third chapter, the instructions are made in the form of admonitions from the teacher to the student, beginning with the words: “my child”; When listing lighter sins, indications are made of the more serious ones arising from them. First, the author exhorts to avoid all evil and everything similar to it. In particular, he convinces the reader not to be angry, because anger leads to murder; not to be jealous, quarrelsome, or hot-tempered, for from all this comes murder; not to be lustful, because lust leads to fornication; blasphemy leads to adultery, divination, spells, sorcery - to idolatry.
Thefts come from lies, love of money, and vanity; Blasphemy comes from murmuring, insolence, and evil-mindedness. “Be meek, for the meek will inherit the earth; be long-suffering and merciful and kind, and humble and kind... You should not be arrogant: do not let your soul cleave to the proud, but treat the righteous and humble. Misfortunes that happen must be accepted as good, knowing that without God nothing happens (3).
After outlining the duties of a Christian towards himself, the author again returns to presenting instructions on how to relate to others and, above all, to those with whom communication can contribute to Christian perfection. “Day and night remember him who preaches the word of God and honor him as the Lord.”
It is prescribed to visit the saints daily in order to be strengthened by their words; not to cause division, to reconcile those who argue, to judge fairly, not to look at the face when convicted of sins. “Do not stretch out your hands to receive and do not close your hands when giving... Do not hesitate to give and when giving, do not complain... do not turn away from the needy, but in everything have fellowship with your brother and do not call anything your own: for if you are partakers in imperishable things, how much more in perishable things.”
In the area of family responsibilities, the author commands not to take your hands away from your son or daughter, but to teach them the fear of God from youth, not to command a slave in anger, so that they do not cease to fear God; slaves must obey their masters, as the image of God, in reverence and fear. At the conclusion of the depiction of the path of life, the author exhorts to hate all hypocrisy and everything that is displeasing to God, not to forsake the commandments of the Lord, to confess sins in the Church and not to approach prayer with a bad conscience. This is the way of life (4).
“The way of death is this: first of all, he is evil and filled with a curse.” Then the sins are listed in almost the same order as in the second chapter: murder, adultery, lust, fornication, theft, idolatry, and so on; and then sinners who have entered the path of death: persecutors of the good, haters of truth, lovers of lies, not recognizing the reward of righteousness, vigilant not in good, but in evil, lovers of vanity, pursuing rewards, having no compassion for the poor, murderers of children, destroyers of the image of God, turning away from the needy, oppressor of the oppressed, defenders of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, sinners in everything. “Beware, children, from all such people” (5).
The first part ends with an admonition to beware lest anyone deviate from the indicated path of teaching: if you can bear all that is of the Lord, you will be perfect,” and if it is impossible, you should do what you can; regarding food, do what is possible, but abstain from sacrifices to idols, for this is serving the gods of the dead (6).
2) About the performance of Baptism, the author says that, having reported everything that has been said, one must baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in running water, and if there is no living water, then in another; If you can’t do it in cold, then in warm. “And if you have neither one nor the other, then pour water on your head three times in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Before Baptism, the person baptizing and the person being baptized and, if they can, some others should fast; “The person being baptized was ordered to fast for a day or two beforehand” (7). Fasting should not be with hypocrites: they fast on Monday and Thursday, but should fast on Wednesday and Friday. There is no need to pray with hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel. Then the Lord’s Prayer is given, which is commanded to be read three times a day (8).
“As for the Eucharist,” says the author, “give thanks this way: we thank You, our Father, for the holy grape (holy vine) of David, Your servant, which You showed to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to you forever." Concerning the broken bread (give thanks thus): We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Servant. Glory to you forever. Just as this broken bread was scattered (in grains) on the hills and, being gathered, became one, so may Your Church be united from the ends of the Earth into Your Kingdom, for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.” Only those baptized in the name of the Lord should take part in the Eucharist, for the Lord said: do not give holy things to dogs (9). “After you are satisfied, give thanks in this way: We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name, which You have made in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality that You have shown us through Jesus Your Servant. Glory to you forever.
You, Lord Almighty, created everything for the sake of Your name; You gave food and drink to people for enjoyment, so that they would thank You; and graciously grant us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through Thy Servant.
First of all, we thank You because You are omnipotent. Glory to you forever. Remember, O Lord, Thy Church, deliver Her from all evil and perfect Her in Thy love, and gather Her from the four winds, sanctified, into Thy Kingdom, which Thou hast prepared for Her. For Yours is the power and the glory forever. May grace come and may this peace come. Hosanna to the Son of David. If he is holy, let him begin, and if not, let him repent. Marana-fa (i.e. “The Lord is coming” - Syro-Chaldean dialect - Ed.). Amen."
The Second Part ends with the author’s statement that the prophets can be allowed to give thanks as much as they want, that is, without being embarrassed by the given form of thanksgiving (10).
3) Communities should accept only those teachers who teach everything that has been said before, so that they increase the truth and knowledge of the Lord: they should be accepted as Lord. The Apostles and Prophets must be treated according to the Gospel commandment: The Apostle must be received as Lord, but let him not stay longer than one or two days; if he stays three days, then he is a false prophet. When leaving the community, he should not take anything except bread; if he demands money, then he is a false prophet. A prophet speaking in the spirit should not be tested or judged - this sin will not be forgiven.
However, not everyone who speaks in the spirit is a prophet, but only one who has the morals of the Lord: by their morals one can recognize false prophets and true prophets. Eating a meal appointed in the spirit for the poor, not doing what is taught, and demanding money for oneself in the spirit indicates that the one who has come to the community is a false prophet. But a proven, true prophet, if he does not teach to do everything that he himself does, shall not be judged, because he has judgment with God - this is what the ancient prophets did (11). Everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, that is, a stranger, must be accepted, but then must be tested; if the person coming is truly a wanderer, then one should help him as much as possible, but he should not stay more than two or, if there is a need, three days. If a stranger, being a craftsman, wants to settle in a community, then let him work and eat; if he does not know the craft, then care must be taken to arrange it so that he does not live idle. If he does not want to work, then he is a seller of Christ. These should be removed (11).
Regarding prophets who want to settle in a community, the author says that they are worthy of food; so are true teachers. The prophets must be given the firstfruits of the wine press and the threshing floor, also of oxen and sheep, “for these are your high priests.” If there is no prophet in the community, then the firstfruits should be given to the poor (13). “On the day of the Lord, having gathered together, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure.” Anyone who has a dispute with his friend should not come to the meeting until they are reconciled, so that the sacrifice is not desecrated. “For this is the saying of the Lord: in every place and at every time you must offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King,” says the Lord, “and My name is wonderful among the nations (14).
Bishops and deacons should be appointed to persons worthy of the Lord—men who are meek and not money-loving, true and proven, since they also fulfill the ministry of prophets and teachers; therefore, they must be revered together with the prophets and teachers. Fraternal judgment should not be carried out in anger, but in peace.
With anyone who acts badly towards his neighbor, all communication should be interrupted until he repents. Prayers, alms and all works must be done as indicated in the Gospel of the Lord (15).
4) The last chapter, which constitutes the fourth part of the monument, contains admonitions to Christians to be vigilant regarding their lives: “let not your lamps be extinguished, and let not your loins be loosed, but be ready, because you do not know the hour in which our Lord will come.” They must often come together to examine what souls need: “for all the time your faith will not profit you, unless you are perfect in the last time.”
Then the signs of the end times are listed: in the last days false prophets and destroyers will multiply, and sheep will turn into wolves, and love will turn into hatred; the tempter of the world will appear, as if the Son of God, and will perform signs and wonders, and the Earth will be given into his hands and will create iniquities such as have never happened since the beginning of time. “Then the human creation will go into the fire of testing, and many will be tempted and perish, but those who come in their faith will be saved from His curse. And then the sign of truth will appear: the first sign of an opening in heaven, then the sign of the sound of a trumpet, and the third - the resurrection of the dead, but not of all, but as it is said: the Lord will come and all the saints with Him. Then the world will see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven” (16).
I. 2. Ancient evidence about the monument
Direct evidence in various works until a relatively late time shows that the “Teaching of the Apostles” enjoyed great popularity and authority among the monuments of early Church literature. Eusebius (ἐννόθοις) (Hist. eccl., 3:25. 4) places among the apocryphal works τω ν ἀποστόλων αἱ λεγόμεναι Διδαχαì. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria in the 39th Paschal Epistle, among the books that, although not accepted into the canon, were approved for reading by persons entering the Church and wishing to learn piety, also indicates the “so-called teaching of the Apostles” - Διδαχὴ καλουμένη τω ν ἀποστόλων; Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch († 599) and Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople († 828) call Διδαχή (των) ἀποστόλων in their catalogs of sacred books, the latter defining the volume of the work at 200 verses.
In the West, the author of the treatise Adrersus aleatores, which has come down to us with the name of Saint Cyprian, but was probably written much earlier, uses the “Teaching” as divina scriptura and calls it doctrina apostolorum. Rufinus († 410), in his translation of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” to the place where it talks about the monument, makes the remark that this work is called not doctrinae (in Eusebius Διδαχα Ι), but doctrina apostolorum.
The identity of this “Teaching of the Apostles,” known to the ancients, with the monument published by Philotheus Bryennius is confirmed by its use going back to the very first centuries in many works of Ancient Church literature, although without an exact designation of the source, which is quite natural in relation to a monument that, serving for the instruction of the catechumens, must of necessity be well known, often inspire writers, give them thoughts and expressions.
The undisputed borrowing from the "Teachings" begins with Clement of Alexandria: in Strom. 1:20~the monument is even called γραφή, that is, it is equated with the books of the Holy Scriptures. Origen also uses the expression scriptura sacra in relation to the “Teaching” (Deprincip., 3: 2–7). In the treatise of Saint Athanasius De virginitate, an almost literal use of the Eucharistic prayer from the “Teaching” is noted.
A special group should include those monuments of Ancient Church literature in which, like Διδαχή, the doctrine of two paths is expounded; Here the question can be raised not about the borrowing of individual thoughts and expressions, but about more or less widespread use and even processing. So, first of all, it is necessary to note such a relationship between the “Teaching” and the Epistle of Barnabas in their depiction of the two paths (Διδαχή, 1–5; Barn. 19–20) - the coincidence between both works in the relevant places is often literal.
The Shepherd of Hermas also stands in considerable proximity to Διδαχή (compare Διδαχή, 1:5; Past., Mand.2:4–5). But what deserves special attention is a series of works belonging to canonical literature, for which the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” provided the initial material until it was absorbed by them.
“Church canons” (κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοì τω ν ἀγι ᾳ κον ἀποστόλων) in chapters III-XV give a description of the path life in such a form that indicates too close dependence of this monument on the first four chapters of Διδαχή.
In the Syntagma doctrinae ad monachos, attributed to Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, traces of the use of the first six chapters of Διδαχή are evident; the same must be said regarding Fides nicaena or didascalia CCCXVIII patrum.
In the first half of the 3rd century, the pseudo-Apostolic work Didascalia sive doctrina XII apostolorum et sanctorum discipulorum nostri Salvatoris appeared in circulation in Syria or Palestine, which borrows its material to a large extent from Διδαχή. Didascalia, for its part, forms the basis for the first six books, the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions” (the second half of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century): the seventh book of the “Regulations” is nothing more than an expanded Διδαχή in its entirety; the presentation of the path of life (1–17) has been supplemented with some additions; in the description of the path of death (17), the text Διδαχή is kept almost literally, and later some changes are made, which take into account later circumstances and relations of Church life. The acquaintance with the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” in the Latin West, in addition to the treatise Adversus aleatores, is indicated by the recently discovered (in a manuscript of the 11th century - lat. Monacensis, olim Frisingensis) Latin translation of the first six chapters; here the monument is inscribed: De doctrina apostolorum. Unfortunately, it is impossible to determine either the place, the time, or the original volume of this translation.
It is also necessary to mention the Arabic life of the famous Abba of the Cenobite monastery in Thebaid, Archimandrite Shenoudi († 330), written originally in the Coptic language (between 685 and 695): in his instructions to the monks, Abba Shenoudi used the first six chapters of Διδαχή. After 1056, when the “Teaching” was rewritten by the notary Leo, accurate information about it disappears even in the East: Zonara (about 1120) no longer knows it.
I. 3. The question of the origin of the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles”
In scientific works about Διδαχή, one of the important places is given to solving the question of its origin. “Teaching” is an anonymous work, and there was not even an attempt to master it by any writer of antiquity.
Therefore, the question of its origin is posed in this form: the writer who compiled the “Teaching of the 12 Apostles” known to us, was its original author, or did he base his work on a written monument or fragments of other works dating back to a previous time. Or in other words: can the type of “Teaching” represented by the Jerusalem manuscript discovered by Philotheus Bryennius be recognized as original?
When posing and resolving the question of the origin of the “Teaching”, the following circumstances are of most significant importance:
a) The history of the “Teaching,” as far as it is known to us, represents a very important detail: while indications of the sections of the monument from chapters 7 to 15 are very rare in antiquity, those works that have the most points of contact with the “Teaching” provide evidence only about the first six chapters of it;
b) There is a deep difference between the first six chapters of the monument and the following parts of it, not only in content, but also in lexical, grammatical and stylistic features, as well as in the relation of both halves of it to the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Taking into account the first fact as indisputable, and eliminating the second in view of its uncertainty and very weak tangibility, some researchers, including, first of all, Philotheus Bryennius, on the question of whether the text of the “Teaching” known to us was the original one, answer in the affirmative, and the facts from the history of the “Teaching” are explained as follows: if the monument is a solid work written by an unknown author, then the first part of it was separated after some time and put into circulation regardless of the second (larger) half.
In support of this hypothesis, they point out that the liturgical and disciplinary parts, depicting the original state of the cult and organization of the Church, should very soon become outdated and lose their practical application; while the Catechism of Christian Morality continued to retain its educational value for the instruction of the catechumens - it easily separated from the first two parts and naturally found a more permanent reception and much wider distribution (Fr. X. Funk). But the majority of researchers, taking into account the first fact and giving full value to the second, came to the conclusion that the current form of the “Teaching” was preceded by a more ancient review. However, the agreement of this currently prevailing direction ends with the establishment of this general position: in determining the most ancient reviews, almost every researcher follows his own path. But mainly this direction was expressed in two hypotheses.
One of them simply states that both parts of the “Teaching” were written by different authors and that each part originally had its own special destiny. The author of the text of the “Teaching” known to us included in the description of his work a previously existing Christian work: “The Teaching of Two Paths”; revised it in the first six chapters and added further parts, using pre-existing texts for them as well; however, regarding the latter they do not find it possible to provide any detailed information.
Another hypothesis of this trend, revealed mainly by Adolf Harnack, comes from the conviction that the first part of the “Teaching” is basically not of Christian, but of Jewish origin and was compiled, perhaps, before the Nativity of Christ, as a catechetical manual for the instruction of pagans who became proselytes; it was called: “The Teaching of Two Paths” and, like the first section of the “Teaching,” it set out moral rules under the image of two ways of life, with the addition, perhaps, of other instructions, which correspond to the content of the following chapters of Διδαχή regarding Baptism, fasting, prayer, and so on. This statement is essentially based on numerous parallels that are found in Palestine-Judaean and Hellenic-Judaean literature (the book of Jubilees, the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, the Sibylline books, pseudo-Phocylides).
The second proof is the absence of specifically Christian and Gospel sayings in the “Teaching of the Two Paths”; and this in turn is based on the fact that the section of the present text 1:3-2:1, which represents the specifically Christian part in the first six chapters of Διδαχή, is absent from the Epistle of Barnabas, from the Church Canons, from the works attributed to St. Athanasius, and from the life of Abba Shenoudi; from this it is concluded that Διδαχή from 1:3–2:1 represents a later review, expanded by this insertion, as well as other less significant additions and changes in the Christian spirit.
Some have suggested that chapter 16, in its main eschatological content, belonged to the original Jewish work and constituted its conclusion (stylistic kinship and analogies with works of Jewish literature). This Jewish catechism for proselytes was very early, together with the books of the Old Testament, adopted by Christians and was used precisely in preparation for Baptism for confirmation in Christian moral teaching.
It has been used in stereotypical form or freely reproduced for several decades; but then, in post-Apostolic times, the Jewish work underwent Christian revision and, in various reviews, formed the basis of the now known Christian works. The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas used the Jewish work in the form that is reproduced in the Church canons, in the Latin translation in the works attributed to Saint Athanasius, this is the Egyptian edition. Independently of the first, a second review arose, which is represented by the current text of the Jerusalem manuscript and the revision in the Apostolic Constitutions; it is characterized by the presence of the passage 1:3–2:1 and all the chapters of the second half of the monument. This review is usually called the Syrian review.
Without going into a detailed analysis of the hypotheses presented, we will limit ourselves to comments regarding the essential provisions on which the history of Διδαχή is built.
a) Analysis of the monument from the point of view of style, language, and the nature of the use of the Holy Scriptures leads representatives of the last two hypotheses to a decisive conclusion about the different authors of the two parts of Διδαχή (1–6 and 7–16) and about the difference in time and place of their origin. But the defenders of these hypotheses themselves agree that if in other monuments no basis was given for conclusions about the (alleged) adaptations and sources of the work, then, with the exception of, perhaps, a few places in the first chapter, one could rest assured on the assumption of the integrity of the work; that in fact, from the second chapter to the end, it is impossible to indicate a single place that would not fit into the general connection, and, apparently, nothing can be left out and that, finally, a number of questions in relation to the integrity of the work and the originality of the existing text are raised only when the evidence about the Διδαχή of the Church Fathers, later revisions and sources of the work are taken into account (Adolf Harnack in Realencyclop. F .protest. Theol. und Kirch., 2 Aufl. 17. S. 659).
But in this case, what objective value can a statement have regarding the difference in language, style and tone of parts of the monument, about the different attitude towards the Holy Scriptures, and the like?
b) The entire history of the text of the “Teaching”, presented by these hypotheses, is based on the assumption of revisions, expansions and additions to the original “Teaching of the Two Paths”, through which the current text of the monument in question was gradually obtained. But this work itself, “The Doctrine of the Two Ways,” and in particular the Jewish Catechism for Proselytes, hangs in the air.
There is no external evidence proving the historical presence of this kind of Jewish work, and they are not cited, and the parallels indicated in other Jewish works for the first chapters of Διδαχή are completely weakened in their strength and significance by the fact that parallels from the New Testament are put forward against them with greater thoroughness. Even if we exclude the section 1:3–11:1, which bears a generally recognized Christian imprint, then the rest of the first chapters presents undeniable traces of Christian origin.
Further, it is incredible that such Christian writers as the Apostle Barnabas, a sharp opponent of Judaism, as he appears in the Epistle known under his name, could rewrite a work composed either in a Jewish spirit or for the purposes of Jewish proselytism.
The same should be said about the author of Διδαχή, who allegedly accepted the work widespread among the Jews as a guide for Christians and even called it the teaching of the Apostles or the teaching of the Lord given through the Apostles.
c) The absence of the passage 1:3–2:1 in the original text of the “Teaching of the Two Paths” cannot be stated as an indisputable fact of textual critical studies. It is true that he is not in the Church Canons, in the Latin translation, in the Epistle of Barnabas, in the works attributed to St. Athanasius, and in the life of Abba Shenoudi; but, on the other hand, this passage is in the Apostolic Constitutions (7:2), in the Didascalia; in the “Shepherd” of Hermas the 5th and 6th verses of the first chapter are given (Mand. 2: 4–6). Consequently, the presence of the passage approaches the first times of the existence of the monument.
The most that can be deduced from the history of the “Teaching,” as it appears on the basis of a comparison of similar monuments of Ancient Christian writing, is only that the first part of the “Teaching,” or the description of the two paths, was already copied early and was in circulation as an independent work, very suitable for practical purposes (see the first hypothesis). But even in this case, it is still necessary to explain how the monument, the text of which we have in the Jerusalem manuscript, came about, and how the similarity arose between the various works, which, however, represent different editions of the doctrine of the two paths.
The basis for a satisfactory solution to this issue must be sought first of all in the very name of the monument: “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles,” or in more detail and more precisely: “The Teaching of the Lord through the 12 Apostles to the Nations.” This title clearly shows that the writer of the monument did not consider himself in the proper sense the author of its content: he sets himself the task only of expounding the well-known teaching of the 12 Apostles and thus suggests that the Apostolic teaching, based on the teaching of the Lord himself, was taught and disseminated in a certain form and was intended for preaching among the pagans. Therefore, it is necessary to decide whether the Christian teaching was really formulated in this way in the Apostolic period, and if so, then in what form and for what purpose.
These questions can only be answered tentatively, but not without reason. In the writings of the Apostles we find constant reference to the “doctrine of the Lord,” “the doctrine of the Apostles,” “the pattern or type of doctrine,” “dedicated doctrine,” “doctrine of godliness,” “sound doctrine,” “the first principles of the doctrine of Christ” (Acts 2:42; Rom. 6:17; 1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Tim. 14:3; 2 Tim. 2:1; 1 Cor. 3:15; These expressions lead to the conclusion that soon after the Ascension of the Lord, from His instructions and conversations in the circle of the Apostles, a firmly defined formula of the Apostolic teaching or catechism was formed, the content of which, already in Apostolic times, was to serve as the norm for missionaries in their preaching activities and, at the same time, was intended for the assimilation of all those turning to Christ and preparing for Baptism. The content of this catechism is especially clearly indicated by Heb.
6:1-2, where the Apostle writes: “having abandoned the beginnings of the teaching of Christ, let us hasten to perfection and will not again lay the foundation of conversion from dead works and faith in God, the teaching of baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead and the Eternal Judgment.”
This catechism was very widespread in Apostolic times: the Epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews confirm the use of the formula, which briefly sets out the essence of Christian teaching, in Rome; The letters to the Corinthians and Philippians give corresponding evidence for Corinth and the Philippians; The Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians and First Peter, as well as the writings of John the Theologian, testify to the Churches of Asia Minor. In a word, wherever there were Christians, the formula of Christian teaching was in use.
The very formation and dissemination of such a catechism seems completely natural. Apostolic preaching, both in its dogmatic and moralizing parts, was initially very limited in its subject and therefore its essence was soon to be established in a relatively fixed form. The apostles were not orators: they were men of the people; they did not strive and did not need to give their thoughts a varied expression. On the contrary, they were more inclined to present the essential parts of their sermon in one form.
That part of their teaching in which they repeated the Savior’s conversations necessarily became stereotypical. The story of His life, especially His suffering and Resurrection - a common theme of the Apostolic sermons - also took on the character of stable certainty.
The same thing should have happened with moral teaching. From here a certain type of sermon is developed, a pattern, which everyone must master so much as to be able to reproduce it accurately. For those preparing for Baptism, it necessarily receives the most condensed form so as to be accessible to everyone, and contains the sum of Christian teaching.
Believers tried to retain in their memory not only the thoughts, but also the words of the Apostles, and everyone, if necessary, on issues of faith and morality could use the expressions that one or another Apostle used in his sermon.
In the same way, the formula of faith formed in the Apostolic circle, which has such important practical significance for the catechumen of those preparing for Baptism and for missionaries devoting themselves to the evangelistic feat, was disseminated and with even greater diligence was assimilated and preserved with greater accuracy. But this did not in any way exclude the possibility of some differences in the particular content of the catechism and the verbal expression of individual provisions due to differences in place and time; and this is all the more possible since oral tradition has the character of some elasticity, and therefore differences in its editions are quite possible.
The above considerations make it possible, on the one hand, to explain the origin of Διδαχή, and on the other, to provide grounds for a satisfactory solution to the question regarding the various versions of the doctrine of the two paths, without resorting to the assumption of the basis of Διδαχή in the Jewish catechism.
The content of Διδαχή essentially coincides with the content of the “firstfruits of the teaching of Christ” (Heb. 6:1–2). Therefore, it can be assumed with a reasonable degree of probability that Διδαχή is a written reproduction of the Apostolic Catechism by a person who heard the instructions contained in it from the lips of the Apostles or was generally close to the Apostolic circle.
If all the material presented in Διδαχή was not combined into a single whole in the catechism, then the author of the monument fell to the work of combining individual fragments according to the plan outlined by the catechism and its purpose. It is impossible, of course, to assert that Διδαχή always literally reproduces the words of the Apostles and to attribute Apostolic authority to its teaching. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the form Διδαχή represented by the Jerusalem manuscript, as far as solid data is available, was the original written form of this work in its entirety. If we accept as proven that Διδαχή is the Apostolic Catechism itself, a type of Apostolic Sermon, then all the difficulties that arise when resolving the question of the reasons for the similarities and differences between the documents reproducing the teaching of the two paths are explained.
The oral dissemination of the Apostolic Catechism in the Churches of the East, Egypt and the West made it possible for the formation of several of its editions, which could be reproduced in various ancient documents, and there is nothing incredible in the assumption that the Διδαχή and the Apostolic Constitutions represent the Eastern edition, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Church Canons and the life of Abba Shenoudi - Alexandria, “Shepherd” and Latin translation - Western edition. Further, if Διδαχή is a composite work in its essence and purpose, even fragmentary, and its compiler is not in the proper sense the author of the passages that he introduced into his work, then it is not surprising that, having complete passages at his disposal, he connected them, without worrying that such a combination would not result in a strictly logical sequence in the development of thoughts.
This explains why the passage 1:3–2:3 seems to disrupt the logical flow and sequence of speech, and why the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist is spoken of twice (9–10, 14).
Finally, with this method of formation of the monument, it is easy to understand why adherents of the view of its Jewish origin discover many Hebraisms in it. The apostles were Jews, imbued with Jewish teachings and spoke the contemporary Jewish language.
Even when among the pagans they had to speak Greek, they continued to think in Hebrew, using images of Jewish speech. It is not surprising, therefore, that, having assimilated the teachings of Christ, in those cases when they did not literally repeat His sayings, they clothed their Christian thoughts in the forms of speech familiar to them from the sacred monuments of the Old Testament. Thus, the Hebraisms Διδαχή find a natural explanation.
I. 4. Time of writing the monument
No less important than the question of the sources of Διδαχή is the question of the time of its writing, since the determination of its Church-historical significance depends on one or another solution. The ancient imprint, primitive forms of organization, worship and discipline of the Church mark the monument as a document of the very first times of Christianity. But in the absence of not only direct, but even indirect chronological indications in it, attempts to more accurately establish the time of composition are resolved by significant disagreements among researchers: some attribute the time of its origin to the half of the 2nd century (Philotheus Bryennius - between 120 and 160 years, Adolphus Harnack - between 130-160 years); others (for example, Sabatier, Cornely) - by the half of the 1st century. Between these two extremes, almost all decades have their defenders.
Although the monument, both in name and in content, is a reproduction of the Apostolic teaching, however, in view of its practical purpose, it must necessarily reflect the features of Church life of the time when its content was enshrined in writing, which set a limit to further changes in it due to oral transmission. A comparison of the whole picture of Church relations and individual features of Church life - which Διδαχή presents to us with the data of the New Testament writings and works of post-Apostolic literature suggests that the monument reflects the very early state of the Church, when Church relations and practices had not yet been crystallized, had not yet entered into a solid framework.
The church organization bears all the signs of proximity to the Apostolic time, representing a combination of the leadership activities of the Apostles, prophets, teachers, bishops and deacons. At the same time, a precise distinction has not yet been made between the duties and powers of bishops and deacons. Διδαχή describes the most primitive liturgy, very simple, with rituals that have not yet been developed and makes no allusions either to the Gnostic movement or to the persecution of Christians; in the speech about the prophets one does not hear even a hint of Montanistic prophecy. In general, the entire structure of Church life according to Διδαχή seems more primitive than that which is reflected even in the Epistles of Ignatius the God-Bearer and Clement of Rome. All this makes us attribute the composition of Διδαχή to a time earlier than the end of the 1st century.
On the other hand, the traces of regulation contained in Διδαχή regarding the celebration of Sunday and the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist on this day, fasting on Wednesday and Friday, the need for the faithful to pray the Lord's Prayer with doxology three times a day, warnings against false prophets and Apostles - show that the monument in its instructions represents the combination of the freedom of Church life in the age of the Apostles with the beginning of Church formulation and disciplinary regulation, which undoubtedly marks the time closest to the Apostles.
It is therefore impossible to push the origin of the monument too close to the beginning of Christianity: the 70th or, more probably, the 80th year may be indicated as the extreme limit. Since the development of institutions did not take place simultaneously in different parts of the Christian world, it is impossible to establish a more specific date for the emergence of Διδαχή than the interval between the 70-80s and the 100s.
I. 5. Place of origin Διδαχή
Regarding the place of origin of Διδαχή, it is only permissible to make assumptions, since the monument does not have a clearly expressed local coloring. How generally shaky and uncertain the grounds for resolving this issue are can be seen from the fact that the birthplace of the monument is called Egypt, Syria or, more specifically, Antioch, Palestine or Jerusalem, Pella, Asia Minor, Greece and, finally, Rome. However, most researchers speak out for Syria-Palestine on the grounds that the Eucharistic Prayer speaks of bread that was scattered over the hills (9:4: ἐπάνω τω ν ὀρέων) - a clear indication of the origin of the monument in a mountainous country; and also in the 13th chapter it is commanded to give the prophets the first fruits from the products of the winepress and the threshing floor, oxen and sheep, wine and oil, which suggests the main occupation of local Christians in agriculture and cattle breeding; They also note the instructions of Διδαχή on the fasts and prayers of the hypocrites, that is, the Pharisees.
We must, of course, agree that all these arguments are rather weak and vague; but still, it is more likely to think that the historical assumptions for the monument most likely could have been given in Syria or, more specifically, Palestine. This to some extent weakens the already shaky arguments in favor of Egypt, which are based on the fact that the witnesses about Διδαχή are mainly Alexandrians - as if the work is read only where it happened, and as if it is unnatural that the information comes from Alexandria, which has long been the center of Christian enlightenment. Of even less evidentiary force is the reference to an unestablished relationship between Διδαχή and the Epistle of Barnabas, the place of origin of which is considered to be Alexandria, as well as to the very dubious fact of the initial spread of the “Teaching of the Two Ways” in Egypt.
I. 6. The relationship of Διδαχή to the Holy Scriptures and the characteristics of the monument from the point of view of language and the general tone of presentation
Among the works of Ancient Christian literature known to us, there is no other monument that, with such high originality in the arrangement of material and form, would reveal the same closeness to the text of the New Testament writing: it contains textual and literal quotations - except for the Lord's Prayer, many verses of the Holy Scripture are given without changes; but more often quotations are introduced during the speech with all the modifications necessary to conform them to the sequence of thoughts of the author, and sometimes different passages of the Sacred Text are combined without any indication that they are taken from different chapters or even from different books.
In other cases it is difficult to recognize the quotation, or at least one has to assume that the author was either unconsciously inspired by the sacred text, or simply quoted from memory, without noticing the changes in the text or meaning that he made to them. But this kind of coincidence with the Sacred text can most easily be explained by the history of the origin of the monument that we have accepted.
In view of this, the language and vocabulary of Διδαχή differs little from the language of the New Testament writings and in particular the Gospel of Matthew: the words are Greek, but the style is Hebrew, and in this respect Διδαχή is in many ways reminiscent of the language of the LXX in the poetic Old Testament writings, as well as the language of the Old Testament apocrypha. The style is simple, clear and concise.
One of the important advantages of the monument is that its tone is very modest, standing in sharp contrast to the exaggerated claims of other similar manuals (Apostolic Didascalia, Church Canons, Apostolic Constitutions). Here the spirit of sincerity, simplicity and deep piety is found everywhere. The author diligently reproduces the teaching of the Apostles on the basis of the data at his disposal, and he completed his task with success, at least in the sense that he did not introduce his personal fabrications into the work, did not mix anything individual into the stated teaching and did not touch on a single point in which his personal convictions, so to speak, of a party-religious nature could involuntarily be revealed.
In his work, the author of Διδαχή did not even provide definite data regarding whether he was a Christian from the Jews or from the pagans. Therefore, it can be considered a manifestation of extreme subjectivism when researchers raise the question of the theological point of view of the author and attribute to him all trends and shades in Christian circles of the first two centuries, even mutually exclusive ones (moderate Judeo-Christianity, anti-Paulinism and Sadduceeism, heresy and anti-Christianity, Evionism, anti-Evionism, Hellenistic Christianity, Montanism, anti-Montanism, anti-Gnosticism, Monarchianism). There is no doubt that the monument itself is alien to the tendencies attributed to it.
I. 7. Historical, canonical and liturgical meaning of Διδαχή
The content of Διδαχή is of the highest importance for the history of Christian morality and dogma, Church cult, discipline and Church organization; especially from the 7th chapter to the end, each passage is a testimony of the first rank, partly the only one for those facts about which it reports: about Baptism, fasting, prayer, the Eucharist, the ministry of the word, the celebration of Sunday, hierarchy, repentance.
Although the dogmatic teaching did not find independent expression in Διδαχή, so that even in the first part, intended for the instruction of those preparing for Baptism, there is not at least a brief confession of faith; however, it is indisputable that dogmatic provisions form the basis of the work from its first lines to its last: the author assumes, as a generally accepted doctrine, that God is in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (7:2). The Father is the Creator, the Almighty Ruler, the Almighty (10:3), the Giver of all good gifts, spiritual and temporal (1:5; 10:3); He is the Holy One (10:1), the Righteous Judge (4:10), the Ground of our hope (4:10), the Author of our salvation and to Him our prayers are directed (9:10), without Him nothing happens in the world (3:10), and to Him belongs eternal glory through our Lord Jesus Christ (8:2; 9:4; 10:4). Jesus is our Lord and our Savior (10:2), the Servant of God, the God of David (9:2; 10:6); through Him were given from God eternal life and knowledge, faith and immortality (9:3; 10:2); He is the head of the Church, is spiritually present in It, and will apparently come to Earth on the Day of Judgment (16:1, 7, 8).
The Holy Spirit is God with the Father and the Son (7:2–3); He prepares people to call on God (4:10); He spoke through the prophets - sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven (10:7).
What is remarkable in Διδαχή, however, is the unrevealed teaching about the Church; it is based on the idea of catholicity (although the term “catholic” is not used) and the unity of the Church. In all parts of the world the Church has its members; but scattered so widely, She forms one - the Church of God: “just as this broken bread was scattered (in grains) on the hills and, being gathered, became one, so may Your Church be united from the ends of the Earth into Your Kingdom” (9:4). This unity finds special expression in the Eucharist, where many are united into one through the communion of one consecrated bread; this unity will reach perfection in the Kingdom of God, which is the ultimate goal of the Church.
When this consummation has been achieved, then all those throughout the world who have been “baptized in the name of the Lord” and have been faithful to their profession will be gathered together into the Kingdom of God. The Church must grow in holiness to the degree of perfection, which is achieved through the struggle against all evil and perfection in Divine love. When the process of sanctification is completed, She will be gathered into the eternal spiritual Kingdom, the Kingdom of the Father. This Kingdom exists for the Church, since God prepared it for the Church: “Remember, O Lord, Thy Church, deliver Her from all evil and perfect Her in Thy love and gather Her from the four winds, sanctified into Thy Kingdom, which Thou hast prepared for Her” (10:5).
It is also necessary to note the importance that Διδαχή gives to the Apostolic Tradition. The very title of the monument, the entire nature of the presentation of instructions in it, is proof of the importance that the Apostolic teaching enjoyed at the time of its origin: The Apostolic teaching is the banner of truth, with which the Church must always conform. The voice of the 12 Apostles fell silent, but the Church continued to abide in the “teaching of the Apostles,” as in the first days of its existence (Acts 2:42); both in teaching and in Church practice She relied on Apostolic succession.
Thus, from the very beginning of its existence, the Church appealed to tradition: “keep what you have received, neither adding nor subtracting” (4:13).
The author of Διδαχή begins his speech on Church institutions with the sacrament of Baptism, which must be performed after a preliminary announcement - material for it is given in the first six chapters (7:1); in addition, Baptism must be preceded by fasting of the baptizer, the baptized and, if possible, other members of the Christian community. Baptism is performed “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” - however, in the 9th chapter the author speaks of those who are baptized εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου (in the name of the Lord).
Preference is given to living, flowing water, that is, water in a source or in a river; if there is no living water, then you can baptize “in other water,” that is, in a lake, pond, or generally in any body of water. Here one can see a definite indication of the custom of the primacy of the Church to perform Baptism in a river or in other natural bodies of water. This water is cold; but warm is also allowed. The normal way of performing the sacrament is immersion; in those cases when there is no running or other water in sufficient quantity for immersion, pouring water three times on the head of the person being baptized is allowed (7). Fasting is commanded on Wednesday and Friday, in contrast to the “hypocrites” who fast on Monday and Thursday (8:1). It is prescribed to read the Lord's Prayer three times a day (8:2, 3).
The instructions regarding the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist are set out in two places Διδαχή - in chapters 9 - 10 and 14; but they are presented in a form that does not make it possible to accurately and confidently establish the meaning of the sections of the monument dedicated to them, which explains the disagreement in understanding them and determining their meaning for the history of the Liturgy.
As for chapter 14, the meaning of what is described in it does not raise doubts: the author Διδαχή orders to organize the same meetings (compare Acts 2:46; 20:7, 11; 1 Cor. 10:16), which Saint Justin speaks about in detail at the end of the first apology (67), where the oldest about the strange and very definite description of the liturgical meeting of the faithful to celebrate sacraments of the Eucharist. The meeting, according to the prescription of Διδαχή, should take place “on the day of the Lord”; open with confession of sins; the purpose of the meeting is the breaking of bread, which is called “sacrifice” - its purity should not be desecrated by unconfessed sins and enmity towards neighbors. But in the 14th chapter there is no description of how the Eucharist was celebrated: not even a mention of wine or cup is added to the general designation “breaking of bread”.
The situation is different with the prayers set out in chapters 9 and 10. Here are given examples of three prayers that should be said during the celebration of the “Eucharist”; two of them are pronounced over the cup and over the broken bread, and the third “after saturation.” Several theories have been expressed regarding their content, nature and purpose, the essence of which boils down to the fact that in the 9th and 10th chapters of Διδαχή one cannot see instructions regarding the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist: the author describes an ordinary supper that has no liturgical significance. In support of this view, they usually point to the analogy of these prayers with those prayers with which Jews consecrated their meals and to the absence of signs of a Eucharistic purpose in them. However, the analogy of the Διδαχή prayers with the prayers for the blessing of Jewish meals cannot serve as absolute evidence against the Eucharistic nature of the prayers. The Lord Jesus Christ himself observed Jewish table customs - he pronounced formulas of blessing, broke and distributed bread (cf. Matt. 14:19; 15:36; Luke 24:30).
The Last Supper was ritually the Jewish Passover Supper. The Apostles and leading Christians followed the example of the Savior: they performed the “breaking of bread” according to the ritual of the ordinary or Saturday supper; the celebration of the Eucharist was added to the end of it - it formed a single, inseparable whole with the supper, and all this was called the “Lord’s Supper.”
A detailed description of such a supper is given in 1 Cor. 11:17–34. In view of the undoubted genetic connection between the rituals of the Jewish supper and the Christian “Lord’s Supper,” both the texts of the prayers of both were similar in form and partly in content: the first Christians were Jews, which is why it is natural that they transferred the use of their traditional prayers to the suppers that they celebrated in Christian society and which were connected with the Eucharist. This ritual and the nature of the prayers of the “Lord’s Supper,” which allows them to be connected with the Jewish suppers, were initially introduced in the Jerusalem community, and then spread throughout the Church, but were mainly preserved in the East, where, undoubtedly, the monument in question originated.
There is no reason to think that already in the very first days of the existence of the Christian Church there was a complete separation between the Eucharist and the “Suppers”, and the Corinthians, undoubtedly, were not alone in combining the Eucharist with meals (1 Cor. 11:17-34).
But even if we assume that suppers and the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist ceased to be connected in the earliest times of the life of the Church, then even in this case it is appropriate not only to assume, but even to assert that the prayers and ritual blessings of Jewish meals, especially the blessings of the Sabbath meal and the Easter supper, inspired improvisers who said prayers during the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Therefore, in essence, there is no obstacle to recognizing the prayers of the “Teaching” as Eucharistic, despite their relationship with prayers during religious meals among Jews. The Eucharistic character of the prayers under consideration is clearly visible from the fact that the “Eucharist” being celebrated is called a shrine, which should not be given to dogs, why “let no one eat or drink from your Eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord” (9:5); further, the blessed ingredients are called spiritual food and drink and eternal life through the Servant of God (10:3) - through them the knowledge, faith and immortality that God revealed to us through Jesus His Servant (10:2) is instilled in the hearts of the faithful. They pay attention to the remarkable coincidence of many concepts and expressions of the prayers of the 9th and 10th chapters with many places in the Gospel of John, and especially in the 6th, 15th and 16th chapters: the author of the “Teaching” seems to live in the atmosphere of thoughts and feelings that surrounds the Evangelist John.
Such a close connection presupposes identity in the understanding of both writers regarding spiritual food and drink, and in the Apostle John it has an undoubted Eucharistic character.
Finally, the Eucharistic meaning of the prayers in the 9th and 10th chapters of the “Teaching” was indisputable in the Ancient Christian tradition: in the Apostolic Constitutions these prayers were used, with appropriate processing, and all changes are aimed at giving more prominence to the Eucharistic teaching, which in the interval between the compilation of both works received more accuracy, but all amendments are carried out in the logical line of the original formulas (Apostolic Constitutions, 7:25, 26).
The prayers of the 9th and 10th chapters do not provide a complete description of the rites of the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and the vagueness of the expressions does not allow us to say with certainty at what moment these prayers were said, why there were three of them, and how the prayers of the 9th chapter relate to the prayer set out in the 10th chapter. Based on the analysis of all three prayers, three provisions are established:
a) The end of the 10th chapter: “if anyone is holy, let him come, and if not, let him repent” - shows with all clarity that only at this moment, after the prayer of the 10th chapter, the teaching of the Eucharistic gifts to the faithful took place;
b) The prayers of the 9th chapter also relate to the Eucharist, but it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that here the prayer is first said over the cup, and then over the bread, while in the 10th chapter it speaks of “food and drink”;
c) The expression at the beginning of the 10th chapter: “after saturation”, in view of the above words from the end of the 10th chapter and the entire content of the prayer of this chapter, cannot be understood in a spiritual sense in relation to the reception of spiritual food in the Eucharist: it indicates an actual supper.
According to all this data, in the 9th and 10th chapters of the “Teaching” one should see a description of the “Lord’s Supper”, with which the Eucharist was connected; its order is presented in this form: first, a meal was served, during which the prayers set out in the 9th chapter were said - the first over the cup, as in the prayers of the Easter Supper or in the prayers of the Sabbath meal, related to them in content, and the second over the broken bread - followed by the actual meal.
Since the Eucharist was to be celebrated after it, these prayers already reflect the character of the entire “Lord’s Supper.” Only after the meal (“after satiety”) was the Eucharistic prayer proper (10) pronounced, followed by the acceptance of the Eucharistic gifts: “if anyone is holy, let him come...” The data contained in the “Teaching” regarding the celebration of the Eucharist show that at that time there were no precisely defined Eucharistic formulas: a topic was given, on which the celebrant of the sacrament pronounced an improvisation. However, there is already a clear desire to limit the freedom of Christians in the public expression of their feelings - the “Doctrine” reveals the intention to enclose it in a formula, and only the prophets are allowed to say thanksgiving as much as they wish (10:7).
The “Teaching” mentions confession of sins twice: “confess your sins in the Church and do not approach prayer with a bad conscience” (4:14); “On the day of the Lord, having gathered together, break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure” (14:1).
Confession of sins, as can be concluded from the above words, was performed in a general meeting of the faithful (in the Church) and was considered as a necessary condition for a good conscience and purity of soul in accordance with the purity of the sacrifice. But the monument does not give any instructions regarding the method of confessing sins, and on the texts cited one cannot build any theories regarding the forms of repentance in the ancient Church.
The 11th, 13th and 15th chapters of the “Teaching” are of extremely important Church-historical significance, which, more than all other sections of it, transfer the reader’s thoughts to the conditions of life of the Church of the Apostolic time. In these chapters, the author of the monument talks about ministries in the Church. The monument distinguishes five categories of persons performing Church ministry: Apostles, prophets, teachers, bishops and deacons.
The first three types of ministry represent the ministry of the word, which, as can be seen from Διδαχή, enjoyed special honor in ancient Christian society: already in the first part of the monument, the author commands day and night to remember the one preaching the word of God and to honor him as the Lord (4:1).
The first place among the ministries of the word is occupied by the Apostles. A distinctive feature of these preachers is that they must be itinerant: they move from one community to another, establishing believers, acquiring new members to the Church, founding and organizing communities. The apostles, in their ministry, do not belong to any private Church and do not perform any duties of actual management. They serve as a living connection between local Churches, making up for what they lacked due to the lack of a specific organization of general management. The apostles must be received as Lord (11:4), but they must remain in the community no more than one or two days (11:5) and, when leaving, they must not take anything except bread, in an amount sufficient to feed them until the next stop.
The prophets were, apparently, the most numerous among the wandering ministers of the word. They were the owners of a special personal gift - prophetic inspiration: they spoke and taught in the Spirit (11:7, 8), and differed from the wandering Apostles not only in their spiritual talent, but also in the functions they performed: they were not intended, like the Apostles, for missionary work, but were preachers in already existing Christian communities, so the prophets were allowed to remain in a known Christian community for a long stay.
In the spirit, in an ecstatic state, the prophets edified, exhorted, consoled, and revealed secrets. Their spiritual talent gave them such high respect and authority in Christian communities that they are called the high priests of Christians and are thus likened to the high priests of the Old Testament. The faithful were committed to feeding the prophets and giving them firstfruits of every kind. If a prophet has already been tested and recognized as true, then he should not be tested and judged again, even if he commits acts whose meaning and purpose the believers do not comprehend.
Without bearing management responsibilities, they nevertheless took some part in the Divine service: their special advantage was the utterance of thanksgiving during the celebration of the Eucharist. In consideration of the superiority of their spiritual gifts, they were given special freedom: they were allowed to give thanks as much as they wanted, so liturgical forms were not obligatory for them. The prophets were the ideal of ministry to which bishops and deacons were to conform.
The duty of teachers was to increase truth and knowledge. It is rather difficult to define in detail the ministry of teachers; undoubtedly they had a knowledge of Christian doctrine and the ability to teach and defend it. Unlike the prophets, the teachers did not speak in the spirit: their knowledge was acquired, their speech was prepared. Teachers were to be tested (11:1, 2; 13:2).
The “Teaching” testifies that in connection with the beneficial ministry of the Apostles, prophets and teachers for the Church and on the basis of general respect for them, serious dangers also emerged that threatened the believers with significant disasters: there appeared in large numbers persons who wanted to enjoy the trust of Christians and, bypassing Christian communities, destroyed the moral foundations of life and, as one might assume, distorted some of the dogmatic and ritual institutions of the Church.
But the false prophets especially abused the hospitality of Christians, prescribing meals in the spirit for the poor, who themselves ate, sometimes even demanded money “in the spirit,” stayed for a long time in the communities, ate at their expense and did not want to do anything. Why has a skeptical attitude toward the Apostles and prophets in general become apparent in Christian society? Although the Apostles, prophets and teachers enjoyed great authority in the communities, they did not possess any administrative powers or administrative power: their ministry was extraordinary, just as its foundations were exceptional. Administrative rights and responsibilities belonged to another group of “honored men” - bishops and deacons. The latter occupy the position of permanent officials for service in the local Church, in contrast to the general and temporary leadership sent by the Apostles, Prophets and Teachers. The Doctrine gives very little information about the appointment and duties of bishops and deacons.
Bishops and deacons are ordered to be appointed “men worthy of the Lord, meek and not lovers of money, and true and proven.” The author urges the faithful not to despise them, but to honor them along with the prophets and teachers. Obviously, with the abundance of grace-filled gifts in the primal Church, some of the faithful were inclined to humiliate bishops and deacons in comparison with prophets and teachers, in whom they saw a clearer manifestation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And the author of the “Teaching” himself, defending their right to respect, assigns them a secondary position: bishops and deacons perform the ministry of prophets and teachers and should be revered together with prophets and teachers.
No matter how brief the instructions of the “Teaching” are, based on them it is possible to outline the circle of activities of bishops and deacons. The monument places the order for the installation of bishops and deacons in close connection with the previous instructions about gatherings on the Lord's Day, breaking bread and thanksgiving, confessing sins so that the sacrifice may be pure. This connection leads to the only possible conclusion that bishops and deacons were elected so that the Eucharist could be celebrated correctly, in an established manner - therefore, they were, first of all, performers of the Divine service. To offer a pure sacrifice, it is necessary that believers, before breaking bread and giving thanks, confess their sins and make peace with those at war; This means that bishops and deacons, according to the author of the “Teaching,” must not only celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist and observe the external order during Divine services, but also pay attention to the moral state of the members of the community.
If confession of sins and love of peace are necessary for the purity of the sacrifice, then the performers of the sacrament are obliged and have the right to address the faithful with exhortations and warnings in order to encourage confession of sins and reconciliation. Thus, they also have pastoral care for the faithful, which includes the ministry of prophets and teachers, and the “Teaching” directly indicates that bishops and deacons fulfill the ministry of prophets and teachers, that is, they pray with the believers, teach, edify, proclaim the word of truth, increase the truth and knowledge of the Lord.
Finally, the qualities with which those elected must be distinguished, especially the requirement that they not be lovers of money, give reason to conclude that bishops and deacons also belonged to the administration of the Church along with the management of the economic part - the offerings of the faithful, care for the poor, and so on.
There is absolutely no mention of presbyters in the monument and no instructions are given regarding the distribution of responsibilities between bishops and deacons. Διδαχή ends in chapter 16 with eschatological teaching; it reproduces almost all the details of the weather forecasters and the Apostle Paul: the uncertainty of the hour of the Coming of the Lord (1:2); signs of the coming (3:4); the appearance of the Redeemer of the world as the Son of God (4); temptation of many (5); signs of the appearance and resurrection of the dead (6), but not all, but only the saints (7), and, finally, the appearance of the Lord on the clouds of heaven (8).
II. Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas
In former times, the Epistle of Barnabas was placed at the head of the works of post-apostolic literature, considering it in close connection with the Apostolic period. But in the latest research, the question of its origin has received such a sharp formulation that it is considered absolutely impossible to talk about its belonging to the Apostle Barnabas; and at the same time, in terms of the time of its origin, it is pushed back by several decades to the end of the 1st or even the first half of the 2nd century and, thus losing its significance, must give way to other, more ancient monuments. In view of this historical and literary position of the Epistle, its study necessarily takes on the character of a revision of its case in order to come to the most objective conclusions and obtain solid grounds for judging its meaning.
The text of the Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas is preserved in its entirety in two Greek manuscripts:
a) The oldest and more important is known under the name Codex Sinaiticus - Greek manuscript of the Bible of the 4th century (currently in the St. Petersburg Imperial Public Library); in addition to biblical books, it contains the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the “Shepherd” of Hermas.
b) Cod. Hierosolymitanus (Constantinopolitanus) - in it and Διδαχή - The Epistle is placed between the Synopsis of the Old and New Testaments of John Chrysostom and the Epistle of Clement of Rome. The text deviates from the text in Cod in many ways. Sinait. In addition, this Epistle contains eight later (XI-XVII centuries) Greek manuscripts, in which it is placed after the Epistle of Polycarp, but in such a way that after the words of the 9th chapter of the Epistle of Polycarp καì δι ’ ἠ μ ᾶ ς ὑπò the end of this Epistle and the beginning of the Epistle of Barnabas are omitted until the words of the 5th chapter: the connection was made without interruption and without coordination. Obviously, all these eight manuscripts represent copies (direct or indirect) of the same manuscript, in which the leaves containing the end of the Epistle of Polycarp and the beginning of the Epistle of Barnabas were lost.
A further source for establishing the text of the Epistle is the Latin translation, the time of origin of which is not precisely established, but it is believed that it arose no later than the end of the 7th century. This translation is known from a manuscript stored in the St. Petersburg Imperial Public Library; it does not contain the full text of the Epistle - chapters 1–17 with dogmatic corrections in comparison with the original.
II. 1. Contents of the Message
The epistle resolves the great controversial issue about the relationship of Christianity to the Jewish law: the author wants to show that Judaism has been abolished by the saving work of the Lord, which was pointed out from the beginning by the Old Testament prophets and which is signified by the tearing in two of the veil in the Holy of Holies. The Epistle has 21 chapters. With the exception of the Introduction (1) and conclusion (21), the Epistle is divided into two unequal parts, of which the first (2–17) is dogmatic, the second (18–20) is moral.
After the greeting, the author expresses joy about the great gifts that readers have received from the Lord: “Truly I see that the Spirit has been poured out on you from the wonderful source of the Divine; I am convinced of this and completely know that since I have been dealing with you, I have acquired many benefits on the path of the Lord’s salvation.”
He usually tried to share with them what he himself received, and now he hastens to write a few words to them, so that along with faith they would have perfect knowledge. “Not as a teacher, but as an equal with you, I will explain to you a little, from which your joy will greatly increase” (1). Then, throughout the first part (2-17), the author tries to clarify for readers the essence and meaning of the Old Testament and, thus, contribute to a deeper understanding of Christianity.
To prove that Judaism has only a service relationship to Christianity, everywhere in his Epistle he uses an allegorical, allegorical way of interpreting the Old Testament: in all the ritual decrees of the Mosaic Law he sees a spiritual, mysterious meaning, a higher spiritual knowledge that points to the times of the Messiah and the New Testament Church.
Since the particulars of the content of the Message and the very nature of the presentation are of significant importance in resolving the question of the origin of the Message, this implies the need for a detailed presentation of this content - in the most important places in the words of the author himself. “So these days are hostile, and the enemy has power over this age, then we must carefully examine the justifications of the Lord. The helpers of our faith are the fear of God and patience, and our supporters are generosity and self-control. With them, when they are pure before the Lord, wisdom and knowledge enter into a joyful union.”
God has revealed through all the prophets that He has no need of burnt offerings, sacrifices, or offerings. A sacrifice to God is a contrite heart. Therefore, we must more accurately examine what pertains to our salvation, so that one day the evil one does not gain access to us and turn us away from our life (2).
In the same way, the Lord says about fasting: “Why do you fast for Me, so that your voice may now be heard with a cry? “I have not chosen such a fast,” says the Lord, “for a person to languish his soul for no reason... “But He says to us: when you fast, destroy every covenant of unrighteousness and tear apart every unrighteous record, release those who are tormented to freedom. Break your bread to the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; if you see the naked, clothe him, and do not despise those who are like-minded.”... God determined for the people whom He had won for His Beloved to believe in simplicity and had already admonished us all not to turn, like the proselytes, to the Jewish law (3). So, we must carefully examine what can save us. The final temptation has come.
The Lord shortened the times and days so that the Beloved would hasten by His Coming to His inheritance. Daniel's prophecy about the little king who will overthrow three kings at once, and about the short horn who knocked out three horns from among the ten great horns is being fulfilled. “We must understand this,” the writer adds. “Also, as your brother, who loves everyone more than his own soul, I ask you to be attentive to yourself and not to be like those who multiply their sins and say that the covenant of those (that is, the Jews) is also ours.” “Of course, ours, but those (the Jews) lost it completely when Moses already received it.”
Having briefly outlined how Moses broke the stone tablets on which the Covenant was written by the hand of God, the writer of the Epistle continues: “So the Covenant was broken, so that the Covenant of the Beloved Jesus was imprinted on our hearts in the hope of faith in Him.”
But attention to the last days must be combined with hatred of unrighteousness and turning away from the works of the evil way. The Lord judges the world impartially: everyone will receive a reward according to their deeds. In support of his exhortation, the writer invites readers to remember how many signs and wondrous phenomena they saw among the Jewish people, and the Lord left them like that (4).
Next, the author talks about the incarnation and death of Christ on the cross. For this reason, the Lord gave His Body to death, so that we might receive forgiveness of sins through the sprinkling of His blood.
The prophets who received the gift from Him prophesied about Him. And since, in order to abolish death and show the resurrection from the dead, He had to appear in the flesh, He underwent this in order to fulfill the promise given to the fathers... He revealed Himself to be the Son of God. And if He had not come in the flesh, then how could people remain alive, looking at Him, when those who look at the Sun, which has no time to be destroyed - at the work of His hands - cannot directly look at its rays? The Son of God came in the flesh for this purpose, to complete the full measure of the sins of those who persecuted His prophets even to death. That is why He suffered. He Himself wanted to suffer in a certain way, since He had to suffer on the tree (5).
The suffering of Christ and the New Testament founded by Him were foretold by the prophets. Having fulfilled what was entrusted to Him, the Lord renewed us with the remission of sins, gave us a new image, so that we have an infant soul, as if recreated spiritually; at the end of time He accomplished the second creation in us: we are recreated. Therefore, we must believe and hope in Christ, who appeared in the flesh and dwelt among us (6). The good Lord revealed everything to us in advance, so that we would know whom we should thank and glorify for everything. If the Son of God - the Lord, who has to judge the living and the dead, suffered so that His wound would revive us, then we will believe that the Son of God could not suffer, except for us.
The scapegoat is a type of Jesus, who had to suffer (7). The sacrifice of the red heifer also prefigured Christ. The calf is Jesus, the sinful men who offer him are the ones who subjected him to death. The youths who perform the sprinkling are evangelists, proclaiming to us the remission of sins and the cleansing of the heart, to whom He gave the authority to preach the Gospel. Having indicated the significance of other details in the rituals associated with the sacrifice of the red heifer, the author says: “all this is clear to us, but to the Jews it is dark, because they did not listen to the voice of the Lord” (8).
The prophets also clearly taught what kind of circumcision was pleasing to God. The Lord has circumcised our ears so that we would hear His word and believe. And circumcision, which the Jews hoped for, was canceled; for He commanded non-physical circumcision, but they transgressed (His commandment), because the evil angel deceived them. “But you will say that the people (Jewish) are circumcised for the sealing (of the covenant). But every Syrian and Arabian and every priest of idols is circumcised: do they really also belong to the covenant (of God)? The Egyptians are also circumcised." Abraham, who first introduced circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, circumcised by accepting the doctrine of the three letters. The Scripture says: Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men from his house. What knowledge was given to him in this?
Please note that first he says ten and eight, and after making a division, three hundred. Ten and eight (depicted): iota - ten, ita - eight - you have Jesus, and since the cross in (the letter) “tav” was supposed to indicate grace, he says: and three hundred. So, in two letters it shows Jesus, and in one – the cross. He who placed in us the constant gift of His teaching knows this (9).
The law about food must also be understood in a spiritual sense, because it is in this sense that Moses speaks when setting out the commandments of the Lord. “So, speaking about the pig, he seemed to say this: do not cleave to those people who are like pigs. For they, living in pleasures, forget their Lord, and suffering shortcomings, they come to know Him; Likewise, when a pig eats, it does not know its owner, and when it suffers from hunger, it screams, but once it has received it, it becomes silent again.
“Do not eat,” it is said, “neither eagle, nor hawk, nor kite, nor raven, that is, do not cleave to such people who do not know how to get food for themselves through labor and sweat, but steal other people’s property with impunity, and, walking, apparently with simplicity, build forges; so those birds, sitting inactive, look for an opportunity to devour someone else’s flesh, and with their cunning they cause death.”
Further, the author explains why eating loach, polyp, cuttlefish, hare, hyena, and polecat is prohibited. So,” he continues, “Moses, speaking about hawks, uttered three commandments of spiritual meaning; the Jews, driven by the lust of the flesh, accepted them as if they were talking about ordinary dishes.” David also comprehended this mysterious meaning. Having explained in a spiritual sense the commandments about eating animals that have cloven hooves and regurgitate the cud, the writer of the Epistle exclaims: “Look what wonderful laws Moses gave.”
But how can the Jews understand and understand this? And we, correctly understanding the commandments, speak as the Lord pleases. He circumcised our ears and hearts so that we might understand this (10).
The Water of Baptism and the cross of Christ were foreshadowed in the Old Testament; to confirm this, the author cites many prophecies. From them it is clear that we go down into the water full of sins and uncleanness, and rise from it with gain - with fear in our hearts and with hope in Jesus in our spirit (11).
In the same way, the Lord points to the cross, especially in the position of the hands of Moses during the battle of the Israelites with the Amalekites and in the hanging of the copper serpent in the desert. From the first fact, the Jews had to deduce that they could not be saved if they did not trust in the Cross, and regarding the second, the writer notes: “you see here the glory of Jesus, for all things are in Him and for Him.” Also, the renaming of Joshua depicts Jesus Christ, the son of God, “Who was revealed in type and in the flesh” (12). “But let’s see,” says the writer, “whether this people or the first (that is, Christians or Jews) is the heir, and whether God’s covenant applies to us or to them.”
Already in the Old Testament (in the Lord’s prediction to Rebecca about the fate of her two sons and in Jacob’s blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh) it was announced that the Divine covenant belongs to Christians, not Jews. “What God says to Abraham, when faith was counted to him as righteousness: “Behold, I have made you the father of nations who believe in the Lord without circumcision of the foreskin” (13).
God gave the people of Judah a covenant, which he swore to the fathers, but because of their sins they were unworthy to accept it. “Find out how we have received” (the covenant). Moses accepted him as a servant, and the Lord Himself gave us the right to be a people of inheritance, having suffered for us. He appeared so that the measure of their sins (that is, the Jews) would be fulfilled, and we, having become heirs through Him, received the covenant of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was destined so that, having appeared (on Earth) and redeemed our hearts from darkness, consumed by death and betrayed by unrighteousness and error, in a word he would establish a covenant with us (14).
The mysterious meaning must also be seen in the commandment about the Sabbath. “Notice, children, what it means: finished in six days. This means that the Lord will end everything in six thousand years, for with Him a day is equal to a thousand years.”... So, children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, everything will end. “And he rested on the Sabbath day.” This means that when His Son comes and destroys the time of the wicked; will carry out Judgment on the wicked, change the Sun, Moon and stars, then He will rest perfectly on the Seventh Day.”
Since the Decalogue says: “Sanctify the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart,” it would be a mistake to believe that, without having a heart that is pure in everything, one can sanctify the day that the Lord sanctified; therefore, only then can we calm down and sanctify it when we are able to do what is righteous, having received the promise, when there is no more lawlessness, and everything becomes new through the Lord. Then we will be able to sanctify that day by sanctifying ourselves in advance. The seventh day, or millennium, which will end the present age, will be followed by the Eighth day, or the beginning of the New World. “That is why we spend the Eighth Day in joy, on which Jesus also rose from the dead and appeared and ascended into Heaven” (chapter 15).
“I will also tell you about the temple, how they (that is, the Jews), poor in their deception, trusted in the building, and not in their God and the One who created them, as if it really were the house of God; for they worshiped him almost like pagans in the temple.”
“Know that their hope in the church is vain.” God says: “those who destroy the church are the same who will build it. This is now happening. For because they constantly fight, their church was destroyed by their enemies, and now the subjects of their enemies will restore it.” This betrayal of the city, the church and the people of Israel into the hands of the enemies was also announced in advance. But, after the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, is there a church of God? – asks the author. “It exists where the Lord Himself wants to create and arrange it.” “And how it will be created in the name of the Lord, find out.
Before we believed in God, the dwelling of our hearts was weak and subject to destruction, like truly a church built by hand, because it was full of idolatry and was the dwelling of demons, because we did what was contrary to God. It will be created in the name of the Lord; see that the church of the Lord is built gloriously. Learn how. Having received remission of sins and trusting in the name of the Lord, we became new, created again from the beginning; Why does God truly dwell in us in our abode? How? His word of faith, His call of promises, the wisdom of justifications, the commandments of teachings, Himself prophesying in us, Himself dwelling in us, opening to us, slaves of death, the door of the church, that is, the mouth, giving us repentance and leading us into the imperishable church.
Therefore, he who wants to be saved does not look at man, but at him who lives and speaks in him... This is a spiritual church being built for the Lord (chapter 16). Having stated all this, the author hopes that he explained as much as he could and as simply as he could and did not omit anything that serves to save the readers. He will not write about the future, because they will not understand: it is hidden (chapter 16).
In the moralizing part, the writer sets forth a different kind of knowledge and teaching. “Two paths of teaching and power, the path of light and the path of darkness. But the difference between these two paths is great. The luminous angels of God are placed on one, and the angels of Satan on the other. God is Lord from everlasting to everlasting, but Satan is the ruler of the present lawless time (chapter 18). The path of light consists in keeping the Divine commandments, practicing Christian virtues in humility and love, in obedience, prayer, communication with saints, in confessing sins and purifying the heart.
Brief instructions, starting with the commandment to love the Creator and glorify the Redeemer, go into a fairly detailed enumeration of duties in relation to others, set out without a system and constantly interrupted by reminders of duties to God and oneself in the interests of maintaining purity of heart (chapter 19).
The path of darkness is crooked and full of curses. This is the path of eternal death and punishment; on it is everything that destroys the soul of people.
Here is idolatry, insolence, arrogance, hypocrisy, double-mindedness, adultery, murder, theft, pride, treachery, deceit, malice, sorcery, covetousness and similar vices; here are persecutors of the good, haters of the truth, lovers of lies, not recognizing the reward of righteousness, not clinging to goodness, not caring for the widow and the orphan, not merciful to the poor, murderers of children, destroying God's creation in the womb, turning away from the poor, oppressors of the oppressed, defenders of the rich, lawless judges of the poor - sinners in everything (chap. 20).
In conclusion, the writer says that one must act in accordance with the stated commandments, for the one who fulfills them will be glorified in the Kingdom of God; but he who chooses otherwise will perish along with his deeds. The nobles are exhorted to continue their good deeds, for the day is near on which everything will perish with the wicked. He asks everyone, instead of gratitude to him, not to abandon any of the instructions until death, but to constantly delve into them and fulfill every commandment, for for this purpose he especially tried to write to them, in order to give them joy. “Save yourselves, children of love and peace. The Lord of glory and all mercy be with your spirit. Amen"...
II. 2. Analysis of the content of the Message
A correct understanding of the Old Testament, its meaning and relationship to Christianity was a difficult issue in Apostolic times. How painfully difficult its decision was is shown by the Apostolic Council and the behavior of the Apostle Peter and Barnabas in Antioch (Gal 2:11-14). The Jews looked at the Old Testament and its laws as eternal.
Even some Christians shared this view, and the Epistles of the Apostle Paul sufficiently testify to what efforts it took to bring about a correct understanding and give the triumph of truth. The main position on which all the relations of Christianity to Judaism were built was the conviction of Christians that believers in Christ are the true people of God, Israel, to which all Divine promises relate and are fulfilled, and that, accordingly, the sacred, God-given books of Judaism are the legal property of the new Christian people. This is the point of view of all the works of the post-Apostolic period, and its teachers and leaders are the direct heirs of the views of the previous generation.
All the Divine instructions in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, all the high predicates that are given to the people of God, all the comforting messages of the prophets refer to the new race of Christians, to “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for an inheritance,” who were once not a people, but are now the people of God, once not received mercy, but now have received mercy” (1 Pet. 2:9, 10). Clement of Rome writes: “we must love the good and merciful Father, who chose us to be His own,” and in support of his thought he cites words from Deuteronomy (32:8–9): “and His people Jacob became the part of the Lord, the boundary of His inheritance Israel” (Epist. Ad Corinth., 29).
The same thought is briefly and powerfully expressed by Saint Justin: “the true spiritual Israel and the race of Judah, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham, who in circumcision on the basis of faith were witnessed by God and blessed and called the father of many nations, these are we, brought to God through this crucified Christ” (Dial. Cum Triphone, 11). Thus, Christians are the true twelve tribes of a people who live in dispersion in the midst of a hostile world.
Considering the sacred books given by God to His people as its own property, Christianity received in them a huge - and very valuable - heritage for the spread and establishment of a new religion.
Among the Gentile Christians, as far as is known, from the beginning until the emergence of the great heresies of the second century, there is no doubt that the writings of the Old Testament were given according to the original intention of God to the true Israel of the end times. The historical view of the Old Testament was completely foreign to that time.
The Holy Scripture for Christians was a great book of revelation, completely detached from all temporary relations and conditions, which contains the sacred will of God, as the norm of God-pleasing life for all times. Miraculous historical events are prototypes of the future; prophecies, with their correct interpretation, contain a foreshadowing of the events of the last time - the appearance of the Messiah, His life and suffering, His Second Coming, the Church of God, Judgment, future glory. This book contains a collection of great moral examples, edifying prayers and songs filled with hope in God.
Thus, much of the Old Testament could be converted by Christians - directly or with the slightest effort - into prophecy, edification, or into Christian Theology proper. The requirements of the Mosaic Law regarding worship, ritual institutions, food and purification remained. Christians did not accept them; but these instructions were in the Holy Books, and this had to be taken into account one way or another. That at present Israel is no longer the people of God, there was no doubt about this in pagan-Christian circles: Israel, out of hardness of heart and blindness, rejected the cornerstone - Christ, and the destruction of the Holy City for all who had eyes was a manifestation of the Last Judgment of God over it.
But Israel in the past was the chosen people - therefore, weren’t its laws and rituals, although then, in accordance with the will of God? This was a problem which Christian Theology had to resolve if it was to clearly define the relation of the new religion to Judaism. The Jews and Judaizing Christians have always been able to raise the main point of objection: how can it be asserted that Christ, the Son of God, the revelation of His will, abolished the law, when God Himself, the unchangeable and eternal Father, gave this law as the only condition of salvation? In the narrow field of rabbinic exegesis, this argument was difficult, if not impossible, to answer. It was necessary to break these dubious frameworks and look at the Mosaic Law from a higher point of view.
Usually this question was resolved in this way: Israel in the past was indeed the subject of special Divine care for a long time; the law was given to him in order to be fulfilled in its literal sense, which is why ritual laws and regulations come from the Divine will. The writer of the Epistle of Barnabas establishes a somewhat different point of view, which, when carried out consistently to its end, fundamentally rejects the idea that stiff-necked Israel, with its exclusively carnal understanding of the law of God, ever had any advantage.
In view of the clear historical narratives of the Old Testament, the author, of course, could not deny that God sought out the people of Israel to show them many signs and wonders (chap. 4); in the same way, he could not deny that the Son of God appeared, taught, performed signs and wonders among Israel and showed His special love for them (chap. 5).
But the fact that the Jews are abandoned by God (chap. 4) and scattered like sheep of a flock declares itself even more insistently. The author of the Epistle sees the reason for this in the fatal error in relation to the Old Testament law that the Jewish people showed, stopping at the letter of the Law and not understanding its true meaning and purpose. Therefore, he revises all the most important provisions of the ritual law of Moses, all the objects of veneration and reverence of the Jews and proves that only the prophetically representative and moral meaning should be recognized as divinely revealed, eternally binding in the Old Testament: the truly Divine law - moral and spiritual; Jewish literal observance of it should be considered an error and a distortion of the commandments of God.
To prove that Judaism has only a service relationship to Christianity, the author widely uses an allegorical, allegorical method of interpretation: in all the ritual decrees of the Mosaic Law, he sees a mysterious spiritual meaning, a higher spiritual knowledge that points to the times of the Messiah and the New Testament Church. In the entire dogmatic part of the Epistle, except for the Introduction and Conclusion, there is not a single chapter in which the opposition of the author’s views to the aspirations of the Judaizers is not reflected - either in a typical explanation of Old Testament events and institutions as applied to Christ and the New Testament, or in open polemics against Judaism.
Divine revelation always spoke in the same sense and precisely in the Christian sense, and therefore all the Old Testament commandments are understandable only to Christians, and the Jews, deceived by the spirit of malice, everywhere saw only the letter and fulfilled it alone, thereby violating the will of God. And the author of the Message persistently repeats that this spiritual Message of the Old Testament is correct, true, and represents the knowledge communicated by the revelation of Christ, that the main representatives of Judaism - Abraham, Moses and David - also had this understanding. Abraham performed circumcision, "looking forward in spirit to Jesus"; “Moses spoke in a spiritual sense,” “David understood the mysterious meaning of the law.” In the Old Testament, in a whole series of direct prophecies and hidden prototypes, Christianity is clearly foreshadowed: the incarnation of the Son of God to save the world from sin, His teaching, suffering and death in many details, His rejection by Israel and acceptance by the new people, the Coming of the Judgment, the water of Baptism and the Cross.
The author cites Old Testament prophecies in abundance, analyzes them and explains them in application to New Testament events and teachings, reveals the transformative meaning of Old Testament facts and institutions: fasting predicted the drinking of Christ with ocet and bile, the sacrifice of Isaac, the scapegoat, the red heifer - prototypes of the suffering of the Lord (chap. 7-8)); the raising of Moses' hands during prayer when the Amalekites attacked the Israelites, the ascent of the serpent on the tree are prototypes of the saving Cross.
In this way, the author proves that the entire Old Testament as a whole and in all its parts was a prototype of Christ and the work of salvation completed by Him. Christians are the people of God and heirs of all promises, “let us see,” he says, “whether this people (Christians) or the first (Jews) are heirs, and whether the Covenant of God applies to us or to them”?
Pointing to the relationship and fate of Esau and Jacob, Ephraim and Manasseh, the author significantly notes: “Do you see who God has determined to be the first people and heir of His Covenant?” Even more than that: the covenant with God has always been the property of Christians, but the Jews were not in a covenant with God, “let’s see, did He give the people the covenant that He swore to the fathers? He gave it, but they, due to their sins, were not worthy to receive it.”
Moses accepted the tablets from the Lord, but, having learned about the sin of the people, he broke them; Thus, Moses received the covenant, but the people of Israel turned out to be unworthy of it. How did Christians receive it? “Moses accepted it (the covenant) as a servant, and the Lord Himself gave it to us so that we would be a people of inheritance, having suffered for our sake. He appeared so that the measure of their sins would be fulfilled; and we, by inheritance, have received the Covenant of the Lord Jesus, Who prepared Himself for this purpose, so that - by His appearance, having redeemed from darkness our hearts, already exhausted by death and given over to the lawlessness of error, - by His teaching (His) He might establish a Covenant in us” (chap. 14)
Thus, the author of the Epistle persistently proves that the law of Moses really has eternal meaning, but not in its literal, but in its spiritual meaning, as was already understood by its first recipients - Abraham and Moses, David and the prophets, and in this spiritual meaning it is also obligatory for Christians. This decisively overthrows both pure Judaism and the Judaizing trend in Christianity, and at the same time the independence of Christianity is affirmed, which takes the place of the Old Testament and the Mosaic Law.
Revealing his view of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, the author of the Epistle simultaneously touches in more or less detail on some of the fundamental points of Christian teaching, which form the basis of his judgments.
1) The Epistle speaks especially persistently about the pre-peaceful pre-existence of Christ and about His Divine creative activity. He is the Lord of the Universe, to whom God said from the foundation of the world: Let us make man in Our image and after Our likeness (5:5). Jesus Christ is not the son of man, but the Son of God (12:10; 7:9). He appeared in the flesh, since people could not remain alive by looking at Him, when those who look at the Sun, the work of His hands, which will one day be destroyed, cannot directly look at its rays (5:10-11). He will come as a Judge in Divine omnipotence, abolish time, execute Judgment on the wicked, change the Sun, stars and Moon (15:5).
2) The purpose of the Coming of Jesus Christ to Earth is twofold: to fulfill the measure of the sins of the Jews and to redeem us. This is redemption (λύτρωσις – 14:6). He does this by giving His flesh up for destruction, sacrificing Himself (προσφέρειν θυσίαν), sprinkling us with His blood (5:1; 7:3.5). The fruits of the Coming of Christ are remission of sins and sanctification, spiritual re-creation, destruction of death; He showed the resurrection from the dead and made us a new people, a holy nation, heirs of the promises that Israel had lost (5:1, 6-7; 7:2; 13; 14:4-8).
3) We enter into the possession of the benefits of the Redemption through Baptism, which gives us remission of sins. “We go into the water full of sins and uncleanness, but we come up from it bearing fruit—the fear of God in our hearts and hope in our spirit of Jesus” (11:11). The dwelling of our heart becomes a holy church for the Lord. The author sets out in detail what the new life into which Baptism introduces us is expressed in 16:7–9, describing the spiritual church recreated by God in place of the destroyed Old Testament church.
4) Whoever, by faith in Christ through Baptism, has received remission of sins and achieved the renewing habitation of God, he can fulfill “the new law of the Lord without the yoke of compulsion” (2:6: ἄνευ ζυγου ἀνάγκης); nevertheless, the author of the Epistle is completely far from the idea of belittling the importance of good works for salvation: The second part of the Epistle, setting out the ways of light and darkness, clearly states what importance he attaches to the activities of a Christian in accordance with the will of God - the essence of his instructions in this regard can be expressed in the words of the author himself: work with your hands to atone for your sins (19:10). Whoever fulfills the commandments of the Lord will be glorified in the Kingdom of God; whoever departs from them will perish along with his deeds (21:1). Some will inherit eternal life, others will be punished with eternal death (8:5; 20:1).
The thought of Judgment is one of the main motives for a good life, which the author of the Epistle points to. He looks at the end of the world as a fact of the near future (4:3; 21:3; cf. 7:7, 8, 24). In 15:4–9 he gives some interesting calculations. The six days of creation represent six thousand years, since with the Lord a day is equal to a thousand years.
The existence of the world continues for six thousand years; on the seventh day, that is, at the beginning of the seventh thousand years, the Son of God will appear; He will destroy the time of iniquity and judge sinners. Then there will be peace. Everything will become new through the Lord, and the righteous will sanctify the seventh millennium with Christ. But this Sabbath will only be a preparation for the Eighth Day, on which the new world will begin. “That is why we spend the Eighth Day in joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead, and after appearing, ascended into Heaven” (chap. 15).
II. 3. Question about the author of the Message
The message does not indicate the name of its author and does not contain any guiding threads by which it could be identified. In history it appears with the name of the Apostle Barnabas, which, obviously, was adopted according to legend.
Since the details of the content of the Epistle present such features that, apparently, are an insurmountable obstacle to recognizing it as the work of the Apostle Paul, a well-known colleague from the book of the Acts of the Apostles, the question of its actual author from the 17th century - when the scientific development of the Epistle began - and almost until the last days, served as a subject of disagreement between its researchers: some recognized it as the work of the Apostle Barnabas, others expressed doubts or decisively rejected its attribution to such a famous husband Apostolic time.
At present, almost all Western researchers (with very few exceptions) have come to the conclusion that the question of the Apostle Barnabas, companion of the Apostle Paul, as the author of the Epistle, has been finally resolved in a negative sense, and that the Epistle must admit ψευδεπίγραφον (falsely signed, imaginary) (Patr. apostolic. opera, ed. O. de Gebhard, Th. Lipsiae 1878, Fr. Funk, Und.
In order to obtain an impartial and well-founded answer to the question about the author of the Epistle, it is necessary first of all to examine what scientific value the tradition has, which recognizes the author of the Epistle as the Apostle Barnabas, and then to determine the strength of those objections that are raised by opponents of the authenticity of the Epistle.
The coincidences in thoughts and expressions between the Epistle of Barnabas, on the one hand, and the “shepherd” of Hermas, the 2nd Epistle of Clement of Rome, the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, and especially the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew of St. Justin the Philosopher, on the other hand, are not so definite that one can speak of indisputable borrowings from the Epistle. And such blind references, even if they were proven, can only indicate the time of origin of the monument and the degree of its prevalence and authority, but do not give direct indications regarding its author.
The first completely definite witness about the Epistle is Clement of Alexandria. In the works that have come down to us, he several times cites passages from the Epistle of Barnabas (Strom. 2:15, 67; 2:18, 84; 2:20, 116; 5:18, 51–52; 5:10, 63; 6:8, 65), whom he calls “an apostolic man” (ὁ ἀποστολικός), “prophet”, “apostle” (ὁ ἀπόστολος Βαρνάβας).
That Clement really understood Barnabas, who is spoken of in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, is evident from those places where he definitely indicates that the author of the Epistle was Barnabas, who himself preached together with the Apostle Paul in the ministry of tongues (Strom. 5:10); elsewhere Clement calls Barnabas “one of the 70 and a fellow worker of Paul (Strom. 2:7, 20).
He treated this Epistle with great respect and special love, mainly for its allegorical character, and in his Ύ ποτοπώσεσιν, as Eusebius reports (Hist. eccl. 6:14, 1), he commented on the Epistle along with the New Testament writings, although sometimes he criticized its individual passages (Paed. 2:10, 83). Therefore, there is no doubt that Clement considered the author of the Epistle to be Barnabas, and precisely the same one who was a colleague of the Apostle Paul.
The great disciple of Clement, Origen, took a similar position in relation to the Epistle. In the translation (Rufinus) of Origen's work περì ἀρχων (“On the Beginnings”), Barnabas is definitely named as the author of the Epistle, and the Epistle is given the authority of Scriptura divina (3:2. 4. 7). In his essay “Against Celsus” (1:63), Origen calls it “the conciliar Epistle of Barnabas” ῇ). True, Origen does not indicate more precisely who this Barnabas, the author of the Epistle, was; but based on his close connection with Clement, one can only conclude that the name of Barnabas, used without further explanation, indicates the same person as Clement thought.
Thus, during the time of Clement and Origen, the Epistle enjoyed authority in the Alexandrian Church, was connected with the New Testament canon (namely, with the Catholic Epistles of Jude and John), and the Apostle Barnabas was recognized as its writer.
It is clear from everything that this assimilation of the Epistle to the Apostle Barnabas was based on tradition coming from predecessors, who in turn received it from the most ancient witnesses, who were, perhaps, witnesses of its origin.
The significance of the Epistle in the Alexandrian Church after Origen is spoken of by the Codex Sinaiticus, in which the Epistle is placed after the Apocalypse of John; here it is inscribed: Βαρνάβα ἐπιστολή. The Codex in origin belongs to the Alexandrian Church, and if the Epistle is included in it, then this is a clear sign that it was used here for reading in Divine services, although not as a canonical book; and in this case, the name of Barnabas in the inscription can only designate the person with whom the Epistle was associated in the same Church in a previous time and to whom Clement of Alexandria pointed out.
Eusebius, in his classic message about the New Testament canon (Hist. eccl., 3:25, 4) places the Epistle of Barnabas ἡ φερομένη Βαρναβ ᾶ ἐπιστολὴ – ἐν τοι ς νόθοις (in false), in another place he calls it among ἀντιλεγομένων (disputed, contradictory) (Hist. eccl., 6:13, 6) and this testifies that the Epistle, in the opinion of some, whose voices could not be completely ignored, had serious grounds to lay claim to being included among New Testament canon; at the same time, others, for reasons no less compelling, denied such a meaning of the Message. But, noting the relationship of the Epistle to the New Testament canon, Eusebius does not express doubts about its authenticity: he does not express any considerations about its origin not from the Apostle Barnabas, as he did regarding the 2 and 3 Epistles of the Apostle John.
One cannot see any expression of doubt in the authenticity of the Epistle and in its designation ἡ φερομένη, which in this case is not equivalent to ἡ λεγομένη (so-called), but rather can be translated through quae circumfertur and thus speaks to some extent about its prevalence in Christian society with a firmly established name Βαρναβ ᾶ ἐπιστολή: in the same place Eusebius designates the First Epistle of John as τὴν φερομένην Ἰ ωάννου προτέραν (the so-called John First) of this Apostle and however classifies him among the ὀμολογούμενα (generally recognized).
Blessed Jerome (De vir. ill., 6) writes that Barnabas the Cyprian, who is also Joseph the Levite, together with Paul ordained an apostle of the tongues, composed one Epistle concerning the creation of the Church, which is read among the apocryphas scripturas legitur. Since Jerome calls apocryphal not only works that do not belong to the authors whose names they bear (ψευδεπίγραφα), but also genuine ones that do not have canonical authority and are excluded from the canon of the Holy Books, then the simple and natural meaning of the above testimony of Jerome can only be that Barnabas, described according to the instructions of the book of Acts Apostolic, wrote the Epistle, but it does not belong to the canonical books, but to those that, being outside the canon, are read in the Church for general edification.
Therefore, Jerome does not express any doubt regarding the ownership of the Epistle of the Apostle to Barnabas. In the book De nominibus hebraicis, Jerome explains some of the names found in the Epistle of Barnabas, from which it follows that in the hands of Jerome there was a copy of the Bible, which, after the Apocalypse, also contained the Epistle of Barnabas.
In later times, information about the Epistle of Barnabas becomes quite rare. Athanasius of Alexandria says nothing about him in his 39th Easter Epistle, even when listing books that were not included in the canon, but were appointed by the fathers for the instruction of the catechumens; There is no mention of him in the works of other Church writers of the 4th and 5th centuries, even in Epiphanius of Cyprus and in later life writers of the Apostle Barnabas.
However, Anastasius Sinai († 599) definitely lists the Epistle of Barnabas among the XXIV books that he places outside the LX canonical books. 1
In the stichometry of Patriarch Nicephorus († 826), the Epistle of Barnabas is placed between αἰ γραφαì τη ς νέας (διαθήκης) ἀντιλέγονται (disputed New Testament Scriptures).
In the Western Church, besides Jerome, the Latin translation is a reliable and very important witness to familiarity with the Epistle; in the only manuscript of this translation known to us, the Epistle appears before the Epistle of the Apostle James.
A study of the ancient evidence for the Epistle of Barnabas shows that throughout the entire patristic period not a single voice can be identified that would deny the origin of the Epistle from the Apostle Barnabas.
If there were any objections, it was only against the Epistle’s belonging to the New Testament canon; and the fact that as early as the fourth century the Epistle laid claim to canonical dignity proves that it enjoyed high authority; but the origin of this respect can scarcely be explained by any other supposition than that the Epistle was always conceived in the name of a distinguished personality of the Apostolic age.
True, the most ancient evidence belongs to the writers of the Alexandrian Church, whose voice cannot be identified with the tradition of the Universal Church; but the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome takes us beyond the boundaries of this Church, although we cannot indicate in what other places the Epistle enjoyed fame and authority.
Even if we agree that the close connection of the Epistle of Barnabas with the canon was limited to Alexandria alone, and that Eusebius and Jerome ranked it among the ἀντιλεγόμενα and ἀπόκρυφα only on the basis of the authority of the ancient Alexandrian teachers (Th. Zahn. Gesch. desneutestament. Canons. Bd. 1 H. 1, S. 350), then even in this case it remains unclear and unclear why it was attributed to the Apostle Barnabas, how it achieved authority in the Church and how and why it was then deprived of its place in direct connection with the canon (compare: A. Harnack. Gesch. der altchrist. Litteratur Theil II, Bd.1, S. 412. Anmerk. 1; Th. Zahn. Gesch. Kanons. Bd.1, S. 347, 350, 351). The testimony of the Alexandrians is so categorical that it does not allow any reinterpretation.
Thus, if there were no other circumstances complicating the matter, then the attribution of the Epistle to the Apostle Barnabas, on the basis of historical evidence, which in general is of primary importance, should be recognized as sufficiently justified. In view of this, the negative attitude towards the authenticity of the Message in the latest pathological literature all the more urgently requires a careful assessment.
The grounds for a negative solution to the question of whether the Epistle belongs to the Apostle Barnabas are primarily internal, that is, they are borrowed from the content of the Epistle.
Historical evidence is not clearly eliminated, and their significance is even recognized to some extent, but their strength, on the one hand, is weakened by the indication that all witnesses belong to one area (which is in any case debatable), and on the other hand, with the example of Clementine and the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome, they try to clearly show that all antiquity can make mistakes and that even the “unanimous testimony” of antiquity does not have decisive force (Fr. X. Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhandl. und Unters. II, S. 78).
But “comparison is not proof,” but a conclusion made without any restrictions deprives any historical research about the monuments of Ancient Christian literature. In addition, it itself suffers from some exaggeration, since it ignores the historical fact that before Eusebius there was no proven use of the Second Epistle of Clement, and that only from the 5th century it was often mentioned in Church literature - therefore, there is no desirable parallel.
Of the numerous objections (borrowed from the contents of the Message) that were raised in the past, many have now been abandoned, the most important of them:
a) Various natural-historical irregularities, for example, that the hyena changes its sex annually;
b) Incorrect reference to circumcision of all Syrians, Arabs and all pagan priests;
c) Too free use of allegory in the explanation of the Old Testament;
d) Incorrect instructions regarding Old Testament rituals.
But natural-historical errors were a common phenomenon in Antiquity, and there is no reason to demand that the Levite Barnabas was above his time. There is also no doubt that for today’s readers the allegory of the Message may seem strange in its excessiveness and obvious unscientificness; but at a time when the fascination with mystical explanations dominated, the use of the allegorical method could seem to be an expression of deep wisdom.
And to explain the allegorism of the Epistle, there is no need to necessarily attach it to the Alexandrian soil, since the use of allegorism was widespread in Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine - it is natural to assume its influence in Cyprus, the Homeland of Barnabas, especially since allegorism had a basis in the very essence of the Old Testament - the shadow of the future.
The statement of the author of the Epistle regarding the circumcision of Syrians, Arabians and pagan priests, however, is somewhat exaggerated, but cannot be considered completely groundless.
Finally, the supposedly incorrect message regarding the Old Testament rituals is now recognized, on the contrary, as completely correct (Fr. X. Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhandl. u. Unters. Bd. II, S. 80), which is why in this point one can even find confirmation of the view that the Epistle was written by a person closely familiar with the Old Testament ritual, which was Barnabas, a Levite by birth.
In view of this, at present, opponents of the origin of the Epistle from Barnabas put forward mainly two objections, to which they attach very significant importance:
a) The position the author took in relation to the Old Testament, and
b) The fact that the Epistle attributed to the Apostle Barnabas did not find a place in the canon of New Testament books.
a) The view of the writer of the Epistle on the Old Testament, they say, stands in blatant contradiction with the teaching of the Apostles and even the Apostle Paul, who most decisively rebelled against the claims of the Judaizers; they all recognized in the Old Testament, in its sacrifices and rituals, a real, albeit only temporary, Divine institution; Meanwhile, the author of the Epistle sees in circumcision the deception of an evil spirit, puts Jewish worship almost on the same line with pagan worship (“for almost like the pagans the Jews honored God in their temple” - Chapter 16), in the literal fulfillment of the Old Testament institutions he sees a manifestation of human foolishness, a violation and distortion of the Commandments of God, claims that the Jews were never in a Covenant with God, and so further.
Such speeches cannot be put into the mouth of the Apostle Barnabas, and he cannot be the author of the Epistle.
Against these objections, it is necessary first of all to note that opponents of the authenticity of the Epistle noticeably increase the harshness of the writer’s expressions, tearing them out of the connection with the Old Testament prophecies in which he placed them: he abundantly cites passages from the Old Testament directed against an exclusively carnal understanding of the Old Testament law and its institutions, and presents almost all of his conclusions regarding various points of teaching as a conclusion from these provisions that are authoritative for him and for his readers. He wants to convey true gnosis regarding the Old Testament, an understanding of its true nature.
In a whole series of typological explanations, often strange, he seeks to show how the Old Testament was a prototype of Christ, His sufferings, and Christian institutions. But he does not go so far as to directly state that the provisions of the Law were never to be fulfilled in their literal sense, that the Jews were decidedly not in a Covenant with God, that the establishment of circumcision of the flesh was the work of the devil, and so on.
The extreme allegorism that dominates the entire Epistle does not allow us to attach exceptional importance to its letter. Indeed, the writer of the Epistle finds types of Christ in many of these ritual acts performed by the Jewish priests (for example, 7:3, 11), therefore he assumes that it was the will of God, who established these types, that the laws defining them should be observed in their literal sense.
He reproaches the Jews for performing their cult purely materially, without being able to rise to the spiritual and educational meaning that it contained and which God laid as the basis of His laws.
Further, does he not praise those who, observing ritual prescriptions to the letter, sanctified these actions with an accurate understanding of their highest meaning (9:7; 10:10).
If in the 14th chapter he claims that only Christians, and not Jews, received the Divine covenant, then to prove this position he cites exclusively prophecies proclaiming that the Messiah will be the light of the nations, that He will deliver from darkness and open the eyes of the blind.
Obviously, by this he means that the Jews did not receive the covenant in the sense that they did not comprehend its true nature. The same must be said regarding circumcision: if the Jews attached exceptional importance to circumcision of the flesh, then they were blinded by the evil spirit.
Thus, by Jews are meant those who serve one letter, with a denial of the spiritual meaning of the law, and the Old Testament itself is assessed from the contemporary point of view of the author, how significant it can be for Christians, which is why the Old Testament righteous are counted among “us” - Christians. From this point of view, it is clear that the Epistle does not indicate the purpose of the Old Testament to be a mentor in Christ (although it is assumed by itself, since the entire Old Testament is declared entirely Christian), but puts forward its purpose to fulfill the measure of the sins of the lawless.
From all that has been said, it clearly follows that the writer of the Epistle is truly an irreconcilable antagonist of Judaism; but other than this antagonism he has nothing in common with the anti-Jewish heretics of the Second Century. On the contrary, he sees Christianity everywhere in the law and the prophets; he speaks of them with such respect that could satisfy the most pious rabbi. He abundantly cites passages from their writings as authoritative, but only accuses the Jews of not understanding them from beginning to end.
b) Opponents of the authenticity of the Epistle emphasize with particular force that if the Apostolic origin of the Epistle were undoubted, then it would be accepted into the canon like the Second and Third Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, the writers of which also did not belong to the Twelve Apostles. If Mark and Luke in the Scriptures that belonged to them set forth not their own thoughts, but what they learned from the Apostles about the Lord and about the Apostles themselves, then Barnabas, as the Apostle and companion of the Apostles, could offer in his Epistle no other teaching than the Apostolic one, and if he had done this, then his Epistle would certainly have been accepted into the canon. This conclusion seems all the more likely since we do not know a single Scripture of the Apostle that does not find a place in the canon. This argument is recognized as the strongest, as the most convincing in its obviousness (Fr. X. Funk, Kirchengesch. Abh. und Unters. Bd. II, S. 79).
But it suffers from a very significant drawback, since it is based on a principle that itself needs justification. Of course, they rightly point out that we do not know a single Scripture of the Apostle that would not be ranked among the canon; but, on the other hand, the position underlying the objection that the New Testament canon arose on the basis of the simple principle of the Apostolic origin of its parts also requires a precise explanation.
The history of the canon shows that it was not defined and the concept of canonical was not compiled on the basis of a ready-made, given as a guiding principle, idea of the special significance of the ministry of the 12 Apostles and St. Paul; but on the contrary, the canon was accepted by the Church as a definite whole, although not yet stable in relation to some of its parts, and at the same time a firm conviction was given that the entire composition of the faithful New Testament comes from the Apostles and companions of the Apostles, containing reliable documents of the Apostolic time, especially the Apostolic Sermon and Tradition.
It goes without saying that, besides the 12 Apostles and Paul, only those men of the Apostolic time were revered as genuine witnesses of the Apostolic teaching and Tradition and reliable interpreters of the Revelation given by Christ, who taught and wrote in agreement with the Apostles called by Christ. Neither Demas, nor Hermogenes, nor Paul's disciple Theudas, to whom the Valentinians referred, were recognized as such; not Peter’s student Glaucius, whom Basilides considered his teacher, but only Mark and Luke. This necessary distinction between faithful and unfaithful Apostolic men also finds its basis in the fact that Irenaeus already attached great importance to the close connection of Mark with the Apostle Peter and Luke with the Apostle Paul.
Thus, not everything that was handed down as Apostolic in the broad sense of the word and as a document of the Apostolic time belonged to the New Testament canon (cp. Th. Zahn, Gesch. des neutestament. Kanons Bd.I, H. 1, S. 446-452).
Further, in relation to the Epistle under study, it is always necessary to keep in mind the fact that Clement of Alexandria, who claimed that it belonged to the Apostle Barnabas and used it as a highly valuable monument, at the same time did not consider it canonical in the proper sense, standing along with other Holy books. This is clear from the fact that Clement, while approving the spiritual meaning of the judgments of the Epistle about the hyena (10:7), rejects the literal one as incorrect from a natural historical point of view (Paed., 2:10).
It is absolutely incredible that Clement pointed out any irregularities in the canonical book. Jerome also considers the Epistle as a genuine work of that Barnabas, who was ordained an Apostle along with Paul, and however places it in the category of apocrypha. The same should be said about Eusebius. From this the arbitrariness of the decisive statement that the work of the Apostle Barnabas, the companion of the Apostle Paul, must certainly be canonical is clearly visible: its history shows that it was recognized as belonging to the Apostle Barnabas and at the same time was not considered canonical.
Noted by the opponents of the authenticity of the Epistle, although somewhat exaggerated by them, the extremes in the use of the allegorical method of explaining the Old Testament and various kinds of irregularities, already recognized by Clement of Alexandria, represented serious reasons for not accepting it into the canon; but they did not prevent the Epistle from enjoying great respect, at least in the Alexandrian Church.
If it is argued that these irregularities, as well as the inability of the author of the Epistle to embrace the idea of the Old Testament, so deeply and widely established by the Apostle Paul, constitute an insurmountable obstacle to the assimilation of it by Barnabas, a respected man in the Apostolic Church, then the basis of this objection is an assessment of the personality and degree of spiritual understanding of Barnabas, for which there is no precisely established data.
Finally, another argument against the authenticity of the Epistle is found in the time of origin of the Epistle: it is said to have been written at a time when the Apostle Barnabas was no longer alive. But the chronological arguments, upon closer assessment, seem extremely shaky: the time of origin of the Epistle to this day is a subject of dispute between researchers; on the other hand, the life fate of Barnabas after his separation from the Apostle Paul (Acts 15:39) is very uncertain, and in particular the date of his death remains extremely doubtful - and from such premises a definite conclusion is drawn that the Apostle Barnabas did not see the days of the origin of the Epistle.
Thus, the precise and clear indication of the witnesses of Antiquity, although even belonging at first only to the province, is contrasted with arguments of a subjective nature, based on the one hand on personal impressions of the Epistle and an understanding of it alien to strict objectivity, and on the other, on a rather vague idea of the personality of Barnabas and his relationship to the Apostle Paul.
But until a convincing explanation is given for the origin of the uncertain evidence of Antiquity, in case of its incorrectness, and no serious, objectively valuable objections to the authenticity of the Epistle are presented, until then it is impossible, without violating the principles of impartial historical and literary criticism, to abandon the traditional view that the Epistle was written by the Apostle Barnabas, even contrary to the almost unanimous opinion of the latest researchers.
II. 4. Brief information about the life of the Apostle Barnabas
Barnabas was originally a Levite from the island of Cyprus. It is unknown when he became a follower of Christ. Clement of Alexandria (Strom 2:20, 116) calls him one of the 70 Apostles; The Clementines consider him a personal disciple of the Lord.
There is no evidence in the New Testament writings to support this tradition; but they also contain no indications of an opposite nature.
In the Apostolic Church, Barnabas very early appeared in the field of spreading new teachings and acted with great selflessness: he sold his land and laid the proceeds at the feet of the Apostles (Acts 4:36–37).
In the service of the Gospel he discovered an extraordinary zeal, accompanied by eminent success; in connection with this, probably, instead of his former name Josiah, he received from the Apostles the name Barnabas, that is, the Son of inspired preaching or exhortation. Then he acts as the patron of the newly converted Saul: when the latter came from Damascus to Jerusalem, Barnabas dispelled the mistrust of the Jerusalem brothers in him and brought him to the Apostles (Acts 9:26–27).
From this we can conclude that Saul and Barnabas had known each other for a long time: the Cypriot Jew could have lived for some time in Saul’s hometown of Tarsus, as the nearest center of education; but it is even more likely that the young Levite and the young rabbi could become close friends in the holy city.
In this regard, there is a later message (in the eulogy of the Apostle Barnabas by the Cypriot monk Alexander - no earlier than the 6th century) that Barnabas was a student of Gamaliel and had Saul as a fellow student.
Some time later, when news was received in Jerusalem about the spread of Christianity among the pagans of Antioch, Barnabas, on behalf of the Apostles, went to Antioch. In view of the extraordinary success of the mission (Acts 11:21–24), Barnabas went to Tarsus, found Saul there and invited him to Antioch as a collaborator: “for a whole year they gathered in the Church and taught quite a number of people; and the disciples at Antioch began to be called Christians for the first time” (11:25–26).
After traveling to Jerusalem, Barnabas and Saul, at the command of the Holy Spirit, were separated by the Antioch Church for the Apostolic ministry (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:2–4) and, together with Barnabas’ nephew, John Mark, set off on a great evangelistic journey (about 45).
During this journey, Barnabas recedes into the background in the narration of the Writer (chapters 13–14) and precisely from the moment when he begins to call Saul Paul (13:9): Paul is actually a missionary preacher, which is why in Lystra they called Barnabas Zeus, and Paul Hermias, since he was in charge of the word (14:12).
Returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas gathered the Church and told how God had opened the door of faith to the pagans. “And they remained there for a long time with the disciples” (14:28). When in Antioch those who came from Judea raised the question of the obligatory nature of the Law of Moses for Christians converted from paganism, Paul and Barnabas, first in Antioch and then in Jerusalem - at the Apostolic Council - came out in defense of Christian freedom (Acts 15:2 ~ff).
But when in Antioch the Apostle Peter suddenly began to “hide and withdraw, fearing the circumcision,” then even Barnabas was carried away by the hypocrisy of Peter and the Jewish Christians who followed him, of which all were convicted by the Apostle Paul (Gal 2:11 ~ff.).
After some time, Paul invited Barnabas to visit the brothers, to whom they preached the word of the Lord. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with him, but Paul did not agree to this, recalling that during the first trip he returned from Perga to Jerusalem and did not go with them to the task for which they were sent. “From here came grief, so that they were separated from each other, and Barnabas, taking Mark, sailed to Cyprus, and Paul, choosing Silas for himself, set off, having been entrusted by the brethren to the grace of God” (15:36-40), on the Second Great Evangelical Journey.
This ends the news about Barnabas given by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. About five years after this (about 56-57), the Apostle Paul mentions Barnabas in 1 Corinthians: “Or do I alone and Barnabas have no power not to work” (9:6)? This recollection, even in this form, shows that Barnabas was still alive at that time and, from his previous activities, was well known to the Corinthians. His further fate is unknown.
The most ancient legends speak of his activities not only in Asia Minor and Cyprus, but also in Alexandria and Rome; in all these places he is a preacher of the Gospel mainly among the pagans and everywhere he incurs hatred from the Jews.
According to the same legends, Barnabas ended his life as a martyr at the hands of the Jews on Fr. Cyprus, June 11, 76, but it should be noted that, due to ambiguities and contradictions in chronological indications, the year of Barnabas’s death is highly disputed, and some believe it to be before 62, others even after 80.
From the fact that Barnabas’s nephew, Mark, was with the apostle of tongues during the first bonds of the Apostle Paul in Rome, in no case can one draw a definite conclusion about the death of Barnabas that followed by this time, since there is nothing incredible in the fact that Mark could temporarily separate from Barnabas during the latter’s lifetime, being, for example, sent by his uncle to Rome. If they do not at all attach historical value to the legends about the life, activity and death of the Apostle Barnabas, then there is no reason to insist that Mark was also present at the death of Barnabas, who, according to very thorough research (V.V. Bolotov), died in 63: he could have suffered and wounded his uncle.
Since the opinion about the early death of the Apostle Barnabas is not substantiated by any definite and convincing chronological data and since, on the other hand, there is nothing incredible in the assumption of the death of Barnabas after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is at least unfounded to seek confirmation for denying the authenticity of the Epistle in the unspoken fact of the early death of Barnabas.
The information presented about the Apostle Barnabas in no way excludes the possibility of the origin of a work from him with the same content and character as the work in question is different.
In the book of the Acts of the Apostles, he acts as a decisive opponent of the claims of modern Jews and Judaizing Christians to the unconditional necessity and obligatory nature of the ritual Mosaic Law even in Christianity; he is a recognized Apostle of languages (cf. Gal. 2:1-10) and was the first to decide, even by name, to distinguish the Church of Antioch from other religious societies and, first of all, of course, from the Jews: the disciples in Antioch for the first time began to be called Christians (Acts 11:26).
In general, among the founders of the Christian mission among the pagans, the Apostle Barnabas ranks first, and he developed his free views on the Old Testament independently - at least there is no reason to talk about his dependence on the Apostle Paul.
In order to characterize the enormity of the danger that threatened the freedom of the Christian mission among the pagans due to the “hypocrisy” of the Apostle Peter, the Apostle Paul considers it necessary to emphasize that even Barnabas was carried away by this “hypocrisy” (Gal. 2:13); Therefore, his anti-Jewish direction was so clearly defined.
It is quite natural that in the Epistle he warns against being carried away by Judaism and explains the true meaning of the Old Testament, especially in view of the terrible catastrophe that broke out over the holy city and church - this necessary condition for the fulfillment of the Old Testament law.
That Barnabas does not follow the Apostle Paul in interpreting the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, this, in addition to the always possible and admissible difference in views, finds its explanation in the character trait of Barnabas that he was not inclined to yield to the Apostle Paul when he considered his cause to be right: after the grief that occurred between Paul and Barnabas because of Mark, “they were separated from each other,” although sympathy The Antiochian brothers apparently were on Paul's side (Acts 15:40).
II. 5. Time of origin of the Message
On the question of the time of origin of the Message, its researchers did not come to a consensus, and in the Message itself there are no chronological indications that could lead to well-founded conclusions. Experiments to more or less accurately determine the time of origin of the Message are based on two places in it.
In the first of these (4:4-6), the author says: “The last temptation has come near; it is written about this, as Enoch says: for this reason the Lord shortened the times and days, so that the Beloved would hasten His Coming to His inheritance. The prophet says the same thing: ten kingdoms will reign on Earth, and after them a little king will rise, who will humble three kings at once (cf. Acts 7:24).
Daniel speaks about this in a similar way: and I saw the fourth beast, evil and strong, and more fierce than all the beasts of the Earth, and how ten horns came out of him, and how a small horn grew out of them, and how he suddenly humbled the three great horns (Acts 7:7, 8). So you must understand."
In another place (chap. 16) it is said: “Now I will tell you about the church, how they, the unfortunate ones, in their delusion, hoped in the building, and not in their God, who created them, as if it were the real house of God. They honored Him in the temple almost like the pagans... Know that their hope is vain.
Further, the Lord also says: behold, those who destroyed this church will rebuild it themselves. It comes true, because due to the fact that they are fighting (the church) was destroyed by the enemies; now the servants of the enemies themselves will recreate it. In addition, it was announced that the city, the people, and the church would be betrayed. For the scripture says: And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will sell the sheep of the pasture, and the fence and the pillar thereof, for consumption. And it came true, as the Lord said. Therefore, let us examine whether there is a church of God. There is - where He Himself says to create and arrange. For it is written: And at the end of the week the church of God will be built gloriously in the name of the Lord. Therefore I find that the church exists. And find out how it will be built in the name of the Lord.”
Further, the author speaks about the remission of sins, internal renewal and reconstruction, the dwelling of God in believers and ends his speech with these words: “this is a spiritual church being built for the Lord.”
As can be seen, there is no clarity and certainty of chronological indications in both places, and their suitability for the intended purpose, as well as their evidentiary power, is weakened by the fact that in recent times two such prominent representatives of Church historical science as Fr. X. Funk and Adolf Harnack expressed completely opposite views.
According to Adolf Harnack (Gesch. deraltchr. Lit. TheilII. Bd. 1, S. 410), the first place is completely unsuitable for determining the date of the Epistle, and the second indicates 130-131; according to Fr. Funk's second place does not provide the slightest chronological indication, while the first leads to the end of the 1st century, in particular to the reign of Nerva.
In fact, the closest study of both places does not provide any tangible results to resolve the question posed.
Those who base their conclusions on the first place agree that the author of the Epistle sees the fulfillment of the given prophecies in the events of his time and provides, as it were, proof of the assumption that “the final temptation has approached,” which is why he appeals to readers with an admonition to be attentive to the circumstances of the time and clearly understand the meaning of the prophecies.
According to the prophet, the ten kingdoms will be followed by a small king who will overthrow three kings at once. These kings (“Kingdoms” are understood in the sense of “kings”), they say, should be sought among the Roman Emperors. If the passage in question is to be interpreted in this sense, then in applying the prophecy it is necessary to pay attention to the following details:
1) The Little King must be the eleventh in the line of Roman Emperors;
2) The three kings whom he will humble are among the ten kings who preceded him;
3) These three kings were deposed by the little one all at once. This is an important point of the prophecy: the expression ὑφ ’ ἕ ν is not found in the prophet Daniel, and the author of the Epistle twice adds it to the words of the prophet, therefore, he especially insists on it.
These three conditions are not satisfied by any of the interpretations that try to determine the time of origin of the Message based on this place. And first of all, in the history of the First and Second centuries known to us, it is impossible to prove the fact of the simultaneous deposition of three actual Emperors by a subsequent Emperor.
The eleventh Roman Emperor, if we follow the usual counting of them, starting with Augustus, was Domitian (81-96). But the sign of the simultaneous elimination or deposition of three Emperors is completely inapplicable to him, even if this sign is interpreted in the broadest sense, although it is indisputable that to Christians this Emperor could seem like the Antichrist.
It is more applicable to Vespasian (69–79), although not in a literal sense, the simultaneous deposition of three Emperors, since his three predecessors - Galba, Otto and Vitellius - all together reigned for only 18 months; but he ranks only ninth in the ranks of Emperors, or, if we include Julius Caesar, then tenth; besides, it still cannot be said of him that he humbled Galba (and Otto).
They especially insist (Funk and Bardenhewer) on identifying the eleventh) king with Nerva (96–98), but at the same time they refuse in advance an accurate and literal understanding of the words of the Epistle, giving room for some freedom in explanation, on the basis that we are talking about the fulfillment of prophecy.
In order to make Nerva - the twelfth) Emperor - the eleventh, they consider it possible to skip Vitellius. But how did Nerva depose three Emperors? To this they answer that the three predecessors of Nerva - Vespasian, Titus and Domitian - constitute one house of the Flavians, and therefore we can say that in the person of Domitian - the last representative of this house - Nerva deposed all three Flavians. But here there is obvious neglect of the literal and natural meaning of ὑφ ’ ἕ ν in order to give the phrase the desired meaning. At the same time, Nerva did not take part in the deposition of Domitian and marked the beginning of the brilliant era of the Antonines, which can hardly be combined with the clearly held thought of the author of the Epistle about the Antichrist.
Thus, even if we agree that the Epistle of Barnabas 4:3–5 contains an indication of the facts contemporary to the author and the succession of the Roman Emperors, we cannot, however, with the help of this place determine the time of origin of the Epistle, since we do not know with which Emperor the author begins the count of ten kings, nor do we know whether he is counting all the Roman Emperors who successively ascended the throne. But it is difficult to agree with the most basic idea of this interpretation, that Barnabas sees the fulfillment of the prophecy in his days and precisely in the successive series of Roman Emperors.
When in other places of the Epistle he proves the fulfillment of the prophetic text, he usually notes precisely that the prophecy was fulfilled, and how it was fulfilled (cf. 16:4, 5, 8). We see nothing of the kind in the passage under consideration: he proves his idea that the last temptation is approaching by referring to the prophecy of Daniel, and in it he looks for signs by which readers should recognize the end of the World - when it begins - but he leaves the very interpretation of these signs to their insight, adding to the given prophecies a simple warning: “you must understand.”
Finally, the author seemed to see in the prophecy a sequence not of kings, but of kingdoms; This is indicated by the changes that he made in the text of the prophet Daniel: where Daniel speaks of kings (βασιλει ς), the author of the Epistle puts kingdoms (βοκηλει αι). In addition, he twice inserts into his text the expression ὑφ ’ ἕ ν, which can rather be understood in relation to kingdoms, since it is impossible to imagine the simultaneous deposition of three kings who successively followed one another in the same kingdom.
As a result, in all Barnabas’s reasoning, only the indication of some kind of political catastrophe remains indisputable, evoking the mysterious prophecies of Enoch (apocryphal) and Daniel, which testify to the proximity of the final temptation and the Lord’s shortening of times and days to hasten the coming of the Beloved to His inheritance.
In the second place - chapter 16 - we talk about the destruction and reconstruction of the church. But understanding this place is complicated by the ambiguity of the text of the Epistle: what church is the author of the Epistle talking about restoring, and who are the “servants of their enemies” who will restore it? According to the newest researchers (A. Harnack, P. Ladeuze), one should see here an indication of the Church of Jupiter, which under Emperor Hadrian was built on the site of an ancient Jewish church. Futurum “ἀνοικοδομήσουσιν” - “will be restored” - in connection with “νυ ν” - “now” - is explained in the sense that by the time the Epistle was written, the restoration of the city, which began to be called “Aelia Capitolina,” had already begun, but the construction of the church was only expected in the future;
In 132, a great uprising of the Jews followed, and therefore the state of affairs presented to the writer of the Epistle falls to the year 130 or 131 - the writing of the Epistle should also date back to this time.
Thus, the restoration of the church is understood in a purely material sense. This interpretation seems all the more natural at first glance since at the beginning of the chapter we are talking about the Temple of Jerusalem and in connection with this it is said about its destruction - from here we can conclude that the church being restored is material. But a closer look at the text reveals that the reconstruction of the church can only be understood in a spiritual sense.
Given the widespread use of allegory, which the author uses throughout the Epistle, it would not be surprising if he suddenly moved from the material church to the spiritual, but even this cannot be said in this place: the transition is prepared by a quotation from the prophet Isaiah, through whose mouth the Lord expresses condemnation of the material temple of Jerusalem: “Find out what the Lord says when he abolishes it (the church): who measured Heaven by an inch, or the Earth by a handful (Is. 40:12). Isn't it me? - says the Lord. - Heaven is My Throne, and Earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me, or what place of My resting place” (Isaiah 66:1)?
Immediately after this, the author speaks of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and the creation of a new one. Is it really possible in this regard to talk about the reconstruction of the material temple of the Jews, and even more so of the pagan one? The rebuilt church must, according to the prophecy - the concept of God given in the last - be not material, but spiritual. Therefore, the reconstruction of the church must be understood in a purely spiritual sense, and only such an understanding is justified by the very specific content of the second part of the chapter.
Then the train of thought in the first part will be presented in this form. After words about the destruction of the church and its restoration by the subjects of the enemies of the Jews, the author of the Epistle dwells on the first part of his thought and shows that the tradition of the city, church and people was predicted by the prophets: “and it came to pass as the Lord said.”
Now the writer moves on to the second part of his thought - the restoration of the church, in order to actually stop there: “let’s explore whether the church of God exists”? and immediately answers: “there is - where, according to the word of the Lord, God Himself creates it and arranges it.” Then he gives a description of this reconstruction of the church as a spiritual one, carried out in the Christian Church, and, as if wanting to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding of the thoughts he expressed, he expressively concludes his speech with these words: “here is a spiritual church being built for the Lord.”
Thus, this is not a stone church, but a church in the hearts of believers, and the builders - “the servants of the enemies themselves” - are not Roman masons, but Christians, subjects of the Romans, who destroyed the Jewish church. The creation of the spiritual church continues at the present time, but will continue in the following days until the end of the World - therefore the combination: now they will recreate (νυ ν ἀνοικοδομήσουσιν).
But if neither the first nor the second place, each individually, can serve as a basis for determining the time of origin of the Epistle, then both together, in connection with the entire content and character of the Epistle, can serve as sufficient grounds for the assumption that the Epistle was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the church in the year 70, under the living impression of this event, which by its circumstances caused the expectation of the imminent End of the World: the readers of the Epistle themselves saw how the Lord, after so many signs and wonders, left Israel (4:14); The Jews' hope for the church turned out to be vain, for because they were constantly fighting, their church was destroyed by their enemies (chapter 16).
The cruelty of Nero, his violent death, the subsequent internecine war between four claimants who have no rights to the throne other than the will of their legions; and the associated possibility of thoughts about the complete destruction of the Roman state itself, the horrors of the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem with the church - all this taken together seemed to really indicate that the last temptation was approaching, and that the Lord had shortened the times and days so that the Beloved would hasten His Glorious Coming to His inheritance.
Daniel's prophecy of world catastrophe is fulfilled (chapter 4); and after the completion of the week, as it is written (Dan 9:24, 25), the glorious church of God will be built in the name of the Lord. In this case, it seems most likely that the Epistle was written directly after the year 70, when the impression of the catastrophe was completely fresh, which the author of the Epistle takes advantage of in order to more deeply imprint in the minds of the readers those truths about the meaning of the Old Testament and its relationship to the New Testament, which he sets out in the Epistle in a form that is understandable to them.
II. 6. Readers of the Message and its place of origin
The Author of the Message does not give specific instructions regarding the readers to whom the Message was addressed. In his address he calls them “sons and daughters,” and in the text itself “children,” but also “brothers.”
There is no doubt that the writer of the Epistle once lived among those Christians to whom he wrote, shared with them everything that he received, knew closely their successes in Christianity and the degree of their intellectual understanding (“I am simply writing to you so that you may understand” - chapter 6); he loves them more than his own soul. There are no other precise indications regarding this private Church in the Epistle, nor has it been preserved in Tradition. It is not surprising that Origen (ContraCelsum 1:63) already calls him καθολικ ῇ ἐπιστολ ῇ and thus makes all the Christians of that time the addressees of the Epistle.
Based on the special nature of the content of the Epistle, which sets out so many details from the history and ritual institutions of the Jews, it can be assumed that the first circle of readers was a private Church, consisting, if not exclusively of Judeo-Christians, then with a significant predominance of them.
This Church was probably located in Alexandria or near Alexandria, in which the Apostle Barnabas could have had close connections, especially considering the proximity of the island of Cyprus to it, as well as the indisputable historical fact that Barnabas’ nephew, Saint Mark, preached in Alexandria.
The place where the Epistle was written also cannot be determined even approximately; one can, however, point to the island of Cyprus, the place of birth and death of Barnabas.
III. Saint Clement of Rome
III. 1. Information about the life of St. Clement
Saint Clement of Rome, as can be judged from the evidence of antiquity, was an outstanding and revered Ancient Church figure. An eloquent proof of his high authority and veneration can be found in the basilica dedicated to him in Rome, which is mentioned by Blessed Jerome: nominis eius memoriam usque hodie Romae extructa ecclesia custodit (De vir. ill., 5).
It is not surprising, therefore, that already at an early date extensive narratives appear about the circumstances of his life; but in them the true events of his life are so intertwined with later arbitrary additions that at the present time it is hardly possible to highlight their historical grain.
As is rightly noted (B. F. Westcott. A general Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament. 8 ed. Cambridge and London, 1889, p. 28), Clement, thanks to the general recognition of his importance as a representative of the modern Church, lost his individuality; why, despite a whole range of legends about the life of such a famous father of the Church, from his early youth to his glorious death, we have too little reliable information about the historical Clement.
About the life of Saint Clement before taking the episcopal see of the capital of the world, only assumptions are possible. Who he was from, where he came from, where, when and under what circumstances he accepted Christianity - antiquity does not give an answer to all these questions that, from a historical-critical point of view, could be considered completely valid.
Attempts to identify the Roman Bishop Clement with the consul of 95 Titus Flavius Clement, uncle of the Emperor Domitian, whom the latter executed in 96 - probably for belonging to Christianity - cannot be accepted for the sole reason that, according to a very specific indication of the Ancient Church tradition, Clement was a bishop until the third year of Trajan, that is, until the year 100-101 (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:34; Hier. ill., 5).
Everything that pseudo-Clementines tell about Clement has no historical value, according to which he came from a Roman patrician family, tormented by the search for truth, went to the East, first became a proselyte of Judaism, then a disciple of Simon Magus and, finally, a Christian.
In general, it is difficult to imagine how the memory of the fact that the famous Roman - even a consul and relative of the Imperial House - was among its first bishops could completely disappear in the Roman Church.
In addition, the style, vocabulary and entire content of the thoughts of the Epistle famous with the name of Clement do not reveal in the author any traces of the education that the Roman aristocrat undoubtedly possessed. And this argument is of such serious importance that in these aspects of the Epistle they see evidence of the Jewish, and not the pagan, origin of its author.
The Epistle is the product of a mind that was, so to speak, saturated with the knowledge of the Old Testament; the author is no stranger to classical culture (chapters 20, 24, 33, 37, 38 and 40), but this acquaintance is more or less superficial. His thoughts and expressions are rooted in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. He, of course, is a Hellenist, since he does not show familiarity with the Old Testament in the original language, but his knowledge of the translation of the LXX Interpreters is close and thorough: he is not limited to one part of it, but freely uses all the Old Testament Sacred Books; he quotes very often, and his quotations are obviously given from memory. He is familiar with the traditional interpretation of the Holy Text (8, 9, 11, 31st chapters).
The style of the Epistle is purely Hebraistic in nature. All this indicates in Clement, the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians, a Hellenistic Jew, or, in extreme cases, a proselyte, who has been skilled in reading the Holy Books since childhood.
It is not without probability that Clement was a freedman or the son of a freedman who belonged to the house of a relative of the Emperor Domitian, Flavius Clement. This social position did not in any way prevent Clement from being an intelligent, educated person and then becoming the leader of such a famous Church.
Saint Irenaeus of Lyons testifies that Clement saw the blessed Apostles, communicated with them and had the preaching of the Apostles in his ears and their tradition before his eyes (Adv. haer. 3:33; Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:6). But when and where he saw the apostles and by which of them he was converted to Christianity is unknown. Origen (in Ioahn. 1:29) and after him Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:15), Epiphanius (Haer. 28:6), Jerome (De vir. ill., 15) identify the Bishop of Rome with that Clement, about whom the Apostle Paul speaks with such praise in the Epistle to the Philippians (4:3) and thus declare his disciple of the Apostle Paul, and John Chrysostom claims (1st conversation on 1 Tim. and 13th conversation on the Epistle to the Philippians) that Clement in preaching the faith was a collaborator with the teacher of languages, suffered with him in Philippi, sharing the dangers and labors of the Apostolic ministry in other places.
Clementines make him a companion and closest disciple of the Apostle Peter. But in general, the ancient writers recognized Clement as an Apostolic man: Origen directly calls him an Apostolic disciple (De princip., 2:3), Blessed Jerome - an Apostolic man (Comm. in Is. 70:13), and Clement of Alexandria even an Apostle (Strom, 4:17: ὁ ἀπόστολος Κλήμης), and against this belief of the ancients one cannot find any objections either in the time of Clement’s life or in the Epistle to the Corinthians.
According to the unanimous testimony of antiquity, Clement was one of the first successors of the Apostles in the episcopal see in Rome; but his place among these successors was already determined differently in ancient times: Irenaeus, who reports the Roman tradition from the time of Bishop Eleutherius (c. 180), says that Clement was called to lead the Church in third place from the Apostles after Linus and Anacletus (Adv. haer., 3: 3, 8).
Jerome, who, in agreement with Irenaeus, calls (De vir. ill., 15) Clement the fourth bishop of Rome, including the Apostle Peter, indicates that many of the Latins consider Clement second after the Apostle Peter (compare: Adv. Iovin. 1:12; Comment in Is. ad 52, 14). Tertullian seems to express this second opinion when he says: Romanorum (Ecclesia) Clementem a Petro ordinatum edit (De praescr. haer., 32).
In the Chronicle of Hippolytus, Clement stands before Cletus (Peter, Linus, Clement, Cletus); this order then goes into the Liberian Catalog and is adopted by Augustine, Optatus and others. The compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions (7:46) also calls Clement the successor of Linus: Linus was dedicated by Paul, and after the death of Linus, the Apostle Peter dedicated Clement.
Epiphanius (Haer. 27:6) thinks that Clement was undoubtedly appointed by Peter; but for the sake of peace, he ceded the Church leadership to Linus and took it upon himself only after the death of Cletus (Anacletus). Rufinus offers a new attempt to reconcile two traditions: Linus and Cletus were bishops of Rome before Clement, but during the life of Peter; They were entrusted with the care of the episcopacy, and the Apostle Peter himself performed the ministry of the Apostleship, and thus both seem to be true, and those before Clement are called bishops, and Clement, after the death of Peter, occupied the episcopal see.
But all these experiments of agreement are artificial, and if one makes a choice between two opposing testimonies, then one cannot deny the complete reliability of the tradition of which Irenaeus is a representative. He deserves all the more confidence because he especially sought to give an accurate and substantiated listing of the most ancient bishops of Rome.
But Irenaeus does not give any information about the time and duration of Clement's bishopric. Eusebius, who considers Clement third among the successors of the Apostle Peter, testifies that Clement stood at the head of the Roman Church for nine years and died in the third year of the reign of Trajan; consequently, the time of Clement's episcopacy falls on the years 92–101 (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:15, 34; cf. Chron. adan. Abrah. 2110), beginning in the twelfth year of the reign of Domitian.
No news has reached us about the episcopal activities of this famous father of the Church in ancient times. There is no indication of the personal circumstances of his life in the Epistle to the Corinthians he wrote: the individual personality of the author is almost completely obscured by the collective personality of the Roman Church, in whose name he wrote. But from the Epistle it is clear that Clement had the lot to govern the Church in a very difficult time: it was a time of “unexpected and successive misfortunes and disasters” that befell the Roman Church (chapter 1).
It must be thought that these disasters greatly shocked the Roman Church if She refers to them as the reason for the delay in Her fraternal Epistle to the Corinthian Christians. Then from the same Epistle it is clear that Clement's pastoral love and care were not limited only to his Roman flock, but extended beyond its borders. It is not possible to fill this diagram of Saint Clement’s activities with any actual content with available funds.
The most ancient writers do not report anything about the manner of death of Clement. Irenaeus does not seem to know about his martyrdom, since from Linus to Eleutherius he names only one martyr, Telesphorus. Eusebius and Jerome speak of his death without a single word hinting at his martyrdom (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:34: ἀναλύει τòν βίον; Hier. De vir. ill., 15: obiit).
But in the Roman calendars and liturgies, from the time of Rufinus and Pope Zosimus, Clement is constantly called a martyr; and Martyrium S. Clementii, compiled in the 4th century, crowns his glorious life with an equally glorious death: under Trajan he was exiled to Tauride Chersonese and, after very successful missionary activity there, found a martyr’s death in the waves of the sea.
Despite the fact that, according to the prevailing scientific conviction, these legends are recognized as a later fiction, based on the confusion of the Roman Bishop Clement with the Consul Clement, nevertheless, until recently there has been no shortage of defenders of this tradition, which essentially does not contain anything incredible (see, for example, R. Allard, Histoiredepersécutions pendantlesdeuxpremierssiècles. Paris, 1885, p. 169–176).
III. 2. The Epistle to the Corinthians: historical evidence about it and textual tradition
The historical significance of Saint Clement is best illustrated by the fact that ancient tradition makes him the author of a number of works: in addition to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, many other Epistles are attributed to him (the so-called Second Epistle to the Corinthians, two Epistles to the Virgins, two to James, the brother of the Lord, to all Churches and all the faithful, to two of Clement’s disciples - Julius and Julian, to Christians of Jerusalem), Clementines, Apostolic Rules, Apostolic Constitutions.
Obviously, his authority stood so high that later writers had strong hopes of making their works significant and widespread, passing them off as the works of the famous Bishop of Rome.
But of all the works bearing the name of Clement, only one indisputably belongs to him, namely the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This is an extensive pastoral Epistle written on behalf of the Roman Church (ἐκ προσώπου τη ς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας – Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:38. 1; expersona Romanae ecclesiae Hier. Devir. ill., 15) to the Church of Corinth. Neither in the inscription of the Message nor in its text is there any indication of the name of its author; despite this, its origin from Clement is undoubted, since the conviction of this is based on the unanimous testimony of antiquity.
The existence of the Epistle and its prevalence already at the beginning of the 2nd century is evidenced by the fact of its undoubted use by Saint Polycarp of Smyrna, who cites many passages from it almost literally in his Epistle to the Philippians (for a detailed listing and comparison of these passages, see: Fr. X. Funk'a. Patres apostolici. Tubingae, 1901. p. XLI-XLIII). But Polycarp does not name the author of the Epistle.
According to the testimony of Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:22. 1), Igisippus, in his (not extant) work against the Gnostics, clearly mentions the Epistle of Clement and speaks about it; at the same time, in another place, Eusebius writes that: “in the time of Clement, an indignation actually occurred, about which Izygippus is a worthy witness (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:16).
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (about 170) in his response Epistle to Bishop Sotira of Rome (166-174) says that the Epistle of Sotira was read in the liturgical assembly of the Corinthian Church on the Lord's Day and that they will continue to read it for their edification, like the first Epistle written to them by Clement (ἐκ προσώκου τη ς Ῥ ωμαίων ἐκκλησίας – Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:23).
This testimony of the Corinthian bishop is of essential importance in the question of whether the Epistle belongs to Clement, since, firstly, it was expressed by the primate of the Church to which the Epistle in question was addressed; secondly, it was borrowed by Eusebius from an Epistle written to the primate of the Roman Church, on whose behalf Clement wrote his Epistle.
Naturally, the most faithful tradition about the author of the Epistle should have been preserved in Corinth, if it was always read in Divine services; Therefore, this testimony alone, regardless of its continuous confirmation by subsequent Church writers, would be sufficient to recognize the undoubted attribution of the Epistle to St. Clement of Rome.
Saint Irenaeus, listing the Roman bishops, the Apostolic successors, when mentioning Clement, writes: “under this Clement, when there was no small disturbance between the brothers in Corinth, the Roman Church wrote a very practical Epistle to the Corinthians (ἱκανωτάτην γροαρὴν), exhorting them to peace and restoring their faith and proclaiming the tradition recently received from the Apostles.” (Adv. haer., 3:3, 8; Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:6). This testimony does not name Clement as the author of the Epistle, but speaks of its origin during his bishopric.
The Epistle of Clement was also known in the Church of Alexandria, where Clement of Alexandria very often used it, as noted by Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 6:13, 6), sometimes without mentioning the name of the author, sometimes with a clear designation of it. Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:38. 1) calls the Epistle “recognized by all,” “great and amazing” and says that “it was read publicly, as before in many Churches, so now among us” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:16). Blessed Jerome expresses a similar judgment (De vir. ill., 15: in nonnulis locis publice legitur).
There is no need to cite later evidence (Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, Epiphanius, Ambrose of Milan, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Patriarch Photius and others).
From the above data it is clear that the Ancient Church writers recognized the Epistle as the work of Clement of Rome; it was known not only in the Christian West, but also in the East (and here mainly) - thus, it was known in Smyrna (Polycarp), in Alexandria (Clement and Origen), among the Copts (Coptic translation), on the island of Cyprus (Epiphanius), in Gaul (Irenaeus), in Caesarea (Eusebius), in Jerusalem (Cyril) and, probably, in other places in the Christian world.
It was so respected that it was read in liturgical assemblies not only in Corinth, but also in many other places. Hence the custom arose of copying it into one book with the New Testament writings, as indicated by the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century, which has it (together with the Second Epistle) immediately after the Apocalypse.
Thus, the tradition about the origin of the Epistle from the Roman Clement goes back to such ancient times, so consistent and stable, that it can be given significance equal in strength to the testimony about the author of the Epistle itself.
Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written in Greek, is currently known in two Greek manuscripts:
a) In the Codex Alexandrinus, Greek copy of the Bible of the 5th century (now in the library of the British Museum in London); in it the last eleven leaves of the manuscript contain the First and so-called Second Epistle of Clement. Since one sheet is lost, several chapters are missing in the first Epistle (from 57:6, πλησθήσονται, to the end of the 63rd chapter); from the Second Epistle the codex has only the first twelve chapters (the last one is not complete) - the rest (all 20 chapters) is lost. In addition, in the existing sheets of the manuscript, many letters and entire words are either completely erased or are so unclear that it is not possible to restore them with confidence in the correctness of the restoration.
b) The gaps in the Codex Alexandrinus are filled in by the text in the Codex of Jerusalem of 1056 (in which Διδαχή); this codex contains the full text of both Epistles. But from a textual-critical point of view, it cannot challenge the primacy of the Alexandrian Codex and has only the advantage of completeness over the latter. In addition to the manuscripts of the Greek text, three translations are currently known - Syriac, Latin and Coptic. An ancient and very careful translation of both Epistles into Syriac is contained in a manuscript (of the New Testament except the Apocalypse) of 1170 (in the library of the University of Canterbury), published in 1899 (R. L. Benslyand R. H. Kennett: The Epistlesofst. Clement to the Corinthians in Syriac, edited from the manuscript with notes. London, 1899).
The Latin translation of the First Epistle was found in an 11th-century manuscript in one of the Belgian libraries; the translation is an important monument of the Vulgar Latin language and is very close in character to Itala - it arose in II or. 3rd century, probably in Rome. It is based on a good Greek text that is rendered with literal accuracy; but it is not identical with any known Greek text. This circumstance gives the translation an important textual-critical significance, which some (for example, Knopf, Dererste Klemensbrief. Leipzig, 1899) even exaggerate too much (published by G. Morin in Anecdota Maredsolana, vol II: S. Clementis Romani ad Corinthios epistulae versio latina antiquissima. Maredsoli, 1894).
In 1908, a Coptic translation of the First Epistle was published based on a manuscript found in the monastery of Pyenuti (Shnudi) in Egypt; the manuscript is written on papyrus and dates back to the 4th century, therefore older than the Alexandrian Codex; in terms of text type, it is closer to the Greek text than to other translations (S. Schmidt, Der erste Clemensbrief in altkoptischer Übersetzung. Leipzig, 1908 - in Texte und Unters. XXXII; 1).
Thus, in relation to textual data, the First Epistle of Clement is in particularly favorable conditions compared to other works of Ancient Church writing.
III. 3. Contents of the Message
The message consists of 65 chapters and according to its content is divided into the following parts:
2) The presentation, which in turn is divided into two parts with chapters 7–36 and 37–61. and
3) Conclusion (62–65 chapters).
In the first part of the presentation, the author proceeds from a specific fact that served as the reason for writing the Message, but revolves mainly in general reasoning, which has the same meaning for both the addressees and those sending the Message: only individual expressions scattered in different places in this part have a connection with a specific reason.
The second part of the presentation of the Message is much more specific, in which direct appeals to readers are more often found, although even here the writer’s peculiarity is clearly reflected in the way of presenting detailed evidence on the broadest general basis.
The Epistle begins, following the model of the Apostolic Epistles, with these words: “The Church of God, which is in Rome, the Church of God, which is in Corinth, are called, sanctified according to the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you from almighty God through Jesus Christ.”
Following this, the author points out the reasons why the Roman Church was slow to pay attention to the controversial affairs in Corinth - these were unexpected and successive disasters that befell the Roman Church.
The reason for writing the Epistle was an indecent and alien to the chosen ones of God, a criminal and wicked rebellion, which a few daring and arrogant people inflamed to such madness that the venerable, famous and beloved name of the Corinthian Church became the subject of great reproach.
The epistle depicts with vivid and vivid features the former highly moral state of the Corinthian Christian society, distinguished by firm faith, piety, generous hospitality, perfect and faithful knowledge, general order in life, modesty and decency of young men, chastity of wives (chapter 1). Everyone was humble and free from vanity, they loved to obey rather than command, and to give than to receive.
All were given deep and abundant peace and an insatiable desire to do good, and there was a complete outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon all. Everyone was sincere, sincere and did not remember any harm against each other. Any rebellion and any division was disgusting to them. Adorned with such virtue, they did everything in the fear of the Lord. His permissions and commandments were written on the tablets of their hearts (chapter 2). All glory and breadth were given to them.
It was like that before. Now jealousy and envy, enmity and discord, persecution and indignation, war and captivity arose among the Corinthians. Dishonest people rebelled against the respectable, inglorious against the glorious, stupid against the wise, young against the elders. Therefore, truth and peace departed. Each has abandoned the fear of God and does not lead a life worthy of Christ, but follows his own evil lusts, again allowing lawless and ungodly envy, through which death entered the world (chapter 3).
In support of the idea that envy “discord overthrew great cities and completely destroyed great nations, the Epistle points to examples from the lives of Cain and Abel, where jealousy and envy led to fratricide, to the relationship of Esau and Jacob, the sons of Jacob to Joseph, to the attitude of the Jews towards Moses in Egypt, to examples of the envy of Aaron and Miriam, Dathan and Abiron, to the persecution of David by Saul (chapter 4).
From ancient examples, the Epistle moves on to the closest ascetics and points to the suffering and martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul and with them a great many chosen husbands and wives who suffered many reproaches and torments due to envy (Ch. 5–6).
The First Part of the Epistle (chapters 7–36) sets out general instructions about the life of Christians in peace, love and harmony. To soften the tone of subsequent exhortations, the author of the Epistle makes a reservation: “we write this not only for your instruction, but also for our own reminder.”
At the head of the instructions, the Epistle lays down the general rule of Christian life: “let us leave empty and vain worries and turn to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling; Let us look at what is good, whatever is pleasing and pleasing to our Creator.” Let us look carefully at the blood of Christ and realize how precious it is before God: shed for our salvation, it brought the grace of repentance to the whole world. Let us go through all the generations and find out that the Lord in each generation mercifully accepted the repentance of those who wanted to turn to him.
With numerous examples from the Old Testament, the author argues that sincere repentance, submission to the will of God, faith, piety and hospitality are pleasing to God (chap. 7-12). Therefore, it is necessary to be humble, put aside pride, foolishness, and anger. With these instructions let us strengthen ourselves to walk in humility, obeying the holy commandments of God (chapter 13). We must obey God rather than follow those who, in arrogance and arrogance, have become the leaders of rebellion, for we are exposed to no small harm and danger if we rashly surrender ourselves to the will of those people who spread discord and rebellion (chapter 14). Let us join those who keep peace with piety, and not those who wish for peace with hypocrisy (chapter 15). Christ belongs to the humble, and not to those who exalt themselves above His flock. In Himself, in His earthly life, He gave an example of the greatest humility.
But if the Lord humbled Himself in this way, what should we do, who through Him have come under the yoke of His grace? “Let us also imitate those who wandered about in goatskins and sheepskins, preaching about the Coming of Christ.” The message points to worthy examples of humility in the lives of the Old Testament righteous (Abraham, Job, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Ezekiel, Daniel). The humility and obedient submission of these men made not only us (Christians), but also previous generations better.
Even inanimate nature indicates the need for everyone and everything to be subject to a certain order and is an example of peace and harmony established by God. The heavens obey Him and carry out the course determined by Him. The sun, moon and faces of the stars, in harmonious harmony, follow the paths predetermined for them by the Creator. In the regular cycle of seasons, the Earth provides food for people and animals. The immeasurable waters of the sea do not exceed the limits set for them. The ocean, impassable for people, and the worlds beyond it are governed by the same commandments of the Lord. The seasons - spring, summer, autumn and winter - peacefully give way to one another. Certain winds, each in its own time, perform their service without hindrance. Never-ending springs, created for pleasure and health, constantly supply people with the moisture they need for their lives.
Finally, the smallest animals live together peacefully and harmoniously” (chapter 1. 9–20). Therefore, we must beware lest so many of the Creator’s good deeds turn into condemnation for us if we do not, in unanimity, do what is good and pleasing to Him, the Omniscient; It is better to resist stupid and senseless people who extol themselves with the pomp of speech. “Let us revere the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us, let us honor our leaders, respect our elders, raise our young men in the fear of God, guide our wives to goodness so that they are distinguished by the most amiable disposition of chastity, teach our children humility, pure love and the fear of God, which is saving for all (chapter 21). All this is confirmed by the Christian faith, promising eternal rewards to those who trust in God and threatening sinners with punishment, and God’s promises will undoubtedly be fulfilled, because He is true, merciful, omnipotent and omnipresent.
Thus, from general exhortations to agreement, the author moves on to specifically Christian motives. The deepest basis for agreement lies in our grace-filled calling and confidence in the future Resurrection and Glorification.
The author invites those who doubt the Resurrection to consider how the Lord constantly shows us the future Resurrection, of which He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruits, raising Him from the dead, in the alternation of day and night, in the fruiting of dry and bare grains thrown by the sower into the Earth, in the extraordinary birth of the Phoenix from the corpse of an ancestor. Therefore, should it be considered great and amazing if the Creator of all things resurrects those who holyly served Him, when He reveals to us through the bird the greatness of His promise? In the hope of the Resurrection, our souls must be attached to Him who is faithful in His promises and righteous in judgments. He who commanded not to lie will certainly not lie himself. When He pleases, He Himself will do everything, and nothing He has determined will remain unfulfilled (chap. 22–23).
In the consciousness that we are the chosen people, we must approach God in holiness of soul, raising pure and undefiled hands to Him, avoiding slander, unclean and vicious relationships, drunkenness, passion for innovation, base lusts, vile adultery and vile pride. Let us clothe ourselves with like-mindedness, let us be humble, self-controlled, far from slander, justifying ourselves by deeds and not by words.
Impudence, arrogance and insolence are characteristic of those cursed by God; moderation, humility and meekness are among those blessed by God (chap. 29–30). Therefore, let us seek His blessing and see what paths lead to blessing. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob became famous not by themselves, not by their deeds, but by the will of God. So we, who were called by the water of Christ Jesus, are justified not by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or reason, or piety, or the works we do in holiness of heart, but by faith, through which God has justified everyone from the ages (chap. 31-32).
But it does not follow from this that one should have a negative attitude towards good deeds. “So what should we do, brothers? – the author asks, “Should we lag behind virtue and love?” Not at all - God forbid that this should happen to us; on the contrary, let us hasten with all our effort and readiness to do every good deed.” The Lord and Creator Himself rejoices in His deeds; all the righteous were adorned with good deeds. “Having such an example, let us follow His will without laziness and with all our strength we will do works of righteousness (chap. 33). Only those who are zealous in doing good, and not careless and careless in this, can, in a like-minded meeting, with one spirit, as if from one mouth, cry to Him unceasingly, in order to become partakers of His great and glorious promises, which are prepared for those who trust in Him. Therefore, let us make every effort to be among those who trust in Him and participate in the promised gifts. We will achieve this if we seek what is pleasing to Him, do what is in accordance with His holy will, walk the path of truth, rejecting from ourselves all untruth and lawlessness, covetousness and inhospitality.
For those who do this are hated by God, and not only those who do it, but also those who approve of it (chap. 34-35). This is the way in which we find our salvation, Jesus Christ, the High Priest of our offerings, the Advocate and Helper in our weakness. Through His mediation we look up to the heights of Heaven, we see the pure and bright face (of God); through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; through Him our foolish and darkened mind blossoms into His wonderful light; Through Him the Lord wanted us to taste immortal knowledge. He is the radiance of the majesty of God, higher than the angels, sitting at the right hand of God, the Son of God, to whom His enemies will be subdued. Who are the enemies? The vicious, those who resist His will (chap. 36).
The second part (chap. 36–61) contains instructions directly related to the uprising in Corinth, and mainly regarding the Church hierarchy. In a Christian society there must be a certain, strictly defined order; this idea is explained primarily by pointing to the orders that exist in the army and the expedient structure of the human body.
The soldiers, under the command of the leaders, orderly, diligently, obediently carry out orders: not all dioceses, nor commanders of thousands, or commanders of hundreds, or commanders of fifties, and so on, but each in his own rank carries out the orders of the Tsar and the generals.
Neither the great without the small, nor the small without the great can exist. It’s exactly the same in our body: a head without legs means nothing, likewise legs without a head, and the smallest members in our body; all of them, in a harmonious and harmonious subordination, serve for the health of the whole body. So let our whole body be healthy in Jesus Christ, and let everyone obey his neighbor in accordance with the position that has been assigned to him by the gift of God. “The strong do not despise the weak, and the weak honor the strong; the rich help the poor, and the poor thank God for what he has given him, through whom his poverty can be replenished. If you are wise, show your wisdom not in words, but in good deeds.” One should not boast before others, remembering that everything is given by God, that man himself cannot accomplish anything by his own strength alone, and that it is unreasonable to boast about anything (chap. 37–39).
In the Old Testament, God Himself established certain orders in liturgical and hierarchical terms. We must do in order what the Lord commanded to be done at certain times. He commanded that sacrifices and sacred acts should not be performed at random, but at certain times and hours.
By His highest will He determined where and through whom this should be done. The high priest is given his office, the priests are given their place, and the Levites are given their offices; the worldly man is bound by decrees for the people. If the Jews established a strict order for sacrifices, violation of which is punishable by death, then the greater danger threatens Christians who are worthy of greater knowledge (chap. 40-41). And in Christian society there is a certain order established by God and Christ through the Apostles.
The apostles were sent to preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ from God. Preaching in various countries and cities, the Apostles appointed the firstborn of those who believed, after a spiritual test, to be bishops and deacons for those who would accept the faith (chap. 42).
In the Old Testament, when a dispute arose about the priesthood, Moses stopped it by a miracle with Aaron's rod. And the Apostles knew from the Lord that there would be contention about the episcopal dignity; Therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they ordered that after the death of the bishops and deacons they appointed, other proven men would take over their ministry. Therefore, it is unfair to deprive the ministry of those who were appointed by the Apostles themselves or after them by other respected men, with the consent of the entire Church, and served the flock of Christ blamelessly and with humility, meekly and blamelessly, and, moreover, for a long time (chap. 44).
Then the Epistle moves from general judgments about the Church structure to a particular case, which served as the reason for writing the Epistle and constitutes its main subject. Based on examples from the Old Testament (Daniel, Ananias, Azariah, Misail), the author of the Epistle proves that the righteous, if they suffered persecution, it was always from the wicked; and were glorified by God.
In view of such examples, one must join the innocent and the righteous as God's chosen ones. “Why do you have strife, anger, disagreement, division, war? Do we not have one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out on us, is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we rend and tear apart the members of Christ, rebel against our own body and reach such madness that we forget that we are members of one another?”... “Your division has corrupted many, plunged many into despondency, many into doubt, and all of us into sadness, and your confusion still continues” (chap. 45-46).
The division in the Corinthian Church is not a new phenomenon: the Apostle Paul already wrote an Epistle regarding the division that arose among them then. But the former division was less sinful than the present; because then the Corinthians leaned towards the side of the Apostles (Peter and Paul) and the man approved by them (Apollos). And now what people have corrupted them and diminished the beauty of their brotherly love? A shameful thing is heard: the most solid and ancient Church of Corinth, because of one or two people, rebelled against the elders. “And this rumor has reached not only us, but also our very enemies, so that through your madness the name of the Lord is being desecrated, and danger is being prepared for you” (chap. 47).
So, let’s stop all this as soon as possible, let’s beg God to reconcile with us and restore the former life of brotherly love, by virtue of which everyone should humble himself the more, the more he seems great and should seek the common good, and not his own; there is nothing arrogant in love, love does not allow division, do not create indignation, everything is done in harmony. “Love prompted the Lord to suffer for us. Through love, sins are forgiven. And those who have been the authors of indignation and division must have a common hope in mind; for whoever spent his life in fear and love would rather expose himself to shame than his neighbors, and would rather accept condemnation on himself than on the consent given to us (chap. 43–52).
Love aroused Old Testament husbands and even wives (Moses, Judith, Esther) and pagans to feats of self-denial for the sake of the salvation of the people. “If because of me there is rebellion, discord and division, I leave and go wherever you please, and I will do everything that the people command, so long as the flock of Christ is in peace with the appointed elders” (chap. 53–55). “Let us also pray for those who have sinned, that they may be granted meekness and humility, and that they submit to the will of God,” and this prayer before God and the saints will be fruitful (chap. 56).
“So, you, who initiated the indignation, submit to the elders and accept admonition to repentance... Learn humility, putting aside the vain and arrogant insolence of the tongue; For it is better for you to be honored as little ones in the flock of Christ, than to be called too high and to lose His hope.”
If anyone does not submit to what God Himself said through this Message, let them know that they will be subject to a fall and no small danger. “We will be innocent of this sin and will constantly pray, asking and begging that the Creator of all His chosen ones throughout the world will preserve inviolate through His beloved Son Jesus Christ.”
At the same time, the speech imperceptibly turns into a prayer for help and protection of Christians, Fr. salvation of those in sorrow, restoration and strengthening of the fallen and weak, healing of the sick, liberation of captives, conversion of the lost, forgiveness and remission of sins, instruction on the path of truth and holiness, peace and unanimity. all Christians and all people, about the health, peace and firmness of kings and rulers on earth, about instructing them in what is good and pleasing to God, about the peaceful and meek use of power, about pardoning them (chap. 57–61).
In conclusion (chap. 62–65), the author briefly repeats the contents of the Epistle, urges people to obey what was said and return to peace and unity, and, finally, asks to immediately release the messengers so that they can quickly announce the desired and desired peace and harmony in Corinth. “May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with everyone.”
The message ends with the usual doxology.
III. 4. Analysis of the content of the Message
a) The question of the Corinthian revolt.
From the Epistle it is clear that the reason for writing it was the sad events in the Corinthian Church: internal strife arose in It, the result of which was the overthrow of some Church-hierarchical persons from their positions. The unhealthy atmosphere of the anciently famous, rich, luxurious and depraved Corinth, which also became one of the main centers of secular learning and a place of collision of different philosophical and religious worldviews, had an irresistible influence on the population and at times, apparently, penetrated into the society of Corinthian Christians, causing divisions and harmful disturbances here.
Already the Apostle Paul had to experience a heavy sense of grief over internal strife among the Corinthian Christians, divided into parties; Some said: I am Pavlov, others: I am Apollosov, others: I am Cephas, fourth: and I am Christ’s (1 Cor. 1:12).
People came forward, exalting themselves in their wisdom, selfish, proud, loving litigation and strife, and generally devoted to various vices; a crime (incest) was discovered that was unheard of even among the pagans.
Then the authority of the Apostle Paul put an end to the wrangling, and a temporary calm came in the Church of Corinth, but only temporary, since several decades later, when Clement stood at the head of the Roman Church (92-101), unrest broke out in Corinth with renewed vigor, even sadder, since their internal motives were insignificant: previously the Corinthian Christians leaned either towards the side of the Apostles (Peter and Paul), or a husband approved by them (Apollos), and now they follow insignificant people - even more dangerous in their consequences, because they could no longer be opposed by the power of the living and authoritative Apostolic word.
“All the glory and breadth” was given to the Corinthian Church, but now “dishonest people rebelled against the respectable, the inglorious against the glorious, the foolish against the wise, the young against the elders; therefore, truth and peace have departed, since everyone has abandoned the fear of God, has become dull in His faith, does not walk according to the rules of His Commandments and does not lead a life worthy of Christ, but everyone followed their own evil lusts, again allowing lawless and ungodly envy” (chap. 3). The “criminal and wicked rebellion” in Corinth attracted the attention of the Roman Church, which decided to turn to the Corinthian Church with a word of admonition.
Of course, the drafting of this Epistle was entrusted to the husband, in whose ability to exhort and convince everyone was confident; such a person was the Primate of the Church Clement, who undoubtedly taught at Church meetings. He carried out the task entrusted to him with great thoroughness.
The wealth of quotations and examples from all sorts of areas, the precise formulation of exhortations and evidence indicate that the author had already previously considered, illuminated and, perhaps, presented to believers those issues that are revealed in the Epistle; This probably explains the homiletical nature of the Epistle, noted by some researchers (Adolf Harnack, Rudolf Knopf), in which they want to see even separate cycles or series of topics that have little connection with each other; The first part of the Epistle is predominantly characterized by this character.
When examining questions about the Church-historical significance of the Epistle, it is first of all necessary to decide whether the Epistle of the Roman Church was a response to a written or oral (through a deliberate embassy) request of the Corinthian Christians to help them in organizing their internal affairs, or whether the Roman Church, on its own initiative, knowing about the sad events in Corinth, responded to them with heartfelt contrition and authoritative admonition.
It is difficult to say anything definite about this, but it is certain that the Epistle does not directly indicate a request on the part of the Corinthian Christians. The fragmentary indications of the Epistle rather suggest that news of the Corinthian strife reached Rome by other routes.
In 1:1, the author of the Epistle says: “your venerable, glorious, and beloved name to all has been greatly reproached.” In 11, 13:6-7: “a shameful, beloved, and very shameful and unworthy of Christian life is heard: the most solid and ancient Corinthian Church, because of one or two people, rebelled against the elders. And this rumor has reached not only us, but also our very enemies, so that through your madness the name of the Lord is being desecrated, and danger is being prepared for you."
Throughout the Christian world, even among the pagans, they speak, to the great disgrace of “the name,” about the strife of the Corinthians, which has been going on for a considerable time. But the Roman Christians did not write the Epistle on the basis of dark rumors: confidence in speech, decisiveness in judging an event, exact knowledge of the state of affairs - which the Epistle certainly presupposes - cannot be based on vague and usually contradictory rumors - obviously there were more accurate news.
It is very natural to assume that the Roman Church became acquainted with the state of the Corinthian Church through Roman (and perhaps Corinthian) Christians who had affairs in Corinth (and in Rome); with highly developed relations between the capital of the world and one of the centers of world trade - Corinth, this method of obtaining information is quite possible.
From these Christians the Romans and the writer of the Epistle learned some details of the Corinthian events, at least regarding the discord that arose, its causes, development and persistence.
But the information they received was so weakly and unclearly reflected in the Epistle that researchers find it difficult to more closely define the “controversial affairs” of the Corinthian Church based on the expressions scattered in it.
The instructions and exhortations of the Epistle are for the most part of a completely general character, as a positive portrayal of Christian doctrine, supported by analogies and proofs from Holy Scripture, without a specific indication of the actual state and without a clear trace of controversy. Therefore, it is impossible to extract from the Epistle precise and comprehensive instructions regarding the circumstances of the Corinthian rebellion in order to draw, on the basis of the data from the Epistle, a historically reliable way of life of the Corinthian Christian Society.
But the question is, what do we know from the Epistle about the most important reason for writing it - the rebellion itself? That there was strife in Corinth is clear; but what exactly was it about, under what circumstances did it arise, who were the opponents who stood against each other in Corinth? Of course, we must reject previous attempts by researchers of the Tübingen School to find a basis for the Corinthian dispute in opposition to Judeo-Christianity and linguistic Christianity, since with a careful and unprejudiced reading of the Epistle it is impossible to discover in it the slightest trace of any relationship between these constituent parts of primitive Christianity.
The message rather gives the impression that the Corinthian turmoil did not have any denominational overtones; even more than that: it apparently did not touch upon questions of doctrine at all. The Epistle reproaches the Corinthian Christians not for perverting the faith, but for forgetting the teachings of the faith, and sets as its task to revive in them the faith that lurks in them like a spark under the ashes of passions.
Recently, another explanation of the Corinthian Troubles has been persistently put forward: the Corinthian dispute is an expression of the struggle between “office” and “spirit”, “institution” and “enthusiasm” - between the firmly established college of elders and the “pneumatics” (spiritualized) or prophets (W. Wrede, Untersuchungen zum ersten Klemensbrief. Göttingen, 1891; however, earlier this theory was outlined by Lipsius and Hilgenfeld).
But the subject of the dispute, in this opinion, was not the fundamental rejection or denial by the pneumatics of any position placed at the head of the community - the field on which they encountered the elders was rather a cult.
That such a struggle between “duty” and “spirit” existed at the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd century cannot be denied; this same motive could have some significance in the internal struggle of the Corinthian Church.
But this is all that can be said more or less safely: nowhere in the entire Epistle, except for very unclear expressions (13; 38; 48), can one indicate even a hint that the culprits of the Corinthian disagreements were pneumatics.
Some supposed indications of specific relationships of this kind in Corinth are explained by the literary dependence of the Epistle of Clement on the first Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. This negative argument is all the more decisive because the authority of the pneumatics (spirit bearers) at the time of the origin of the Message was still significant.
If Clement considers discord to be such a serious crime against God and against the holy name of Christians, as is clear from the entire Epistle, and if he knows that this division has its source in pneumatics, if, finally, he himself recognized himself as the bearer of the Spirit of God (59), then he certainly had to remind the Corinthian Christians in the Epistle about their ability and the need to test spirits, whether they are from God, and declare the disturbing spirits as false.
But what really happened in Corinth? According to the view of the Roman Church, the essence of the Corinthian riots was indignation against the elders - the entire Epistle speaks of this, and this is especially clearly indicated by the final exhortation: “So you, who have initiated the indignation, submit to the elders” (57:1).
But the question of elders was apparently not posed in principle, but only in relation to individuals, since only some elders were deposed (44:6), while others apparently remained in office. Therefore, one can think that personal dislike for “certain” elders played a significant role in the indignation against the elders, and the author of the Epistle particularly energetically emphasizes the manifestation of envy, arrogance and arrogance in him (13–14, 39 and others).
The majority of members of the Corinthian Church took part in the uprising against the elders who were objectionable for some reason; however, it is certain that some took the side of the deposed. Although this is not directly stated in the Epistle, Clement makes us assume that this was exactly the case, since he calls the rebellion itself σχίσμα (schism) (46:9) and πόλεμος (warfare, war) (46:5).
The opposition was led by the leaders; not numerous in number (47), but young in age (3), who captivated and corrupted the Corinthians and darkened the beauty of the famous brotherly love. Probably, the struggle against the elders did not embrace the entire discord, being only the most important moment in her life: life in the Corinthian Church was very diverse and determined by the most heterogeneous relationships, which is why the opposition could have many points of application.
Based on the especially persistent admonitions of the Message, it can be assumed that the opponents in their protest expressed motives that were far from high quality: exaltation of education, oratorical talent, authority, wealth, social position, as well as self-interest, ambitious aspirations, and the like;
This character of indignation, petty-passionate in its manifestations, but deeply serious in the underlying signs of oblivion of the fundamental principles of Christian behavior and a clearly expressed cooling of the Christian spirit, largely explains why the Epistle, despite its smaller volume, has little to do with certain facts and persons, does not give a historically defined way of life of the Corinthian Church, but, we repeat, it does not follow from this that its author did not have accurate information from Corinth.
Assuming this, they completely forget that the Epistle was not written for the purpose of giving the historians of our time interesting information about the state of the Corinthian Church.
Such information, without a doubt, would be very useful, but there was no point in including it in the Message addressed to persons who knew all the details of the case. And psychologically it is completely understandable that the author delicately avoids going into all the details of the controversial cases and the rebellion that took place.
Taking advantage of a specific occasion, the Roman Church felt an urgent need to set forth in Her Epistle to the Corinthians detailed instructions in the Christian life, the observance of which would prevent the recurrence of sad strife in the future. Naturally, such an Epistle took a form close to ordinary Church conversations, and the Corinthian Christians considered it very suitable for reading in Divine service meetings.
b) The main points of teaching of the Epistle.
The rebellion in Corinth is the exclusive subject of concern for the author of the Epistle, and the pacification of the warring parties, the calming of passions is his goal, which he does not lose sight of for a single moment. He deliberately does not raise or resolve the question of Christian doctrine and moral teaching, but in his judgments he relies on the τη ς παραδόσεως (tradition) recognized by both sides (7:2); he takes the teaching of faith and morality from the modern Church creed and uses it as the basis for achieving his goal. Therefore, the author, with heartfelt sympathy, calls on the Corinthian Christians to repentance and correction, to humility and mutual forgiveness, to peace and brotherly love, to diligence in good deeds and especially to the maintenance of Church order, so that everyone thanks God for their own position and does not violate the certain rule of their ministry; is not included in a detailed disclosure of the dogmatic and moral provisions that he has to touch upon.
In view of this, Clement’s system of teaching seems to be vague, and some researchers (especially J. Reville. Les origines de l’épiscopat. Paris, 1894) are strenuously trying to belittle the Church-historical significance of the Epistle, completely denying its author the ability to understand theological issues. But such extreme judgments do not succeed, and the general opinion sees in Clement a strong, determined and energetic personality with a consciously assimilated Christian teaching and a clear ideal.
When assessing the Epistle from a dogmatic-historical point of view, one should not forget about its precisely defined purpose and not demand that the Church writer, who took up the pen as required by circumstances, set out in a random Epistle all his thoughts on Church-Theological issues.
When reading the Epistle, it is easy to notice that its author, with particular animation and persistence, puts forward the doctrine of the will of God, which alone rules over all the greatest and the smallest. The will of God reigns in nature, and Clement never ceases to depict how she subordinates everything to her beck; therefore, he finds unchanging harmony and harmony in nature.
There is no uncertainty or deviation here: everything goes as God wants. There is no disagreement here. “The heavens, moving by His order, obey Him in the world: both day and night carry out the course determined by Him, without interfering with each other. The Sun, the Moon and the faces of the stars, at His command, in agreement, without any deviation, complete their appointed paths. The Fruitful Earth, according to His will, at certain times produces abundant food for people, animals and all animals on the Earth, without slowing down or changing anything prescribed by Him.
The unsearchable and incomprehensible regions of the abyss and the underworld are held together by the same knowledge. The boundless sea, according to His design, united into an assembly, does not appear beyond the barriers set for it, but does as He commanded; for He said: You will come this far, and your waves within you will be broken. The ocean, impassable for people, and the worlds beyond it are governed by the same commandments of the Lord. The seasons - spring, summer, autumn and winter - peacefully give way to one another. Certain winds, each in its own time, perform their service without hindrance. Never-ending springs, created for pleasure and health, constantly supply people with the moisture they need for their lives. The smallest animals live together in peace and harmony. The great Creator and Master commanded all this to be in peace and harmony”... (20; compare: 24 and 33).
Thus, harmony and peace (ὁμόνοια, εἰρήνη) are most closely connected with obedience to the will of God in nature. Clement transfers this view of nature to human life: harmony, which leaves its mark on nature, occurs in people as the fruit of perfect obedience to the will of God.
Clement carries this basic view throughout. Human life must reflect a solid and natural order; therefore, he is looking for firm norms that should dominate social life, establishing harmony in it, similar to that noted in nature. He finds such norms in the Old Testament laws on Divine services and in the Church organization and Divine service established by the Apostles. “Penetrating into the depths of Divine knowledge, we must do in order everything that the Lord commanded to be done at certain times. He commanded that sacrifices and sacred acts should not be performed randomly or without order, but at certain times and hours. Also, where and through whom this should be done, He Himself determined by His highest will, so that everything would be done holy and pleasing and pleasing to His will. So, pleasing to Him and blessed are those who offer their sacrifices at the appointed times, for, following the commandments of the Lord, they do not sin” (40; cf.: 41 ff.).
The need for firmness and order is so great that Clement, even in military obedience, finds a decent illustration for his thought: “brother, let us fight with all our might under His holy commandments.”
Let us imagine the militants under the command of our leaders: how orderly, how diligently, how obediently they carry out orders. Not all eparchs, not all commanders of thousands, or commanders of hundreds, or commanders of fifties, and so on, but each in his own rank carries out the orders of the king and generals. Neither the great without the small, nor the small without the great can exist. They all seem to be connected together, and this is beneficial.
Let's take our body: a head without legs means nothing, just as legs without a head, and the smallest members in our body are necessary and useful for the whole body; they all agree and by harmonious submission serve for the health of the whole body” (37). Thus, Clement transfers his view to the life of an individual person: it must also be a perfect expression of God’s will; the latter alone is the guiding force of the Christian life.
But the inner firmness and harmony which obedience gives to the Christian life in all its relations must go hand in hand with humility (33:3). From the same thought that underlies the ideal of obedience, that the will of God alone dominates and alone acts, it clearly follows for Clement that humility should be the predominant mood of a Christian: if a Christian views everything - even his own life - from the point of view of God's will, as the principle that governs everything, then his gaze will always turn from himself to God, and as a result, a humble assessment of himself and his activities will appear. Therefore, the ascetic must consider his purity as a gift from God: “let him who is pure in the flesh not be proud, knowing that there is another who will grant him abstinence” (38:2).
The indication of the will of God justifies, in addition to obedience and humility, also the firm confidence and hope of believers, because this will of God is the will of the Father, good and merciful, by which it is known to us in Christ and assimilated by faith. But faith is also considered by Clement from the point of view of attitude towards the will of God, as complete trust and humble obedience to it. Such faith, becoming a life principle, is certainly revealed in active conversion to the path of righteousness, in good deeds, in holy aspirations. If, further, in accordance with his view of order in nature and the Old Testament institutions, he demands firm order in Christian society as a necessary expression of the fact that it constitutes the Church of God, then from here follows almost with compulsory necessity the teaching of Clement that the obedient, humble and full of trust submission of the laity to the primates is a religious duty, ensuring the correct life of the Christian Church, in accordance with the will of God.
These are the fundamental views of the author of the Epistle under consideration, which must always be kept in mind when judging the details of the Epistle and their mutual connection.
The most important - in dogmatic and Church-historical terms - subject of teaching in the Epistle is the presentation of a view on the origin and significance of the Church hierarchy. According to the teaching of the Message:
a) Church hierarchy - Divine institution: “The apostles were sent to preach the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ from God. Christ was sent from God, and the Apostles from Christ... Both were in order according to the will of God.” “Having received the command, the Apostles... preaching in various countries and cities, the firstborn of the believers, after spiritual testing, were appointed bishops and deacons for future believers” (42).
b) This institution is invariably preserved in the Church through continuous succession: “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention about the episcopal dignity; for this very reason, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the above-mentioned ministers and then added a law, so that when they died, other proven men would take over their ministry” (44). Thus,
c) The places of deceased hierarchical persons are taken by other respected persons, after spiritual testing, with the consent of the entire Church.
d) Depriving such persons of the place they legally occupy constitutes injustice and a great sin: “we consider it unjust to deprive the ministry of those who were appointed by the Apostles themselves or after them by other venerable men, with the consent of the entire Church, and served the flock of Christ blamelessly, with humility, meekly and blamelessly, and for a long time, and received approval from everyone. And no small sin will befall us if we deprive those who bring gifts blamelessly and holyly from the episcopate” (44).
But the Epistle does not set as its immediate task to indicate the various degrees of the Church hierarchy, but only intends to solemnly put forward the Apostolic establishment of Church authority and in particular the elders who were wrongly deprived of their office. Therefore, the Message rightly notes the lack of clarity in the designation of individual degrees.
But this ambiguity is the best refutation of the view (R. Sohm, Kirchenrecht, Bd. I. Leipzig 1892, S. 165) that Clement wants to introduce new orders in the hierarchical organization: shouldn’t he, in this case, have stated his ideas clearly and distinctly in order to prevent any misunderstandings?
But Clement everywhere assumes in his readers a correct understanding of his expressions, which are unclear to us, which, therefore, relate to the order of Church life that is well known to them.
At the present time, this ambiguity or, better to say, conciseness of Clement’s speech, in connection with the persistent desire of researchers of different directions to see confirmation of their views in the Epistle, gives rise to the question of the attitude to ἐπκτκόπους in Clement’s Epistle, which is resolved very differently.
However, only in one place (42) does the author talk about ἐπισκόπους, while in the rest of the Epistle the primates are constantly called πρεσβύτεροι; the latter term is apparently used in the same broad sense as in the New Testament.
On the question of the number of hierarchical degrees in the Church during the writing of the Epistle, it is important to pay attention to the 40th chapter of the Epistle, in which the author, calling on everyone to do everything in order and thank God for their own position, keeping a good conscience and with reverence, without violating a certain rule of their ministry, points to the structure of the Old Testament Church, and speaks about its hierarchical structure in this way: the high priest is given his ministry ( τω @ γàρ ἀρχιερει ἴδιαι λειτουργίαι δεδομέναι εἰσίν), priests are assigned their place (καì τοι ς ἱερευ σιν ἴδιος ὁ τόπος προστέτακται) and the Levites were entrusted with their offices (καì λευ ΐ ταις ἴδιαι διακονίαι ἐπίκεινται); the worldly man is bound by the regulations for the laity.” It is not without reason that it is believed that the author.
makes this reference to the Old Testament hierarchy, bearing in mind that in the New Testament three hierarchical degrees are established, especially since immediately after the above words the author addresses the readers with the following admonition: “each of you brethren, thank God for your own position” (41).
Although the Epistle, pursuing a strictly defined goal - the calming of the Corinthian rebellion - focuses the main attention of readers on issues of Church organization and Christian moral teaching, so that dogmatic provisions recede into the background; however, the latter everywhere serve as the basis for his admonitions. Therefore, if the Epistle is important, first of all, for judging the organization of the ancient Church, then, on the other hand, it contains a lot of data regarding the Church doctrine of the end of the 1st century, which is very important in judging the origin of Christian dogmatic teaching.
a) At the head of dogmatic teaching should be the thought of one God, the Lord, the Creator of the world; He is the one highest of the highest, the Holy One who rests in the holy places, the one benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh, the observer of human affairs, the helper of those in danger, the savior of the desperate (59:3). He is the meek, merciful, and beneficent Father who provides His creatures with His excellent and majestic gifts (23:1; 29:1; 19:2); We must love Him, who has chosen us, approaching Him in holiness of soul, raising clean and undefiled hands to Him (29:1). About Him the Message says: as God lives and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit live (58:2; cf.: 46:6).
b) God sent Christ (42:1), His beloved Son, through whom He called us out of darkness into light, from ignorance into the knowledge of the glory of His name (59:2) and chose us to be a chosen people (64). In His essence, the Son of God is superior to the angels (36), the rod of the greatness of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, but He did not come in a blaze of splendor, but humbly (16:2); He spoke through the Holy Spirit already in the Old Testament (22:1).
c) Christ is the Mediator of our salvation, the Intercessor and Helper in weakness, the High Priest of our offerings; through Him we look at the heights of Heaven, through Him we see, as if in a mirror, the pure and bright face (of God), through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened, through Him our foolish and darkened mind arises into His wonderful light, through Him the Lord wanted us to taste immortal knowledge (36:12); through the invocation of His great and holy name, faith, fear, peace, patience, generosity, abstinence, purity and chastity are given (64).
Out of love for us, according to the will of God, He gave His blood for us, and flesh for our flesh, and soul for our souls (69:6; 21:6). Through His blood redemption is given to all who believe and trust in God (12:7). The blood of Christ, which was shed for our salvation, is so precious in the sight of God that it brought the grace of repentance to the whole world (7:4). The humility and patience that Christ showed in His life and work are a model for us who have come through Him under the yoke of His grace (16:17).
d) Christians are the people of God, whom He chose as His own (59:4; 30:1; 6:1; 64), called saints, the flock of Christ. Christian society should be governed by strict discipline and order (2:6; 4–6; 10–17:3; 21:6; 40), submission to leaders and to one another (1:3; 21:6, 38:1), piety and hospitality (1:2; 2), and unbroken fellowship; the basis of such behavior should be faith in God, obedience and undivided devotion to Him and, in general, coordination of activities with the will of God.
The attitude of the author of the Epistle to the Holy Scriptures is remarkable. He recognizes the books of Holy Scripture as divinely inspired and infallible: “look into the Scriptures, these true words of the Holy Spirit; note that nothing unfair or deceitful is written in them” (45). Therefore, Clement often uses the Holy Scriptures.
But, with all the clarity and decisiveness of the Christian confession, he turns mainly to the Old Testament and constantly cites passages from the Pentateuch, Psalms and Prophets; even the examples of virtue with which he illustrates his instructions and exhortations are borrowed mainly from the Old Testament.
From the New Testament Scriptures, Clement uses primarily the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, and especially his first Epistle to the Corinthians, since it also dealt with divisions in the Corinthian Church, and the Epistle to the Romans. But Eusebius already noted (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:38, 1) that he often uses the Epistle to the Hebrews, borrowing thoughts and expressions from it.
III. 5. Time of writing the Message
At the beginning of the Epistle, the author writes: “the sudden and one after another, the misfortunes and calamities that befell us were the reason, brethren, that it was too late, as we think, for us to pay attention to the matters controversial among you” (1:1). From these words it clearly follows that the Epistle was written during persecution or shortly after it. But what kind of persecution are we talking about? In the first century, Christians were persecuted twice - during the reigns of Nero and Domitian. Therefore, the opinions of researchers regarding the time of origin of the Message are divided between these two reigns. Some of them (eg, C. Hefele, K. Wiesebor, J. Nierschl) prove that the Epistle took place shortly after the persecution of Nero, that is, around 68; are based on chapters 40–41 of the Epistle, from which it is clear that Jerusalem at that time had not yet been destroyed and the Jewish cult was still being performed in the Jerusalem Temple.
But this proof cannot be considered solid in view of the fact that writers of the Second century and the end of the First speak in a similar way about the Jewish cult, like Barnabas (7-9), the author of the Epistle to Diognetus (3), Justin (Dial. Cum Triph., 117; cf. Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews, 3: 7-11), who undoubtedly wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, most researchers date the writing of the Epistle to the end of the 1st century, recognizing that all its details in this case find the most satisfactory explanation.
And first of all, it is certain that the unexpected and successive disasters mentioned at the beginning of the Epistle clearly differ from the very severe persecution during which the apostles Peter and Paul suffered, and this persecution dates back to a relatively ancient time - the author of the Epistle says (chapter 5): “out of jealousy and envy, the greatest and righteous pillars were persecuted; let us present before our eyes the blessed Apostles” (Peter and Paul).
If their martyrdom had followed the persecution that immediately preceded the writing of the Epistle, then its author would certainly have said this at the very beginning of the Epistle, when mentioning the disasters that prevented them from turning to the Corinthians in a timely manner and would have depicted their suffering in more detail and in brighter colors; and yet he speaks of the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, as a fact already known in all its details in Corinth.
Further, from the Epistle it is clear that by the time the Epistle was written, not only the Apostles had died, but also quite a few elders whom the Apostles had appointed (41-44); The church leaders in Corinth, deposed by the rebels, “for a long time” (πολλοι ς χρόνοις) enjoyed general approval (44); The Corinthian Church is called ancient (ἀρχαίαν – 47).
The men sent to Corinth are said to have lived chastely among the Roman Christians from youth to old age (63) - such men could not have existed in the Roman Church around 68–69.
Finally, Irenaeus (Adv. haer., 3:3. 3) testifies that the Epistle was written precisely under Bishop Clement, and Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:15) reports that Clement became the head of the Roman Church in the twelfth year of Domitian (92).
Based on all these data, the writing of the Epistle must be attributed to the end of the reign of Domitian, when the persecution of Christians broke out, or more correctly, to the beginning of the reign of Nerva, since the Epistle speaks rather of a completely ceased persecution than of a moment when the persecution was suspended only for a while, especially since the prayer at the end of the Epistle about the rulers and leaders on earth does not hint in any way at the manifestation of cruelty on their part during the origin Messages. Thus, the Epistle was written in the year 96 or 97.
III. 6. Nature of the Message and its meaning
In ancient times the Epistle was held in great esteem. Eusebius calls it great and amazing and testifies that, recognized by everyone, it was publicly read in liturgical assemblies. Indeed, it is a wonderful example of a pastoral letter, written from the experience of life and for life, with warmth and cordiality, thoroughly and instructively.
It carries out the task it undertakes successfully, revealing the caution and knowledge of the human heart. The author of the Epistle does not limit himself only to the desire to call to order the troublemakers of the world in the Corinthian Church, but at the same time gives a complete image of truly Christian behavior, richly illustrated with examples of piety from the Old Testament. Everywhere a high, noble understanding of the Christian ideal is revealed.
As for the presentation and language of the Epistle, they undoubtedly commit a clear exaggeration when they attach the predicate “classical Greek” to it. The more modest review of Patriarch Photius is fair that the presentation of the Epistle is simple and clear, corresponding to the Church and unartificial way of speech (Phot. Bibl., cod. 126).
III. 7. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement of Rome
The famous Alexandrian Codex of the Bible of the fifth century, which has already been mentioned, after the first Epistle contains a smaller work without any title. But the manuscript does not have the last page, so the work is interrupted by the words of the 12th chapter: ο ὔ τε θη λυ, του το. From the list of contents of the manuscript it is clear that the scribe considered this work as “the second Epistle of Clement” - Κλήμεντος ἐπιστοή Β '. The Jerusalem manuscript found by Bryennius inscribes this work as the second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians - Κλήμεντος πρòς Κορινθίου ςἐπιστσή Β '. The text of the second Message is complete here, and it is from this manuscript that it was published for the first time. The Syriac manuscript of 1170 preserved the translation of the Epistle into Syriac after translation. the first Epistle and calls it “the second Epistle of Clement, a disciple of the Apostle Peter.” The Latin and Coptic translations have only the first Epistle. Thus, the handwritten tradition testifies that the so-called second Epistle belongs to Clement of Rome.
But its absence in the Latin and Coptic translations indicates uncertainty in this regard. Of the Ancient Church writers, the first mention of the second Epistle is found only in Eusebius, however, in a sense unfavorable for its authenticity: “it should be noted,” he says, “that there is also an Epistle attributed to Clement (καì Δευτέρα τις ε ἶ ναι (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:38, 4).
Before Eusebius, indeed, not a single evidence was found about this work that could be interpreted in a sense favorable for its assimilation by Clement of Rome. True, Dionysius of Corinth, in his response Epistle (about 170) to the Roman Bishop Sotira, wrote that the latter’s Epistle was read at the Divine Service Assembly of the Corinthian Church on Resurrection Day, and added that they would continue to read it for their edification, “like the first Epistle written to them by Clement (ὡ ς καì τὴν προτέραν ἡμι ν διà Κλήμεντος γραφει σαν: Eus. Hist. 4:23).
But it would be too unreasonable to attribute to this expression the meaning of evidence relating to the work under consideration: The Greek text clearly shows that in the thought of Dionysius the Epistle of Sotyres appears to be the second Epistle that they will read, like the former one written by Clement.
Blessed Jerome, following Eusebius, asserts that the ancients rejected the second Epistle attributed to Clement: fertur et secunda eius (Clementis) nomine epistola, quae a veteribus reprobatur (De vir. ill., 15), and Rufinus also says the same.
Saint Epiphanius, indeed, makes an indication of the existence of many Epistles of Clement (Haer. 27:6: ἐν μι ᾷ τω ν ἐπιστολόν αὐτού), but quotes only the first Epistle; if he knows many Epistles, which he calls “district Epistles” (Haer. 30:15) and about which he says that they contain praise for Elijah, David, Sampson and all the prophets, then this is not the Epistle known under the name of the second Epistle of Yushment, and not his genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, in which the name of Sampson is not found, but the Epistles about childhood (2:8-14), falsely attributed to Clement of Rome.
Since the 5th century, the Epistle has been mentioned in Church literature quite often among the Greeks and Syrians, and is constantly placed next to the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, as his second Epistle; The mentioned manuscripts also speak about this. Then, as the Epistle of Clement, it is quoted by Maximus the Confessor (662), in the Preface to the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, by John of Damascus, Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople (828), Nikephoros Callistos, and others. But Photius speaks of a decisive non-recognition of its authenticity (Bibl., cod.113: ἀποδοκιμάζεται ).
Moreover, the significance of the evidence in favor of the authenticity of the second Epistle is undermined by the fact that in fact it is not an Epistle, but a homily.
Even before Philotheus Bryennius found the full text of this monument, filling in what was previously available with the last eight missing chapters, many scholars recognized this Epistle as a sermon, based on the absence in the existing chapters of the inscription and greetings usual in the Epistles, on the preaching address “brothers” present at the beginning and in the middle of the monument, and the words not found in the first chapter: “if we hear about this as something little, then we sin.”
In the last chapters of the monument there are undoubted and clear indications that this is precisely a conversation. It is enough to read only the following words: “this is our reward to God, who created us, if the speaker and listener with faith and love, one speaks, the other listens (15). “And not only now will we show ourselves to be believers and pay attention when the elders instruct us, but also when we return home, we will remember the commandments of the Lord” (17). “Therefore, brothers and sisters, after the God of truth (μετà τòν θεòν τη ς ἀληθείας, that is, after reading the Holy Scriptures), I read you a lesson so that you listen to what is written, in order to save yourself and those who read among you” (19).
Thus, it is certain that the so-called second Epistle of Clement is in fact a sermon preached, or more precisely, read after the word of the God of truth, as if to explain the passage of Holy Scripture read.
Finally, a simple reading of the work is enough to detect such a difference in style, tone, and theological views compared to the original Epistle of Clement that the difference between their authors can be justified on the basis of internal criticism alone.
In view of everything that has been said, after the publication of the full text of the work in question, it is almost universally accepted that it does not belong to Clement of Rome. But since in the work itself there is no desire to pass itself off as the Epistle of Clement of Rome, it would be inaccurate to call it inauthentic: it was incorrectly attributed to Clement of Rome by others, and not by its author.
The work consists of 20 chapters. Although this conversation was read in a liturgical meeting after reading a section from the Holy Scripture, it does not represent an explanation of it: it is a simple and heartfelt instruction in a whole series of fragmentary dogmatic and moralizing thoughts, without coherence and consistency.
Constantly replaced - one by another - exhortations to lead a life worthy of the title of Christian, to strive for virtue, to avoid vices, to repent, to prefer future promises to the pleasures of this life and, constantly bearing in mind Judgment and retribution, to be firm in the struggle of life. Therefore, it is not possible to determine which text of Holy Scripture served as the topic for the sermon.
“Brotherhood! You must think about Jesus Christ as God and the Judge of the living and the dead, just as we should not think little about our salvation; for if we think little about Him, then we hope to receive little,” - this is how the conversation begins. The salvation accomplished by Christ is not an unimportant matter: He called us from darkness to the Light and saved those who were perishing (1-2). If He has given us such mercy, then we must confess Christ not only with our lips, but with our whole lives, following His commandments (3), doing good deeds and avoiding vices (4), despising this world and, like lambs among wolves, fighting for the future Kingdom (5), making a choice between God and mammon (6). So, let us strive so that we may all be crowned (7), let us repent from the bottom of our hearts for the evil that we have done in the flesh in order to receive salvation from the Lord while there is time to repent, and let us keep the flesh and the seal (of Baptism) pure without damage, in order to receive eternal life (8).
None of us should say that this flesh will not be judged and will not be resurrected. It is certain that in this flesh we will be judged and rewarded. Therefore, let us love one another, doing the will of the Father and giving praise to the Lord (9). Let us seek peace, sacrificing the pleasures of this age for future blessings (10). Let us not doubt the promises, but let us remain confident in hope that we may receive our reward (11). Let us wait hourly for the Kingdom of God in love and righteousness, because we do not know the day of God’s appearing (12). Let us repent, blot out our previous sins and live in accordance with the teaching, so that because of our behavior the name of God will not be blasphemed (13). By fulfilling the will of God, we will be children of the spiritual Church - the Church of life, which is the body of Christ - created before the Sun and the Moon, and we will receive the blessings of eternal life (14). He who follows my advice,” says the author, “will not repent, but will save both himself and me, who gave the advice. Let us therefore continue in what we have believed, righteous and holy, so that we may receive the great benefits of the promise (15).
Let us turn to God who called us, so that on the Day of Judgment we may receive the mercy of Jesus (16). Let's help each other so that no one dies. The Day of Judgment is already near, when unbelievers will see the Kingdom of Jesus and will be horrified at their disobedience to the elders who proclaimed salvation (17). May we all be among those who glorify God, and not those who condemn the wicked (18). Let us not turn away and be indignant, we foolish ones, when someone instructs us and turns us from unrighteousness to righteousness, since we ourselves do not notice many of our sins (19). We should not be embarrassed to see how the unrighteous become rich and the servants of God are oppressed. We believe that if we strive and endure temptations in this present life for the sake of God, then in the future we will be crowned, but not in a short time, so that it does not seem that the righteous are not looking for piety, but only for profit. “To the one God, the invisible Father of Truth, who sent us the Savior and the Chief of incorruption, through whom He revealed to us the truth and Heavenly Life, to Him be glory forever and ever. Amen". - This is how the conversation ends.
It is enough to say a few words about the nature of the content of this work. Its interest is historical; it is not particularly important in terms of the essence of the thoughts presented, since it consists almost entirely of commonplaces; but with all this, the light that it, when compared with other monuments of the first half of the 2nd century, throws on a dark period in the history of the Church and on the revelation of Her teachings receives some significance. Here we see a high, although not entirely accurate, Christology, a clear look at the connection between the Old and New Testaments, evidence of the widespread spread of Christianity among the pagans and an assessment of the danger posed by a one-sided passion for gnosis.
In contrast to the Epistle of Clement, the discourses in question use the New Testament more often than the Old, and several times quote the apocryphal Gospel (of the Egyptians), apparently without revealing any doubts about its canonical dignity. Quotations from the New Testament, with the exception of a few Epistles of the Apostle Paul, are taken from the Gospels; but they are fragmentary, often presented sloppily, and their application lacks precision.
In general, the argumentation of the speech is weak, and the conversation is tiresome for the reader; but, on the other hand, it reveals the pure moral ardor and seriousness of the author, together with signs of genuine faith. The name of Clement of Rome, to whom the conversation was attributed, guaranteed in the eyes of its readers the author's fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
b) Time and place of origin of the monument.
The conversation itself contains no indication of the time or place of its origin. Since other historical documents do not provide data for solving these questions, and since, further, its author is unknown, the widest field opens up for all sorts of assumptions, of which, indeed, there is no shortage.
As for the time of origin of the monument, first of all. in its contents there are signs of a later origin than the time of Clement of Rome. Thus, in chapter 9, such false teachers are refuted who not only denied that this body of ours will be resurrected, but apparently argued that the works of the flesh are of no importance, since the body itself will perish; these false teachers are seen as Gnostics of the 2nd century.
On the other hand, they prove that the author lived before the half of the second century, since he could hardly say what is written in the 14th chapter about the spiritual Church, after the Gnostics widely disseminated their teaching. But if we take into account the extreme uncertainty of these arguments, and, on the other hand, also that the details of the teaching in the ancient Church in different private Churches presented many peculiarities, depending on the various circumstances and living conditions of individual Christian societies, and that the author of the conversation has before him not the Universal Church and not the majority of private Churches, but only one - with all this in mind, it is necessary to beware of drawing any definite conclusions regarding the time of origin of the monument on the basis of the content of a work of a too general nature.
There is only one thing beyond doubt, that by its general structure, by the nature and content of the thoughts expressed, by the method of argumentation, the monument should be recognized as a work of deep Christian antiquity, giving it the right to be included among the documents of the first period of ancient Church literature, no later than the first half of the 2nd century (A. Harnack initially believed between 130 and 160, more precisely between 135-140, Lightfoot attributes it to 120–140 years old).
Even less tangible are the results of research regarding the place of origin of the monument or the place of residence of the speaker. Here the only basis for a definite judgment can be the 7th chapter, where there is an indication of the Isthmian games; the author, calling for asceticism, says that “many come to even vain competitions” (εἰς τούς φθαρτούς ἀγω νας καταπλέουσιν πολλοί).
From this method of speech, without a more precise indication of the place, the port where one must sail to take part in the games, they conclude that the author lived in Corinth itself, where a simple allusion to the Isthmian games was easily understood, without adding to καταπλέω its addition εἰς Ἴ σθμων or εἰς Κόρινθον.
Then, to prove this position, they also use the connection of the sermon with the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians: both works were read in liturgical assemblies, and therefore the homily was copied together with the Epistle of Clement; this connection followed in Corinth, and from Corinth both works passed together to other Churches. Taking place after the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the sermon was first incorrectly called the Epistle - and then the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome. Obviously, this argument in favor of the origin of the Epistle in Corinth is not distinguished by the necessary convincingness, since the indication of the games is too vague, and the connection of the work with the Epistle of Clement was possible even if it originated outside Corinth. Therefore, it turns out that another hypothesis regarding the place and time of origin of the monument is completely possible, which was presented by Adolf Harnack (Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius - Teil II, Bd. I: S. 438 ff.).
He insists first of all that the place of origin of the sermon was not Corinth, but Rome; the reasons for this are as follows:
a) The work under consideration, among all the literary monuments of the Second century that have come down to us, has, if not very close, then a relatively large relationship with the “Shepherd” of Hermas (of course, the common understanding of Christianity from its ethical side and the preaching of repentance for believers to achieve Salvation and Eternal Life, a definition of the task and responsibilities of Christians in the world, a prophetic view of the future, an exhortation to virtue, a warning against vices, theological ideas, especially eschatology and some details in word usage);
b) The homily cites an apocryphal work of an apocalyptic nature (chapter 11: λέγει γàρ καì ὁ προφητικός λόγος); but the same quotation is also found in the Epistle of Clement of Rome (chapter 23: ἡ γραφή α ὕ τη, ὅ που λέγει) and is not found anywhere else in Christian literature. But the homily does not borrow from the Epistle of Clement, because it gives more than what is contained in the latter.
Thus, both monuments come from a Church in which a completely unknown apocalyptic book was not only known to us, but was also revered as προφητικός λόγος; hence the natural conclusion that both monuments come from the same Church, that is, from the Roman Church, from which came the “Shepherd” and the First Epistle of Clement of Rome.
On the question of the time of origin of the monument, Adolf Harnack presents the following considerations. Dionysius of Corinth in his response Epistle to the Roman Church with Her Bishop Sotira (165–7 and 173–5) writes: “today we celebrated the holy day of the Lord (with a liturgical assembly), in which we read your Epistle and we will always read it for edification, like the first one written to us by Clement” (ὡ ς καì τὴν προτέραν ἡμι ν διà Κλήμεντος γραφει σαν, Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:23). From this it must be concluded that:
1) The Corinthians had recently received the Roman Epistle; 2) That they had previously read the Epistle of Clement, received from Rome, in Divine service meetings; 3) That they decided to also read the new Epistle in the future in Divine service meetings - they already called both Roman Epistles, as the First and Second, and 4) The New Epistle is useful for edification.
Based on this, says Adolf Harnack, is it not possible to conclude that we are talking about the work in question? And in this case, we come close to the fact that it is the Epistle of Bishop Sotira; the inscription with his name Clement is easily explained in this way: if both Epistles were distributed from Corinth, as: διà Κλήμεντος Κορινθίους α ’ and πρòς Κορινθίους Β ’, then naturally there was a second Epistle also attributed to Clement. If this second Epistle is more of a sermon in nature, then it is necessary to take into account the fact that this sermon very early (long before Eusebius) was accepted as an Epistle and was designated as such in the copies.
Undoubtedly, this hypothesis of Adolf Harnacka is distinguished by great harmony and consistency, but it also has its weaknesses: The Roman origin of the sermon is not firmly substantiated, since the similarity between the homily and the “Shepherd” is no more than the similarity of works of one era, and προφητικός λόγος, known in Rome, could have been known in others places such as Corinth; its identification with the Epistle of Sotira mentioned by Dionysius forces us to recognize it as a later work than is assumed on internal grounds: the Roman sermon, not distinguished by serious merits, is considered quite important to be sent to Corinth, and disappears without a trace in its homeland; it is sent to Corinth as an Epistle, but it lacks even superficial attention to the addressees and does not indicate a specific reason for such a step.
This lack of indication of any specific historical position, both of the sender and the addressee, is a very important reason against identifying the sermon with the Epistle of Bishop Sotira, especially if we consider in more detail the answer of Dionysius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:23, 10) 2.
Therefore, Harnack's opinions cannot be accepted; but on the other hand, other well-known solutions to the question of the time, place and circumstances of the origin of the sermon (Th. Zahn'a, Lightfoot'a, Funk'a, Bardenheuer'a) 3 are also not very convincing, so Albert Ehrhard (Die altchr. Litterat., Abt. I Freiburgi. B., 1900, S. 80) considers it best to refuse to resolve these issues if some unexpected ones do not follow finds.
Who was the actual writer of the Sermon, one cannot even make any assumptions about this, since there is no data for this; however, some (Kihn, Batiffol) are inclined to consider Hermas, the author of “The Shepherd,” as the compiler of the sermon, apparently forgetting that attempts to attribute anonymous works to certain authors have rarely been justified. We can only say with certainty that he was a presbyter (see: chapters 17 and 19).
The assumption that he was a lay preacher cannot be considered valid: although laymen, well known for their piety and learning, were sometimes allowed to preach (for example, Origen), this indulgence was so rare that there is hardly any need to turn to it to explain what can be explained more simply and naturally.
IV. Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer
IV. 1. Information about the life of Saint Ignatius
Among the Apostolic Men, strong interest is primarily aroused by the personality and especially the literary activity of the Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius the God-Bearer, due to the important dogmatic and church-historical significance of the Epistles associated with his name: despite their relatively insignificant volume, these Epistles contain so many valuable Christian thoughts in a very original condensed form, so many indications of the church relations of that time, that the exclusive attention of researchers of various theological and church-historical fields is paid to them directions. It is all the more regrettable that, despite the glory of Saint Ignatius, only the circumstances preceding his martyrdom are known with certainty.
His former life is completely unknown; his death is described only according to the forebodings of the martyr himself. The little information about him from reliable writers of later times does nothing to compensate for the shortcomings of contemporary history. The earliest mention of Saint Ignatius is in the Epistle of Polycarp of Smyrna to the Philippians, written shortly before the martyrdom of Saint Ignatius; but the information it contains is very brief (13).
Neither Irenaeus nor Origen, who know the Epistles and cite some passages from them, report anything. Even Eusebius, to whom we owe the first coherent news about the Epistles of Ignatius, which have very important historical and literary significance, gives information only about the end of his life (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:36).
Later writers who mention Saint Ignatius either borrow their accounts from Eusebius and Origen, or, in the absence of certain facts, leave wide scope to the imagination, as has now been proven regarding the acts of martyrdom of Saint Ignatius.
The oldest information about the sufferings of Ignatius is contained in the Greek narrative, published (in 1689 by Ruinart) based on Cod. Colbertinus (10th century) in Paris, and commonly called Martyrium Colbertinum; its author poses as an eyewitness to the events described, and his work, if it were genuine, would be the most ancient monument of writing of this kind, but, in view of the disagreement of many of its information with the Epistles of St. Ignatius and with other reliable news, most of the newest critics (Lightfoot, Funk, Th. Zahn and others) recognize it as a fake, and its origin is attributed to the 4th or even 5th centuries.
Another, independent from the first, source of information about the martyrdom of Ignatius is the Acts of Martyrdom, published (in 1857 by A. R. Dressel) according to the Vatican Greek Manuscript, which is why it is called Martyrium Vaticanum; but these acts did not appear earlier than the 5th century and have no historical significance.
Given this state of the sources about the life and work of Saint Ignatius, with a greater or lesser degree of certainty, only the following can be said about him.
Saint Ignatius was from the East, probably from Syria and perhaps from Antioch. Based on some expressions in the Epistles of Ignatius, it is believed that he was not born of Christian parents, but turned to Christ in adulthood and, moreover, as a result of some extraordinary event that made a strong impression on him, and that his previous attitude towards the Church was marked by a manifestation of extreme hostility. This is concluded on the basis of the self-abasement that the author of the Epistles reveals (cf. Eph. XXI: 2; Magn. XIV; Tral. XIII: 1; Rom. IX: 2; Humble. XI: 1), using precisely those expressions of the Apostle Paul (from 1 Cor. 15: 8-10), in which the latter indicates his previous relationship to Christianity.
Such an ardent nature, such as Ignatius was distinguished by, could, indeed, move from fierce hatred to strong love for Christ. Simeon Metaphrastus and Menaea report the tradition that Ignatius was the child whom the Lord placed among the disciples who were arguing about primacy, and, pointing to him, said: “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven; Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:1–6). This narrative, unknown to the ancients, probably arose to explain the designation of Saint Ignatius as "God-Bearer" (θεοφόρος).
According to another legend that arose in the West in the Middle Ages, when the heart of a martyr was divided into parts, on each of them the name of the Lord Jesus Christ was written in gold letters: “for he said that he had Christ in his heart.” But there is no doubt that θεοφόρος was the second (Greek) name of Ignatius (Latin Egnatius or Ignatius), as indicated by the form in which he applies this name to himself; Ἰ γνάτιος ὁ καì Θεοφόρος (cf. Σοτυ λος καì Παυ λος ).
Saint John Chrysostom, himself an Antiochian, in a speech of praise to Saint Ignatius says before the people of Antioch that Saint Ignatius did not see the Lord and did not enjoy communion with Him (Works of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. In Russian translation. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 640).
Jerome calls Ignatius a disciple of John the Theologian: the indications of the chronicle of Eusebius that Papias of Hieropolis and Polycarp of Smyrna were disciples of the Apostle John, Jerome (Chron. adan. Abrah. 2116) supplements with the addition: et Ignatius antiochensis; Martyrium Colbertinum also speaks. Eusebius does not report anything about this, and Jerome himself in another place calls only Polycarp the listener of the Apostle John.
However, there is nothing incredible in the fact that Ignatius in later years could have had communication with the Apostle John, when the latter lived in Asia Minor; and if the assumption is correct that Ignatius was born around the year 40, then, as a youth, he could see and hear Peter and Paul, who were in Antioch. Why does Saint John Chrysostom decisively say that Ignatius “worked closely with the Apostles and drew spiritual currents from them,” that the power of episcopacy was entrusted to him by the holy Apostles and the hands of the blessed Apostles touched his sacred head (ibid.).
According to the unanimous testimony of antiquity, Ignatius was the second, or, including the Apostle Peter, the third bishop of Antioch in Syria. The successor of the Apostle Peter, as Eusebius says (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:22; Chron. Adan Abrah. 2085), was Evodius, and Ignatius took the place of Evodius. Origen (Hom. 6 in Luc.) and Jerome (De vir. ill., 16) testify to the same tradition.
But since nothing was known about Euodius, he was later lost and a tradition was formed that Ignatius was a bishop immediately after the Apostle Peter. The message of the Apostolic Decrees (7:46), reconciling both traditions, that Evodius was installed as a bishop by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul, does not deserve trust simply because a similar method for reconciling the two messages was applied by the Apostolic Decrees to the Roman see (Clement and Linus).
Thus, it is indisputable that Ignatius was bishop of Antioch after Euodia; but it is unknown how long his leadership of this Church lasted. Eusebius in his Chronicle puts the time of Ignatius's episcopate between 2085 and 2123 from Abraham, that is, between 69 and 107 AD; but the accuracy of this indication is questioned, in view of the general unreliability of chronological indications in relation to the Antiochian bishops. Here the question is raised about the consistency of the date of death of Saint Ignatius. That Saint Ignatius died the glorious death of a martyr, reports of this come directly from the time of this martyrdom. Polycarp testifies to it in the Epistle to the Philippians (9), although at the time of writing the Epistle he does not yet have detailed and accurate information about it (13).
Irenaeus (Adv. haer., 5:28. 4) and Origen (Hom. 6 in Luc.) report that he was thrown to wild beasts. That Rome was the place of martyrdom is evidenced not only by the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, but also by Origen (in. Luc. 6), Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:36. 3) and all later writers. Only John Malala, who lived in the 6th century, claims that Ignatius suffered during a strong earthquake in Antioch on December 13, 115, and precisely in Antioch itself (Chronogr. lib. XI). Although John Malala was a Syrian, before him the Antiochian John Chrysostom said before all the people that Ignatius suffered in Rome (InS. Ignatium martyrem, 4).
Regarding the time and immediate circumstances of the condemnation to death of Ignatius the God-Bearer, the Martyrium Colbertinum reports that Emperor Trajan personally pronounced the death sentence on Ignatius when, preparing for a campaign against the Armenians and Parthians, he arrived in Antioch in the ninth year of his reign (that is, between January 26, 106 and January 26, 107), and that Ignatius suffered martyrdom in Rome, when Sura and Senetius were consuls for the second time. Based on this evidence, many place the year of Ignatius's death in the year 107, when Sura III and Senetius II were actually consuls.
But for the reasons stated earlier, the information reported in Martyrium Colbertinum should be used with great caution. In this case, it is impossible to reconcile the news of these acts about the condemnation of Ignatius by the Emperor himself with the various instructions and assumptions of the Epistles of Ignatius himself, especially with the Epistle to the Romans, which clearly considers an appeal to the Emperor possible.
In addition, the war with the Parthians began only in the year 112, and to this day it has not been proven that Trajan undertook any campaign in the East before this year.
On the other hand, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 3:36) only says that Ignatius died during the reign of Trajan, and although in the Chronicle he refers his death to the 9th year of this reign, he makes it clear that he himself did not have the exact date.
Thus, not having solid ground for a chronological determination, researchers indicate different years of Ignatius’s martyrdom - 108, 109, 112, 114–116. Adolf Harnack previously tried to prove that Ignatius suffered at the end of the reign of Hadrian (Die Zeitdes Ignatiusund die Chronologie der antiochenischen Bischöfe. Leipzig, 1878), but recently he recognized the possibility of attributing the death of Ignatius to the last years of Trajan - 110-117 years (Gesch. Der altchrist. Litteratur Theil II, Bd.1. S. 381–406).
In view of this state of chronological data, one can only affirm positively that Saint Ignatius suffered during the reign of Trajan, approximately around the time indicated in the Chronicle of Eusebius, that is, around the year 110.
Thus, regarding the circumstances of the condemnation and death of Saint Ignatius, only the following is certain. During some agitation or movement in Antioch, caused by reasons unknown to us, the rising passions of the crowd found vent in rage against Christians: the peace of the Church was violated, and Its primate was accused by the local tribunal of belonging to Christianity and condemned to death. Other Churches, for example, Asia Minor, enjoyed peace. We do not know how severe the persecution of Christians was in Antioch - it ended soon after the removal of Saint Ignatius from the city, when he reached Troas.
Perhaps Saint Ignatius was the only victim; in any case, it is remarkable that in his Epistles he makes no reference to other martyrs.
For some reason unknown to us - perhaps due to the increasing demands for sacrifices for the amphitheater - the sentence was not carried out in Antioch itself, and Ignatius was sent to Rome to be thrown to wild beasts there, since he obviously did not enjoy the rights of Roman citizenship, otherwise he, like the Apostle Paul, would have been executed by beheading.
In any case, there is no doubt that Saint Ignatius, leaving Syria, had already been condemned ad bestias and was summoned to Rome not to appear before the Emperor’s tribunal, like the Apostle Paul, but only to carry out his sentence. From Antioch, Ignatius was sent under guard, accompanied by Roman soldiers, whom he called leopards for their ferocity (Rom. 5:1). The path he followed is not precisely known, but can be determined with a significant degree of probability. Martyrium Colbertinum says that Ignatius of Seleucia arrived at Smyrna by sea (3:1). But the Epistles of Ignatius clearly indicate that he reached this city by land.
In the Epistle to the Romans, written from Smyrna, Ignatius already speaks of his sufferings not only at sea, but also on land (5:1) and recalls the Churches that received him in the name of Jesus Christ, testifying that even those Churches that were not on the path of his carnal wanderings came out to meet him in every city (9:3). That he passed through Philadelphia is clear from many places in the Epistle to the Philadelphian Church. Ephesus, Magnesia and Thralls remained aloof, since Ignatius was familiar with the state of these cities only on the basis of messages sent from them to greet him.
According to various fragmentary indications in the Epistles of Ignatius and their titles, the path of the martyr can be determined in this way: in Seleucia, the port of Antioch, Saint Ignatius boarded a ship and landed in some harbor on the Cilician or Pamphylian coast. From here he had to pass through Asia Minor by land. The first place where we see traces of him is near the confluence of the Lycus and Meander rivers, where the road divides: the Northern route goes among the valleys of Kogama and Hermas, through Philadelphia and Sardis to Smyrna, the Southern route to Ephesus through Trallae and Magnesia. Ignatius took the Northern road and, after short stops in Philadelphia and Sardis, arrived in Smyrna, where he had a longer rest. Here he was warmly and honorably received by Bishop Polycarp and the Church of Smyrna and met delegates from some of the Asia Minor Churches located on the Southern Road, who, apparently, received information about his journey and sent their representatives to express their respect and sympathy to the confessor.
Bishop Onesimus arrived from Ephesus with four clergy; from Magnesia - Bishop Damasus and three clerics; from the more distant ones Thrall is one bishop, Polyvius.
Ignatius presented these representatives of the three Churches with Epistles for their Churches, expressing gratitude for their participation and admonishing them for unity and possibly close connection with the bishop in view of the threatening danger from heretics. From here a special Epistle to the Roman Church was written. From Smyrna, Ignatius - perhaps by sea - headed to Troas. Here, messengers from the Antiochian Church brought him the joyful news that the persecution of Christians in Antioch had stopped.
In Troas, Ignatius wrote Epistles to the Philadelphia and Smyrna Churches and to the Bishop of Smyrna Polycarp. To the usual exhortations about maintaining the purity of faith and observing church discipline, he adds a new theme, in which his ardent love for the Antiochian Church was expressed: he expresses the desire that the Churches of Asia Minor send commissioners or at least letters to Syria to encourage the Antiochian Christians and welcome them with the advent of peace. He wanted to write Epistles himself to all the Churches of Asia Minor; but the unexpectedly rapid departure from Troas prevented this, which is why he asked Polycarp in his place to write Epistles for them and to induce them to send messengers or Epistles to Antioch.
From Troas, Ignatius reached Naples by sea and from here went to Philippi. The Philippian Church received him with touching love (Phil 1:1). While there, he expressed the desire that the Philippians send an Epistle to the brethren at Antioch. The Philippian Church indeed soon wrote to Polycarp of Smyrna, asking him to deliver their Epistle to the Syrians, and also to send them the Epistles of Ignatius to him and to others that he might have.
From this point on, there can be only one guess regarding Ignatius's journey. He probably passed through Macedonia and Illyria, in Dyrrhachium (Epidamnus) or Apollonia (on the Adriatic Sea) he boarded a ship and from Brundusium he made the rest of the journey to Rome on foot. Martyrium colbertinum reports that, having crossed the Adriatic and Terente seas, Ignatius wanted to land at Puteoli in order to come to Rome the way the Apostle Paul took; but a strong wind prevented this, which is why he went ashore at the Roman pier. In Rome, he was given over to be torn to pieces by wild beasts and suffered martyrdom in the Flavial Amphitheater in the presence of the authorities and, perhaps, the most humane Emperor Trajan.
From the presented essay it is clear how difficult it is to obtain a complete image of Saint Ignatius due to the lack of any data about his origin, the circumstances of his conversion to Christianity, and the conditions of his activity; we don’t even know anything about him as the bishop of his Church in the peaceful time of its existence.
The impenetrable darkness that envelops the life and work of Saint Ignatius is only at the end cut through by a bright, albeit fleeting, ray. If the circumstances of martyrdom had not brought Ignatius out of obscurity, then he, like his predecessor Euodia, would have remained for. subsequent generations only in name and nothing more. But the suddenly illuminated end of his life showed him to the Christian world as an outstanding, definite and living personality, a true father of the Church, a teacher and an example of unshakable faith for all subsequent times.
IV. 2. Question about the Epistles of St. Ignatius
Soon after Ignatius’ stay in Smyrna, not yet having accurate information about the details of the suffering that befell him in Rome, Polycarp wrote to the Philippi Church: “We sent the epistles of Ignatius, which he sent to us, and others, as many as we have, to you, as you asked; they are attached to this very Message. You can receive great benefit from them, for they contain faith, patience and all instruction in our Lord” (13). This is the testimony of a contemporary who was present, so to speak, at the very act of writing several Epistles, about the literary activity of Saint Ignatius. The extent of this first collection of Epistles is not precisely known.
But Polycarp himself makes it clear that he was not able to send to the Philippians all the Epistles of Ignatius that he knew; one can in any case think that there was no Epistle to the Romans in this meeting. More definite indications of the composition of the collection of St. Ignatius are given by Eusebius, who arranges them by time and place of origin, “having been in Smyrna, where Polycarp was then located,” writes Eusebius, “he (Ignatius) wrote one Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, in which he mentions Its shepherd Onesimus, another - to the Church of Magnesia, which is near the Meander River, in which he also speaks of Bishop Damasus, the third - to the Church Trallian, over which, according to him, Polyvius presided; in addition, he wrote an Epistle to the Roman Church, in which he begs the Roman Christians not to keep him from martyrdom and not to deprive him of his longed-for hope...
Being already beyond Smyrna, in Troas, he talked in writing with the Philadelphians, with the Church of Smyrna and separately with its primate Polycarp” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:36. 4). But the collection of the Epistles of Ignatius in the volume indicated by Eusebius has not survived.
When the printing and collection of patristic works began, under the name of the Ignatievs, first of all, such Epistles were printed (in Paris in 1495), which are completely unmentioned in antiquity, namely, two Epistles to the Apostle John and one to the Blessed Virgin Mary, together with Her responsive Epistle. But since these Epistles are completely unknown to ancient writers, written in Latin and do not show any signs of translation from Greek, their researchers soon came to the unanimous conclusion that they are the work of a medieval Latin writer.
At the end of the 15th century and until the middle of the 16th century, first the Latin and then the Greek text of the twelve Epistles of Ignatius was found and published, namely:
12) To Maria Kassobolskaya (Castabolskaya, in Cilicia), written in response to the Epistle of Maria K. to Ignatius.
Thus, in comparison with the list in Eusebius, five Epistles have been added. The question arose: how to look at these twelve Epistles. While some recognized all published Epistles as authentic (mainly Roman Catholic theologians), others (Protestant theologians) disputed the authenticity of either all or at least those Epistles that are not mentioned in Eusebius; voices were heard that the controversial Epistles were indeed written by Ignatius, but not twelve, but only seven listed by Eusebius and that the found text of these Epistles also contained later insertions. This ended the first period of critical study of the Epistles of Ignatius.
Around the middle of the 17th century, new, very important textual discoveries were made, which marked the beginning of the second period in the history of criticism of the Epistles. Anglican Archbishop J. Ussher drew attention to the fact that the place borrowed by Theodoret from the Epistle to the Smyrnae (7:1) is not read in the then existing Latin and Greek texts, but is given by the Bishop of Lincoln Robert and two other English writers. Based on this, he suggested that in England there are such lists of the Epistles of Ignatius from which the indicated quotes could have been borrowed.
Indeed, he found two manuscripts:
a) Cod. Caiensis in the Cambridge Library (circa 1440) and
b) Cod. Montacutianus from Rich's private library. Montacutius, who concluded a Latin text of the Epistles of Ignatius, different from that known in print (at present only the cod. Caiensis has been preserved).
Noticing that the text from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnae, cited by Theodoret, is literally reproduced in this translation, he began to compare quotations from the Epistles of Ignatius by other ancient writers, and came to a firmly grounded conclusion that they also differ from the available printed text and are consistent with the translation found.
J. Ussher published the translation found (Oxford, 1644) and expressed the hope that either a Greek text in the Florentine library, or a Syriac translation in the Roman library, corresponding to this Latin text, would be found.
And in this case, hope did not deceive him. Already in 1646, J. Ussher, based on the Florentine manuscript - Codex Mediceo - Laurentianus (XI century), published the Greek text of the Epistles of Ignatius, different from the previously chosen one. In this codex the Epistles named by Eusebius are first placed in this order:
6) To the Trallians - their text is the original Latin translation found by Ussher, and in short the previously known Greek - then follow the Epistles:
7) Maria Kassobolskaya to Ignatius,
9) To the Tarsians. After this, several sheets were lost - probably there were also Messages in the manuscript:
And in Martyrium Colbertinum the Epistle to the Romans was inserted, also in a hitherto unknown form. The publication of this mixed collection finally established the volume and type of text of the short Greek edition, in contrast to the previous lengthy one.
The vast majority of researchers recognized the short text of the seven Epistles, named by Eusebius as the most ancient, and the remaining five Epistles of the lengthy edition as inauthentic.
But a very important question still remained to be resolved: do the seven Epistles in the short version represent the original work of Ignatius, or should this type of text be considered not the original, but a later revision of an unknown original? Most scholars accepted the authenticity of the short edition, while some Protestant scholars continued to search for the original text.
And indeed, around the middle of the 19th century, their expectations seemed to receive brilliant confirmation: in the Syrian monastery of Nitria, manuscripts of the Syriac translation of three Epistles of Ignatius were found - to Polycarp, to the Ephesians and to the Romans (VI-VIII centuries). This translation is significantly shorter than not only the lengthy, but also the brief Greek edition. In 1845, this text with an English translation was published (Cureton), and the Publisher expressed the belief that this text is a translation of the original work of Ignatius and that the brief Greek edition was interpolated in the 4th century in order to substantiate the church doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the established system of church organization with the most ancient evidence. Controversy broke out. Thus, the critical study of the Epistles of St. Ignatius entered the third period of its history.
Not a few theologians were carried away by the idea that in the 19th century the work begun at the end of the 15th century with the publication of the four Epistles of Ignatius, existing only in the Latin translation, was completed: starting from the later and worthless and moving on to more and more ancient and authentic material, science finally reached the very beginning of the tradition. But critical studies of the Syriac text (Chr. Wordsworth, S. Hefele, Th. Zahn, Lightfoot) decisively proved that it represents only an extract from the ancient complete Syriac translation of all the Epistles. The quotations and fragments clearly show that before the short Syriac text appeared, there was already a Syriac translation of the short Greek version; on the other hand, the shortest Syriac text in each of the three Epistles shows more or less clearly signs of extraction.
The absence of extracts from the other four Epistles does not necessarily lead to the assumption that the compiler of these extracts was not aware of their existence. The evidence of this kind was so compelling that many of the former defenders of the originality of the short Syriac text abandoned their positions, so that the short Syriac review disappeared like a pleasant (for representatives of the negative movement) dream (Th. Zahn).
Thus, at present the Epistles of St. Ignatius exist in three collections and in three different forms:
1) a small collection containing, in a very abbreviated form, only three Epistles - to Polycarp, to the Ephesians and to the Romans in the Syriac translation.
2) The middle collection, which contains in a more extensive form the three previous Epistles and four others, for a total of seven: to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrneans and Polycarp; this is the so-called short Greek edition;
3) a large collection embracing, in an even more extensive form, the seven named Epistles and six others: the Epistle of Mary of Cassobol to Ignatius and the Epistles of Ignatius to Mary, to the Tarsians, to the Antiochians, to Iron and to the Philippians; This is the so-called extensive Greek edition.
The authenticity of the Epistles of St. Ignatius in the short Greek edition, as given in cod. Mediceo - Laurentianus, after some temporary fluctuations caused by the publication of the Syriac translation, is now recognized by the vast majority of researchers and is established on solid grounds.
The testimony of Saint Polycarp has already been indicated in his Epistle to the Philippians (13:2), from which it is not only clear that Saint Ignatius wrote several Epistles, and at least two of them to the Church of Smyrna (τàς ἐςπιστολàς Ἰ γνατίου τàς πεμφθείσας ἡμι ν ὑπ ’ αὐτου καì ἄλλας – Epistles to the Smyrnans and to Polycarp, and others), but clearly outlined and solid foundations for faithful preservation and transmission of them from one Church to another and from generation to generation: Saint Polycarp in his own initiative to collect the Epistles of St. Ignatius; The Philippian Church desires to have a collection of all the Epistles of Ignatius and receives them from Polycarp. It is natural to assume that Polycarp collected all the Epistles that he did not have and additionally sent them to the Philippians; It is no less natural that the Philippians with their desire were no exception among other Churches, perhaps also striving to have Epistles that “contain faith, patience and all instruction about our Lord,” and from which all Christians could receive “great benefit.”
The testimony of Polycarp is so decisive that opponents of the authenticity of the Epistles of Ignatius were forced to reject the Epistle of Polycarp as a complete forgery or to declare it interpolated in the part that gives evidence of the Epistles of Ignatius. Saint Irenaeus points to one passage from the Epistle to the Romans (4:1) in the following expressions: “so one of us, condemned to be devoured by beasts for witnessing about God, said: I am the wheat of Christ and will be ground with the teeth of beasts, so that I may be the pure bread of God” (Adv. haer., 5:28. 4). No one disputes that St. Irenaeus has Ignatius in mind. Origen quotes passages from Romans 7:2~(Prol. In Cant. Cant.) and from Ephesians 4:1~(Hom. 6 in Luc.). He names the second bishop of Antioch after Peter, Ignatius, as the author of the Epistles, who fought against the beasts in Rome during the persecution. Eusebius definitely states that while in Smyrna and Troas, Ignatius wrote seven Epistles, and from the extracts that Eusebius makes from the Epistles to the Romans (5) and to the Smyrnae (3: 1. 2) it is clear that he used the text given in the short Greek edition (Eus. Hist.
eccl., 3:36. 4).
Thus, Eusebius had the seven Epistles of Ignatius in a brief Greek edition, as a complete whole; he knows nothing and has not heard about the other Epistles of Ignatius, but at the same time does not reveal the slightest doubt about the authenticity of the Epistles he named to Rome during the persecution. His testimony must be looked upon as a conclusion from the history of tradition concerning the Epistles of Ignatius for the entire preceding period.
After Eusebius, many writers cite passages from the Epistles of Ignatius: Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret of Cyrus, Gelasius of Rome, Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite, Anastasius the Sinaite, Maximus the Confessor, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus and others (see: Th. Zahna, Ignatius von Antiochien Gotha, 1873, S. 326–373 and Lightfoota, The apostolic Fathers, Part II: p.
But for all these writers it is impossible to determine the composition of the collection of Epistles that they used, and its history from the time of Eusebius remains unknown until finds in the 16th-17th centuries revealed what fate befell the Epistles at that time.
The exceptional strength of external evidence is not disputed, and against the ancient legend about the origin of the Epistles from Ignatius of Antioch, researchers who deny their authenticity put forward mainly the so-called internal grounds, which can be reduced to the following provisions:
1) The circumstances of the martyrdom of Saint Ignatius seem incredible - his condemnation ad bestias under Trajan, departure to Rome and travel there: the bishop, imprisoned and condemned to death, receives friends, freely talks with them, writes Epistles to those who are absent and goes to. Rome through Smyrna, Troas, Naples, Philippi, Epidamnus - such a long way, while the shortest one exists by sea.
2) The image of the Antioch martyr reflected in the Epistles reveals unnatural, incomprehensible and unreliable features (“affected humility”, “false heroism of martyrdom”), so that it is easy to see a fictitious personality in the supposed author of the Epistles.
3) The orderliness in the compilation of the Epistles and their literary features make us see in them the work of a falsifier.
4) In the days of Ignatius, heresy did not yet have such significance and had not reached such development as is suggested by the Epistles.
5) The church organization on the basis of the Epistles is assumed to be at such a height of development as it reached much later. The purpose of the falsification is indicated in the intention to establish in the Churches of Asia Minor the dignity of the monarchical episcopate, and terminus adquem the time of Irenaeus, that is, the era when the Catholic concept of episcopate can be seen implemented in all Churches. In this regard, as has been said, the Epistle of Polycarp is also recognized as forged, in which they see as a kind of forwarding Epistle, intended to facilitate the reception of the forged Epistles of Ignatius. But:
(a) No Christian work of the Second Century, and few other works of Antiquity, are so firmly attested as the Epistles of Ignatius. In this regard, the Epistle of Polycarp is of exceptional importance.
6) The main objection to the Epistle of Polycarp is based on the fact that it obliges us to recognize the authenticity of the Epistles of Ignatius.
c) The message of Polycarp is indisputably attested to by his disciple Irenaeus.
d) All attempts to present the Message of Polycarp as a forgery are unsuccessful and do not achieve their goal.
e) With such strength of historical evidence, only decisively irrefutable internal reasons can shake confidence in the authenticity of the Epistles.
f) Meanwhile, all alleged anachronisms are eliminated in the light of impartial criticism. Our knowledge of the development of church organization and church teaching in this early era of the history of the Church is not so detailed and thorough that it is possible to draw any decisive conclusions regarding them almost over decades, and the only correct scientific method in this state of affairs can only be recognized as one when judgments about the state of church teaching and church organization are drawn from primary sources; Meanwhile, here literary monuments are adjusted to a pre-established pattern.
Without a doubt, in the Epistles of Ignatius the monarchical organization of the Christian Churches is presented everywhere as a fact and the three degrees of ecclesiastical hierarchy are outlined with remarkable certainty. But for the half of the second century, episcopate is attested everywhere as a completely established institution, without signs of previous development in its essence.
And from the content of the Epistles of Ignatius one cannot extract any indications of the obstacles or difficulties that the development of episcopate might encounter, of any struggle that should have preceded the establishment of the authority of bishops over the elders: episcopate is conceived in the Epistles as a recognized and long-standing institution; its legality is beyond any doubt and does not require any justification or illumination.
The struggle against heretics in them cannot be recognized as a fundamental negative authority against the authenticity of the Epistles of Ignatius.
The Epistles refute Judaism and Docetism. These heresies cannot be traced to specific names and the degree of their development during the time of Ignatius cannot be proven from other heretical news of antiquity; but it is impossible on this basis to prove and assert that in the days of Ignatius there were no heresies in the form in which the polemics of the Epistles suggest them - this would mean completely forgetting about the significant gaps in our information regarding the most ancient heresies in general and especially the early stages of the development of Gnosticism.
In the Epistles there are no traces of polemics against the established Gnostic systems of the Marionites and Valentinians, and with an unprejudiced study, the heresies refuted in the Epistles can easily be understood as one of the intermediate degrees between the false teachings of the Apostolic time and the heresies of the 2nd century.
g) That under Trajan Christians died as martyrdom is a historical fact; There can be no doubt about the fact that Ignatius was condemned ad bestias by the governor of Antioch, since such condemnations are already attested by Hermas (Vis. 3:2), and a little later there are even numerous examples of them.
A law prohibiting governors from sending convicts ex provinciam in provinciam was issued later. This parcel did not then require the approval of the Emperor; and Ignatius' enemies could have had special motives to prevent Ignatius's martyrdom. Antioch, and send him to Rome.
As for the circumstances of the journey, as they appear on the basis of the Epistles, first of all, the fact that in the second half of the 2nd century, when, according to opponents of the authenticity of the Epistle, the forgery was accepted by Christians, the general conditions of life in the Roman state did not change radically, and yet at that time such circumstances no longer seemed incredible.
Against this kind of objection, it is enough to remember that the Apostle Paul preached Christ in prison (Acts 28:16, 30-31), that very often Christians had access to martyrs and prisoners in prison (compare: Acts of Perpetua and Felicity, 3, 5, 16; Cypr. Carth. Epist., 5:2; 15:1), that martyrs wrote in prison and received the Messages (Cypr. Carth. Epist., 10;15;17:3; Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:3.4; 6:11.5).
As for the path that Ignatius took, there is no doubt that it was possible to reach Rome by a more direct and shorter route; but why not assume that Ignatius followed the usual military route of the Romans through Macedonia, especially if there was no opportunity to send the prisoner to Italy by sea.
The position which the Epistle to the Romans presupposes, namely, Ignatius's fear that the Roman Christians would not take any steps to free him, is explained by the right of appeal granted by Roman laws to others, even against the will of the condemned; Roman Christians could take advantage of this law in relation to Ignatius when he was still on his way.
h) The impressions received from the personality of Saint Ignatius, as reflected in the Epistles, are too unreliable an argument against the authenticity of the Epistles, since they are very different among different critics: where some see signs of falsification, there others find the stamp of authenticity and an expression of the true individuality of the author. If they find the martyr’s excessive excitement unnatural and such a strong thirst for death incredible, then they do not attach due importance to the psychological point that one cannot fully understand the thoughts and feelings of the martyr if one does not have his faith and hope. Many Christians of his time showed a thirst for the crown of martyrdom. The message of the Smyrna Church on the martyrdom of Polycarp glorifies those who, having heard the death sentence of pagan judges, went to death with joy and animation (chap. 2), praises Germanicus, who deliberately enraged wild animals in order to die sooner (chap. 3). In general, the entire course of the martyrdom of Ignatius, as far as it is reflected in his Epistles, does not contradict the laws and customs of that time.
i) The emergency of the situation in which Ignatius found himself must have been reflected in the tone, language and entire character of his Epistles. We have in them the direct outpouring of his soul, the rapid change of feelings and thoughts, and should not require a calm and consistent development of one specific theme: lack of time, the desire to say a lot in a few words, the excitement of the spirit due to the consciousness of imminent death - all this gave the language of the Epistles a special imprint.
But in view of this, all the features of the style, which are truly numerous, can be correctly understood and explained only by the assumption of the authenticity of the Epistles. Most researchers have raised the question of the authenticity or inauthenticity of the entire collection of the seven Epistles of Ignatius, recognizing this as the closest and inextricable connection between them.
But in the last decades of the 19th century, new experiments were made in resolving the issue of the Epistles of Ignatius by separating the Epistles to the Romans from the rest of the Epistles.
On the one hand (É. Renan, Les Évangiles et la seconde génération chrétienne. Paris, 1877, p. X-XXVIII) only the Epistle to the Romans is considered authentic; on the other (D. Völter, Die Ignatianischen Briefe auf ihren Ursprung untersucht. Tübingen, 1892), only the Epistle to the Romans is recognized as forged, and the other six are genuine or, more correctly, more ancient, written around 140-155, under the circumstances indicated in them, but not by Bishop Ignatius, but by Peregrinus Proteus, before a Christian, and then a Cynic, under the name Ignatius.
However, the actual authenticity of the six Epistles is also accepted (E. Bruston, Ignace d’Antioche. Paris, 1897). The question is whether there are valid and sufficient grounds for separating the Epistle to the Romans so much from the rest of the Epistles as to seek different authors for them.
There is no doubt that the Epistle to the Romans is sharply different in content from all other Epistles; there is no talk in it of either teaching or church organization - Saint Ignatius here is entirely occupied with the thought of his upcoming martyrdom. And this is quite understandable: he either entered into personal communication with the Churches of Asia Minor, or was familiar with their state through those authorized by them, and therefore he had both reasons and the opportunity to speak on issues of the internal life of these Churches.
He had yet to see the Roman Christians at the conclusion of his life drama, which was soon to take place in the Roman amphitheater. He either received word or assumed that the Roman Church would make an attempt (through an appeal to the Emperor) to save him. The message was written by him with the goal of preventing this step.
But the general character of the Epistle to the Romans and its language, together with the evidence of its origin from Ignatius, fully justify its historical connection with the collection of other Epistles. Therefore, we can only talk about the authenticity or inauthenticity of all seven Epistles known to Eusebius, and the above evidence and considerations give an undoubted right to see in them the authentic works of the Antiochian Bishop Ignatius and extremely important evidence about the state of church teaching and government in the first years of the 2nd century.
As for the lengthy Greek edition, it is now generally accepted that seven Epistles in it are interpolated, and six are completely forged.
According to some researchers, the Semi-Arians, and according to others, the Apollinarians, towards the end of the 4th century, compiled the latter in theological interests, in order, by attributing them to Saint Ignatius, to give their own doctrines the authority of a great name.
At the same time, when they fabricated the five pseudo-Ignatius Epistles and the Epistle of Mary of Cassobol, they copiously interpolated seven other Epistles: the author of the six forged Epistles is the same as the interpolator of the genuine Epistles of St. Ignatius.
IV. 3. Manuscripts and translations of the Epistles of St. Ignatius
The Greek text of the seven original Epistles of St. Ignatius is preserved in only two manuscripts: one famous Florentine codex Mediceo-Laurentianus of the 11th century contains six Epistles written to the Churches of Asia Minor and to Polycarp; the other - Paris (National Library), also of the 11th century, concludes the Acts of Martyrdom of St. Ignatius - Martyrium Colbertinum, into which the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans is inserted.
There are two more manuscripts in Rome - Casatanensis and Barberinus, but they are later (15th century) copies of the Codex Mediceo-Laurentianus and therefore have no independent significance. Thus, not one of the seven Epistles has reached us in at least two manuscripts: for each Epistle we have at our disposal only one Greek manuscript.
In addition to the Syriac translation in abridged form, several brief fragments of the Syriac translation (IV century) of the brief Greek edition have survived, and the Epistle to the Romans is inserted into the Syriac translation of the Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius.
There is an Armenian translation, perhaps 5th century, made from the Syriac; it was first printed in Constantinople in 1783, and then reproduced by Petermann in his edition of the Epistles of Ignatius in 1849.
A Latin translation has also survived, made in England around the middle of the 13th century, discovered by Ussher and published by him in Oxford in 1644. This translation, very literal and therefore very important for criticism, was made from a Greek text - significantly different from the text of both existing manuscripts.
Let us finally note the Coptic translation of the Epistle to the Smyrnae.
Naturally, given the state of handwritten data, the text of the Epistles of St. Ignatius is far from being established in its final form; To be convinced of this, it is enough to compare the latest scientific publications of Th. Zahn, Funk, Lightfoot, Hilgenfeld.
IV. 4. Contents of the Epistles of Saint Ignatius
Among the numerous deputations that the Church of Asia Minor sent to Saint Ignatius was that of Ephesus, consisting of Bishop Onesimus and several clergy. Saint Ignatius in his Epistle thanks the Ephesians for their “kindred cause” in relation to him, says that in the person of Onesimus and other men he accepted them themselves and wants them to be established in the same spirit and in the same thoughts and obey the bishopric and presbytery (1-2). He is prompted to such admonition only by love, and not by any consciousness of his significance (3).
Their famous and God-worthy presbytery is as in tune with the bishop as the strings of a zither; and they must form a choir of themselves, every one of them, so that, being in tune with one mind, having begun a song to God in unison, sing it with one accord to the Father through Jesus Christ (4).
He who is not inside the altar deprives himself of the bread of God; If the prayer of two has great power, then how much stronger is the prayer of a bishop and the whole Church? Therefore, whoever does not go to the general meeting has already become proud and has condemned himself (5). The bishop should be looked upon as the Lord Himself.
However, Onesimus himself extremely praises the decorous behavior of the Ephesians, that they all live in accordance with the truth and that there is no heresy among them (6).
Saint Ignatius exhorts to beware of the deceptions of heretics, who can be recognized by the fruits of their behavior (7-8). He knows that some came to them with evil teaching, but that they did not allow them to scatter it among them, blocking their ears. Ignatius praises them for this and rejoices that he was honored to talk with them in writing (9).
He convinces them to constantly pray for the faithful and the erring - there is still hope of repentance, and they can come to God. “Let them learn at least from your works,” he says to the Ephesians and exhorts them to show meekness and lowliness in their attitude (10).
We must be ashamed and afraid of Divine forbearance, so that it does not serve us in condemnation, we must strive with all our might to be found in Christ Jesus for true life, and so that without Him they have nothing (11).
Saint Ignatius does not forget in what relationship the Ephesians stood to the Apostles, that they were fellow secretaries of Paul the Sanctified (12).
The Ephesians should gather more often for the Eucharist - this achieves victory over the forces of Satan, and the unanimity of faith destroys his disastrous deeds (13).
The Ephesians themselves know that this is so if they have perfect faith and love, which are the beginning and the end of life; everything else related to virtue comes from them. Just as a tree is known by its fruit, so those who profess to be Christians are identified by their deeds (14).
You can confess God not only with words, but also with silence: nothing is hidden from the Lord (15). Heretics will be punished with unquenchable fire, as well as those who listen to them (16). Therefore, we must avoid the teaching of the prince of this age and not perish foolishly, not recognizing the gift that the Lord has truly sent (17). For the faithful, salvation and eternal life are in the Cross (18). The mysteries of Salvation were hidden from the prince of this world, but they were revealed to the world when God appeared humanly for the renewal of eternal life, and from that time all bonds of evil and ignorance began to be broken (19). Saint Ignatius promises, if it is the will of God, in another Epistle to reveal to the Ephesians the newly begun teaching on the economy of a relatively new man - Jesus Christ (20); in conclusion, he asks to remember him and pray for the Syrian Church (21).
b) Epistle to the Magnesians.
From Magnesia, on the Meander, Bishop Damasus arrived in Smyrna with two presbyters and a deacon to greet Saint Ignatius on behalf of the Magnesian Church. Through Damasus, Ignatius sent a message to the Magnesians.
At the beginning he praises the love of the Magnesians, the reflection of which he saw in their bishop, presbyters and deacon, reverent and obedient (1 - 2). He urges the Magnesians not to neglect the youth of the bishop and to show him every respect, following the example of the presbyters, because honor applies less to a visible bishop than to an invisible one (3). There is no need to be like those who verbally acknowledge the bishop, but do everything without him. Just as the unfaithful have their own image on themselves - the image of this world, so the faithful in love have the image of God the Father through Jesus Christ. If through Him we are not ready to die in the image of His suffering, then His life is not in us (5). This inner image should be externally revealed in subordination and unity with the bishop: the bishop presides in the place of God, the elders take the place of the Council of the Apostles, the deacons are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. Therefore, everyone who has entered into cohabitation with God must respect one another, love one another in Jesus Christ, and be in unity with the bishop and those presiding (6).
Just as the Lord, without the Father, due to His unity with Him, did nothing either by Himself or through the Apostles, so the faithful should not do anything without the bishop and elders. Nothing commendable can come of it if they do it on their own, without a bishop: in the general meeting let there be one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope in love and immaculate joy. “There is one Jesus Christ and there is nothing better than Him; therefore, all of you make up as if one church of God, as if one altar, as if one Jesus Christ, who came from the one Father and abides in the One and went to Him alone” (7).
Saint Ignatius then warns the Magnesians against the heresy of the Judaizers. Already the prophets of the Old Testament lived by faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the eternal God, and placed their hope in Him, and not in the law - how can one now, in the New Testament, refuse Jesus Christ, who regenerated us spiritually, and live like Jews (8-10). He writes not to rebuke them, but to warn those with whom he is not worthy to be compared (11–12). The letter ends with an exhortation to be established in faith and unity and to pray for him and for the Syrian Church (13-15).
c) Epistle to the Trallians.
Bishop Thrall, in Lydia, Polyvius was also among those who came to Smyrna for the sake of Saint Ignatius on behalf of his Church. In the Epistle that Saint Ignatius gave him for his flock, he praises the spirit of unity and purity of the Trallians (1) and urges them not to do anything without a bishop, to obey the presbytery as the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and to please in every possible way the deacons - ministers of the sacraments - for they are not servants of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God (2). Without them there is no Church (3).
But Saint Ignatius refrains from continuing the instructions, firstly, because he considers it necessary to humble himself so as not to perish from vanity (4); secondly, knowing a lot about God and having the opportunity to write about Heavenly things, he is afraid that they, still babies, will not be harmed (5).
Saint Ignatius convinces the Trallians to eat only Christian food and to turn away from heresy. The heretics mix Jesus Christ into the poison of their teaching, which is how they gain confidence in themselves - but they serve the poison in sweetened wine; those who do not know willingly accept it along with destructive pleasure - death (6).
The only antidote to heretical seduction is devotion to God, Jesus Christ, the bishop and the Apostolic commandments. “He who is inside the altar is clean, and he who is outside of it is not clean, that is, whoever does anything without a bishop, presbyter and deacon has an unclean conscience” (7). Saint Ignatius does not know anything like this among them, but warns them (8).
Trallians should not listen to those who do not teach about the truly incarnate Jesus Christ (9) and say that He suffered in a ghostly way. If this were so, then his bonds, suffering and death would be useless; and the union—which God established between Himself and man through Jesus Christ—would be destroyed (10–11).
The rest contains a greeting, an exhortation to unity and love, to obedience to the bishop and to prayer for the Syrian Church (12–13).
The reason for writing the Epistle to the Romans was completely different from the rest of the Epistles. Ignatius either received some news, or had serious reasons to believe that the Roman Christians, inspired by the desire to preserve his life, would take measures to free him from death. He urges them not to make any attempt in this direction.
The message expresses the ardent desire of Saint Ignatius to be united with Christ and by the sacrifice of his life to prove the full power of love for the Savior. After the greeting, Saint Ignatius expresses his joy that he will see them; bound for Christ, he hopes to welcome them.
“I am afraid,” he continues, “of your love, so that it does not harm me, because it is easy for you to do what you want to do, but it is difficult for me to reach God if you take pity on me” (1). “If you remain silent about me, I will be God’s, but if you show love to my flesh, then I will have to enter the field again. Do not do anything more for me than to have me sacrificed to God now that the altar is ready, and then make with love the choir and sing to the Father in Christ Jesus that God has deigned to call the Bishop of Syria from the East to the West. It is wonderful for me to descend from the world to God, so that I may shine in Him” (2).
Saint Ignatius asks the prayers of Roman Christians to grant him strength for martyrdom (3). And then he again begs them not to show him untimely love. “Leave me to be food for beasts and through them to reach God. I am the wheat of God: let the teeth of the beasts crush me, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ. It’s better to caress these animals so that they become my coffin and leave nothing from my body, so that after death I won’t be a burden to anyone. Then I will truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world will not even see my body. Pray to Christ for me, so that through these instruments I may become a sacrifice to God” (4).
Already on the way from Syria to Rome, on land and sea, night and day, he fights with animals, being associated with ten leopards, that is, wolves. “Oh, if only I were not deprived of the animals prepared for me.” I pray that they will rush at me greedily. I will lure them so that they will immediately devour me, and not like they were afraid of some and did not touch me. If they don’t want to voluntarily, I will force them... Neither visible nor invisible - nothing will stop me from coming to Jesus Christ.
Fire and the cross, crowds of beasts, dispersion, dissolution, crushing of bones, cutting off members, crushing of the whole body, the fierce torment of the devil will come upon me - if only I can reach Christ” (5). “The pleasures of the world, nor the kingdom of this world, will bring me any benefit. It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to reign over the whole Earth. I seek Him who died for us, I desire Him who rose again for us” (b). “Even if I personally began to ask you, do not listen to me; believe more in what I write to you. I am writing to you while I am alive, burning with the desire to die. My love has been crucified, and there is no fire in me that loves matter, but the living water speaking within me calls out to me from within: “go to the Father” (7).
In conclusion, Saint Ignatius once again asks Roman Christians to pray that his desire will be fulfilled, and also to remember in his prayer the Syrian Church, in which God is the shepherd instead of him (8–9). The epistle was written from Smyrna and sent through the Ephesians nine days before the Kalends of September (that is, August 23) (10).
e) Epistle to the Philadelphians.
While traveling from Smyrna to Troas, Ignatius received news that the persecution in Antioch had ceased and peace had been restored in the Church. Under the impression of this joyful news, he wrote the Epistles from Troas to the Philadelphians, Smyrneans and Polycarp.
In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, Saint Ignatius notes the outstanding virtues of their bishop (1) and urges them to be in unity with him, to avoid the wolves that captivate the souls of those who follow the path of God (2), to beware of those who introduce schism (3), to have one Eucharist (4), to love not only the apostles, but also the prophets (5) and not to listen to those who preach Judaism (6).
Already at the time when he personally addressed the Philadelphians, Ignatius exhorted them to obey the bishop and avoid divisions, exhorting them according to the inspiration of the Spirit (7).
Where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell there; but the Lord forgives those who repent if they return to the unity of God and to the council of the bishop. Saint Ignatius begs us not to do anything out of self-controversy, but according to the teaching of Christ. Against demands to confirm the Gospels with ancient Scriptures, Ignatius says: “for me, what is ancient is Jesus Christ; immutably ancient is His cross, His death and resurrection and faith through Him” (8). The Old Testament is good, but the Gospel has something more excellent: this is the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, His passion and Resurrection (9). In conclusion, Saint Ignatius asks that a deacon be sent to the Antiochians in order to rejoice with them over the end of the persecution, and thanks that they received his companions well (10-11).
It is most remarkable both in style and content. During his stay in Smyrna, Ignatius became well aware of the true position of this Church and now writes an Epistle to the Smyrnae that meets their spiritual needs.
At the beginning, he reveals the Orthodox teaching about the Incarnation of the Son of God - as opposed to the docetic one. He praises the Lord for their perfect faith in the Lord who truly became incarnate, suffered and rose again (1). He endured all this for our sake, so that we might be saved, and suffered truly, just as He truly rose again (2), and after the resurrection was and is in the flesh (3).
Saint Ignatius urges the Smirnians to beware of heretics, and only to pray for them. If the Lord did everything in a ghostly way, then the suffering of Ignatius himself is also ghostly (4). He who rejects Christ is rejected from Him and carries death within himself (5). Even Angels, if they did not believe in the blood of Christ, are subject to judgment. Heretics, however, do not demonstrate fidelity to the Christian teaching in their deeds: they have no concern for love, nor for the widow, nor for the orphan, nor for the oppressed, nor for the prisoner, nor for the hungry or thirsty (6).
Heretics move away from the Eucharist and prayer - one must move away from them (7), and do nothing related to the Church without a bishop: “only that Eucharist should be considered true, which is celebrated by the bishop, or by those to whom he himself grants it. Where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there must be the Catholic Church” (8).
It is a wonderful thing to know God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop is honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves the devil. For the love shown to him and his companions, Saint Ignatius calls upon Smyrna abundant grace (9-10), and in conclusion asks to send an ambassador to Antioch to greet the Church there with the restoration of peace and conveys greetings from those around him in Troas (11-13).
g) Epistle to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.
This Epistle was the last Epistle of Saint Ignatius. He also wanted to write to other Churches, but “due to the sudden, at the will of the authorities, sailing from Troas to Naples” he could not fulfill his desire; therefore he commissioned Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to write in his stead to the nearby Churches (8). The first chapters of the Epistle (1-5) contain advice and instructions to Polycarp regarding the government of the Church; They are accompanied by several instructions to the flock itself (6). Then he again asks the Smyrnians and Bishop Polycarp to send to Antioch with greetings to the Antiochian Church on the occasion of the restoration of peace (7). Finally, he asks Polycarp to encourage the nearby Churches to do the same through letters (8).
IV. 5. Analysis of the content of the Epistles of Saint Ignatius
The Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius represent the most remarkable monument of the post-Apostolic period, both for the value of their testimony concerning the state of doctrine and discipline in the Churches of Asia Minor, and for the vivid portrayal in them of the strikingly strong and original personality of their author.
By their sharp polemical tone, they reveal a decisive contrast with the conciliatory character of the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and in unartificial but passionate language they show in the author an ardent nature, with a strong will, perhaps imperious, deeply mastering those ideas that are once acquired, and capable of protecting them against insidious or violent attacks of any opposing influences.
This trait of the mind, obviously without literary training, is especially clearly reflected in strong, laconic expressions; it is also naturally revealed in a certain kind of exaggeration in language, in the use of strained, inappropriate metaphors, which, when assessed impartially, say exactly the opposite.
The style of the Epistles cannot be called simple, since considerable effort is required before the reader is confident that he has correctly comprehended the thoughts expressed in them.
This probably depends on the fact that the Epistles were written in great haste, perhaps in front of impatient soldiers; why unrevealed, unfinished thoughts, without proper diversity, both in content and in expression, are found in almost every Epistle.
This monument to the pastoral care of Saint Ignatius in its content was appreciated by the contemporary of the Antiochian martyr Saint Polycarp, who in his Epistle to the Philippians says about them: “you can receive great benefit from them, for they contain faith, patience and all edification about our Lord” (13:2).
Written during a journey under such unfavorable conditions, these Epistles, by their very design, did not intend to formulate Church teaching and do not represent treatises on specific topics: their author strives in brief expressive lines, in several provisions, to embrace everything that, according to the requirements of the circumstances of the religious life of the Asian Christians in Asia Minor, he considers it necessary to remind them on his final journey.
Therefore, although it is indisputable that of all the Apostolic men, Saint Ignatius in his Epistles reveals the most profound views, which are not a simple echo of what was believed around him, but reveal traces of personal reflection and rationally based conviction.
However, it would be in vain to look for a complete Theological system from him; for this we have too insignificant a source, from which we can only learn those Christian views that he expressed in the last months of his life.
We only know the expressions of a man who, having already been condemned to death and chained, in the hope of achieving the highest goal of a Christian in a few weeks through martyrdom, set forth his admonitions to churches alien to him, and, moreover, in a state of strong spiritual excitement.
His Epistles are random works, the content of which was determined by the position in which he himself found himself, the state of the Churches to which he addressed, the nature of the errors against which he fought.
The actual state of the Asia Minor churches inspired the Antioch pastor with serious fears about their future well-being; alarm was caused by false teachers who had infiltrated these Churches and threatened them with sad divisions; Therefore, the polemic against false teachers in the Epistles of St. Ignatius comes to the fore and constitutes their main interest.
Even the Epistle to the Romans hints at a heretical danger, although it has already been overcome, when in its greeting it calls them cleansed of all alien coloring.
Of the six Epistles sent to the Asia Minor address, only the Epistle to Polycarp contains few indications of heretics; it simply assumes the fact of their presence in Smyrna. But the other five Epistles to the churches of Asia Minor provide abundant material for judging the degree of prevalence of false teaching and its content.
The carriers of false teaching are wandering false brothers who call themselves Christians, under this name they find access to the church and then secretly sow the evil seed of heresy: “some people have the custom of deceitfully bearing the name (of Christians), while committing deeds unworthy of God” (Eph. 12:1). “They mix Jesus Christ into the poison of their teaching, which is how they gain confidence in themselves; but they serve the deadly poison in a sweetened form. He who does not know willingly accepts it and, along with harmful pleasure, accepts death” (Tral., 6).
Ignatius praises the Ephesians for closing their ears to the strange people who came to them with evil teaching (9:1), and in the Epistle to the Magnesians clear evidence is given that false teachers did not come from among them; if Ignatius exhorts them to be careful before false teachers, then he only wants to warn them in advance so that they will be prepared if heretics appear among them (11:1). Likewise, the Smyrnae should not accept animals in human form and, if possible, not meet with them (4:1).
How the heretics acted can be concluded from the instructions that Ignatius gives regarding the seductions threatening them.
Since he especially often exhorts to adhere to the bishop and comes to general church meetings, we can conclude that private meetings were the usual place where heretics, using the art of speech (Eph. 15:1), acquired adherents; It is probable that in these meetings false teachers made claims to possess the Spirit.
Ignatius does not say anything definite about the number and success of false teachers. This depends partly on the fact that he learned about the three Churches (Ephesian, Magnesian and Trallian) only from the messages of their bishops and deacons, whom they sent to him; but is mainly explained by the conscious intention of Ignatius: he does not want to indicate the names, faces and successes of such hated opponents.
An example of such deliberate obscurity is the expressions in Eph. 9:1 ~and Smyrna. 5:3. In the first place he says: “I learned that some came from there (έκει θεν) - to Ephesus with evil teaching.”
In the Epistle to the Smyrneans, he does not want to call “incorrect names” those members who blaspheme the Lord by not confessing Him as wearing the flesh. However, Ignatius is not always so unclear, and it is in the Epistles to those Churches that he personally knew - Philadelphia and Smyrna - that there are indications that he had a clear idea of the threatening danger.
In his letter to the Philadelphians, he says that “many wolves, apparently worthy of trust, through destructive pleasure take captive those who walk in the way of God (2:2). The opponents were successful, as Ignatius demands that some repent and return to union with the Church (3:2). In a church meeting in Philadelphia, Ignatius called for unity “in spirit,” and it was suspected that he spoke this after receiving a message in advance about the separation of some (7).
Also, the Epistle to the Smyrnae shows what evil heretical propaganda produced, and Ignatius was forced to exhort the believers to move away “from such people” and does not speak about them either alone or in the assembly (Smyrna 7:8). There, in Smyrna, the false teachers managed to attract one or more respected persons to their side. The fears of the success of false teachings are also very noticeable in the Epistles to the Churches, which Ignatius did not attend. The detailed warnings against heresy in the Epistle to the Ephesians (7:9; 13:19) show that the teaching of the prince of this age was ready to lead believers as captives from the life that lies before them. “Why,” he asks, “are not all wise, having received the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ?” sent" (17).
Ignatius wants to warn the Magnesians not to fall into the snares of vain teaching (11); He also warns the Trallians against the wiles of the devil (8:1); there is no doubt that false teachers have already infiltrated these relatively distant Churches.
Thus, from the Epistles of Ignatius it is clear that in the Churches, which were composed of a very mobile population of the cities of Asia Minor, the infiltrating false teachers soon found suitable soil for themselves.
The Christians of Asia Minor, who from the very foundation of their Churches had disintegrated into small circles, could not in their meetings provide decisive opposition to the heretics attacking them, formed separate societies in some places, baptized and celebrated the Eucharist, and, of course, there could be no talk of any kind of control.
Who were these heretics? Ignatius's polemics are clearly directed against false Christology and against Judaism. Material for characterizing the Christology refuted by Ignatius is provided by the Epistles to the Ephesians, Trallians and Smyrnans.
According to the indications of these three Epistles, the Christology of the false teachers turns out to be real docetism: they completely destroyed the human nature of Christ. According to their teaching, Christ had only an apparent body. He was not truly born and not baptized, did not truly spend earthly life with its bodily functions, and above all, He truly did not suffer and truly did not rise bodily. A number of lengthy and clear passages in the three named Epistles prove this position.
The expressive confession of faith set forth in the 8th chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians is directed against docetic false teaching: “there is only one Physician, both physical and spiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God come in the flesh, in death the true Life, from Mary and from God, first subject, and then not subject to suffering, Jesus Christ our Lord” (compare: Thrall., 18:2).
In his Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius says this about refutable docetism: “Be deaf when anyone tells you without Jesus Christ, who came from the line of David, from Mary, who was truly born, who ate and drank, who was truly condemned under Pontius Pilate, and who was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven, on earth and under the earth - who truly rose from the dead when God raised his Father, Who in like manner will also raise us up - those who believe in Him - His Father in Christ Jesus, without Whom we have no true life. If, as some atheists - that is, unbelievers - say that He suffered for show - they themselves are a ghost - then why am I in chains? Why do I ardently desire to fight beasts? So it's in vain that I die. So, does that mean I’m lying to the Lord?” (9–10; compare: Smyrna 1–4:2; 5:2).
In his Epistle to the Smyrneans, Ignatius writes: “I know and believe that even after His resurrection He was and is in the flesh. And when He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them: Take Me, touch Me and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” They immediately touched Him and believed... After the Resurrection, He ate and drank with them, as if he had flesh, although he was spiritually united with the Father (3).
Heretics do not confess that the Lord bears flesh (Smyrna 5:2). They withdraw from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not recognize that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, but which the Father raised in His goodness” (7:1).
Along with Docetism, Ignatius no less clearly refutes the heretical trend that excited society to accept Judaism. The polemic against this trend lies in the Epistles to the Magnesians and Philadelphians: Magn. 8–11 and Philad. 5–9 are the main passages that contain references to the Judaizers.
Ignatius calls the refuted teaching “Judaism” (Magn. 8:1; 10:3; Philad. 6:1), thereby defining the essence and distinctive character of the false teaching. Representatives and preachers of false teaching want to impose on Christians the Jewish law, the Jewish way of life, they want to impose on them old useless fables (Magn. 8:1), they want to convince them that they are Sabbatarians (9:1).
In meetings they appear with the Holy Scriptures in their hands and, on the basis of scrolls that are highly respected by Christians, prove the correctness and necessity of the Jewish way of life. It is to these proofs from the Holy Scriptures that the heretics brought in support of their teaching that the warning to the Philadelphians refers: “if anyone expounds (ἑρμηνεύη) to you Judaism, do not listen to him, for it is better to hear Christianity from a man who has been circumcised than to hear Judaism from an uncircumcised man (6:1).
In Philadelphia, Ignatius could not convince his opponents of the correctness of the church's view of the Old Testament. They firmly held that a certain observance of the Mosaic Law was also necessary for Christians. The Epistles to the Magnesians and Philadelphians make it possible to see on what arguments the opponents substantiated their positions - they pointed specifically to the example of the saints of pre-Christian times, to the patriarchs and, above all, to the prophets. If these men, whose pleasingness to God stands above all doubt, kept the law, then its significance also for the adherents of the New Testament is firmly established.
Ignatius’s explanations show the strength that opponents attached to the reference to the example of the Old Testament righteous, as well as the strong impression they made on believers. Ignatius in various places tries to weaken the force of the arguments of his opponents and points out that both the patriarchs and the prophets were saved only through their trust in Christ: The High Priest, to whom is entrusted the Most Holy Place, to whom alone are entrusted the mysteries of God, is the door to the Father, by which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the prophets, the apostles and the Church enter (Phil. 9:1). The most divine prophets lived in Christ Jesus, and therefore endured persecution, inspired by His grace, in order to fully convince those who disobeyed that there is one God, who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son (Magn. 8:2).
The prophets - being His disciples in spirit - expected Him as their teacher; therefore He - whom they righteously waited for - appeared and raised them from the dead (Magn. 9:3). Let us also love the prophets, since they also proclaimed the Gospel, and trusted in it and looked forward to it, and by faith in Him they were saved in unity with Jesus Christ, saints most lovable and admirable, testified by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of the common hope (Phil. 5:2).
The Gospel has advantages over the times of the Old Testament righteous: the Coming of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, His suffering and His Resurrection, for the beloved prophets pointed to Him; and the Gospel is the perfection of incorruption. All together (that is, the prophets and the Gospel) are wonderful if you believe in love (9:2). Thus, from the Epistles to the Magnesians and Philadelphians it is clear what evidence from the Old Testament was cited by the false teachers to support their propaganda.
But it is less clear to what extent the opponents actually wanted to place the yoke of the law on Christians. If what they proclaimed is called “Judaism”, if Ignatius speaks about life according to the Jewish law (Magn. 8:1), about sabbaticalism (σαββατίζοντες), if opponents praised the Old Testament priesthood, and Ignatius considered himself forced to oppose the New Testament High Priest to this priesthood of the Old Testament (Philad. 9:1), then, apparently, we can conclude that the opponents wanted to place the entire yoke of the law and its institutions on the faithful - circumcision, the Sabbath, food laws, the entire cult.
But such widespread Judaism in itself is completely incredible: with such a burden on their adherents, the false teachers could hardly find convenient ground for their propaganda in the society of the faithful.
Then certain passages in the Epistles speak against this. Ignatius writes: “If anyone preaches Judaism to you, do not listen to him; for it is better to hear Christianity from a circumcised man than to hear Judaism from an uncircumcised man. If both do not speak about Jesus Christ, then they are for me pillars and tombs of the dead, on which only the names of men are written” (Philadians 6:1).
Ignatius here at least suggests that Jewish preaching could come even from the uncircumcised: therefore, circumcision was not a sine qua non for entry into heretical society. But then it was no longer possible to make demands for the implementation of the entire law, but only for the adoption of individual parts of it. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine what choices the false teachers made: the Epistles do not provide any material to answer this question.
It is also difficult to decide in what relation the Docetic and Judaistic errors stood among themselves - whether there were two different false teachings or only two sides of one heresy. A precise answer to this question could only be given if it were established what false teachings arose in the churches of Asia Minor in the last years of the life and work of the Apostle Paul (epistles to the Colossians and Timothy) and were dissolved by the time the Apostle John was here. But since numerous studies regarding the Asia Minor heresies of the Apostolic Age do not lead their authors to a consensus, then one cannot expect agreement in the definition of heresies, which are also refuted in the Epistles of Ignatius.
But in any judgment on this matter, the importance of the fact should not be diminished in any way that the Epistles to the Ephesians, Trallians and Smyrneans contain only anti-Docetic polemics, and even if it is accepted as proven that the anti-Judaic polemic of the Magnesians and Philadelphians is combined with an anti-Docetic polemic and that, consequently, the Judaistic error has taken on a kind of Docetic imprint, then from this it is impossible to draw an indisputable conclusion that the same two-sided false teaching and only it existed in other cities of Asia Minor.
It is also impossible to say positively whether Ignatius knew the heretics who penetrated into Asia Minor back in Antioch, or whether he first became acquainted with them only during his travels. It is likely that he had the opportunity to refute the same heresies or completely similar religious movements already in Antioch. Antioch - a city of mixtures of nationalities and religions - from the very beginning of Christianity was supposed to provide fertile soil for the spread of Gnostic teachings; This assumption is supported by the very nature of Ignatius’s polemic against heresies, as a phenomenon well known to him, against which he also has certain means.
In view of the alarming state of the churches of Asia Minor, Saint Ignatius raises his voice: he gives theoretical instructions to the faithful so that they can distinguish between false teachers and counteract them. Against the destructive false teaching of the Docetes and Judaists, who destroy the true faith and the Church, Saint Ignatius clearly and persistently sets out the principles of the true knowledge of God, which was given to him in the person of the historical Christ.
Jesus Christ is central to the thoughts and feelings of the Bishop of Antioch. All his desires boil down to one thing: “I want him, who died for us, I seek him, who rose again for us” (Rom. 6). “Neither visible nor invisible, nothing will stop me from coming to Jesus Christ. Fire and the cross, crowds of beasts, dissection, dissolution, crushing bones, cutting off members, crushing the whole body, let the fierce torments of the devil come upon me - if only I could reach Christ" (Rom. 5).
With all his zeal he exclaims against the heretics: “What benefit do they bring to me who praise me and revile my Lord.” Against any reference to the “ancient things” (ἀρχεια) of the Old Testament, he has one answer: “for me the ancient thing is Jesus Christ” (Philad. 8). He gives all respect to the prophets only because they foretold Christ, all honor to the bishops because they live ἐνγνώμη Χριστου. One bishop, one teacher Jesus Christ. He is our life - how can we live without Him (Magn. 9:2)?
From the point of view of the central significance of the historical personality of the Lord, all the sayings of Ignatius should be considered, since for him, all his Christian knowledge flows from here. Here his sacred anger against false teachers and his thirst for martyrdom have their root.
In brief, Ignatius’s teaching about the Person of Jesus Christ boils down to the following provisions: Christ is God - “our God,” “my God” (Ephesus, - proem.; 18:2; Rom. - proem. 3:3; 6:3; Pol. 8:3), the only Son of the Father (Rom. - proem.) and Lord (Pol. 1:2). Before the ages He was with the Father (Magn. 6:1) and at the end of days He appeared in the flesh as the Revelation of the one God the Father (Magn. 8:2; Rom. 8:2). All New Testament salvation is based on the fact that God appeared humanly for the renewal of eternal life (Eph. 19:3). The one who became incarnate is a perfect man (Smyrna 4:2). Ignatius especially strenuously puts forward the reality of the entire earthly activity of Jesus Christ and its individual parts with the often used term ἀληθως (Smyrna. 1 and 6; Tral. 9:1; Pol. 3:2). Having completed His earthly work, He again dwells with the Father (Rom. 3:3). But even after His Resurrection, He, although spiritually united with the Father, remains in the flesh (Smirn. 3:1).
Ignatius connects this double series of sayings together. Christ is God and man: “there is one Physician, bodily and spiritual, born and unborn, God manifested in the flesh, true life in death, from the Virgin Mary and from God, first subject to suffering, and then not subject to suffering, our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 8:2; cf.: 18:2; Smyr. 1:1).
Thus, on the one hand, He is unborn (ἀγέννητος), but in the flesh He came from the line of David, born by the will of God from the Virgin Mary (19:1): according to the dispensation of God, “he was conceived of Mary, coming from the seed of David, but from the Holy Spirit” (Eph. 18:2). “Being the Son of God according to the will and power of God, He was truly born of the Virgin” (Smyrna 1:1), ate and drank, truly was condemned under Pontius Pilate, truly was crucified and died in the sight of Heavenly, Earthly and Underworld, truly rose from the dead (Tral. 9).
By virtue of the dual origin of His historical existence, He is the Son of man and the Son of God; therefore He is a new man (Eph. 20).
The Son of God became man to reveal God to people. His appearance in itself is the revelation of God: He is the eternal Word of God, which came from the former silence (Magn. 8:2), the unfaithful lips with which the Father truly spoke (Rom. 8:2), the thought of God (του πατρόςἡγνώμη Eph. 3:2), which became knowable.
Thus, in religious contemplation in the flesh, the coming Son of God is presented in His direct unity with the Father, and Saint Ignatius is not afraid to use even such expressions as “the blood of God” (Eph. 1:1) and “the sufferings of God” (Rom. 6:3). Impassive in Himself, He suffered for our sake. In the Incarnation and death of the Lord - the destruction of death; in His death our life shone forth, and through this sacrament we received the beginning of faith (Magn. 9:1-2).
Faith in His death delivers from death (Tral. 2:1). The whole work of salvation is concentrated in the death and resurrection of Christ (Philad., proem.). Consequently, His suffering has the purpose of producing our salvation and peace (Smyrna 2; 7:1). Christ is our life not only because He gave us immortality, but also because by His spirit He dwells in the faithful as the power of new life (Eph. 15:3; Magn. 8; 12; 14; Rom. 6:3). Accordingly, Christians are called God-bearers, church-bearers, Christ-bearers, holy-bearers (Eph. 9:2); they are the church in which God and Christ dwell (Eph. 15:3; Phil. 7:2).
For Ignatius, it was clear that, given the state of the Asia Minor churches, it was not enough to set out and approve the most important foundations of Christian teaching - it was necessary to indicate means for preserving the faith itself and ensuring the unity of the faithful against Judaism and heresy, with attacks from pagans from the outside and with the strong inclination of Asia Minor Christians to division. If the faithful lost consciousness of their Christian communion, their visible unity in faith and love, then they would lose the most important distinctive feature of their knowledge and world purpose and would inevitably break up into sects and schools. Therefore, Saint Ignatius, with almost the same insistence as the teaching about the person of Jesus Christ, reveals the ray of light about the Christian Church.
Saint Ignatius used the expression ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία (Smyrna 8:2) for the first time in the sense of the Universal Church as opposed to particular Churches; in other places he says simply ἐκκλησία (Smyr. 1:2; Pol. 5:1; Phil. 5:1; 9:1; Eph. 17:1; 5:1). This Catholic Church is where Jesus Christ is (Smyrna 8:1). Christ or God is Her Bishop (Rom. 9:1); Christ Himself dwells in the one body of His Church, composed of the faithful both among Jews and pagans (Smyrna 1:2).
All Christians are members of this Catholic Church, as members of Christ (Tral. 11:2; Eph. 4:2). All of them are united in the Catholic Church by one faith professed by all, a common name of Christians, a common hope (Eph. 1:2), one God, who revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son (Magn. 8:2), one Jesus Christ (Magn. 7), the Cross of Christ as a Sign, around Whom all the saints and faithful from Jews and pagans are gathered into one body (Smyrna. 1:2), the historically accomplished work of salvation, which continues to live in the faith of the Church and in the saving fruits for the faithful, the institutions of Christ and the Apostles, which are observed everywhere in the Church and, above all, the invisible dwelling of Christ. This Catholic Church, to which successive generations of Christianity and even the Old Testament righteous belong (compare: Philad. 9), is invisible in its essence and essential elements.
But despite this lack of external expression of Her totality and unity, this unity is essential: Head and members, Christ and the Church are inseparable from each other, and God Himself promises unity to the faithful (Tral. 11). The unity of the Church and the Catholic Church itself finds visible manifestation in individual Churches.
But the members of a separate Church not only share with each other what constitutes the common property of all Christians: among them, internal co-belonging and spiritual unity find constant expression in the fact that the private Church occupies a certain place in which the believers who belong to it live, thus being separated spatially from other private Churches. In contrast to the Catholic Church, which has no visible organization, the Local Church from the outside appears to be an earthly human society. But She is the Church, and Christ dwells in Her; and if where Christ is the Catholic Church, then She is reflected in each Local Church, the invisible - in the visible, the Ecumenical - in the particular.
Saint Ignatius had no reason to speak in detail about the correct forms of Church organization, since the three degrees - bishop, presbyter and deacon, which were in his native Antiochian Church, he found in the Asia Minor Churches; in them there was absolutely no opposition to any of these degrees, there were no traces of differences in opinions regarding the division of powers of each degree, there were no objections in general to the existing Church organization. There was therefore no occasion to speak of necessity, Divine right, or the various rights and duties of the Church offices.
Only in practice the organization of local Churches did not represent such a continuous unity around the natural leader of Church life - the bishop, which was required by the position of the Asia Minor Churches, in view of the threatening danger from heretics. In view of this, it is completely natural if Saint Ignatius persistently inspires that there is nothing better than peace or unity (Eph. 13). – The unity of peace and love is a normal state that he wants to see in all Churches. Any violation of unity prevents God from truly dwelling in the Church; division is the beginning of all evil (Phil. 8; Smyrna 7). Therefore, Saint Ignatius gives a simple rule for practical behavior, a prescription that each of the faithful can fulfill: adhere firmly to the bishop, presbyters and deacons and do nothing without the bishop: they must take upon themselves the aversion of dangers from false teachers, and the simple Christian must do nothing more than adhere to the authorities at the head of the Church and, above all, the bishops.
Ignatius tirelessly tries to imprint this kind of instruction in the minds and hearts of the faithful: “You must agree with the thought of the bishop, which is what you do. And your famous, worthy of God, presbytery is so in agreement with the bishop, like the strings of a zither... Make up a choir of you, every one of you, so that, having agreed in one mind, having unanimously begun a song to God, you unanimously sing it to the Father through Jesus Christ” (Eph. 4:1. 2; cf.: 6:1; Magn. 6:1; Thrales 3:1). “Children of light and truth, flee division and evil teachings, but where the shepherd is, there you also, like sheep, go” (Phil. 2:1). “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; Honor the deacons as the commandment of God. Without the bishop, no one should do anything pertaining to the Church” (Smyrna 8:1).
In particular, the powers that belong to the episcopate are the following: the bishop must first of all have care for the souls of believers. In the instructions that Ignatius gives to Polycarp, vigilance and spiritual care are given first place: exhort everyone to be saved: be lenient with everyone, just as the Lord is with you; have patience with everyone; stay awake, having acquired a vigilant spirit; bear the infirmities of all, like a perfect ascetic. If you love only good disciples, you have no grace: it is better to conquer the bad ones with meekness. Widows should not be despised; do not despise slaves and slaves. Inspire women to love the Lord and be content with their partners in the flesh and in the spirit; Likewise, command your brothers that they love their wives as the Lord loves the Church. Those who marry must enter into a union with the consent of the bishop, so that the marriage is about the Lord, and not out of lust.
All these instructions give a clear idea of the scope of the bishop's pastoral activity in relation to individuals and states in the Church: nothing in the Church should be accomplished without the knowledge of the bishop (Polic. 4:1).
The bishop's special care should be aimed at preserving the purity of teaching in the dangerous situation in which the Faith of the Church may find itself from the onslaught of heresy. Ignatius urges Polycarp: “people who seem trustworthy and teach otherwise should not confuse you. Stand firm, like an anvil being beaten.
It is in the nature of a great wrestler to take blows and win. Especially for the sake of God, we must endure everything, so that He Himself will tolerate us. Be even more diligent than you are now. Delve into the circumstances of the time” (Pol. 3). In the fight against heresy, the bishop must come first; he must comprehend all the plans of his opponents.
Naturally, the fight against false teachers, experienced people who pretend to be pneumatic specialists, requires significant strength and abilities. The bishop must be wise in everything, like a snake, and gentle, like a dove (Pol. 2:2); therefore Polycarp must ask for more understanding than he has (1:3).
In addition, the bishop must have constant control over the general meetings, which the heretics used for their own purposes. There should be no meetings at which the bishop or one of the presbyters and deacons is not present, and the religious edification of the faithful should, as far as possible, be carried out in general assemblies, where the body of the faithful stands in harmony around the bishop, presbyterium and deacons, and where, with the unanimity of the assembly, the enemy cannot find a convenient point for attack.
All the Epistles of Ignatius are permeated with this thought: in the centralization of assemblies and their subordination to bishops and other hierarchical persons, he sees a cure against all heresy. Even in those places of the Epistles where Ignatius in a general form exhorts for unity, for a permanent union with the bishop, for love and peace, he means general Church assemblies, since only in the general assembly of the faithful does he find clear expression of their unanimity and submission to the bishop.
In addition to such general expressions, the Epistles contain a whole series of exhortations in which it is stated directly and in particular that meetings should take place under the leadership of a bishop or, in extreme cases, presbyters, and that in church affairs nothing should be done without a bishop.
“Whoever is not inside the altar deprives himself of the bread of God. If the prayer of two has great power, then how much stronger is the prayer of a bishop and the entire Church. Therefore, anyone who does not go to the general meeting has already become proud and has condemned himself, for, as it is written, God opposes the proud” (Eph. 5:2). “Just as the Lord did nothing without the Father, being one with Him, neither by Himself, nor through the Apostles, so do you do nothing without bishops and elders. Do not think that anything commendable will come of you if you do it on your own; but in the general assembly let you have one prayer, one petition, one mind, one hope in love, in undefiled joy” (Magn. 7:1). “Whoever is inside the altar is clean; he who is outside the altar is unclean, that is, whoever does anything without the bishop, presbytery and deacons, has an unclean conscience” (Tral. 7:2). “Try to take part in only one Eucharist, for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup for the union of His blood, one altar, as well as one bishop with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow servants, so that whatever you do, you do according to God” (Philad. 4).
“Where the bishop is, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permissible to baptize or celebrate a love supper without a bishop; but whatever he approves, God wills, so that everything that is done will be faithful and firm” (Smyrna 8:2). “It is wonderful to know God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop is honored by God; he who does anything secretly from the bishop serves the devil” (9:1). “Let the meetings take place more often; call everyone together by name” (Polic. 4:2).
The insistent demands for the subordination of assemblies to the bishop exhausts in essential terms what the Epistles say about the functions of the bishop in relation to the whole Church - Ignatius does not provide specific details. He does not even talk about the form of placement on this hierarchical degree. But there is no doubt that for Ignatius the establishment of an episcopate in the Church by Divine will and by Divine right is indisputable: “those who are of God and of Jesus Christ are with the bishop” (Phil. 3:2), which is why Ignatius says about the bishop that he presides in the Church in the place of God or that he corresponds to Jesus Christ (Magn. 6:1; Tral. 2:1; Smyr. 8:2).
Next to the bishops in the Epistles of Ignatius are the presbyters or, as he more often says, the presbytery (πρεσβυτέριον). But although Ignatius mentions elders and presbytery quite often, the powers of persons of this hierarchical degree remain unclear. The presbyters, together with the bishop and deacons, belong to the primates of the Church; therefore, he demands from the community of the faithful that they submit to the elders: be obedient to the bishop and the elders, do nothing without the bishop and elders, - Ignatius exhorts the believers in a number of places in his Epistles (Eph. 2:2; 20:2; Magn. 7:1; 13:1; Tral. 2:2; 3:1; 7:2, 13:2; Phil. 4:1; Smyr. 8:1). But the elders themselves, for their part, must be in unity with the bishop.
The ideal state of the Church occurs when the presbytery agrees with the bishop, like the strings of a harp (Eph. 4). Ignatius praises the holy presbyters of Magnesia that they do not neglect the age of the bishop and, despite his youth, show him every respect and, like God-wise, obey him, however, not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of all (Magn. 3: 1). Each of us, and especially the elders, should bury a bishop in honor of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Apostles (Tral. 12:2). But all these are very general expressions that do not convey anything precise about the elders’ own rights and responsibilities.
However, from these instructions of Ignatius, the following important conclusions can be drawn: the college of presbyters, a firmly limited presbytery, is a corporation standing around the bishop, giving him advice and supporting him. The elders surround the bishop as the Apostles of the Lord - Ignatius draws this parallel very often (Magn. 6:1; Tral. 2:2; Smyr. 8:1; compare also: Tral. 3:1; Philad. 5:1).
In other places it denotes the presbytery, as the Sanhedrin or council of the bishop (Phil. 8:1; Magn. 6:1: συνέδριον του ἐπισκόπου; Tral. 3:1: σονέδριον θεου ). But how, within this primacy, the powers of the presbyters were separated from the powers of the bishops, in what relation to the community of the faithful stood individual presbyters, what rights the presbyter had in the daily life of the Church - Ignatius says nothing about this.
Even less clearly - than the position of the elders - is outlined in the Epistles of the deacons. And deacons, like bishops and presbyters, rise above the community of the faithful. In many places in the Epistles the bishop, elders and deacons stand side by side (Magn. 6:1; 13:1; Thrall. 2:2; 7:2; Phil. 4:1. 7:1; Smyr. 8:1; 12:2. Pol. 6:1). Without a bishop, elders and deacons there is no Church (Tral. 3:1). Sending greetings to the entire Church, Ignatius writes: I greet the God-worthy bishop and the most excellent presbytery and my fellow deacons and everyone, each individually and together, in the name of Jesus Christ (Smyrna 12:2).
Since deacons, in relation to the community of the faithful, are placed together with the bishop and elders, the faithful are given instructions to also honor the deacons and, in communion with them, to do everything that concerns Church life. “Everyone should honor deacons as Jesus Christ, as well as the bishop, the image of the Father (Tral. 3:1). Deacons should be revered as a commandment of God (Smyrna 8:1).
On the other hand, the deacon must obey the bishop and the presbyters: Ignatius would like to have the deacon Zotion with him, because he obeys the bishop, as the grace of God, and the presbytery, as the law of Jesus Christ (Magn. 2).
Ignatius speaks about the functions of deacons in the Epistle to the Trallians: everyone must please in every possible way those who are deacons of the sacraments of Jesus Christ ( Χριστου), for they are not deacons of food and drink (οὐ γàρ βρωμάτων καì ποτω ν εἰσιν διάκονοι), but ministers of the Church of God; therefore they must guard against reproach like fire (2:3). The name of the deacons βρωμάτων καì ποτω ν διάκονοι indicates their service under agapes, during the collection and distribution of alms among the poor.
But this, according to Ignatius, did not limit their activity: they are “deacons of the sacraments of Jesus Christ,” “ministers of the Church of God.” Based on 1 Tim. 3:9 ~(deacons must be... guarding the sacrament of faith in a clear conscience) it can be assumed that here, by μυστηρίων Ἰ ησου Χριστου, we mean the mysteries brought and revealed by Christ, the teaching of faith, and, therefore, the deacons took part in the spiritual edification of the believers, in teaching, exhortation and protection from heretics. Therefore, deacons with a special connotation are called ministers of the Church of God, and immaculate behavior is required of them. But it goes without saying that this not only does not exclude, but even presupposes their service in the construction of the mysteries of God (compare: 1 Cor. 4:1) and, above all, the sacrament of the Eucharist.
In any case, the activities of the deacons were of no small importance, as can be seen from the close connection in which Ignatius places them with the bishops. He constantly speaks of the deacons with love and respect, calling them most kind (γλυκύτατοι): compare: Eph. 2:1; Magn. 2; 6:1; Philad. 4; Smyrna 12:2. This close relationship between bishops and deacons leads to the conclusion that deacons in church life stood next to bishops not only as assistants in the performance of Divine services, but generally as assistants in the widely developed activities of the bishop as the head of the local Church. The Epistles of Ignatius say nothing about the selection and ordination of a deacon. It is also possible to find little information in them about whether the deacons constituted a certain college, which had any rights in the Church.
It is an undoubtedly recognized fact that in Apostolic and post-Apostolic times, the celebration of the Eucharist was the center of Church-Christian life. Here, when receiving the sacrament, as well as when distributing gifts, the best occasions were presented for the manifestation of a brotherly mood and merciful following of the Lord; Here the unanimity of Christians was most clearly revealed. In this unity, various threads of individual interests converged. Here, of necessity, all movements of Christian social life had to be reflected first of all: the Eucharist became a mirror of the life of the Church. The breath of separation must first of all darken the clarity and purity of the sacrament.
This explains the very important prominent position of the Eucharistic question in Ignatius: the celebration of the Eucharist in unity and communion with the bishop, in his opinion, is the primary means for maintaining the purity of the faith, affirming the love and communion of the faithful, as well as the best defense against all attacks of spiritual and earthly enemies, especially false teachers; and he continually exhorts to celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist as often as possible. “Try to gather more often for the Eucharist of God and to glorify Him; for if you often gather for this purpose, then the forces of Satan are overthrown and his disastrous work is destroyed by the unanimity of your faith. There is nothing better than peace, by which all warfare in heaven and on earth is destroyed” (Eph. 13:1:2). The Eucharist is “the medicine of immortality and the antidote, so as not to die, but to live in Jesus Christ” (20:2). “Try to use one Eucharist; For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup in the unity of His blood, one altar, as well as one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow servants” (Philad. 4).
Since the Docetes rejected the corporeality of Christ, they also denied the real presence of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist. But at the same time, they become in direct contradiction with the faith and practice of the Church: “They (that is, heretics) move away from the Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins, which in the goodness of the Father raised.” Rejecting the gift of God, they die in their love of debate. They would have to hold on to the (supper) of love in order to be resurrected (Smyrna 7:1). These words express in the clearest way the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist: the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, which suffered on the Cross and rose from the dead.
These are the most important points of the Theological teaching of the Epistles of St. Ignatius. To what has been said, we can only add that Saint Ignatius in his Epistles is primarily a disciple of the Apostle Paul; if direct quotes from the Epistles of the Apostle Paul are quite rare, then the similarity in thoughts is constant, his Epistles are full of ideas and expressions of the Apostle Paul.
Intending his Epistles to warn believers against heretics and schismatics, Ignatius does not spare expressions in characterizing them: they are evil growths bearing deadly fruit - Jesus Christ does not raise them, because they are not the planting of the Father (Tral. 11:1; Philad. 3:1), beasts in human form (Smyrna 4:1), wolves (Phil. 2), mad dogs, biting on the sly, suffering from an incurable disease (Eph. 7:1). But along with these harsh words, caused by zeal for the salvation of souls, Ignatius gives such touching instructions about prayer and patience in relation to strangers, including heretics: “And for other people, pray unceasingly, for in them there is hope of repentance to come to God. Let them learn, at least from your deeds. Be meek against their anger, be humble in your wisdom against their talk, counter their slander with prayers, be firm in your faith against their error, be quiet against their rudeness, not trying to imitate them” (Eph. 10:1.2).
In terms of their spiritual strength and outstanding content, the Epistles of Ignatius constitute a worthy continuation of the New Testament Epistles. Ignatius' ardent piety, purity and unshakable firmness of faith, unfeigned humility, and enthusiasm for serving the Lord, of course, are common to him with some other writers of this period.
But the special energy and expressiveness of his language, in a purely Eastern form - not alien to some kind of exaggeration, but completely free from rhetorical artificiality - give his speech an exceptionally charming power; at the same time, the calm strength of his conviction, the sublimity of his ideal and the firm consciousness that the Holy Spirit is with him, give a solemn grandeur to his testimony of Christ, which is felt with increasing force with each new reading of the Epistles.
V. Saint Polycrapus of Smyrna and his letter to the Philippians
V. 1. Information about the life of Saint Polycarp
By the beginning of the Jewish War, Christians, according to the commandment of the Savior (Matthew 24:16), left the city condemned to destruction and established their residence in Pella and the surrounding mountain fortresses, establishing Christian colonies here. But these small cities were not suitable to become the center of a new religion.
The surviving Apostles and other personal disciples of the Lord moved to the populous cities of Proconsular Asia, and Ephesus became the center of Christianity for some time. Here the Apostle John spent the last years of his unusually long life; Here the legend also indicates other disciples of the Lord: Apostle Andrew, Philip, Aristion. They gathered a circle of students around them.
When the other leaders died, the Apostle John remained the only leader. Among these disciples of the Apostle John and other witnesses of the Lord was the young Polycarp, later the Bishop of Smyrna. This is evidenced by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus of Lyons, who in his youth listened to the sermons of the elderly bishop of Smyrna, who made such a strong impression on him that the image of the preacher vividly stood before the mental gaze of Irenaeus when the latter himself grew old and served as bishop in distant Gaul.
In an Epistle to his fellow student Florinus, who had fallen into heresy, Irenaeus writes: “I was still a youth when I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp, then you were famous at the king’s court and tried to gain his (Polycarp’s) favor. I remember what happened then more clearly than what happened recently, because what we learned in childhood is strengthened along with the soul and takes root in it. So, I could even describe the places where blessed Polycarp sat and talked, I can indicate all his entrances and exits, his way of life and appearance, his conversations to the people, how he treated John and other self-videos of the Lord, how he recalled their words and retold what he heard from them about the Lord, His miracles and teachings, and since he heard from people who were self-videos of the Word of Life, all his legends agreed with Scripture" (Ep. ad Florinum; see Eu. Hist. eccl., 5:20, 8).
We do not know anything definite regarding the time of Polycarp’s birth and the circumstances of his early life. The Life of Polycarp, written towards the end of the 4th century by the false Pionius, is completely legendary and historically useless. In general, more is known about Polycarp than about other prominent Christians from the time of the Apostles to the end of the 2nd century.
During his trial on the morning of his martyrdom, Polycarp declared that he had served Christ for 86 years (Mart. S. Polyc. 9:3). It would seem that these words should lead to the exact date of birth of Polycarp, but, unfortunately, this is not the case: on the one hand, as we will see later, the date of death of Saint Polycarp cannot be determined with the accuracy necessary for this; on the other hand, it is not known from what point 86 years should be counted - either from birth, or from conversion to Christianity, if he was born in a pagan family.
If in the words of Saint Polycarp we see an indication of the entire period of his life and if we accept as proven that his martyrdom followed in the year 155, then his birth can be attributed to the year 69. Close acquaintance with the New Testament, free reproduction of the text of the Gospels and Apostolic Epistles and the absence of traces of the use of the Old Testament in contrast to Clement of Rome, give reason to assume that his parents were Christians. In this case, it is clear that he early became a disciple of the Apostles.
However, it must be said that this certainly does not exclude another opinion (for example, Th. Zahna), according to which 86 years of service to Christ are counted from Polycarp’s conversion to Christianity at an early age - then the time of his birth would have to be pushed back 10-15 years to the beginning of the Christian era. In any case, we must recognize the testimony of Irenaeus as completely reliable (Adv. haer. 3:3, 4) that Polycarp was not only instructed by the Apostles and treated many who saw Christ, but was also made bishop of the Church of Smyrna by the Apostles [compare. from Eusebius in “Ecclesiastical History” (3:36, 1): “In Asia, Polycarp, the interlocutor of the Apostles, flourished, receiving the bishopric over the Smyrna Church from the Samovids and servants of the Lord.”] Tertullian (De praescr. haer., 32) says that Polycarp was made a bishop by the Apostle John; Jerome follows him (De vir. ill., 17).
Smyrna, of which Polycarp was bishop, was not among the early Apostolic Churches. Polycarp himself indicates that the Philippians were converted to Christ before the Church in which he himself presided (Phil., 11).
However, by the time of the Apocalypse, the Smyrna Church already had its own history. It can be assumed that Smyrna was enlightened by the Gospel teaching during the almost three-year stay of the Apostle Paul in Ephesus (54–57), when “all the inhabitants of Asia heard the preaching of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:10).
They received the initial gospel, if not from the Apostle of the tongues himself, then from one of his direct disciples.
In the absence of precise data regarding the time of the founding of the Smyrna Church and the time of the birth of Polycarp himself, it is difficult to establish when Polycarp was installed as a bishop. Some suggest that he was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna mentioned in the Apocalypse (2:8-11); but this assumption cannot be substantiated, although there is nothing incredible in it, especially if we agree with the opinion of those who date the birth of Polycarp to the fifties of the 1st century, and the writing of the Apocalypse to the last years of the reign of Domitian.
He stood at the head of the Smyrna Church when Ignatius visited Smyrna on his way to Rome; therefore, the installation of Polycarp as Bishop of Smyrna must have taken place in the first years of the 2nd or the last years of the 1st century.
The undoubted traces of Polycarp's acquaintance with the Epistle of Clement of Rome do not necessarily require a personal relationship. One of Polycarp's early companions was Papias, later bishop of Hieralol, whose Church was in constant communion with the Church of Smyrna; with him, according to the testimony of Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 5:33), he listened to John, which Eusebius objects to, albeit unfoundedly (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:39).
He met Ignatius, apparently, only during his trip to Rome. The penetrating gaze of Ignatius immediately discovered in Polycarp a kindred spirit, and, although Polycarp was still a young bishop, Ignatius saw in him the man most capable of guarding sound doctrine after his departure.
From Troas, Ignatius wrote to him in a prophetic spirit: “just as the helmsman needs the winds and the stormy one needs a pier, so the present time needs you to reach God. Be vigilant, as an ascetic of God... Stand firm, like an anvil that is being beaten. A great fighter has the ability to take blows and win.”
More than fifty years passed before the athlete was crowned. But during this long interval he carried out the great work for which he was chosen.
The life and especially the episcopacy of Saint Polycarp was the most turbulent period in the religious history of the world, and the main arena of struggle between various beliefs and cults was Asia Minor.
In the first years of the second century, Polycarp was an eyewitness to the fact, attested by Pliny, of the rapid conversion to Christ of pagans of all ranks and ages, the desolation of pagan temples and the decline of the pagan cult. But soon he had to deal with the opposite movement of reaction against the philosophical skepticism and indifferentism of the upper classes of society, which undermined the foundations of popular religion.
The pagan reaction reached its greatest strength in the Antonine age - in the last years of the life of Saint Polycarp. The construction of churches, the multiplication of priests, religious ceremonies and festivals sufficiently testify to this movement.
Many in the cults of other peoples began to look for what they could not find in the cult of their own religion; Eastern religions with their mysterious cults, theosophy, feurgy, magic, and astrology seemed especially attractive.
In parallel with this, the political cult of the deification of Rome and the Emperor develops and reaches dominant significance.
In this pagan revival, Smyrna occupies one of the most prominent places, becoming the main center of political cult in Asia Minor; at the same time, paganism of local origin, some forms of Egyptian and Eastern cults, flourished here.
In addition to this revival of paganism, the success of the Church was threatened from another side: in Smyrna, as a busy trading port, there had long been many Jews. Christians here often suffered from their hostility. The Apocalypse (2:9) testifies to the slander against the Angel of the Church of Smyrna from those who say about themselves that they are Jews, but they are not, but a host of Satan.
Under the influence of the political circumstances of the life of the Jewish people, their viciousness developed even more in subsequent times, and the behavior of the Smyrna Jews during the trial of Polycarp clearly shows the strength of their hatred against Christians. To all this must be added the incredible development of Gnosticism in various branches and forms. Under such conditions of pastoral activity, the conservatism of Saint Polycarp noted by researchers was especially important.
In his unwavering adherence to the teachings that he received from the Apostles, Polycarp was a reliable bulwark against the dangers that threatened the Church from different sides. “He always taught what he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, and that only one thing is true,” why he, “the most reliable and reliable witness of the truth,” is what Saint Irenaeus says about him (Adv. haer. 3:3, 4).
This explains the strong influence of Polycarp on the Churches of Asia Minor. His opponents accused him of being the teacher of Asia, the father of Christians, the destroyer of gods, teaching many not to sacrifice or worship (Mart. S. Polyc.12:2: , ὁ πατὴρ τω ν Χριστιανω ν , ὁ τω ν ἡμετέρων θεω ν καθοαρέτης , ὁ πολλούς διδάσκων μὴ θύει νμηδè προσκυνει ν ). He himself was surrounded by disciples who revered him as he himself was surrounded by disciples who revered him as he himself once revered the teacher-Apostle (see interesting details in the Epistle of the Smirnians, chapter 13); of these, the most famous are Irenaeus, Melito of Sardia, Claudius, Apollinaris and Polycrates.
Tradition further states that he sent Andochius, Benignus and Thirsus to spread the Gospel in Gaul, but its reliability is doubtful; although, on the other hand, the above accusation against Polycarp provides sufficient evidence that the interests of missionary activity were not in last place in his activities. Thus, the long life of Polycarp is determined for us by three undoubted and important facts: in his youth, he was a disciple of the Apostle John and other self-visionaries of the Lord; in the prime of his powers, he was the Bishop of Smyrna and a trusted collaborator of Ignatius; in his old age, he was the teacher of the later famous Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus.
We have more complete information regarding the last years of his life. At the end of his life, Polycarp visited Rome when Anicetus was in the Roman see (154/155–166/167).
What was the reason and purpose of this visit is unknown. Irenaeus in his Epistle to Victor testifies that Polycarp and Anicetas had a conversation about many church issues of modern life, especially about the question that worried the Church at that time regarding the time of celebrating Easter.
Anicetas stood for the Western, Polycarp for the Eastern practice of the Apostle John and the other Apostles, and no agreement was reached, “because neither Anicetas could persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed while living with John, the disciple of our Lord, and dealing with the other Apostles, nor Polycarp persuaded Anicetas to observe, for Anicetas said that he was obliged to preserve the customs of the elders who preceded him.
Despite this state of affairs, they were nevertheless in mutual communion, so that Anicetas, out of respect for Polycarp, allowed him to celebrate (in his Church) the Eucharist, and they both parted in peace” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:24, 16).
The same Irenaeus reports (Adv. haer., 3:3, 4) that Polycarp in Rome converted many Valentinians, Marcionites and other heretics to the Church of God; here he met Marcion himself, and when the latter asked him: “Do you know me?” πρωτότοκον του σαταν ᾶ).
By the half of the 2nd century. Rome had already become the most important point in the Life of the Christian Church, and Christian teachers, Orthodox and heretical, flocked here from all over the world: Cerdon, the forerunner of Marcion’s dualism, taught here; here was Valentin, the greatest of the Gnostic teachers and the most dangerous opponent of Orthodox Christianity; Marcion himself was here. The last message of Irenaeus depicts the character of Polycarp from the other side: if he was ready to look condescendingly at ritual differences, such as the time and manner of celebrating Easter, then on the issue of the main provisions of the Christian doctrine he was not inclined to make any compromises. The date of this journey to Rome is unknown; but, according to the almost generally accepted solution to the question of the martyrdom of Polycarp and the beginning of the bishopric of Anicetas, it can only be placed in the year 154.
The elderly Bishop of Smyrna was not destined to end his long life in the world, full of energetic and fruitful activity. He died as a martyr during the persecution of Christians that broke out in Smyrna. To date, no solid basis has been found to accurately determine the year of Polycarp’s martyrdom, despite the fact that the vast majority of fairly numerous studies on Polycarp over the past half century have been devoted almost exclusively to the question of the time of his death.
In his decision, different opinions were expressed, different years were indicated, and various reasons were given for this. Eusebius attributes the martyrdom of Polycarp to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but does not indicate the exact year, and at the same time makes it clear that regarding the circumstances of this martyrdom he had no other information than the Epistle of the Smyrna Church to the Philomelian Church (Martyrium S. Polycarpi), from which he further borrows heavily. In Martyrium itself in the chronological Afterword (21): δευτέρ ᾳ ἱσταμένου , πρò ἑπτà καλανδω ν Μαρτίων , σαββάτ ῳ μεγααλ ῳ, ὥ ρα ὀγδό ῃ. ?? ἀνθυπατεύοντος Στατίου Κοδράτου, that is: “blessed Polycarp suffered at the beginning of the month of Xanthika on the second day, seven days before the Kalends of March, on Holy Saturday, at the eighth hour, he was taken by Herod at Asiarch Philip of Trallia to the proconsulate of Statius Codratus." But Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” does not provide this chronological appendix.
Based on the above indication, the latest research establishes that the day of Polycarp’s death was February 23. But since, further, according to Martyrium, Polycarp suffered on Saturday, then only the 149th, 455th, 166th, 172nd and 177th years can be considered as possible years of Polycarp’s death, since only in these years did February 23 fall on Saturday.
But from these five years, first of all, the last two years should be excluded, for in the event of his death this year, Polycarp could not communicate with the Apostles and self-seers of the Word of Life and be made a bishop by them, especially if we consider that his whole life was calculated at 86 years.
The year 149 is also excluded, since, according to the undoubted testimony of Irenaeus, Polycarp visited Rome under Bishop Anicetus, and the latter assumed the see in 154–155. This leaves room for two opinions: that Polycarp suffered on February 23 or 155 or 166. The latter date was accepted by most researchers until the seventies of the 19th century.
The basis for this was, on the one hand, the indication of the “Church History” of Eusebius that Polycarp suffered under Marcus Aurelius (without defining the reign) and the “Chronicles” of Eusebius that he suffered in the 7th year of his reign - on the other hand, the conviction that Statius Codratus, named in the Martyrium, is the same as the one mentioned in his speeches by the rhetorician Aristides and who was proconsul of Asia in 165–166.
In 1867, Mr. W. H. Waddington published a study concerning the chronology of the life of Aristide (Mémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteur Aetius Aristide. Paris), in which, on the basis of new inscriptions and a careful study of the lists of the Roman administration, he proved that Statius Codratus, mentioned by the rhetorician Aristides, was proconsul of Asia in the years 154-155 and that, therefore, Polycarp suffered on February 23, 155.
Waddington's calculations were accepted in significant conclusions by many scientists (Lipsius, Hildenfeld, v. Gebhardt, Lightfoot, Egli, Th. Zahn and others). However, even after this there was no shortage of defenders of the previous dating of the death of Polycarp (for example, Wieseler; we have Professor A.P. Lebedev). However, as has now been proven (W. Schmid, Die Lebensgeschichte des Rhetors Aristides // Rhein. Museumf. Philol. N. F. Bd. XLVIII. 1893, S. 54–84), Waddington’s calculations cannot be recognized as wealthy, since they are based on confusion: the Kodrat mentioned by Aristodes has nothing in common with the proconsul Kondrat; but this did not affect the very date of Polycarp's death.
The fact is that the proconsul Codratus is nevertheless attested by inscriptions as the proconsul of Asia and should be identified with the consul Statius Codratus of 142. In the usual course of things he was proconsul of Asia between the years 151 and 157. Since Polycarp suffered at Statius Codratus - February 23 on Saturday - then between the indicated years you need to look for a year when February 23 fell on Saturday - such a year turns out to be the 155th year.
Thus, the year of the proconsulate of Statius Codratus, instead of the previous combination of chronological indications in MartyriumS. Polycarpi with the time of the proconsul Statius Codratus on the basis of the speeches of the rhetorician Aristides, is now determined on the basis of a new combination of the firmly established month and day of the death of Polycarp with the evidence of the inscription about the consul Statius Codratus and the consular lists, according to this syllogism:
1) Based on Martyrium S. Polycarpi, Statius Codratus should have been proconsul of Asia in the year 155 or 166 (February 23 Saturday);
2) Consul Statius Codratus is attested for 142, and he could have been proconsul of Asia between 151 and 157, but not in 166;
3) Statius Codratus, as the inscription testifies, was indeed the proconsul of Asia.
Hence the conclusion: Statius Codratus was proconsul in the year 155 (A. Harnack. Geschichte der altchrist. Litt. Teil II. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1897, S. 353). Therefore, Polycarp also suffered in the year 155.
As can be seen from the above considerations, attributing the death of Polycarp to the year 155 is on rather shaky ground. It has been proven that in the year 166 the proconsul of Asia was Codratus (without Statius), and in the year 156 the consul A. Avillius Urinarius Quadratus is known, who could have been the proconsul in the year 166.
In addition, the possibility is absolutely not excluded that Statius Codratus, consul of 142, was elevated to proconsul 23 years later, that is, in 165, although such a large gap in the holding of these two positions by the same person for the entire 2nd century has not been proven. Finally, one cannot help but take into account the fact that Eusebius believes the martyrdom of Polycarp to be around 166 and that this year the 23rd of February was also a Saturday.
Thus, the possibility opens up for the assumption of the death of Polycarp in both the 155th and 166th years, and if we bear in mind not the authority of the researchers defending one or another opinion, but the solidity of the argumentation and the strength of the data presented, then it is very difficult to decisively lean in favor of one or another year. It is only necessary to note that the information reported by Irenaeus about Polycarp, his treatment of the Apostles and witnesses of the Word is more possible under the assumption of his death in the year 155. According to the testimony of Saint Irenaeus, Polycarp himself said that he “spoke with John and others who saw the Lord”; Irenaeus himself writes that Polycarp was not only a disciple of the Apostles and treated many who saw Christ, but was also appointed by the Apostles to be a bishop in Asia in the Church of Smyrna (Adv. haer. 3:3, 4).
If Polycarp suffered in the year 155, then he was born in the year 69 (155–86) and around the year 100 he could have been installed as an Apostle in Smyrna. This is even more possible if he converted to Christianity in 1969. But if he suffered in the year 166, then he accepted Christianity, or maybe he was only born in the year 80 and only became a bishop around the year 110. Could he have been made an Apostle at that time and could, having been born in the year 80, have he dealt with many who saw the Lord?
It should also be noted that the very day of the death of Saint Polycarp - February 23 - is disputed: Professor V.V. Bolotov considers it possible that Saint Polycarp suffered on April 2 (Nisan 15), 155; although he immediately admits that this is one of the possibilities and that the chronological question about the day of death of Saint Polycarp should still be considered scientifically unresolved and insoluble (Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1910, p. 92).
Thus, based on the given data and considerations, it is more likely to believe that Saint Polycarp suffered either in the year 155 or around 156.
The history of the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp is set out in the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, which is inscribed as follows: Church of God in Smyrna Church of God in Philomelia and all the parishias of the Holy Catholic Church everywhere Σμύρναν τη ἐκκλησί ᾳ του θεου τ ῇ παροικούσ ῃ ἐν Φιλομηλί ῳ καì πάσαις ται ς κατà πάντατόπον τη ς ἁ γίας καì καθολικη ς ἐκκλησίας παροικίαις ). It was sent by the Smyrnae in response to a request from the Philomelians for detailed information about the martyrdom of Polycarp and was written shortly after this event - probably in the year 155 or 156.
The Epistle represents the oldest authentic Acts of Martyrdom. Its authenticity and the integrity of the text (chap. 1–21) were denied only in passing and completely to no avail. The idea of forgery is completely excluded by the spontaneity, freshness and warmth of the presentation, and Eusebius included most of the Epistle (chapters 1 and 8–19) in his “Church History” (4:15, 3–45). By providing detailed information about the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp, the Epistle rises above narrow biographical interests and is a precious monument to the Ancient Christian faith and life.
In this Epistle the circumstances of the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp are presented in this form. In Smyrna there were folk games, during which severe persecution was instituted against Christians; captured Christians were subjected to all sorts of tortures, revealing amazing resilience. The pagans themselves were amazed at the patience of the martyrs, who courageously endured the most incredible tortures. After a wide variety of tortures, the sufferers were given over to be torn to pieces by animals.
Among the Christians, the courageous young man Germanicus especially stood out. When the proconsul, wanting to sway him, pointed out to him his young age and urged him to regret his too early and blooming youth, he boldly attracted the beast to himself, irritated him in order to suffer death more quickly. The bloodthirsty instincts of the crowd were even more irritated by this heroism of the martyr and in general by the valor of Christians, and they frantically shouted: “Down with the atheists, find Polycarp” (Α ἶ ρε τούς ἀθέους, ζητείσθω Πολύκαρπος – 3). The message, with condemnation, points to the example of Quintus, the Phrygian, who, having seen animals and other tortures, succumbed to fear, refused salvation and thereby presented to everyone clear proof that one should not venture into danger rashly and recklessly. “This is not how the Gospel teaches” (οὐχ ο ὕ τως διδάσκει τò εὐαγγέλιον), notes the Epistle (4).
Polycarp was not embarrassed by the persecution that arose and wanted to stay in the city, but then, yielding to the convictions of his friends, he retired to a suburban village. Three days before his death, while praying at night, he saw in a vision that the head of his bed was engulfed in flames and burned. Then he explained this phenomenon to those who were with him in the sense that he would be burned alive. Meanwhile, the detectives made every effort to find Polycarp, which is why he was forced to move to another village.
The slave boy betrayed Polycarp under torture, and the detectives discovered his place of refuge. Although this time there was an opportunity to move to another house, Polycarp did not want to, saying: “The will of the Lord be done.” When the detectives, accompanied by armed horsemen, saw Polycarp come out to them and talk calmly, they wondered why so much effort was used to capture such a venerable old man. It was Friday evening.
Polycarp offered the soldiers a treat and asked himself only one hour in which to pray quietly. The inspired prayer continued for more than two hours; St. Polycarp probably took advantage of this time to celebrate the Liturgy. When he finished the prayer, remembering everyone who had ever communicated with him, small and great, glorious and humble, and the entire Catholic Church in the Universe καθολικη ς ἐκκλησίας . 8), the soldiers took him, put him on a donkey and took him to the city - it was the dawn of Great Saturday (perhaps, in addition to Saturday, there was the holiday of Purim 4. On the way they met Irinarch (ὁ εἰρήναρχος - guardian of public peace) Herod with his father Nikita. Having put Polycarp in his carriage, they began to convince him: what’s wrong with saying: “Κύρως Και σαρ”, making a sacrifice and doing everything connected with the sacrifice, and being saved? At first Polycarp did not answer, and then, when they continued to insist, he said: “I will not do what you advise me.”
Having lost hope of convincing Polycarp, they began to scold him and pushed him out of the carriage with such force that, falling, he injured his leg. Polycarp continued on his way as if nothing had happened to him. Meanwhile, there was such noise at the stage that nothing could be heard. When the crowd learned that Polycarp had been taken, the noise intensified even more. Polycarp approached the proconsul and the formal judicial interrogation began. The proconsul asked Polycarp: Are you Polycarp?
Having received an affirmative answer, he began to dispose the bishop to renounce, saying: “Shame on your old age,” and other similar things that they usually say (in such cases) “swear by the happiness of Caesar, repent, say: “death to the atheists” ( α ἶ ρ ετούς ἀθέους ). But Polycarp, casting a stern look at the entire crowd that was at the stage and, pointing at it with his hand, turning his eyes to the sky with a sigh, said: “death to the atheists” (α ἶ ρε τούς ἀθέους). The proconsul continued: “Swear and I will let you go, blaspheme Christ.” Polycarp replied: “I have served Him for 86 years, and He has not offended me in any way; How can I reproach my King, who saved me?” The proconsul stood his ground, urging him to swear by the genius of the 5th Caesar. Then Polycarp decisively said to him: “If you are looking for vain glory in having me swear, as you say, by the genius of Caesar, and pretend as if you do not know who I am, then listen openly: I am a Christian (Χριστιανός εἰμι); if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity, then set a day and listen.” The proconsul said: “convince the people.”
Polycarp answered him: “I honor you with my conversation, for we were taught to give due honor to the leaders and authorities appointed by God, if they do not harm us; I do not recognize them (that is, the crowd) as worthy to defend myself against them.” The proconsul remarked: “I have animals - I will throw you to them if you do not repent.” Polycarp replied: “Call them, for it is impossible for us to change from better to worse; It is good to change from evil to just.” The proconsul again said to him: “I will force you to humble yourself through fire if you despise animals - if you do not repent.” Polycarp replied: “You threaten with a fire that burns temporarily and soon goes out, because you do not know about the fire of future Judgment and eternal torment prepared for the wicked. However, why are you delaying? Do what you want."
At this point, the Epistle interrupts the recording of Polycarp’s interrogation, but notes that, while saying this and much more, Polycarp was filled with boldness and joy, his face shone with grace. He did not lose heart and was not embarrassed by the words spoken to him, which amazed the proconsul himself. The latter sent a herald three times to proclaim at the stages that Polycarp declared himself a Christian. In response to this, the entire crowd of pagans and Jews shouted with indomitable rage: “He is the teacher of Asia, the father of Christians, the destroyer of our gods, who taught many not to make sacrifices and not to worship the gods.”
The crowd demanded that the asiarch (ruler of Asia) Philip release the lion against Polycarp. But Philip replied that he could not do this, since the battle with the animals was already over. Then the crowd unanimously shouted: “burn Polycarp alive.” A fire was immediately prepared, which the Jews contributed with special zeal. Polycarp himself undressed and went up to the fire. They wanted to nail him, but he said: “Leave me like this, for he who gives me the strength to endure the fire will give me the strength to remain motionless on the fire without your nails.”
That's why Polycarp was only tied up. He said a fiery prayer in which he asked to be accepted as a fat and favorable sacrifice and concluded with these words: “I praise You, I glorify You through the eternal and heavenly Bishop Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, through Whom You, together with him in the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and in the ages to come. Amen".
A fire was placed under the fire; however, the flame spared the martyr and surrounded his body like a ship’s sail, inflated by the wind. Then the executioner approached and killed Polycarp with a blow to the chest: the body, at the insistence of the Jews, was burned, and the ashes were collected by the martyr’s faithful friends and placed in a safe place.
The Smyrna people then established the celebration of the day of his martyrdom in memory of those who had already accomplished their feat and for the teaching and confirmation of future ascetics (18). With the death of Polycarp, the suffering of Christians ceased for a while - with his martyrdom, he seemed to put a stamp on the outbreak of their persecution in Smyrna.
V. 2. Epistle of Saint Polycarp to the Philippians, ancient testimonies about him; authenticity of the Message
Saint Irenaeus, in a letter to Florinus, speaks of the Epistles of Polycarp, written partly to neighboring Churches to strengthen them (in the faith), partly to individual brothers in order to give them exhortation and instruction (Epist. Ad Flor.; see Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:20, 8). When Irenaeus wrote his letter to Florinus, the Epistles of Polycarp were still in existence; he points them out to Florinus as evidence of how Polycarp would have reacted to the heretical teaching accepted by Florinus (“this can be seen from his Epistle”).
Between these Epistles, Irenaeus (Adv. haer., 3:3, 4) especially notes the Epistle to the Philippians: “There is,” he says, “a very practical Epistle of Polycarp, written to the Philippians, from which those who desire and care about their salvation can learn both the nature of his faith and the preaching of the truth.”
To the extent that this brief and general description of the Epistle - which Irenaeus gives - allows us to draw certain conclusions, it is confirmed by the content of the famous Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. Indeed, on the basis of the Epistle to the Philippians one can recognize both the χαρακτὴρ τη ς πίστεως and the κήρυγμα τη ς ἀληθείας of Polycarp (compare: 2; 6:3; 7:2~ and expressions: ἡ δοθει σα πίστεως, λόγος περì ἀληθείας, τòν ἐξ ἀρχη ς ἡμι ν παραδοθεìς λόγος ). Thus, Irenaeus must be recognized as a witness not only about the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, but precisely about the Epistle known to us.
Eusebius mentions Polycarp as a writer, along with Ignatius and Clement, cites two significant passages from his Epistle to the Philippians - chapters 9 and 13, which talk about Ignatius and his Epistles (Hist. eccl., 3:36, 14-16) and further notes that Polycarp uses in this Epistle some evidence from the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter (Hist. eccl., 4:14, 9). Eusebius does not mention other Epistles of Polycarp.
Blessed Jerome also speaks only about the Epistle to the Philippians, adding one important detail: Scripsit ad Philippenes valde utilem epistolam, quae usque hodie in Asiae conventu legitur (De vir. ill., 17). The expression in Asiae conventu legitur is obscure and instead of conventu one would expect conventibus. In any case, its meaning can only be that the Epistle of Polycarp in Asia Minor was sometimes read at Divine service meetings; This custom is ancient, but was still observed in the days of Jerome. At present only one Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians is known; the other Epistles, which Irenaeus so clearly testifies to, are lost.
As for the Epistle to the Philippians, its authenticity is as thoroughly as possible; nevertheless, in relation to it, attempts were made to challenge either the authenticity of the entire Message or its unity and integrity. The Epistle to the Philippians in both the Greek and Latin manuscripts stands in connection with the interpolated review of the Epistles of Ignatius. Hence the suspicion arose that the very origin of the Epistle of Polycarp depends on this interpolation. A certain direction for the study of this issue was given by the fact that the Epistle of Polycarp, as stated, represents the most decisive evidence of the authenticity of the Epistles of Ignatius.
Opponents of the authenticity of these Epistles could not pass in silence the testimony of the Epistle of Polycarp: it was necessary either to completely eliminate it or weaken it. According to one, the compiler of the forged Epistles of Ignatius, to cover up this forgery, also composed the Epistle of Polycarp, which turns out to be nothing more than a Preface or a recommendatory Epistle to the Epistles of Ignatius, fabricated in the interests of justifying or strengthening episcopal power. According to others, the falsifier of the Epistles of Ignatius used the original Epistle of Polycarp for his own purposes, expanded it with additions and inserted passages relating to Ignatius and his Epistles.
That the Epistle of Polycarp was written by the same person who allegedly composed the Epistles of Ignatius is a completely incredible assumption: in fact, the difference in style and interests reflected in the Epistles is too great for such a hypothesis to be recognized as any basis. Its inconsistency becomes even more obvious when the very purpose of falsification is seen in the desire of the falsifier to provide the forged Epistles of Ignatius with an “introduction” or a recommendatory Epistle: if by falsifying the Epistles of Ignatius the intention was to establish monarchical episcopal power against the presbyteral college, then is it possible to look for a preface to these Epistles in such a work in which the requirement to obey is clearly expressed elders and deacons (5:3) and the very word ἐπίσκοπος does not appear.
But the assumption of interpolation is also eliminated by the observation that it is completely impossible to distinguish between the original text and later additions, due to the obvious unity of style, so that the places marked as inserted can only be forcibly isolated from the context of speech.
In view of this, A. Harnack frankly says that if the Epistles of Ignatius had not been considered inauthentic, then no one would have even thought of finding interpolations in the Epistle of Polycarp, and that there is nothing in the Epistle that could give rise to doubts about its authenticity (Gesch. Der altchristlich. Litterat. Theil II Bd.I. Leipzig, S. 384, cf.: S. 400).
The text of the Epistle is very insufficiently attested. The original Greek text of the entire Epistle does not exist. Eight later manuscripts of the Greek text of the Epistle are copies of the oldest example that has not survived to us - apparently not of high dignity - and all are distinguished by the sad peculiarity that they are interrupted in words (9:2): ἀναστάντα, followed immediately by the words: τòν λαòν τòν καινόν ἑτοιμάζων from the Epistle of Barnabas (5:7).
The full text of the Epistle contains only the Latin translation, which has the dignity of great antiquity, but is based on a poor original, and, in addition, significant liberties were taken in the translation itself, making it of little value in textual-critical terms. However, very important chapters - 9 and 13 - were preserved by Eusebius in the original.
Thus, the last third of the Epistle - (chap. 10-14, except for 13, preserved in Greek by Eusebius) exists only in reverse translations from Latin. The best translations belong to Zahn'y, Lightfoot'y and Funk'y.
V. 3. Analysis of the content of the Message
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians represents a response to the Epistle of the Philippians to Polycarp, which has not reached us. Philippi lay on Ignatius' route to Rome. The holy martyr was warmly received by the local Church and asked the Philippians to send greetings to the Church of Antioch on the occasion of the end of the persecution. The Philippians fulfilled the request of Saint Ignatius and sent their Epistle to the Bishop of Smyrna with another Epistle addressed to him; in the latter, they asked Polycarp to send their Epistle to Antioch, reported on Ignatius’s stay with them and on the events of the internal life of the Philippian Church, in particular about the covetousness and deceit of the presbyter Valens and his wife, who had caused the Church a lot of trouble, asked Polycarp for words of teaching and admonition, and, finally, asked to send them the Epistles of Ignatius, which were known to him.
Polycarp answered the Philippians on his own behalf and on behalf of the elders of the Smyrna Church. The author expresses joy that the Philippians accepted with such love “models of true love” - Ignatius and his companions, and that “the ancient root of their faith, known from ancient times, remains to this day and bears fruits worthy of the Lord Jesus Christ (1). He can only exhort them to continue in this faith, to serve the Lord in fear and truth and to walk according to His commandments and do His will (2). However, he writes this to them not out of his own pretension, but because they themselves called him to do so.
Their incomparable mentor is Paul, who personally proclaimed the word of truth to them and then, having retired from them, wrote Epistles to them; by delving into them, they can receive edification (3). Everyone must arm themselves with the weapon of truth and first teach themselves, and then their wives, so that they remain in the given faith, love and purity, love their husbands with all sincerity and raise their children in the fear of God; to teach widows that they should shun all slander, slander, false witness, love of money, and all vice, and know that they are the altar of God (4).
Special instructions are given to deacons, young men and virgins: everyone must be blameless in everything; young men must submit to the elders and deacons, and virgins must live with an immaculate and pure conscience (5).
Elders must perform their ministry carefully. All should zealously fulfill their duties and avoid false brethren and false teaching (6-7), having confidence in Jesus Christ, who suffered for us and gave an example of patience (8), and having before our eyes the glorious martyrs (9). One must be firm in patience, unshakable in faith, tireless in active love (10).
The author dwells with heartfelt sympathy on the case of the presbyter Valens, who forgot his rank and indulged in covetousness. Everyone should avoid covetousness and other vices, and not consider Valens and his wife as enemies, but try to correct them as members of the suffering and lost (11). He has no need to write to them anymore, since they themselves have studied the Holy Scriptures well. May God Himself confirm them in faith and truth and in all virtues. They must pray for all Christians, for kings, for authorities and princes, for those who persecute and hate and for the enemies of the Cross (12).
Then Polycarp promises to deliver their Message to Antioch either himself or through a special ambassador. He attached the letters of Ignatius, as many as he had, to his Epistle and asks the Philippians to tell him reliable information about Ignatius and his companions (13). In conclusion, Polycarp asks to receive with honor Crescent, through whom the Message was sent, and his sister.
Polycarp's epistle is not distinguished by its literary excellence: it lacks a clear, dissected and ordered development of thoughts; in its content it is not distinguished by the richness and novelty of ideas and does not rise above the level of commonplaces, and in the argumentation or exhortations of the Epistle nothing is found that would speak of the outstanding intellectual powers of the author. The Epistle is rich in quotations from the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, the first Epistle of John, and especially the first Epistle of Peter.
Polycarp had as a model the first Epistle of Clement of Rome, to which he often adheres almost literally. Nevertheless, Polycarp’s short Epistle had many attentive readers and, through reading in the Liturgical Assemblies of the Churches of Asia Minor, received Church approval. The reason for this is that the Epistle belongs to an Apostolic man from the school of the beloved disciple of the Lord, who set himself the task of faithfully reflecting and reproducing the Apostolic Tradition (Easter Question); and the Epistle clearly conveys the idea that Christian teaching is something objectively given, based on Apostolic authority; why does he so often speak in the words of the Apostles.
The moral instructions, which briefly outline the duties of all believers, according to their ecclesiastical and social status, and extracted from the Apostolic Epistles, are distinguished by their particular cordiality and persistence.
Like the Epistles of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp also gives brief instructions regarding the false teaching that threatened the Philippians and regarding the hierarchical organization of the Church. The main polemic of the Epistle of Polycarp against false teachers lies in the following words: “Let us serve Him with fear and all reverence, as He commanded Himself and the Apostles and Prophets who preached the gospel to us, who predicted the Coming of our Lord. Let us be zealous in goodness, let us shun temptations, false brothers and those who hypocritically bear the name of the Lord and mislead frivolous people. Anyone who does not recognize that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the Antichrist. Whoever does not recognize the testimony of the cross is from the devil, and whoever interprets the words of the Lord according to his own lusts and says that there is no Resurrection or Judgment is the firstborn of Satan. Therefore, leaving behind the vain and false teachings of many, let us turn to the word that was faithful from the beginning” (6:3–7:2).
Direct and clear polemic is also visible in the words: “having abandoned the vain talk and the error of many, believe in Him who raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave Him glory and the Throne at His right hand” (2:1).
From the above passages it is first of all clear that the heresy has become widespread: twice the author speaks of “many” (πολλοδν) who are its bearers and confessors (2:1; 7:2).
The dangerous error of the heretics consisted, first of all, in the fact that they perverted Christology: they did not confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and they rejected the testimony of the Cross. These are the same docetas that Ignatius refuted and which spoke precisely in the Smyrna Church, of which Polycarp was the bishop: they said that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh, that is, they did not recognize the reality of His flesh; they rejected the testimony of the Cross, that is, they did not recognize the testimony that Christ’s suffering gave regarding His true corporeality - they taught only about the ghostly death of the God-Man.
In addition to docetism, Polycarp denounces heretics for another grave error: they reinterpret the words of the Lord according to their own lusts and say that there is neither the Resurrection nor the Judgment. Probably, this accusation is directed against the same false teachers against whom the accusation of docetism is also brought. Thus, Polycarp adds a new feature to the image of false teachers who are known from the Epistles of Ignatius. But what is the point of this accusation? The false teachers obviously denied Christian eschatology: the general Resurrection of souls with bodies and the General Judgment; with which, undoubtedly, was combined a free attitude towards carnal vices, as having no significance for moral life.
The indicated places exhaust Polycarp's polemics with heretics. True, other passages are not directly directed against false teachers (1:2~ff; 2:1~ff; 8:1; 12:2); but without the instructions of Chapter 7, the polemics of these passages would not be understandable.
The Epistle to the Philippians refers to the hierarchical organization of the Church and exhorts believers to submit to the elders and deacons as to God and Christ (5:3). Polycarp depicts the duties of elders in the following terms: “elders must be merciful, merciful to everyone, convert the erring, visit everyone who is weak, not neglect widows or the poor, always strive for good before God and people, refrain from all anger, hypocrisy, injustice in court, avoid all love of money, not be gullible in slandering someone, cruel in judgment, knowing that we are all debtors to sin" (6:1).
“Deacons must be blameless before righteousness, as servants of God and Christ, and not of men; not slanderers, not bilinguals, not lovers of money, temperate in everything, merciful, diligent (5:1), must act in accordance with the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all (διάκονος πάντων) (5:1). Such qualities are required of deacons as junior assistants to elders; Since they should be collaborators with the elders in pastoral care and generally constantly move in the company of believers, it is emphatically emphasized that they should not be bilingual and slanderers, so as not to carry evil speeches from house to house to the elders. In this regard, elders should not be gullible to slander.
And the community of believers is not excluded from participation in Church affairs: when deposing elders (naturally also deacons), the decision belongs to the believers; at least Polycarp exhorts the “brothers” to be moderate in the trial of Valens (11:4).
Students of the Epistle of Polycarp draw attention to the fact that there is absolutely no mention of a bishop in it. This circumstance gives rise to various kinds of assumptions, the most important of which is that in the Epistle they find obvious evidence of the original identity of bishops and presbyters (Ritschl, Rud. Knopf, etc.). “In Philippi,” they say, “there was not yet a bishop at the head of the Church community, because at that time in the small Churches the episcopal individual power was not yet as developed as in the large ones, where the autonomy of the Church communities was early suppressed.” But this very unclear evidence, along with others that allow other interpretations, cannot be of decisive importance, especially since we do not know exactly and in detail what the Philippians actually wrote to Polycarp and why the latter found it necessary to write such instructions to the elders and deacons of the Philippian Church.
Therefore, the possibility opens up for other assumptions: perhaps Polycarp knew that there was temporarily no bishop in Philippi, whose election was delayed by some circumstances, for example, the case of the presbyter Valens.
In addition, at the beginning of the Epistle, Polycarp writes: “Polycarp and the elders who are with him are of the Church of God that is in Philippi” ἐκκλησία του θεου τ ῇ παροικούς ῃ Φιλίππους ). Polycarp appears here as a bishop, next to whom the college of presbyters is placed; he is ἐπίσκοπός τε τη ς ἐν Σμύρνη καθολικη ς ἐκκλησίας , as the Epistle of the Smyrna Church calls him (16). Polycarp and the presbytery, as legal representatives of their Church, write an Epistle to the Church of Philippi, which naturally gives rise to a solid assumption that the latter had the same organization as the Church of Smyrna.
Further, the duties of the elders listed in the Epistle of Polycarp do not at all include liturgical and administrative powers, which opens up room for such a degree that possessed them. Finally, if Polycarp had in mind such a hierarchical organization in Philippi, which was based on the identity of bishops and presbyters, then, with his respect for the Apostle Paul and his Epistles, he would have named not presbyters and deacons, but bishops and deacons, as the Apostle Paul and in the Epistle to the same Philippians (1:5), and this could hardly have been prevented by the other organization of the Smyrna Church, in which the bishop denoted one person at the head of the Church.
V. 4. Time of writing the Message
The epistle was written soon after the death of Ignatius, since it suggests that he had already reached his rightful place with the Lord (9:2); but at the same time, Polycarp asks for reliable information about Ignatius (13:2); therefore, the details of the martyrdom of Ignatius were not yet known in Smyrna.
The reverent respect of Christians for Polycarp, which he always enjoyed, starting with those close to him and his contemporaries in general, is based on his attitude towards the Apostles, his venerable age, personal holiness and unshakable courage in the face of the ruined crowd that persistently demanded his death; fearless martyrdom ended the glorious life of the Apostolic man. His friends and disciples competed to untie his sandals or to show the slightest attention that would bring them close to him.
The pagans looked at him as the “father of Christians,” the destroyer of the gods, who taught many not to make sacrifices and not to worship the Gods (Martyr. Polyc., 12). In particular, believers saw in him the manifestation of an exceptional gift of prophecy; they were convinced that everything he said had been fulfilled or would be fulfilled (Martyr. Polyc., 16). But for the Church, his memories of the past were much more important. In his personality, the early life of the Church of Christ is associated with the end of the Second Century. Apostle John, Polycarp, Irenaeus - this was a successive series of men who guaranteed the continuity of the Gospel preaching and Apostolic teaching. The unusually long life of the Apostle John was followed by the long life of Saint Polycarp, and this ensured the indicated result.
What the Church was at the end of the 2nd century, how complete was Her teaching, what was the composition of Her canon, what was Her organization, the same in all Her parts, how wide was Her distribution - we know enough about this from the works of St. Irenaeus. But the intermediate period represents a continuous struggle of all kinds of speculations, which caused inexpressible melancholy to people who longed to know the truth.
Polycarp saw teachers come forward one after another, each introducing his own system and proclaiming that he alone preached the true Gospel. Menander, Cerinthus, Carpocrates, Saturninus, Basilides, Cerdon, Valentinus, Marcion - they all passed before the eyes of Polycarp.
Against all such innovations in doctrine and practice, Polycarp had ample evidence in his personal knowledge of the truth, drawn directly from the Apostles. With what feeling he looked at all these teachers, this can be seen not only from his Epistle (chapter 7: “everyone who does not recognize that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the Antichrist. He who does not recognize the testimony of the cross is of the devil: and whoever interprets the words of the Lord according to his own lusts and says that there is neither Resurrection nor Judgment is the firstborn of Satan”), but also from his words reported by Irenaeus: “Good God, until what time have you preserved me” (Ep. ad. Flor, - in: Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:20).
According to his personal qualities, he was most capable of fulfilling the task that fell to his lot - to be the custodian of the intact Apostolic Tradition. The original mind would have unconsciously contributed its ideas and intentions to this treasury. But Polycarp's mind was not original; As far as we have the opportunity to judge, he did not have creative abilities. His Epistle consists of quotations and imitation of the Apostolic Writings, the Epistles of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch. He himself never gives anything except generalities.
Perseverance, inflexibility, adherence to the lessons of youth, unflagging observance of the “word received at the beginning” - these are the characteristic traits of Polycarp, as they become clear on the basis of his own expressions and the comments of others about him. His “pious disposition,” as Ignatius says, “was established as if on an immovable stone” (Ep. ad Polyc., 1). He did not possess the art of false teachers and against them could only “stand firmly, like the anvil on which they beat” (3).
But if the position of Polycarp was important for the early Church as a guarantee of the continuity of the Apostolic teaching and tradition, then it is no less important for us and from the same point of view. Well-known new theories regarding Ancient Christian history are based on the assumption of a complete break and complete disunity in the spiritual and intellectual life of early Christianity and the Church of the end of the 2nd century, so that the Church of the time of Irenaeus at the most vital points, both in teaching and in practice, was supposedly in direct contrast with the Church of the time of the Apostle John.
A decisive denial of these shaky constructions of the life of the ancient Church, which do not pay attention to numerous facts of history and are based on fragmentary remarks and controversial interpretations, is the personality and activity of Polycarp. With a correct view of his situation and with an unprejudiced assessment of it, all theories about the break should fall: there was an increase, development, but not a deviation from the previous one or a denial of it.
While the oral Tradition about the life of the Lord and the teaching of the Apostles was fresh, believers of subsequent generations naturally turned to this Tradition for confirmation against any distortions of the Gospel. The authoritative witnesses of Tradition were the “presbyters”; Papias and Irenaeus point to these presbyters.
For Papias, the presbyters were persons who had themselves seen the Lord and witnessed the Apostolic history; in Irenaeus, this term also includes persons who, like Papias, were familiar with these samovidov. Among these latter presbyters, Polycarp occupies the first place, and thus his importance in the Church rests not so much on the fact that he was a bishop, a writer, and a martyr, but on the fact that he was the “presbyter” who dealt with the Apostle John and other witnesses of the Lord.
Under the name of Hermas, the highly interesting work “The Shepherd” (Ποιμήν, Pastor) has come down to us, which in volume is equal to almost all the works of the period of the Apostolic men taken together.
In form and content, “The Shepherd” is a remarkable monument of Church antiquity and differs sharply from those considered. The latter represent the usual type of religious literature; whereas the author of the Shepherd writes from revelation by special commission, as a prophet inspired by the Divine Spirit.
Thus, “The Shepherd” belongs to Apocalyptic literature: the work combines Revealed teaching with a general view of the task of the Church and the path of salvation, with the goal of eliminating known abuses in the contemporary Christian society of the author. The book received its name because the Angel who conveyed revelations to Herma appeared in the form of a shepherd.
The monument was originally written in Greek and was soon translated into Latin for use in the Roman Church. The Greek text of “The Shepherd” became known only at the beginning of the second half of the 19th century, and at present a complete manuscript of the Greek original has not yet been found. The original text contains the following manuscripts:
a) The Fayyum, now Berlin Papyrus, written perhaps around the year 400, contains two passages - Simil., 2: 7-10 and 4: 2-5;
b) The famous Codex Sinaiticus (IV century) - in it, in the appendix to the New Testament, after the Epistle of Barnabas, the “Shepherd” also found a place, but the text is interrupted at Mand., 4:3. 6;
c) The Athos manuscript of the 14th or early 15th century, written very small, was found in the monastery of St. Gregory on Athos by the famous forger of ancient monuments, Constantine Simonides (in 1855). The manuscript contained ten leaves, the last of which is lost, so that the end of the Shepherd with Proverbs 9:30 is missing. 3–10:4. 5. Simonides stole three leaves (5, 6 and 9, containing Mand., 12:4. 7-Simil., 8:4. 3 and Simil., 9:15. 1-30. 3) and sold them to the library of the University of Leipzig, together with a very unsatisfactory copy of the remaining six leaves, which still remain on Mount Athos, and were subsequently carefully studied and published (Lambros and Robinson in 1888).
Thus the beginning of The Shepherd is attested by two Greek manuscripts; for the end (Simil., 9:30. 3–10:4. 5) there is not a single textual witness. The Greek conclusion published by Simonides is found to be a forgery; at least for now it is considered as not proven that Simonides, during his visit to Lfon, found the last leaf.
During the entire centuries preceding the discovery of the Greek text, “The Shepherd” was known only in the Latin translation, which survived in many manuscripts and was published at the beginning of the 16th century (in 1513). This translation is known as the versio Vulgata.
In 1857 Dressei published, based on the Cod. Palatinus (now Vaticanus), 14th century, second Latin translation, called versio Palatina.
These translations are closely related and, in any case, depend on each other in their origin; however, the relationship of the text is not the same in all parts, and it is recognized beyond doubt that we have before us two separate translations. Both translations belong to Church antiquity: according to the generally accepted opinion, the versio Vulgata dates back to the 2nd century, and the versio Palatina occurred no earlier than the end of the 4th century, when using the versio Vulgata.
There is also a very ancient (perhaps from the 6th century) Ethiopian translation of “The Shepherd”, made from the Greek original. Its list - like all Ethiopian codices - is relatively late, found in the Ethiopian monastery of Guinda-guinde and published in 1860. Here the translator made omissions and connections of related material, and the manuscript found was not entirely satisfactory.
Given this state of the manuscript material, numerous quotations from Greek ecclesiastical writers, which are especially extensive from Clement of Alexandria, from pseudo-Athanasius (Praecepta ad Antiochum) and from Antiochus, a monk of the monastery of St. Sava near Jerusalem, are important for the restoration of the text.
VI. 1. Attitude to the “Shepherd” in the ancient Church
Since ancient times, the “Shepherd” has been highly respected in the Eastern and Western Churches.
Many church writers looked at its author as a divinely inspired prophet. Irenaeus quotes from the “Shepherd” with a noteworthy formula: ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα (Adv. haer., 4:20. 2; compare: Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:8. 7) and in the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” (chap. 4) he makes extract from Mand., 1, without naming the author. In any case, he looked at the “Shepherd” as an important authority in his evidence.
Clement of Alexandria often refers to The Shepherd as Holy Scripture (Strom. 1:29. 181; 2:1. 3; 6:15. 131) and borrows from it, indicating great respect for this book. Tertullian (De orat., 16) calls the work scriptura (Scripture), although, as we will see, having become a Montanist, he decisively changed his judgment about it. From the form of citations in Tertullian, it can be concluded that in Carthage they read “The Shepherd” in the Latin translation and attached great importance to its testimony when judging Christian customs.
Origen (Comment, in Rom. 10:31) considers “The Shepherd” to be a divinely inspired work, although, apparently, he was aware that in this case he follows a private opinion: quae scriptura valde mihi utilis videtur et, ut puto, divinitus inspirata. In the pseudo-Cyprian work Adversus aleatores (2) "Shepherd" is also called divina scriptura.
But along with such respectful reviews of “The Shepherd,” other judgments were heard from the very beginning. Origen already notes that his view of the book is not shared by many, since “The Shepherd” is not recognized by everyone as canonical scripture - γραφὴ θεία (Comment, inMatth., 14:21); some even treat her with contempt, κατοκρρονούμενον (De prine. 4:2). Therefore, he constantly accompanies quotes from “The Shepherd” with reservations: si cui tamen scriptura illa recipienda videtur; si cui tamen libellus ille recipiendus videtur; si cui placeat etiam illum legere librum and the like (see: A. Harnack. Gesch. der altchristl. Litt. Teil I. Leipzig, 1893. S. 54).
But even earlier than Origen, the author of the Muratorian Canon (about 200) decisively refuted the opinion about the inspired character of the “Shepherd”, giving positive indications regarding the origin of the book: Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente [in] cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre ejus; et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia populo neque inter prophetas completos numero neque inter apostolos in finem temporum potest.
It is clear that the author of the fragment does not want to place “The Shepherd” on the same line with the writings of the Apostles and Prophets and, therefore, does not include it in the Biblical canon, and precisely because “The Shepherd” is of recent origin, having been written during the bishopric of Pius I in Rome (139/141–154/156) by his brother.
However, the very tone of the passage and its purpose indicate the existence of a contrary view of the "Shepherd": some (and perhaps many) revered it as the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, and recognized it as possible to read in Church assemblies. Tertullian, having become a Montanist, in his objection to the edict of Pope Callistus (217-222), in which there was probably a reference to the "Shepherd", writes: Cederem tibi, si scriptura Pastoris, quae sola moechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidisi non ab omni consilio ecclesiarum, etiam vestrarum, inter aporypha et falsa iudicaretur (De pudic., 10; cf.: 20).
There is no doubt that Tertullian expressed an overly exaggerated judgment; however, it is clear that by the beginning of the 3rd century the view was widespread in the Western Churches that the “Shepherd” could not lay claim to canonical dignity.
In view of such data, Eusebius notes that against the book “The Shepherd” “some argued and did not classify it among the recognized (ὁμολογουμέγοις), while others considered it a very necessary work, especially for people embarking on the initial knowledge of the faith. Therefore,” continues Eusebius, “as we know, it was read publicly in the Churches, and Tradition says that the most ancient writers used it” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 3:3, 6); elsewhere he classifies "Shepherd" as νόθοις. Athanasius of Alexandria also speaks of the suitability of the book for the catechumens (Ep.fest., 39). From this it becomes clear that the book of the Shepherd was sometimes copied along with the New Testament writings, as can be seen from the Codex Sinaiticus. In general, since the 4th century, the authority of the book has been rapidly declining both in the East and in the West. Jerome (De vir. ill., 10) says that this book is almost unknown among the Latins: apud Latinos paene ignotus est. However, as numerous lists of the Latin translation show, “The Shepherd” did not soon fall out of use in the West.
VI. 2. Contents of the book “Shepherd”
The book "The Shepherd" embraces five visions (ὀράσεις, visiones), twelve commandments (ἐντολαι, mandata) and ten parables (παραβολαι, similitudines). Accordingly, previous publishers divided the work into three books, with the fifth vision being assigned to the Second Book as a Preface. But the author himself, or the Angel speaking to him in the Fifth and final vision (5:5; cf. Proverbs 9:1.1; 10:1.1) distinguishes two parts:
a) the first four visions (1–4), which were shown by the Church, appearing in the form of a noble woman, and
b) the subsequent commandments and parables (1–9), which were communicated to him by the Angel of Repentance in the form of a shepherd; The fifth vision is, as it were, a preface to the Second Part, and the Tenth Parable is an epilogue. All the revelations that Hermas received contain exhortations to repentance, directed primarily to their first recipient and his family, then to the Roman Church and to all of Christianity.
Hermas receives the first four visions in his field, on the banks of the Tiber, through an elderly venerable woman, who later turned out to be the Church. She informed him of instructions and admonitions with the instruction to proclaim what he had seen and heard to the elect and, in view of the impending disasters, to convince them to repent and correct themselves.
First vision. Erma, a slave of unknown nationality, was sold by his teacher to Rome to a woman named Rhoda. Upon expiration. many years, during which he received freedom, he saw her again, recognized her and loved her as a sister. One day, seeing her bathing in the Tiber, he helped her get out of the water and, looking at her beauty, thought in his heart: “I would be happy if I had a wife of the same beauty and disposition.” It should be noted that Erma was a married man of middle age, had adult children, and that his family affairs were unsatisfactory.
Some time later, when Hermas was walking to Kuma, reflecting on God’s creation, how majestic and beautiful it is, he fell asleep and in a vision was transported along a rocky and steep road to the plain and, kneeling, began to pray and confess his sins. At this time the sky opened, and Erma saw Rhoda, who greeted him. Erma asked her what she was doing here? She replied: “I was taken here to expose your sins before the Lord.” Erma asked her to clarify what was said, and she reminded him of the unclean desire that arose in his heart towards her on the river bank, and advised him to pray to God for forgiveness. The heavens have closed, and Hermas is in fear and sorrow, despairing of salvation if such thoughts are imputed to sin.
As he thought about this, he saw opposite him a large pulpit made of wave - white as snow. An old woman in shiny clothes came with a book in her hand and asked him why he, always cheerful, was now so sad.
He told her the reason, and she confirmed that Hermas had indeed sinned against Rhoda, and that such a desire should be alien to the servant of the Lord; however, although he fell for a while, the Lord is not angry with him, but with his house, which has fallen into wickedness; he himself, loving his children, did not admonish his family, but allowed his sons to become greatly corrupted. She convinces him to persistently teach his children, and they will repent.
Before leaving, the woman invited him to listen to what was written in the book she was holding in her hand. Yerma listened with attention. She read something majestic and wondrous, which he could not retain in his memory, except for a few last words, comforting for God’s chosen ones. The woman, having finished reading, stood up from her pulpit, and four young men lifted the pulpit and took it to the East, and the woman touched Herma’s chest and said that the last words of the book, which Herma liked, refer to the righteous, and the terrible and cruel ones refer to apostates and pagans. Then two husbands appeared and carried the woman to the East. Her last words sounded in Yerma’s ears: “Take courage, Yerma.”
Second vision. It was in the same place shortly after the first one. The woman brought her book and was reading it; she asked Hermas if he could proclaim what was written in it to God’s chosen ones. He replied that he couldn’t remember: “give me a book and I’ll copy it.”
Taking the book, he copied it all, but did not understand the meaning; Only after fifteen days, during which he fasted and prayed a lot, the meaning of what was written was revealed to him, namely, that his sons had departed from the Lord, blasphemed Him, betrayed their parents, were debauched, his wife sinned with her tongue; but they will receive forgiveness of previous sins if they repent, just like all Christians.
The leaders of the Church must carry out their ways in righteousness, which Hermas must tell them about. Erma himself must not remember the untruths of his children and not leave his wife, with whom he must live as with a sister, but must take care of admonishing them. He suffered great calamities, but because he kept the faith, he will be saved. During a dream, a young man appeared to Herma, who explained to him that the old woman he saw was not the Sibyl, as he thought, but the Church of God, who appeared in the form of an elderly woman because she was created first of all and the world was created for her.
After this, Hermas saw a vision in his house: the old elderly woman appeared and asked him if he had given the book to the leaders of the Church. When Erma gave a negative answer, she said: “You did well, because I have a few words to add to you. When I finish all my words, then let them be made known through you to the chosen ones. To do this, you will write two books, and give one to Clement, and the other to Grapta. Clement will send to the outer cities, for this is left to him; Grapta will edify widows and orphans; and you will read it in this city together with the elders, the leaders of the Church.”
Third vision. It consisted in another place, chosen by Herma himself. Here he saw a bench placed; there was a linen pillow on it and a canvas stretched over it; An old woman came here with six young men. She sat him on the left side, explaining that the right side belongs to those who have already pleased God and suffered for His name, but Hermas lacks much to sit with them. She pointed out to him the construction of a great tower on the waters made of shiny square stones that was taking place in front of them.
The tower was built by the six young men who came with the old woman. Many thousands of other men brought stones. Some took stones from the water, others from the ground and gave them to the young men; they accepted and built. The stones taken from the water were directly placed into the building, because they were smooth and adjusted to each other in such a way that it was impossible to notice their connections, which is why the tower building seemed to be built as if from one stone. Of the other stones brought from the earth, some were rejected, others were placed in the building, and some were cut and thrown far from the tower. The stones that were placed near the tower and were not used for the building, some were rough, others had cracks, others were white and round and were not suitable for the building. The stones that were thrown fell onto the road and rolled further - some into a deserted place, others fell into the fire and burned, others fell near the water and could not roll into the water, although they tried to get into it.
The old woman explained to Herma that the tower is the Church on earth; six young men - six primordial angels to whom the Lord entrusted His creation; other men are low angels. The tower is built on water to show that life through water (that is, the sacrament of Baptism) is saved and will be saved. Then Erma began to ask about the difference between the stones and the meaning of this difference.
The old woman explained to him that each type of stone was an emblem of different classes of Christians, regarding which Judgment was carried out according to the treatment of the stones in the vision. Then she showed him seven women standing around the tower and supporting the tower. These are the seven Christian virtues: Faith, the mother of all, Temperance, Simplicity, Innocence, Modesty, Knowledge, Love.
The construction of the tower has not yet been completed, but it will soon be completed, and then the end will come. “Herma,” added the old woman, “must announce to all the saints that after three days she commands him, namely, that they should have peace among themselves and give generously to those in need.”
Когда она перестала говорить, юноши отнесли его в башню. Ерма просил ее объяснить, что значат те три вида, в которых она является ему.
В первом видении она явилась очень старою и сидящею на кафедре; in the second vision she had a youthful face, but the body and hair of an old man, she talked while standing and was more cheerful than before; in the third vision, she was all much younger and with a beautiful face, only she had old-age hair, she was quite cheerful and was sitting on a bench. Старица явилась ему во сне и велела поститься. Erma fasted for one day and that same night a young man appeared and explained to him what he asked.
In the first vision, an old woman appeared and, moreover, sitting on the pulpit, because the spirit of Christians has become dilapidated and weakened and has no strength due to the sins and doubts of the heart; just as the elders, who have no hope of renewal, want nothing more than to rest on their beds, so they, burdened with everyday affairs, fell into carelessness; одряхлел смысл их и состарились они в печалях своих.
The appearance of the woman in the second vision standing, with a younger face and more cheerful, but with an senile body and hair, means that the Lord took pity on the Christians and renewed their spirit - they put aside their infirmities, courage came to them, they strengthened in faith, and the Lord, seeing their strength, rejoiced.
In the third vision, the woman is even younger, beautiful, cheerful, and her face is bright, because Christians have received a renewal of souls; and the fact that she was sitting on the bench means a firm position, since the bench has four legs and stands firmly, and the world is supported by the four elements.
The fourth vision took place twenty days after the third in a secluded place near the Campanian road. Hermas prayed to the Lord that He would confirm the revelations that He showed him through His Church, strengthen him and give repentance to all His servants. Then Erma saw a cloud of dust, as if raised by a large herd of cattle; When the sun came out, Erma saw a huge beast, from whose mouth fiery locusts were coming out. This animal was about a hundred feet long, and its head was like an earthen vessel.
Strengthened by the thought of the great deeds God had revealed to him, Hermas boldly went to the beast; the beast, roaring, approached with such force that in an attack it could destroy the city. Erma approached him and such a huge animal stretched out on the ground and showed nothing except its tongue. It did not move the entire time Erma passed by it. This beast had four colors on its head: black, then red or bloody, then golden and finally white.
Moving away from the beast, Erma met a maiden, as if emerging from the bridal chamber, in white shoes, covered with white clothes right up to her forehead; a miter served as her veil, and her hair was white. From previous visions, he guessed that this was the Church. She explained to him that the beast is an image of the great danger to come; to avoid it, you need to repent.
Of the four colors on the beast's head, black signifies peace; fiery and bloody - that which this world must perish through blood and fire; the golden part - Christians who avoid this world and, like gold, are tested and purified; the white part means the future age, in which God’s chosen ones, immaculate and pure, will live.
The fifth vision provides an introduction to the commandments and parables. A man of venerable appearance, in shepherd's clothing, entered Herma, in his own house; he was wearing a white cloak, a bag over his shoulders and a staff in his hands. He said that he was sent to live with him the rest of the days of his life.
Suspecting temptation, Erma treated it with doubt; but the visitor changed his appearance, and Erma recognized him as the Angel of Repentance, to whom he was entrusted as a leader. The shepherd ordered Herma to write down the commandments and parables and read them from time to time.
The first commandment represents the formulation of the central truth of Theology and can be accepted as the basis of all subsequent teaching: “First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and accomplished everything, who brought everything out of nothing into being; He embraces everything, being himself immense. So, believe in Him and fear Him, and being afraid, observe abstinence. Keep this, and you will put away all evil from yourself and put on every virtue of righteousness and live for God, if you keep this commandment.”
The second commandment prescribes to live in simplicity and kindness, to avoid slander - that restless evil spirit that is never in the world, but always lives in disagreement - and to give alms in simplicity.
The third commandment is about the love of truth and the need to avoid lies. Yerma confessed that he had violated this commandment throughout his life.
The fourth commandment talks about chastity, divorce and second marriage. One must observe chastity, and let no thought of someone else’s wife enter the heart. The angel resolves difficult issues related to infidelity in marriage in this way: while the husband does not know about his wife’s sin, he does not sin if he lives with her; if the husband finds out about her sin and she does not repent, then the husband sins if he lives with her: he will become a participant in her adultery.
The husband should separate from her and lead a lonely life. If, having let his wife go, he marries again, then he commits adultery. If the released wife repents and wishes to return to her husband, then the husband must accept her (otherwise he commits a great sin), but not many times. This course of action applies equally to both husband and wife.
In this regard, Erma raised the question of repentance. “I heard,” he said, “from some teachers that there is no other repentance except when you go into the water (in the sacrament of Baptism) and receive remission of previous sins.” The angel explained that what he had heard was true. In the sacrament of Baptism, remission of sins is given; after Baptism there should be no falls, but one should live in purity; forgiveness, however, is allowed for such sins if sincere repentance follows, but only once. If one sins often and repents, then this will not benefit a person.” To Erma’s question whether anyone entering into a second marriage sins, the shepherd answered: he does not sin, but if he remains on his own, he will gain greater glory from the Lord.
The fifth commandment teaches the need to exercise long-suffering and abstain from anger. The following describes in detail the causes and consequences of anger, although without the power and depth of analysis.
The sixth commandment describes two paths - right and wrong, under the influence of two angels - good and evil; must follow what is good and avoid evil.
In the seventh commandment, the shepherd instructs to fear God and not to fear the devil, but to fear the works of the devil, because they are evil.
The eighth commandment is about abstaining from evil and doing good, and evil and good deeds are listed in detail.
The ninth commandment commands us to cleanse our hearts without hesitation and with hope - then all requests will be fulfilled. One should not hesitate if what is requested is not given quickly. “Faith is from above from God and accomplishes all things; doubt is an earthly spirit, from the devil, and has no power.
In the tenth commandment, the shepherd commands to remove sadness and despondency from oneself, and to put on joy; Sorrow is the sister of doubt and anger, but he who rejoices does good and thinks good.
The Eleventh Commandment begins with a vision of men sitting in the pews and one standing in the pulpit. The first are the faithful, but the one standing in the pulpit is a false prophet. The pastor describes in detail the signs of true and false prophets and urges to strictly distinguish between them: test by deeds and by life the person who says that he has the Holy Spirit, believe the Spirit that comes from God and has power, but do not believe the earthly and empty spirit, in which there is no power, for it comes from the devil.
The Twelfth Commandment speaks of good and evil wishes; it is necessary to remove from oneself all evil lust and put on the desire for righteousness, good and holy; manifestations of evil lust are described.
Having finished expounding the commandments, the shepherd ordered Herma to act on them himself and to convince others to do the same. Hermas expressed doubt whether man is able to fulfill these Divine requirements. The angel replied that they are easy for one who is convinced that they can be observed, for one who has the Lord in his heart; the devil cannot overpower the one who believes in the Lord with all his heart; he can oppose, but not conquer; We must fear God more, Who can save and destroy. Erma expressed the hope that with the help of God he would keep the commandments that the Angel taught him. After this, the shepherd proceeded to present ten parables.
The first of them is based on the well-known likening of Christians to citizens of the Heavenly City. If this world is not a fatherland for the servants of God, then one should not worry about acquiring fields, houses and having similar things, but redeem souls from needs, wealth and use all acquisitions to help those in need.
The second parable compares the relationship between rich and poor to the relationship between an elm and a vine. The elm is a tree without fruit, but the vine has fruit; but the vine cannot bear abundant fruit unless it rests on the elm, since lying on the ground it produces rotten fruit. If the vine hangs on an elm, it gives fruit both for itself and for the elm. In the same way, a rich man is poor before the Lord, his prayer is weak and has no power; if he helps the poor, then the poor prays to the Lord for the rich, and thus both are participants in a good deed. "Blessed are those who, having wealth, feel that they are enriched by the Lord."
Third parable. Just as during winter all the trees with fallen leaves are similar to each other, and it is not clear which of them are really dried up and which are fresh, so in this world it is impossible to recognize the righteous and the sinful: some are like others. The present age is winter for the righteous.
The fourth parable. The future age is summer for the righteous and winter for the sinful. Just as during the summer the fruit of every tree is revealed and one can see what it is like, so the fruit of the righteous will also be revealed and seen. Pagans and sinners are dry trees; in the next century they will be dry and barren and will be burned like firewood.
Fifth parable. The shepherd teaches Herma that perfect fasting, pleasing to God, consists in abstaining from sin. He illustrates his teaching about this with the following parable: someone had an estate and many slaves; he planted a vineyard and, setting off on a long journey, chose the most faithful and honest slave, to whom he entrusted the vineyard, so that he would fence it, promising to give him freedom for fulfilling this order. The slave carefully did what the master commanded, and then, noticing many weeds in the vineyard, he dug it up and cleaned it; the vineyard became beautiful and blooming. The master returned and entered the vineyard and was very pleased with the zeal of his slave. He called his son and friends and, as a reward to the slave for his work, expressed his intention to make him his son’s co-heir. The son and friends approved of the master's wishes.
A few days later, the master sent the slave a lot of food from his table; Having received them, the slave took from them what was enough for him, and divided the rest among his fellow slaves. This made the master and his son even more happy.
At the request of Hermas, the shepherd gave a detailed explanation of the parable, the essence of which is as follows: the estate is the world, the master is God, the son is the Holy Spirit, the servant is the Son of God, the vineyard is the people that the Lord planted, the stamens are the angels appointed by the Lord to preserve His people, the herbs plucked from the vineyard are the crimes of Christians, the food is the commandments given through the Son, friends and advisers are the primordial angels, the time of the master’s absence - the time remaining until His Coming. Having further explained the teaching about the incarnation of the Son of God, about the purity and holiness of His flesh, which God accepted into communion, the Shepherd deduces from this the need for Hermas to keep his flesh pure and undefiled, not to abuse it in any lust, and never to think that this flesh will perish. “If you defile your flesh, you will also defile the Holy Spirit (living in it); if you desecrate the Holy Spirit, you will not live.” Both are involved in each other.
Sixth parable. The angel of repentance showed Herma a young shepherd dressed in rich clothes in the field; His flock was numerous and the sheep were in bliss and contentment and, jumping merrily, ran back and forth.
The shepherd himself stood near the sheep with a cheerful face. But some sheep did not jump, but grazed together. Then the angel showed another shepherd, large, wild-looking, dressed in white goatskin; he had a bag on his shoulders, and in his hands a gnarled and very strong stick and a large whip; his face was stern and menacing.
He received from the young shepherd sheep who lived in bliss and pleasure, but did not gallop, driving them to a rocky and thorny place and filled with thistles; entangled in them, they suffered a lot and endured pain from his blows. He drove them here and there, gave them no rest and did not allow them to stop anywhere. The first shepherd is the angel of pleasure and lies, the second is the angel of punishment. Sheep are different classes of sinners: cheerful and galloping sheep are sinners who have forever fallen away from God and given over to pleasures; not jumping, but grazing together - sinners who want to repent - through punishment they are disciplined to return to the path of life.
Seventh parable. A few days later, Hermas saw a shepherd in the same field and asked him to order another shepherd, assigned for punishment, to leave his house, because he was seriously striking him. The shepherd replied that Hermas was undergoing disaster and sorrow, at the command of the glorious Angel, for the sins of his home. But his suffering will not last long if he, his children and his house obey the Lord from a pure heart.
Eighth parable. The shepherd showed Herma the willow tree that covered the fields and mountains, under whose shade all those called in the name of the Lord came. The glorious Angel (Michael) cut off branches from the willow with a large sickle and distributed them to the people standing under the shade of the willow. After a while, the Angel who was distributing the branches demanded them back; the branches were returned in varying degrees of freshness or dryness.
The men who had completely green branches - some with shoots and fruits - decorated with crowns and in white robes, were sent to the tower; the rest, divided into categories, were entrusted to the Angel of repentance. The latter took the branches, planted them in good soil and watered them abundantly with water. The various results of this experience are then described and explained in great detail, in relation to the gradual ladder of character from the purest holiness to the hopeless condition of the outcasts, and in relation to the sentence given by the Judge in each case.
The ninth parable, the richest in content and the most extensive in volume, belongs, strictly speaking, to the category of visions, and Hermas himself, apparently, does not classify it as a parable, as evidenced by the beginning of the parable: “after I wrote the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the Angel of repentance”... Hermas was transferred to Arcadia to a high mountain, from the top of which the shepherd showed him a vast field surrounded twelve mountains; each of these mountains had a different appearance and different vegetation.
In the middle of the field stood a huge white stone, square, higher than the mountains surrounding the plain. It was ancient, had a carved door, recently made, which shone brighter than the Sun; She was guarded by twelve maidens dressed in linen tunics, with their right shoulders bare, as if they intended to carry something heavy.
Then six venerable-looking men appeared, accompanied by many other men. They ordered stones to be taken from the depths and brought to build the tower, and the maidens had to accept these stones, carry them through the door and hand them over to the tower builders.
Thus, the foundation of a vast tower was erected on the stone. Then, by order of six men, they began to bring stones from twelve mountains, of different sizes and colors; the maidens carried them through the door and handed them to the tower builders.
The construction of the tower was not completed. A few days later, accompanied by a great many men, the highest man, the lord of the tower, appeared. He tested every stone in the building, hitting each with a cane, and those that did not pass the test (changed color and surface) were replaced by others and handed over to the shepherd so that he could clean them and put the good ones in the tower.
Erma describes in detail various defects in the stones removed from the tower, corresponding to various character flaws in their human parallels. A significant part of these stones were cut and cleaned and, when placed in the wall of the building, had a beautiful appearance. The place near the tower was cleared, and the shepherd, walking around it, saw that it was beautiful: it was built so well that anyone who saw it would admire it, because it seemed to be made of one stone - not a single joint was visible.
Yerma did not want to leave the tower without receiving an explanation for what he had seen. The shepherd entrusted him to twelve virgins, who were kind to him, insisted that he stay with them at night, and even kissed him, but with all modesty, as sisters can kiss their brother.
Upon the shepherd's return, Hermas received an explanation of numerous details of the vision. The stone and the door represent the Son of God - the first - His eternal existence, the latter - His work as a mediator between God and people: He appeared in the last days, becoming a new door so that those who wish to be saved through it would enter the Kingdom of God.
The Lord of the Tower is also the Son of God; the six men overseeing the construction are the six highest Angels, the twelve virgins are the twelve virtues, beloved by faithful souls, and are opposed to the other twelve women, who joyfully carried the rejected stones to their original place and are images of carnal lusts that seduce unstable souls to their destruction.
The twelve virtues are: Faith, Temperance, Strength (patientia fortitude, endurance, patience), Long-suffering, Simplicity, Innocence, Chastity, Joy, Truthfulness, Understanding, Concord, Love. The names of the twelve evil women are as follows: treachery, immoderation, disobedience, lust, sadness, deceit, lust, anger, lies, folly, slander, hatred.
The different classes of chosen stones are types of different classes of righteous people, namely: Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles and subsequent teachers of the Gospel. The depth from which the stones are taken is Epiphany; even Patriarchs and Prophets are supposed to participate in it through the gifts of the Holy Spirit imparted from above.
Twelve mountains - twelve tribes (types) of the human race, each with its own special moral character (“thought and inner mood of peoples”). The Tower is the Church, and the restoration of rejected stones is a discipline of repentance. – Explanations are mixed with exhortations about the need for repentance and fear of the coming wrath.
The tenth parable is the conclusion of the entire book. When Hermas wrote this book, an Angel came to him, who entrusted him to the shepherd, urging him to keep the Commandments taught to him, again entrusting him to the care of the shepherd and the virgins, commanding him to tell everyone to fulfill the Commandments and not cease to do good. “Do not delay,” concludes the Angel, “lest the construction of the tower be completed; for for your sake the work of its construction was stopped. If you don’t hurry to correct yourself, the tower will end and you won’t get into it.”
Analysis of the contents of "The Shepherd". The beginning of the extensive book, called "The Shepherd", takes us into the setting of the Church life of the capital of the world; and although its apocalyptic character carries the author to contemplate the future destinies of the Church, there is no doubt that the living conditions of the Christian community in Rome form the basis of those visions and exhortations that Hermas must communicate to the faithful.
As the content of “The Shepherd” shows, all the visions set out in the book and their explanations are intended to call Hermas and through him the entire Church to immediate and decisive repentance, which is why the immediate and main discussions revolve around the question of the possibility of forgiveness of sins, especially crimes against marriage and falling away from the faith. Therefore, repentance is the main subject of the work; other aspects of Christian teaching are presented only casually and often in images and parables, without sufficient clarity. When Hermas compiled his book, persecution of Christians was already raging and, next to the martyrs who valiantly confessed their faith, there were apostates who not only renounced, but also blasphemed - there were even cases of betrayal of brothers.
Some retreated simply because of the benefits, due to too much attachment to earthly goods. In addition, teachers of lies appeared, hypocrites who taught error. The rich and powerful, without renouncing their beliefs, lived a completely pagan life among the pagans.
All kinds of vices are found not only among ordinary Christians, but even among leading members of the Church. The author of “The Shepherd” explains all these shortcomings by “double-mindedness,” hesitation, the division of the soul between two beliefs, two directions in behavior, and the lack of strong convictions. Thus, in the Church there are not only sinners, but there are also apostates - can they repent, and is there forgiveness for them?
Hermas outlined the essence of the doctrine of repentance in the Commandment (4:3). The shepherd exhorts to accept again a wife who has repented after adultery, “but not many times, for for the servants of God there is only one repentance” (Mand. 4:1. 8).
Hermas notes in this regard that he heard from some teachers that there is no other repentance except when we go into the water and receive remission of past sins (Mand., 4: 3. 1). The Angel of Repentance explains that this is indeed so, for whoever has received remission of sins must no longer sin, but live in purity. Those who have just believed or are about to believe do not have repentance for sins, but have remission of their previous sins; but for those who were called before these days, the Lord, in His mercy, ordered repentance.
After this period of grace, the sinner has only one repentance, and if he continues to sin, then repentance will not benefit him, for he will hardly achieve life in God.
Thus, the author knows two views on repentance - a more strict and a more moderate one. Erma wants to take a middle ground on this issue. He finds the proclamation of a single repentance at a given moment dangerous for the salvation of himself and his neighbors; therefore, without fundamentally denying a more strict view, he postpones its application for some time: there is only one repentance and only in Baptism, but this will only happen when the construction of the tower is completed; now, when, by the mercy of God, this construction is temporarily suspended, people can still repent: “for this reason, a stop was made in the building, so that they would repent and enter the building of the tower” (Simil., 9:14, 2).
But the time of repentance is limited: “the repentance of the righteous has an end, and days of repentance are determined for all the saints” (Vis., 2: 2, 5). “Therefore,” says Hermas, “believe you, who through your sins despair of salvation and, adding sins to sins, burden your lives: if you turn to the Lord with all your heart and do righteousness the remaining days of your life and serve Him according to His will, then He will heal your former sins” (Mand., 12:6, 2).
What does repentance consist of? Yerma does not expand on this issue. The essence of repentance is in a true change of mood (μετάνοια - change of consciousness), in heartfelt repentance for evil deeds and a sincere intention to do good, in following the commandments of Christ, in a word, in the second conversion: “the repentant sinner realized that he had sinned before the Lord, he remembered in his heart the deeds he had done, and, having repented, no longer does evil, but does good and humbles his soul and torments it because it has sinned” (Mand. 4:2, 2). “If you turn to the Lord with all your heart and do righteousness the rest of the days of your life and serve Him according to His will, He will heal your former sins” (Mand. 12:6. 2). At the same time, Hermas clearly indicates the existence in his time of a certain kind of penitential discipline. “Do you think that the sins of those who repent are immediately forgiven?
No; but the repentant must torment his soul, humble himself in all his deeds and endure many and various sorrows, and when he endures everything that is assigned to him, then, of course, He who created and established everything will move towards him with His mercy and give saving medicine, and then only when he sees that the heart of the repentant is pure from every evil deed” (Simil., 7:4). “The time of worldly pleasure and deception is very short, and the time of punishment and torment is very long: one hour of pleasure requires thirty days of repentance, and a day of pleasure is expiated by a whole year of torment” (Simil., 6:4). Herma's guiding thought is that a person who repents refreshes the dying life in himself, just as the dried branches of a willow tree are revived by water.
In close connection with the teaching on repentance in Hermas is the teaching on the Church. The Church rests on Christ, the ancient Stone with a new door (Simil., 9:2, 2; cf.: 12:2, 3), that is, on the Son of God existing from eternity, Who, having appeared in the last days, became the New Door so that those who wish to be saved through it would enter the Kingdom of God. It was established on the waters of Baptism (Vis., 3:3, 5; Simil., 9:16, 2) and spread by preaching about Christ (Simil., 8:3. 2). The Church is the city of God with its own laws (Simil., 1:1, 3, 9). Not all who received branches from the great willow tree - that is, the word about Christ - keep them, and not all who entered the tower will remain in it when tested by Christ (Simil., 9:6).
Thus, an opposition is revealed between the essence of the Church and Her appearance in the world. The purpose of Hermas' preaching is to cleanse the Church (Simil., 9:18, 3). There was a break in the building of the Church so that sinners could be cleansed and serve as material for the construction of the tower (Simil., 9:7, 2; 10:4, 4).
It is necessary to turn to repentance as soon as possible, since the construction of the tower will soon be completed, and at the same time the end of the world will come (Vis., 3: 8, 9; Simil., 9: 9, 4; 26, 6; Simil., 10: 4, 4). Repentance must destroy the opposition between the essence of the Church and Her discovery in the world: “when the Church is cleansed, and the wicked, the hypocrites, the blasphemers, the double-minded and all those who practice various types of unrighteousness are driven out of Her, She will be one Body, one Mind, one Spirit, one Faith and one Love, and then the Son of God will triumph among them and rejoice, having received His people pure” (Simil., 9:18, 4).
Yerma does not hide from himself that this state on earth will never be achieved. “Just as in winter all the trees with fallen leaves are similar to each other, and it is not visible which of them are really dry and which are fresh, so in the present age it is impossible to recognize the righteous and the sinners, but all are similar to each other (Simil., 3: 2. 3). Only the coming age will make the difference obvious (Simil., 4:1, 2).
VI. 3. Dogmatic teaching
Dogmatic teaching occupies very little space in The Shepherd. Recently, the Christology of Hermas has attracted special attention precisely because of its uncertainty, which causes many explanations and contradictory judgments. According to the teachings of Hermas, Christ is the Ancient Stone on which the tower of the Church and the new Door that leads into the tower are built (Simil., 9:12, 1ff); He is the “Son of God”; preached by the Apostles (Simil., 9:17, 2); The Son of God is the most Divine law, proclaimed to the whole world (Simil., 5:2, 5-6; 9:1, 1), that is, the Revelation of God to humanity. Hermas does not use the names “Word” and “Jesus Christ”, but “Son of God” (ὁ υἱòς του θεου) and “Lord” (κύριος).
Usually Hermas is accused of identifying the Son of God with the Holy Spirit. The basis for this is found in the Fifth Parable. The master entrusted his slave with a vineyard so that he would fence it in his absence, but the slave does more: he dug up the garden and cleared it of weeds.
The returning master was pleased with the slave’s action and called “his beloved son,” friends and advisers. With his son's consent, he decided to make the slave his son's co-heir. During the feast, the master sends the slave many dishes from his table, and he divides them among his fellow slaves. After this, the decision to make him his son's co-heir was further strengthened (Simil., 5:2. 2-11).
In the explanation of the parable, the Angel of repentance says: the lord of the vineyard is the Creator, who has accomplished and established everything; The Son is the “Holy Spirit”, the servant is the “Son of God”; the vineyard signifies the people which the Lord has planted; food - the commandments “which God gave to his people through his Son”; friends are “primeval Angels” (Simil., 5:5, 2). Hermas asks: “Why is the Son of God in this parable represented as a servant?” In explanation of this, the Angel of Repentance says, among other things: “God dwelt the Holy Spirit, before all things existed, who created all creation, in the flesh that He desired. And this flesh, into which the Holy Spirit dwelt, served the Spirit well, walking in purity and holiness and without defiling the Spirit in any way. Therefore, since she lived blamelessly and labored together with the Spirit and courageously cooperated with Him in every work, God accepted her into fellowship... He called into the council the Son and good Angels, so that this flesh, which served the Spirit blamelessly, would receive a place of rest, so that the blameless and pure flesh in which the Holy Spirit dwelt would not be unrewarded” (Simil., 5:6, 5-7).
The angel of repentance says to Hermas: “I want to show you everything that the Holy Spirit showed you, who talked with you in the form of the Church: that Spirit is the Son of God” (Simil., 9:1, 1). From this the following conclusions are drawn:
1) Hermas recognizes the Son of God in His pre-peaceful existence as identical with the Holy Spirit and affirms the relationship of Father and Son between God and the Holy Spirit”;
2) According to his system, the Holy Spirit took on flesh or dwelt in the flesh and thus the Savior, Jesus Christ, appeared”;
3) Jesus Christ for Hermas is a simple man in whom the Spirit of God dwelt and who, after testing, was made a partaker of Divine glory;
4) For Hermas, the trinity of persons in God is the result of the glorification of the flesh, which became a participant in the Holy Spirit and the inheritance of God (Engelhardt, Harnack, Loofs and others).
But against such conclusions they point out (for example, Tixeront) that
1) The basis of the parable is the difference between the three active Divine persons.”
2) “The Servant” is understood from the very beginning as the Son, and the works that he performs are Divine works; the servant or Son of God is not only flesh, but he is God and Divine: “The Son of God is placed in a slave position, but has great power and authority... God planted a vineyard, that is, he created a people and entrusted it to His Son; The Son appointed Angels to preserve each of the people, and He Himself worked very hard and suffered very much to cleanse their sins... Having cleansed the sins of His people, He showed them the way of life and gave them the law that He received from the Father... He is the Lord of the people with all the power received from the Father” (Simil., 5:6. 1-2).
3) The Spirit (Christ) and His flesh worked together (συγκοπιάσασαν, συνεργήσασαν – Simil., 5:6, 6), that is, the exploits of the “slave” are also the exploits of the “Son of God” or the “Spirit”;
4) accordingly, the Judgment of the Lord and the “Son” must apply not only to the flesh, but also to the “Spirit”, but it is impossible for the latter to carry out judgment on Himself, which would be necessary if the “Son” and the Spirit were identical.
In addition, one cannot ignore the fact that Hermas often speaks about Baptism and that therefore the formula of Baptism and the symbol confessed at the same time accurately determine his teaching about the Holy Trinity; and in this case, one can speak rather about the lack of precision in the language of Hermas, and not about its deviation from the Apostolic teaching, and then the opinion receives a significant degree of probability that Hermas does not identify the Son of God who exists from eternity with the Holy Spirit, but only calls Him a spiritual being, noting His Divine nature.
From this point of view, the expression of Hermas takes on a different meaning: “The Holy Spirit, who spoke with you in the form of the Church, that Spirit is the Son of God” (Simil., 9:1, 1). Here the “Holy Spirit” is more precisely defined by the addition, as a special Spirit, which is not identical with the Holy Spirit in a specific sense (compare: R. Seeberg. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, Bd. 1 Leipzig, 1908. S. 97–98). But the ambiguity and even confusion in Hermas’s teaching about the Son of God cannot be denied.
Even less solid is the statement that Hermas considers the Son of God to be the Archangel Michael. Indeed, in the Eighth Parable, Archangel Michael is assigned the same functions that in the Ninth Parable are assigned to the Son of God: both have power over the people of God, both carry out Judgment on believers, both entrust the Angel of Repentance to sinners for correction.
But from this similarity in position and tasks, the identity of Archangel Michael and the Son of God does not at all follow, since in “The Shepherd” there are also significant differences in name and attributes: Archangel Michael is a servant, and the Son of God is the subject of preaching and faith; He is exalted above all the Angels who serve Him (Simil., 5:13; cf.: 2, 2). The Son of God appointed angels to preserve each of the people, and He Himself suffered to cleanse their sins. “Having cleansed the sins of His people, He showed them the way of life and gave them the law which He had received from the Father” (Simil., 5:6, 2-3). We do not find a more detailed teaching about the work of Christ in The Shepherd.
The view of the personal condition of Christians is as follows: In the hearts of people who are weak and full of sins (Machet, 4:3, 4; Simil., 9:23, 4), who have turned away from God, do not know Him and do not obey Him (Vis., 3:7, 2; Simil., 4:4, 4), the Spirit of God is indwelt or the powers of the Son of God are imparted to them. Only those who have achieved this can enter the Kingdom of God (Mand., 3:1; 12:4, 3; 6:2, 1; Simil., 9:32, 4). The Spirit of God cannot dwell in men with evil spirits (Mand., 5:1, 3; 2, 5; Simil., 10:3, 2).
The eighth parable details how the gifts of the Spirit of God are communicated to believers. Christians are given branches; some return them green and blooming, others withered and withered to varying degrees. Willow is the law of God given to the whole world. “This law is the Son of God, preached to the ends of the earth” (3:2). This sermon about Christ as the New Moral Order, as it is assimilated, produces changes in Christians in their condition. Further, the “Shepherd” teaches that in the water of Baptism life is given and all the sins that a person has committed up to that time are forgiven (Vis., 3: 3, 5; Simil., 9:16, 2. 3. 5). The subjective condition of a person’s moral life is faith (Simil., 6:1, 2). Faith is from above from God and has great power, while doubt is an earthly spirit, from the devil and has no power. “Put on faith and believe in the Lord, and you will receive everything you ask for.” “Faith promises all things and accomplishes all things” (Mand., 9).
If faith is named among the Christian virtues, it is placed in first place (Mand., 8:9; 12:3, 1. Simil., 9:15, 2); she is the mother of all virtues - through her the elect of God are saved (Vis., 3: 8. 3. 4). The essential content of faith is set forth in the First Commandment: “First of all, believe that there is one God, who created and accomplished everything, who brought everything into existence from nothing. He embraces everything. Being itself incomprehensible, it cannot be defined in words or comprehended by the mind. So, believe in Him and fear Him - and being afraid, observe abstinence. Keep this and you will put away from yourself all lust and lawlessness and put on all virtue and righteousness and you will live with God if you keep this commandment.” Therefore, faith is not simple knowledge and confession of God the Creator, but also an undivided turning of the heart to God, which makes people strong in virtues and is the root of all moral activity.
Hermas speaks especially emphatically about the need for good works: “Behold, you who serve God and have Him in your hearts: do the works of God, remembering His commandments and the promises He made, and believe Him, which He will fulfill if His commandments are kept” (Simil., 1, 7). “Walk in the commandments and you will live with God; and all who walk in them and do them faithfully will live with God (Simil., 8:2, 3). With keeping the commandments are connected the promises of the blessings of eternal life (Simil., 6:1, 1; 7:6; 10:1, 2; 10:2, 4; 10:4, 1; Mand., 4:2, 4; 7:5).
The following words of the “Shepherd” cause bewilderment: “if you do something good beyond what is commanded by the Lord, you will acquire even greater dignity for yourself and you will be more glorious before the Lord than you had to be” (Simil., 5:3, 2). Here they see evidence of Hermas’s rather narrow moral outlook, and Roman Catholic and many Protestant scholars find in them an undoubted indication of opera superegoratorio: extra-duty deeds are especially rewarded by God.
This view meets with fundamental objections in the sense that Herma speaks only about the highest levels of moral life, which is naturally revealed in corresponding activity. But on the other hand, it cannot be denied that Herma’s morality is not alien to formalism, which, of course, does not speak in favor of his deep understanding of the essence of Christian moral teaching.
The hierarchical structure of the modern Church is poorly reflected in “The Shepherd.” Its author names the Apostles, bishops, teachers and deacons (Vis., 3:5, 1; Simil., 9:26, 2 and 27, 2) and by this reminds “Teaching. twelve Apostles" (11), with whom he also agrees in indicating the distinctive features of true and false prophets (Mand., 11: 7-21). But he also uses the name of elders (2:4, 2-3; 3:1, 8), who are called “primates of the Church” ( τοι ς προηγουμένοις τη ς ἐκλλησίας – Vis., 2:2, 6; προι σταμένων τη ς ἐκλλησίας – Vis., 2:4, 3). But it is impossible to clarify either the functions of these ministries or their mutual relationship with each other.
VI. 4. Question about the author of “The Shepherd” and the time of origin of the book
On the question of the author of “The Shepherd” and the time of its writing, the views of researchers differ significantly. The mystery of its origin lies in the fact that, on the one hand, there is accurate news that the “Shepherd” was compiled during the reign of the Roman Bishop Pius (139/141 - 154/156) by his brother, therefore, around the year 140; on the other hand, in the book itself there are indications of its earlier origin. As has already been said, the author of the Muratorian Canon claims that “The Shepherd” was written “very recently, in our time” (nuperrime temporibus nostris), in the city of Rome by Hermas, when Bishop Pius, his brother, was in the see of the Roman Church; “Therefore,” continues the author of the canon, “it should be read (privately), but not in the Church to the people - neither among the prophets already perfect in number, nor among the Apostles.”
In the “Shepherd” itself we read the following words: “you will write two books and give one to Clement, and the other to Grapt. Clement will send her to the outer cities - for this is granted to him - Grapta will edify widows and orphans; and you will read it in this city together with the elders, the leaders of the Church” (Vis., 2:4, 3). In Clement mentioned here, almost all researchers agree to see the famous Roman Bishop Clement; Grapta was probably a deaconess in the Roman Church. Depending on which of these data is used as the basis for the reasoning, some consider Herma to be a contemporary of Clement and, accordingly, the writing of “The Shepherd” is attributed to the end of the 1st or the first years of the 2nd century - while others recognize Herma as the brother of Bishop Pius of Rome and the origin of the book is pushed back to the half of the Second century (usually to the 140-150s).
It must be said that there are defenders of the opinion expressed by Origen, who saw in the author of “The Shepherd” a friend of the Apostle Paul, mentioned by him in the Epistle to the Romans (16:14), although in favor of this one can only point out the consonance of names. The evidence of the Muratorian Canon is persistently put forward against the first opinion, which is considered as an unshakable argument. The same evidence is found in the Catalogus Liberianus, the latter with high probability goes back to the catalog of Hippolytus and even to the most ancient lists of Roman bishops from the time of the Roman Bishop Satyrus. The author of the fragment himself is close in time and place to the author of “The Shepherd” and the essential content of his words is confirmed by later Western writers - Tertullian and Jerome.
On the other hand, in the content of “The Shepherd” one finds signs of its later origin. The Church has already lost Its original freshness, She has become old - as She is represented in the image of an elderly woman - many have fallen away from Her, there are traitors and fornicators in Her, a passion for pleasure has penetrated, love has cooled, the Church needs repentance.
From the particular insistence with which the author speaks on the issue of forgiveness of sins, they conclude that he knows and has in mind at least the first principles of the Montanist movement. A refutation of Gnosticism is also found in the “Shepherd” (Vis., 3:7, 1; Simil., 8:6, 5, 9:22, 1).
But the second opinion also has strong objections. First of all, it is difficult for his defenders to explain the mention of Clement. It is impossible to prove that Hermas means some other Clement, and not the famous Bishop of Rome - in this case, it is necessary to admit that the mention of Clement is a fiction, calculated to give the book greater authority.
But such an assumption is decisively eliminated by the nature of this mention: it is too cursory to discern hidden goals behind it. Moreover, it is difficult to explain how the book could have achieved such respect in the Church as it enjoyed if it had appeared only around the middle of the 2nd century: it had long been revered as an integral part of the Holy Scriptures.
It is clear that in this state of affairs, the view that the book did not happen at once, but gradually, over many years, is gaining more and more adherents; but in this regard there is no agreement between researchers.
Some attributed different parts of the book to different authors living at different times (for example, de Champagny, Hilgenfeld and, above all, Adolf Harnack); others consider the author of the work to be a single person who wrote and revised it over several decades (for example, most recently Adolf Harnack). But the hypothesis of dividing the book between different authors, on the basis of solid research (Th. Zahn, Link, Baumgärtner), is rejected: the unity of style, vocabulary, the connection of individual parts of the work with each other, one goal running through the entire work, an indication in the “Shepherd” itself regarding the plan - all this clearly speaks of origin from one author. Therefore, instead of disputes about the unity of the author, debates opened on the issue of the unity of the work and the method of origin.
Assumptions about its different editions, preliminary stages of its development, successive revisions before final publication have no basis, since there is absolutely no external evidence of such a gradual formation of the work: since ancient times, the book has been known only in volume and form, as at the present time. That such a vast book could not have been written at one time by such a poorly educated author as Hermas was, this can be accepted without any hesitation; This is clearly indicated by certain expressions of the author when presenting individual visions, which speak of more or less long intervals between them (especially see: Vis., 2:1, 1: “when I went to Cumae, about the same time as last year...”).
If we keep in mind, on the one hand, such chronological indications scattered throughout the book, on the other hand, the state of church life suggested by the contents of the book, which does not allow the book to be placed either too early or too late in the 2nd century, and, finally, the need to reconcile two chronological evidence, neither of which can be rejected without obvious stretches and arbitrariness, then the hypothesis according to which the oldest part of “The Shepherd” was written during the lifetime of Clement, and the whole the book in its current form is only around the 130s–140s.
The author of “The Shepherd” calls himself Hermas several times (Vis., 1:1, 4; 2, 2; 4, 3; 2:2, 2, etc.), and from the indications scattered in the book about the circumstances of his personal life, one can conclude that he was a slave (maybe from Arcadia (Simil., 9:1; cf.: G. Krüger. Gesch. Der altchristl. Litter. Freiburgim Br., 1895. S. 27), while still in his youth, was sold to Rome by his master, who released him (Vis., 1:1, 1); he married and successfully engaged in trade (Vis., 1:31; 2:3, 1; 3:6, 7). harmful influence on him and his family.
His wife was not without vice - she sinned with her tongue; children during the persecution even renounced the faith and became accusers of their own parents (Vis., 2:2, 2).
For all this, Hermas suffered God's punishment: he soon lost all his acquired property and then lived quite modestly in Rome, where he worked a field near the city (Vis., 3:1, 2; 4:1, 2); on this field, which lay along the road from Rome to Cumae, he received revelations. He himself and his children repented of their previous sins and received hope of salvation.
Here are the few data about the author of the work that can be extracted from the book itself; but this information cannot be considered completely reliable due to the special nature of the book.
Although without solid grounds, a different interpretation of the given biographical data is put forward, which sees in them a simple fiction: the imaginary layman, merchant and farmer was in fact an outstanding member of the Roman Church, and the author’s expressions about himself scattered in the book can hardly be reconciled with the idea of his personality that is obtained about it on the basis of the entire work.
They were apparently invented by the author in accordance with the tendency of the book: Hermas and his house are types of shortcomings of modern Christianity, which is why the call to repentance is addressed primarily to Hermas and his house (O. Bardenhewer. Geschd. altkirchl. Litterat. Bd. I. S. 572).
Since the tradition does not report anything about Hermas that could solve the mystery of his personality, it is impossible to establish his relationship to the Apostles. Based on the Muratorian canon, one can only say that he was the brother of the Roman Bishop Pius.
The whole character of the work says that its author did not have brilliant talent and did not receive sufficient education: he writes in a drawn-out, monotonous and artless manner and only some places are distinguished by bright colors, and in his instructions and exhortations he reveals an exciting power.
Latin terms and Latinisms in general indicate that “The Shepherd” was written in a country where, along with Greek, the Latin language was used in conversation. But at the same time, the language of the work bears an undeniable Hebraistic flavor, which indicates the author’s Jewish origin or Jewish upbringing.
VII. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis
Ancient news about the personality of Papias. From the Asia Minor school of the direct disciples of the Apostle John, in addition to Polycarp of Smyrna, another writer of the period we are studying came out - Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, whose name is well known to anyone who is familiar with the latest literature on the issue of the New Testament canon: there is a lot of heated debate about his personal relationships and the meaning of the evidence preserved from him; but the fog enveloping this writer and his work, of which only a few fragments have survived, does not dissipate, and unless, by a happy accident, it is preserved somewhere, or unless some other ancient monument is discovered that illuminates its content and character, then there is no reason to hope for permission to contact the name of Papias with questions: one will have to be content with endless repetitions of long-known motives.
We have very little information about the external circumstances of Papias’s life. Eusebius, who paid considerable attention to the work of Papias, calls him the bishop of Hierapolis (Hist. eccl., 2:5:2; 3:36:2; Chron. adan. Abrah. 2122 = 98 A.D.).
In view of the fact that his name is often associated with the name of the Smyrna bishop Polycarp, that Irenaeus mentions him as a witness to the tradition coming from the Apostle John, along with “presbyters in Asia, and that he himself confirms his close relationship with Philip, who died in Hierapolis, and his daughters, it is absolutely indisputable that he was the bishop of Phrygian Hierapolis, neighboring Laodicea and located in the Lycus Valley, in southeastern corner of the Asia Minor province. Hierapolis was one of the first places where Christianity spread in this area (Col. 4:13). The Phrygian name Papius suggests that he was a local native. While the historical position of Polycarp is determined on the basis of the date of his death and the indication he made during interrogation of the number of years of his service to Christ, there is no news regarding the life of Papias. Reports from later chroniclers that Papias died a martyr’s death around the time of the death of Polycarp (Chron. Pasch, see
PG 92), are based on an incorrect reading of ancient sources (the scribes are supposed to replace the Πάπυλος mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:15:48) with the name Παπίας or Παππίας). Around 165 onwards, Claudius Apollinaris was the bishop of Hieropolis. It is not known at what time he occupied the episcopal see of Hierapolis and who was his predecessor. But in any case, it is clear that Papias died before 165. Among all the presbyters in Asia, including Polycarp himself, Irenaeus calls only one Papias ἀρχαι ος ἀνήρ (Adv. haer. 5:33:4). Therefore, his birth time is rightly attributed to the 60–70 years of the first century (Th. Zahn. Forsch, zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons. VI (1900), S. 112); then the end of his life falls at approximately 135–150.
This dating of the time of Papias’s birth is fully consistent with the testimony of Irenaeus that “Papias was a listener of John and a friend of Polycarp” (Adv. haer. 5:33:4: Ἰ ωάννου μèν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δè ἐται ρος ). By John, Irenaeus undoubtedly means the Apostle John, and with the term ἐται ρος he notes in Palia a fellow student of Polycarp, and therefore their age should be approximately the same. From the position that Papias occupies in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” in comparison with Polycarp (Eusebius speaks of Palia in 3:39, and of Polycarp in 4:14), we can conclude that he was even somewhat older than Polycarp, or at least died before him.
Following Irenaeus and Jerome (De vir. ill., 18), Papias calls Ioannis auditor and auditor evangelistas Ioannis (Ep.75, ad. Theodoram, 3). And Eusebius himself in his chronicle (adan. Abrah. 21:22) calls Papias a listener (ἀκουστής) of the Theologian and Apostle John; but in his “Ecclesiastical History” (3:39) he strongly objects to Irenaeus, arguing that Papias himself, judging by the preface to his books, does not at all show himself to be a listener and witness of the holy Apostles, but reports that he accepted the teaching of the faith “from those who knew him” (παρà τω ν ἐκείνοις γνωρίμων ). To prove this, he cites the following passage from the preface to Papias’s work: “I do not shy away from adding to the interpretation everything that I once learned well from the elders, establishing the truth on this. For I rejoiced not in those who say many things, as many do, but in those who teach the truth, and not in those who remember the commandments of others, but in those who teach the commandments given for faith by the Lord himself and which come from the truth itself.
If someone came who spoke to the elders, I asked about the words of the elders: what Andrew, or what Peter said, or what Thomas, or James, or what John, or Matthew, or whoever else of the disciples of the Lord said, and what Aristion and the elder John said, disciples of the Lord. For I believed that I would benefit not so much from what I borrowed from books as from a living and abiding voice.” Papias Eusebius gives the following commentary on these words: “Here we should pay attention to the fact that he counts the name of John twice; He puts the first of them (John) together with Peter and James and Matthew, clearly pointing to the Evangelist, while the other John, dividing his speech, puts him in a row with others who make up the number of the Apostles, placing Aristion in front of him and directly calls him presbyter. So this also proves the true story about two (men) in Asia, as they say, who bore the same name, and that in Ephesus there were two tombs, each of which is still called John’s.
What it is necessary to pay attention to, for the Apocalypse, which bears the name of John, was seen by the second, unless one wants to attribute it to the first. Thus, Papias, whom we are talking about, declares that he received the teaching of the Apostles from those who accompanied them, but says that he himself was a listener of Aristion and Prester John. Indeed, often mentioning them by name, he includes their legends in his writings.”
The passage preserved by Eusebius from the work of Papias, in connection with Eusebius's interpretation, has given rise to an extensive literature. The obscurity and confusion, which seem to have been a constant defect in the language of Papias, gave wide scope to the most varied and often even completely contrary opinions about the details of its contents, with the most daring conclusions regarding the early history of Christianity. The multiplicity of these opinions and interpretations has managed to obscure what is simple and clear in this passage. The reason for this lies primarily in the prejudice with which most people begin to analyze the Papian passage, since with this testimony of Papius they associate the solution to the question of the origin of an entire section of New Testament writings bearing the name of the Apostle John: in the “presbyter” John discovered by Eusebius in Papias, different from the Apostle John, researchers of the negative direction see the real author of the Johannine writing.
Thus, in the above words, Papias receives the beginning and basis of a highly important Theological question; but we will not go into the presentation and analysis of opinions and interpretations (this relates to the special area of \u200b\u200bNew Testament isagogy) - and we will pay attention to what is closest to our task. So, is Eusebius right in his criticism of Irenaeus’ testimony that Papias was a listener of the Apostle John? In his conclusions, Eusebius undoubtedly based only on the words of Papias cited by him and did not have a single direct proof of the considerations he expressed; otherwise, when introducing such news as the denial of Papias's acquaintance with the Apostle John, he would have cited more decisive passages from the writings of Papias, if any had been found. An analysis of the passage itself from Papias’ work shows that there are quite sufficient grounds to recognize Eusebius’ commentary as incorrect, clearly based on prejudice.
Papias himself speaks quite clearly about the personal communication and instruction of the “presbyters” (ὅ σα ποτè παρà τω ν πρεσβυτέρων καλω ς ἕ μαθον), which he contrasts with the teaching of the presbyters, which came to him through the mediation of disciples of the elders. By “presbyters” Papias means precisely the Apostles; Eusebius himself agrees with this, since in his commentary he uses the name “Apostles” instead of the term “presbyter.” Therefore, in John, named in the first case, Eusebius sees the Apostle John; and if so, then in Papias himself we find a definite indication of his personal relationship with the Apostle John, regardless of whether we agree with Eusebius that in the second case, under the name of “presbyter” John, a disciple of the Lord is hidden, different from the Apostle John, or not. On the other hand, there is no reason to give preference to Eusebius over Irenaeus: the latter also read the work of Papias and had personal memories and news of the circle of presbyters in Asia, to which he includes Papias, and yet he decisively asserts the opposite of Eusebius.
In his refutation of Irenaeus’ testimony about Papias’ attitude towards the Apostle John, Eusebius did not find support among contemporary and subsequent writers. Even many of those authors who, depending on Eusebius, recognized the presbyter John discovered by him as different from the Apostle John, and who were undoubtedly familiar with the work of Papias, firmly stand on the fact that Papias was a disciple of the Apostle John. Thus, the already mentioned Jerome, who accepted with complete confidence the arguments of Eusebius regarding the presbyter John, contrary to him, claims that Papias was a listener of the Apostle John. Apollinaris of Laodicea († c. 390), citing the fourth book of the work of Papias, calls him ὁἸ ωάννου μαθητής, undoubtedly meaning the Apostle John.
In the history of Philip of Side (5th century), Papias is called a listener of John the Theologian and a friend of Polycarp, although further, in agreement with Eusebius, the independent existence of a separate personality of the “presbyter” John is recognized. Andrew of Caesarea (c. 500) calls Papias διαδόχος του εὐαγγελιςτου Ἰ ωάννου. In this regard, it is necessary to note the news that not only puts Papias in a very close relationship with the Apostle John, but even attributes to him the writing of the fourth Gospel under the dictation of the Apostle John.
But Eusebius’s considerations regarding the existence of the “presbyter” John, different from the Apostle John, whose listener, in his opinion, was Papias, are also unfounded. True, the name of John is mentioned twice in the passage; but both the first and the second time he is equally called “Presbyter John,” and if in the first case the term “presbyter” indicates the Apostle, then in the second case it is also the Apostle John: it would be strange if Papias, wanting to distinguish the second John from the one named before, gave him the same title that he had previously attributed to the first. Therefore, we only need to find an explanation for why Papias named the Apostle John twice.
The starting point in solving this issue is the difference between the temporary forms εἰπεν in the first case and λέγουσι in the second. In the surviving passage, Papias indicates that in his search for the truth, he did not stop at personal teaching from the presbyters, which refers to the past, impossible in the present, but asked about the words of the presbyters from those who followed them even at a time when Papias’s personal relations with them ceased: in later times, the presbyters, perhaps, told the disciples around them something new, unknown to Palius.
Thus, Papias's research covered a rather long period, the beginning of which dates back to a long time ago; their source was a number of people. In his youth, Papias studied with the Apostles themselves, and then with those who followed the Apostles, who, having been in close relations with the Apostles either while still in Jerusalem, or during their evangelistic travels, could provide him with information that he could no longer receive directly from the Apostles themselves, since most of them had already died by that time.
It is necessary, however, to note that the form ει πεν does not indicate that those persons to whom the verb refers are no longer alive: even if all the Apostles named in the passage were alive by the time Papias speaks of, then even then he could have used this form, referring to their expressions coming from the past; therefore, about the Apostle John he could ask: τί ε ἶ πεν about Ἰ ωάννης? But at the time when Papias collected material for his work, his teacher the Apostle John and Aristion, with whom Papias probably had personal communication, were still alive.
Having become the Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias continued to be in living communication with them through their disciples, and if any of them came from Ephesus to Hierapolis, he carefully questioned them about the conversations of the Apostle John and Aristion; then his questions took the form: τίλεγουσι. Thus, there are sufficient grounds for mentioning the name of the Apostle John twice: “those who followed the Apostles” belonged to different times; some of them the oldest, reported to Papius the expressions of the Apostles, including the Apostle John, in the past; therefore, the Apostle John is named among those about whom they spoke: ει πεν. Later, when Papias was in Hierapolis and, bound by his official position, could not personally see and speak with John and Aristion, he received messages from people close to them about what they were still saying at that time; hence the mention of the name John for the second time with the predicate λέγονσι.
Having no basis in the text of the Papiian passage, Eusebius’ theory about the “presbyter” John has no historical basis: not a single writer of the first three centuries speaks of the existence of a “presbyter” John, different from the Apostle John. There is no doubt that Eusebius had a subjective reason for “doubling” the Apostle John. Eusebius himself points it out when he says here: “it is necessary to pay attention to this, because the Apocalypse, known with the name of John, was probably seen by the second, if anyone does not want to attribute it to the first.” Eusebius did not want to recognize the Apocalypse, on which the chiliasts relied, as the writing of the Apostle John, and therefore was glad to have the opportunity to attribute this book to the “presbyter” John. Thus, it is completely fair to note that the biblical critic in this case darkened the eyes of the historian.
For us, it turns out to be completely undoubted that the “presbyter” John is identical with the Apostle John, and that Papias, according to the testimony of Irenaeus, was a “listener” of the Apostle John and remained in living communication with him even when he became the bishop of Hierapolis.
We do not have any other information about the life and activities of Papias. His appointment as Bishop of Hierapolis may at least indicate his firmness in the faith. Judgments about his abilities vary. Eusebius calls him a man of very limited intelligence (σφόδρα γàρ τοι σμικρòς ὢ ν τòν νου ν φαίνεται), basing his judgment on the qualities of his work. But here he himself notes that he had such an influence on many church writers that they adopted some of his incorrect views (for example, chiliasm) and at the same time points to Irenaeus (Eus. Hist. eccl. 3:39:11–13). The opposite judgment, allegedly expressed by Eusebius elsewhere (ibid., 3:36:2), that Papias had comprehensive learning and knowledge of Scripture (ἀνήρ τà πάντα ὅ τι μάλιδτα λογιώτατος καì τη ς γραφη ς εἰδήμων), has long been recognized as a later insertion. But Irenaeus does quote Papias with great respect, as an Orthodox writer and a true custodian of the Apostolic tradition.
This favorable assessment for Papias was also adopted by later church writers: the name Papias has always enjoyed high respect, despite the peculiarities of some of his views.
VII. 1. Literary activity of Papias
The excerpt cited by Eusebius from the preface to the work of Papias shows in the Bishop of Hierapolis an extremely persistent person, capable of being completely imbued with the task set before him; he is zealously devoted to the fulfillment of his plan and zealously, throughout almost his entire life, explores the tradition coming from the “living and abiding voice” in order to reach the truth in this way.
The result of these lengthy research was the extensive (in five books) work of Papias λογίων κυριακω ν ἐξήγησεις, on which the special church-historical significance of the personality of Papias is based. It was written by him, probably, in the last years of his life, when the necessary material was sufficiently collected and when his strength weakened every year, and with them the hope of increasing the precious treasures of tradition. The work of Papias was used by Irenaeus (Adv. hair. 5:33:4) and, perhaps, Hippolytus; it was known to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3:39:1), and also existed in the days of Jerome, who translates its title: explanatio sermonum Domini (De vir. ill., 18).
As synonymous with ἐξήγησεις, Papias himself in the preface to his work uses the term ἐρμηνει αι (Eus. Hist. eccl. 3:39:2). According to Gallandi, the work of Papias existed at the beginning of the 13th century, but then disappeared without a trace; At present, only a few excerpts from it are known in the form of quotations from subsequent writers. Irenaeus quotes from it expressions regarding the thousand-year Kingdom of Christ on Earth (Adv. haer. 5:33:3–4), but, in all likelihood, he uses it in other places of his work. Eusebius devotes the 39th chapter of the third book of his Ecclesiastical History to Papias and his work and gives interesting details about the contents of his books. Jerome makes a selection from Eusebius and makes it clear that he has not read the work of Papias itself. Several small quotations were found in the church history of Philip of Side (5th century), which has survived only in fragments.
These meager remnants of what is probably an extensive work are too insufficient to allow one to speak with confidence about the tasks and nature of Papias’s work—which is why the question of this, despite a very significant number of studies devoted to it, has not yet been finally resolved.
For what motives Papias set about collecting materials for his work and what means he used for this, we know from the excerpt from the preface to Papias’s work cited by Eusebius. He shows that, standing at the turn of the first century, Papias was clearly aware of the significance of the Gospel tradition still alive in the Church. He collected and preserved it with amazing zeal and care. But what was Papias’s work? What use did he make of the collected material? In order to have the basis for a more or less definite judgment about the work of Papias, it is necessary to first become familiar with the content of its fragments preserved by Irenaeus, Eusebius and other writers.
a) Having explained the blessing of Isaac to Jacob, Irenaeus writes: “the above blessing undoubtedly refers to the times of the Kingdom, when the righteous will reign, having risen from the dead, when the renewed and liberated creation will bear fruit in abundance of all kinds of food from the dew of heaven and from the fatness of the earth. Likewise, the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, said that they heard from him how the Lord taught about those times and said: “The days will come when grape trees will grow, and on each there will be ten thousand vines, on each vine ten thousand branches, on each branch ten thousand twigs, on each twig ten thousand berries, and every squeezed berry will yield twenty-five measures of wine. And when one of the saints takes up a brush, another brush will cry out: I am the best brush, take me; bless the Lord through me.
In the same way the grain of wheat will bear ten thousand ears, and each ear will have ten thousand grains, and each grain will yield ten pounds of pure flour; and other fruit trees, seeds and grass will produce in accordance with this measure, and all animals, using the food received from the earth, will be peaceful and in harmony with each other and in perfect submission to people.” Papias, the disciple of John and the companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, testifies in writing to this in his fourth book, for he compiled five books. He added the following: “This is worthy of faith for believers. When Judas the traitor did not believe this and asked: how would the Lord create such an abundance of growth, the Lord said: those who reach those times will see this” (Adv. haer. 5:33:3–4).
b) Eusebius preserved a very important passage from Papias's preface to his work, quoted above. After his commentary on it, he continues: “To the above words of Papias one can add other passages from his writings, in which he tells something wonderful that supposedly came to him by tradition. It was previously said that the Apostle Philip and his daughters lived in Hierapolis; and now let us note that Papias, who lived at the same time, mentions a miraculous event that he heard about from the daughters of Philip. Namely, he narrates that in his time the dead were resurrected; He also tells about another miracle that happened to Justus, nicknamed Barsaba, that he drank a deadly drink and, by the grace of the Lord, did not experience anything bad. After the Ascension of the Savior, the holy Apostles placed this Justus together with Matthias and prayed that one of them would be chosen by lot instead of Judas the traitor, to complete the number of twelve...
The same writer tells a lot of other things that supposedly came to him according to unwritten tradition - namely, he conveys some unknown parables and instructions of the Savior and something close to fabulousness; for example, he says that after the resurrection of the dead, the Kingdom of Christ will come bodily on this very earth and will last a thousand years. He derived this idea, I think, from the Apostolic legends, without understanding anything said by the Apostles mysteriously, in images; because he was a man of intelligence, it seems, very limited, as can be concluded from his writings...
Papias cites in his work some of the tales of the aforementioned Aristion about the Lord's conversations and the traditions of Prester John. Referring the curious to them, we consider it necessary to add to the written words of Papias his tradition about Mark, who wrote the Gospel. It is stated as follows: “The presbyter also says that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, accurately wrote down everything that he remembered, although he did not adhere to the order of the words and deeds of Christ, because he himself did not listen to the Lord and did not accompany Him. Subsequently, however, he was, as said, with Peter; but Peter presented the teaching in order to satisfy the needs of the listeners, and not in order to convey the Lord's conversations in order. Therefore, Mark did not sin at all in describing some events as he remembered them: he only cared about not missing something he heard or changing things up.” This is how Papias tells the story of Mark; and about Matthew he says the following: “Matthew wrote down the Lord’s conversations in Hebrew, and translated them as best he could.”
The above-mentioned writer uses evidence from the first epistle of John and from the first Epistle of Peter; he also tells the story of a wife who was accused of many crimes before the Lord, which is also written about in the Gospel of the Jews. We considered it necessary to add all this to what was said above” (Hist. eccl. 3:39:18–17).
c) There are also several minor passages in other sources. Thus, there are several references to the testimony of Papias about the death of Judas the traitor: “As a great example of wickedness, Judas walked in this world, with a swollen body, eyelids, etc. His own piece of land, on which he died after much suffering, remains uninhabited due to the stench, and to this day no one can pass by without holding their nose.”
In the extracts of their Church history of Philip of Sides there is an indication that in the second book of Papias there was a mysterious message that John the Theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews. There we also find an indication that, according to the testimony of Papias, based on the reports of the daughters of Philip, Barsabas Justus, after drinking poison, remained unharmed, that the mother of Manaima was raised from the dead, that those resurrected by Christ lived until the time of Hadrian.
These are the data on the basis of which one has to judge the work of Papias. As can be seen, they are extremely insufficient and it remains to be regretted that Eusebius looked at Papias’s work with undisguised prejudice and disdain and made reports about its contents in such terms and in such a tone that he significantly complicated the solution of the question of the task that Papias had set himself.
Due to the insufficiency of data and their ambiguity, a whole literature has been created regarding the content and nature of Papias’ work. We will not present different views here either and will limit ourselves to a positive solution to the problem. As the title of Papias's work shows, its purpose was to explain, and not to collect, the sayings of the Lord. Also in the passage cited by Eusebius, as the main content of the work, which does not need any justification, because it corresponds to the title itself and was undoubtedly revealed in the previous words of the preface, which have not survived to us, explanations are indicated (ἐρμηνει αι). With this main subject of work, Papias wants to connect everything that he received partly directly from the lips of the “presbyters,” that is, the disciples of the Lord, partly through others who, like himself, had the opportunity to hear teachings and stories from the Apostles and other members of the first Christian generation. From this it is clear that the messages from the Apostolic sources constituted a secondary element of Papi's work.
Consequently, this work, in its essential content and the definitely expressed intention of its author, was just as little a collection of orally still circulating Apostolic tradition and narratives as it was a collection of sayings of the Lord himself - it was not a new Gospel compiled from all kinds of oral and written sources. That the book in places had similarities with works of the first and second kind is quite likely: ancient church interpreters used to include in their commentaries the text being explained either in full or not in significant extracts (Clement of Alexandria, Theodore, Theodoret). Papias therefore offered his readers the sayings of Jesus as they were read in the Gospels, along with his exegetical notes. In these notes he included, as an illustration of his explanations, everything that he was able to obtain, partly first-hand, partly second-hand, from members of the first generation of Christians; here were both the words of the Lord and facts from the time of Christ and the Apostles.
Judging by the fact that Papias took advantage of all the opportunities presented to study tradition and narrative and did this diligently and over a long period of time, the material he collected must be very rich and varied; but it was all connected with the main subject of the work and served its essential purpose - the explanation of the sayings of the Lord, which formed the basis of his work, and were not introduced into it for the first time. By the name of the Lord's words, according to the usage of Papias, one should understand not only sayings: Papias designates the Gospels of Matthew and Mark as λόγια κυριακά - from this it is clear that for him λόγια also includes the works of the Lord, which is why in his work it was about both the conversations of the Savior and His deeds. Papias drew the bulk of these λόγια from those Gospels, which at the time of their composition or production in the Churches of Asia Minor were recognized as the main sources and reliable witnesses of the teachings and history of the earthly life of the Lord.
Papias' goal would have been completely incomprehensible if we had not assumed certain and well-known Gospel narratives, to which it was only necessary to add possible interpretations and illustrations. It is safe to assume that before Eusebius preserved the words from the preface of Papias’s work, he spoke specifically about the Gospels as the location of the sayings of the Lord, and from this connection Eusebius could have taken information about the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
The very mode of interpretation of Papias, on the basis of the surviving passages, can presumably be presented in this form. To confirm and explain such expressions as Matt. 11:5 ~(the blind receive their sight... the dead are raised) or John. 11:25–26 (as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whomever he will) could be served by what Papias reports about those raised by the Lord who lived before the time of Hadrian, as well as the story of the resurrection of the dead in later Apostolic times. For Mk. 16:18 ~ (“they will take up snakes, and if they drink anything mortal, it will not harm them”) could not be found better confirmed than the story of Justus Barsab.
Papias's information about the first two Gospels receives great attention from biblical critics: this is the oldest and most important information that we have regarding these Gospels. But, as New Testament isagogy shows, they are also subject to the most varied assessments, serving as the basis for opposite conclusions.
It is not our task to analyze the content of passages from the work of Papias and those opinions that arose as a result of the desires of scientists of various directions to extract from them as much data as possible to judge the origin of the canonical Gospels. It is enough to point out that the name Papias occupies a very prominent place in New Testament isagogy; and in studies related to this area, complaints about the loss of the work of Papias will not cease, whatever the historical value of the information he collected. Even if we accept the correct view of Eusebius, that Papias was a man of a very limited mind and did not have critical talent, which is why he accepted some strange traditions on faith, then even in this case his narratives, based on a living voice, would be of invaluable importance for us.
Several insignificant excerpts from the work raise many interesting questions about the original history of Christianity - how many facts, biographical and literary, would the whole work of Papias have given us, who undoubtedly understood the all-important significance of the original tradition, even if he was unable to critically understand the mass of interesting information that he had.
The modern canon of the Old Testament includes 39 books, artificially divided into 22 books according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet, or 24 according to the number of letters of the Greek alphabet. To this number, the Orthodox Church adds 11 more so-called teaching ones (not included in the Jewish canon, but included in the translation of 72 interpreters - the Septuagint). The New Testament consists of 27 books - this number was finally adopted in the 4th-5th centuries. Ed.
For an analysis of Adolf Harnack's opinion, see Fr. X. Funk in Art. Der sogen, zweit Klemensbrief – Theol. Quarterlyschrift 1902, pp. 349–362.
Recently Vernon Bartlet has strongly argued for the origin of the monument in Alexandria in the year 130 (Zeitschr. Für die neutest. Wissensch., 1906, Heft 2., S. 123–135: The origin and date of the 2 Clement).
Purim (from ancient Hebrew “pur”, lot) is a Jewish holiday celebrated on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar in memory of the merciless extermination of the Ners. The history of the event is described in the book “Esther”: King Artaxerxes ordered the extermination of all the Jews, since in his Kingdom “one hostile people was mixed up in all the tribes of the universe, according to its laws it is contrary to every nation, constantly neglecting the royal commands, so that the co-government we carry out impeccably would not be prosperous.
So, having learned that only this people always opposes every person, commands a way of life that is alien to the laws, and, opposing our actions, commits the greatest atrocities so that our Kingdom does not achieve prosperity, we commanded those indicated in the letters of Haman, who was placed in charge of affairs, and our second father, to completely destroy everyone with their wives and children with enemy swords, without any regret or mercy, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month of Adar this year, so that these previously and now hostile people, having been forcibly cast into hell one day, do not prevent us from leading our lives peacefully and serenely to the end in the future” (3:13). However, his wife, Esther, a Jew, who hid her origin from the King (betrothed by Mordokhsem, who was close to the King in order for him to reveal the conspiracy of two eunuchs against Artaxerxes), persuaded him to make the exact opposite decision. The second person after the King in the state of Haman was executed, and in all the cities of the Persian Empire the enemies of the Jews were exterminated. Mordecai took Haman's place.
Letters were sent to all Jews to celebrate these two days of this month every year. “And Mordecai the Jew was second after King Artaxerxes, and great among the Jews and beloved among many of his brothers, for he sought the good of his people and spoke for the good of all his tribe” (10:3) - Ed.
Genius is spirit. protecting and protecting the person entrusted to him by God from birth (Matthew 18:10). Here: the spirit of the Ruler (Emperor), who was given religious veneration, according to the ancient tradition of the Romans. – Ed.