Период второй

Introduction. The emergence of scientific Christian writing. General remarks about the conditions of origin of literature of this period and its types. Ancient Church writing of the first period - the time of the Apostolic Men - was caused by the internal needs of the young Christian Churches in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor and Rome and, distinguished by its literary simplicity to the highest degree, focused on the interests of exclusively internal Christian life; its characteristic feature is the complete absence of any contact with the influence of Hellenic and Greco-Roman culture - only in the Epistle of Clement of Rome does it find some subtle echoes. But just as the Church could not remain for long in a state of initial immediate simplicity and almost complete isolation from the surrounding cultural world, so Ancient Church literature, reflecting the life of the Church, could not limit itself to those questions and those forms of presentation that could be content with at the end of the 1st and at the very beginning of the 2nd century. The most important factor in changing the nature of Church life and Church writing was the gradual acquaintance of cultural circles with Christianity and the mutual influence resulting from this contact. This was the result of intensive missionary activity, which was almost exclusively carried out on pagan soil. Living contact with the pagan world had three important consequences for Christianity: a) The hostile position taken by the Roman state power, educated society and the masses towards Christianity forced the adherents of Christianity to self-affirmation and self-defense; b) This first opponent was soon joined by a second, more powerful one - from those circles that were attracted by the content of Christian teaching and who sought to use it in the interests of the dominant religious philosophy - thus Gnosticism appeared and with it the first great oppositions appeared in the revelation of Christianity; c) The third enemy was Montanism (in the first half of the 2nd century) - an internal reaction against the communication of Christianity with the world and an attempt to preserve the religious mood (enthusiasm) and eschatological aspirations of the Apostolic Age. Various contacts with the world and the need to determine the position of Christianity in the Greco-Roman Empire gave rise to Church literature, which not only served the purpose of edification, but also had a scientific character. This literature arose not from the internal necessity of the historical situation, but from purely literary motives and responded to the urgent needs of Church life in different directions. The self-defense of Christianity against the Roman state and pagan society found its earliest literary expression in the apologetic writing of the 2nd century. Here it was necessary to explain to pagan society the essence and truth of Christianity, not to convert it to Christianity, but to ensure fair treatment of Christians. For the internal development of Christianity, the second enemy was much more dangerous - Gnosticism. This danger, like the first, was essentially undefeated by the living opposition of Christianity through the historical implementation of Catholic thought, which in idea from the very beginning was inherent in the Christian Church, as the bearer of the Christian world religion, and was only especially clearly carried out in the fight against Gnosticism; In parallel with this church struggle, a literary struggle also developed, which in this regard was all the more appropriate since it was about ideas and the spiritual understanding of Christianity. Anti-Gnostic literature aimed to establish the correctness of Church teaching against the reformist tendencies of the Gnostics. Finally, Montanism gave rise to a similar literary opposition in Montanist and anti-Montanist literature. The three noted literary areas characterize the Second Period of Ancient Church writing, in which the outstanding moment is the formation of Church and anti-Church literature. The variety of trends in this literature makes it possible to reveal various currents in the internal life of the Church. Christianity opposes itself to the pagan state and society as a reasonable religion and morality; philosophy and culture of that time - as wisdom that is above all wisdom; Gnosticism and Montanism - as church traditionalism. Unfortunately, most of the monuments of this period, which extends from approximately 120 to 200, have been lost, so it is impossible to give an exhaustive description of the works of this time. In the usual view, the apologetic and anti-heretical (anti-Gnostic and anti-Monanistic) groups of Church literature are considered as successive stages in the development of Church Theology, with the Second Century being defined as a period of exclusively apologetic literature. But at the same time they forget the fact that the majority of Greek apologists, along with their apologies, wrote a whole series of works of an anti-heretical nature, and even if almost all of them are lost, they still cannot be ignored when characterizing the apologists. In addition, Eusebius knew that the apologists Justin, Apollinaris, Theophilus and especially Melito of Sardis wrote works that, with the few remains that have come down to us, form a special group of literary monuments of this period - internal church literature, which has as its subject internal church and theological issues. In these works we must see the beginning of a whole series of ramifications of Theological literature, which in the later stages of development formed the formal disciplines of Theology in the broad sense of the word. All literature of this kind is either completely lost, or has reached us only in fragments - but it is enough to pay attention to the titles of these works to see in them a vast area of ​​Theological writing, which touched on many important problems of intra-theological and intra-church life. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize that Church literature of the 2nd century was not only extensive, but also multifaceted: it simultaneously satisfied the various needs of the time - the defense of Christianity against the pagan state and society, and the fight against Gnosticism and Montanism, and the emerging issues of intra-theological and intra-church life. On the other hand, it is certain that despite this diversity in the character and themes of the 2nd century, the literature of this time is still more outlined from its apologetic side, because the very position of the Church was such that it called upon Her to energetic self-defense: She was subjected to fierce attacks from different sides - from the population of the Roman Empire, imbued with false views of Christianity and hatred of it, from the Government, from Greek philosophy and from the Jews - and on the side the attackers had a visible superiority, while the representatives of the Christian idea outwardly seemed weaker and, of necessity, had to concentrate all their strength on defense; being the fruit and means of repelling repeated hostile attacks, literature itself takes on a predominantly apologetic character. In addition, monuments of apologetic literature begin to appear earlier than the works of other literary groups, although they subsequently develop in parallel with them, and have survived to this day in incomparably greater numbers. Therefore, apologetic literature is considered as the first branch, characterizing the second period of ancient Church writing. Part I. Works of 2nd century apologists In its final foundation, apologetic literature arose from the internal opposition in which Christianity from the very beginning stood in relation to paganism in all directions - in teaching, cult, private and public life; this opposition appeared more and more sharply and externally in the 2nd century. But specifically and historically, the reason for the development of apologetic literature was not this general abstract opposition between Christianity and paganism, but the opposition that gradually developed between the Roman state (and Judaism) and the ancient Christian Church. From this follows the absolute necessity, when studying apologetic literature, to always keep in mind the relationships that have been established between Christianity, on the one hand, and paganism and Judaism, on the other, in order to know the soil on which this literature arose and developed. The circumstances in which the Christian Church had to fulfill its purpose were extremely difficult. This depended entirely on the diversity and complexity of relations in the Greco-Roman Empire, within the vast boundaries of which it first had to gain position and the right to spread freely. Under the external monotony, due to the strong power of Rome, the Empire represented a very motley combination of various nationalities that once had a more or less developed statehood, their own special system of moral and religious life, their own beliefs, prejudices and attitudes towards other beliefs. But separated by deep mutual antipathy, all these forces united when circumstances required entering into a struggle, which, by the very nature of the enemy and his aspirations, excluded the possibility of any compromise. Never in the entire course of world history have sharper contrasts collided than those of Christianity and ancient culture, the Christian Church and the Roman state. There was supposed to be a struggle between them for dominance over the world - such a struggle was supposed to end only with the complete victory of one of the opponents. Our task does not include a detailed presentation of this struggle and an investigation of the reasons for this or that direction, means, results, and so on. It is important for us to note only those essential features of it that are reflected in the works of apologists; Therefore, in the following presentation, we everywhere assume additional information from general Church history, limiting ourselves to stating conditions negative for the interests of the Church and intending to establish what real problems presented themselves to the apologists - these pioneers of Christian civilization. Judaism's attitude towards Christians “The Jews are at enmity against Christians and the Greeks, incited by the Jews, persecute Christians” - with these words the author of the “Epistle to Diognetus” (5:17) characterizes the position of Christians in a world hostile to them. Judaism was an old and well-known enemy of Christianity. There were too many points of contact between Christianity and Judaism not to notice at the very first the deep gulf that separated them on the most fundamental issues; In this same connection, there is an explanation for the stubborn hatred with which Judaism treated the new “renegades” and precisely at a time when many different movements emerged on Jewish soil, which were decisively rejected by the rabbis who led the people. The question of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism did not lose its urgency in the 2nd century. Did the Jews really make a fatal mistake by not recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the true Messiah? Doesn’t the Law of Moses have an eternal and binding meaning for everyone? By what right do Christians call themselves the true Israel, while denying this to the children of Abraham? By what right do they consider their sacred books - the dear heritage and property of their history - their property and on the basis of them they prove the foolishness and condemnation of the “chosen people”? But disagreements on theological issues were closely intertwined with issues of a national character, since the messianic aspirations of the Jews were thoroughly imbued with national aspirations. If Christians recognized in Jesus of Nazareth, shamefully executed, the Messiah who was foretold by the prophets and who gave meaning to their entire previous history, and His Messianic dignity was considered a necessary condition for salvation at the coming Judgment, if they rejected the eternal and absolute meaning of the Jewish law, in understanding it they stood on the basis of allegorical interpretation not according to the instructions of the rabbis and did not consider it necessary to restore Jewish cult in the church of Heavenly Jerusalem, then they deviate from the traditions of their fathers and are traitors to the people's cause. Jews and Christians were separated by more than theological differences: a chasm of feelings formed that excluded the possibility of mutual understanding. One only has to imagine the extremely heightened national excitement of the Jewish people, which after the terrible catastrophe of the year 70 was strong enough to cause a new uprising of Bar Kochba, and the depth of embitterment that was a natural consequence of the failure and national humiliation and defeat - and then the cruel hatred of Christians will be understandable - these “traitors”, who in the disasters of the Jewish people saw the punishing hand of God, a terrible judgment on a people who rejected their Messiah: what brought horror and despair to the Jews caused joy and satisfaction in Christians. The hatred rooted in such deep soil was aggravated by constant hostile clashes between Christians and Jews, which were a consequence of their neighborhood in their place of residence. In most cities where Christian communities arose, there have long been Jews - and it was the most important strongholds of the Christian mission, large harbors and ports in the East, Rome in the West, that were also the centers of life for Jews in the diaspora. This cohabitation gave constant reasons for displeasure. The hostility of the Jews towards Christians became extremely passionate due to the jealousy that the spread of Christianity aroused among the Jews. The mission of the Christians addressed the same circles that Jewish propaganda had hitherto counted on, that is, the souls of those who were looking for monotheism, confidence in eternal life, sinlessness and moral purity, and who in this desire did not find satisfaction in philosophy. In these circles, Christian propaganda attacked Judaism. The attractive power of Judaism after the year 70, and especially after the uprisings under Trajan and Hadrian, should have decreased significantly; Moreover, Christianity offered the same benefits that made Judaism attractive, but in a form much more acceptable to the Greeks, and the communication of which was ensured by the recent Coming from heaven of the Son of God and the celebration of the sacraments. Christianity even transcended national boundaries. Those who adhered to Christianity found that there was no difference between Jew and Greek: “there is no Jew and no Greek. There is no slave, no freedom, no male and no female. “We are all one in nature in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28) – everyone enjoys the same love. Of course, this did not at all mean the abolition of existing national differences, or, even more so, the abolition of male or female gender - it was only about the equality of responsibility of all before Christ. In the churches, for example, natural Greeks were in first place; here there was no difference between full-fledged and proselytes, who in the Jewish communities were considered only as members of the second and third rank. These were the main reasons by which the Christian mission defeated the Jewish one. Christian writers have pointed out this fact triumphantly on occasion. When explaining Isa. 54:1 ~ “She who is abandoned has many more children than she who has a husband,” the author of the second Epistle of Clement says: “Our people seem to have been abandoned by God, but now we who believe are more numerous than those who think that they have God” (2:3). The epistle of Barnabas emphasizes with particular emphasis the prophecy of the two nations in the womb of Rebekah and Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh; in them he sees an indication of the relationship between the newest people of Christians and the oldest - the Jews. Given this state of affairs, it is clear that the Jewish communities fought against Christianity with all the means at their disposal. Around the year 100, the daily synagogue prayer (schvemone - esre) included the following words: “and let there be no hope for heretics, and let all who do evil perish quickly and let all be immediately destroyed; and strike, and crush, and cast down, and humble quickly, immediately, in our days. Blessed are You, O Lord, who destroys enemies and humbles the arrogant” (Schürer. Gesch. d. judisch. Volkes, Bd. II, S. 461). By introducing this formula, the daily damnation of heretics was achieved. This measure was supposed to exclude heretics from communication with faithful Jews in the synagogue, since if a heretic dared to say this prayer, then he cursed himself, and on the other hand, to keep the faithful from deviating into heresy. In addition to the curse of Christians in this general formula of the curse of heretics, deliberate curses were also directed against them. Saint Justin repeatedly reproaches the Jews for cursing in the synagogue those who believe that the one crucified by them is Christ, and trying to prove that He was crucified as the enemy of God and the damned; they curse Him and those who believe in Him (Dial. 16:47, 93, 95, 96, 108, 117, 137). The Jews, of course, were ready to subject Christians to bloody persecution; this is proven by events from the time of the uprising led by Bar Kochba. Saint Justin says: “(The Jews) consider us enemies and adversaries and, like you (the pagans), they kill us and torture us whenever they can; You can verify this for yourself. And in the former last Jewish war, Bar Kochba, the leader of the Jewish indignation, ordered only Christians to be subjected to terrible torment if they did not renounce Jesus Christ and blaspheme Him” (Apol. 1:31, 5). But not having the right and opportunity to subject Christians to direct persecution, the Jews with greater zeal acted as accusers of Christians before the Roman Government, as was the case in the trial of the grandsons of Judas and Simeon, son of Cleopas, or incited the population against them, as evidenced, for example, by Martyrium S. Polycarpi. It contains undoubtedly genuine news of the events it describes. When Polycarp remained firm before the proconsul, and the herald loudly announced this in the midst of the stadium, the pagans and Jews who lived in Smyrna, with indomitable fury and a loud cry, demanded his death (12:1). When Polycarp was condemned to be burned at the stake, the masses began to drag firewood and brushwood, and the Jews turned out to be especially zealous, as was usually the case, according to the author, in other cases. When, finally, Christians sought to obtain the ashes of the martyr, then their main opponents were the Jews (18:1-2). Such a hostile attitude towards Christians on the part of the Jews of Smyrna is also attested in later times: information from the Martyrium of Pionius, who suffered in the persecution of Decius, speaks of the significant participation of Jews in the persecution of Christians (pp. 3, 4, 13, 14). In addition, all kinds of suspicions and slander against Christians, widespread in the pagan world, for the most part had their source in the Jews and were fed by them. Christian writers directly level this particular charge against them. Saint Justin writes: “Other nations are not as much to blame as you for this injustice that occurs in relation to us and to Christ; for you are the author of their prejudice against the Righteous One and against us, His followers. When you crucified Him, one, blameless and... the righteous Man, by whose stripes all who come to the Father through Him are healed, and when you learned that He rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, as was foretold in the prophecies, but you also sent chosen people from Jerusalem to the whole earth to proclaim that the godless Christian heresy has appeared and is spreading slander against us, which all those who do not know us usually repeat. Thus you are the cause of injustice not only for your own, but also for all other people (Dial., 17; cf. 108). This same characteristic accusation of the Jews that they were the perpetrators of bad rumors that were widespread in pagan circles is repeated by later writers: Tertullian calls the Jewish people a breeding ground (seminarium) for slander against Christians (Ad nation. 1:14) and in the Jews he indicates the source of slander against them (Adv. Iudaeos, 13). Origen says that rumors about Oedipal incest and the Thyestan suppers of Christians were started precisely by the Jews (Contra Cels. 6:27) and definitely testifies that Celsus, who he refuted, knew and used the works of the Jews against Christians. Thus, Judaism was everywhere a bitter enemy of Christianity, and whatever the Jews could do to the detriment of Christianity, they did with great zeal. Attitude towards Christians by the pagan population The pagan population en masse greeted the confessors of the new religion with distrust and even hatred. His hostile attitude towards Christians manifested itself in cities and provinces almost every time they learned about the emergence of the Christian community. This is a completely reliable fact, confirmed by both church and pagan sources. Even the Roman Government condemned Christians for the most part on accusations from the people. Often government officials were ready to release Christians, but the mood of the people prompted them to pronounce death sentences against them. What were the motives for this hatred, which amazed Christians? There were a number of reasons which make it clear how public opinion took a hostile direction towards Christians. In the first place it is necessary to put a unique structure of the religious life of pagan society. We are so accustomed to forming our opinion about the religious life of the population of the Greco-Roman Empire on the basis of the great classical writers that we imperceptibly identify their attitude towards popular religion with the attitude of the people themselves towards it; and yet it is difficult to imagine a more erroneous conclusion than this. And if we wish to correctly understand and appreciate the manifestations of religious faith in Greco-Roman history, we must once and for all exclude from consideration the thoughts of the great aristocrats and turn our attention to writers standing on a more authentic popular level. That the people held fast to polytheistic beliefs and, if necessary, were able to defend them with extreme fanaticism, is certainly true. The death of Socrates is sufficient proof of this. True, this happened in the 5th century BC. The subsequent time was marked by continuous intellectual progress with a predominant skeptical trend, as a result of which it is difficult to expect to find the same general dominance of sincere faith after six centuries. During this long period, poets and philosophers continued to destroy and ridicule folk mythology. They addressed an ever-widening circle of listeners; they pointed directly to the fact that few of those in prominent positions professed a religious faith; they proved with amazing effect the powerlessness of the gods - from here it followed with irresistible logic that a religion professing such gods should be recognized as false. However, it is certain that the people did not reach such an apparently natural conclusion. Skeptical philosophy could not satisfy the needs of even the educated classes and, with rare exceptions, never touched the lower classes of society. The mass of people have never been without belief in the supernatural. That a sincere conviction in the truth of the pagan religion continued to dominate among the pagan people until later times is evidenced by, for example, Tertullian and Augustine: otherwise these writers would not have fought so energetically against it. The foundations of this phenomenon lie in the universal attraction of the human spirit to religious faith. With a lack of sound faith, attachment to the often rejected legends of mythology remained, as the only trace left by something standing above the crude reality of the visible world, as the only link that connected the spirit with the sublime and happy past. Peoples like the Gauls, who had no developed mythology, or like the Asian tribes, for whom force serves as a symbol of the Divine, no doubt accepted the apotheosis of Caesar as something more than a device of state policy. If they did not consider the Emperor a real Deity, then in any case they looked at him as a representative of Heaven. And in the general decline of spiritual and moral life, this could seem to be the only barrier against pure materialism and was maintained with unreasonable and desperate efforts. For these and other reasons, towards the end of the first century of the Christian era, clear signs of a religious reaction against the skepticism of the philosophers and intelligent classes appeared. In the second century the reaction intensified and the age of the Antonines was the time of its greatest flowering. The construction of churches, the establishment of new states of priests, the multiplication of religious rites and festivals provide convincing evidence of this fact. For various reasons, the government took the revival of paganism under its protection. As a result, religious feeling among the masses became extremely and even painfully active. The physical explanation of mythology, which satisfied the people of science, did not attract the common people. But other ways of understanding mythology were found for him, namely in reconciling it with religious feeling through the identification of the ancient gods with those intermediary spiritual beings who act as agents of the Supreme God in the material world. These spiritual beings, who were given the name demons (δέμονας), possessed to some extent a corporeal nature and almost all areas of human life were given over to their dominance. They could be worshiped under the ancient, familiar names of the gods, and the human spirit found satisfaction in its desire for unity with the invisible world. This teaching responded so deeply to the needs of the age that it was accepted by a significant part of humanity. And belief in demons, in their omnipresence, in their constant influence on the world, history and man, is one of the characteristic and strikingly peculiar aspects of that Hellenic worldview, among which the original Christianity revolved. Not only pagan idolaters, but also Christian apologists adhered to this view. But while some discovered in this teaching a new source of religious satisfaction, to others it seemed like a terrible blindness, as a result of which the forces of evil were mistaken for the forces of good. Most of the apologists recognize the reality of these mediating beings and do not doubt their influence on the minds of people, and no small part of their argument consists in proving the incontestable, obvious evidence of their evil nature and the intolerable slavery to which they lead the human race. This popular reformation of paganism had a powerful influence on purer and more pious minds. If we pay attention to the double conflict into which the Church entered, on the one hand with crude paganism, on the other hand with its more sublime esoteric forms, then we will notice that in both cases the attitude of Christian apologists was different: in the first case it was decisive hostility without any compromise, in the other - although a more sympathetic attitude, when the goal towards which reformed paganism was aimed, but together with even so, it is negative when the means recommended by him for this are weighed, which seem to be an empty shadow of the real method of salvation. There is no doubt, however, that from both sources of renewed religious vitality there arose a sincere, if perverse, religious enthusiasm. Therefore, it would be unfair to national religions to see in them only a blind, unreasonable hatred of Christianity - this was a real force with which Christianity had to reckon, and the seemingly tedious lengthy discussions of apologists about the recklessness and obscenity of the pagan religion with its mythology met the urgent needs of the time. But if we turn to that usually large middle class, which does not share the religious enthusiasm of the people and is not completely imbued with philosophical skepticism, then here too we will encounter a mood with which Christianity had to take very seriously. Conservative in their mood, such people firmly adhere to the religion in which they were born - not by choice, not by inclination, but out of decency, out of love for tranquility; They are not dreamers, not mystics, on the contrary, they even doubt a little, sometimes they laugh at something, but they are reluctant to allow attempts to shake them in traditional views and are easily inflamed with anger against those who seek to introduce innovations in religious matters. A representative of this class of people is Caecilius in the dialogue called Octavius, which Minucius Felix wrote in defense of Christianity. In Christianity, nothing arouses the wrath of Caecilius more than the fact that it proclaims itself the owner of exact truth. “It is worthy of indignation or condolences that some uneducated people - ignoramuses, alien to the concepts of the simplest arts - dare to talk about the essence of things and the Divine, about which philosophers of various schools have been arguing among themselves for so many centuries.” “The limitations of the human mind are so far from the knowledge of God that it is inaccessible either to what is above us in the sky, or to what is contained in the deep bowels of the earth; it is not given to him to know and comprehend this, and it is even wicked to try to penetrate these secrets.” But despite his skepticism, he strictly adheres to traditional beliefs. “When you encounter everywhere either a decisive event or a mysterious nature, is it not best and most honorable to follow the lessons of our ancestors as guarantees of truth, to adhere to a faithful religion, to honor the gods whom our parents taught us to fear before we knew them better. Although the nature and origin of the gods are unknown to us, all peoples agree and firmly believe in their existence, so I cannot endure such audacity of the wicked recklessness of people who would reject or destroy a religion so ancient, so useful and saving ”(Octav., 5-8). And Caecilius, who did not at all belong to the mob, nevertheless pronounces a merciless verdict on Christianity. “Since wickedness spreads rather through the corruption of morals, which is becoming more and more intense every day, the terrible sanctuaries of this society are multiplied and filled throughout the world. It must be completely eradicated and destroyed” (Octav., 9). These were the religious foundations that determined the attitude of society towards Christianity. Keeping them in mind, we will understand that the pagans could not put up with the negative attitude of Christians towards what in religious and social life constituted the pride and joy of the population: whoever became a Christian no longer revered the domestic gods, did not participate in the festivities, processions and games that were established in honor of them. Christians did not bow before the gods and did not burn incense before them - in general, these were people who broke with everything that the people revered and that they received from their fathers as a dear heritage. For the pagans, the spiritual worship of Christians was completely incomprehensible: without temples and images, without altars and sacrifices, not a single pagan could imagine a religious cult. If Christians did not have all this, then they did not have God. True, they spoke of an invisible, omnipresent God, but for the pagans this was incomprehensible. “What wonders, what strange things Christians invent! - says Caecilius. They say that their God, whom they cannot see or show to others, carefully monitors the morals of all people, the deeds, words and even secret thoughts of every person, penetrates everywhere and is present everywhere; Thus, they imagine Him to be constantly restless, preoccupied and shamelessly curious, for He is present in all things, is in all places and therefore busy with the whole world, cannot embrace its parts or, distracted by the parts, pay attention to the whole” (Octav., 10). The Invisible God was not God to the pagans. Therefore, Christians were atheists for them. “Down with the atheists! - was a common cry of popular fury during persecution. “Godless Christians” were to suffer the wrath of the gods; In relation to these wicked people, the celestial beings are perhaps too merciful and long-suffering, but because of them the innocent crowd of their pious worshipers is punished with severe trials. Further, the pagan could not grasp the very idea of ​​​​the possibility of a new religion. The dignity and truth of any religion is determined by its antiquity: “the sanctity of rites and sacred institutions is all the more exalted the more ancient they are” (Octav., 4). Christianity is a completely new religion, therefore, according to the pagans, false. How persistent this objection to Christianity was and how strong it seemed, is evidenced by the persistence with which apologists prove the antiquity of the Christian religion. The church and social life of Christians aroused even more bewilderment, suspicion and enmity among the pagans. The less they knew Christianity, the more it seemed strange and contrary to existing views, the easier all kinds of rumors arose, and the more contradictory they were, the easier they found access not only among the crowd, which is always gullible, but even in broad and ruling circles. The close connection between Christians, their brotherly love, their unity to death, they thought, can only be explained by the fact that they were bound in a secret criminal society by a terrible oath and terrible rituals. Here arose that spirit of mistrust, which served as good soil for the development of hostile prejudice and rumors, predisposing to believe everything bad and suspicious about hated people. They began to look at Christians as morally corrupt criminals who feared the light. They paid attention to the fact that they stayed away from public life, from celebrations and amusements, where honest citizens who were friendly to each other gathered, that they were silent in public places, but gathered secretly and there they talked a lot with each other. This seemed extremely suspicious - were all sorts of crimes being planned there that were afraid of daylight. Further, Christians display an amazing passion for sinners, and anyone who leads even the most seductive life turns out to be desirable to them if only he joins them. The suppers of love and the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, in a suspiciously disposed imagination, turned into fiesta suppers and Oedipal incest. In what form these accusations and slander were widespread in society, Minucius Felix speaks about this in particular detail, putting them into the mouth of the pagan Caecilius. “Shouldn’t we,” he says, “regret that people of a pitiful, forbidden, despicable sect boldly rebel against the gods, who recruit followers into their wicked society from the very filth of the people, from gullible women, deluded by the frivolity of their sex, people who, in nightly meetings with their solemn fasts and inhumane dishes, come together, not for sacred rites, but for abominations. These are people who hide, who run about in the world, who are mute in society, who are talkative in their assemblies.” “These people recognize each other by special secret signs and have love for each other, without even knowing each other; Everywhere between them some kind of love connection is formed; they call each other indiscriminately brothers and sisters in order to turn ordinary fornication into incest through the sacred name: thus their empty and senseless superstition boasts of their vices. If there were no truth in this, then insightful rumors would not have attributed to them so many disgusting atrocities. It is heard that, out of I don’t know what absurd conviction, they venerate the head of the lowest animal, the head of a donkey: a religion worthy of the morals from which it arose! Others say that they honor the genitalia of their primate and priest and reverence, as it were, their actual parent. I don’t know, maybe all this is false, but the suspicion is very much justified by their nightly religious services. They also say that they venerate a person punished for an atrocity with a terrible atrocity, and the inglorious tree of the cross - this means that they have altars suitable for villains and robbers, and they venerate what they themselves deserve. What they say about the ritual of accepting new members into their society is known to everyone and is no less terrible. They say that the initiate into their society is offered a baby, who, in order to deceive the unwary, is covered with flour, and he, deceived by the sight of flour, is invited to make seemingly innocent blows, inflict deep wounds that kill the baby and then, oh, wickedness, those present greedily drink his blood and share his limbs among themselves. This is the kind of sacrifice that seals their union with each other, and the consciousness of such an atrocity obliges them to mutual silence. Such sacred rites are more terrible than any desecration of a shrine. And their suppers are known - everyone talks about it, the speech of our Cirtinian orator (Cornelius Fronto) testifies to this. On the day of the Sun they gather for a common supper with all children, sisters, mothers - without distinction of gender and age. When, after various dishes, the feast flares up and the wine ignites the heat of lust in them, then a piece of meat is thrown to a dog tied to a candlestick at a distance greater than the length of the rope with which it is tied: the dog, rushing and making a jump, knocks over and extinguishes the lamp: in the darkness that knows no shame, such manifestations of lust begin with whomever it is necessary, which cannot even be discussed. Thus, all of them - if not in deed itself, then in conscience - become incestuous, because they all participate by their desire in what can happen in the action of one or another. I am keeping silent about many things, because what has already been said is enough; and the truth of all, or at least most of it, is demonstrated by the very mystery of this depraved religion. In fact, why do they try in every possible way to hide and make secret for others what they honor, when praiseworthy deeds are usually performed openly and only criminal deeds are hidden? Why do they not have any churches, no altars, or generally accepted images? Why do they not dare to speak openly and hold their meetings freely, if not because what they honor and so carefully conceal is worthy of punishment or shameful” (8-10)? The most dangerous thing for Christians was that these accusations also had a political side or could easily be explained in a political sense. Since public life was entirely permeated with paganism, Christians had to evade it; but from this not very favorable conclusions were drawn for them. It was clear to everyone that the interests of Christians lay, in any case, not in the Roman state, not in its greatness and glory, and that they did not live for the Fatherland and the state - as befits citizens. While pagan religions are national, Christianity is a universal religion, a religion for all peoples; Therefore, Christianity appears to the pagan society as anti-national, and their community, firmly united in faith and closed to other people, is a dangerous faction in the state. Christians gave enough reasons and grounds for such political suspicions. Whether the Emperor's birthday was celebrated - the houses of Christians in the illuminated city remained dark, whether games were held in honor of some victory - not a single Christian was present in the circus or amphitheater. For a Christian to burn incense in honor of the Emperor, to reverently honor his image, to swear by the genius of Caesar was tantamount to falling into idolatry. It was natural to conclude that they were enemies of Caesar and were guilty of lèse-Majesté. From this point of view, in what light should the hopes of Christians regarding the immediate future be presented to the pagans, for whom the lasting existence of Rome - the “eternal city” - was an immutable truth. What feelings must the people have felt towards a secret, suspicious society that passionately longed for the imminent end of the world, prayed for it, wished for the coming of the day when fire from heaven would destroy the Universe, triumphantly depicted how then a huge number of those who did not belong to them would pass into painful, eternal torment? It called the proud building of the Roman kingdom - this majestic Empire, in the cult of which many cities of the East competed - the work of Satan and predicted a terrible end for it. Naturally, some saw in these hopes a manifestation of ignorance and immense superstition, about which prudent people should not worry. But others here saw dangerous signs of a malicious mood, hatred of the human race. Do Christians not possess some secret magical knowledge with which they force hostile superhuman beings to serve them? Could they send dark demons to the world they hate? After all, their writings and speeches so often mention spirits, angels, demons and various superhuman beings! Finally, if this or that misfortune or amazing event is caused by the magic of Christians, then should we not expect even more serious disasters in the future? Of course, the opinion that Christians had regarding the pagans, their lives and aspirations could not remain unknown to the people. If Christians in their circle considered the pagans to be under the power of evil forces, doomed to inevitable destruction, then it is natural that corresponding views and expressions were generated on the other side. Finally, the spread of Christianity affected many personal interests, which is always a source of heightened feelings and intense relationships. Despite all the unfavorable conditions, Christianity attracted many people, Christian communities arose and grew quickly, and the news of their teachings and morals was transmitted from city to city, seeking and finding adherents of the new teaching everywhere. Because of the negative attitude of Christians towards the world and everything connected with it, belonging to a new society necessarily destroyed many old ties. A member of a pagan family, having become a Christian, became alienated from his closest relatives. He drew a sharp line between himself and those around him, so as not to stain himself with the cult of demons, which, according to the teachings of the new brotherhood, permeated all family life, all the customs that surrounded all the sad and joyful days of family life. In many cases the word of the Savior was fulfilled: “Do you remember that peace came to earth? Neither, I tell you, but division. Henceforth five will be divided into one house, three into two, and two into three. Father will be divided against son, and son against father, mother against daughter, and daughter against mother, father-in-law against his bride, and bride against her mother-in-law” (Luke 12:51-53). The spread of Christianity further damaged some branches of crafts. The cult of the gods provided a means of livelihood for many people - from high priests to humble incense merchants, so the propaganda of Christianity reduced the income of all of them. It goes without saying that all such people were filled with rage against the new, godless sect of Christians and tried to arouse this rage in others. The combination of all these views and feelings of the people had the consequence that the population of the Greco-Roman Empire, giving from its midst numerous followers of the new religion, turned out to be the most cruel and stubborn enemy of Christianity. Government attitude towards Christianity The dislike of Christianity on the part of the pagan people, all kinds of slander that aroused public opinion against them, did not remain without influence on the actions of the Government. The mere fact that Christians disgusted and irritated many was enough to prompt the Roman Government to hostile actions against them: order and tranquility had an important public interest, and any innovations that caused concern and bore signs of self-will could never count on a tolerant attitude towards themselves. Therefore, Christianity, revealing a desire to spread its influence in society, sharply contradicting the religious foundations on which the entire system of the Empire rested, demonstrating resistance to all measures of admonition and punishment, was naturally considered by the Government as a phenomenon standing outside the protection and permission of the law. Finally, Christianity succeeded in organizing its followers through a system of established administration; in all places of the Empire it formed societies and united them into one whole. Nothing could be more contrary to the Roman idea of ​​state than such organizations when they were established without the sanction and permission of state power. It is known how the Government was afraid of sodalites - associations or workshops of all kinds, which, in its opinion, could always be used for political purposes. Trajan's correspondence with Pliny shows that the persecution of secret societies was one of the outstanding features of the policy of this Emperor. These reasons are quite sufficient for the Roman Government to see Christianity as a serious threat to the well-being of the Empire and consider itself obliged to take the necessary measures. But the Government also had deeper motives to establish those relations with Christianity that are marked by history. All states of antiquity were in some sense theocratic, Rome was no exception, just as state life was everywhere permeated with religion, so religious life was part of political life. It was considered the duty of a citizen to honor the domestic gods and in religious, as in all other matters, to obey the laws of the state. Human life in all its aspects is part of the state, the state embraces and regulates all areas of it. A pagan could not imagine the existence of such a sphere of human life over which the power of the state would not extend. It was completely incomprehensible to him that a person, citing his conscience, obeying his God, could refuse to obey the law and public order. For him, the state itself is, so to speak, God, and its laws are of a Divine character. In Rome this theocratic trait had its culmination in the cult of the Emperor. What gods a person worships is his private matter - in this regard, the Roman state was tolerant in the current sense of the word: it demanded no more from the adherents of the conquered religions than from the confessors of its own religions; but every subject had to fulfill the cult of the Emperor: this is his duty as a citizen. Thus, crimenlaesae majestatis and crimen laesae publicae religionis were closely connected with each other. All accusations against Christians were based in this sense. For the Roman, Christianity was anti-national, hostile to the state, hostile to the Emperor, it represented opposition to the state religion and at the same time to the state itself, and until the state was rebuilt on new grounds, until then it could not treat Christianity otherwise than as a prohibited religion. Non licet vossesse - this is the general verdict of the Government against Christians: “You have no right to exist.” “You stand outside the legal order” - with these words Celsus begins his book against Christians and with this he prefaces the whole process with a death sentence. Numerous acts of martyrdom testify that legal proceedings always ended at the very point that Christians refused to render Divine honors to the Emperor. According to the view of the Roman state, by this they actually denied the state in its deepest foundations. Perhaps, if Christians had conceded on this point, then Christianity would have been forgiven for the fact that it could not, so to speak, present the documents required by law regarding its origin, but for Christians this would mean renouncing Christianity. Here lies the essence of the conflict, which did not allow for any reconciliation: only when the Emperor himself bowed before the highest God, when Christianity itself was accepted as the basis of state life, did the period of persecution end. Here we must also look for an explanation for the sad fact that the most noble and patriotic Sovereigns are among the persecutors of Christianity, and precisely because they sought to preserve and strengthen the ancient Roman spirit and system, to raise the state and people's life on an ancient foundation: they felt or understood the danger that threatened the state from the new spirit of Christianity and tried to protect it. Through all the apparently varied activities of the Government there runs a continuous thread of a definite policy. In this respect the ancient apologists show a somewhat superficial understanding when they accuse the Government of inconsistency; The government, in theory, was mercilessly consistent, and the Roman Emperor, by his very position as a guardian of the law, could not show leniency to a forbidden religion. But on the other hand, the apologists were right when they pointed out the prevailing arbitrariness in relation to Christians on the part of various authorities. For crimes against the Majesty there were no firmly established procedural forms and no firmly defined punitive laws; the prosecution of them was left to the magistrate by virtue of the police power belonging to him, whose duty it was to suppress all movements and aspirations that threatened danger to the state. They could punish, especially in cases of disobedience and opposition, even the death penalty. And in the trials of Christians, the proconsul or prefect acted not as a judge who was investigating a certain crime for which a certain punishment was imposed, but as a bearer of police power. But by its very nature it has no definite boundaries. This explains the difference in attitude towards Christians at different times and in different places. True, even just the name of Christians, just belonging to the Christian society, without any other crimes, was considered a crime for which they were subject to the death penalty; however, for the most part, many Christians remained calm, and when a process arose, officials could treat them, some strictly, others more softly - depending on how dangerous Christianity seemed to them for the state or depending on their personal character, the degree of mental and moral development and various considerations of an official and non-official nature. But still, the most difficult thing in this situation was that Christians, as was said, did not have a legal right to exist and could at any time be subject to unexpected persecution: where only the number of Christians was more or less significant and where there was some reason for detecting the hostility of the crowd, it was not difficult to force the authorities to enforce the law against Christians. Attempts at literary struggle against Christians by pagan writers In the noble, educated Roman, the society of artisans and slaves at first aroused contempt, and their superstition seemed too senseless to deal with it at all, or even to more accurately ask what its content was. Religion, imported from the Barbarian Eastern countries, had no right to the serious attention of a wise person. Writers of this time collected everything interesting in their works, but they had almost no mention of Christianity until the half of the 2nd century. Pliny the Younger and even Tacitus, who tells of the persecution of Nero, apparently do not consider the despised sect worthy of a detailed depiction of its fate. But when pagan writers began to talk about Christianity, a clear tone of hostility was immediately heard in their speeches. The reason for this lies mainly in the exclusivity of the claims that Christians made for their religion. They had never known anything like this before. Philosophical systems might be logically incompatible, but for everyone it was a fact that they existed side by side. The followers of Plato and Aristotle might quarrel, the Stoic and the Epicurean might indulge in mutual bickering, but in essence each understood the other, and their common interests outweighed their differences. But God, whose unity Christians preached, was an exceptional God: His existence could neither be made any assumptions nor proved by arguments. He revealed Himself to man once and for all, and man’s duty was to accept this revelation. For an educated pagan, the Christian message seemed decidedly unacceptable: do not explore, but believe (Contra Ceis. 1:9, 12). The rights of reason were affected from the most sensitive side, and he could not forgive the disrespect. His brilliant acquisitions, introduced over many centuries and with great effort, but independently, into the treasury of higher culture, as it seemed, were unceremoniously destroyed by the supra-naturalistic teaching of the Barbarian people, who did not in the least contribute to the civilization of mankind. The first preachers of Christianity, for their part, did not seek reconciliation with pagan philosophy. They sharply insisted on the inability of human wisdom to solve, or even to illuminate, the problems with which revelation dealt. The Apostle Paul clearly saw and understood that his preaching to the Greeks was madness (1 Cor. 1:23). Therefore, the first attempts of a literary struggle against Christianity known to us in the 2nd century show that educated pagans, skeptics in relation to any theory and cold towards any faith, speak about Christianity with undisguised irony, trying to note the funny sides in the life and teaching of Christians; at the same time, the further, the more and more hatred of Christianity and fear of it are manifested in anti-Christian literature. To Lucian of Samosata, Christianity seems as crazy as pagan mythology. In his satire “On the Death of Peregrine” (Περì τη ς Περεγρίνου τελευτη ς) he ridicules the extravagant philosopher who, stained with crimes from his youth, was accepted by Christians in Palestine, here achieved the glory of great holiness, the highest degrees of the priesthood, enjoyed exceptional honor, especially when during the persecution he was imprisoned. Having eaten forbidden food, he was excluded from the society of Christians. Now he appears as an Egyptian ascetic, then as a cynic and, finally, in Olympia he burns himself at the stake in front of the assembled people; at the same time the earth shook and a kite flew out of the flames. Peregrine became the subject of religious veneration. The satire is actually directed against the cynics, especially against the contemporary cynic Theagenes; but at the same time, the author tries to present the society of Christians in a funny way. In a number of individual features, Lucian reveals his familiarity with the external life of Christians. Their gullibility, which makes them the victim of a clever deceiver, their touching care for each other and contempt for death seem stupid to Lucian, the worship of the Crucified One - absurd; but the inner content of Christianity remained inaccessible to the pagan writer. The work of the rhetorician Fronto from Cirta (sc. after 175) - teacher of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus - has not survived. From the oldest Latin apology for Christianity, the dialogue “Octavius” by Minucius Felix (9:6; 31:2), it is clear that Fronto made public the speech and that he cited in it common accusations against Christians, and especially the Thyestan suppers and Oedipal incest. The first extensive literary work directed against the young religion was the work of the eclectic Platonist Celsus: (Λόγος ἀληθὴς κατà χριστιανω ν). Little is known about the personality of this enemy of Christianity. There is no doubt that he was a versatile scholar, familiar with the various schools of thought and religion in the Roman Empire, which he paid attention to during his travels. He has debated with Christians and knows their literature, even Gnostic literature. He was predominantly influenced by eclectic Platonism, although he did not assimilate its positive religious sentiment. The skepticism with which he opposes Christianity makes it possible to identify him with Lucian's friend. The work of Celsus is lost; but almost nine-tenths of its contents and seven-tenths of the literal text are preserved in the work of Origen directed against him, written in the reign of Philip the Arabian (244-249). Origen dissects the work of Celsus, as he himself says, sentence by sentence, and therefore, on the basis of his objections, it is possible to restore the general plan and the most specific division of the work of Celsus. Christians appear to Celsus as an illegal and secret society, their teaching is barbaric and cannot be proven by the magical miracles of Jesus. This general judgment is justified in this way. Celsus first of all brings out a Jew against Christians, who proves that Christianity did not understand the Jewish idea of ​​messianism, which supposedly came true in it. He conveys Jewish slander regarding the Gospel story, that Jesus was born from adultery, was taught Egyptian wisdom and through it attracted crowds of people, and draws attention to the contrast between the affirmation of His Divine dignity and His poor, shamefully ending earthly life, accuses the adherents of the false Messiah of falling away from the ancient law, tries to show the groundlessness of Christians’ reference to Old Testament prophecies and to highlight the unreliability of the Resurrection, which became known only to the followers of Christ. In a word, Celsus, through the mouth of a Jew, exposes the Founder of the Christian religion as a deceiver and explains everything extraordinary in His life as an invention of His followers: The pagan Celsus himself takes upon himself to continue the dispute and, first of all, proves the inconsistency of the Jewish messianic idea and thereby tries to shake the very foundation of Christianity; however, Judaism, in the opinion of Celsus, has an advantage over Christianity, as an ancient religion. Then he directs his objections to certain provisions of the doctrine and moral teaching of Christians and arms himself against the basic thoughts about the incarnation of God and the Son of God, about the crucified God, as contrary to common sense, against the thought of historical Redemption, as incompatible with Divine righteousness and impartial love. Christian doctrine is contrary to the immutable and unchangeable order of nature, where evil and sin, having their source in matter itself, must necessarily have a definite place and significance, and man must not be so arrogant as to look upon himself as the exclusive object of Divine operations; therefore, all parts of the Judeo-Christian worldview, such as the end of the World, the Judgment, the Resurrection, are meaningless, the sermon about Forgiveness and Atonement is full of contradictions, since no one can change nature, and does not agree with the pure concept of God, since God must prefer the righteous over the sinners. Contrary to Christianity, not only the philosophy not understood by Christians, but even the pagan religion with its myths - long rejected by educated people and copied by Christians - is relatively better. Christians should join the best philosophical and poetic authorities of the classical world, they should be convinced that properly understood service to the Deities and demons can be combined with pure monotheism, they should finally give up the absurd dream that they can convert the Government to their faith or that it is generally possible to achieve universal agreement regarding the Divine. Celsus is clearly afraid of Christianity, and it seems to him extremely disgusting: he calls the heavenly and earthly world as witnesses against him - obviously he was motivated by more than just contempt. Despite this, he considers it necessary to advise Christians to make peace with the state. Thus, in the end, religious interest is subordinated to political one. Based on what has been said, it is clear that the objections of the pagans against Christians were very numerous. Some of them could be directed against other religions, and only the combination of all of them seemed so terrible in Christianity. Briefly they can be reduced to the following provisions: 1) Christianity was a new religion and, therefore, untrue; 2) it was a religion of ignorant fanatics, 3) Christians are dark people, useless members of society and unpatriotic citizens; 4) they form some kind of secret suspicious society; 5) they are atheists, since they do not have any images of gods or churches; 6) by rejecting the veneration of all recognized gods and mocking him, they are guilty of insulting the shrine (sacrilegium); 7) by refusing to make sacrifices to the Emperor, they are guilty of lèse-majesté, of treason; 8) they practice magic; 9) they are grossly immoral: they have “love suppers” at which they allow incestuous orgies and “sacred sacraments” in which they consume human flesh and blood; 10) frequent famines, wars, pestilence, earthquakes were a manifestation of heavenly wrath against humanity for tolerating such wicked people in its midst; 11) Gospel and Apostolic history is full of contradictions; 12) their teaching cannot be accepted and justified by reason; The teaching about the Divine dignity of Christ, about the Salvation accomplished by Him and about the Resurrection of the dead is especially untenable. Problems of Christian apologetics of the second century The presented position of the Christian Church in the world and the accusations brought against Her determine the tasks of Her defense. The history of the Church shows that the most effective defense of Christianity was the life of Christians and the confession of the Christian faith; the highest proof of the deepest conviction in its truth was given in the fact that they died for it. The blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church (Tertullian. Apolog., 50), and the fact of the morally transforming power of Christianity - the amazing effects of which did not escape the observation of the pagans - aroused surprise among the most sworn enemies and persistently demanded explanation. Ancient Church writers clearly understood its meaning and tirelessly drew the attention of pagans to the serious, strict, full of humility, pure life of the confessors of the new faith. “Our Savior was silent when He was accused before the court,” says Origen. – Can’t our religion defend itself? Shouldn’t the blameless life of the disciples of Jesus turn all slander into nothing?” (ContraCeis., 1). But in fact this could not be enough: the very firmness of the martyrs was interpreted as bitterness and blindness. The specific situation required that this silent apology be joined by a speaking apology. It was necessary to refute slanderous accusations, to dispel prejudices, to show Christianity as it really was; it was necessary to defend oneself not only before the tribunal of a judge, but, in order to eliminate the threatening situation in general, and by literary means to purify Christianity before pagan consciousness and state power; At the same time, the need became clear and felt to defend the rights of Christianity and against Judaism. Christian apologetics is as ancient as Christianity itself. Attention has long been drawn to the wealth of apologetic thoughts in the New Testament writings, from which abundant apologetic material is drawn; The main goal of the New Testament writers was to prove that Christianity is the only God-given salvation and the highest truth. Here we find the first, in the proper sense, apology for Christianity against paganism, which anticipated, so to speak, the main thoughts and methods of the later apology - such an apology is the speech of the Apostle Paul in the Athens Areopagus, in which very typical expressions are against images of gods, the desire to establish a connection between the new and ancient religion, the concept of God, a quote from a Stoic poet, an affirmation of the unity of all peoples of the universe, a brief warning of the usual objection pagans, why did God only now give salvation (Acts 17:16–33). However, the position of the Apostle Paul in the Areopagus was exceptional for the Apostolic Age and even the only one, except for his defense before Agrippa (Acts 20); in general, in this first period, the sermon about the Kingdom of God and the Good News about the Crucified and Risen Savior in its simple greatness addresses not opponents and doubters, but those in need of approval, consolation and souls capable of faith. Only at the beginning of the 2nd century, when the position of the Church in the State became clear and when educated people who knew the most pagan world with its culture began to accept Christianity, literary works appeared specifically designed to protect the faith and believers from attacks. Most of the apologists, as might be expected, were converts from paganism. They knew both sides well from personal experience and in their own lives experienced the power of both what they gave up and what they accepted. The most ancient apologies represent a defense not so much of Christianity as of Christians; they are less designed to prove the truth of the Gospel than to show that its followers are not to be considered either grossly immoral or... unpatriotic, neither bad nor useless. They do not so much strive to ensure that Christianity is accepted as a true faith, but rather to ensure that those who accept it are not considered harmful people; if they are accused as criminals, then they should be treated the same as all other accused. These are defensive speeches with petitions for tolerance and justice, pleas for the elimination of oppression and exceptional measures. To accusations of atheism and impiety, of disrespect for the gods and contempt for the gods of the state religion, of indignation against the authority of the law, of insulting the Emperor and the people, of infanticide and eating human flesh (Thyestan suppers), of debauchery and Oedipal incest, apologists could only respond with energetic denial and appeal to facts. Those who, renouncing all earthly honors, pray for its well-being and the salvation of the Emperors, whose trustworthiness is absolute, and who, striving to educate virtuous people, thereby provide the state with the best citizens, cannot be enemies of the Empire. Accusations of secret crimes were rejected with just indignation, in addition, pointing to the internal transformation, known even to pagans, that the Christian Faith produces in those who accepted it and, in general, to the holy life of Christians. The mystery in which they clothe their lives is a matter of necessity: while they are being persecuted, self-preservation forces them to hide their religion. They are not atheists, but they worship God, who is spirit and does not live in churches made by human hands. They are not guilty of insulting the shrine, since they refuse to make sacrifices to those who are not gods, and to make sacrifices to a mortal is blasphemous madness. Magic is forbidden to them, their Holy Books contain no enchantment or sorcery; demons were driven out not by any illegal means, but in the name of Jesus Christ; even ungodly thoughts are forbidden to Christians, and there can be no talk of incest. They do not eat human flesh - they are prohibited from all bloodshed, even that which is usually tolerated in pagan society, such as infanticide and gladiatorial competitions. The “kiss of peace” is a pure and holy greeting, and all Christians call each other “sisters” and “brothers” as children of one God, and not due to unnatural connections. If the disasters befalling humanity were the Judgment of Heaven, then they were the judgment of those who reject the true God and worship the devils. The world is outdated and its strength is exhausted, and Christians are no more responsible for the difficult times it is going through than they are for the dilapidation and decline of the world. At the same time, we moved onto the basis of positive evidence in favor of the internal justification of faith. Along with evidence from life, they referred to the victorious power of Christianity, revealed by persecution, and to the continuing power of miracles in the Church. However, in an age when everyone believed in magic, the last argument was not particularly applicable, and therefore miracles were not often appealed to. They insisted more on the inner spirit and strength of Christian teaching. Whoever reads the Gospel receives a power that is higher than him; the words that Christians believe are full of spirit, power and grace. On the other hand, they are an expression of reason and can count on the agreement of all reasonable people with them: it is natural for every person to recognize adultery, debauchery and murder as evil; everyone's mind is drawn to righteousness. Moses, the prophets and Christ taught nothing less than what is beautiful and just by nature. Therefore, Christian morality does not need any proof; it is innate to a reasonable person and, through its actions in him, proves its Divine power. As for Christian dogma - the doctrine of one God, Christ, Judgment, the end of the world - in this regard, the Old Testament prophecies serve as decisive proof of the truth and Divinity of Christianity. They contain everything that a philosopher needs to know about the beginning and end of everything and answer the condition that even Plato set for truth, that it must come from God. What the prophets said about Christ, His life and teaching, about piety, about reward and punishment, has been fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled in every detail. But God alone can predict the distant future and act in such a way that the present is foreshadowed in the past. True prophecies cannot be spoken without Divine enlightenment and cannot be fulfilled without Divine help. Consequently, religion, which has been so abundantly foretold and typified from the most ancient times, must be Divine. The apologists very persistently and carefully carried out this proof on the basis of prophecies. Thus, their New Testament was grounded in the Old: what the New Testament teaches, what it demands, what it promises, is true, for in the distant past it was predicted by God-inspired men. In carrying out the details of this argument, apologists have sometimes gone extremely far. The Old Testament was made very flexible in order to explain it everywhere, as a preview and premonition of the Gospel, and sometimes they used non-canonical writing. The Old Testament, with its prophecies and types, also served as a means to deflect the reproach about the newness of the Christian religion: the foundation of the Christian religion is ancient. Before the prophets, those pagans who refer to the deep antiquity of their religion must remain silent; the prophets are more ancient than all the pagan sages, the sacred books surpass in antiquity the very first principles of Greek history and Greek philosophy. In general, the reproach that the religion betrayed by the fathers and sanctified by them was abandoned for the sake of a new one was considered weak by apologists, since in the question of religion the decisive factor is not origin, but truth: it is a matter of personal conviction and violent measures cannot be used against it: religio cogi non potest. You need to obey God more than people. Thus, apologists insist on the right of freedom of conscience, the right to follow the known truth, and Christianity is the absolute truth. Not limiting themselves to defense, the apologists transferred the struggle to their opponents’ own field, proving with particular force the meaninglessness and immorality of paganism, which they spoke about on the basis of close acquaintance with it. They argued that polytheism is an unnatural and unreasonable phenomenon, a deviation of the human spirit from the true God, that pagan gods are nothing more than wooden, stone, gold and silver images - creatures made by human hands, or, at best, endowed with human vices and passions. What is the history of these gods as told in pagan mythology. Apparently, there are no crimes that, in their highest manifestation, are not attributed to deities. Mythology—if we take literally what it tells us about the gods—was a school of immorality. Apologists have made ample use of this material; but they went further and sought where polytheism and idolatry came from in the world. They found its moral reason in the tricks of demons. The demon, in order to corrupt a person, turn him away from God and force him to serve himself, forced him to recognize him as God; he inhabits statues, subjugates sorcerers to his power, trembles in the entrails of sacrificial animals, controls the flight of birds, and so on. Hence, if apologists agree with philosophers in rejecting such gods and with poets (in ridiculing them), then they cannot, however, admit that making a sacrifice to them is an act that has no meaning and is innocent: to worship that which is nothing is a profanation of worship, but to worship these Deities is worse, because it is the worship of demons, in any case it is a betrayal of the true God and His Christ. In connection with criticism of mythology, apologists portrayed in very sharp terms the shortcomings of the moral and social life of the pagans: all kinds of crimes, cruelty, debauchery, bloody victims of the circus, and so on, emphasizing that the pagans attribute all sorts of insolence to Christians only because they themselves are immoral and capable of serious crimes. All these speeches were intended to prove that it is completely inconsistent for people with such faith and morality to raise persecution against Christians for imaginary superstitions and moral impurity, and that it is unfair for those whose participation in shameless and cruel rituals has never been denied to punish others for worship of God, the purity of which has never been denied. Consequently, even if Christians were guilty of something, their opponents had no moral right to condemn them. Criticism of pagan cult and morals is the classic theme of all apologies. Pagan philosophy and pagan culture have found conflicting assessments among apologists, oscillating between exaggerated judgment and dismissive attitude. And this attitude is quite understandable: if Christianity is an absolute religion, then paganism is a delusion; but on the other hand, paganism contains truths that find their completion in Christianity. Thus, Christianity stands in exclusive opposition to all religions, and, however, is also their conclusion. All apologists agree on one point: that human research is deceptive and insufficient, that the obvious errors of religious and philosophical thought in paganism provide eloquent proof of the need of the human spirit for higher enlightenment, that it is necessary for philosophers to turn to the prophets. They emphasized the uncertainty, contradictions and errors in the systems of philosophers in order to show that pagan civilization testifies to the fall of paganism from truth to error, from the true essence to the shadow. For this reason, the consciousness of the absolute opposition of Christianity to paganism was very strong. All religions of mankind, even Judaism, were placed on one side and only Christianity was given a place on the other side. But at the same time, apologists saw in paganism not only those aspects that put it in opposition to Christianity, but also those that could be favorably assessed. Their desire was not to widen and strengthen the gap between Christianity and paganism, but to find common ground between them in order to make it easier for pagans to convert to Christianity. Therefore, in paganism they looked for elements of truth, premonitions of Christianity, similarities between the teachings of the sages and the teachings of Christianity, prototypes and prophecies about it in paganism. Some of the apologists argued that between Christianity and the teachings of the best philosophical schools one cannot help but recognize similarities or even identity. The differences that separate them are merely shades rather than opposites. Faith affirms what Plato, Menander, and the Stoics confessed; only she affirms with greater completeness and Divine authority, and is not content with affirmation, but also proves. This agreement between certain provisions of philosophical theories and Christian teaching was explained in two ways. Firstly, the grains of truth contained in pagan philosophy were traced back to the writings of the prophets, as the final foundation and source from which philosophers drew. Plato was either a student of Moses or copied from him. Secondly, he developed the theory of the Divine Word. The Logos, Who recently appeared in the form of a man, has always acted and continuously revealed Himself in the world. Among the Jews, he manifested himself in the Epiphanies, spoke through the prophets and taught in the sacred books. But the seeds of the Logos were also scattered in paganism, because the light of natural reason is the world of the Divine Logos. In the pagan world, the Logos acted in sages, poets, and legislators. This explains the allusions to Christian truth in pagan philosophical and poetic works, as well as in pagan legislation. Even the great and virtuous men among the pagans owe their best to the Logos. This is all part, so to speak. Christianity in. paganism. But although this image of the Logos allowed philosophers to discover important truths, they could not proclaim them with confidence. Philosophers sometimes, even often, made mistakes - either because they possessed the Logos only partially; or, because the demon, the enemy of people, leads them into error. But with the incarnation of the Word, complete light appeared, and now there should be no place for incomplete philosophy, half-truth, which can never enlighten the people and make them moral. Therefore, Christianity must be recognized. True, the fight against paganism pushed some apologists (Tatian, Hermias) to excessive humiliation and even unfair censure of pagan philosophy and the entire pagan civilization, but this was an exception. In general, in the apologetics of the 2nd century there is a tone of sympathy for the best sides of paganism. For Christians, the internal need for apologetic explanations about the relationship between Christianity and Judaism was clearly understood. If the Old Testament bearer of the idea of ​​Salvation refused to recognize the Divine order to see and understand that his mission ended with the advent of the new kingdom, then Christianity faced the task of proving the Divinity of its mission against this people, to prove that in reality the turn of the Divine economy from Jewish particularism to universalism, already foretold by the prophets, had come and at the same time the Old Testament was abolished by the New. This apologetic proof was also necessary for other reasons. It was no small obstacle to the spread of Christianity among the "languages" that the Jewish people - among whom Christianity received its beginning and with which it was closely connected - for the most part turned out to be hostile to Christianity. True, together with the Apostle Paul (Acts 28:25–28), it was possible to extract proof from this that God’s salvation was sent to the pagans; but this did not eliminate the individual objections of the Jews. In addition, the latter, as is known, did not stop at any means to damage the new teaching and suppress it. It was necessary to fight against the lies and slander of the Jews before the pagan people and the Government, not so much for their own protection, but because, if such false judgments about the teaching and life of Christians were not refuted by Christians, it would be difficult to expect the conversion of the pagans. Finally, the pagan Church itself felt the need to give an account of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. The method of defense was indicated in the New Testament writings: if it wanted to be principled and justified, then it had to rely on the books of the Old Testament and in them find an indication of the New, in which the entire system of Divine foreshadowing and foreshadowing in the Israeli people was completed and found its undeniably exact fulfillment in the Church of Christ. The focus of these prophecies and types, and at the same time the apologetic reasoning with the Jews based on them, was the face of Jesus Christ and His messianic character; at the same time, it is firmly established that with the actual coming of the promised Messiah, the New Testament was opened, the new kingdom of Israel was opened and the Old Testament ended. The apologies of Christianity against Judaism are significantly inferior in number to the apologies against paganism; only two such apologies are known from the 2nd century: Ariston’s “Debate of Jason and Papis” and Justin’s “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew.” Thus, the apologists set themselves the task of contrasting Christianity, as the true people of God, with the true Israel in the world of errors. The pure and true teaching of Christ reigns here. Its content is faith in the supreme God, in the new law - which Christ brought - as reward and punishment beyond the grave. But first of all, Christ taught people true morality, which is found in the life of Christians. Apologists proudly point to the life of Christians, in which purity and chastity, truth, honesty, love for neighbors and love for enemies reign. Sins and crimes are like fierce storms that roil the sea of ​​life, and the Churches are like islands on which one can find refuge. Despite the confusion of pagan views, there is one truth here. Therefore, pagans incorrectly think that Christianity brought harm to the world. On the contrary, Christianity preserves the world. The sea of ​​the world would have dried up long ago if it had not been nourished by the stream of fresh water of the law and the prophets. One can even say that in general the world continues to exist only for the sake of Christians and through their prayer. Finally, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that Christianity is the best support for the state, since the thought of eternal torment leads much better to the fulfillment of the law than the idea of ​​temporary punishments. They go even further when they assert that the flourishing of the Roman state under Augustus should be connected with the emergence of Christianity, and that only bad Emperors persecuted Christianity (Melito in Eusebius: Hist. eccl., 4:26, 7). The basis of such arguments is the great self-awareness of Christianity, destined to be the salt and light of the world and to carry out a world-historical saving mission: Christians possess truth and morality, they are a people of true philosophers and therefore are the heart, the essence of world history. The emergence of apologetic writing. Assessing the literary and theological significance of 2nd century Apologetic works The first scientific defenders of Christianity were given by the philosophical movement of the time of the emergence of apologetic literature; The nature of this movement also determined the characteristics of the activities of apologists and the literary works they wrote. During the first century of the Christian era, the nature of government and time inspired a feeling of mistrust and constant apprehension, made intelligent people cynical in relation to truth and goodness, and disposed them to think - so far as they thought methodically - along the Epicurean model. Individuals who valued ideals and sometimes lived in accordance with them generally adhered to the Stoic school. But as soon as we move into the Second Age, we immediately feel a noticeable change. With the advent of better orders in government, and with the appearance of noble and enlightened rulers on the throne, serious thought finds more vigor and the possibility of beneficial reaction opens up. Of course, it was not universal: witty monuments of a cynical and mocking spirit exist in the 2nd century (in the works of Lucian). But people guided by moral goals find listeners and are themselves imbued with a consciousness of the importance of their mission; renewed efforts were made to find theories by which religious and moral life could justify its aspirations, and religious systems like the Mysteries, which aimed to purify and sanctify life, found sincere adherents. The means by which this influence was chiefly diffused was the fashionable development of interest in public speeches and competitions. Education according to the Greek method was strictly literary and its goal was to develop the ability to write and speak effectively. It can hardly be said that books were expensive and rare, but the prevailing taste preferred public readings and debates. Since this kind of taste was developed in a large part of society, many rhetoricians appeared who, in satisfaction of it, sought fame and food for themselves. Not daring to touch politics, they found topics for their speeches in history and in the great poetic traditions of Greece; undoubtedly, the questions of human life, duties and purposes, which philosophers debated, opened up a wide field for eloquent speakers in finding subjects for conversation. Such a contact between rhetoric and philosophy was all the more possible since the 2nd century was the era when philosophy noticeably became common property. Of course, this was accompanied by obvious damage to the depth of philosophical thinking: the more education spread, the more superficial it became, and next to a select number of thinkers and serious readers stood a mass of superficially educated people. Just as today this kind of public saves itself from actually reading classical writers by reading selected passages from them, so then they used a collection of quotations in order to give philosophical shine to their education and speeches. The sarcastic Semite Lucian laughs at the wandering philosophers who compete with each other in front of the whole people and try to amaze each other with general and hackneyed maxims. Even Platonism had to pay tribute to this state of affairs, and its representatives did not always take Plato himself into their hands, but became acquainted with him from collected passages. Naturally, the solutions to philosophical problems by these wandering philosophers were not always distinguished by their depth. Contemporary social issues also served as topics for speeches. These people often combined catering to the tastes of their listeners with talkativeness, skepticism and immorality; but among them there could also be people of serious thought regarding the deep issues of life. The concept of God, virtue and immortality, to which serious and inquisitive minds came, opened the way for them to the Christian gospel. Converts to Christianity from among such wandering philosophers and rhetoricians brought with them ready-made experience of struggle, the ability to make fiery speeches and skill in literary processing. Having become Christians, these writers and speakers by profession did not abandon their previous title, philosophical mantle and habits, and only changed the content of their speeches; they appeared as teachers and polemicists among Christians. Together with their activities in the circle of their community or an even closer circle of their closest students (Justin - Tatian, Tatian - Rodon), they were representatives of Christian thought in scientific form in public places or in their own audience before a wider circle of listeners, and there was no shortage of debates with other philosophers (Justin - Crescent); often a defensive speech turned into a missionary sermon, an apology into an exhortation to the pagans (cohortatio ad Graecos). The ministry of these Christian philosophers and rhetoricians represented some analogy to the original institution of the wandering apostles or evangelists and prophets. Possessing a certain degree of spiritual talent, which they brought to the service of the Church, apologists were also the first literary defenders of church-wide interests with the means of modern education. Their literary activity was broad, often focusing on issues of internal church struggle and life; but since it appears before us most clearly in its apologetic side, they are designated by the general name of apologists, that is, writers who devoted their energies to the defense of Christianity before the Government hostile to it and the public opinion of the pagans. History knows a fairly significant number of authors who are known for literary works of this kind. Unfortunately, their works shared the common fate of the monuments of this time - most of them perished completely: from the apologetic works of Codratus, Ariston, Rodon, Miltiades, Apollinaris, Melito, only names or only insignificant excerpts remained. Among those that have survived, the first place - in volume and importance, if not in time of origin - belongs to the works of Justin: his two apologies and “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew” constitute the main part of this literature. An apology for Aristide was written before him. After him - “Speech against the Greeks” by Tatian, “Petition for Christians” and “On the Resurrection of the Dead” by Athenagoras, “Three Books to Autolycus” by Theophilus, “Mockery of the Pagan Philosophers” by Hermias. In addition to these works, the authors of which are known, several anonymous works have come down to us, the date of which is not precisely established, but usually refers to the same era, namely: “Speech to the Hellenes,” “Admonition to the Hellenes,” “On Sovereignty,” “Epistle to Diognetus” - all of them are attributed to Saint Justin in some manuscripts and were often published under his name. The listed apologies are written in Greek. Towards the end of the second century, the first apology appears in Latin: “Octavius” by Minucius Felix. These are only fragments of the extensive apologetic literature that developed in the Church before the 2nd century. These apologetic works of varying date and form - written by authors very different in position, education and character - represent in their essence a real unity, because they are subject to the same basic sentiment. For all apologists it was a matter of defending Christianity, in well-defined circumstances, against the prejudices of which it was the subject, of ways to achieve tolerant attitude on the part of the state and sympathy on the part of the intelligent classes. To achieve the same goal and means, similar, if not identical, were used. Therefore, apologists, despite individual differences, constitute one group of Church writers, one whole with its characteristic characteristics. Recently, apologists have found far different assessments from various authors, both in literary and theological terms. According to the usual, long-established view, apologists were strong in spirit, strong in faith, philosophically educated representatives of ancient Christian Theology, who not only applied the name of philosophers to themselves, but also proved it by their actions. Undaunted, they turn to the Emperor and bring to his attention the cause of Christians, “boldly throw the flame of truth into the soul of the despot,” show him and modern society the madness of Greek worship and worship, give him the opportunity to look into the life of Christians, cult, the world of concepts, the doctrine of salvation, point to the Judgment at the end of the world. But an opposite view is sharply opposed to this, denying apologists, first of all, broad and serious education and literary abilities: apologists, they say, can be counted among the lowest philosophical clergy, and often even only among the lowest. High morality, occupation with the doctrine of God and Divine objects accidentally gave them the title of philosophers, which at that time was treated quite freely; but in essence they were unworthy of him, and the apologists belong to the so-called sages (sophists), who inserted philosophical passages into their pompous speeches; but Christian apologists, of course, did not stand at the educational heights of even their pagan colleagues - thus, the apologists are deprived, first of all, of the glory of scientists. From Aristides to Theophilus of Antioch, these were spiritually insignificant people, had poor command of the Greek literary language, and could not arrange their thoughts into a harmonious, harmoniously ordered whole; they extract all their wisdom from several manuals. This, first of all, according to researchers of this persuasion, explains the fact that the apologists did not make any impression on the educated pagans of their time: their works were greeted with a smile of regret. But this is not enough: the apologists are denied the theological significance that they previously enjoyed. They find only vague traces of Evangelical Christianity and prove that in their works the source of living piety is buried by modern moralistic philosophy. If we do not take into account Justin, who - according to the consensus of scientists, even of a negative direction - is an exception and deserves a separate study, then the dogma of the apologists turns out to be too simple. It has long been noticed that not only in the short and too general exhortations to the Hellenes, but even in the more extensive apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Minucius Felix, the name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned. They further say that a result favorable to the Christian theological significance of the apologists does not occur if one pays attention to the entire content of their Theology, which can be reduced to the following provisions. God is one, spiritual, omnipotent, Creator and Almighty. Apologists defend this idea against its childish and gross perversions in pagan mythology, but in such a form that it is as if they were writing an essay on secular philosophy. But this main thesis of apologetic works was not exclusively Christian - it was the main position of Jewish and even Platonic apologies. The God of apologists is transcendental and cannot enter into direct relations with the world. He needs a mediator, and such a mediator is the Logos. Logos created the world; He takes care of order and directs its forces, directing them towards virtue. God created Angels - free and higher creatures to whom the Logos entrusted supervision over His work. Some of these angels deviated from their mission: through negligence or as a result of lust, they became unfaithful. And people, left to themselves or deceived by these unfaithful spirits, fell into ignorance, into moral depravity and hence into general idolatry. However, the Logos, after repeatedly proclaiming the truth through his prophets, instructed Christians in it, who owe to Him the knowledge of the true God and corresponding service to Him. He also showed the way of salvation for man. God created him free and master of his destiny: if a person obeys the voice of the Logos, if he keeps His commandments, then he will achieve immortal and incorruptible life, but if not, then eternal death and endless torment will befall him. Such is, in its main outlines, the system of dogmatic teaching of the apologists, extracted from their works. Its characteristic feature - which the apologists themselves often insist on - is that Christianity in their eyes is philosophy. But who, they say, does not see that all specifically Christian truths have been eliminated from this philosophy? The Trinity, even the Incarnation, original sin, Atonement, Grace, the Sacraments, have no place in it. Even the doctrine of the Logos is absent from the apology of Minucius Felix; in general, it represents a reworking of philosophical or Judeo-philosophical (Philonian) teaching. Apologists wanted to make Christianity acceptable to reason; but was it Christianity? Here wisdom, they say, has replaced the Gospel. All this provides a visible basis for the newest researchers to assert - in the works of apologists - the Hellenization of Christianity, its secularization (Adolf Harnack. Lehrbuchder Dogmengeschichte. 3 Aufl., Bd. I Leipzig, 1899, S. 455 ff; Loofs. Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, 4 Aufl. Halle, 1906, pp. 114–129). There is no doubt that the apologists of the second century were not outstanding scientists or brilliant writers; There is also no doubt that they cannot be called philosophers in the strict sense of the word. It is also true that in Christian circles there was a certain predilection for the title of “philosopher.” If Christianity was seen as "Christian philosophy", then the educated Christian - who believed that in Christianity he had found a worldview superior to pagan philosophy, and testified openly to this by following the pagan philosophers in lifestyle and dress - was called a Christian philosopher. But this does not give the right to put apologists on the same line with the usual type of “sophist” in that somewhat humiliating and offensive meaning that is accustomed to be associated with this term and the example of which can be the well-known opponent of St. Justin - Crescent, “a lover of noise and brilliance”, not worthy, as St. Justin says, to be called a philosopher, since for the sake and pleasure of the seduced crowd he accused Christians of what he did not know, “not a philosopher, but lover of glory,” who does not respect the well-known and worthy of all love of Socrates’ rule: no one should be preferred to the truth (Iust. Apol. 11:3). But between those representatives of eloquence in the era of the Antonines, who are usually designated by the name of sophists, individual differences were often very great: sophists are called both rhetoricians who are committed solely to words and the external structure of speech, and more serious writers who are sincerely devoted to philosophy or morality. And the apologists had different talents and different training, why can’t a general verdict be pronounced about them in this regard; and the very fact that, being philosophers and sophists, say, of the ordinary type, they, despite all the negative sides of people in their profession, were able to break with their past, with their careers, were able to understand the difference between the systems of teaching known to them and the true philosophy that they learned in Christianity, had the courage to speak out in defense of the new religion to the point of being ready to lay down their lives for it. This very devotion of the apologists to Christianity and the great service they rendered to Christianity, if not in directly achieving the set goal, then for the edification and confirmation of the faithful, was the main reason, perhaps, for the somewhat exaggerated judgment of contemporaries about the degree of education and literary abilities of them. We must not forget that the apologists presented in their works the first experiments in scientific and philosophical substantiation of Christian teaching, in which they had to look for appropriate expressions to denote new ideas and, moreover, in such a form as to be understandable to intelligent pagans. Finally, the circumstances of the origin of the apologies unknown to us could have influenced the nature of the literary presentation. Undoubtedly, it must be significant that the Conversation with Tryphon the Jew is literary far superior to the apologies of Justin. In view of the above, the question of the degree of education of apologists and the literary merits of their works is not of significant importance. In our speech about individual apologists and their works, we will also touch on these aspects. It is more important to dwell on the question of the literary sources of apologetic works. And in this regard, there is a noticeable tendency to draw decisive conclusions for which there is no sufficient basis in the data previously obtained by science. It is considered indisputable that the most ancient Christian apologists are dependent on the pre-Christian Jewish apology that arose in the Hellenistic period; in this regard, even obvious exaggerations are allowed (M. Friedlander. Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik. Zürich, 1903). But Jewish apology is not original either - it developed under the strong influence of Hellenistic literature. The Jews of the Diaspora, when confronted with the Greco-Roman culture, inevitably felt the need to defend the foundations of their theocratic culture - monotheism and the dignity of the Old Testament religion, and for missionary purposes - its superiority over all other religions. Both to repel the attacks and bullying of the pagans of the Greco-Roman Empire, and to go on the offensive, Jewish writers did not have their own solid ground. But since, as a result of the extraordinary spread of Hellenism, they themselves became almost perfect Greeks, then in the fight against Hellenism they used the weapons of Hellenic philosophy, which long before this had revealed the weak sides of the people's (pagan) faith and highlighted the insignificance of the gods. With arguments borrowed from here, they polemicize against polytheism and prove that only the Jewish people are right, worshiping a single God who did not originate (from anywhere). When they begin to depict the properties of this God, they use the ideas of modern Greek philosophy, from which they draw ordinary proofs of the existence of God. From the Greeks, the Jews also borrowed the very method of protecting their sacred books; Just as the Greeks wanted to eliminate the temptation of the criminal acts of the gods through allegorical explanation, so the Jewish apologists in a similar way explained those biblical narratives that might seem dubious. The desire to bring moral legislation - which was also criticized by the pagans - into harmony with reason resulted in a contradictory combination of Revealed Religion with Hellenic philosophy. Jewish Hellenists valued Greek philosophers very highly and accepted many of the positions developed by ancient philosophy. But, on the other hand, they needed to reconcile this attitude towards philosophy with the basic position of their own religious consciousness that the truth is given only in the revealed religion they profess. They found a way out of the difficulty in the peculiar theory that the Greeks drew their wisdom from the Bible - this explained the agreement in many views of ancient philosophy with the teachings of the Jewish religion. This view for a long time became a kind of dogma even for many Christians. Comparing Jewish apologetics with Christian, they find that Jewish apologetics provided a kind of scheme for Christian polemics against paganism: they first refuted the worship of the Greeks, as far as it concerned the gods of Homer, the veneration of the elements, the worship of luminaries, then idolatry, and finally moved on to expounding the doctrine of the true God. When Christian apologists talk about the superiority of biblical books over pagan works, set out the religious and moral teaching of the prophets, insist on the antiquity of the Bible, in which they strive to show the source of all wisdom, all truth, teach about the partial revelation of the Logos, then Christian apologetics does not differ from the apologetics of the Alexandrian Jews. In addition to this influence of Judeo-philosophical apologetics, they note the undoubted use on the part of Christian apologists of the material provided by Greek scientific and popular philosophy, which two centuries before Christ had already undertaken a struggle against anthropomorphic concepts of deity and idolatry and developed the concept of a spiritual deity and spiritual service to him. The apologists took upon themselves a task similar to that which lay before the defenders of philosophy against popular prejudices. Therefore, their speeches to the Hellenes or to the peoples are, as it were, a Christian adaptation of those “Protreptics” or “Admonitions,” the type of which could be Cicero’s Hortensius. Just as the authors of the Protreptics, intending to praise philosophy, considered it necessary to first attack the vices and prejudices of the people in order to clear the ground, so did the apologists in order to prepare a victory for the faith. Polemics always occupy a significant place in their works; but in the very essence of their arguments - whether they attack mythology and cult, whether they object to the teachings of philosophical schools, whether they condemn public morality and current opinions, whether they refute astrology and magic - they, one might say, do not invent anything new; they take weapons from the well-equipped arsenal of pagan literature. These are the currently common judgments regarding the literary originality and sources of the Christian apologia of the second century. There is no doubt that they are based on observations, comparisons and the connection of the Christian apology with Jewish, as well as with the works of pagan philosophy. It is impossible to completely deny, but still the above categorical statements cannot be considered completely indisputable. It must be borne in mind, firstly, that this similarity with Jewish apologetics and popular pagan preaching was not the result of deliberate imitation, but resulted from the coincidence in the needs which their position in the Empire created for Christians. Secondly, one cannot get too carried away in searching for specific sources from which apologists drew their material. According to the fair remark of A. Ehrhard (Die altchristl. Litterat. Abt. 1, 1900, S. 210) “the passion to look for relations of dependence everywhere and to point to individual works as a conglomerate of quotations and prey to literary predation, represents one of the bad sides of our modern comparative method of study, for which all originality is often a speck in the eye.” With all the evidence of this kind, which does not reflect the convincingness of an obvious fact - which is why completely opposite judgments are possible in resolving issues - they overlook the important fact that the contacts in thoughts can be explained quite naturally by the fact that the apologetic material was not anyone’s literary property, but belonged, so to speak, to the apologetic spirit of the time, the general religious and philosophical consciousness. In this field, more than in any other, it is impossible not only to trace individual motives, but also to grasp the whole composition of ideas and observe their development and change over time. These ideas spread throughout society, are easily imprinted in the minds, especially if expressed in a brief form, and then find literary expression somewhere in one or another combination, in accordance with the objectives of the whole work and the needs of the time; Moreover, it is natural that they receive the stamp of originality only in the works of outstanding writers who are able to either delay their course or give them a new direction. Therefore, we can talk about the borrowing of apologetic ideas only in a general sense, noting their Jewish-philosophical or Hellenic-philosophical source; The most particular application of this general proposition can only be made through a careful study of each apologetic work. But solid ground for such research has not yet been found here. Finally, the application of modern apologetic material and apologetic forms to specifically Christian goals and the content of Christian teaching always remains the property of apologists. The content of the theological teaching of apologists can only be presented by studying individual monuments of apologetic literature; after this it will be possible to evaluate the validity of the conclusions about the Hellenization of Christianity in it. Here it is enough to confine ourselves to general remarks. Indeed, apologists strive to present Christianity as “a single, reliable and useful philosophy,” the oldest and best Hellenic. But it is important to note that these apologists do not at all deny the frank character of the Christian religion: Christianity is the only true philosophy, but it has as its assumption a discovery, since it definitely proclaims that true knowledge of God and the Divine cannot be given by human reason; it can only be communicated through a special revelation from God Himself. The name of its philosophy should, on the one hand, denote its spiritual character, in contrast to the sorcery of Eastern religions; on the other hand, it indicates that in Christianity everything is reasonable, everything is in accordance with the sound tenets of philosophy, and that it alone possesses the truth, which is essentially one. If the Christianity of the apologists is reduced to its philosophical essence - which to a certain extent is correctly noted - then the reason for this should not be sought in the perversion of their faith, not in the rationalism of their Theology, as if, in their opinion, the content of Christian teaching should be limited to the limits of what is comprehensible to reason. The nature of the work and the form of presentation are determined by its purpose - it should also be the scale by which it should be judged. Recent criticism ignores this point. Meanwhile, it is enough to place the apologists in their environment, in the environment in which their reality took place, and to imagine the tasks that they set for themselves - and the content of their apologies will be understandable without the assumption that they distorted Christianity in favor of modern philosophy. The goal of the apologists, as has been said, naturally and primarily boiled down to clearing Christianity of accusations, presenting it as a harmless teaching, respectful of the established order, in agreement with reason, the data of which it affirms and complements. In view of this, they had to set forth primarily natural dogmas, a teaching that was consistent with the provisions of the great spiritualistic schools - the unity of God, future immortality, the moral law and its sanction in another life, or if they spoke about specifically Christian sublime teaching and institutions, then only to such an extent as to show that Christians do not commit anything shameful. Under such conditions, their Christianity takes on the form of human wisdom, a very high, or purified religion, which in some ways comes into contact with known religions. This sufficiently explains why, on issues of dogmatic teaching, apologies contain only general provisions. And there is nothing more unfounded than to conclude from their silence that they are unaware of certain provisions of the Christian teaching. Finally, the mistake of the newest historians of the negative trend lies in their desire to find all of Theology in works that, by their very task, cannot claim to be an exhaustive presentation of the subject, and to consider random defensive speeches as the “sum” of the theological views of the authors. It is easy to notice that Saint Justin’s dogmatic statement in the “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew” is so different from its statement in the apologies that there were even attempts on this basis to deny that the “Conversation” belongs to the author of the apologies. But the point is that the apologies were not addressed to Christians, while the “conversation” under the guise of an appeal to the Jews was intended primarily for the use of believers. Therefore, the Hellenization of faith among apologists matters only to the method, pedagogical art, tactics of the defender, and Saint Justin, with his exceptional position, confirms the general rule: among all the apologists, his apologetic works are the most extensive and most distinguished by their philosophical character, and at the same time, his dogmatic positions are set out so clearly that they do not allow his exceptional testimony to be neglected. It should not be overlooked that many of the apologists, in addition to apologies, wrote other works in which they had much more evidence to speak out on issues of internal church life. The loss of these works does not give the right to characterize their Theology as if the apologies that have come down to us were the only expression of their Christian thoughts. If this loss forces us to admit that we have far from perfect knowledge about the Theology of the apologists, then the very circumstance that the lost works were directed against Gnosticism is enough to recognize as exaggerated the difference between the Theology of the apologists and the anti-Gnostics, who have their outstanding representative in Saint Irenaeus, according to which Irenaeus was the first to bring apologetic rationalism into internal connection with the New Testament teaching and with the content of the Church. symbol. If apologetic works do not fully express the personal Christian views of their authors, then it is even less possible to recognize them as an expression of the voice of the entire Church of that time and, on the basis of them, to speak generally about the Hellenization of Christianity at that time. It must be remembered that the struggle was led by the Church, while the apologists were only its collaborators and in their works expressed only a separate moment of its activity, carrying out a service similar to the traveling service in the army; the moment was undoubtedly important, but it soon passed, and at the same time the mission of the first apologists ended. It was extremely interesting to know what impression the apologies made on the pagans; but, unfortunately, we must refuse to resolve this issue, since there is no data for this. True, Jerome (De vir. ill., 19) claims that the apologies of Codratus and Aristides, among other circumstances, prompted the Emperor Hadrian to issue the famous edict addressed to Minucius Fundanus, which is placed at the end of the second apology of Justin. But this kind of news must be treated with great caution, since it is doubtful whether the Emperor actually presented those apologies that have their names in their address - it is more likely that they were intended for the public and only they were given the form of petitions addressed to the highest name. On the other hand, if Celsus, by whose time several apologetic works had already been written, did not seem to have read a single apology, then in general it must be said that educated pagans from the middle of the Second century could no longer ignore the new religion and the arguments that were given by its defenders. In Rome itself, the philosopher Crescent debates with Justin about the Christian faith. The rhetorician Fronto - the teacher of Marcus Aurelius, one of the outstanding people of his time, an orator who argued with Cicero about primacy - considered himself obliged to turn his art against Christians. Therefore, one can think that their apologies made a certain impression on public opinion. Even those who did not read these treatises could hear about the evidence given in them in favor of Christianity from Christians or from pagans who studied them. But most importantly, the apologia taught ordinary Christians how to defend their profession and repel the attacks of opponents. 1. 1. Ancient evidence of the Apology of Aristides and the discovery of its text The oldest Christian apologist, from whom a whole work has survived to us, was the Athenian philosopher Aristides. Eusebius speaks about him twice in direct connection with the apologist Codratus (Eusebius retained only a small excerpt from the latter’s apology). In the Chronicle (adan. Abrah. 2140, according to the Armenian translation) he calls him nostri dogmatis philosophus Atheniensis (the Athenian philosopher of our doctrine) and reports that he presented his apology to the Emperor Hadrian during his stay in Athens. In the “Ecclesiastical History”, after a speech about Codratus and his apology, Eusebius continues: “like Codratus and Aristides, a faithful man, confessor of our piety, turned to Hadrian with an apology in defense of the faith and left (it to us). This work of his is preserved to this day by many.” Thus, Eusebius speaks very briefly about the apology itself and does not quote a single line from it. One might think that Eusebius either did not find important historical indications in it or, which is very likely, did not have this apology at hand and did not read it; about the apology of Aristides, he did not add: “we have it too,” as he noted regarding the apology of Kodrat. Jerome in the Chronicle (adan. Abr. 2142) repeats Eusebius; but in the work “On Famous Men”, he supplements it with some details: “Aristides,” he says, “a very eloquent Athenian philosopher and, under his former clothes, a disciple of Christ, presented to the Emperor Hadrian at the same time as Codratus a book containing evidence of our teaching, that is, an apology for Christians, which, existing to this day, according to scientists, testifies to his great mind” (De vir. ill., 20) In letter to Magnus (Ep. 70) Jerome writes: “Aristides the philosopher, a most eloquent man, presented to the same Emperor (Adrian) an apologetics in favor of Christians, composed of philosophical maxims.” This “apology was subsequently imitated by Justin.” It is difficult to say how independent Jerome is in these judgments about Aristides and his Apology - whether he read the Apology himself, or whether he only expanded and rounded out the information reported by Eusebius, supplementing it with his own assumptions. But it must be agreed that Jerome’s additions do not contain anything unnatural and dubious and, on the other hand, can hardly be deduced from the words of Eusebius without stretching. Orosius (Hist. adv. paganos 7:13, 2) calls Aristides the Athenian virum fide sapientiaque plenum. Western martyrologies speak of Aristides as a very glorious man in faith and wisdom, and testify that in his apology, which is held in great esteem by the Athenians along with other ancient monuments, he taught, quod Christus Iesus solus esset deus (al. quod Iesus Christus verus esset deus) (see E. Hennecke. Die Apologie des Aristides. Recension und Rekonstruktion des Textes. Leipzig, 1893. S. 45–46). Science had such meager information about Aristides and his apology until the last quarter of the 19th century, when it gradually began to be discovered that fate was more favorable to him than to Kodrat. The general opinion that the apology of Aristides perished without a trace was destroyed first of all by the Mekhitarists, monks of the monastery of St. Lazarus in Venice, who in 1878 published in Venice, on the basis of the Armenian manuscript, an important apologetic fragment (with a Latin translation), which had the inscription: “to the Emperor Hadrian” and the homily: “Aristides, philosopher of Athens on the exclamation the thief and the answer of the Crucified" - both monuments are named after the philosopher Aristides of Athens (Aristidis philosophi Atheniensis sermones duo ed. Mechitaristae, Venetiis, 1878). Regarding the homily, the author of which, based on Lk. 23:43 ~ tries to prove the Divinity of the Lord, most researchers soon came to a conclusion not in favor of its authenticity or, at least, recognized it as doubtful; As for the apologetic fragment, the majority saw in it a genuine excerpt from the Armenian translation of Aristides' apology. However, there were also serious objections to the passage’s belonging to the apology of Aristides; Moreover, the basis was the previously developed view of the apology of Aristides, in which, according to the testimony of Jerome, the talent of the writer and numerous excerpts from pagan philosophers should especially be revealed, which the passage did not provide; The author's information in the field of physical mythology also turned out to be suspicious. But despite this, the authenticity of the apology to which the passage published by the Mechitarists belonged was soon confirmed in the most unexpected way. In the spring of 1889, the Englishman J. Rendel Harris discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai (where K. Tischendorf found the Codex Sinaiticus) a complete Syriac translation of Aristides' apology in a 7th-century manuscript. But soon the scientific world was amazed by even more surprising news. R. Harris gave the proof sheet of his translation from the Syriac text to the scholar Armitage Robinson, who at that time was in Vienna and was studying the Latin manuscripts about the sufferings of Christian martyrs, looking for the lost manuscript about the sufferings of Perpetua. By chance he read the Latin translation of the story of Barlaam and Joasaph and in amazement stopped at the words: Ergo, rex, providentia Dei veni in mundum; et considerans coelum, et terram, mare, et solem, et lunam, et cetera admiratus sum ornatum eorum - which formed the beginning of Aristide's apology, as it was read in the sheets sent to him by A. Harris. Further research led him to the conclusion that the story of Barlaam and Joasaph is almost entirely an apology for Aristides. The story, and with it the Greek text of the apology, was published already in 1832 and, therefore, has long been known to the scientific world (reprinted in Migne, PG 96:851–1240). The story of Varlaam and Joasaph, originally compiled in India, received its final artistic treatment in the monastery of St. Sava, near Jerusalem, no later than the 8th century. Its essence is as follows. The Indian prince Joasaph, about whom at his birth it was predicted by one court sage that he would be the great patron of the then persecuted Christian religion, was raised by his father in complete ignorance of the disasters of human life. But he accidentally learned that there are poor and unhappy people, that there is old age and death. When this knowledge made a strong impression on him and his soul was open to the perception of teachings unknown to him, the Christian hermit Varlaam appeared to him in the form of a seller of precious stones and easily converted him to Christianity. His father, who learned about this, was greatly alarmed and decided to turn him away from the faith of the hated Christians. For this purpose, the following means was chosen: a pagan hermit named Nahor, very similar in appearance to Varlaam, had to, in the presence of the prince and a large assembly of pagan sages, unsuccessfully defend the Christian faith against objections from the pagans. However, the prince received a warning about the plan in a dream vision and his threats produced the miracle of Varlaam in Nahor. He pronounced the death sentence over paganism and exalted Christianity as the only, true and saving religion on earth. After a brief speech by one of the main speakers from the side of paganism, Nahor signaled with his hand that the assembly would fall silent, opened his lips and said publicly what he had not intended: “I, the King, by the Providence of God entered the world...” - and then follows the apology of the Christian philosopher Aristides. R. Harris and A. Robinson published their discoveries in 1891, in the first issue of the first volume of Text Sand Studies, with corresponding critical material. Thus, Aristide's apology is currently known in three editions: a) Armenian, covering a small part of the apology, namely the first two chapters and known in two manuscripts of the year 981 (cod. Venetus), from which a fragment was published by the Mekhitarists, and the 11th century (cod. Etchmiadzinus) - both manuscripts agree almost word for word and do not represent a heterogeneous tradition. The translation, according to the mekhitarists, with whom Western scholars agree, was made in the 5th century, known in Armenian literature as the golden age; b) Syriac - in the manuscript of the Sinai monastery - from the second half of the 6th or 7th century, and the translation itself dates back to the first half of the 4th century; c) Greek - as stated, contained in the story of Barlaam and Joasaph in volume is smaller than the Syriac, and has been preserved in many copies of the story. Like other discoveries in the field of ancient Christian writing, the discovery of Aristide's apology sparked a strong literary movement, which was found in numerous reports of the publication of R. Harris and A. Robinson, as well as in large and small treatises that comprehensively discussed the new monument. First of all, researchers naturally faced the question of which form of the text should be considered the original. The fact is that although the three reviews generally agree with each other, they differ greatly in some particulars, as well as in the arrangement of (some) small passages. However, the Armenian translation, as a passage that reveals obvious freedom in the transmission of the text, loses its independent meaning, and the debate can be about the comparative merits of only the Greek and Syriac texts. A. Robinson, who discovered the Greek text, spoke of the originality and relative integrity of the Greek text; He was joined, among other researchers, by Adolf Harnack (Theol. Litteraturzeitung. 1891. S. 301–309, 325–329). But further careful research led the majority of scientists to the conclusion, now firmly established in science, that the Greek text represents a free reworking of the original, since the author of the story of Barlaam and Joasaph was psychologically forced to adapt the apology for his immediate purposes, in view of which he made a number of abbreviations and rearrangements, replacing outdated expressions and phrases with new formulas. Meanwhile, if the author of the Syriac translation did not pursue any other interests - as accurate a translation of the text as possible, then the Syriac translation should be considered a faithful reflection of the original, although, on the other hand, this does not exclude the possibility that the translator in some places allowed freedom in transmitting the original or was guilty of some errors due to oversight. Therefore, the basis for experiments to restore the original text of the apology (the most important ones belong to R. Seeberg and E. Hennecke) is based on the Syriac translation. But at the same time the Greek review is not deprived of its importance, since in it, undoubtedly, many parts of the original Greek text have been preserved, which makes it possible to penetrate into the mode of expression and vocabulary of the original and in some - at least with sufficient confidence - the Syriac translation - again to convey in the language of the author. 1. 2. The question of the time of origin of the Apology of Aristides The question of the time of origin of Aristide's apology also caused a lot of controversy. Eusebius (in the Chronicle and in Church History), and after him Jerome, testify that the apology was presented to the Emperor Hadrian. The Armenian fragment also names the addressee of the apology of Emperor Hadrian (Imperatori caesari Hadriano Aristides philosophus Atheniensis). The inscription of the only manuscript of the Syriac text says the same thing: “the apology that the philosopher Aristides held before the Emperor Hadrian in defense of God” - (ὑπèρ τη ς θεοσεβείας). But the following words are directly adjacent to this title: “To the autocrat Caesar Titus Hadrian Antoninus, pious and merciful, from Marcian Aristides, philosopher of Athens.” Thus there are two titles in the Syriac Manuscript; the first - a brief indication as to the author and content - undoubtedly comes from the copyist, and the second has all the signs of the original address in the proper sense. But the address in the form in which it appears in the manuscript seems incomprehensible, especially the words: “pious and merciful” - the plural is not justified here. It is not known whether the copyist is to blame for this error, or whether it must be attributed to the translator himself. In a corrected form and in a reverse translation into Greek, this address can be presented in the following form: Σεβαστω @ Εὐσεβει Μαρκιανòς Ἀριστείδης φιλότοφος Ἀθηναι ος ). Both in the original form that the Syriac translation represents, and in the corrected form in particular, the address indicates that the apology was presented by Aristides not to Hadrian, but to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, as most of the most famous researchers of the apology insist (A. Harnack, Th. Zahn, A. Ehrhrard, E. Egli, E. Hennecke, R. Seeberg, O. Bardenhewer and others), indicating that Antoninus Pius was called: Titus. Aelius Adrian Antoninus Pius and that the first apology of Justin addressed to him was inscribed: Εύσεβει Σεβαστω @ Καίσαρι ). Therefore, in the address of Aristide’s apology, they consider it possible to insert Αἰλί ῳ between Τίτω @ and Ἀδρκχνω @. The origin of the false tradition, according to which the addressee of the apology was Emperor Hadrian, is explained in this way: as the Syriac and Armenian translations show, very early there was a desire to give the book a short title, but a mistake was made in choosing the name of the Emperor; later the address was completely omitted, or, where it was withheld, the contradiction between the title and the address was not noticed (as in the Syriac translation). Eusebius elevated this error to the level of mainstream scholarly tradition. For his part, he was also misled by the false title and this is not surprising if we take it as probable that he did not read the apology itself. There is nothing in the content of the apology that could speak against its appearance during the reign of Antoninus Pius, and Jerome’s statement that Justin imitated Aristides cannot be significant, since Justin’s works do not show any traces of imitation (A. Harnack, Die Chronologieder Litteraturbis I renäus. Leipzig, 1897. S. 271–272; O. Bardenhewer Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litter. Bd.1, Freiburg i. Breisgau, 1902. S. 180–181). As can be seen, there is too little convincing in these arguments: the clear and categorical statement of Eusebius and Jerome, as well as the titles of the Syriac and Armenian translations, is contrasted with guesses regarding the real meaning of the unclear address in the manuscript of the Syriac translation - and regarding the origin of the title of the apology and the possibility of an error on the part of Eusebius. Therefore, some researchers continue to defend the origin of the apology under Hadrian (Robinson, Hilgenfeld; I. Krestnikov. Christian apologist of the 2nd century, Athenian philosopher Aristides and his newly discovered works. Kazan, 1904) or, in extreme cases, leave the question open, not daring to speak out definitely in favor of both reigns (G. Krüger). The only serious reason in favor of the reign of Antoninus Pius is the consideration that even if there is an error in the address of the Syriac translation, it still contains the name of Titus Hadrian Antoninus, and this name should be recognized as the original, since its later insertion is completely inexplicable. If we accept that Aristide’s apology is addressed to Antoninus Pius, then the time of its origin falls on the years 138–161, and researchers are trying in every possible way to more accurately establish in which year of the reign of the said Emperor it was written. Various years were indicated: 138th (R. Harris), 154th (Egli), 138–147th (Volkmar), around 140th (Seeberg), 141st (Veil.). But it goes without saying that in the absence of an indication in the apology itself and in other sources of the exact date of origin of the apology, attempts to determine the year of its writing are doomed to failure. Nevertheless, the fact that in the address of the apology of Aristides, in contrast to the apology of Justin, there is no name of Marcus Aurelius, who became co-ruler of Antoninus Pius in the year 147, the archaic features in the teaching and life of Christians in Aristides, the absence of references to Gnostic systems, the difference in the depiction of the political situation of Christians in comparison with the first apology of Justin force us to date the time of writing the apology to the very beginning the reign of Antoninus Pius and in no case goes beyond the 147th year. 1. 3. Contents of the Apology Aristide's Apology is not large in volume - it consists of 17 small chapters. It begins with a discussion about the existence of God, the Creator of the universe, knowledge of Whom is acquired through consideration of nature, and in a purely philosophical, rational way establishes the true concept of God. It should be noted that the author does not appear at the beginning of the apology as a Christian and does not even hint that he is defending Christianity. He takes the concept of “truth” as his starting point and, together with the readers of the apology, comes to the conclusion that the truth is in Christianity. “I, Sovereign, by the Providence of God entered this world, and when I contemplated the sky and the earth and the sea and the sun and the moon and everything else, I was amazed at the wondrous structure that I found in the world.” Through reflection, the author came to the conviction that this world with everything that is contained in it could not appear by itself, that the movement and harmonious order in the world do not have their cause in himself, that it is driven by the One who is higher and more powerful than all. Knowledge of this Supreme Being is impossible: It is by its nature incomprehensible: “And I understood that the world and everything in it is set in motion by another force, and I comprehended that the One who moves everything is God, who is hidden in things and is covered by them, and it is known that what moves is stronger than what moves. It seems useless to inquire about this Mover of everything, what He is like, for it is clear to Me that He is incomprehensible by His nature; and explore. the strength of His rule, as if I had comprehended Him perfectly, is useless to me, because no one could fully comprehend Him. But about the Mover of the world, I affirm that He is God above all, Who created everything for the sake of people. And this is clear to me that everyone should fear God and not oppress people. I affirm further: God is not begotten, not created, an unchangeable Being, without beginning and without end, immortal, perfect, incomprehensible. But “perfect,” as I said, means that there is no lack in Him and that He lacks nothing, while everything needs Him. That He, as I said, is without a beginning, means that everything that has a beginning also has an end, and that which has an end is subject to destruction. He has no name, for everything that has a name belongs to the creature. It has no form or composition of members, for that which has such a composition belongs to created beings. He is neither male nor female, for he who is so created is subject to passions. He is not limited by Heaven, but rather by Him, everything visible and invisible is embraced. He has no opponents, since there is no one who is stronger than Him. There is no anger or rage in Him, since He is wholly and entirely wisdom and knowledge. Everything exists for them. He does not need sacrifices, libations, or anything visible, but everything needs Him” (chapter 1). From the point of view of the concept of God or “truth” established in these words, Aristide puts all existing religions to the test in order to show who has the true concept of God and who is in error, and for this purpose he divides humanity according to religious views into four genera or classes: on the one hand, Barbarians and Greeks (polytheists), on the other, Jews and Christians (monotheists). So in the Syriac text; in Greek there are three classes - polytheists, Jews, Christians. The author of the apology briefly indicates the genealogy of these four classes of people: Barbarians come from Chronos and Rhea, Greeks from Helekos, Jews from Abraham, and Christians from Jesus the Messiah. About Jesus Christ, he does not limit himself to just one simple remark, as about the ancestors of other nations, but reports some information about Him from the Gospel. Jesus Christ is called the Son of the Most High God, who came down from Heaven in the Holy Spirit and took flesh from the Jewish Virgin, so that the Son of God dwells in the Daughter of Man; He chose twelve Apostles to carry out His economy, was crucified by the Jews, died, was buried, rose on the third day and ascended into Heaven; the apostles preached His greatness throughout the universe, and those who believe in Him are called Christians (chapter 2). After this, the author proceeds to determine which of the classes of humanity he named have the truth regarding God and which of them have fallen into error. The barbarians showed religious veneration to the elements and worshiped the creature instead of the Creator. People made images of them, locked them in churches and carefully guarded them so that robbers would not steal them. But the Barbarians could not understand that the one who protects is higher than the one who is protected and that, therefore, their idols, which are not able to protect themselves and save from enemies, cannot save anyone and are therefore useless. It is all the more surprising that the Barbarian philosophers called the images gods and argued that they were made in honor of the elements, while the elements themselves do not have signs of the Divine (3). Turning his thoughts to individual elements, Aristides shows that they are perishable and subject to change and, therefore, do not correspond to the established concept of God. Earth, water, fire, winds, sun serve man and are God’s creations, but not God (4–6). Those who considered people to be gods are also mistaken: man belongs to the same creation of God, consists of four elements and soul and spirit, and without any of these parts he does not exist; it has a beginning and an end, is born and dies. Thus, the Barbarians deviated from the truth, serving corruptible elements and dead images, and their Deities do not stand the test before the court of sound human reason (7). The apologist then moves on to the religious beliefs of the Greeks. If against the Barbarians Aristides especially pointed out the corruption of the revered elements, then he condemns the Greeks for the fact that they endowed their Deities with a human image, human passions, sins and crimes: among them there were adulterers, murderers, deceivers, parricides, thieves, robbers, some died, were killed by lightning, took the form of animals to commit adultery with mortal women, were guilty of sodomy, entered into illicit relations with their mothers, sisters and daughters, and so on. In his criticism of the religious cult of the Greeks, he introduces a new point of view, to which he remains faithful in his further presentation: this or that idea of ​​​​the Divine has an influence on the moral and social life of people; the vices and crimes of the gods encourage their worshipers to do the same. After all, if those who are called gods do all this, then much more will people who believe in this kind of gods do it.” People did not have such moral strength that would restrain their brute instincts. This is where wars and all kinds of other disasters come from; people suffered from these disasters and did not realize that all this was befalling them as a result of their delusions (8). From this point of view, he further speaks about the Greek gods separately - at the same time, he does not strive for either systematic completeness or order determined by mythology, but selects those Deities that seemed especially suitable for depicting the immorality and impotence of the Greek gods, hence the disorder in listing them. He begins with a story about the unhappy and pitiful fate of the “first of the gods” Kronos, about the lustful and adulterous Zeus and indicates the moral consequences that the behavior of these gods produced in people (10–11). Then he proceeds to depict the shortcomings of other gods and, using individual examples, illustrates how little the religious ideas of the Greeks correspond to the true concept of God. From the madness of the Greeks, the author moves on to the highest degree of absurdity, which is the deification of animals by the Egyptians - the most unreasonable of all peoples that exist on earth. At first, like the Greeks, they worshiped such Deities as Osiris, Isis, Typhon, and then moved on to the worship of animals and plants: “and they could not understand, unfortunate ones, that their gods are nothing, since they are daily devoured and destroyed by people and each other; some burn, others die, rot and turn into dung.” After this, the apologist again turns to the Greeks. If the Greeks were surpassed in error by the Egyptians, it still remains surprising how the Greeks, who stood out among all other peoples for their morals and intelligence, could reach the point of worshiping dead Deities and soulless images that are made by craftsmen, hewn, burned, decayed, broken, and decayed. Against the objection of some educated pagans who defended the Greek cult, that idols are not gods in themselves, but are made to honor the omnipotent God, Aristides notes that poets and philosophers are mistaken when they prove that these images are gods in the sense that they are made in honor of the omnipotent God; They are mistaken when they say that they are like God, concerning Whom no one has ever seen, to whom He is like, and could not see. This is where the misconception about God comes from: that sacrifices are pleasing to Him and He requires sprinkling, killing people and building churches. Having proved that Greek worship is incompatible with the true concept of God, Aristides notes that philosophers and poets, wanting to justify the popular cult, found themselves in conflict with mythology. They argued that the nature of all gods is the same, but then how did the struggle arise between them, which is conveyed in myths: one god pursues the other, kills him, harms him, and so on. Finally, the Greeks are guilty of a further contradiction: they introduced the law and did not notice that with their laws they condemned their gods, for if the laws are fair, then their gods are unrighteous, who allow violations of the laws; and if their gods are good and do everything as it is written about them, then the laws of the Greeks are unrighteous, because they were given in disagreement with the will of their gods (13). This ends the section on the Greeks. 1) That the gods of the Greeks, as mythology portrays them, cannot be true Deities; 2) That the veneration of these gods results in immorality and disasters in humanity; 3) That only the Egyptians surpassed the Greeks in madness; 4) But that Greek idolatry is not very different from the Greek religion, despite the defense of it that educated people represent; 5) That the speeches of philosophers and poets about the unity of God are in conflict with mythology; 6) That human morality normalized by laws is incompatible with Greek mythology. After this, Aristide turns to the second group of peoples - Jews and Christians. The Jews have faith in one God, the Creator of the world, and they worship Him alone, and as a result of this they stand closer to the truth than all other peoples. Accordingly, with a correct concept of God, their moral life, as Aristides claims, was at a higher level than that of the pagans; they imitate their God in love for people, in mercy for the poor, ransoming captives, burying the dead. However, they also deviated from the exact knowledge of God: thinking that they serve God, in the very way of worshiping God they show that they serve the angels when they observe the Sabbath, new moons, unleavened bread, the Great Day, fasting, circumcision, purity of food (14). “But Christians, Sir, have found the truth.” And as we concluded from their writings, they came much closer to truth and correct knowledge than all other peoples. For they know God, the Creator of everything - and they do not honor any other God besides Him. And the commandments that they received from Him, they wrote in their hearts and follow them in hope and expectation of the future world. Therefore, they do not allow any adultery or debauchery, do not bear false witness, are not unfaithful in what has been entrusted to them, and do not covet the things of others. They honor their father and mother, love their neighbors and judge righteously. They do not worship deities in human form, and what they do not want to happen to them, they will not do, and they do not eat sacrificial meat. They admonish their offenders and make them their friends; and they try to do good to their enemies. Their wives, sir, are as pure as virgins, their daughters are modest (bashful), their husbands abstain from all illegal relationships and all uncleanness in the hope of reward in the other world. But slaves, maidservants, or children, if any of them have them, they instruct them to become Christians, out of love for them. And if they have become Christians, then they are called brothers without distinction. They live in all humility and meekness, and no lies can be found among them. And they love one another, take care of the widows and protect the orphans, and whoever has gives without envy to those who have not. If they see a stranger, they bring him under their roof and rejoice over him as about a true brother, for they call themselves brothers not in the flesh, but in the spirit. But if one of their brothers departs from this world and one of them sees this, then he, according to his own strength, takes care of his burial. And if they hear that one of them is captured or persecuted for the name of their Christ, then they all take part in his needs and, if possible, free him. And if there is a needy or poor person among them and they themselves do not have an excess, then they fast for two or three days so that they can give to the poor as much as they need. They follow the commandments of their Christ with great diligence and live honestly and righteously, as the Lord their God commanded them. At every hour they glorify and magnify God for His benefits and thank Him for food and drink. And if a righteous person among them departs from the world, then they rejoice and thank God and accompany his body, as if he were moving from one place to another. And if a child is born to one of them, they glorify God; but if it happens that it dies in childhood, then they glorify God even more, because it passed through the world without sin. But if they see that one of them is dying in wickedness or in his sins, then they weep bitterly for him and pity him as one who is going to be tormented (14). Next, Aristide points out the importance of Christians for the world. They pray to God for what it is fitting for Him to give and for them to receive, and for the sake of their knowledge of God’s benefits, kindness continues to exist in the world. They alone, as far as we know, are close to the truth. But if what the author said can be said about Christians, then the question arises, why is so little known about them? This is explained by the fact that they hide their good deeds with great diligence; they strive to be righteous in the hope of seeing Christ and receiving the promised benefits from Him. Aristides only briefly depicted the life and truth of Christians before the Emperor; but whoever has sensitivity to the truth will undoubtedly feel the greatness and truth of the teachings of the new people. For this you need to read their writings. This reading will also convince you that he did not invent anything and what he said does not stem from the art of advocacy, but he speaks about this because he believes and considers himself obligated to proclaim the truth to those who have an inclination towards it and are looking for a future world (16). Here Aristide reveals for the first time that he is a Christian; not without a purpose, of course, he hid this until now and presented the very concept of God as the result of natural knowledge: the Emperor and all readers had to evaluate his work purely objectively - now he considered it already possible to discover his belonging to the Christian society. Having emphasized again that the world continues to exist through the prayers of Christians, and other peoples have fallen into the deepest error, Aristides, at the conclusion of the apology, insists that in the accusations against Christians it is necessary to see the reversal of those shameful acts that the Greeks themselves commit; Christians are righteous and holy, always have the truth before their eyes, patiently endure persecution, regret the persecutors as people who do not know the truth, and pray for their conversion. And indeed, the persecutors of Christians turn to their religion and then they are ashamed of what they did before and admit that they did it out of ignorance. And the convert purifies his heart and receives forgiveness of sins. Therefore, let the tongues of those who talk idle words against Christians and revile them be silenced; It is good for them to worship the true God. What is said through the lips of Christians is truly Divine, and their teaching is the door of light. Aristides concludes with the wish that those who do not know the true God turn to Christianity and accept the eternal words that remain from now on and forever; they will reach the Last Judgment, which will be carried out by Jesus Christ over the entire human race (17). 1. 4. Literary character and theological significance of the Apology As the concise presentation of the contents of the apology shows, it represents a work written according to a strictly thought-out and well-executed plan. At the head of his reasoning, the apologist placed “truth”, before which the pagans should bow, that is, the philosophical concept of God. From the point of view of this truth, he then judges the religions of the Barbarians and Greeks on the one hand, and the Jews and Christians on the other. The result of this assessment is that only Christians have the truth, and this is proven by their lives of obedience to the commandments given by the true God. Thus, Christianity receives its place in the history of religions: formally it has the same rights as other religions, but in content it infinitely surpasses them, because it has the truth. In proving this, Aristide sets himself a high task: he wants to change the judgment of the educated world - led by the Emperor - about Christianity. The last turn that will come in the history of religions must be a turn towards salvation. The fourth class of people has truth and love, and for their sake the world continues to exist. If, in view of these facts, bad judgments about Christians are lies, then the author can already express the hope that the world will understand what serves its salvation. Trust, Aristides does not ask for an improvement in the situation of Christians, does not defend or justify them: he wishes and hopes that the Emperor and with him all his subjects will convert to Christianity - truth will triumph over error. Despite the simplicity of the plan and presentation, the author cannot be denied literary talent. He confidently embraces with his gaze all of humanity as a whole, and puts it to the test before the truth. He penetrates deeply into the world significance and mission of the new religion; and the sublime Christian self-consciousness is clearly reflected in the fact that he speaks of the much reviled, hated by many and persecuted “small flock” of Christians as a full member among the great families of people. In particular, he also knows how to group his material quite successfully; Some sections, such as the depiction of the Christian Faith and Christian Life, are presented with great oratory and sincere feeling. If in other places, namely in his speech about the gods of the Greeks, in depicting their weaknesses and insignificance, he speaks too extensively and monotonously, often repeating himself, then we must not forget that for his contemporary readers these explanations could be of particular interest. In dogmatic-historical terms, the apology does not present any valuable material. In this regard, the most important place in the entire apology is its expression about the Founder of Christianity: He is called the Son of the Most High and it is said that “God came down from Heaven and took flesh from a Jewish virgin and clothed himself with it, and that the Son of God dwelt in a human daughter.” In the Greek edition this passage reads as follows: “they teach that this Son of God in the Holy Spirit came down from Heaven for the salvation of people and from the Holy Virgin, seedless and without incorruptibility (ἀσπόρως τε καì ἀφθόρος) was born, took flesh and appeared to people.” He was killed by the Jews, died, was buried, and on the third day he rose and ascended to Heaven (15:1). In the concluding words of the apology, Aristide speaks of the Last Judgment, which will be carried out by Jesus Christ over all humanity. If we take into account the entire content of the apology, then in it we will find, first of all, a decisive statement of monotheism and monotheistic cosmology: God is the Creator and mover of everything; He is a spiritual, perfect and omnipotent being, in whom everything needs and who Himself lacks nothing. No less decisively, Aristide sets forth the faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High God, His birth from the Virgin Mary and Death on the Cross, Burial and Resurrection on the Third Day, the Ascension into Heaven and the coming Judgment of Mankind. In general, Aristide did not intend to expound the content of Christian teaching and says only what he considered necessary to say in accordance with the objectives of the work and the degree of understanding of the readers. He also gives little new material in his depiction of Christian life, but the general picture, along with some particulars, is very instructive; the particulars were known, but the whole makes a new, strong impression. 1. 5. Information about the personality of the apologist Aristide Aristide's apology makes it possible to grasp at least some features of the author's personal life. If in the Apology we see the author’s testimony about the internal process that led him to Christianity, then we will find a clear parallel with what St. Justin tells about his conversion (Dial. Cum Triph.1:8). Both husbands come from a burning thirst for truth; both sought satisfaction of this desire in modern philosophy; both realized that true philosophy is in Christianity, began to study the Holy Scriptures and “were forever acquired for Christianity, seeing how Christians live and die” (Aristides - Justin - Apology, 11:12). It can be said with confidence that at that time many seekers of truth followed the same path and came to Christianity in the same way (compare: also Tatian, Oratioad Graecos 42:29; 35:1; Panten in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 5:10. 1). Aristides is called the Athenian philosopher. But from his Apology it is clear that he was simply an educated person. He freely uses philosophical terminology, but nothing in his work indicates that he possessed a deep and independent knowledge of Greek philosophy: the general passages and phrases he cited were accessible to every educated person of that time. His knowledge of the religions and teachings of the East does not go beyond the generally known principles. Therefore, it must be said that the learning of the Athenian philosopher did not rise above the level of education common to many Christians. But having such relatively modest data - however, very valuable for the Christian society at that time - Aristides, aware of the importance of the results that he achieved - perhaps after many years of intense internal work and struggle - decided to present his little book to the Head of the World Empire and with him the educated Roman society. His merit lies in his desire to find in the generally accepted philosophical views, in the philosophical concept of the Divine, in the criticism of moral views determined by pagan mythology, the basis on which it would be possible to establish mutual understanding between educated pagans and confessors of the new religion. Later Christianity did not forget this merit of Aristides: γραφή), says Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:3, 3), and even in the 7th century, a monk of the monastery of St. Sava used Aristides’s concisely written apology as the most convenient form for refuting the pagans and converting the enemies of Christianity. 1. 6. The question of the authenticity of the Discourse and a fragment of the Epistle of Aristides The Armenian legend about the literary activity of Aristide also attributes to him a Conversation and a fragment of the Epistle. The conversation was published for the first time by the Mekhitarists in 1878, based on a Venetian manuscript of the 12th or 13th century; then it ended up in the Etchmiadzin manuscript. It bears the title: Aristidis philosophi Atheniensis de latronis clamore et crucifixi responsione (sermo). Frequent addresses to the hearers (1:2; 7:1, 2) make it clear that this is a conversation; There is no doubt that it was uttered immediately after reading the biblical text (1:1; 2:2; 7:3, 4), which contained the thief’s prayer: “Remember me, Lord, when you come into Your kingdom!”, and the Savior’s answer: “Today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:42, 43). The preacher calls on listeners to be attentive to the mystery of these words. Having depicted the event and placed in a certain place the conversation between the crucified thief and the Savior, he dwells on clarifying the religious and dogmatic meaning of the thief’s prayer and the Savior’s answer, and in conclusion exhorts to follow the example of the repentant thief in his faith in the life-giving and gracious power of the word of Christ; the fate of the other robber should serve as a warning. In the Savior’s response to the thief, the preacher sees evidence of the true Divinity of the Savior: “it is impossible for an ordinary person, whose nature is mortal, to grant immortality to another, equally mortal nature” (4:2). “Which of the people could open the doors of Paradise, which God closed for the first-created man, and commanded the Cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the entrance to Paradise” (6:3)? And earlier the Crucified One showed His word as life-giving, when He raised Lazarus and healed the man born blind; and every time it was faith in His Divinity that was rewarded with miraculous help (6). Therefore, we must beware of looking at the Lord with blinded Jewish eyes as a mere man (5:1). “Be by faith disciples of him crucified on the right hand, and in your confession be consistent with him: but ye shall withdraw from him crucified on the right hand, and also from those who share his confession” (7:1); must be firm in the conviction that “He who was crucified is God and the Son of God” (7:4). A fragment of the Epistle, found in a later Armenian manuscript (1704), is inscribed: “from the Epistle to all philosophers of the philosopher Aristides.” Only a few lines have been preserved from it - namely: “the true (Son of God) endured all the sorrows (suffering) in His body, which He, by the will of the Father and the Holy Spirit, received from the Jewish Virgin, from Saint Mariam, and united in Himself in an ineffable and indivisible unity.” The conversation is a rather short work in volume and simple in presentation, written with great animation; thoughts develop consistently and harmoniously. She fully deserves to be placed at the head of the ancient Christian preaching writing that has come down to us, and this position is quite befitting of her if she was pronounced in Athens in the first half of the 2nd century. In terms of time of origin, the Conversation that has come down to us under the name of the second Epistle of Clement of Rome can argue with it, but the latter is significantly inferior to the first in terms of internal merits. As for the “letter of the philosopher Aristides to all philosophers,” it was obviously of an apologetic nature, and a fragment of it was preserved because it met the goals and needs of Orthodox Theology of the 5th century: when in the 5th century the collection of sayings of ancient Church writers began in dogmatic and polemical interests, the passage in question was taken as “evidence” in favor of Orthodox teaching against Nestorianism. But do the Discourse and the passage from the Epistle really belong to the apologist Aristides? The question of the authenticity of both must be resolved for each work separately. When the Discourse was published by the Mekhitarists at the same time as a fragment of Aristides' apology, at first they did not pay much attention to it and, although the majority spoke out against its authenticity, no one subjected it to a thorough and comprehensive study. And only when, after the publication of the full text of the apology, the essential questions raised by its publication were clarified, then the question of the Conversation was put on the right scientific basis. However, the results of the study turned out to be so opposite that to this day it is not possible to bring them into agreement. Th.Zahn (in Forschungen zur Gesch. des neutestament. Kanons und altkirchl. Litt. Teil 5, 1893. S. 415–437: Geschichte der altchristl. “Eine Predigt und ein apologetisches Sendschreiben des athenischen Philosophen Aristiden”) asserts the authenticity most decisively homilies; R. Seeberg also agrees with him, who (in the treatise Der Apologet Aristides. Erlangen, 1894, S. 8–25) reveals and substantiates in more detail the essential provisions of Th. Zahna. At the same time, Adolf Harnack (in Gesch.d. altehr. Lit. 1, 99) recognized the homily as Nestorian; his view was revealed and tried to be defended by R. Rare (in “Text. and Untersuch” XII, 2 (1894): Die Predigt und das Brieffragment des Aristides auf ihre Echtheit untersucht), who also dates its origin to the 5th century. It is difficult to find grounds for such a decision that would not raise fair objections. External evidence is not distinguished by unconditional authority: The Armenian manuscripts in which the homilies are preserved belong to too late a time. On the other hand, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the inscription of the homily in these manuscripts with the name of Aristides naturally presupposes an older tradition, which should be paid attention to already because Aristides was not a celebrity of ancient Church literature; the insignificant news about him, which was conveyed by Eusebius, did not give any reason to attribute the nameless conversation to him, if it were not in some way connected with the name of Aristides. The objection that all of antiquity, as far as is known, does not know about any homily of the philosopher Aristides, since of all Eastern and Western writers only Eusebius and Jerome report about his apology, cannot be of significant significance. The text of the homilies itself also does not make it possible to come to a definite conclusion. If we accept that the current text of the homily is a translation from Greek, then it remains unknown how correctly the translator conveyed the original in this case. The Armenian text in many places recalls the Christological debates of the 5th century, in particular the polemic between Orthodox and Nestorians; These features of later theology are so defined that the defender of the authenticity of homilies R. Seeberg is forced to agree that the Armenian translator interpreted and expanded the Greek original in an anti-Nestorian sense. At the same time, the defense of the authenticity of homilies moves onto rather slippery ground and opens up a wide field for all sorts of possibilities, which, however, cannot even lead to probability. A comparison of the homily with the Apology of Aristides in thoughts and expressions also does not provide convincing data. In view of what has been said on the issue of the authenticity of the homily, at present it is impossible to make a final judgment - in any case, if it is impossible to assert its non-authenticity, then, on the other hand, its authenticity must also be considered very doubtful. Less difficult is the solution to the question of the authenticity of an excerpt from the “letter of Aristide the philosopher to all philosophers”, as far as, of course, one can only talk about an excerpt, and not about the whole letter from which it is taken. And here Th. Zahn and R. Seeberg spoke in favor of authenticity, and P. Pape - recognizes the passage as inauthentic. But the very passage with the characteristic expression: “from a Jewish virgin” is reminiscent of the above passage from Aristides’ apology: “He is called the Son of the Most High, and it is said that God came down from Heaven and from the Jewish Virgin received flesh and put on her, and that the Son of God dwells in a human daughter” (2:6). There is no reason to suppose that the passage is modeled on the Apology and is with intent attributed to Aristides; therefore, it can be accepted that the passage, at least in its essential features, belongs to Aristide. II. Saint Justin philosopher and martyr II. 1. Information about the life of Saint Justin Among the apologists of the 2nd century, Saint Justin the Martyr occupies an outstanding and, one might say, exceptional position in its significance. In his apologetic activity, he was a model for a number of subsequent apologists - Tatian Athenagoras, Theophilus, Melito, Minucius Felix, Tertullian and others, eclipsing his predecessor Aristides. Tatian, admiring his learning and literary activity, calls him ὁ θαυμασιώτατος Ἰ ουστι νος (Orat., 18). Very early he acquired the title of “philosopher” and “martyr”; already Tertullian says: “Iustinus philosophus etmartyr” (Adv. Valent. 5) Methodius of Olympus calls him a husband “not far from the Apostles either in time or in virtue” (ἀνὴρ ο ὔ τε τω @ χρόν ῳ πό ῤῥ ω ὤ ν τω ν ἀποστόλων ο ὔ τε τ ῇ αςρετ ῇ). The following is known about the life, spiritual development and activities of Justin. He came, according to his own instructions (Apol. 1:1), from Flavia Naples, ancient Shechem in Samaria, present Naplus. Devastated and destroyed during the Jewish War (66–73), this city, as its name indicates, was rebuilt (νέα πόλις) by Emperor Vespasian, of the House of Flavians, and inhabited by Greek and Roman colonists. Saint Justin also came from a family of such Greek colonists. His name Samaritan (ὁ Σαμαρείτης) indicates only his place of birth and not his Semitic origin. Undoubtedly, his parents were pagans (Dial., 28). Justin himself did not know the Hebrew language, was uncircumcised and raised in pagan customs (Dial., 28:41). His father was named Priscus, and his grandfather Bacchius. The exact date of his birth is unknown, but since the time of his youth falls during the reign of Antoninus Pius, and his death during the prefecture of Rusticus (from 163 to 167), and Justin had not yet reached old age, his time of birth can be attributed to the first decade of the 2nd century. Just as in relation to the majority of the Fathers of the Church, the history of his spiritual and religious development is more accurately known about Saint Justin than the history of his external life. In his “Conversation with Tryphon” he gives interesting information about the efforts by which he sought to achieve true wisdom. It is difficult to decide how accurately this work generally depicts the actual event; but if they admit that it is based without any doubt on the historical fact of the conversation between the author and the Jewish scientist, then there is less reason to deprive the author’s message about himself of the historical nature. Even in his youth, he felt within himself an irresistible attraction to the truth; as the highest goal, he was presented with direct contemplation of the Divine and the resulting religious and moral life, which would pacify the spirit and feeling. Such aspirations, which undoubtedly arose under the influence of the thorough education he received in his hometown, forced him to leave his parents' home and seek closer communication with representatives of various philosophical schools (probably in Asia Minor - in Ephesus). Justin himself speaks about this in this way: “When I first wanted to get acquainted with one of them (philosophers), I gave myself to the leadership of a Stoic; but when I lived with him for a considerable time and my knowledge of God did not increase at all - for he himself did not have, and did not consider such knowledge necessary, then I left him behind and turned to another, called a peripatetic, a witty man, as he thought of himself. He tolerated my presence for several days, and then demanded that I set a fee so that our interview would not be of no use to us. For this reason I left him too, considering him unworthy of the name of philosopher. But since my soul longed to know what constitutes the essence and subject of philosophy, I came to the famous Pythagorean, a man who was very proud of his wisdom. When I announced to him my desire to become a listener and student, he asked me: have you studied music, astronomy and geometry? or do you think you can understand something from the science leading to happiness if you have not previously been thoroughly engaged in what distracts the soul from the sensory and prepares it for the mental, so that it is able to contemplate beauty and goodness in their essence. Then he spoke a lot in favor of this knowledge and about the need to study it, and sent me away as soon as I admitted ignorance of it. Naturally, I was saddened that my hope was destroyed, and especially since I considered him a man with some knowledge; but on the other hand, considering how much time I had to spend on those sciences, I did not dare to postpone it for a long time. In such a difficulty, it occurred to me to also try the Platonists, because they also enjoyed great fame. One of the famous Platonists, a reasonable man, just recently arrived in our city; I worked with him for a lot of time, improved and made rapid progress every day. Plato’s doctrine of the incorporeal greatly fascinated me, and the theory of ideas inspired my thought; soon, it seemed, I became a sage and in my recklessness I hoped to soon contemplate God himself - for such is the goal of Plato’s philosophy In this way the Platonist more or less successfully mastered the mind of Justin and revived in him hopes of achieving the object of his desires. Here Justin adopted that monotheistic and moral worldview, according to which the world is presented as the creation of a single, unborn, perfect and exalted God above the world, as well as the correct Worship of God, which consists, on the one hand, in the elevation of the soul to the realm of the supersensible, and on the other, in the practical implementation of the moral principle, as a Divine principle, destined to dominate in man. The Fathers of the Church had special sympathy for the sublime teaching of Plato, finding in it. closeness to Christian “ideas”. And it was not an accident that Justin was directly led to Christ from Plato. According to Justin it happened this way. Immersed in meditation on the teachings of Plato and excited by the hope of a quick contemplation of God Himself, Justin wanted to surrender to peace and move away from every trace of humanity; he went to a secluded place on the seashore. When he was approaching the place where he wanted to be alone with himself, an ancient old man suddenly appeared here, venerable in appearance, with a pleasant and important posture, who followed him at a short distance. The elder entered into a conversation with him, which soon focused on the question of whether philosophy can really solve the problems of life or give confidence to a doubting soul. The elder brought Justin to the realization that Platonic philosophy was unable to satisfy the aspirations of the human spirit for truth and the heart for peace. “Which teacher,” asked Justin, “can a person trust or where can he expect help, if these philosophers do not have the truth? “There were once people,” answered the elder, “who were much more ancient than any of these revered as philosophers - blessed, righteous and pleasing people to God, who spoke by the Holy Spirit and predicted the future, which is now coming true; they are called prophets. They alone knew and proclaimed the truth to people, in spite of anyone, without fear, without being carried away by glory, but they spoke only what they heard and saw when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings still exist today, and whoever reads them with faith will receive much instruction regarding the beginning and end of things, as well as what a philosopher should know. In their speeches they did not indulge in evidence, being reliable witnesses of the truth; the very events that have already happened and are still happening force us to accept their testimony. Also, for the sake of the miracles that they performed, they deserve faith, because they glorified the Creator of all things - God the Father, and proclaimed Christ, His Son, sent from Him; what the false prophets, filled with the spirit of lies and uncleanness, did not do and do not do; the latter, on the contrary, dare to perform some miracles to amaze people and spread the glory of the spirits of lies and demons. But first of all, pray that the doors of light will be opened to you - for these things cannot be seen or understood by anyone unless God and Christ give Him understanding.” Having said this and much more, the elder left, urging Justin to think about his words. His explanations fell on receptive soil - this conversation constituted a turning point in Justin’s life. He no longer saw the elder, but his words left an indelible mark on Justin’s soul: “A fire immediately kindled in my heart, and I was overcome with love for the prophets and those men who are the servants of Christ; and reflecting with myself on his words, I saw that this philosophy is united, solid and useful. This message regarding the circumstances of Justin's conversion to Christianity needs to be somewhat supplemented on the basis of other indications. One cannot think that this transition was the result of only theoretical reasoning and a careful comparison of Platonic and Christian teachings. The conversation with the venerable elder only contributed to the speedy resolution of the process that was taking place in Justin’s soul under the influence of various impressions in connection with internal needs. The purity of life and the greatness of death of Christians made no less an impression on Justin than on other sincere pagans who encountered them. He was probably given his own example when he wrote: “Christ exhorted us with patience and meekness to lead everyone away from shameful deeds and addiction to evil. I can show this in many of our people, who changed from being insolent and fierce, having been defeated either because they saw in their companions wonderful patience in enduring insults, or from experience they learned the morals of those people with whom they came into contact on business” (Apol. 1:16). Justin says even more clearly in another place: “And I myself, when I was enjoying the teachings of Plato, heard how Christians were reviled, but seeing how they fearlessly face death and everything that is considered terrible, I considered it impossible that they should be given over to vice and debauchery. For what dissolute and intemperate person, who reveres human flesh as a pleasure (an allusion to accusations of Oedipal incest and Thyestian feasts), can willingly accept death in order to be deprived of his pleasures. Will he not, on the contrary, try in every possible way to continue his real life and hide from the authorities, and not announce himself for condemnation to death” (Apol. 11:12). These observations on the lifestyle of those who converted to Christianity and the courage of Christians in the face of death undoubtedly had no less importance for Justin than theoretical discussions about the superiority of Christian teaching over the teaching of Greek philosophers. Thus, “an unfeigned lover of true philosophy, who also studied the Greek sciences” (Eus. Hist. eccl. 4:8) became a Christian. Justin's conversion to Christianity probably occurred shortly before the Jewish War of 132–135 (about 130), since Justin dates his “Conversation with Tryphon” to the time of this war (chap. 1 and 9) and, one might think, in Ephesus. Thus, in the same place where Justin studied the ancient Ephesian philosopher Heraclitus (cf. 1:46; 1:7), Socrates, Plato and Stoic ethics (cf. 2:6, 7) and sought an explanation of the history of the world in the then widespread Heraclitian-Platonic-Stoic doctrine of the Divine Logos, he plunged into the study of the Old Testament (in the Greek translation) and Christian teaching and Christian writing. A reverent attitude towards the Old Testament and a deep penetration into its meaning and spirit, one might say, protected him from the danger of entering the path of Christian Gnosticism, and this danger was undoubted given the special direction of his philosophical thinking, and not only protected, but even made him a zealous opponent of modern Gnosticism, especially the teachings of Marcion. Justin looked at his conversion not as a progressive transition to a new philosophical school, but as an entry into a completely new spiritual sphere: Christianity in his eyes is a teaching of a special kind, purer and more sublime than Plato’s, a divinely revealed and perfect teaching that gives him light and a complete explanation of the origin and purpose of the world. Thus, Justin became convinced that only in the Revelation given by Christ lies the new true Divine philosophy; but he did not become an enemy of Greek philosophy, which did not satisfy his desires and expectations. Imbued with a view of the exceptional significance of Christianity, he did not condemn his previous quests, did not turn away from them with disdain and even hatred, as did, for example, Tatian, but paid tribute to them, seeing in the best aspirations of pagan philosophy a premonition of a higher reality, the predawn darkness before a clear day. He treated Socrates and Plato with special love and respect. Having become a Christian, he did not abandon the pursuit of philosophy, which had become dear to him, and did not take off the philosophical mantle (Dial.1). Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4:11, 8) says that he served the Divine word in the clothes of a philosopher (compare Phot. Bibl., cod.125: φιλοσοφω ν καì τοι ς λόγοις καì τω @ βί ῳ κα τω @ σχήματι ). In these clothes, he hoped to carry out the service of Christian truth all the more successfully because he could enter into communication with people of different convictions everywhere, disposing them to a conversation with himself by his appearance. In addition, philosophical schools then enjoyed a certain freedom, therefore Justin and other apologists, wearing the clothes of philosophers and opening philosophical schools, could count on the same advantages with the public and with the police that were granted to pagan philosophers and philosophical schools. Justin saw his calling in the fearless preaching and defense of Christianity as a single, reliable and useful philosophy. He was convinced that anyone who can speak the truth and not speak will be condemned by God (Dial., 82) and entered into reasoning with everyone who came to him: “It seems to me,” Tryphon tells him, “that you have often been in competition with many about all controversial subjects and therefore now you can answer everything that you are not asked about” (Dial., 50). He fulfilled this calling without being initiated into any church position (the assumption that Justin was a presbyter has no sufficient basis), but as a traveling teacher, following the example and custom of philosophers. In this he followed the spirit of his time: then even men who did not belong to the class whose rank was called to perform the duties of teaching looked upon themselves as enlightened and taught by God, and considered themselves called to proclaim the truth in the name of God (compare: Ep. ad. Diogn., 1). Eusebius, who mentions the wanderings of Justin, unfortunately, does not name the cities where he found his ministry; these were probably centers of spiritual life. The travels of wandering Christian teachers generally covered large areas. Around the half of the 2nd century, Igisippus undertakes a many-year journey from the East, visits many churches and, finally, through Corinth, comes to Rome; Julius Africanus is reported to have lived in Edessa, Rome and Alexandria; Origen visited Caesarea Cappadocia, Nicomedia, Athens, Nicopolis, Rome and other cities (see A. Harnack. Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums. Leipzig, 1902). In particular, Rome was the goal of the aspirations of both Orthodox teachers and sectarians; everyone recognized the importance of the center of Church life. Here both Eastern and Hellenistic people could freely develop their activities. The latter found a favorable field of activity in Rome, because the highest spiritual life in Rome developed under the influence of the Greek language and education. The Gnostic heretics - whose homeland was almost exclusively the East - could spread their teachings in the Greek language in the capital of the world. Also, their Orthodox opponents from the East and West could use the Greek language in their speeches and written works, which was more suitable than the Latin language for expressing new Christian ideas. And the Hellenically educated Justin found in Rome everything he needed for the success of his activities, and therefore it is not surprising that he chose the capital of the world as the primary place for his educational works. Justin was in Rome twice. Here he founded his school, and his house was hospitably open to everyone who wanted to receive instruction from him in the Christian religion (Acta S. Iust., 3). How freely and boldly he challenged his opponents in public contests is shown by his own account of a contest with the cynic Crescent (Apol. 2:3; cf. Tatian, Orat., 19). Apparently, he had the habit of causing such pitiful philosophers, who, to please the crowd, publicly accused Christians of godlessness and wickedness, to be completely confused by the Socratic method through questions, clearly showing that they do not know the teachings of those whom they attack. This Crescent, who, according to Justin, does not deserve to be called a philosopher, turned out to be Justin's worst enemy, and he expresses fear that he will become a victim of his machinations (Apol. 2:3). We do not have correct information about the future life of Justin. It is only known that he sealed his faith in Christ with the feat of martyrdom. Although he did not seek martyrdom, he was quite ready for it; he repeatedly shows what a strong impression the noble death of conviction made on him: he speaks with delight of the death of Socrates and other great pagans, as a decisive evidence of their innocence; the firmness of Christians before torture and death convinces him of the falsity of the dirty accusations brought against them. And he himself was called to give the same testimony to the truth of Christianity. His martyrdom is certified by the most ancient writers, starting with Irenaeus, by whom he was given the name of martyr. The ancient acts of his martyrdom, written in Greek, have survived to us, containing undoubtedly reliable news, based, one might think, on the official records of his trial (Acta SS. Iustinietsoc.). Eusebius, based on the expressions of Justin (Apol. 2:3) and his disciple Tatian (Orat., 18), concludes that Justin was brought to trial through the machinations of the cynic Crescent (Eus. Chron. ad a Abr. 2168; Hist. eccl. 4:16, 7–8). But neither the words of Justin and Tatian, nor the acts speak of Crescent as the closest culprit in Justin’s death, and therefore it is impossible to determine the extent and nature of the actual participation of Crescent, undoubtedly hostile to Justin, in initiating a process against the Christian philosopher. From the acts in general it is impossible to conclude either the immediate or the most distant reason for Justin’s imprisonment. This was during his second stay in Rome, when he zealously preached Christianity, communicating the Christian truth to everyone who came to him. With five other Christians (Chariton, Evelpist, Hierax, Paeon and Liberian), he appeared before the prefect of the city, Junius Rusticus. When Rusticus, after a preliminary proposal to honor the gods and obey the Emperors, asked Justin what doctrine he professed, he replied: “I tried to become acquainted with all systems of philosophy, but decided in favor of the true doctrine of the Christians, although they do not enjoy the approval of people who are captivated by lies.” Rusticus said: “And this teaching finds your approval, unfortunate man?” Justin replied: “Yes, for I firmly adhere to it in accordance with true dogmas.” The prefect asked: “What are these dogmas?” Justin replied: “We honor the God of Christians, who, as we are convinced, is one from the beginning, the Creator and Creator of all creation, visible and invisible, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, about whom the prophets foretold that He would come to people as the Messenger of salvation and teacher of truth. I, as a man, realize that I speak insufficiently in comparison with His infinite Deity, and I confess that prophetic power is necessary (that the truth may be fully presented); for he whom I have now called the Son of God was foretold. I know precisely that the prophets first foretold His Coming to people.” To the prefect’s question about where Christians gather, Justin answered: “where anyone wants and can; do you think that we are all going to just one place? No. The God of Christians is not limited to any place, but invisible, He fills Heaven and Earth and everywhere receives worship and glory from the faithful. And I,” continued Justin, “live in the house of Martin, near the Timothean bath; whoever wanted to come to me, I imparted to him the teaching of the truth.” "Are you a Christian?" – asked the prefect. “Yes, Christian,” was Justin’s decisive answer. Justin's other comrades also courageously confessed themselves to be Christians. Then the prefect turned to Justin with these words, which clearly showed mockery: “Listen, you who call yourself a scientist and think that you know the true teaching: if after scourging your head is cut off, are you sure that you will ascend to Heaven? “I hope,” answered Justin, “to receive this gift if I endure all this.” “So you think that you will ascend to Heaven and receive a reward there?” – Rustic asked again. “I not only think, but I know and am quite sure of it,” Justin answered firmly. Rusticus ordered everyone to make a sacrifice to the gods, and when they refused to do this, he threatened them with merciless punishment. “Our ardent desire,” said Justin, “is to suffer for our Lord Jesus Christ, for this will grant us salvation and boldness at the Last and World Judgment of our Lord and Savior.” “Do what you want,” added the other confessors, “we are Christians and do not offer sacrifices to idols.” Then the sentence followed: “since they refused to sacrifice to the gods and obey the command of the autocrat, they should be scourged and taken to death, in accordance with the requirements of the law.” Their heads were cut off. The martyrdom of Justin falls during the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161–169); can be more accurately determined by the time of the prefecture of Junius Rustica 163–167. II. 2. Literary activity of Saint Justin Saint Justin, the philosopher and martyr, according to Eusebius, “left us many useful monuments of an educated mind and zealously occupied with Divine subjects” (Hist. eccl., 4:18, 1). Indeed, he was the first of the Church Fathers to develop an extensive literary activity. He refuted not only Judaism and paganism, but also heresies. The glory of Justin, his venerable personality, surrounded by an aura of martyrdom, as well as his literary activity, scholarship and Orthodoxy, extends throughout all antiquity. How highly his works were valued is evidenced by reviews of him and literal borrowings from his works from subsequent Church writers. If it cannot be proven that Justin's disciple Tatian, who called him ὁ θαυμασιώτατος Ἰ ουστι νος, used his works and borrowed from them, then it is certain that in his work Oratioad Graecos he introduces Justin as a well-known and famous person. Igisippus - who wrote almost simultaneously with Irenaeus - apparently used the anti-heretical work of Justin: Justin himself mentions it in his apology (Apol.1:26). There is no doubt that Irenaeus also made extracts from the works of Justin; not only does he clearly point to Justin twice (Adv. haer., 4:6. 2 and 5:26, 2), but in the first book of his anti-Gnostic work he undoubtedly used Justin’s Σύνταγμα, and in all five books he reveals a significant dependence on apologies and the “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew.” The compiler of the Chronicon paschale draws attention to the relationship between the unpreserved apology of Melito of Sardinia and the apology of Justin, which can only be explained by the use of the latter by Melito. Theophilus also reveals familiarity with the apology of Justin, although in general his work is distinguished by its independence. The same should be said about the pseudo-Melitonian Apology, known only in the Syriac translation. The use of Justin's apology by Minucius Felix is ​​noted. There is no doubt that Tertullian knew various works of Justin, used them in compiling his treatises even of later times, without naming the source: Tertullian’s “apologetic” was written on the basis of a very careful reading of Justin’s apology. Once Tertullian mentions his name as a writer against heretics (Adv. Valent., 5), and makes it clear that he considers Justin to be the oldest anti-heretical writer who also wrote against the Valentinians, and that already at the beginning of the 3rd century he was given the honorary title “philosophus etmartyr”. Tertullian's contemporary Hippolytus also knows “Justin the Martyr” (Philos. 8:16), and the author of the “Small Labyrinth” between Church apologists and polemicists names Justin in first place (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:28, 4). Thus, it is certain that until the half of the 3rd century, Justin’s apologies and other polemical works were read in Rome, Antioch, Lyon and Carthage, and he himself was revered as an apologist and anti-heretical writer. But we do not find more accurate information regarding his literary activity among the writers of this time. His only work, named quite definitely, is Σύνταγμα πρòς Μαρκίωνα (Irenaeus. Adv. haer. 4:6, 2). At the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 4th century, Methodius of Olympus, in his work: περì τη ς ἀναστάσεως, from which Photius reports excerpts (Bibl. cod. 234), quotes one saying of “Justin from Naples - a man who, both in time and in his virtues, stood close to To the apostles,” the expression he cited is not found in the works of the apologist known to us. Detailed and most definite information about Justin and his works is first given by Eusebius; his message is important for determining the scope of the apologist’s literary activity, the time of his life and the text of his works that have come down to us. Information about the works and numerous extracts from them show that Eusebius carefully reread what he had at hand from these works and took from them all the most important historical remarks. After a general indication that Justin “left many most useful monuments of an educated mind and zealously occupied with Divine subjects,” Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4:18) writes: “Being content with designating those of them that have come to our attention, we refer those who are curious to them. Firstly, he has an essay to Antoninus, called the pious, to his sons and to the Roman Senate. It is written in defense of our teaching. Another work, which also contains a defense of our faith, was written by him to the successor and co-name of the mentioned Emperor - Antoninus Verus, about whose times we are now telling. He also has a book against the Hellenes (Λόγος πρòς Ἔ λληνας), in which he extensively discusses very many issues that form the subject of research, both among us and among Hellenic philosophers, and expresses his opinion about the nature of spirits, which, however, there is no need to express here. Another of his works against the Hellenes has reached us, under the title: Reproof (Ἔ λεγχος πρòς Ἔ λληνας). Moreover, he wrote a book about the sovereignty of God (Περì θεου μοναρχίας) and extracted evidence for this not only from our writings, but also from the writings of Hellenism. Then follows his essay entitled “The Singer” (Ψάλτης) and also remarks on the soul (Περì ψυχη ς), in which he offers various studies of questions relating to this subject and, citing the opinions of Hellenic philosophers, promises to refute them in another work and state his own opinion. Justin also wrote a conversation against the Jews that he had in the city of Ephesus with Tryphon, the most famous among the Jews of that time.” Several quotes from this work follow. Then Eusebius continues: “They say that in different hands of the brethren there are a lot of other works of Justin. The works of this man were so respected even in ancient times that Irenaeus quotes his words.” Two quotations follow from the work against Marcion (πρòς Μαρκίωνα). Eusebius ends his report on the works of Justin with these words: “I considered it necessary to mention everything in order to dispose those who are curious to carefully study the works of Justin.” Thus, Eusebius knew eight works of Justin, and at the same time he reports that other works of the apologist were in circulation at that time. Jerome (De vir. ill., 23) supplemented the message of Eusebius only with the erroneous indication that Justin was explaining the Apocalypse. Rufinus borrowed from Justin's apology the Latin original of Hadrian's letter, which is placed in the Greek translation in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (4:9). Since the 4th century in the West, apparently, no writer has known more of the works of Justin. In the East, they continued to read and use the works of Justin. How alive the memory of Saint Justin was in the Greek Church, about this, in addition to the instructions from Theodoret, in Chron. paschal. ada. 165, in Anastasius Sinaite, Leontius, Maximus the Confessor, evidenced by numerous quotations from John of Damascus and messages about Justin from Photius (Bibl., cod.125). For quotations from Justin in the Sacra Parallela of John of Damascus, see: K. Holl // “Texte und Untersuchungen” XX, N. F. V (1899), S. 32–55. In his rather detailed report about Justin (Bibl., cod. 125), Photius first speaks of his works that Eusebius does not mention, then, on the basis of them, he characterizes the apologist as a writer, then names his works, named by Eusebius, and ends with brief instructions regarding the origin, life and martyrdom of Saint Justin. Photius names the following new works of Justin: 1) λλήνων However, it is possible that this title combines the apologies and dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, since Photius does not name these works in the list that is given to them further in accordance with Eusebius. 2) Κατà του πρώτου καì δευτέρου τη ς φυσικής ἀκροάσεως, that is, “against the first and second books of readings about nature,” or against form, matter and connection (κατà εἴδους καì ὕ λης καì σχερήσεως), according to Photius also against the “fifth body” and “perpetual motion” (κατà του Aristotle, and 3) Ἀποριω ν κατà τη ς εὐσεβείας κεφαλαιώδεις ἐπιλύσεις - “the total rarefaction of perplexities directed against faith.” The handwritten tradition of Justin's works adds even more confusion to the question of the true scope of his literary activity. In the so-called Code of Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea, written for him by Bahan the notary in 914 (Cod.Parisinus 451 - about him see Adolfa Harnacka in Texte und Unters. 1, 1–2 (1882), S. 24 ff.) the following two are placed as works of Justin: 1) Ἰ ουσχι νος Ζήν ᾳ καì Σερήν ῳ τοι ς ἀδελφοι ς χαίρειν and 2) Του ἁ γίου Ἰ ουσχίνου φιλοσόφου καì μάρτυρος λόγος παραινετικòς πρòς Ἑ λληνας . The title of the first work appears here for the first time; the second may be identical with what was already named by Eusebius (Λόγος πρòς Ἑ ληνας). Several codices of the 11th and subsequent centuries depend on Codex Parisinus 451, which contain the two named works as belonging to Justin; but in one of these lists, immediately after Λόγος παραινετικός, there is placed, without the name of the author, the work Ἔ κθεσις πίσχεως ἤ τοι περì Τριάδος; in another codex (10th century) the same work is already assigned to Justin: οςρθη ς πίστεως; The name of Justin, philosopher and martyr, is also inscribed in many other lists (about 20). The most extensive and rich in content, the real Corpusoperum Justini, is Codex Parisinus 450, written in 1364. It begins with the messages of Photius and Eusebius about Justin and then follows twelve of his works. The first and second (1–2) places are occupied by works known from Codex Parisinus 451. Then come: 3) dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, 4–5) two apologies, and first a short one with the inscription: σύγκλητον, followed by a large one with the inscription: Ἀπολογία δευτέρα ὑπèρ Χριστιανω ν πρòς Ἀντωνι νον τòν Εὐσεβη. In sixth (6) place is Ἰ ουστίνου φιλοσόφου καì μάρτυρος περì μοναρχίας. The seventh (7) place is occupied by expositio fidei – ἔκθεσις τη ς πίστεως. 8) ἀνατροπὴ δογμάτων τινω ν Ἀριστοτελικω ν, which in title resembles the treatise described by Photius, 9) 10) ζητημάτων, 11). and ἀποκρίσεις χριστιανικαì πρός τàς προ ῤῥ ηθείσας ἐρωτήσεις ἀπò τη ς εὐσεβείας τω ν φυσικόω ν λογισμω ν ; 12) without an inscription treatise περì ἀναστάσεως. Smaller collections of the works of Justin known from the previously named codices are given in Codex Argentoratensis 9 (XIII or XIV century), which burned during the siege of Strasbourg in 1870, and Codex Ottobanianus 274 (XV century). In the first of them, the Epistle to Diognetus is inscribed with the name of Justin. The copies of Sacra parallela by John of Damascus contain a rather extensive treatise περì ἀναστάσεως, representing an independent whole and different in text from the treatise περì ἀναστάσεως, in Codex Parisinus 450. This is, in general terms, the legend about the literary activity of Saint Justin. As can be seen from what has been said, over the centuries it has been so confused that at present it is extremely difficult to understand it and decide what was really written by Justin and what belongs to a later time, especially since there is no certainty even whether all the works that Eusebius speaks of were actually written by him, since the possibility of falsification is not excluded during the 3rd century, that is, before Eusebius; on the other hand, Eusebius says that with the name of Justin there were other works in circulation besides those named by him. Scientific research regarding the literary heritage of Justin has led to the sad conclusion that while his original works were mostly lost very early, a significant number of works were circulated with the name of the famous apologist that, neither on external nor on internal grounds, can be recognized as belonging to him. The identification of authentic works and the immediate determination of undoubtedly inauthentic ones have not yet been completed and therefore it is necessary to state the presence of significant instability here. Typically, all works known with the name of Justin, which have survived to this day in complete form, regarding which therefore a more or less definite judgment can be made, are divided into three classes in relation to the question of authenticity: a) works undoubtedly belonging to Justin; b) controversial works, in relation to which their attribution to Justin has not been positively established and, on the other hand, their falsity has not been clearly proven and not recognized by everyone; The first class includes: 2) Ἀπολογία ὑπèρ Χριστιανω ν πρòς τὴν ῥ ωμαίων σύγκλητον – preserved only in one manuscript (Cod. Parisinus 450, an. 1364 and a fragment of the first apology in Codex Ottobanianus 274, saec.XV). Their authenticity, both on external and internal grounds, is established absolutely firmly and has never been seriously disputed. 3) Πρòς Τρύφωνα Ἰ ουδαι ον διάλογος (Dialogus cum Tryphone) – is also recognized as unconditionally authentic. The second class includes the following works, which bear the name of Justin: 1–3) Eusebius, in his report on Justin’s literary activity after the apologies, names three works: a) Λόγος πρòς Ἕ λληνας, in which he speaks at length about very many issues that are the subject of inheritance both among us and among Hellenic philosophers, and expresses his opinion about the nature of spirits (δαιμόνων); b) another work to the Hellenes, entitled: denunciation ἔλεγχον); c) an essay on the sovereignty of God περì θεου μοναρχίας, which he substantiated not only according to our scriptures, but also on Hellenic writings (Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:18, 3–4). Currently, there are also three known works with the same or similar titles: a) Λόγος πρòς Ἕ λληνας or Oratioad Gentiles or ad Graecos, b) Λόγος παραινετικòς πρòς Ἕ λληνας – Cohortatio ad Gentiles or adGraecos and c) Περì Θεου μοναρχίας – De monarchia Dei. The question arises: are these works, the text of which is currently available, identical with those about which Eusebius speaks, and further, if they are identical, then can they be recognized as the actual works of Saint Justin? From an affirmative answer to the first half of the question, the same answer to the second half does not necessarily and consistently follow: even if it is unlikely, however, as has been said, the possibility is not excluded that Eusebius already had in his hands such works that did not rightfully bear the name of Justin. The small work Λόγος πρòς Ἕ λληνας - Oratioad Gentiles, consisting of five chapters, is a short, lively and powerful, beautifully planned speech to the Hellenic-educated pagans (ὦ ἄνδρες Ἕ λληνες ). It sets out the reasons why its author became a Christian and justifies this act by pointing out the meaninglessness and immorality of pagan myths about the gods, as they are set out in Homer and Hesiod, and castigates the shameless feasts that accompany religious national festivals. Based on the incomparable wisdom and sublimity of the Christian religion, he enthusiastically calls on his listeners to embrace Christianity. The speech is known from the Greek Codex Argentoratensis, which burned on August 24, 1870, and was published with the necessary explanations (see Adolf Harnack. Die pseudo-justinische “Rede ad die Griechen” // Sitzungsberichte der k. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Zu Berlin, Jahrg, 1896, S. 627–646). In modern times, almost everyone recognizes that this work does not belong to Justin; the basis for this is the too sharp and obvious difference in style between the Oratioad Gentiles and the original works of Justin. However, the monument, in all likelihood, dates back to the time of the first flowering of apologetic literature. Adolf Harnack believes its origin to be between 180–240 years. In view of the fact that the mood of the author of this work is related to the mood of Clement of Alexandria, it is considered quite probable that the place of origin of this beautiful apology was Alexandria (Alb. Ehrhard. Die altchristl. Litterat. Abt. l. Freiburg im Br. 1900, S. 225). There is also known an extended revision of this speech, preserved in Syriac, but probably representing a translation of the Greek revision that occurred before the time of Constantine. In it, the main content of the speech is preserved - additions concern secondary issues, examples and evidence. Its author was the famous Greek Ambrose, whose name was also preserved in the Syriac translation. Λόγος παραινετικòς πρòς Ἕ λληνας , Cohortatio ad Gentiles or ad Graecos, consists of 38 chapters and proves that true religion cannot be sought from the Greek sages, poets and philosophers, who in relation to higher principles were confused in insoluble contradictions; on the contrary, Moses and the prophets, who in antiquity far surpass all pagan authorities, are reliable teachers of truth. True, even in the Greeks one can find excellent expressions about the essence of God, His unity, spirituality and worldliness, scattered fragments of religious truth; but they, it is argued, cannot speak in favor of Greek wisdom, because they are borrowed from the sacred books of Christians, that is, from the (then) Old Testament writing. Orpheus, Homer, Solon, Pythagoras, Plato and other Greeks in Egypt studied Judaism and through this achieved at least a partial correction of their false views on deity. In conclusion, the author exhorts to leave Greek wisdom and accept Christianity as the only true religion. And the Cohortatio ad Gentiles is recognized by almost all researchers - both Catholic and Protestant - as inauthentic. Internal grounds are put forward against the authenticity of this work, which consist in pointing out the difference in style and essential views between the undoubtedly authentic works of Justin and the Cohortatio ad Gentiles. Compared with the genuine apologies of Justin, the Cohortatio, like the Oratio ad Gentiles, is distinguished by its pure, elegant and flowing language, clarity of presentation, logical arrangement and ordering of thoughts. There is no shortage of factual contradictions or differences. In particular, attention is paid to the fact that the Cohortatio judges the aspirations and acquisitions of the human mind left to itself with such severity, harshness and disdain that are completely far from the views of Saint Justin on this subject. To the author of Cohortatio, the doctrine of God of the most ancient Greek sages and philosophers seems more ridiculous than the views of the Greek poets ( θεολογίας, p. 3), while Justin writes: “I do not want to say that the teaching of Plato is completely different from the teaching of Christ, but only that it is not in everything consistent with him, as well as the teaching of others - the Stoics, poets and historians” (Apol. 2:13). Cohortatio in the studies of the Ionian school before Plato and Aristotle wants to see only errors and even recognizes Plato and Aristotle as teachers only in that in which they were students of Eastern wisdom (5); Justin says that all philosophers and poets have seeds of wisdom (Apol. 1:44); each of them, since he, on the basis of his participation in the Divine Logos scattered in the grains, had an eye capable of perceiving something related (to this Logos), so he gave beautiful sayings (Apol. 2:13). Cohortatio cannot report anything else about Heraclitus, except that he recognized fire as the fundamental and final goal of everything, Anaximander - the infinite and Anaximenes - air (3); and for Justin, Heraclitus is a spiritually and morally outstanding person, even a Christian before Christ (Apol. 1:46; cf.: 2:8; see O. Bardenhewer. Gesch. der altkirchl. Litter. Bd.1, Freiburg im Br., 1902. S. 215–216). But researchers who reject the authenticity of Cohortatio are far from agreeing with each other on the question of its actual origin. An attempt (D. Völter in Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. Bd. XXVI (1883), S. 180–215) to prove the identity of this work with the first of the two books of Apollinaris of Hierapolis De veritate (περì αςληθείας), which is testified by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4:27), did not find sympathy simply because Cohortatio is not an excerpt, but a complete and complete work. Another experience raises even more objections (J. Dräseke, Zeitschr. Für Kirchengesch. Bd.VII (1884–1885), S. 257–302; Same. Apollinariosvon Laodicea. Leipzig. 1892, S. 83–99 (Textu. Unters. VII: 3–4); Same in Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. Bd. XLIII (1900), S. 227–236 и J. R. Asmus в Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. Bd. XXXVIII (1895), S. 115–155; подробнее см. у О. Bardenhewera Gesch. der altkirchl. Litter. Bd.1, Freiburg im Br., 1902. S. 217–218) - to prove that "Cohortatio" is a book in defense of the truth (ὑπèρ ἀληθείας), which Apollinaris of Laodicea directed against Julian the Apostate and the pagan philosophers (Parisin. Hist. eccl., 5:18), in particular against the famous school law Julian (June 7th, 362), for whom Christians were prohibited from receiving classical education. Initially, it allegedly bore the title: ὑπèρ ἀληθείας ἤ λόγος παραινετικός πρòς Ἑ λληνας. Julian's work "against the Galileans" served as a response to the Cohortatio. But even this view of the origin of the Cohortatio could not withstand the indisputable arguments that this work occurred at least before the end of the 3rd century. On the other hand, the question of the authenticity of the Cohortatio cannot be considered finally resolved. The objections raised against this cannot be considered insurmountable. Both historical evidence (Stephen Gobar in the 6th century, maybe even Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century, Sacra Parallela in the 7th century), and inscriptions in codices (cod. Parisin. 451 (914) and other lists) confirm its origin from Justin. The strength of the proof from the difference of style is greatly weakened by the generally accepted fact that it is also observed between the undoubtedly authentic works of St. Justin - the apologies on the one hand and the dialogue on the other. The actual contradictions will turn out to be far from being as obvious as presented above, if you pay attention to the fact that Justin, in the same places from which the objections are borrowed, says: “everything that is said by anyone (from philosophers, poets and pagan historians) that is good belongs to us - Christians” (Apol. 2:13). “Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers, and in everything that philosophers and poets spoke about the immortality of the soul, about punishments after death, about the contemplation of Heavenly things and about similar subjects, they used them from the prophets - through them they could understand and express this.” On the contrary, they find that internal reasons speak precisely in favor of authenticity (H. Kihn. Patrologie. Bd.1 Paderborn, 1904, S. 152). If they prove (E. Schürer in Zeitschr. Für Kirchengesch. Bd. II (1877–1878), S. 319–331) that in the chronological section (19) Cohortatio is dependent on the Chronography of Julius Africanus, that its origin is thus pushed back to at least the second quarter of the 3rd century, then on the other hand they assert with no less reason (D. Völter), that the opposite relationship is not excluded. It is most likely to assume a common source for both Cohortatio and Chronography. Recently, W. Widmann, after carefully weighing the objections of the newest opponents of authenticity, came to the conviction that the Cohortatio belongs to St. Justin, substantiating this position with noteworthy arguments (Die Echtheit der Mahnrede Iustins d. Mart, an die Heiden. Mainz, 1902). At the same time, W. Gaul (Die Abfassungsverhältnisse der pseudojustinischen Cohortatio ad Graecos. Berlin, 1902), based on an analysis of the content of the work, places it at the turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Under such conditions, the question of the authenticity of the Cohortatio cannot be considered finished in a negative sense; and the time of its origin in any case does not extend beyond the 2nd century. Eusebius is said to mention the work of Justin (περì Θεού μοναρχίας), and the treatise under this title is preserved in the Codex Parisin. 450 (1364), and was also found in the burnt Strasbourg manuscript (cod. Argentoratensis). It consists of six chapters. Its author, based on the testimony (mostly forged) of outstanding poets of Greece (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Philemon, Orpheus and others), proves the unity of God, the righteousness of His judgment and the insignificance of the pagan gods. In these voices of the poets, according to the author, the original correct view of the being of God found expression, and pagan polytheism owes its origin to the sad delusion of the human spirit. To these proofs, as a natural conclusion, is added the admonition to abandon the pagan gods and confess the unchangeable God of Christians. But the existing text of Περì Θεου μοναρχίας does not correspond to the description given by Eusebius. The latter says that Justin, in his work Περì Θεου μοναρχίας, proved the unity of God “not only on the basis of our own writings, but also on the basis of the works of the Hellenes.” Meanwhile, the existing work does not provide Biblical evidence and clearly seeks to provide a collection of quotations only from pagan writers. It cannot be recognized as the second surviving part of the work named by Eusebius, the first part of which is lost (H. Kihn. Patrologie, Bd. 1, S. 153), since it represents a complete whole, exhausting the topic at hand. Therefore, it is necessary to admit that Eusebius had in mind another work that has not survived to us. It should, however, be noted that Adolf Harnack – earlier (in Texte und Unters. Bd. l, H. 1–2, Leipzig, 1882) who argued that “this colorless compilation cannot be the work of Justin,” later changed his view, finding that there were no really convincing grounds against its attribution to Justin, and that it belongs to the pre-Irenaean period. 4) Sacra Parallela of Saint John of Damascus contains excerpts from Justin's work περì ἀναστάσεως. The first fragment is especially extensive, spanning eight chapters. From it it is clear that the entire work was intended to strengthen the weak in faith in the Resurrection (1) and was directed against the denial or distortion of the doctrine of the Resurrection by the Gnostics. The provisions and arguments of the latter, borrowed partly from the essence of the matter, partly also from the Holy Scriptures, are presented in a detailed manner, followed by an explanation that first the objections of opponents will be refuted, and then positive evidence will be presented in favor of Church teaching (2). The surviving first passage probably covers most of the first half of the work. After refuting the conclusions that opponents drew from Church teaching, the author proceeds to direct attacks directed against the possibility of the Resurrection. The following three quotes represent excerpts from the second positive part of the work. There is reason to believe that Irenaeus (Adv. haer., 1:5) and Tertullian (De resurrectione) already used this work. Methodius of Olympus, in his dialogue on the Resurrection, refers to the testimony of Justin, without, however, naming the title of the work. Procopius of Gaza (circa 500) directly points to the work of Justin περì ἀναστάσεως. Eusebius does not mention such a work by Justin. This evidence shows that Justin actually wrote the work περì ἀναστάσεως and the surviving passages are indeed taken from it. If Adolf Harnack wants to make the solution to the question of its authenticity dependent on a thorough study of the language and terminology, although he admits that it already existed before the year 180 and around the year 300 was considered to belong to Justin, then in order to assess the theological imprint of the language and terminology of the work it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the original works obtained do not make it possible to accurately determine the full scope of the language and Theology of Justin, the very theme of the work sufficiently explains some deviations in terminology. External evidence is quite sufficient to recognize the authenticity of the work περì ἀναστάσεως, and therefore its attribution to Justin must be considered sufficiently justified. C) The third category consists of such works - bearing the name of Justin - the inauthenticity of which is obvious from their very content and is not disputed by anyone. 1) At their head is Expositio rectae fidei (ἐκθεσις τη ς ὀρθής πίστεως) which may originally have been called Expositio fidei seu de trinitate ἐκθεσις πίστεως ἤ τοι περì Τριάδος ); expounds the doctrine of trinity (1–9), the unity of the being of God and the trinity of persons and the doctrine of the incarnation (10–18), the unity of the person of the God-man and the duality of His natures. The Greek text is known in two editions - lengthy and short, of which the latter does not have the first and final chapter, as well as larger or smaller excerpts of other chapters. The question of the originality of one or another edition is a subject of disagreement among researchers. But the most ancient writers who use Expositio in their works, such as Leontius of Byzantium, the author of Doctrina antiquorum patrum de Verbi incarnatione, Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople, know only a lengthy edition, and it is considered the most ancient by most researchers. Trinitarian, especially Christological, expressions in it, directed mainly against the Nestorians and Eutychians, establish the time of origin of this work in the 5th century and precisely in the second half of it. 2) The Message to Zina and Serin, monks, is a lengthy guide to Christian ascetic life with instructions regarding the virtues of humility and peacefulness, curbing the tongue and limiting the needs of life, caution in dealing with the female sex, regarding duties to the poor and sick, and so on. At the beginning, the author mentions two letters he wrote before to the Pope (ad Papam, πρòς Πάπαν - probably his own name, not a designation for a bishop) and ad eos qui praesunt, πρòς ἄρχοντας - both of moral and ascetic content. The date of origin of this interesting work, which in no case can be assigned to Justin Martyr, is more likely placed at the end of the 4th century, calling its author the Novatian bishop Sisinius (P. Batiffol in Revue Biblique internationale. T. V (1896), pp. 114-122; cf.: A. Ehrhard, Die aitchrist. Litter. Abt. I, S. 226). a) Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos ἀναγκαίων ζητημάτων) - a collection of questions and answers regarding a wide variety of subjects borrowed from all kinds of theological and non-theological areas (apologetic, dogmatic, ethical, exegetical, liturgical-ritual, natural-scientific); b) Quaestiones Christianorum ad Gentiles (ἐρωτήσεις χριστιανικαì πρòς τούς Ἕ λληνας) – five questions of Christians and answers of pagans with a refutation by Christians; c) Questiones Gentilium ad Christianos (ἐρωτήσεις ἐλληνικαì πρòς τούς Χριστιανούς) about the Incarnation, about God, about the resurrection of the dead - fifteen pagan questions and answers Christians, and the latter display amazing virtuosity in dialectics; d) Confutatio dogmatum quorundam Aristotelicorum" (ἀνατροπη δογμάτων τινω ν Ἀριστοτελικω ν), seeks to bring evidence mainly from Physics Aristotle, that the reasoning of pagan philosophers about God and creation represents a tangle of all sorts of contradictions. All these works stand on the same philosophical and theological point of view and have the same range of interests, and therefore are assimilated by the same author. There was an attempt to attribute them to Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, to whom they were adopted in the Constantinople manuscript of the 10th century (cod. Metoch. s. sepulcri 273) and under whose name they were published by Papadopoulo-Keramevs (St. Petersburg, 1895). Their belonging to Theodoret is also proven by F. X. Funk (Kirchengeschichte Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen. B. 3, Paderborn, 1907, S. 323–350). But there is more probability in the assumption that the author of all these works is Diodorus of Tarsus (A. Harnack. Diodorvon Tarsis. Leipzig, 1901). It is difficult, of course, to determine how these works could have received the name of Justin. Presumably, this fact can be explained in two ways. They could exist without an inscription and only subsequently receive the name of Justin based on one place in the second Apology, where Justin himself calls the dispute with the cynic Crescent “questions and answers” (αἱ ἐρωτήσεις μου καì αἱ ἐκείνου ἀποκρίσεις) and at the same time seems to hint that these debates were recorded and published. But since the Confutatio is also included in the works of Justin, they consider (O. Bardenhewer. Gesch. der altkirchl. Litterat. Bd.1, Freiburg im Br., 1902, S. 226) another explanation more likely, namely, that when Nestorianism was condemned by the Church and at the same time the Theology of Diodorus was also touched upon, then in the inscription of the works of the latter they put the well-known the name of Justin in order to protect them from destruction. Of the works undoubtedly written with Justin, but which have not reached us, the most important is Σύνταγμα κατà πασοω ν τω ν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων, which Justin himself mentions in the Apology (1:26). The only thing known about its contents (based on references to the heretics of Justin himself in other works) is that it refuted Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion (maybe also the Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians). Tertullian, one might assume, had precisely this work in mind when he calls Justin the most ancient fighter against heresies (Adv. Valent. 5). It is very likely that other hereseologists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries knew and used this work of Justin. Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 4:6, 2) refers to the work of Justin against Marcion: φησιν ). There is no other evidence of this work. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4:18, 9; cf.: 4:11, 8–9), however, mentions him, but, it seems, only on the basis of an indication from Irenaeus. Therefore, the question remains open: whether to consider the work against Marcion as independent, or only as a section in the previously mentioned work against all heresies. There is also no information about the works of Justin named by Eusebius Ψάλτης and σχολικον περì ψυχη ς. Finally, under the name of Justin, numerous fragments are given by various authors without indicating the works from which they are borrowed; some of them could be recognized as belonging to the works of Justin, although their brevity and fragmentary nature does not allow us to make any definite judgment about them; others, even in this form, have clear signs of inauthenticity. Thus, the following can be considered as undoubted works of Justin: two apologies, a dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, and excerpts from a treatise on the Resurrection. II. 3. Apologies of Saint Justin In the collection of Justin's works, which is represented by a manuscript written in 1364 from the Paris National Library - Cod. Regius Parisinus 450, after the dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, two apologies are placed with the following inscription: a) ἀπολογία ὑπèρ Χριστιανω ν πρòς τὴν ῥ ωμοάων σύγκλητον ; and b) ἀπολογία δευτέρα ὑπèρ Χριστιανω ν πρòς Ἀντωνι νον τòν Ευςσεβη. The first apology is much shorter than the other: in the publications the first is divided into 15 chapters, and the second into 68. However, in editions this handwritten order of apologies has been changed, and since the time of the publisher Maran (1742), the larger work is called the first apology, and the smaller - the second. The basis for this rearrangement was the text of the lesser Apology, from which it is clear that it originally stood not before, but after the greater apology. In the smaller Apology three times (II Apol. 4; 6; 8) it refers to previous explanations that are not present in this apology; in this case, each time ὡ ς προέφημεν is used - such a formula with which in the greater apology usually references are made to previous passages, and the previous explanations to which the lesser apology refers are in fact in the greater apology. In addition, only the larger Apology contains the material that is usually found in apologetic works, while the smaller one speaks about a separate event of the recent past and in its further presentation gives only cursory touches of an apologetic nature. Finally, the larger Apology has a complete, even lengthy inscription, in which the addressees and the author are indicated, while the smaller Apology has no introduction and begins exobruptos with “but”: Και τà χθές δè καì πρώην. In view of this, it is quite right to consider the greater Apology to be the first, and the lesser Apology to be the second. The First Apology begins with a solemn indication of the persons to whom Justin addresses his defense of Christians: “To the autocrat Titus Aelius Hadrian Antoninus, the Pious Augustus Caesar, and his son Verissimus the philosopher and Lucius the philosopher, the natural son of Caesar and the adopted son of the Pious, a lover of science, and the sacred Senate and the whole people of Rome, for those who, of all the race of people, are unjustly hated and persecuted, I - Justin, son of Priscus, son of Bacchius, who were from Flavia Naples in Palestine Syria - being one of them, I address my word and prayer.” The very presentation of the content of the apology presents significant difficulties in view of the still unattained agreement among researchers regarding the consistent development of thoughts in it. Attempt Th. Wehofer, who devoted the first apology to literary-historical or rather literary-aesthetic research in the proper sense of the word, to apply to it the laws of Hellenic rhetoric and in this way achieve a correct understanding of its construction, despite the wealth in witty and original observations, cannot be considered convincing. Analysis of Th. Wehofer confirms the long-known literary shortcomings of the apology, carefully tries to discover the source of these shortcomings, noting transitions in the speech, highlighting the digressions, provisions and oppositions that Justin loved to address (Die Apologie Justinsdes Phil. u. Märt, in litterarhistor. Beziehung zum Erstenmal untersucht. Rom, 1897), but these digressions are so numerous and so greatly disrupt the flow of speech that they hardly It is possible to apply to the Apology, without too obvious a stretch, the standard of ancient rhetoric. It will be easier to admit that the Apology cannot be looked at as an artistically arranged speech, and that Justin began to compose it without a pre-prepared plan, leaving his thoughts to their free flow. From calling the Emperor a philosopher, Saint Justin derives the obligation to respect and love only the truth and to judge Christians only according to strict and careful research, and not to be guided by prejudice: “You are called pious and philosophers and are known everywhere as guardians of the truth and lovers of science; Now it will be clear whether you really are like that.” In order to give rulers the opportunity to correctly evaluate Christians, Justin considers it his duty to depict their life and teachings (2-3). To accomplish this task, Justin first refutes the charges of atheism, hostility to the state, and immorality leveled against Christians. Emperors should not condemn Christians for just their name, which in itself does not indicate whether something is good or bad. However, Christians (Χριστιανοί), according to their name, are excellent people (χρηστότατοι ὑπάρχομεν). It is unjust to hate what is good (that is, Christian): τò δè χρηστòν μισει σθαι οὐ δίκαιον (4). This argumentum ex nomine is followed by agrumentum ex causa. The reason for the persecution of Christians is reckless passion and the instigation of evil demons; Christians are not atheists, since they worship the true God, His Son and the prophetic Spirit (5-6). Even if individual Christians were proven to be criminals, this would not serve as evidence against their religion. They should be judged and punished as criminals, not as Christians (7). “We desire eternal and pure life, we strive to be with God, the Father and Creator of the whole world, and we hasten to confess our faith, being convinced and believing that such a reward can be achieved by those who, by their deeds, have testified before God to faithfulness in serving Him and love for life with Him, inaccessible to evil” (8). Christians cannot make sacrifices to pagan gods, due to the decisive contradiction between these gods - who have names and types of evil, demons - and the concept of the true God (9-10). If the pagans hear that Christians are expecting a kingdom, then this kingdom is not human, but God’s (11); they cannot be enemies of public peace, but rather assist and assist the government in its establishment (12). With this Justin could, as he himself notes, end his apology, since Christians ask only for what is fair and true. “But since I know,” he says, “that it is not easy to make a sudden change in a soul obsessed with ignorance, then in order to convince those who love the truth, I decided to add a few more words, knowing that it is not impossible to disperse ignorance when the truth is offered.” What follows is positive proof that the worship of Christians is reasonable, since they worship God, the Creator of the world, His true Son in second place (ἐν δευτέρα χώρ ᾳ and the prophetic Spirit in third (ἐν τρίτ ῃ τάξει); moral their teaching is sublime (13–17). Saint Justin proves the truth of the Christian religion on the basis of: a) the amazing change it produces in converted pagans; b) the excellent moral teaching that it contains, and the inherent Christian virtues of love for God and neighbors, truth and fidelity, patience, obedience to laws, especially the virtue of chastity; c) the sublimity of the Christian teaching about resurrection and retribution; d) agreement of some sayings of the ancient sages with Christian teaching. To further convince of the superiority of Christianity, he brings into consideration the basic dogma of the Incarnation and, on the basis of Greek mythology, proves that the teaching of Christians about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Divine Word, His birth, crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven does not represent anything impossible from the point of view of the pagans themselves, since they say something similar about their gods (18-22). But, as if fearing that the pagans would not actually think that the Christian teaching is nothing more than a special form of pagan teaching, equivalent to it, Justin hastens to make a reservation: “however, let it be known to you that only that is true that we affirm, taught by Christ and the prophets who preceded Him. And this is older than all your former writers. And we must believe our words, not because we say something similar to them, but because we speak the truth. This teaching was taught by Jesus Christ, the one and only Son, born of God, the Word “His Firstborn and Power” (23). Justin goes on to prove the following points: a) the revealed teaching of the Old and New Testaments is absolute truth, b) Jesus Christ - the true Son of God - is the Teacher and Redeemer of the human race made man and c) demons, through imitation of Christian teaching and institutions, tried to destroy the work of Christ and invented those vicious and wicked deeds that are blamed on Christians. Justin proves the first position by the fact that Christians alone are hated for the name of Christ and without any guilt, just as criminals are put to death, that they turned from the veneration of depraved gods to the pure service of the unborn and impassive God, despite threats of death, and that, finally, Christians are persecuted for the truth, while those who, at the suggestion of demons, pervert the teachings of Christians, are not only not persecuted, but and received honors (25–29). On the basis of evidence that is not subject to any human arbitrariness, and stands above all doubt, precisely on the basis of Divine prophecies, Justin proves that Jesus Christ is one in the proper sense, the Son of God and, by the will of God, appeared as the founder of the Christian religion for the renewal and restoration of humanity; it points to the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies from Moses to Zechariah (30–53). Pagan ideas that show similarities with the Christian teaching about Christ, or baseless and meaningless fabrications of evil demons, or borrowings from the Old Testament (54–60). “So,” concludes Justin, “it is not we who hold the same opinions as others, but everyone imitates and repeats our teaching. We can hear and learn this from those who do not even know letters, from people who are uneducated and speak a barbarian language, but who are wise and full of faith in the spirit, despite the fact that some are even blind and deprived of sight. From this it can be understood that this teaching did not come from human wisdom, but was spoken by the power of God” (60). The morally transformative power of Christian teaching also corresponds to the forms of Christian cult, of which they make no secret. The font of baptism, which is preceded by repentance, fasting and prayer, provides cleansing from previous sins and rebirth to a new life of moral freedom and true knowledge of God, which is why the very act of Baptism is called enlightenment (61). And these sacred actions, announced by the prophets, were taught to their followers by the demons, requiring sprinkling or washing (62–64). Further, Justin describes the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, to which the baptized is admitted after prayer and fraternal kiss (65–66) and the Sunday service (67). Having outlined everything that he considered necessary to say to the Emperors, Justin addresses them with the following words: “If this seems to you to be in agreement with reason and truth, then respect it; if it seems like trifles to you, then leave them in contempt as trifles, and do not condemn innocent people to death as enemies. We tell you in advance that you will not escape the future Judgment of God if you continue in your unrighteousness, and we will exclaim: “let it be what pleases God.” Justin wrote his request and statement of the case of the Christians, because he is confident that the Christians are asking for what is just. At the same time, Justin appends to the Apology a copy of the rescript of the Emperor Hadrian to the proconsul Minucius Fundanus, according to which Christians are ordered to be judged only on the basis of formal legal proceedings, and not on the basis of the cries of the crowd, and to be punished only for lawless acts (68). Second Apology. It is even more difficult than in the first apology to determine the guiding thought and arrangement of the material in the second apology and to draw a plan that would correspond to the intentions of the author. The entire apology seems to represent a series of foundations, not united by a common idea. Hence the assumption was that the second apology in its present form was not intended for publication and that Justin intended to insert certain parts of it into the last one in the new edition of the first apology (Th. Wehofer. Die Apol. Justins, des Philos. u. Märt. Rom, 1897, S. 121). Of course, it is impossible to prove this assumption; The natural explanation for such disorder in the distribution of the contents of the second Apology lies in the conditions of its origin. The reason for writing the second Apology was the event that happened in the last days (χθèς δè καì πρώην) - the execution of three Christians; According to the denunciation of a pagan, whose wife converted to Christianity, they were persecuted for simply confessing themselves to be Christians. Justin depicts the oppressed position of Christians, who are given over to every arbitrariness and malicious slander, and expresses fear that he himself will be caught by someone in a net and hanged on a tree; in particular, he expects this from Crescent (1–3). Then he answers two reproaches that the pagans have always leveled against Christians with evil mockery. The pagans said: “kill yourself and go to God and save us from trouble.” Justin objects that this would be contrary to the will of God. God did not create the world in vain, but for the human race. “If we all begin to kill ourselves, then we will be to blame for the fact that, as much as depends on us, no one will be born, will not learn the Divine teaching, and the human race will cease to exist, and if we do this, then we ourselves will act against the will of God.” However, when Christians are questioned, they do not recant, because they consider it wicked not to be faithful to the truth in everything (4). Another reproach of the pagans: if God is the patron of Christians, then why does He not protect them from violence and torture, Justin refutes in more detail. God is no doubt able to protect Christians, but the persecution of Christians must lead to the hatred of demons against truth and virtue. The Son of God became man in order to save the best part of people and abolish the power of demons (6). But since people are gifted with free will and, by their own choice, take the side of good or evil, God provides freedom for the time being for the activities of demons (7). However, thanks to the influence of demons, even in the pre-Christian world, everyone, under the influence of the seed of the Word planted throughout the entire human race, who tried to live in accordance with reason and avoid evil, were hated. Therefore, it is not at all surprising if, due to the action of the denounced demons, those who try to live in accordance not with any part of the Word sown in them, but guided by the knowledge and contemplation of the whole Word, which is Christ, are subjected to even greater hatred. If demons are still being defeated by people in the name of Jesus Christ, then this testifies to the punishment that is being prepared for them and for those who serve them in eternal fire (8). Christians' belief in the divine punishment awaiting the wicked is based on the undeniable difference between good and evil. Against the indication that people have different laws, that some consider one thing good or bad, and others another, Justin says: “The true Word, when It came, showed that not all opinions and not all teachings are good, but some are bad, and others are good (9). The Christian teaching is loftier than any human teaching and it has accomplished what Socrates envisioned when it brought truth to the educated and the uneducated and gave strength to despise glory, fear and death (10). Demons and unrighteous people would have no power over Christians if God did not lead His faithful through works to virtue and through death to bliss (11). At the same time, persecution gives Christians a reason to tactfully show to all non-Christians the superiority of Christianity over paganism and the absence of vices and debauchery among Christians (12-13). The conclusion is a request to the Emperors for permission to publish this work of Justin, so that everyone, if possible, will change their thoughts, having learned about the affairs of Christians and freed from false opinion and ignorance of good. “Our teaching, according to a sound judgment, is not shameful, but above all philosophy.” “I will finally conclude,” says Saint Justin, “having done everything I can on my part, and desiring that all people everywhere may be worthy of the truth. Oh, if only everyone would judge correctly for their own sake, as piety and wisdom require” (15-14). The question of the mutual relationship of the first and second Apologies. Eusebius in his “Church History” (2:13. 2; 17:8, 3; 2:11; 17:1; 18:2) speaks of two Apologies of Justin, the first of which is addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons and the Roman Senate, the second to Antoninus’ successor, Marcus Aurelius and his brother by adoption and co-emperor Lucius Verus (4:16, 1; 18:2), shortly before Justin's death. In accordance with this testimony of Eusebius, in the past, and partly even now, it was believed that the well-known apologies of Justin represent two completely independent works, written at different times and to different persons. But against such unconditional trust in Eusebius and a decisive conclusion from his testimony, the following facts have recently been persistently pointed out. Firstly, the second Apology itself does not indicate to whom it is addressed, and Eusebius’s statement that Justin wrote it for Marcus Aurelius and his co-emperor Lucius Verus probably follows only from the idea that the second Apology was written shortly before the death of Justin; and this assumption, in turn, stands in connection with the unfounded opinion of Eusebius that the death of Justin was the result of the machinations of Crescent. The words of Justin (And Apol. 3), where he admits the possibility or probability that he will become a victim of intrigues on the part of the cynic Crescent (Apol. 2: 3), Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4: 16, 7), adding that place from Tatian (Orat. 19), in which he says that Crescent tried to cause the death of Justin, as well as Tatian himself, interpreted in the sense of indicating the actual involvement of Crescent in the last trial of Justin. Meanwhile, in the Apology itself there are such indications that make one think that the second Apology was written to the same Emperors to whom the first was addressed. At the end of the Apology, Justin expresses the desire that the Emperors judge correctly, as required by piety and wisdom (15th chapter, ἀξίως εὐσεβείας καì φιλοσοφίας). Lucius, one of the three Christians condemned by Urbicus for one confession of Christianity, says: “You, Urbicus, judge as is not becoming either for a pious Autocrat, or for a philosopher, the son of Caesar, or for the sacred Senate” (II Apol. 2: οὐ πρέποντα εὐσεβει αὐτοκράτορι οὐδέ φιλοσόφ ῳ Καίσαρος παιδì οὐδέ τ ῇ ἱερ ᾷ συγκλήτῳ). These expressions clearly indicate the pious Emperor Antoninus, known by the name Pius, and his son (by adoption) Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher. That the apology was written under the same Emperors under whom Urbicus carried out the trial of Lucius, to verify this it is enough to remember the beginning of the Apology, where Justin calls this trial, which outraged him, an event that took place yesterday and the third day (II Apol.1). Secondly, there is no doubt that Eusebius knew well the first and second Apologies known to us - this can be seen from numerous quotes; but at the same time, the surprising circumstance is revealed that he several times cites passages (Hist. eccl., 4:8, 5; 4:17, 1) from the second Apology as places of the first Apology, and only once (4:16, 2) he apparently refers a passage of the second Apology specifically to the second Apology (although this is disputed). From this they conclude that our two Apologies were considered by Eusebius as one whole and in close connection and designated as the first Apology, while the second Apology of Eusebius, to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, has not survived to us. This seems to be confirmed by the testimony of Photius, who, in addition to two apologies for κατà τω ν ἐθνω ν, of which the first is addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons and the Roman Senate, and the second to Antoninus’ successors, also calls ἀπολογία ὑπèρ Χριστιανω ν κατà Ἑ λλήνων καì κατà Ἰ ουδαίων . But in the testimony of the first two Apologies one cannot help but see the dependence of Photius on Eusebius; as for ἀπολογία ὑπèρ Χριστιανω ν κατà Ἑ λλήνων καì κατà Ἰ ουδαίων, then it is more correct to see not a special work of Justin, but a general description of his activities as an apologist who fought against both pagans and Jews. And in general, it must be admitted that the grounds for the existence of another apology, which Eusebius knew, are very shaky. Neither Eusebius, who made sufficient use of the existing Apologies, cites a single excerpt from the supposed Apology, nor does any other Church writer report anything about this third Apology of Justin. It is incredible that such a work did not leave any trace in later Church literature. Adolf Harnack, who shook the authority of Eusebius’ testimony regarding the second independent Apology of Justin by pointing out that Eusebius cites the passages that appear in the current second Apology as components of the first Apology, but he himself cannot establish a definite view regarding the third Apology. Thus, the question of the apology of Justin, unknown at present, but which Eusebius knew, can be considered settled. On the other hand, it can be considered proven that Eusebius’s testimony about the Apologies of Justin known to us is characterized by uncertainty: firstly, the sources on the basis of which he determines the address of the second Apology are unknown, and secondly, he does not accurately indicate where he gets the quotes from; Consequently, the possibility of a more or less free attitude towards the testimony of Eusebius opens up. But all these considerations do not yet resolve the question of the relationship between the first and second apology. Bearing in mind the beginning of the second Apology, in which the address is not indicated and there is no usual Introduction, as well as the generally fragmentary nature of the Apology, some researchers, starting from the 18th century, refused to see in it an independent work, intended for a separate existence and separately published; hence the view of the second Apology as an addition, appendix or covering letter to the first Apology, compiled by Justin himself under the direct impression of the unjust execution of three Christians, or even added to the second edition of the Apology by other persons based on the remaining notes of Justin (F. Emmerich. De Iustini philos, etmartyr apologia altera, Münster, 1896). As a further development of this view, the opinion has been expressed that the second Apology is not even an appendix, but an inseparable final part of the whole, which by chance was placed in first place in the handwritten tradition. A simpler and more natural assumption is that the so-called second Apology appeared as a supplement or annex to the first. It is not known whether the first Apology had already been published or not - rather, however, the latter should be assumed in view of the beginning of the second Apology with δε - the execution of three Christians in Rome, which with its injustice struck, one might think, more than one Justin, forced the latter to take up his pen again in order to use such tangible evidence of the injustice of Roman legal proceedings in the interests of Christians. Having stated the fact, Justin decided to somewhat supplement the first Apology in those points that, as it seemed to him, were not sufficiently disclosed in it. Therefore, in the second Apology we find only small additions and clarifications, and the entire presentation is fragmentary. If we take into account the haste with which this addition was probably written, then the significant shortcomings of the Apology in literary terms will be quite understandable. With this view of the second Apology, one can also understand the uncertainty in Eusebius’ instructions. Attributing the origin of the second Apology to the time of Marcus Aurelius, he clearly distinguishes between two Apologies, and when he has to use its text, he confuses it with the first. Time to write apologies. The established relationship between the first and second Apologies simplifies the solution to the question of their time of origin, since it turns out to be sufficient to establish the time of writing of one of them, in this case the first. The basis for resolving the issue is primarily the address of the first Apology. But here we first of all encounter historical and textual-critical difficulties. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4:12) quotes the address of the first Apology, but makes some changes to the text: “To the autocrat Titus Aelius Hadrian, Antoninus the pious, Caesar Augustus, Verissimus, the son of the philosopher, and Lucius, the natural son of Caesar the philosopher, adopted by the pious, a lover of learning, the sacred Senate and the entire Roman people.” It should be noted that the witnesses to the text of Eusebius, manuscripts and ancient translations, do not agree with each other on everything. In any case, there is a significant difference in the words: “Lucius, the natural son of Caesar the philosopher, adopted by the pious,” whereas in the manuscript of the Apology it is written: “Lucius the philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, adopted by the pious.” In addition, attention is paid to the absence of the title “Caesar” from Marcus Aurelius, while Marcus Aurelius received this title shortly after the accession to the throne of Antoninus Pius - in the year 138 or at the beginning of the year 139. On this basis, it is believed (recently by G. Krüger in: Jahrb. für protest. Theol. Bd. XVI (1890), S. 579 et seq.) that the Apology was written in the very first days of the reign of Antoninus Pius. But very fundamental objections are raised against such dating. No matter how one evaluates the correctness and integrity of the address of the Apology, in any case it is clear that alongside Antoninus Pius, whose illustrious piety the Apology repeatedly points out (I Apol. 2; 3; 12 and II Apol. 2; 15), stands everywhere - if not in equal dignity, then, however, as an accomplice in government and in responsibility before God - his son the philosopher, that is, Marcus Aurelius Verus or, as Justin following Adrian, he calls him Verissimus; Justin counts on his philosophical education and philosophical way of thinking no less than on the piety and justice of his father by adoption. Marcus Aurelius was born in the year 121 and became co-emperor upon reaching the established age of tribune and proconsul in the year 147. From the correspondence of M. Aurelius with his eloquence teacher Cornelius Fronto, one can confidently conclude that before this year Justin could not call him a philosopher; since after studying eloquence under the guidance of this Cornelius Fronto and Herod Attinus, he was only about 25 years old convinced of its futility and with all zeal began to study Stoic philosophy under the leadership of Apollonius of Chalcedon and the Roman statesmen Junius Rusticus and Claudius Maximus, although Fronto for another year tried in vain to return his former student to the rhetoric he left behind classes. It follows from this that in public opinion Marcus Aurelius could be revered as a philosopher only after reaching adulthood; and in the Apology, Justin refers to him everywhere as a serious representative of Stoic philosophy - Justin even wants to have him as an arbitrator between him and the cynic Crescent (Apol. 2:8). But let us assume that the omission of the title “Caesar” in the appendix to Marcus Aurelius is significant and that he could have been called a philosopher much earlier than the official, so to speak, appeal to Stoic philosophy; In this case, the obstacle to the early dating of the first Apology, arising from the premises in the address of Lucius Verus, remains unresolved. The latter was born in the year 130 and in the address he is called a philosopher and a friend of the sciences - such honorable names that, if Justin took any seriously the concepts they denote - and there can be no doubt about this - he could not have applied to an eight-year-old boy. True, in the form of the address that is preserved by Eusebius, he is called not a philosopher, but the native son of Caesar the philosopher (that is, Lucius Aelius Verus, who died on January 1, 138); however, he is also called by the name of a lover of science (ἐραστὴς παιδίας) in the text of Eusebius. This name indicates that Lucius Verus was at that time studying poetry and rhetoric and was an artium liberalium studiasus, that is, at least an 18-year-old youth. Since during the reign of Pius Lucius never took part in government and always lived as a private person, the mention of his name in the address is probably explained only by the fact that he belonged to the members of the Senate, which is also named in the address, and he joined the Senate in the year 153. Thus, based on the address of the Apology, it can be argued that it was written no earlier than the year 147, and remains open throughout the further reign of Marcus Aurelius, that is, until the year 161. Other considerations, confirming the origin of the apology in this particular period of time, make it possible to determine it somewhat more precisely. a) Justin says (I Apol. 46) that “Christ was born in 150 years under Quirinius” Χριστόν ). Justin, without a doubt, knew about Quirinius and his census from the Gospel of Luke, and on the basis of the same Gospel (3:23) he believed that the birth of Christ was almost 30 years before the 15th year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius. This, of course, does not yet firmly establish which year Justin actually considers to be the year of the birth of Christ, but it provides some guarantee that the 150th year according to Justin’s reckoning more or less coincides with the 150th year of the usual reckoning, although in the latter, as is known, the time of the Nativity of Christ is dated somewhat later. In addition, one might think that Justin himself did not mean dates for the exact number of years that have passed since the Nativity of Christ; the number 150 obviously represents a round number. Despite all these limitations, this chronological silence of the Apology serves as a good confirmation of the previously made conclusion regarding the origin of the Apology no earlier than the year 147. b) The same result is obtained from considering the expressions of Justin regarding his contemporary Gnostic Marcion: Justin says that “even now he still teaches those who believe him” and that he has adherents throughout the entire universe (κατà π ᾶ ν γένος ἀνθρώπων) (I Apol. 26). “Many believe this man as the only one who knows the truth, and they laugh at us” (58). Thus, Marcion, at the time when Justin wrote his Apology, developed his activity to the highest degree and achieved enormous significance. But he came to Rome around the year 140 and around the year 144 appeared here as the founder of his religious society. The state of affairs depicted by Justin could not have arisen earlier than the year 150, or even perhaps a little later. c) For a short period of time between the compilation of the first and second Apologies, the execution of three Christians by the verdict of the prefect of the city of Urbica occurs - the event that served as the occasion for the writing of the second Apology (II Apol.1; 2). The time of Urbicus's position as prefect has not yet been determined, but since three predecessors of Urbicus under Antoninus Pius and not a single successor are known, the time of his reign should be attributed to the second half of the reign of Antoninus Pius rather than to the first, that is, again after the 150th year. d) In I Apol. 29 Justin mentions the prefect of Alexandria, Felix, to whom a Christian petitioned. Since of the prefects of Alexandria in the second century only one is known who bore the nickname Felix, and since this Felix was a prefect at least around the time when Justin wrote his Apology, the identity of the Felix mentioned by Justin with the prefect of Egypt Lucius Munatius Felix is ​​beyond any doubt. Felix was prefect between 150 and 154. When Justin wrote his Apology, Felix was apparently still a prefect, since Justin speaks of him ἡγεμονεύοντι, and not ἠ γεμονεόσαντι. e) Finally, Eusebius puts the time of Crescent’s speech against Justin in the years 152–153. Based on all these data, which generally agree with each other and confirm each other, the time of origin of the first Apology should be placed almost with certainty in the years 151–153. The second Apology, as a supplement to the first, was written shortly after the first. The place where the Apologies were written was probably Rome. Justin lived here for quite a long time twice. Some individual allusions in the Apologies also point to Rome, especially in the first three chapters of the second Apology; also, the words of Justin against Marcion (I Apol. 26 and 58), breathing with jealousy, are more understandable if they were written under the direct impression of the Roman activity of the heretic. II. 4. “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”; question about the correctness of the received text, the content of the work; its historical nature “The Dialogue of Justin with Tryphon the Jew” is the oldest anti-Jewish apology that has survived to us; unfortunately, this work of Justin is preserved only in one manuscript - Cod. Parisinus 450 (1364) and, as has now been proven, with a very significant omission in the middle and, probably, at the beginning. The omission is not marked in the manuscript; however, previous critics already recognized it after the 74th chapter, although they did not consider it particularly large and important. But Th. Zahn (in: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte Bd.VIII (1886), S. 37 ff.) proved that a significant part of the dialogue was omitted here, covering one or more leaves in the manuscript. The reasons for this are as follows. The beginning and end of the dialogue provide a visual representation of where the conversation took place; in addition, during his lengthy theological discussion, Justin does not ignore the situation and sequence in the development of action. The conversation begins in the morning in the alleys of Xistus (1:2); after a long conversation, Tryphon notices that a significant amount of time has already passed during the day (ἤ τε ἡμέρα προκόπτει, 56). When Tryphon and his comrades in the debate notice that they are not ready to answer some questions, Justin, apparently, indicates both the upcoming temporary cessation of conversation on this day and the consequent opportunity to privately deal with the subject of conversation, and shortly before skipping (p. 74: 2) he recommends that his interlocutors without prejudice consider and weigh the saying of the previously quoted psalm and at the same time says: “in this way you will be able to understand many other sayings of the Holy Spirit, remaining with yourself” (Καθ ’ έαοτούς γενόμενοι), that is, when you come to your apartment. Soon after the omission, we see that the second day of the conversation has already arrived: Justin several times points to the conversation of the previous day: 78:14~ (cf. 70:8-14); 85:15, 16 (cf. p. 36); With. 85 between 24 – 25; 92:11, 12; 94: 8, 9; 118:14, 15; 122:6, 7. Then regarding this second day it is said: “Now the day will soon end, the sun is already in the west” (137:14). We also add to this the observation that the society of those talking on the second day was different. On the first day, when two of Tryphon's companions went away laughing at their jealousy for continuing the conversation (9:6), at least four remained besides Justin and Tryphon (56:30). On the second day the company was much larger: “as if some of those who came on the second day were shouting in the theater,” says Justin (122:6). A real circle of listeners has grouped around the main persons, who express their agreement with the words of Justin (chapters 123–130). The name of one of those who came on the second day was Mnase (85); the other is not named, but it is also clearly stated that he came on the second day (94). Taking into account this increase in the number of listeners, it was necessary on the second day to repeat in the main features some of what was said on the first day (chapters 78; 85; 92; 118; 137). Thus, there is no doubt that the conversation lasted two days and, moreover, in somewhat different circumstances, and there is no need to prove that the assumption that Justin passed this break in the conversation and change of scene in silence would be completely contrary to the nature of the work. He notes that Tryphon said with a pleasant smile (1), that Tryphon’s companions laughed, and he himself smiled (8), that Justin looked at Tryphon (122), that Tryphon expressed agreement with his gaze (123), that Tryphon was angry, but, respecting Scripture, as could be seen from his face, he spoke restrainedly, and that Justin himself answered in a softer voice (79); that Tryphon’s companions were sitting on a stone bench and talking about a completely different subject (9) and the like - Justin introduced all this into his work to enliven the presentation: would he really forget to even hint that the whole conversation was divided into two parts by changing the scene. Therefore, it can be considered certain that the omission contained a description of the end of the first day and the beginning of the second. But Th. Zahn quite thoroughly proves that in addition to this, something else was released, to which there are clear indications in the following; for example, there is no doubt that Justin here not only revealed in more detail his chiliastic teaching, which he talks about in chapter 80, but also pointing out the difference in opinions between Christians on this issue. At the end of the dialogue, Tryphon speaks of Justin’s intention to go by sea at the first opportunity and speaks in such a form that it is necessary to assume a preliminary communication about this on the part of Justin, since before the meeting in the alleys of Xistus, Tryphon was not familiar with Justin. Such a message was most appropriate at the end of the first day of conversation, during an invitation to continue it on the next day. It is also necessary to pay attention to the references that interlocutors make to what was said before and which do not have corresponding expressions in the existing text - all of them are in the nearest chapters following the gap (chapters 75–85); on the contrary, all references to the previous one that are in the first part before the omission actually have a basis in what was said before. This omission is undoubtedly made unintentionally, since otherwise the last sentence before the omission and the quotation after it would not have been left incomplete. An important gap in its content would probably show us that Justin himself had already divided the entire work into two books, corresponding to the two days of conversation. The Assembly of Sacraparallela carries out the passage from the 82nd chapter of the Dialogue, that is, from the report of the second day of the conversation through the following formula: ἐκ του πρòς Τρύφωνα β ’ λόγου . That this division cannot be considered later can be seen by comparing the Dialogue with the work of Irenaeus, divided into five books, the “Stromata” of Clement of Alexandria, the books of Origen against Celsus, the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius; Justin's dialogue, even in the incomplete form in which it has come down to us, significantly exceeds the usual volume of individual books in ancient Church literature. If in the surviving manuscript this division into two books is completely destroyed, then this should be seen as new evidence of the corruption of the text of the Dialogue that has come down to us. Apart from the important gap in the middle, the Dialogue also has no beginning; in literary and historical terms this is more significant than the loss of any other part of it. At the end of the work, Justin says: “having said this, dear Marcus Pompey, I stopped speaking” - ταυ τα εἰπών, ὦ φίλτατε Μάρκε Πομπήϊε, ἐπαυσάμην. To this Mark Pompey, according to the custom of Christian writers of that time, Justin dedicated his work, so that the entire work received, as it were, the form of an Epistle to him. φίλτατε also refers to him in the 8th chapter, although he did not mention him by name there. The title of Marcus Pompey at the end of the work and the address to him without a name in the 8th chapter would be contrary to all literary rules and requirements, if at the very beginning there had not been an address to Pompey, either in the form of a preparatory letter, or in the form of a dedication, or generally through some kind of indication that would give readers the opportunity to understand the meaning of φίλτατε in the 8th chapter. One might think that in this preface, addressed to Marcus Pompey, the place of the conversation was named, among other things. This is partly clear already from Chapter 2. The only sufficient explanation of the expression used here ἐν τη ἡμετέρα πόλει, with which Justin designates the place where he first became a student of the famous Platonist, and then a Christian, will be that by this he points to the city in Xystus of which he had a conversation with Tryphon. It is impossible here to understand Flavia of Naples, the homeland of Justin, primarily because Justin in the entire work never speaks of himself in the plural and by “we” he means either himself and all Christians or himself with Tryphon and his companions. He was not a fellow countryman of Tryphon, since during this conversation they met for the first time and during their acquaintance it was only said that Tryphon was a “Jew of circumcision” who recently lived in Palestine, whose homeland was probably not a pagan colony in the country of the Samaritans, the place of conversation was a seaside city (142), but it was also the place of Justin’s conversion, the closest reason for which was a meeting with an old man on the seashore (3). You can be sure that Justin, who in his work indicates various little things regarding the location of those who were talking, also named the place of the conversation in the preface to Marcus Pompey. This is confirmed by the confidence with which Eusebius indicates Ephesus as the place where the conversation took place (Hist. eccl., 4:18, 6); he speaks about this not on the basis of his own guesses and not on the basis of tradition, but as a fact that, undoubtedly, was borrowed by him from the Preface that has not reached us. From the available text of the Dialogue, the place of the conversation can only be inferred indirectly (chapters 2, 3, 142). The text of the Dialogue known to us in publications is divided into 142 chapters; According to the content, it contains three parts, except for the introduction. Having reported on his meeting with Tryphon and on the initial conversation with him, in which Justin talks about his conversion to Christianity (chapters 1–8), in the first part (chapters 10–47) he responds to Tryphon’s reproach that Christians do not observe holidays or Saturdays, do not have circumcision, but place their trust in a man crucified and, however, hope to receive good from God without fulfilling His commandments. “You have despised this covenant (of circumcision) together with the subsequent commandments, and yet you try to convince us that you know God, although you do not fulfill any of the commandments that those who fear God do. If you can defend yourself in this and show us how you hope for something when you do not keep the law, then we would with great pleasure hear about this from you, and then we can explore other things in the same way” (10). Justin, on the basis of the Old Testament itself, proves the need to reject it in favor of the New Testament of Christ: after the coming of Christ, the Old Testament ritual law lost its binding force and meaning and was replaced by a new law. The prophets predicted the establishment of a New Testament for all people and for all times, which would abolish the Old, given only to the Jews because of their stiffness. “We have been given an eternal and perfect law and a sure law, this is Christ, after whom there is no more law, statute or commandment” (11). The remission of sins is granted not through Jewish washings and sacrifices, but by faith through the blood and death of Christ, and righteousness does not consist in external ritual deeds, not in the internal cleansing of the heart. Circumcision, fasts and holidays, sacrifices, the celebration of the Sabbath and similar institutions and legalizations of the Old Testament, at their very establishment, had a transitory purpose, and their subsequent abolition was announced in advance. On the contrary, the new law of Christ contains requirements of God for man that have eternal significance: honoring the true God, turning from sin and error, and faith in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The righteous who lived before the law and under the law are saved by Christ. All the predictions of the prophets were fulfilled in him. They predicted a twofold Coming of Christ, one - humiliated, when He suffered for people, and the other, when He comes in all His glory. Therefore, one should not be at all tempted by the fact that Jesus Christ endured suffering and death on the cross. In the second part (chapters 48–108), based on the prophets, Justin proves that the worship of Justin in no way contradicts the belief in the one true God and the veneration of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The prophets testified and confirmed that Jesus is the Son of God made man. On the basis of Holy Scripture, Justin imposes and proves the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His incarnation, suffering, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven. Justin points to the Epiphany to the patriarchs, where the angel of God differs from God the Creator and together appears with the properties of the Divine, explains the mystery of the birth of God the Word from God the Father by the likeness of fire kindled from fire, sets out in detail the prophecy of Isaiah (7:14) about the birth of Christ from the Virgin, reveals the transformation of the cross in the raised hands of Moses, the blessing of Joseph, in the serpent ascended on the tree, and proves the Resurrection of Christ from the words of the psalm 21st and from the story of the prophet Jonah. In the third part (chapters 109–141), Justin tries to show that the Jews and pagans converted by the Apostles to Jesus Christ are the true Israel, to which all the promises of the Old Testament apply. In Christianity, the purpose of the religion of Israel to be a world religion is fulfilled and fulfilled. The interlocutors parted very amicably, satisfied with the result of the dispute. “We,” said Tryphon, “did not intentionally enter into a conversation about these subjects, and I confess that I am extremely pleased with our meeting, and I think that these friends of mine feel the same, because we found more than we expected and could ever expect. If we could do this more often, we would gain even more benefit by examining these very words (the Scriptures); but since,” he said, “you are ready to leave us and are waiting for the ship every day, then do not consider it a labor to remember us as your friends when you leave from here.” “For my part,” answered Justin, “if I had remained here, I would have wished to do the same thing daily, but now, having in mind, by the will and help of God, to board the ship, I urge you, turn to this great work for your own salvation, and take care to prefer Christ Almighty God to your teachers. After this, Justin continues, they left me, praying for my salvation from the dangers of the journey and from any disaster. And I prayed for them and said: I cannot wish for a greater good for you than that, having learned that in this way wisdom is given to every person, you can undoubtedly believe with us that our Jesus is the Christ of God” (142). At present, it is recognized as not requiring proof that the Dialogue does not represent a protocol recording of a conversation that was conducted over two days; on the other hand, it is not fictitious in its entirety: some of the facts that appear in the Dialogue can be said with a fair degree of confidence that they have historical significance. For example, there is no reason to think why Justin considered it necessary to invent, if it were not so in fact, that around the time of the last Jewish war (132-135), in the mantle of a philosopher, he appeared in public places in Ephesus and repeatedly took advantage of the circumstances in order, as a missionary of Christianity, to enter into conversations with people of the most diverse views and directions. In general, actual facts from life, personal impressions, meetings and conversations that he had with the Jews in Ephesus and other places, even material for an entire work, being freely processed and arranged according to a specific plan to suit the intended purpose. Therefore, Tryphon’s objections to Christianity undoubtedly reflect the opinions of representatives of Judaism contemporary to Justin. Of course, it is not possible to draw a precise line between what belongs to history in the content of the Dialogue and what belongs to literary composition. This point of view remains important for resolving the question of who was Tryphon - one of the main characters in the Dialogue? Was he a real historical person or invented by Justin? Eusebius, probably on the basis of the lost preface to the Dialogue, calls Tryphon the most famous among the Jews of that time, τω ν τότε Ἑ βραίων ἐπισημότατον (Hist. eccl., 4:18, 6). This designation undoubtedly points to the Palestinian Rabbi Tarfon, a contemporary of Justin, often mentioned in the Mishnah. Since the time of Alexander, Τρύφων has become a fairly common Greek name, which was borne by many famous Jews. Based on other analogies, one can think that the Jews replaced this Greek name with a consonant name of Jewish education and said and wrote: Tarphon or Tarpon. In the Talmudic writing from the time of Rabbis Akiba and Justin, the only Tarfon is found. In any case, around this time, Jewish tradition does not know any other famous Jew Tryphon-Tarfon, except the famous rabbi. With this particular Tryphon, if Eusebius borrowed the instructions he communicated from the preface of the Dialogue, and Justin himself identified the Tryphon he deduced in the Dialogue. Rabbi Tryphon, although in his youth, still saw the performance of Divine services in the Jerusalem temple until the year 70, however, he lived to see the great war of 132–135. Both Trifon Justina and Rabbi Tarfon lived in Palestine before the Bar Kochba War. Tarfon's prominent position as a teacher and head of a school in Lydda, in the neighborhood of Justin's homeland, makes it probable that even before his conversion to Christianity the latter could have heard of him; it is possible that Justin sometime during his travels met Tarphon, most likely in Ephesus, during the war of 132–135. But in his portrayal of the personality of Tarfon in the Dialogue, Justin undoubtedly significantly deviates from historical reality, presenting the learned rabbi as alien to the fanaticism with which he was distinguished according to other information about him. In general, in presenting the personality of Tryphon, Justin allows obvious contradictions: at the beginning of the Dialogue, Tryphon is introduced as a “Jew from circumcision” (Ἑ βραιος ἐκ περιτομής), who shortly before lived in Palestine and in the last war left his fatherland, settled in Greece and lived mostly in Corinth (1), where from some follower of Socrates, Corinth in Argos learned that one should not neglect or despise people in the philosophical robe - which means that before, as a Jew, he despised such people; but then, during the conversation, Tryphon already appears as a Hellenistic Jew, well acquainted with Greek education, knows the Greek Bible perfectly and refers to it, without at the same time revealing knowledge of the Hebrew text. He conducts the conversation in the most respectful manner, while his companions several times interrupt the Christian philosopher with rude laughter and deliberate inattention; he suppresses the irritation caused by Justin’s words (79) and generally does not reveal even the slightest signs of fanaticism in anything. Of course, in this Tryphon one cannot recognize the learned and fanatical Tarfon. This famous rabbi, in an actual meeting with Justin, would have used a completely different weapon and differently than the respectful Hellenist of Dialogue. What the real Tryphon and others like him taught and how he argued, Justin might not even know. He, as was said, in his work combined only what he learned from his meetings with the Hellenists in Ephesus and in other places of the Jewish dispersion; and brought out the famous Palestinian Tarfon in his Dialogue because he considered him the most worthy representative of Judaism of his time, who fought against Christianity. Time to write the Dialogue. In the Dialogue, Justin makes it clear that he wants to depict an event that took place during the great Jewish war (132–135) or immediately after it. This is indicated by Tryphon’s words that he was recently in Palestine and fled from there due to the war; but the following words of the Dialogue (9) are especially characteristic: Tryphon’s companions, sitting on stone benches, “began to talk about the war that had happened in Judea (περì του κατà τὴν Ἰ ουδαίαν γενομένου πολέμου), which one of them mentioned." This conversation about war without any reason and without a specific goal, like the stone benches on which the talkers were sitting, refers to the setting of the event depicted, which, according to the author’s intention, should transfer the reader’s thoughts to the time when all the Jews had on their minds what was happening in Palestine at that time; it was a conversation on a modern political topic, which usually arises without a specific reason or purpose, only because someone accidentally directs the attention of those present to it. But the very fact of writing the Dialogue dates back to a much later time, and Justin himself points to this when he mentions his written appeal to the Emperor (ἐγγράφως Καίσαρι προσομιλω ν, ε ἶ πον; 120). This indication of the Apology is, of course, inconsistency on Justin's part; but it has important significance for us, indicating that the dialogue was written after the Apology; and if the latter came from the pen of Justin around the year 152–153, then the writing of the Dialogue must be assumed after this time, but before the year 161, since, apparently, at the time when Justin wrote the Dialogue, the reign of the Emperor to whom the Apologies were addressed, that is, Antoninus Pius, was still continuing. The place where the Dialogue was written is unknown and there is no basis even for suggestions. II. 5. An excerpt from an essay on the Resurrection: the content of surviving fragments, a judgment about the volume of the whole work An excerpt from St. Justin's work on the Resurrection, preserved in the Sacra Parallela, is divided into ten chapters in the editions. It begins with general considerations of a philosophical nature that “the word of truth is free and autocratic, cannot be subject to testing through arguments, does not allow its listeners to be examined by evidence, since its nobility and reliability require that they believe the one who sent it; the word of truth is sent from God.” And there is no other proof other than the truth itself, which is “God, the Father of all, the perfect mind. His Son, the Word, came to us in the flesh, showing Himself and the Father, and gave us in Himself the Resurrection from the dead and after that eternal life; this is Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord; in Him lies the proof and reliability of Himself and everything. Therefore, those who follow Him, knowing Him, believe in Him as proof, and rest in Him. But since,” says the author, “the enemy does not cease to attack many and in equal ways to plot against believers in order to lead them away from the faith, and against unbelievers so that they do not believe, then, it seems to me, it is necessary for us, armed with the invulnerable words of faith, to fight with him for the sake of the weak” (1). He further formulates the objections of preachers of false teachings against the Resurrection of the flesh: a) it is impossible for flesh, having undergone corruption and destruction, to be restored in the same form; b) it is not only impossible, but also useless to preserve the flesh, to prove which they condemn it, exposing its shortcomings, and in it alone they believe the cause of sins, so that, according to them, if the flesh is resurrected, then at the same time its shortcomings will be restored. They weave such sophisms: if the flesh rises, then it will rise either completely and with all its members, or imperfectly. If it does not rise entirely, then this shows the powerlessness of God, since He could preserve some parts, but not others; If the flesh has all parts and members, then isn’t it absurd to attribute this to it after the Resurrection from the dead, when the Savior said: “They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but will be like angels in Heaven.” And there are those who say that Jesus appeared only spiritually, and not in the flesh, and presented the form only of the flesh, and thus try to deprive the flesh of the promise. The author sets out to first resolve what seems incomprehensible to opponents of the doctrine of the Resurrection, and then provide evidence that the flesh will survive (2). He proves (3) that the flesh after the resurrection will be free from those functions that opponents point to, since they do not constitute an absolute necessity even in this life (proof is the existence of virgins and virgins). Further, if the Lord on earth healed the infirmities of the flesh and restored the integrity of the body, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh will rise full and whole (4). To those who prove the impossibility of the resurrection of the flesh, the author points out that they, calling themselves believers, in fact turn out to be worse than non-believers. All peoples who worship idols are convinced that for their gods everything is possible; much more should we, who have excellent and true faith, believe in our God when we have evidence in the origin of the primordial and in the successive origin of people. The author apologizes to the children of the Church for using external arguments and borrowed from the world; he knows that for believers it would be enough to say that we believe; for unbelievers, it is necessary to conduct the matter through evidence (5). Explorers of the world, called sages, disagree among themselves on the question of the origin of the world: Plato says that everything was created by God from matter and according to His providence; Epicurus and his followers claim that everything came from atoms and emptiness by some random impulse of the natural movement of bodies, and the Stoics produce everything from the four elements through the activity of God. But they also have some general provisions, recognized by everyone: the first is that existing things cannot come from nothing, nor resolve into nothing and disappear, and the other is that there are indestructible elements from which every thing comes. If this is so, then according to the principles of all of them, the restoration of the flesh turns out to be possible: according to Plato, God, Himself indestructible, having indestructible matter, can, after the destruction of the work formed from it, again resume the same composition and make the same thing as it was before; the four elements of the Stoics, having received the same mixture and combination by God's order, can again form the same body as they formed before; if the atoms of Epicurus are indestructible, then they can come together and unite in the same order and form the same body as was before of them. “Can’t God really unite the separated members of the flesh again and make a body identical to what He previously created?” (6). Against those who humiliate the flesh and say that it is unworthy of resurrection and heavenly residence, since, firstly, its essence is earth, and secondly, it is full of all sin, so that it forces the soul to sin along with it. Based on the original origin of man, created with flesh in the image of God and in the likeness, the author proves that the flesh is honorable before God and superior to all creatures; It is also in vain to accuse the flesh that it is sinful and provokes the soul to sin with it, for how can the flesh sin on its own if there is no initiative and challenge to it from the soul? (7). It is also not true that the flesh does not have the promise of resurrection: God called the flesh to resurrection and promises it eternal life, since, preaching the salvation of man, He promises to save the flesh; neither the soul nor the body separately constitutes a man, but only the being consisting of their combination is called man, and God called man to life and resurrection, therefore, he called both soul and body (8). After a break, which is noted by the compiler of the extracts, a passage is given that makes up the 9th chapter, in which the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh is proven by the fact that Christ healed and resurrected others and was himself resurrected in the flesh that suffered. Then again there is an omission, after which an excerpt is given, apparently from the conclusion of the work. “So,” says the author, “considering the foundations contained in the world, “we do not find it impossible to restore the flesh; on the other hand, the Savior throughout the Gospel shows the preservation of our flesh: after this, why should we accept a teaching that is contrary to faith and disastrous and foolishly turn back when we hear that the soul is immortal, and the body is perishable and incapable of coming to life again? The Savior came to proclaim a new and unheard-of hope, that God does not promise to keep the incorruptible incorruptible, but to grant incorruptibility to the corruptible. Denying the resurrection of the flesh must logically lead to licentiousness. If Christ, distracting us from our lusts, prescribes to our flesh a chaste and abstinent way of life, then it is clear that He keeps it from sins, as having the hope of salvation.” It is difficult to judge from the surviving fragments how large the whole work was. The passages are inscribed: ἐκ του περì ἀναστάσεως; before the 9th chapter it is noted: καì μετ ’ ὀλίγα, and before the 10th: καì μετà βραχέα - therefore, there is no doubt that we have before us only parts of the work written by Saint Justin. But how big are the gaps? The expressions: καì μετ ’ ὀλίγα and καì μετà βραχέα seem to give reason to assume that the gaps are not large. For a knowledge of such literature as the Sacra Parallela shows that considerable omissions have often been made in them, and that formulas of abbreviation such as these are common in the Greek and Syriac collections of passages; but they cannot be taken literally: the compilers of collections have every incentive to put things in such a way that the reader thinks that all the most important things have been written down for them, and that what is missed does not matter; Meanwhile, the same collection contains excerpts from the fifth book of Irenaeus’s work “Against Heresies”, and ten chapters are skipped through the formula καì μετà βραχέα (5:2; 5:12). In addition to the omissions indicated by the compiler of the collection, which can be quite significant, it apparently lacks the beginning of the work, since it is difficult to imagine that the author could begin the work with general provisions from the Christian theory of knowledge without first identifying the very topic and reason for discussing the resurrection; probably a few concluding sentences were also omitted (see Th. Zahna for more details in Zeitschr. Für Kirchengesch. Bd.VIII (1886), S. 24–29). Thus, the entire work could be twice or three times larger than the fragments that have come down to us. The time of origin of the work cannot be determined precisely; but if we see in it a polemic against Gnostic-Marcionite positions, then it could not have been written earlier than 150. II. 6. Characteristics of Saint Justin as a writer The works of Saint Justin show that he was not a brilliant or original thinker, like Origen, but in the numerous data scattered in the apologies, the Dialogue and excerpts from the work on the resurrection, one can conclude that he had a wide philosophical knowledge, although it does not differ in depth. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the works of Justin that have come down to us do not aim to expand on philosophical subjects. About the literary side of Justin’s works, a competent judgment was already evoked by Patriarch Photius, who characterizes Saint Justin as a writer in the following expressions: “he did not try to decorate the inner beauty of his philosophy with rhetorical art. Therefore, his words, no matter how powerful they are in other respects and no matter how much they contain scientific content, do not abound in those embellishments that rhetoric gives; therefore, he also does not attract a large crowd with an attractive and insinuating form” (Bibl., cod. 125). In these words, the external side of Justin’s works found an assessment that fully corresponds to reality. In stylistic and rhetorical terms, Justin's works cannot be called exemplary. He himself does not recognize the ability of brilliant presentation (Dial., 58). In general, his works suffer from the lack of a thoughtful plan and a logically consistent disclosure of the questions posed: he rarely dwells on one subject until he has exhausted it, but for the most part leaves it insufficiently disclosed, deviates into discussion about other subjects, but then again takes up the same topic and continues to illuminate it from new sides; frequent repetition of the same thing, fragmentation of individual ideas. Therefore, the homogeneous is expressed as divided, and the less similar - united. The presentation itself is characterized by tedious prolixity and monotony; long periods, piling up sentences with numerous particles, of course, do not contribute to the ease and grace of speech. The language is not clean. Only at times does his speech become animated and acquire a certain strength and expressiveness; this is noticeable mainly in the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. And in general it must be said that the Dialogue presents the literary art of Justin in a more favorable light than the Apology; Apparently, he put more labor into processing it; Yes. The language here is livelier. The whole atmosphere of the conversation testifies to the literary taste and abilities of the author. The reason for the literary shortcomings of Justin's works is partly the haste with which the Apologies were undoubtedly written, especially the second, but mainly its source must be sought in the fact that Justin was actually the first church writer in whom Christianity came into contact with modern culture. Many new ideas and undeveloped theological concepts and language naturally overwhelmed Justin, who perhaps did not attach much importance to “external form.” Despite these external shortcomings, Justin's works have some kind of attractive power: they speak of a personality worthy of all respect, an open and honest character, a man who seriously sought to shed light on the greatest questions of life; he speaks with the deepest conviction, which was achieved through a stubborn struggle with himself; he makes every effort to come to mutual understanding in the fight against the enemy. Justin deeply and with heartache feels the defenselessness of Christians, but does not doubt for a minute the final triumph of truth over error and arbitrariness, incomprehensible to him. And the more you read and ponder his works, the more you become convinced of the special greatness of the soul and spiritual nobility of Saint Justin. Thus, the significance of Justin’s works lies not in external literary merits, but in the noble and sublime spirit that permeates them and in the content of deep ideas that he first expressed and revealed. His works that have reached us surpass in volume everything that has survived from his Christian contemporaries, and represent not only the first philosophical and rational defense of Christianity, but the completeness of purely theological explanations, which give their author the right to the title of the first theologian in the Church literature of the most ancient period. More than other Christian works of that era, they reveal to us faith, the inner life of the Church, its Divine services and rituals. II. 7. The main features of the teachings of Saint Justin: a) His relation to philosophy and the sources of Christian teaching At the beginning of the Dialogue, Saint Justin tells how he sought in vain from representatives of various philosophical schools for knowledge about God that would lead to happiness. Only acquaintance with the ideas of Plato and deepening in them inspired his spirit - through them he hoped to achieve the contemplation of God. But an old man who met him on the seashore convinced him that knowledge of the true God could be achieved not through human effort and research, but through revelation; God revealed Himself through the prophets, whose words are confirmed by the fulfillment of their predictions. Justin was convinced of this based on his own research and became a Christian. But having devoted his life to science, he could not abandon it after converting to Christianity. He posed the question of truth to all the philosophical systems of his time: he tested the Stoics, Peripatetics, Pythagoreans, Platonists in order and knew what was true in their teaching. His soul was sufficiently prepared to freely recognize the traces of truth that he found in the pagan philosophers. He was far from viewing pagan science as a complete perversion of the truth, and from turning away from paganism as a region where lies and deceit reign: true Hellenism and Christianity, reason and faith come from the same source - the Logos and lead to the same goal - the knowledge of God. He even saw pagan philosophy as an apologetic means to make it easier for Christianity to enter the pagan world. Thus, the idea arose for him to present the new teaching as a philosophy, the rationality of which should be convincing to everyone, and which is the completion of all sound elements in pagan teaching. Therefore, he did not leave the philosophical mantle and in this philosopher's clothing he performed the service of a Christian missionary, and in Christianity he found a single reliable and useful philosophy ( (Dial., 8) Hence the natural desire among researchers to determine Justin’s attitude to philosophy. The question is very important for the history of dogmatics, since the solution to it depends on the view of the nature of his Theology as a whole. That Justin's works bear a well-known philosophical imprint is beyond any doubt; but the nature and extent of the influence of philosophy on the Theology of Justin is a subject of disagreement. In recent decades, the teaching of Saint Justin has been repeatedly presented as a strange mixture of Christian and pagan-philosophical elements, which is given a certain color not so much by Christianity as by Platonism. Aubé (Essai de critique religieuse. De l'apologétique chrétienne au II siècle. St. Justin Phil. Et Mart. Paris, 1875) in the teachings of Justin, with the exception of a few points, like faith in Christ, does not find anything other than the popularized Greco-philosophical morality. According to Engelhardt, Justin was more of a pagan than a Christian; he accepted two worldviews, but of them only the pagan one entered his flesh and blood, while the other, Christian, although fundamentally recognized by him as true, remained alien to him: “if you judge him by his own thoughts and ideas, then he is a pagan.” Rejecting these extreme views of Aubé and Engelhardt, E. de Faye (De l'influence du Timée de Platon sur la théologie de Justin Martyr, in: Bibliothèque de l'École des hautes études. Sciencesreligieuses. t. VII (Paris, 1896), p. 169187) proves that Justin adheres directly to Plato's Timaeus in relation to the explanation of the origin of the world and some definitions of his concept of God. However, he agrees that these echoes of Platonism can be contrasted with other passages that are purely Christian. And S. Clemen (Die religions-philosophische Bedeutung des stoisch-christlichen Eudämonismus in Justins Apologie. Leipzig, 1890) makes Justin the creator of Stoic-Christian eudaimonism. Not only Roman Catholic, but also Protestant scholars objected and continue to object to such an understanding of Justin’s teachings. First of all, they point to the fact, obvious to everyone, that Justin without hesitation went to death for his Christian faith. They also point out that he had already gone through the schools of pagan sages before knocking at the doors of the Church. He had been searching for a long time, he was thirsting for truth and peace; if he asked to be accepted into the baptized roof of the Church of the martyrs, then he should - of this one can be sure - feel what he was and what he became. He himself says about himself: “when I discovered that wicked veil that evil demons threw over the Divine teaching of Christians to turn other people away from it, I laughed at the perpetrators of this lie and at their veil and at popular opinion, and I confess that I set myself the glory of being and try with all my might to appear as a Christian” (II Apol., 13). He remained a philosopher, but a purely Christian philosopher, imbued with the conviction that with faith in the Son of God he entered a new area of ​​knowledge and achieved perfect possession of the truth. Christianity gave him a standard by which to evaluate the conclusions of philosophy. It is impossible to deny the influence on him of some of those philosophies with which he became acquainted before accepting Christianity, and one would be surprised if this were not the case. It is quite natural that after converting to Christianity, he offered some of the new content of his views in old vessels. He applied some Stoic and Platonic thoughts, but not in such a way as to become a Platonic philosopher bearing only the Christian name. The elements of his previous education became for Justin only material, which he transformed and illuminated through a new life principle, and a thorough study of his works leads to the decisive conviction that elements alien to true Christianity, which cannot be denied in Justin’s teaching, constitute a fleeting and subordinate element in it. At the same time, it is necessary to keep in mind that establishing the dogmatic character and content of Justin’s works is far from an easy task. Here the danger of reading more from his words than is contained in them always remains unresolved. Justin often has to deal with new ideas to which he must give form and put flesh on them, and it is not always possible to determine exactly where he found the appropriate expression for them and where not. Justin's dogmatic convictions, both due to the peculiarities of his education and his position as the first founder of Christian Theology, also do not yet have the firmness and certainty that we find only in much later Church writers. One cannot be surprised that in Justin, the first of the most ancient Church writers, who set as his task to build a bridge between Christianity and pagan science; sometimes the philosopher prevailed over the theologian. This very attempt, regardless of the measure of its success, testifies not only to the purest intentions, but also to venerable spiritual strength and energy. Finally, we should pay attention to the fact that Justin in none of his received works does not set as his special task the exposition of his dogmatic convictions - his goals are apologetic, and therefore he rarely reveals his Christian views in their full content, for the most part only in individual respects in the heat of polemics and according to the requirements of circumstances, highlighting aspects that in fact do not have a dominant significance in his teaching. On the other hand, Justin is accused of rationalistically depriving the mystical elements of the Christian religion of depth and inner dignity and strength. But this accusation is based on an unwillingness to pay attention to the true meaning and foundation of Justin's apologetics and his view of philosophy in its relation to Revelation. Justin is based on the assumption that the faith of Christians and the results of true philosophy in their essence cannot contradict each other, that the Divine teaching of Christians and the speculations of philosophers must mutually support and complement each other and, as an apologist, he most persistently affirms and proves the reasonableness of Christianity on the basis of objective facts, equally recognized and not denied by both himself and his opponents. Therefore, he often speaks, and even undoubtedly exaggerates, about the kinship of the views of Greek poets and philosophers with the faith of Christians, basing it on a peculiar theory of λόγος σπερματικός, which, if applied and carried out consistently to the end, can give inconvenient results. Based on this theory, philosophy is the action of the Logos, and since the Logos is identified with Christ, this establishes a direct connection between philosophy and Christ. This is clearly the purpose of Justin to present the absolute meaning of Christ, so that the truth and virtue that existed before Christ were raised to Him. The essence of this theory is as follows. The same Logos, which in Christ appeared in all its fullness, in its embryonic state in the form of a seed, as λόγος σπερματικός is inherent in every person. Therefore, Christ is the Logos, in which all humanity and each individual have a share: “We have been taught that Christ is the firstborn of God, that He is the Word, in whom the whole human race participates. Those who lived in accordance with the Word are Christians, even if they were considered atheists; such among the Hellenes are Socrates and Heraclitus and the like, and among the barbarians - Abraham, Ananias, Azariah and Misail, and Elijah and many others... Thus, those formerly who lived contrary to the Word were dishonest, hostile to Christ and murderers of people who lived in accordance with the Word; and those who lived and now live in accordance with him are Christians, fearless and calm” (I Apol., 46). “Everything that has ever been said and revealed that is good by philosophers and legislators, all this was done by them according to the extent of their finding and contemplation of the Word, and since they did not know all the properties of the Word, which is Christ, they often said even the opposite to themselves” (II Apol., 10). Thus, philosophers and legislators had only a part of the Logos, which explains the imperfections outside of Christian philosophy and the limitation of its activities to a small circle, as well as the contradictions in opinions among philosophers. Justin said that about the teaching of Plato it cannot be said that it is completely different from the teaching of Christ, but it is not entirely similar to it, just like the teaching of other Stoics, poets and historians, “for each of them spoke beautifully precisely because he knew in part what was akin to the sown Word of God” (Apol. 11:13). True, they could reach the correct concept of God, but they could not know the true God (Dial., 3). In addition to this internal proclamation of the truth through the widespread. throughout the Logos, Justin also accepts the opinion that the Hellenic philosophers borrowed the most essential aspects of the truth they preached from the Old Testament. “Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And in everything that philosophers and poets spoke about the immortality of the soul, about punishments after death, about the contemplation of heavenly things and about similar subjects, they used the prophets - through them they could understand and express this. Therefore, everyone seems to have the seeds of truth; but they did not understand them accurately, for which they are convicted by the fact that they contradict themselves” (I Apol., 44; cf. 59 ff.). In accordance with this basic position, Justin develops a doctrine about the essence of true philosophy, which is as follows. It is the science of existence and knowledge of the true; its inherent goal is knowledge of the Divine: “don’t philosophers always talk about God, and don’t all their reasoning have His unity and providence as their subject? Is not the real task of philosophy to investigate the nature of the Divine” (Dial., 1)? Philosophy in truth is the greatest and most precious acquisition in the eyes of God: it alone brings us to God and makes us pleasing to Him” (Dial., 2). She alone brings happiness to the highest degree, for happiness is the reward of this knowledge and wisdom (Dial., 3). Even states without philosophy cannot prosper (I Apol., 3). Therefore, every person should philosophize and consider this matter to be the most important and most excellent, and put everything else in second and third place (Dial., 3). There can only be one real true philosophy (Dial., 2). Christianity is this only, reliable and useful philosophy (Dial., 8). This is a teaching assigned not for one people, but for all peoples, so perfect that it does not need any completion or improvement: in it the Divine Mind Himself was revealed and through the Divine Mind the complete and complete Truth; for from the Logos comes all knowledge of man (II Apol., 8, 10). Since Christianity is the most perfect expression of the being of the Logos, in a certain sense it can be understood as a religion of reason. And in fact, in Christianity everything is reasonable, everything is in accordance with the sound tenets of philosophy. If Christians honor three Divine Persons, then this is in accordance with reason (I Apol., 13). If the pagans, who previously unreasonably worshiped God in various images, and now stopped listening to demons and followed Christ, then they followed only the call of reason (I Apol., 14). The teaching about the Resurrection of the dead, about the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ is entirely in accordance with human reason (I Apol., 18-21). If Christians claim that God created and arranged everything, then are they not expressing the views of Plato? When they teach that the world will burn, do they not agree with the Stoics? If they believe that the souls of the wicked will be punished even after death, and the souls of good people, free from punishment, will live in bliss, then do they not affirm the same thing as the philosophers? If they further teach that one should not worship the work of human hands, then they are saying the same thing that the comedian Menander and others preached, who argued that the artist is higher than the work (I Apol., 21). But the teaching of Christ not only largely agrees with the teaching of philosophers: it is higher than the teaching of Plato, the Stoics, poets and historians (II Apol., 13). The teaching of these pagans - insofar as it is reasonable - is only reasonable because it is Christian, since all the beautiful and noble thoughts that were expressed by people belong to Christianity. Christianity cannot be considered an innovation, devoid of that solid antiquity that pagan philosophy claims: it is as ancient as the world and humanity. From the beginning, Christ directs the history and destinies of mankind: He created people, the human spirit is formed in His likeness and manifests its activity in the light that the Logos communicates to Him. Christianity is wherever piety shines, where love of virtue flourishes; there were saints and martyrs for him in pagan times. Therefore, true philosophy is older than all the systems of the so-called philosophers. Long before these latter, there were blessed, righteous and beloved men of God who contemplated the real truth and communicated it to people. These were the prophets (Dial., 8). The Logos, Christ, who appeared in the flesh, raised the existing truth to perfection with His gospel of Christian teaching. First of all, He raised the knowledge of God. God can be known by the light of reason, but only imperfectly. Every person has an innate idea of ​​God, but as a vague idea that does not have a clear form (II Apol., 6). If God is completely unknown to some people, then the reason for this lies not so much in the lack of cognitive abilities, but in the influence of demons who put themselves in the place of God (II Apol., 10). The example of Socrates clearly shows how, through rational inquiry, some degree of true knowledge can be achieved. But the philosophers did not achieve firm knowledge and True knowledge (II Apol., 13). Even the few religious truths they knew were not their own; they partially comprehended the hidden word of the prophets and even mixed it with their own lies (compare: I Apol., 44). It is enough to recall Plato’s teaching about eternal torment (I Apol., 8) and about the trinity (I Apol., 60). Complete knowledge of God contains only the Logos – Christ. If previously it was difficult for people even to achieve the knowledge of God, then it was even more difficult to communicate it to others (II Apol., 10). For Christ, on the contrary, it was easy to achieve this through his own strength (ibid.). Socrates, despite his high knowledge of the truth, could not induce anyone to die for his teaching; on the contrary, Christ, Whom Socrates also partially knew, “was believed not only by philosophers and scientists, but also by artisans and the completely uneducated, despising glory, fear and death, because all this is produced by the power of the ineffable Father, and not by the means of human reason” (ibid.). In this way, insufficiency and imperfection - which have their basis in the cognitive abilities of all humanity and, in combination with the wicked activity of demons, led to destruction - come to an end with the incarnation of the Logos, the Son of God. Anyone who believes in Christ and accepts His teachings has a complete knowledge of the truth. He judges everything, guided by the knowledge and contemplation of the mind of the whole Word, which is Christ (II Apol., 8). Christianity is the only reliable teaching of wisdom for all nations, for people of every age and condition. Just as any theoretical philosophy has dignity in proportion to its relationship to Christianity, so any practical life wisdom with its moral laws is also elevated to it. The divine rational power of the Logos of Christ is the source for it too. Therefore, if we are surprised at the sublimity of the Stoic moral teaching, we must not forget that the basis for it is its only contact with Christianity, and if Socrates so energetically fought against false beliefs in the Greek gods, then we should note that he drew his strength from his communion with the Divine Logos (compare: II Apol., 8; I Apol., 46). Based on the above, the difference between Christianity and other philosophical systems is not only of degree, but also of principle. While the latter communicate only fragments of knowledge, represent a source of knowledge only for a few selected people, and their conclusions are often unreliable and contradictory, Christianity, as a perfect reflection of the Divine mind, contains the fullness of knowledge accessible to the understanding of all, and alone is able to provide evidence in favor of the truth of its teaching. But the most significant difference is that pagan philosophy has its roots in reason, while Christianity has its roots in Revelation. Christianity is the only true philosophy, but this only true philosophy has Revelation as its presupposition. This position is justified in this way. True knowledge of God and the Divine cannot be given by human reason; it can only be communicated through the special revelation of God Himself. If philosophy believes that it can investigate its highest subject, that is, God, from within itself, then it is in a cruel error. All true knowledge is acquired through theoretical learning or practical experience or direct perception: a strange animal, for example, which lives in distant countries, remains unknown to us until we ourselves see it, or at least hear about it from eyewitnesses. A similar thing should be said regarding our knowledge of God: “how can philosophers think or speak correctly about God when they have no knowledge of Him, have not seen Him and have not heard of Him (Dial., 3)? The natural powers of the mind by themselves are insufficient to obtain direct knowledge of God: the human mind cannot see God unless it is instructed by the Holy Spirit. Knowledge of God can only be communicated by God Himself or through the Holy Spirit directly to the human soul or through God-enlightened men who reveal His words and revelations to other people and thus introduce them to the knowledge of Himself. Therefore, true knowledge of God is based solely on Divine Revelation; and since Christianity brings people complete knowledge of God, then truly it is the teaching of revelation. When Christians consider their religion as revealed, they do not believe empty fables and unsubstantiated narratives, but a teaching that is full of the Holy Spirit and abounds in power and grace (Dial., 9). Since true knowledge of God can only be obtained through revelation, the witnesses and guarantors of the faith of Christians for Justin are, first of all, the writers of the Old Testament, the prophets, through whom the Word foretold the future (II Apol., 10). Prophets are true philosophers; They alone knew and proclaimed the truth to people, in spite of anyone, without fear, without being carried away by glory; they spoke only what they heard and saw, being filled with the Holy Spirit (Dial., 7). The words of the prophets are the words of God (I Apol., 33) or the Logos (ibid., 36) or the Holy Spirit (ibid., 61). Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for there to be any contradiction between the testimonies of the prophets. To one of Tryphon's objections, Justin replies that he would never dare to think that the Scriptures of the prophets contradict each other. “If I come across a passage of Scripture that seems to be like this, and seems to contradict another, then, fully convinced that no passage of Scripture contradicts another, I will rather admit that I myself do not understand the meaning of it, and I will try to convince those who admit contradictions in Scripture to think the same thing” (Dial., 65). Along with the prophetic word, the word of the Apostles appears as no less Divine: Christians believe in the voice of God, proclaimed by the Apostles and foretold by the prophets (Dial., 119). Memoirs (ἀπομνημονεύματα) of the Apostles were read in Divine Assemblies (I Apol., 67). The term ἀπομνημονεύματα Justin (I Apol., 66), obviously, due to attention to non-Christian readers, designates the Gospels, οἱ γàρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοι ς γενομένοις ὑπ ’ αὐτω ν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλει ται εὐαγγέλια But Justin makes it clear that in Christian usage they were called simply τò εὐαγγέλιον, representing, as it were, a single whole (Dial., 10: ἐν τω @ λεγομέν ῳ εὐαγγελί ῳ). Their inspired character and canonical dignity for Justin were as indisputable as those of the books of the Old Testament, and therefore Matt. 17:13 ~he introduces through the formula γέγραπται. The authority of the Apostles is in no way lower than the authority of the prophets: the Apostles are already foreshadowed in the Old Testament and preachers sent by Jesus Christ for the first time announced by Jesus of the new Revelation. This authority of theirs is based on the fact that their word is the teaching of the Divine Logos and reproduces the sayings of Christ in their authentic form. For such witnessing they are authorized by the ascended Jesus Christ Himself and have received for this power sent down from the eternal Priest Christ (I Apol., 50; Dial., 42). They preached His teaching and announced His appearing (Apol. 1:40, 49). Their self-vision and their inherent understanding of the teachings and works of Christ, giving their ministry the highest authority, makes them teachers of Christianity. The question of which of the Scriptures of the New Testament canon Justin knew is the subject of numerous studies, in which it is resolved differently. The most thorough research seems to be Th. Zahn'a (Gesch. desneutest. Kanons. Bd. 1, H. 2, Erlangen, 1889, S. 463–585), which leads to the conclusion that Justin knew our canonical Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, with the exception of the Epistle to Philemon, the Epistle of the Apostle James, I and II Peter and I John, the Apocalypse. Justin undoubtedly knew apocryphal writing and, it seems, used the first Gospel of James, perhaps the Gospel of Thomas and Acta Pilati. In studies of Justin's teaching, it is persistently noted that in his sayings about God and His relationship to the world and man, he clearly reveals the influence of the concepts of Plato's philosophy on him, and from the imperfection of his concept of God, almost all deviations from Christian teaching that are found in the works of Justin are derived. Justin vigorously asserts the transcendence of God: He, the unborn (Dial. 127), ineffable (Dial. 127), unchangeable Ruler of all, leaves no space above the sky (Dial. 60:6); He has no name (IApol., 61). All these names may have had the influence of Plato's philosophy; in the same way, perhaps under its influence, he especially emphasizes the transcendence of God. But on the other hand, the opposition to paganism could have prompted Justin to especially insist on the sublimity of God and His namelessness. Also in the dialogue, the desire to prove to the Jews the need to recognize Christ along with God could have prompted Him to express the transcendence of God as sharply as possible, in order to thus gain a place for Christ. Therefore, it is difficult to determine which influences were more stimulating. However, even if we accept Plato’s thoughts at this point, then further definitions of the concept of God show that Justin completely Christianized them and that, therefore, not all of his teaching about God is given in the above philosophical expressions. It is he who teaches about a personal God. For him, God is not only the fundamental principle of existence, the principle of spiritual and moral forces and the legislative power that distributes rewards and punishments, but He is a person who enters into certain relationships with people, cares about them (I Apol., 28) and specifically about each individual, and not just about the whole world, as philosophers thought (Dial., 3). He hears prayers (compare: Dial., 7; 105). This alone irrefutably proves His personal existence. To this it is necessary to add the places where the economy of salvation is spoken of in history: God establishes sacrifices, Sabbaths, and so on, not because He needs them, but in order to turn the thoughts and feelings of the Jews to Himself (Dial., 22); according to the hardness of the hearts of the Jews He gives laws (Dial., 45); in His mercy He left some seed for salvation, so that the entire human race would not perish (Dial., 55). God threatens the Jews that He will call other nations to His holy mountain (Dial., 136); By the providence of God the pagans were awarded inheritance (Dial., 108, 130). God is delaying the destruction of the world because some will still turn to Christ (Dial., 39; I Apol., 28), because the number of the righteous and virtuous, whom God foreknew, has not yet been fulfilled (I Apol., 45). In the doctrine of God as a personal being, Justin is completely free from the influence of Plato's philosophy. The Christian thought about God as personal is all the more Christian in Justin because he understands God as a moral person. The creation of the world is an act of God's goodness. Next to this, Justin speaks of God as a lover of mankind (Dial., 23; 107), of His goodness (Dial., 47), righteousness (I Apol., 6; 56), mercy (Dial., 55; 106), compassion (Dial., 96; 108), mercy (Dial., 55; 42) and wrath (Dial., 136). However, even if it had been proven that in his teaching about God Justin was influenced by the philosophy of Plato, then even in this case it would be impossible to draw decisive conclusions regarding the entire system of Justin’s teaching, since, as far as can be judged on the basis of surviving works, Justin did not create for himself such a system that one point of teaching could have an irresistible influence on his entire teaching as a whole, especially since Justin does not make the teaching about God a special subject speculation and does not place it at the head of his teaching. The central point in his Theology is c) The doctrine of the face of Jesus Christ and His perfect salvation of people “We are accused,” says Justin, “of madness because, after the unchangeable and eternal God and Father of all, we give second place (δευτέραν χώραν) to a crucified man, and do not know the mystery contained in this” (I Apol., 13). And therefore, in the Apology and in the Dialogue, Justin reveals in detail the doctrine of the Divine dignity and Sonship of Jesus Christ, and especially strives to prove the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. “Before all creatures, God gave birth from Himself to a certain intelligent power, which from the Holy Spirit is also called the Glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes the Angel, sometimes God, sometimes the Lord and the Word” (Dial., 61). “The Word of wisdom is God, begotten of the Father of all, the Word and Wisdom and Power and Glory of Him who gave birth” (compare: IIApol., 32). The Son was born from the Father by His power and will, but not through cutting off, as if the essence of the Father was divided, like all other things that are divided and fragmented and do not remain the same as they were before the division (Dial. 128), but in such a way that He carries within himself the essence of the Father and has a participation in the one, indivisible Divine nature. To clarify the image of birth, Justin uses the analogy of the origin of the human word and fire from another fire: “When we utter a word, we give birth to it, but not through separation, so that the word in us decreases when we utter it; in a similar way, we see how another fire comes from fire, but in such a way that the one from which it is kindled does not decrease, but remains the same, while the one kindled from it actually exists and shines without diminishing the one from which it was kindled (Dial., 61). Jesus Christ, who appeared on earth, is the incarnate and incarnate Logos, (IApol., 5:4); in him the Word became body and mind and soul, καì σω μα καì λόγου καì Φυχήν (II Apol., 10). Jesus Christ, however, was not born like all other people - not from human seed: by the power of God He was born from the Virgin. The power of God came upon the Virgin, overshadowed Her and did what She conceived while a virgin. But by the name of the Holy Spirit and the Power on High, about which the Angel speaks to the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:35), Justin means not the Third, but the Second Person: “by the name of the Spirit and Power we must understand nothing other than the Word, which is also the firstborn of God (I Apol., 32-33). Justin, in a wide variety of expressions in the Dialogue and in the first Apology, reveals, substantiates and defends the doctrine of the miraculous birth of Christ from the Virgin. In the Dialogue, Justin especially persistently reveals the doctrine of the pre-peaceful existence of Christ and, it seems, he is the first to use the term πρσϋπάρχω about Him. In interpreting this doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ, by which he understands the Divine existence of Christ before His appearance on earth as a man, Justin was the first to pose this doctrine as a theological problem. Justin found the very concept already existing in the Church, but he was the first to build evidence of it on the basis of the Old Testament Epiphanies, which he explained in the sense of the appearance of Christ. But the pre-existent Christ is the Divine Logos. And this most important chapter of Justin’s Theology, that is, the doctrine of the Logos, constantly attracts the attention of researchers who seek to find out not only the meaning of it in Justin, but, mainly, its origin. There is no doubt that thoughts about the Logos were widespread in the pagan society educated by Justin today and among the Hellenized Jews who accepted the teachings of Philo of Alexandria. But Justin's Logos is, in its basic religious character, of biblical origin; The most natural place to look for the sources of this teaching is in the prologue of the Gospel of John. Justin was not the first to introduce him to the doctrine of Christ. The Revelation set forth in the Holy Scriptures gave him the main image of the pre-peaceful Logos - Christ; Christian tradition also provided him with some elements for his doctrine of the Logos. Justin combined this Christian teaching about Christ, the Logos, the Son of God with the idea of ​​the Logos, widespread in his time, taking suitable elements from the latter. Thus, Justin mixes the religious understanding of the Logos with the philosophical; but this does not give the right to place it in exclusive dependence on the Greek or Alexandrian-Jewish teaching. Moreover, nowhere does the apologist make even the slightest indication that he was the first to introduce the doctrine of the Logos into the Christian doctrine. From the way he presents this doctrine and the manner of expression, one gets the impression that he is talking about a subject known to everyone. One can only say that before him no one had tried to systematically connect the idea of ​​the Logos with the Church Faith, no one had tried to the same extent as Justin to establish the logosophical idea, no one had made the Christian idea of ​​the Logos such an important point of his worldview and at the same time an apologetic defense of the Christian teaching, at least against the pagans. For him, Logos is the cause of all created existence, the source of knowledge of truth, the mediator between God and the world, the manager of humanity and its destiny, its spiritual enlightener and moral leader. The concept of Logos in Justin's polemics with the pagans most naturally introduces Christ to him as the pre-peaceful Son of God, substantiates His Divine nature, justifies His worship, explains His miraculous birth from the Virgin and captures the undoubted truth of His new teaching. It is necessary, however, to make a reservation that, although important in Justin’s system, the concept of Logos is not fundamental in his Theology. In the Dialogue the name of the Logos is not mentioned, and in the Apologies Justin proceeds not from the idea of ​​the Logos, but from faith in the Divine dignity of Jesus Christ and the Messianic character of His ministry. The Logos, the Son of God, is Christ from His very birth. His incarnation and His atoning death serve only to reveal what was in His being and calling. Faith in Jesus Christ as the Messenger of God is the foundation of the new Christian Faith. Parting with Tryphon and his comrades, Justin cannot wish for them anything higher than that they would know that through faith in Jesus as the Christ of God, everyone becomes happy and that they too would accept this faith (Dial., 142). Whoever does not recognize Him as the Messiah of God does not know the Divine will, and whoever hates and despises Him, hates and despises Him who sent Him (Dial., 131). The proof of the Messianic dignity of Jesus occupies a large place in the first Apology and in the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, especially in the latter. The incarnate Son of God, the Divine Word, Christ appeared as the new Lawgiver (Dial., 14), who in His incarnation brought a perfect, accurate and accessible knowledge of God and true righteousness to all. Through Him, a new law with eternal and meaningful institutions became known to all humanity in a perfect way (Dial., 13; cf.: Dial., 67). As Teacher and new Lawgiver, He is also the Redeemer. He revealed the spiritual being of God and the true way of honoring Him, provides the opportunity for conversion and forgiveness in Baptism for committed sins and rewards those who live sinlessly in eternal existence with God (I Apol. 13, 19). “Through Him God defeats the serpent and the angels and men who resemble him, and frees from death those who repent of their sins and believe in Him” (Dial., 106). Justin says that we are cleansed “by faith through the blood of Christ, for whom He also died” (Dial., 13; compare: α ἶ μα σωτ ή ριον, Dial., 24). In a passage from the work against Marcion preserved by Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 4:6, 2), Justin says that from the one God, who created this world and created us and contains and governs everything, the Only Begotten Son (His) came to us, restoring His creation in Himself (suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans), and that this precisely gives a solid foundation to the Christian faith. Thus, the idea of ​​restoring through Christ the communion with God destroyed by sin was not alien to Justin. This passage makes it possible to conclude that in non-apologetic works Justin, instead of proving the rationality and moral sublimity of Christianity, especially put forward the redemptive facts of the life of Christ - only we do not know to what extent he did this and how much Irenaeus depends on him in the doctrine of salvation. If for Justin the essential gift of the Redemption, along with the knowledge of the unity and spiritual essence of God, is eternal existence with God, then the Christian already here reveals his possession of salvation in the overcoming of demons. About the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, Justin does not set out a detailed teaching, but he clearly says that Christians in the third place honor the prophetic Spirit - the Spirit who spoke through the prophets, τάξει (IApol., 13); he also speaks of Baptism in the name of God and the Lord of all and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (IApol., 60), and of prayers of praise and glory to the Father in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit (I Apol., 65). d) The teaching of Saint Justin about demons In the works of Justin, much space is devoted to the doctrine of evil demons (δαίμονες φαυ λοι). According to Justin, God, who created the world, entrusted the care of people and those in heaven to the angels created for this (II Apol., 5) and gave them, like people, free will (II Apol., 7; Dial., 88). Many of these angels, and at their head the serpent or Satan or the devil (I Apol., 28), abused their freedom, transgressed the order established by God, degraded themselves to communicate with women and gave birth to sons, the so-called demons, seduced people into falling away from God and sowed among people murder, war, fornication, debauchery and all kinds of evil (II Apol., 5). Consequently, demons were the sons of fallen angels, but often in the name of demons Justin embraces both fathers and sons together. They were the perpetrators of pagan idolatry. “Without reasoning about their actions, being overwhelmed by fear, and not knowing that they were evil demons, people called them gods and gave them the name that one of the demons chose for himself” (I Apol., 5; II Apol., 5). They are the real perpetrators of the persecution of Christians. Just as they once led to the condemnation of Socrates to death, so now they hate, slander and enmity against Christians (I Apol., 5; II Apol., 1; 5; 6). e) Eschatological teaching of Saint Justin Having become a man, the Son of God endured suffering and dishonor, but at the end of time He will come again in power and glory, surrounded by Angels (I Apol., 50). In the dialogue, Justin speaks in detail about the Glorious Second Coming of Christ, basing it on Old Testament prophecies. The purpose of the Second Coming of Christ is the resurrection of the dead, the Judgment and the consummation of all things. While in some places Justin speaks of the resurrection of the dead in general (I Apol., 52; Dial., 117), in other places he makes a distinction between the resurrection of the righteous, which will follow at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ on earth, and the general resurrection at the end of this period. However, Justin himself points out that many Christians with a pure and pious mood do not recognize chiliastic aspirations (Dial., 80). But he himself and other “sane Christians in everything” found in the prophets grounds for believing that there will be a resurrection of the body and a millennium in Jerusalem, which will be built, beautified and magnified, and the faithful will reign with Christ for a thousand years in all peace and joy (Dial., 80-81). At the end of this period there will be a general resurrection, and God will bring judgment on all people through Christ. And everyone, according to his deserts (κατ ’ ἀξίαν τω ν πράξεων, (IApol., 12; 44) will receive either eternal bliss or eternal punishment. The souls of sinners will be consigned to eternal torment, and not for only a thousand years, as Plato taught (I Apol., 8). f) Information about the sacrament of Baptism and Eucharist In Church-historical and dogmatic terms, the final chapters of the first Apology are of particular importance, which contain precious information about the celebration of the sacrament of baptism and the Eucharist; they constitute the locus classicus in all disputes regarding the original forms of the ancient church cult. About the performance of the sacrament of Baptism, Justin tells the following: “whoever is convinced and believes that this teaching and our words are true, and is promised that he can live in accordance with it, they are taught that with prayer and fasting they ask God for the remission of past sins, and we pray and fast with them. Then we bring them to where there is water, and they are reborn in the same way as we ourselves were reborn, that is, they are then washed with water in the name of God the Father and Lord of all, and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit... And we received from the Apostles the following basis for such an action. Since we do not know our first birth and, of necessity, were born from a moist seed through the mutual combination of parents and grew up in bad morals and a bad way of life, then, so that we do not remain children of necessity and ignorance, but be children of freedom and knowledge and receive remission of past sins, in water the name of the Father of all and the Master of God is invoked on those who want to be reborn and repent of their sins; this one name is pronounced by the one who leads the recipient to bathe in the font... And this bathing is called enlightenment, because those who know it are enlightened in their minds. And in the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold everything pertaining to Jesus, the enlightened one is washed” (I Arol., 61). But especially remarkable in its clarity is the message about the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist and the Sunday service. Justin writes: “After the one who has thus believed and given his consent has washed himself, we lead him to the so-called brothers in a general meeting in order to make common prayers with all diligence both for ourselves and for the enlightened one and for all others everywhere, so that we may be worthy, having learned the truth, to appear in deeds as good citizens and doers of the commandments to receive eternal salvation. At the end of our prayers, we greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the leader of the brethren: he, having taken this, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all in the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit and gives thanks in detail for the fact that He has honored us with this. After he has performed prayers and thanksgiving, all the people present answer: Amen. Amen is a Hebrew word meaning “let it be.” After the thanksgiving of the primate and the proclamation of all the people, the so-called deacons give each of those present to partake of the bread on which thanksgiving was made, and wine and water, and refer them to those who are missing. We call this food the Eucharist, and no one else is allowed to participate in it except the one who believes in the truth of our teaching and has been washed for the remission of sins and rebirth and lives as Christ did. For we do not receive this as ordinary bread or ordinary drink; but just as Christ, our Savior, was incarnate by the Word of God and had flesh and blood for our salvation, in the same way this food, over which thanksgiving is made through the prayer of His word, and from which through likeness our blood and flesh receives nourishment, is - as we are taught - the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the Apostles, in the memoirs they wrote, which are called the Gospels, betrayed that they were commanded this way: Jesus took bread and gave thanks and said: “Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My body”; in like manner He took the cup and gave thanks and said: “This is My blood,” and to them alone He told it” (I Apol., 65; 66). Sunday liturgical meetings, as described by Justin, took place like this: “On the day of the Sun,” he says, we have a gathering in one place of everyone living in cities or villages, and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time allows. Then, when the reader stops, the primate through the word gives instructions and exhortations to imitate those wonderful things. Then we all get up and say prayers. When we finish the prayer, then, as I said above, bread, wine, and water are brought, and the primate also sends out prayers and thanksgiving as much as he can. The people express their agreement with the word - Amen, and there is a distribution to everyone and the communion of gifts, over which thanksgiving has been made, and to those who have not been given they are sent through the deacons. “On the day of the Sun,” Justin explains, “we all hold a meeting because this is the first day on which God, having changed darkness and matter, created the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead” (I Apol., 67). This brief summary of the main provisions of the teachings of Saint Justin shows that he is not only a real Christian, but also a completely Christian theologian. That the first theologian made mistakes is quite understandable, but the first theologian deserves our complete surprise if we see with what energy of spirit he touches almost all theological problems and how with no less caution and insight he enters into their solution. His Theology retains its universal character by the fact that the great one who dominates its entire focus is Christ. The person of Christ is the question of Christianity of all times; The theological process also begins in Justin with the person of Christ. He asserts with all determination and energy the Divine glory of Christ against Jews and pagans. For him the cross is a sign of the strength and victory of his Lord. He sees this vital force in the new creation among the world conquered by demonic forces, in the Church of God blossoming throughout the entire universe. He confidently embraces with his gaze the great ways and works of God at all times, lives and moves with complete conviction of the facts of salvation, amid the sorrows and hardships of persecution, he looks with unshakable hope at the eternal victory and triumph of Christ exalted over all hostile forces. The God in whom he believes and confesses is not a “personified substance,” but the God of the Old and New Testaments, the God of miracles and Revelation, the God of salvation and grace. Justin understands Creation, Redemption and restoration of all things in a truly Christian and biblical spirit. In a word, he is a member of the Church and shares Her faith. In his Theology he adheres to the faith of the Church and he serves Her. With all the zeal and zeal with which he defends this faith both against open enemies and against those who hide behind the name of Christians in order to carry out extra-Christian and anti-Christian views under its cover, he, however, retains great condescension towards weak members, even towards those who are still committed to the Law of Moses, but are imbued with faith in the pre-peaceful Sonship of Christ. What lived in Justin and what he testified in word, he sealed with his death. In his last words before the Judgment he embraces all of Christianity and all of his Theology. He confesses the One God, the Creator of all, and the Son of God, the Teacher of truth and the messenger of salvation. He wants nothing more than to suffer for Him in order to appear joyful before His Judgment. During his wanderings and especially in Rome, Justin had many listeners and students; Of the latest news of antiquity, only one is named by name - Tatiana, but even this one did not reflect the noble spirit of the teacher. The similarity between teacher and student lies only in the fact that both of them went a long way of searching until they found true philosophy in Christianity, and then defended this philosophy orally and in writing. But it is difficult to imagine a greater contrast of characters than that which existed between the handsome and sensible philosopher and the ardent and gloomy ascetic. Tatian, like Tertullian, changed his beliefs without changing his temperament. In both cases, nature made itself felt too strongly next to grace. In both cases, nationality mattered to a certain extent. We have only fragmentary information about the life and work of Tatian, and that is based mainly on the words of Tatian himself. At the end of his Apology, he defines the entire course of his life as follows: “a follower of barbarian (that is, Christian) philosophy, a native of the Assyrian land (γεννηθεις μèν ἐν τ ῇ τω ν Ἀσσυρίων), brought up initially in the Hellenic sciences, and then in the doctrine that he now professes” (42). If Clement of Alexandria calls him ὁ Σύρος (Strom. 3:12, 81), Epiphanius - Σύρος τò γένος (Haer.46:1), Theodoret of Cyrus - ὁ Σύρος (Haeret, fab. comp. 1:20), then This not only does not contradict Tatian’s instructions, but confirms and clarifies it: by nationality and language he was a Syrian, born in Assyria, which, according to the usual usage of words among the sophists of his time, does not necessarily have to be sought beyond the Tigris. An attempt to prove that Tatian was a Greek by origin (Adolf Harnack. Texte und Unters. 1, 1–2, S. 199 ff.) cannot be considered convincing, since it is not known that Greeks born or living in Syria around that time were called Syrians; The Greek name, which was common among the Syrians, does not prove anything. With some attention to the features of Tatian's apology, it is easy to see that it could not have been written by a Greek - this is already indicated by the intense hatred against everything Greek, not limited only to pagan religion and philosophy. Tatian not only presents himself with energy - like no one else before him or after him - as an adherent of “barbarian philosophy”, an admirer of the Jewish and at the same time “barbarian scriptures” and of all Christians - subjects of “barbarian legislation”, but from the very beginning he opposes himself to the Hellenes as one of the barbarians and precisely in such a connection where we are talking about the language itself and the nationality expressed in it (Orat.1; 26; 30). The Greek language, at which he laughs no less than at Greek philosophy and mythology, cannot be his native language; and in his ridicule of everything Hellenic one can see partly a manifestation of irresistible racial hatred. Some expressions in the Apology may indicate Tatian’s origins from noble and wealthy parents, which opened up the opportunity for him to make a military or political career, so he says: “I don’t want to reign, I don’t want to be rich, I refuse military leadership, I hate fornication, I don’t plan to sail on a ship for the sake of insatiable greed, I don’t enter into a fight to get crowns - I’m free from crazy ambition”... (11). If this is so, then it is clear that Tatian could receive a broad Hellenic education from his early youth, since acquaintance with Greek science and culture was all the more easily available to him because the Syrian region reached Antioch, the brilliant center of Greek education in the East. But his restless and inquisitive mind did not find satisfaction here, and he did what many did before him and after him: he went to travel to the Greco-Roman countries to replenish his previous knowledge in the study of rhetoric, philosophy, history: “I traveled,” He says, “to many countries, I myself studied your (Hellenic) sciences as a sophist, studied art and various inventions” (35); he claims to have been initiated into the Mysteries and to have explored various forms of Devotion (29). Finally he came to Rome, where he remained for a long time. As a philosopher and perhaps as a writer, he enjoyed fame in educated Greco-Roman society; at least he boldly says to the Hellenes: “I refused your wisdom, although I was very famous in it (1). Greco-Roman wisdom did not satisfy him, and the immorality of the pagan world directly repelled him. In Tatian's own words, disgust for pagan cults led him to think about the religious problem. He was in great difficulty: “I went deep into myself and explored how I could find the truth” (29). Such a state could have led him to bleak skepticism, if at this critical moment salvation had not appeared from where he, perhaps, least expected it: “while my mind was considering all the best, I attacked some barbaric books, which are older than Hellenic teachings, and are so Divine that they cannot be compared with their errors; and I believed these books because of the simplicity of their speech, the simplicity of the writers, the comprehensibility of the explanation of all creation, the foreknowledge of the future, the superiority of moral precepts and, finally, the doctrine of one Ruler over everything. So, my soul, admonished by God, understood that some books entail condemnation, while others destroy slavery in the world, free us from many rulers and countless tyrants (of course, pagan demon gods) and give us something - I will not say that we did not receive it before, but that having received it we did not keep it due to error. Having been enlightened by my knowledge of them, I decided to reject pagan errors as childish ravings” (29-30). These were the books of the Old Testament. Tatian's lively mind immediately comprehended the enormous difference between this literature and the one with which he was previously familiar. His critical mind was delighted with their simplicity and natural truthfulness and captivated by their deep content. He studied them and turned to Christianity. From that time on, Scripture became its main guide; on the basis of it he subsequently tried to prove his mistakes. This message from Tatian about his conversion does not exclude the natural assumption that he was familiar with Christians and partly with the Christian teaching before, and that their highly moral life, their chastity and courage in the face of death filled him with respect and amazement at the new religion (compare: Orat., 32-33). Tatian does not say anything about any Christian missionary who helped him take the true path, as if he himself came to know the vanity of Greco-Roman culture and pagan religion. “I do not try,” he says, “to confirm my thoughts with the opinions of others, but I state what I myself have seen and learned” (35). But there was undoubtedly such help, but we do not know to what extent and at what moment in Tatian’s internal struggle it was given to him. Irenaeus calls him a listener of Justin (Adv. haer., 1, 28, 1), and Eusebius - a student (μαθητής, Hist. eccl., 4:29, 1; cf.: Epiphan., Haer. 46, 1). We can only talk about teaching in Christianity. Tatian himself in his Apology testifies to his high respect for Justin when he calls him worthy of the greatest surprise (ὁ θαυμασιώτατος Ἰ ουστι νος, 18). Since Justin had a school in Rome, one can think that Tatian’s conversion to Christianity followed in Rome. The break with paganism was complete and final: “I said goodbye to Roman arrogance and cold Athenian eloquence, to various teachings and accepted our barbaric philosophy” (35). Memories of paganism and pagan culture are filled with bitterness and disgust: for him it became the personification of contradictions, lies and immorality. As for the chronological data regarding the time of Tatian’s birth and circulation, they cannot be established with accuracy. In ch. 19 Tatian writes: “Crescent, a despiser of death, was so afraid of it that he tried to cause death, as an evil, to Justin, and also to me, because, while preaching the truth, he denounced the philosophers of voluptuousness and lies.” A comparison of these words with the second Apology of Justin (3) shows that during the debate between Justin and Crescent, Tatian stood in close relations with Justin and probably took an active part in these disputes, which is why Crescent extended his bitterness and intrigues against Justin to Tatian. But the chronology of the life of Justin himself cannot be established with accuracy that does not allow fluctuations. If we take the entire period in which, according to various opinions, the second Apology of Justin could have been written, then Tatian’s treatment of Justin should fall approximately from 152–165, but more precisely, around 153–154. When Tatian arrived in Rome, he was in the full force of his talent and was, in all likelihood, at least thirty years of age. From this we can assume that he was born approximately around the year 120–130, with more reason to bring the time of birth closer to the year 120; therefore, he was 10–15 years younger than Justin - this is quite consistent with their mutual relationship between teacher and student. In Rome, as stated, Tatian remained for quite a long time. This was the time when Christian philosophers competed with the Greek sophists, and Tatian, like Justin, opened his own Christian school in Rome (διδασκαλει ον); but it cannot be determined whether this happened during Justin’s lifetime or only after his death. It is more likely that during Justin’s life he was his collaborator, “was with him,” as Irenaeus says (Adv. haer., 1:28, 1). His student in Rome was the Asia Minor Rodon, an anti-Gnostic writer (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:13; 1:8); this was obviously after the martyrdom of Justin, since otherwise it is difficult to understand why he was not a student of Justin himself, the teacher of Tatian. Tatian did not remain faithful to the teachings of the Orthodox Church until the end of his life. Speaking about the Encratites, Irenaeus writes: “they also deny the salvation of the primordial man; this opinion, however, was invented among them recently. The first to introduce this blasphemy was Tatian, who, being a listener of Justin while he was with him, did not say anything like that, but after his martyrdom he fell away from the Church, and excited by the thought of being a teacher, as superior to others, he composed his own image of teaching. He spoke fabulously, like the Valentinians, about some invisible eons, like Marcion and Saturninus he declared marriage to be corruption and fornication, and he himself denied the salvation of Adam” (Adv. haer., 1, 28, 1). Eusebius (Eus. Hist. eccl., 4:28–29) and Epiphanius (Haer., 46–47) call him the founder of the Encratite sect and repeat in part the testimony of Irenaeus about him. Remarkably, Irenaeus himself (Adv. haer., 3:23, 8) does not characterize him either as the head of a sect, or as a follower of some other sectarian party. Regarding the ascetic side of his teaching, he compares him with Saturninus and Marcion, as well as with the Encratites, regarding the doctrine of the aeons - with Valentinus and generally calls him a mixture of all heretics (connexio omnium haereticorum). The only doctrine in which he was original and had followers, according to Irenaeus, was the denial of the salvation of Adam. “Everyone speaks falsely,” writes Irenaeus, “who deny the salvation of Adam, eliminating themselves forever from life, because they do not believe that the lost sheep has been found. If it is not acquired, then the entire human race is still in a state of destruction. Therefore, the liar who first introduced this idea, or rather this ignorance and blindness, is Tatian, who became a mixture of all heretics, as I showed, and this he invented on his own, so that by introducing something new against others and speaking nonsense, he would gain listeners for himself, devoid of faith, wanting to be considered a teacher.” Next, Irenaeus speaks of the followers of Tatian who argue about Adam, as if they would gain much if Adam were not saved (Adv. haer., 3:23, 8). The previously existing Encratites accepted this teaching of Tatian, but only this, and not his entire eclectic system. On the other hand, Tatian and these Encratites can just as little be placed in an external historical connection as with the Valentinians. Clement of Alexandria clearly distinguishes him from those heretics with whom he compares him (Strom., 3:79-90; 1, 101) and, apparently, knows nothing about Tatian’s own party. Origen (De orat., 24) speaks of him as if some of his perverse interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and the teachings that he disseminated as a writer were adopted by certain persons and precisely those who remained in the Church and whom Origen could closely know. As an unjust thinker, but completely isolated from any other heretical parties and without any hint of the existence of a sect descending from him, he is mentioned by Hippolytus (Refult., 8:16; 10:18) and pseudo-Tertullian (Haer., 20). Eusebius is the first to do it (ἀρχηγòς τω ν ἐγκρατιτω ν) (Hist. eccl., 4:28–29), but with a noteworthy addition: λόγος ἕ χει. But if we keep in mind that the Syrian tradition knows nothing about Tatian as the founder of a heretical society and has preserved the memory of him only as a disciple of Justin and the author of the set of four Gospels compiled by him, then heretical constructions regarding him, starting with Eusebius, must be recognized as devoid of historical content. On the other hand, it is certain that he “fell away from the Church” (ἀποστάς τη ς ἐκκλησιας), as Irenaeus testifies (Adv. haer., 1:28, 1); the break was formal and complete - no other interpretation of Irenaeus’s words is allowed. But at present we are deprived of the opportunity to determine what actually lay the root of Tatian’s error. Irenaeus testifies that this break with the Church occurred only after the martyrdom of Justin, since, while with them, Tatian “did not express anything like that,” that is, heretical. Of course, the apostasy was being prepared gradually, and if we assume that the beginning of internal fermentation falls only for a time after the martyrdom of Justin (about the year 165), then there is no reason to doubt the relative accuracy of the testimony of Eusebius that the heyday of Tatian’s activity as a heretic dates back to the 12th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Chronad. an. Abrah. 2188; Jerome more precisely: Tatiamis haereticus agnoscitur), that is, by the years 171–172. Epiphanius (Haer. 1:3, 46) puts this fact in the 12th year of the reign of Antoninus Pius ἀρχη ς μèν ἐν τ ῇ Μέσ ῃ τω ν ποταμω ν ὡ ς περì τò δωδέκατον ἔτος Ἀντωνίνου του Εὐσεβου ς Καίσαρος ἐπικληθέντος ). The mention of Antoninus is, of course, erroneous, but in view of the evidence of the Chronicle, it is permissible to think that the figure for designating the year is indicated accurately, if the error regarding the reign is corrected and actually attributed to Marcus Aurelius. Epiphanius, who placed the death of Justin under Hadrian, made a second mistake of the same kind. Epiphanius actually marks the time of Tatian's founding of the heretical school (διδασκαλει ον) in Mesopotamia. Where Tatian fell away from the Church - in Rome or already in the East, where he later retired - we do not know. Most people believe that this happened in Rome, and this explains why he left the capital of the Empire; but one can think that he was forced to leave Rome by a suspicious attitude towards him and he left without bringing his disagreements with representatives of the Roman Church to a formal clash. The place of Tatian's subsequent activity, according to Epiphanius, was the East - Mesopotamia, probably Edessa. Apparently, he retired to his homeland, where he hoped to find more favorable conditions for himself. Here he founded a school, which later found adherents in Syrian Antioch, even in Cilicia and especially in Pisidia. His further fate is unknown. One might think that he ended his life in the East, but it is unknown when and where. III. 1. Literary activity of Tatian. Oratio ad graecos (Λόγος πρòς Ἕ λληνας) Eusebius says that “Tatian left a significant number of works, but of them, especially and by many, his work against the Hellenes is cited, in which he, having mentioned ancient times, proves that Moses and the Jewish prophets are more ancient than all the famous men of Hellenism. This work seems to be better and more useful than all his works” (Hist. eccl., 4:29, 7). This last work of Tatian, praised by Eusebius, is actually the only source for judging Tatian’s literary activity. We owe the preservation of this work to the famous codex of Aretha of 914 (Cod. Paris. 451); but the leaves of this collection of works of apologists, concluding the Apology of Tatian, were torn out in the 12th-14th centuries, and at present the Oratioad Graecos is known from three copies of this codex of the 11th and 12th centuries: Codex Marcianus, Codex Mutinensis and Codex Parisinus174. The text is spoiled in many places, and this significantly increases the darkness of the already unclear speech. The work consists of 42 chapters and begins ex abrupto with an energetic appeal to the pagans: “Do not, Hellenes, be hostile to the barbarians and do not hate their teachings” (1). By “barbarians” Tatian means Christians; He calls Christian moral teaching “barbaric legislation” (12), Biblical scriptures “barbaric writings” (29), Christianity in general is called “barbaric wisdom” and “barbaric philosophy” (chapters 31, 35 and others). Introduction (1-3) is intended to dispel the prejudices of the Greeks against Christianity, and to show the wretchedness of pagan philosophers and the lack of independence of Greek culture. The Greeks have no reason to boast of a glorious heritage of sciences and arts; on the contrary, they must be modest, since the most beautiful and best that they have, writing and mathematics, poetry and singing, plastic arts and music, they borrowed from the barbarians and often shamefully abused: “you use eloquence for untruth and slander, you sell your freedom of speech for money, and often what you now recognize as fair, at another time you represent as evil; poetry serves you to depict battles, the love affairs of the gods and the corruption of the soul” (1). Philosophers are vain people. Diogenes boasted of abstinence and died from excess in eating; Plato was sold by Dionysius of Syracuse for gluttony; Aristotle foolishly set limits to Divine Providence and believed human happiness in beauty, wealth, bodily health and nobility of origin, showed himself to be a bad teacher, flattering young Alexander. Having pointed out the negative features in the teaching and life of Heraclitus, Zeno, Empedocles, Pherecydes, Pythagoras, Plato, Crates, Tatian makes the following conclusion: “Therefore, you should not be attracted by solemn meetings of philosophers who are not philosophers at all, who contradict themselves and chatter whatever comes to everyone’s mind. They have a lot of strife; each hates the other, they argue among themselves in their opinions, and out of their vanity they choose the highest places for themselves” (2-3). In his further speech, Tatian seeks to show the insignificance of paganism and the superiority of Christian teaching, as the only reasonable one and attested by undoubted antiquity. In the first part, Tatian gives a brief outline of Christian teaching, speaks about the relationship between God and the Logos, the resurrection, creation, angels, with sharp criticism of the pagan teaching about God (4-21). In the next section (22–30), the author criticizes the moral state of the pagan world and at the same time refutes unfair attacks on Christianity. The Hellenes have no reason to incite government authorities against Christians and hate them as the most criminal people. They perform all civil duties in the most conscientious manner, pay taxes to Caesar and show obedience until he claims the worship that is due to God alone. “If I am told to renounce God, I will only disobey and would rather die than show myself a liar and ungrateful” (4). Following this, Tatian proceeds to expound the Christian teaching about God and the world, about the Fall and Redemption, and at the same time. subjects the corresponding errors of the Hellenes to a critical assessment and especially ridicules the pagan gods, “who look at combatants and each patronizes his own, marry, corrupt youths, commit fornication, laugh, get angry, run away, get wounds” (8). “Listen to me, Greeks, and do not allegorically explain either fables or your gods; by allowing this, you will destroy your gods. Your gods are either wicked if they are what you imagine them to be, or if you turn them into natural phenomena (through allegorical interpretation), they are no longer what you say” (21). Having outlined the main features of Christian moral teaching, he mercilessly exposes the emptiness and moral depravity of paganism (22–28). “I rejected your laws,” says Tatian. “There must be one way of life common to everyone; and now, there are so many cities, so many laws, so that some consider vile what others think is beautiful. Thus, the Hellenes recognize marriage with a mother as illegal, and among the Persian magicians this is considered an excellent institution; pederasty is condemned by the Barbarians, but it enjoys special advantage among the Romans, who try to gather herds of boys like grazing horses” (28). Tatian ends this part with an admonition not to blame the best of oneself and, if someone is called a Barbarian, not to find in this a reason for contempt (30). The third part (31–41) presents evidence that Christian philosophy is older than Hellenic teachings. “Our limits,” says Tatian, “will be Moses and Homer, because they both lived in ancient times; the latter is more ancient than all poets and historians, and the former is the founder of all wisdom among the barbarians. So, let us take them for comparison, and we will find that our teaching is ancient not only to the education of the Hellenes, but also to the invention of writing itself” (31). If Homer, the singer of the Trojan War, marks the beginning of Greek culture, then Moses lived no less than 400 years before the Trojan War. If the Greeks want to point to the time before Homer, then Moses lived before both the ancient heroes and the most ancient writers. And since he is “ancient in time, he should be believed more than the Hellenes, who, without admitting it, borrowed his teaching; for many of their sophists, out of curiosity, having become acquainted with the writings of Moses and similar philosophers, tried to remake their teaching, firstly, so that they would think that they were saying something of their own, and secondly, so that what they did not understand could be covered with a fictitious verbal shell, giving the truth the appearance of a fable” (40). These chronological calculations were highly valued by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., 1:21), Origen called them highly learned (Contra Ceis., 1:16), and Eusebius makes extracts from them (ch. 31 in Praep. evang. 10:11, 1-5; ch. 36-42 in Praep. evang. 10:11, 6-36). Hand in hand with positive evidence, here, as in the first two parts, there is a polemic against paganism, which, as it were, involuntarily returns the author to the idea of ​​​​the moral purity of Christians and the impeccability of the structure of their lives and mutual relationships. “We have,” he says, “no empty desire for glory, no differences of opinion. We have separated ourselves from the generally accepted and earthly teaching, we obey the commandments of God, we follow the law of the Father of incorruptibility and have rejected the opinions of men; It is not only the rich who philosophize among us, but also the poor who benefit from teaching; for everything that comes from God is so high that it cannot be paid for with worldly gifts. We admit everyone who wants to listen, whether he is an old man or a young man, and we honor every age in general; however, debauchery is far from us. And we're not lying when we say that. It would be wonderful if your stubbornness in unbelief were bowed down; but even if this does not happen, our faith will still remain firm, based on God’s testimony (32). In conclusion, Tatian says: “I have finally recognized God and His creation and am ready to appear before you to study the teaching and will not change my convictions regarding God” (42). Tatian's work Oratioad Graecos, due to the lack of accurate data regarding the life and work of the author, raises many questions for which we do not have sufficient material to resolve. First of all, the question is raised whether the Apology of Tatian was not, in the proper sense, a speech addressed to pagan society. Recently, the opinion has been persistently put forward with appropriate justification that the Oratio was an actual speech delivered by Tatian in the year 172–173 in Edessa or Antioch when he opened a school in the East after leaving Rome (R. C. Kukula. Tatians sogenannte Apologie. Leipzig, 1900). Tatian was a sophist before becoming a Christian - he himself says this (35: σοφιστεύσας τà ὑμέτερα). Second-century sophistication is characterized primarily by the fact that the sophists were more orators than writers. Some of them were not content with the fleeting success of eloquence; they carefully processed their works for publication, but nevertheless compiled them for public reading, which was reflected in every page of their work. Therefore, a priori, it seems quite probable that such a sophist as Tatian could retain the habit of propagating his ideas more by word than by written composition. The newest defender of the considered view of Tatian’s Apology, R. S. Kukula, carefully collected the texts of the work in which the author directly addresses the Hellenes and which, in his opinion, obliges us to recognize that Tatian uttered it, directly addressing his listeners with whom he was conducting a conversation (Tatians sogenannte Apologie, S. 3 ff.). That the influence of the schools of Christian philosophers spread outside the Christian society is evidenced by the activities of the school of Justin in Rome. Although Justin's school was intended primarily for Christians, it was naturally open to those who, tormented by the same anxiety that led Justin to Christianity, came to see if they would find here what they had sought in vain everywhere (compare Justin's answer to Rusticus when asked where his disciples were meeting). One can imagine that Tatian in the East also grouped listeners around himself, the main core of whom were Christians; nor can there be any doubt that the original group could have been increased by new acquisitions among the pagans. But is it possible to allow Tatian, at the beginning of his teaching career, to convene the pagan public into a solemn assembly, similar to those that he once gathered while still a sophist? In the Antonine era, when Christianity was viewed with great distrust and quite severe legislation was directed against it, this seems very doubtful. There was no reason to make such a speech as Tatian’s Apology before a Christian audience at the opening of a Christian school, even with a missionary character. As for the expressions of the Apology, supposedly proving that it was really pronounced before those whom it was supposed to denounce, then this kind of evidence cannot be considered convincing, since the possibility that they were simple oratorical formulas has not been eliminated. These formulas did not represent anything unusual at a time when every literary work was influenced by sophistry and rhetoric, when the written word was almost indistinguishable in tone from real speech; still less can they seem surprising in an apologetic work. On the other hand, one cannot help but notice that some places in the Oratio quite clearly indicate that Tatian himself did not view his work as a speech. He says that he wants to put in writing (τούτων καì τὴν ἀναγραφὴν συντάσσειν βούλομαι) what he himself learned (35), and further: “I began to write ( γράφειν μèν ἀρξάμενος ), what. in this way it (barbarian philosophy) is older than your institutions” (35). The expression at the end of the Apology may also indicate this: “this is what, Hellenes, I have outlined for you (ταυ τα ὑμι ν, ὦ ἀνδρες Ἔ λληνες ... συνέταξα). Finally, it is necessary to point out that Justin undoubtedly wrote his Apologies, and did not pronounce them personally in the presence of the Emperors, and yet personal addresses to them are scattered throughout the chapters of both Apologies. Another assumption is possible, namely that Tatian, traveling from Rome to the East, was in his own Greece and, as at the time when he was a sophist, moving from city to city, he pronounced the same speech, carefully prepared in advance; this could explain the address used by the author (ἄνδρες Ἕ λληνες). But it is very difficult to admit that a sophist - a Christian could in the era. Antoninov to make such a journey. Therefore, the previous opinion, accepted in science, remains unshaken that the Apology of Tatian, according to its original purpose, was a written work addressed to the Greek society in defense of the Christian faith. III. 2. Place and time of writing Tatian’s Apology Where was Tatian when he composed the Apology? This question is difficult to answer even approximately; in any case, it can be considered proven that at that time he did not live in Rome. This can be concluded from the words of Tatian himself. He writes (35): “what I have stated, I did not learn from others: I traveled to many countries, I myself studied your sciences as a sophist, studied the arts and various inventions, and recently I lived in the city of the Romans and myself saw various statues that you brought to them” (ἐσχατον δè τ ῇ Ρωμαίων ἐνδιατρίψας πόλει , καì τàς ἀφ ’ ὑμω ν ὡ ς αὐτούς ἀνακομισθείσας ἀνδριάντων ποικιλίας καταμαθών ). With the aorist ἐνδιατρίφας indicates, like other previous verbs put in the participial form, an event from his past life, the term ἔσχαχον can only be understood in the sense that he left Rome quite recently or, at least, that in this interval he did not stop anywhere for a long time; The parable also indicates the same. καταμαθών and the way of contrasting the Hellenes ἀφ ’ ὑμω ν and the Romans ὡ ς αὐτούς. Speaking about Crescent, Tatian writes (p. 19) that he “made a nest for himself in the great city” (ὁ ἐννεοττεύσας τη μεγάλ ῇ πόλει) - and here he speaks about Rome as someone outside it can speak. In addition, Oratio does not contain any data that would indicate its origin in Rome. One might think that at this time he was not yet in his homeland: he especially emphasizes that he was born in Assyria, and contrasts the barbarians and the Greeks in a tone that is understandable only in the Hellenic country. The question of the time when Tatian’s apology was written also has not yet found a definite solution. Most researchers agree that Oratio from beginning to end bears the imprint of the author’s desire to justify his transition to Christianity before those who respected him as a philosopher and writer, and is, as it were, a renunciation of the former pagan writer from Greco-Roman culture, that it should be considered as the first work from the Christian period of the author’s life, and that it was very likely made public soon after Tatian’s conversion to Christianity. Of course, this does not say much to determine the time of origin of the Apology, since the time of Tatian’s conversion to Christianity has also not been established. It is believed (A. Harnack. Gesch. der altchrist. Litteratur. Teil 2. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1897. S. 289) that Tatian, in view of the machinations of Crescent directed against Justin and himself, withdrew from Rome and during a rather short absence composed the Oratio, then returned to Rome, where he remained until the time when he broke ties with the Orthodox Church and founded his διδασκαλει ον in the East. This complex artificial explanation of the early origin of the Apology outside Rome does not have any positive evidence for itself in the ancient news about Tatian. Others (Fr. X. Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhandl. und Unters. Bd. II, S. 142 ff.; O. Bardenhewer. Gesch. der altkirchlich. Litteratur. Bd. 1, Freiburg im Br., 1902. S. 251), argue that the death of Justin must be the terminus a quo for dating the Apology. Terminus adquem is defined this way. Since Tatian was a disciple of Justin, during Justin’s lifetime he had to either convert to Christianity or be completely prepared for this. And if, as is recognized, the Apology should have been written shortly after his conversion to Christianity, then the conversion itself should have occurred shortly before the death of Justin, because by the time the Apology was compiled, Justin was no longer alive. Thus, the Apology could have been published shortly after the death of Justin; and since Justin suffered in the years 163–167, then the time of origin of the apology can be assumed to be ca. 165 (O. Bardenhewer, l. c). The basis for all the above considerations regarding the time of origin of Tatian’s Apology is the belief that it was written shortly after his conversion to Christianity. But how strong is this foundation? Upon careful reading of the Apology, this hypothesis will seem simply amazing, if you keep in mind what extensive and solid knowledge the author has on all the subjects he is talking about; in such an important issue as the doctrine of the Logos, he already reveals a personal processing of it and his entire Apologetic system, especially the last part of it, which expounds the doctrine of the greater antiquity of Moses in comparison with the Greeks, reveals such awareness in the Christian teaching that cannot be allowed in a neophyte, although he has previously gone through a rather long path of wandering in search of truth. Defenders of the view in question point to the following words of Tatian addressed to the Greeks: “do not be burdened by my lessons and do not object with chatter and trifles, saying: Tatian is higher than the Hellenes, higher than the multitude who philosophized, introduces new dogmas of the Barbarians” (καινοτομει τà βαρβάρων δόγματα, 35). But the meaning of these words is not that Tatian recently changed his beliefs; they should be understood as follows: “do not be tempted by the fact that Tatian, being the same as you, claims to know more than you and all your predecessors, and that he opposes a completely new teaching to your legends and your philosophy.” Therefore, Tatian was responding here to pagan traditionalists who looked at Christianity as an impermissible innovation, as a τρίτον γένος. We also cannot agree that the Apology was Tatian’s first work from the Christian period of his life. In the Apology there is such a place: “Only man is the image and likeness of God - I mean not the man who does what is characteristic of animals, but the one who, having become higher than humanity, has approached God Himself. However, I described this in more detail in the book: “On Animals” (ἐν τω @ περì ζ ῴ ων) (15). This work is usually attributed to the pagan period of Tatian; but it is enough to remember how Tatian spoke about everything that was connected with Greco-Roman culture to recognize it as completely incredible that, after his conversion to Christianity, he could refer his readers to a work written at a time when he was still a pagan; and the connection of speech in which Tatian mentions the work Περì ζ ῴ ων and to clarify which he points to this work clearly speaks of his Christian character. At the end of the Apology, Tatian writes (40) about what educated people among the Hellenes said about the Christian law and about the history of decrees - how many and which writers mentioned this will be shown in the book “Against those who argue about Divine affairs” (πρòς τούς ἀποφηναμένους τà περì θεου) - obviously, Tatian either conceived this work or already wrote it. Thus, a person who was able to write an Apology, at the moment when he composed it, had already written an important treatise Περì ζώων and was working on composing a new equally important work, must have been a Christian for several years; he was already a master in Christian teaching, who, having taken advantage of the instructions of Justin, was already an independent student, feeling sufficient ground under him to show significant originality in his work - this needed time. Further, Adolf Harnack notes that Tatian, in chapters 4 and 19, speaks of only the Emperor and concludes from this that the Oratio can only be dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius, and not to the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161-169). But, firstly, the indicated texts, where the term βασιλεύς is used in the singular, represent such general formulas that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from them regarding the state of the Empire at the time of writing the Apology. Secondly, if there is no reason to assume that Tatian’s stay in Rome was interrupted by Justin’s clash with Crescent, and that during this short-term absence the Apology was written, if further, it is proven that it was written outside Rome and if, finally, they recognize the 172nd year indicated by Eusebius as the date for Tatian’s founding of a heretical school in the East, then all this leads to the conclusion that the Apology was written before 172, but also after 169: in 171, and maybe in 170, Tatian left Rome, and it is quite possible that from the first time he did not choose a place of permanent residence and during his transitions within the Greek regions of the Middle East, approximately in 171, he composed his work Λόγος πρòς Ἕ λληνας. III. 3. The most important provisions of Tatian’s Theology Tatian's apology is not a statement of faith, but only a preparation for faith, and it does not provide a complete analysis of Christian teaching; despite this, his Theology presents interesting points. Tatian, together with Justin, is one of the outstanding representatives of that school of apologists who, before the Alexandrians of the 3rd century, tried to elevate Christian teaching to the level of a philosophical system. But establishing even the most essential points of his teaching turns out to be quite difficult, firstly, due to the obvious corruption of the text of the Apology in the most important places; secondly, because, without setting out the entire system of his Christian views, he reveals those few ideas that found expression in the Apology in fragments, without a strictly logical sequence; thirdly, in his teaching he undoubtedly follows the accepted formulas of faith and constantly relies on the evidence of Holy Scripture, but on the other hand, he uniquely derives his system from the tenets of philosophy. True, he condemns philosophers, not excluding the most famous, and does not show leniency even to those who, in their views, come close to the Christian teaching; He replaced the broad tolerance of Justin with gloomy fanaticism. But, being less fair than his teacher, while anathematizing philosophy, he still uses it, but uses it in such a way that his own system seems to be formed from heterogeneous elements: either he comes into contact with Stoicism (much less often with Platonism), then he reveals the undoubted influence on him of some Gnostic beliefs, then, finally, he gives completely contradictory statements that indicate that the author did not have time to completely free himself from Hellenic philosophy. Finally, in some places Tatian’s commitment to unfair opinions is quite noticeable. All this taken together, due to the extreme limitation of our information about the life and work of Tatian, does not allow us to create a clear idea of ​​the system of his teaching. Like all apologists, Tatian naturally begins the presentation of his views with a confession of strict monotheism: “Our God did not receive a beginning in time, because He alone is without beginning and He Himself is the beginning of everything” (4) - this is the main position of the entire Apology. At the same time, he especially emphasizes what seems essential to him - to distinguish God not only from matter, but also from force, the physical spirit (πνευ μα), which, according to Stoic teaching, is immanent in matter and penetrates it. “God is Spirit, not poured out (Stoic διήκον) in matter, but the creator of material spirits and forms that are in it. He is invisible and intangible, Himself the Father of the sensible and visible”... “The Spirit distributed in matter is lower than the Divine Spirit... and is not worthy of the same honor as the perfect God” (4). Before creation there was one God, but potentially in Him was the whole creation; the means of creation was the inherent power of the Logos (λογικη ς δυγάμεως) (5). “The Lord of all, Himself being the foundation (ὑπόστασις), was one before the origin of creation; since every power, visible and invisible, was the very foundation, then all things were with Him; existed with Him as an intelligent force and the Word itself, which was in Him” (5). Logos, His word, His Reason, was immanent to Him, but was not yet a separate person. “By the will of His simple being the Word came forth; The Word did not disappear in space - It became the first-born work of the Father” (5), that is, the Word did not disappear in space, as the human word that we pronounce disappears - It became a separate Person, the work of the Father, His first-born. “It, as we know, is the beginning of the world.” Clarifying the relationship of the Logos to the Father, Tatian says: “it was born through communication, and not through cutting off, for what is cut off is separated from the original principle; and what happened through communication does not diminish the one from whom it happened. Just as many fires are lit from one torch, and the light of the first torch is not diminished by the lighting of many torches, so the Word, which originated from the power of the Father, did not deprive the Parent of the Word” (5). The begotten Word was the author of creation: “The Word, born in the beginning, in turn produced this creation of ours, arranging matter for itself.” Using Platonic terms to denote the activity of the Logos (δημιουργει ω, μετο ῤῥ ουθμίξω), Tatian insists with particular energy that there is no beginningless matter equal in power to God: “Matter is not without beginning, like God, and does not have power equal to God, as beginningless; but it received a beginning and did not come from anyone else, but was produced by the one Creator of everything” (8). About the creation of man and angels, Tatian teaches this: The Heavenly Word, “following the example of the Father who gave birth to Him, created man in the image of immortality, so that both God is immortal, and man, who received the communion of deity, also had immortality. However, the Word, before the creation of man, created angels” (7). Pointing out the similarity of nature between people and angels, equally gifted with free will, equally capable of good and evil, Tatian prepares the ground for the further narrative of how the fall occurred. The story is very interesting, but also very dark. “The Word, according to His power, having in Himself foreknowledge of what would happen not by the determination of fate, but from the free will of those who choose, predicted future events, stopped evil with prohibitions and encouraged those who were in goodness with praise. And when people followed the one who, by his birthright, was wiser than others and accepted him for God, although he rebelled against the law of God, then the power of the Word excommunicated both the leader of this madness and his followers from Its fellowship. And so, created in the image of God, when the higher spirit left him, he becomes mortal, and that first-born, for his crime and recklessness, became a demon; together with him, those who imitated him and were carried away by his dreams formed a regiment of demons and, since they acted by free will, were devoted to their madness” (7). It is clear how Tatian evaded the 3rd chapter of the Book of Genesis in his narration of the fall, and only the epithet (φρονιμωτέρ ῳ), with which he characterizes the leader of the fallen angels, can point to the biblical text: ὁ δè ὄφις ἦ ν (Genesis 3:1) But the fall is not motivated by the disobedience of the first people, but by the fact that, deceived by the firstborn and wisest of all angels, they recognized him as God. The demons “made humans the victims of their apostasy,” asserting their dominance over them through astrology (8–11). The true beginning of evil, as Tatian often and persistently repeats, is free will, which people and demons have abused. Therefore, Tatian ends his discussion of the fall and its consequences with the following exhortation: “die for the world, rejecting its madness; live for God and, having come to know Him, reject the ancient birth. We were not created to die, but we die through our own fault. Free will has ruined us; Having been free, we became slaves and sold ourselves through sin. God has not created anything bad - we ourselves have produced evil; and whoever produced it can reject it again (11). Tatian's teaching on spirit and soul deserves special attention. As was said, he distinguishes two types of spirit (πνευ μα): to God, Who is spirit (πνευ μα ὁ Θεός), he contrasts the lower spirit (πνευ μα ὑλικόν) (πνευ μα τò διà τη ς ὕ λης διήκου ἔλαττον ... του θειοτέρου πνεύματος ). The spirit of the lower order - (πνευ μα ὑλικόν) - penetrates and animates the whole world, as a vital principle: “there is a spirit in the stars, a spirit in Angels, a spirit in plants, a spirit in people, a spirit in animals, and although it is one and the same, it has differences in itself,” different degrees of perfection (12). Πνευ μα ὑλικόν in people is individualized and becomes a human soul - (ψυχή). Thus, in terms of his material side and his material soul, man is essentially on no different level than animals. But at the same time, man is called to a special union with God, which elevates him above the animal level: the pure soul has a close connection (σοζογία) with the Divine Spirit (πνευ μα θει ον, πνευ μα ἅ γιον). This spirit is the image of God in man, what makes man immortal. Just as God in His essence is πνευ μα, so is πνευ μα and the Logos, Who came from God, and as the Logos was born from God, so on His part He created man in the image of immortality, so that he would receive the communion of the Divine. Thus, God dwells in man by His Spirit, which has become the life companion of the soul. But the Divine Spirit undoubtedly dwelt only in the first people. When the first-born of the spirits fell and dragged others along with him, demons appeared; the reason for the fall was a man whom they wanted to separate from God, so that he would serve not God, but them. The man was involved in a fall. The Divine Spirit left his soul, and it plunged into the material. Only a weak, dark memory remained alive in her, a secret desire for God, like a weak smoldering spark. But just as freedom led man to fall, so, by virtue of his freedom, he can again turn to God, he can again unite his soul with the Divine Spirit and thus restore the inner connection with the Divine. The Spirit unites with the souls of those who live righteously; through the prophets He reminds the souls of people of the lost likeness to God. He who obeys wisdom attracts the Spirit of God to himself, and he who does not follow Him and despises the “servant of the suffering God” fights against God. But whoever possesses the Spirit has the assurance of eternal life and eternal bliss. Tatian speaks about this, as well as about the nature of the human soul: “The soul in itself is not immortal, but mortal; however, she may not die. The soul, which does not know the truth, dies and is destroyed along with the body, and then at the end of the world it is resurrected along with the body, and receives death through endless punishment. But if it is enlightened by the knowledge of God, then it does not die, although it is destroyed for a while. By itself, it is nothing more than darkness, and there is nothing light in it. This includes the words: “the darkness did not embrace the light.” For it was not the soul that preserved the spirit, but itself was preserved by it, and the light embraced the darkness. The Word is Divine light, while darkness is the soul, alien to knowledge. Therefore, if it lives alone, it deviates towards matter and dies along with the flesh, but when it is united with the Divine spirit, it is not without help, but ascends to where the spirit leads it. For the abode of the spirit is in heaven, but the soul is of earthly origin. At first the spirit lived with the soul, but then left her because she did not want to follow him. Although she retained within herself some sparks of his power, having separated from him, she could not contemplate higher things; Looking for God, she, by mistake, invented many gods, following the tricks of demons. The Spirit of God is not present in everyone, but dwells only in some people who live righteously, and uniting with their souls, through revelations it announced to other souls about hidden things. And the souls that obeyed wisdom attracted to themselves a kindred Spirit, and those who were disobedient and rejected the servant of the injured God showed themselves to be more God-fighters than God-worshippers (13). Therefore, for salvation, a person must again enter into the possession of the Spirit: “we must now seek again what we have lost, unite our soul with the Holy Spirit and form a union with Him in accordance with the will of God (τήν κατà Θεòν συζογίαν)” (15). Man is only a true man, the image and likeness of God, when, having become higher than humanity, he approaches God, that is, when he is freed from Matter. When this work of purification is completed, when our body with the soul that connects it becomes like a church, then God dwells in it through the Divine Spirit: “The perfect God is incorporeal, and man is flesh. The soul is the connection of the flesh, and the flesh is the seat of the soul. If a Being so constituted maintains itself in the likeness of a church, then God will be pleased to dwell in it through the Spirit He sends” (15). Man again becomes the image and likeness of God and again acquires holiness and incorruptibility. This doctrine of the soul is in many ways reminiscent of the teaching of the Stoics. The doctrine of πνευ μα includes various elements. In one place (13) he makes a reference to the Gospel of John (1:5~ - “darkness did not overcome him”). Other expressions have their source in Platonism, such as: “A perfect spirit inspired the soul; when she drove him away with sin, he flew away like a chick, and she fell to the ground” (20). Some, finally, discover a kinship with the teaching that we find in the main Gnostic systems: the union - συζυγία - of the soul with the Divine spirit; the idea that the soul, abandoned by a spirit it did not want to follow, retained some sparks of its power; dividing people into two classes - ψυχικοι and those who have the spirit (15 and 16), and hence the statement that the spirit is not present in everyone, but abides only in some who live righteously (13). But all these various texts can be recognized as Gnostic more in expression than in basic content, and the teaching contained in them is presented in such a way that it cannot be considered absolutely contrary to the Orthodox teaching. The transformation of the soul, which allows for the return of the spirit in us, the conversion of the sinner, is accomplished through repentance - μετάνοια: “people, after the loss of immortality, by death through faith conquered death and through repentance they were given the title that is attributed to the word: “they are a little lower than the angels” (15). The immediate effect of conversion is that people are freed from matter. At this point, the ascetic tendencies that brought Tatian into contact with the Encratites are especially evident. The union (συζυγία) of soul and spirit returns a person to the state to which he was before the fall. He becomes pure and immortal again. What is the state of the soul - righteous and sinful - after death? The soul is mortal, although it is capable of achieving immortality. The given passages from Ch. 13 show that the souls of the righteous and sinners are temporarily destroyed - in the interval separating death from the end of the world - but at the end of the world they are resurrected along with the body. This is completely logical for Tatian's system, which considers the soul as only a harmony or connection of the body. As for the spirit, it forms a union with her, dwells in her, as in a church, but does not unite, does not merge with her; It is natural, therefore, that at death he leaves his soul. The soul saved and achieved immortality will return to the place of residence of the ancestors, which Tatian describes as follows: “The sky, O man, is not limitless, but has boundaries and is contained within; above it are the best zones, which are not subject to weather changes that produce various diseases, but have good air quality, constant daylight and light, inaccessible to the local people” (20). This land is not ours, but the best, from which the primeval ones were expelled. We must desire the previous state and abandon everything that prevents this, that is, matter (20). In his doctrine of demons, Tatian is undoubtedly influenced by Justin. Explaining his view of them, Tatian tries to refute opposing views about the origin and nature of demons. He objected to the opinion of those who believed that demons were the souls of dead people (16) and very energetically challenged philosophers who, through allegories, sought to explain the myths regarding pagan gods in relation to the doctrine of demons (21). In their madness, the demons were carried away by pride and, indignant, attempted to delight themselves with the Divinity (12); they were cast out of heaven (20). After this, they began to inhabit earthly regions, entered into communication with reptiles, birds, and four-legged animals, corrupted people, but they themselves fell under the power of the same passions as people. From that time on, they did not cease to harm people: from the time of the temptation of the first people, they invented idolatry and did not cease to spread it subsequently; They also appeared in the form of pagan gods, and their leader is identified with Zeus (8). They invented astrology and magic, with which, more than anything else, they asserted their power over people. “Demons, out of their malice, raging over people, seduce their downcast souls, and with various and insidious tricks prevent them from rising to heavenly life. If it were possible, they would destroy the sky itself with other creatures” (16). Having no flesh, but composed of the elements of air and fire, demons can only be seen by the faithful who have received the Spirit of God dwelling in them; on the contrary, the spiritual cannot see them, since the higher cannot be embraced by the lower (15). However, spiritual people also see demons when the latter appear to them, either in order to assure them of their existence, or in order to harm them, as malicious friends do to their enemies, or, finally, to persuade others like themselves to deify them (16). Demons seem to have an advantage over humans: they are immortal; but this is an advantage over people: they are immortal; but this advantage turns to their detriment: “it is not easy for them to die, because they have no flesh; but while living, they do the works of death and die themselves whenever they teach their followers sin. And what currently constitutes their advantage, namely, that they do not die like people, will remain with them even when they are subjected to torture: they will not be partakers of eternal life and, instead of death, will not receive blissful immortality.” People sin less because of the brevity of their lives than demons do over an endless period of time (14). The Lord allowed them to be deceived until the world ended in destruction (12). “At the end of everything there will be a resurrection of bodies - not as the Stoics teach, according to whom, after several periods of time, the same creatures always appear and perish without any benefit, but one day after the fulfillment of our centuries and solely for the sake of the restoration of some people for judgment.” The possibility of resurrection is based on the omnipotence of God. “How I, not existing before birth, did not know who I was, but only remained in the essence of carnal matter, and when I, who had no existence before, was born, then by my very birth I was convinced of my existence; in the same exact way, I, who was born through death, ceasing to exist and be visible, will again exist in the likeness of how I once did not exist, and then was born. Let the fire destroy my body, but the world will receive this substance, dissipated like steam; let me perish in rivers or seas, let me be torn to pieces by beasts, but I will hide in the treasury of the rich Lord. A weak and godless man does not know what is hidden; and King God, when He wants, will restore to its previous state the essence that is visible to Him Alone” (6). The Creator of the world himself will be the Judge: “the Judge will come, and all people who, despite obstacles from demons, strived to know the perfect God, on the day of judgment will receive full praise for their exploits” (12). Tatian does not mention the name of Jesus Christ in his entire speech; but his whole doctrine of salvation has its root in the preaching of God in the form of man (θεòν ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ) (21). In the moral teaching of Tatian, as far as one can judge from his Apology, in addition to the obvious influence on its character of his natural characteristics, one can note a certain inclination towards Stoic-cynical and Gnostic or Marcionite morality, namely in his ascetic tendencies, which in a consistent disclosure could lead to the idea that the origin of evil has its source not only in the abuse of free will, but also in the bodily nature of man. These ideas do not appear clearly in the Apology; without a doubt, it should not be forgotten that the flow of thoughts in it did not give rise to such practical conclusions. In this regard, more important is the teaching of Tatian, refuted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., 3:12, 79 sq.), borrowed from his lost work “On Perfection according to the Teaching of the Savior.” Here Tatian presents marriage as a sensual image of the union of the flesh with corruption, and attributes the “invention” of marriage to the devil. Whoever gets married wants to serve two masters: God and at the same time the devil and fornication. Tatian separates the old and the new man; the old is the law, the new is the Gospel, both do not come from one God. Marriage is based on the law: it is an “invention” of the law. A completely different kind of marriage or union is that which corresponds to the Gospel and the will of the Lord. Along with abstinence from marriage, Tatian demands abstinence from meat and wine. If Tatian expressed these thoughts with all decisiveness only after the break with the Church, then there is no doubt that he had the beginnings of them before. And the Apology sufficiently shows in what way he came and even fatally had to come to schism: it reveals in everything the rigidity of his impetuous and passionate character, an intolerant attitude towards all kinds of authorities and certain norms, hostility towards any measure; it makes it possible to quite clearly determine the fundamental tendencies of his spirit, which was very prone to such ideas that could lead to heresy. Although the Apology, judging it from the point of view of that time, cannot be called clearly heretical, it contains several rather suspicious passages and stands on the extreme border between Orthodoxy and heresy. III. 4. Literary features of Tatian’s Apology Tatian's Apology presents a harsh, often unfair and one-sided, but interesting criticism of Hellenic religion, ethics, philosophy and art; in its positive parts it is distinguished by original theological and psychological views; The chronological calculations with which he tries to prove the antiquity of Christian teaching, in any case, testify to the author’s sincere confidence in the justice of the position being defended. When reading the Apology for the first time, one is particularly struck by the passion and ardor of the speech, the ardor of the polemicist, who only thinks about hitting the enemy as sensitively as possible, and amazingly controls his weapon, revealing at the same time a strong and even brilliant imagination, ardent, but not disciplined. In some places, however, quite rare, for example, when he professes his faith and declares his complete readiness to die for it, a deep conviction is revealed, a sincere enthusiasm that gives his eloquence more simplicity and importance. Reading the Apology with attention, one can see that Tatian, being so impetuous, still sometimes knows how to control himself and curb his impetuosity; but he wants to conform to the tastes of his time. The significant shortcomings of the presentation include, first of all, the extreme darkness of speech, for which he was called the new Heraclitus, the Assyrian Tertullian. Recently, a lot of work has been put into clarifying much in the Apology that seems incomprehensible, to prove that Tatian was not an enemy of the logical structure of speech and did not neglect the requirements of the language in which he wrote. These efforts were crowned with some success, but still did not completely clear the charges that had previously been brought against Tatian. The reason for the undeniable darkness of the presentation in the Apology lies, first of all, in the natural lack of precision of expression, common to Tatian with most of his contemporary writers, and then in Tatian’s own lack of concern for the correct arrangement of the material: he almost never completes the argument he has begun in a definite and correct way; one idea in him awakens another, extraneous one; one image evokes another similar one; associations of ideas or images are made the guiding principle of their disclosure, instead of the laws of a strict method. Hence the completely unexpected transitions and turns in the flow of thoughts. The advantages and disadvantages of Tatian's Apology from the literary side are based on the personality of Tatian himself and the conditions of his education and life. Tatian's Eastern origin undoubtedly affected the extreme liveliness of his feelings and ardor of imagination. But the essential features of his style are borrowed from modern sophistry; although he condemned art and the beauty of forms, he wrote like a sophist, because sophistry became his second nature. However, in some cases he seemed to be able to free himself from the shackles of sophistic demands and show a natural desire for originality and combine with this the indifferent attitude towards external beauty common among Christian writers. All these influences were reflected in Tatian's Apology and made this work very distinctive and attractive in its originality, but also difficult to understand, at least in some places. But both in the content of the Apology and in its presentation, the significant and original personality of its author is visible everywhere. Eusebius testifies that Tatian, after he acted as the head of the Encratites, compiled some kind of agreement and code of the Gospels ( πως τω ν εὐαγγελίων) and called it T ò διà τεσσάρων (that is, εὐαγγέλιον). “This work,” he adds, “is still in the possession of some” (Hist. eccl., 4:29, 6). Before Eusebius, no writer mentions this work of Tatian. Eusebius himself speaks about it rather vaguely: (οὐκ ο ἶ δ ’ ὅ πως) indicates either that he did not see this work at all, or found it difficult to more accurately determine its construction and character; if Tatian wrote it in Syriac, then Eusebius could have seen his work in the library of Pamphilus, but, not knowing the Syriac language, was not able to critically evaluate its content. Eusebius's brief message only says that Tatian compiled a harmony of the four Gospels or the life history of the affairs of the Lord from the four canonical Gospels. Even more briefly is the remark of Epiphanius, who says: (Haer. 46:1), that Tatian is considered the author of the book under the name τò διà τεσσάρων εὐαγγέλιων, but some call it κατà Ἑ βραίους ( εὐαγγέλιον ). Among the Greek writers, the first more detailed information about this work of Tatian is reported by Theodoret of Cyrrhus. He concludes his news about the heretic Tatian with these words: “he compiled the so-called. Diatessaron (ὁ διà τεσσάρων καλούμενον εὐαγγέλιον), discarding genealogies, as well as everything else that points to the birth of the Lord in the flesh from the seed of David. But this book was used not only by his adherents (encratites or hydroparasts), but also by followers of the Apostolic teaching, not noticing the deception in its composition, and they innocently used the book as a convenient compendium. I myself have found more than two hundred such books, which were held in high esteem in the Churches of our country; I collected them and destroyed them and introduced in their place the Gospels of the four Evangelists.” The fact reported by Theodoret testifies to the lasting influence of Tatian’s work in quite numerous Christian Churches. Almost three centuries after his death, we find his work enjoying great honor, that is, undoubtedly used during divine services in the Orthodox Churches, which, obviously, did not suspect anything about its heretical source or the imperfection of its teaching. In most of the Churches of the diocese of Cyrrhus, of which Theodoret was bishop, they spoke Syriac; the region of the Syriac language began east of Antioch, almost, so to speak, at the gates of the city, and extended far beyond the Euphrates. In Syrian. Church writing, starting with the "Teachings of Addai" (the work in its present form dates variously, from the middle of the 3rd century) contains indisputable evidence that this form of the Gospel was widely, if not exclusively, used in Syriac. Churches during the 3rd and 4th centuries and that this work was continuously known and read by Syrian writers until the beginning of the 14th century. Ephraim the Syrian, deacon of Edessa, commented on the Gospel text according to the Diatessaron. There is no doubt that Ephraim already knew the Syriac translation, known under the name Peshitto, knew the advantages of the individual Gospels of the four Evangelists before mixing them into the Diatessaron, but, probably, the wide distribution of the latter among believers forced him to base his interpretation on this text. Since Tatiana’s Diatessaron has not survived to our time in its original form, the commentary of Ephraim the Syrian is the best source for judging this ancient Gospel harmony. But, unfortunately, Ephraim’s commentary itself was preserved not in the Syriac original, but in the Armenian translation of the 5th century, which was published by the Mekhitarists in Venice in 1836, but became the subject of scientific research only after its publication in the Latin translation in 1876. Another source is the conversations of the Persian sage, Bishop Aphraates, compiled in the years 336–345, which are also based on the text of the Diatessaron. These sources made it possible to get an approximately clear idea of ​​​​Tatian’s work, which until recently was known only by name, without a specific content. In this regard, the work of Th. Zahn'a (Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der alt Kirchlichen Litteratur. Erlangeh. 1881. I Teil: Tatians Diatessaron). With his characteristic caution and thoroughness and with significant success, he undertook the reconstruction of Tatian’s work (in the Latin translation) by highlighting the explanations of St. Ephraim and with the assistance of conversations of Aphraates and presented a complete and more or less clearly defined image of this important work. He came to the following conclusions regarding Diatessaron's plan. In order to present the contents of the four Gospels as a complete history of the life of the Lord, Tatian based the chronological instructions of the Gospel of John; He placed the prologue of this Gospel at the head of his history and arranged all the material according to the Easter holidays indicated by John. He placed the stories about the Nativity of the Lord and subsequent events, about Baptism, temptation, the calling of the first disciples and about the marriage in Cana of Galilee in the introduction. He begins the public service of the Lord with the feast of Easter, on which the Lord spoke for the first time, and ends, after two years, with the feast of Easter, during which the Lord suffered. Death, Resurrection and Ascension make up the final part. The narratives of the weather forecasters are inserted into this framework, although some synoptic sections are completely omitted. Apocryphal writing - as the very title of the work shows - was not involved, and the volume of non-canonical elements, according to Th.Zahn, was no more than one thousandth part. The historical nature of the entire content of the canonical Gospels was recognized by Tatian as beyond doubt. Th.Zahna's work was met with great sympathy. Authoritative scientists (de Lagarde, Hilgenfeld, Harnack, Funk) made some additions and corrections to it; and his conclusions regarding the time of writing of this work and the original language (Zahn believed that it was written before Tatian’s break with the Church and in the Syriac language) caused lively debate and refutation. Meanwhile, new sources appeared for judging the Diatessaron: from the works of later Syrian writers - interpreters of the Holy Scriptures (Ishodad, Moses Bar-Kepha, Bar-Salibi and Bar-Hebräus) of the 9th-11th centuries, a number of passages and expressions of the commentary of Ephraim and the underlying text of the Diatessaron in the Syriac language were extracted (J. R. Harris); the Latin translation of Ephraim's commentary was verified based on comparison with the Armenian text (A. Robinson); Finally, the Arabic harmony of the Gospels was found, which aroused great hopes. As you know, after Syria was conquered by the Saracens, Syrian Christians gradually began to forget their native language and adopted the language of their conquerors; Therefore, it is natural that over time, among other documents, the Diatessaron was translated into Arabic. It has long been known that in the Vatican there is an Arabic manuscript containing the work of Tatian, but for unknown reasons it was not copied and published. In 1881, the Apostolic Vicar of the Roman Catholic Copts, visiting the Vatican and seeing the said manuscript, stated that he had seen a similar list in Egypt, better preserved. Both manuscripts were collated, and the text was published in the Arabic original and in the Latin translation (R. A. Ciasca Romae, 1888), mainly based on the second manuscript (XIV century), donated by its owner Copt (Halimdas Gali) and currently located in the library of the Congregation of Propaganda in Rome. This Arabic text, according to the evidence of the manuscript, was translated by the famous Nestorian writer monk and presbyter Abulfarage (1043) from the Syrian copy, which was written in the 9th century. The publisher of this harmony (P. Ciasca) was confident that this translation should be seen as a faithful rendering of the original text of the Diatessaron; Some other scientists also agreed with him, including Th.Zahn. But then it was established (E. Sellin in Forsch, zur Gesch. des neutest. Kanons. Teil IV, 1891, S. 225–246) that the Syriac original of the Arabic text represents a later revision of the Diatessaron, which was undertaken in the 5th-6th centuries with the aim of bringing it as close as possible to the Peshitto text, so that from the Arabic text one can only get some help for the reconstruction of the Diatessaron - it represents only minor remains of the original text of the Diatessaron, but in general can be accepted as a proper guide in restoring the sequence and composition of the work. In any case, the hopes placed on the Arabic text were not justified. The Latin Harmony of the Gospels, preserved in the Codex Fuldensis, written around 545 in Capua, by order of Bishop Victor, has the same meaning. This is a list of the New Testament, but instead of the four Gospels, Victor placed in it the Latin Harmony of the Gospels, which he found ready-made. Its copy, which fell into the hands of Victor, had neither a title nor the name of the author; but Victor wanted to more accurately investigate the question of the origin of harmony and at the same time, as he himself says in the Preface, he remembered the message of Eusebius (Euseb., Ep. ad Carpianum) about the work of Tatian and about the same experience of the Alexandrian Ammonius and decided that he had found the work of Tatian. The actual origins of Latin harmony are obscure. In any case, it can be recognized that it was compiled around the year 500 according to the model of the Diatessaron, using the Latin text of the Gospels, revised by Jerome in the year 383; the composition of the Diatessaron is retained, but the text is taken from the Vulgate. Shortly after this, but before Victor placed this harmony on his list, it underwent another revision. Subsequently, its text, based on the Codex Fuldensis, was rewritten and published under the name either Tatiana or Ammonia. But for the restoration of the text of the Diatessaron, Latin harmony has little meaning. The question of the original language of the Diatessaron text cannot be considered finally resolved. Until recently, it was usually thought that it was written by Tatian in Greek and then translated into Syriac. Th.Zahn was the first to claim that the Syriac text was original and that the Greek Diatessaron never existed. A. Harnack objected to him (Die Überlief, der griech. Apologeten. Leipzig, 1882, S. 196 sq. et seq.). But in reality, wherever the Diatessaron is encountered by the researcher as a tangible quantity, it appears in the Syriac form, and outside the regions - the population of which spoke the Syriac language - there was scanty and vague information about it. Tatian was Syrian by origin, and towards the end of his life he returned to his homeland, and, therefore, it is natural to expect that he wrote his work in the Syrian language. As evidence in favor of the view that the harmony was originally composed in Greek, they point to the Greek title of the work. Since the first mention of it, it has been called “Diatessaron,” and Eusebius traces this name to the author himself. But this fact cannot be given serious significance, since Greek titles, especially Greek technical terms, were widely used by Syrian writers. But even in this case, the question remains unresolved as to whether Tatian used a ready-made Syriac translation for his harmony, or whether he himself translated from Greek, especially since the question of the time of origin of the oldest Syriac translation of the Gospels has not yet been resolved. In favor of the fact that the Diatessaron was the first Syriac translation of the Gospels, they cite (O. Bardenhewer. Gesch. deraltkirchl. Litt. Bd.I, 1902, S. 257–258) the following consideration: The Diatessaron would hardly have achieved such wide distribution and such undisputed dominance in the East Syrian and West Syrian Church communities if it had already existed before its emergence Syriac translation of the four Gospels. If such a translation existed, then, since there was no other Gospel text, it would already be in church use and could hardly be supplanted by the Diatessaron. The conclusion is that Tatian first gave the Syrians the Syriac text of the Gospel. At the same time, the ground is created for resolving the question of the time and place of origin of the Diatessaron: written in the Syriac language, this work could only be intended for Syrian Christians, therefore, in the Syrian country, after Tatian came here from Rome, that is, after the year 172. At this time, Tatian had already deviated from the Orthodox Faith. Eusebius says that he wrote the Diatessaron when he was already the leader of the Encratites, and Theodorit points to the heretical origin and heretical nature of the work: it omitted genealogies and other places testifying to the birth of the Savior from the seed of David. Theodoret himself saw and read the Diatessaron and was able to determine its character and attitude to Orthodox teaching, why Tatian’s defense of Th. Zahn cannot be considered valid in view of the clear evidence of antiquity. Thus, Tatian, returning to. homeland after long wanderings, a painful search for truth, the joys of communication with the Church and its great teacher Justin and new doubts that led to a break with the Church, with his characteristic energy he took up positive work - satisfying the urgent needs of a people still alien to any disputes; having bequeathed to him the best gift - the history of the life of the Savior, but could not resist, under the influence of his views rejected by the Church, not to make at least some abbreviations (excluding genealogies) confirming his view of marriage as fornication, attested by Irenaeus. III. 6. Unsurvived works of Tatian a) Tatian’s work on compiling the harmony of the four Gospels probably stands in connection - at least psychologically - with another work of his that has not come down to us: Tatian’s student, Rodon says (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:13, 8) that he wrote a book of problems (προβλημάτων βιβλίόν), in which compared the dark and hidden sayings of the Holy Scriptures παραστήσειν ὑποσχομένου ). Rodon, who later defended the Old Testament orally and in writing against the Marcionites, had the intention of writing about the book of Tatian to resolve the perplexities he raised (προβλημάτων ἐπιλύσεις). By “Divine Scriptures” we mean the books of the Old Testament, and Tatian’s work probably belongs to the later period of his life, when he was already embarking on the path of doubt. b) Another work of Tatian belongs to the same period, mentioned and refuted in detail by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3:12, 81): “about perfection according to the teaching of the Savior” (περì του κατà Σωτήρα καταρτισμου). Here he discovered encratite tendencies, especially rebelling against marriage and trying to base his thoughts even on the words of the Apostle Paul in I Cor. 7:5. c) In his Apology, Tatian himself mentions the work he wrote περì ζω @ων. It is difficult to judge its content, but, as was said, the connection of the speech in which Tatian speaks about him does not allow him to be attributed to the pre-Christian period of his life: in it he spoke about the image and likeness of God in man and about the conditions for his restoration. d) In chapter 16, Tatian writes: “The demons who command people are not the souls of people; for how can they act even after death? Is it possible to admit that a person who was unreasonable and weak during life receives a more powerful force after death? But this is not true, as we have proven elsewhere" (ὡ ς ἐν ἀλλοις ἀπεδείξαμεν). Here Tatian obviously refers to a previously written work, where he spoke about the nature of demons; whether this was a work on περì ζφων or a special discussion about demons, we do not know. e) Tatian also intended to write a book “against those who reasoned about Theology” (πρòς τούς ἀποφηναμένους τà περì θεου), where he intended to show “what educated people among the Hellenes said about our law and about history decrees, how many and what writers mentioned this” (chapter 40). It is not known whether Tatian wrote this book - not a single one of Tatian’s named works has survived to this day, not only in its entirety, but even in fragments; There are no quotations from them from the most ancient writers. In Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4:29, 6) we also find the following remark about Tatian: “they also say that he dared to express in other words (μεταφράσαι) some sayings of the Apostle in order to correct the manner of expression (τὴν τη ς φράσεως σόνταξιν)". Th. Zahn wants to see in these words of Eusebius an indication of the translation of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul from Greek into Syriac, but such an understanding hardly corresponds to the tone of the church historian's remarks. It is more likely to assume that Tatian, in his various works, trying to find confirmation for his thoughts in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, allowed for reinterpretations of his words by changing the structure of the Apostle’s speech, but Eusebius speaks about this from the words of others. Tatian's theological teaching could not have any influence on the Christians of the Greco-Roman world: here he was proclaimed a heretic, and this, of course, determined the suspicious attitude towards his works. A completely different assessment of his activities was made in the East, in Tatian’s homeland. There, his Speech with a protest against Hellenism and chronological calculations could not have any significance - for the Syrians, the Diatessaron and the missionary activity for which this work was so necessary and which in turn contributed to its wide dissemination and long established its use in the eastern Syrian regions could not be important. At the same time, the ascetic views of Tatian continued to have force in the Syrian Church, until theological disputes brought over from Greece and political influences gave an entirely new imprint to the life of the Eastern Church. The Codex de Paris (914) of Archbishop Arethas of Caesarea (Cod. Paris. 451) contains two works by the Athenian philosopher Athenagoras (Ἀθηναγόρου Ἀθηναίου φιλοσόφου χριστιανου): a) “petition for Christians” πρεσβεία περì χριστιανω ν (supplicatio s. legatio pro Christianis) and b) “For the resurrection of the dead” – περì ἀναστάσεως νεκρω ν (de ressurectione mortuorum). The famous publisher of the works of apologists Otto believed (Corpus apolog. christ, vol. VII.lenae, 1857, p. XIII) that the inscription indicating that these works belonged to the philosopher Athenagoras was made by a later hand - the 11th century; but more accurate studies have shown that it undoubtedly comes from the hand of its copyist - Vaan (Gebhardt in Text, und Unters. I, 3, 1883, S. 183 ff), or Archbishop Arethas - in both cases the value of its historical authenticity increases; Vahan inscribed on the basis of the manuscripts that he had, and the learned Archbishop Arefa - on the basis of a preliminary study of the question of the author of the works. IV. 1. “Petition for Christians”: time of origin and content of the Apology The "petition" is addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus ( Λουκί ῳ Αὐρηλί ῳ Κομμόδ ῳ). The name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus requires no explanation; As for Lucius Aurelius Commodus, it is now generally accepted that this name does not mean the brother (by adoption) and co-ruler of Marcus Aurelius - Lucius Verus († in the year 169), but the son and co-ruler of Marcus Aurelius - Commodus: Athenagoras clearly addresses father and son: ὑμι ν πατρì καì υἱω @ (18), and Lucius Verus, from the time of his elevation to the dignity of co-ruler, did not bear the name of Commodus. Both Emperors are called μέγιστοια ὐτοκράτορες (chap. 1, 12, 18), but since Commodus received the title αὐτοκράτωρ (autocrat, imperator) only in November 176, the Apology could to be written only after this time and before March 17, 180, when Marcus Aurelius died. There are reasons to determine this date even more precisely. Athenagoras writes: “the whole Empire, according to your wisdom, enjoys deep peace” (1). The Empire actually enjoyed such a world until the outbreak of the Second Marcomannic War in August 178, when even coins were minted with the hopeful inscription: pax aeterna. Further, Athenagoras still does not know anything about the persecution of Christians that broke out in Gaul in the 17th year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, that is, in the 177th year. Thus, the origin of the Apology must be placed at the time when this persecution had not yet begun, or when news of it had not been received, that is, at the end of the 176th year or in the first half of the 177th year. The reason for compiling the Apology was, as can be understood from its content, not any particular event, but the general plight of Christians. “In a vast state,” the apologist complains, “everyone is allowed to speak and write whatever they want about the Divine with impunity - only Christians are prohibited by law” (7); everyone enjoys the blessings of the world - only war is waged against Christians, they are despised, reviled, oppressed and tortured, despite the fact that they are the most pious and faithful subjects (1). There is justice and protection of laws for everyone - some Christians are unfairly accused of the most terrible crimes without the opportunity to justify themselves (3). It has reached the point where the mere name of a Christian is considered a crime worthy of death and they do not consider it necessary to conduct an investigation into the lifestyle of the accused (2). The apologist sets his task to expose and reject the accusations leveled against Christians as untruths, and to oppose the creation of the fantasy of the pagan people with the pure, true image of the Christian religion and, first of all, to convince those in whose hands the power over the Empire is of the innocence of Christians. The apology contains 37 chapters and is divided in content into (1–3), two parts (4–30 and 31–36) and a conclusion (37). In the introduction, Athenagoras, like Justin, expresses the desire that Christians should be condemned not for their name alone, but on the basis of a strict investigation of their way of life. “In your Empire,” the apologist begins his speech, “peoples adhere to different customs and laws, and none of them is prohibited by law or fear of punishment from following domestic regulations, no matter how ridiculous they are... And you and the laws condescend to them, in the thought that it is wicked and lawless not to recognize God at all, and it is necessary that everyone honor the gods he pleases, so that people are restrained from crimes by the fear of the Divine. And you hate us for one name. Do not be deceived by rumors, like the crowd, for it is not a name that is worthy of hatred, but a crime that is worthy of judgment and punishment” (1). Christians are accused of three crimes: atheism, Thyestian suppers and Oedipal incest (ἀθεότητα, Θυέστεια δει πνα, Οἰδιποδείους μίξεις ). “If this is true,” the apologist exclaims, “then do not spare either sex or age, punish without measure the crime, completely destroy us with our wives and children, if any of us lives in the likeness of animals... If this is fiction and empty slander - a natural consequence of the fact that vice is opposite to virtue, and according to the Divine law, the opposite rises to the contrary - if we do nothing of the sort, which you yourself testify by prohibiting Denunciations, then it remains for you to examine our life, teaching, good disposition towards you, your house and power and our obedience - thus, you should finally grant us rights, at least equal to those of our persecutors. Then we will defeat them, being ready to give our lives for the truth” (3). The first part of the Apology refutes the reproach of atheism by indicating that Christians believe that there is a difference between matter and the Divine, that they consider God to be an uncreated and invisible Being, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. Thus, they do not deserve the reproach of atheism, just as the poets and philosophers who thought about God did not seem to be atheists. Christians worship one God; but monotheism was preached by Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and the poets - and they were not called atheists and were not persecuted. But they only taught fortune-telling that God is one; they did not have so much ability to comprehend the truth, because they thought to acquire knowledge of God not from God, but each on his own; therefore, each of them taught differently about God, and about matter, and about forms, and about the world. Christians possess absolute truth and have as witnesses the prophets, who, under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, proclaimed both about God and about Divine things (7). That from the beginning one is God, the Creator of everything, this can be justified by reasonable arguments. If there were two or more eternal gods, then they must be either together or separately from each other. Both parts of the dilemma suffer from insoluble contradictions. They cannot be in one place, for, as uncreated, they are not similar to each other; only what was created, according to Plato, is similar to its prototype - and something similar cannot be in the same place. Also, they cannot be in one place, as parts of a whole, like members of the human body, because God, beginningless, impassive and indivisible, does not consist of parts. But they cannot exist each in a special place, since the Creator is above the world, around the world and in the world. For the second god there is no area of ​​being, because the first god embraces everything, there is no sphere of activity, because the first created everything, there is no object of care, because the second did not create anything, and he has nothing to care about. Therefore, the original God, the Creator of the world, is one God (8). This teaching is confirmed by Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and other prophets, who, being filled with the Holy Spirit, proclaimed what was inspired to them. Thus, Christians are not atheists, as long as they recognize the one God, beginningless, eternal, invisible and impassive, immense and immeasurable, comprehended by one mind and reason, filled with light and beauty, spirit and indescribable power, Who created and ordered everything with His word and contains everything. Christians also recognize the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. “Who after this will not be surprised,” exclaims Athenagoras, “to hear that those who confess God the Father and God the Son and the Holy Spirit are called atheists and recognize their strength in unity and difference in order”? But the theological teaching of Christians is not limited to this: they also recognize “the many Angels and servants whom the Creator and Founder of the world - God - through His Word appointed and distributed to rule the elements and the heavens and the world, and everything that is in it, and their ordering” (9-10). The accusation of atheism is also refuted by the moral teaching of Christians, which does not come from man, but is spoken and taught by God, by their behavior and belief in the afterlife. Christian teaching even commands us to pray for our enemies and persecutors and to bless them. Many of the uneducated Christians, artisans and old women are not able to prove the benefit of Christian teaching in words, but in deeds they confirm its moral benefits: “they do not confirm words, but do good deeds, do not hit when they are beaten, do not complain to the court when their property is taken away from them; give to those in need and love your neighbor as yourself” (11). Would they keep themselves so pure if they did not recognize that God is watchful over the human race? Of course not. “But since we believe that we will give an account of all this present life to God, who created both us and the world, we choose a life of abstinence, love of mankind and humiliation, knowing that here we cannot tolerate, even if we were deprived of life, any evil that would be equal to the benefits prepared there from the Great Judge for a meek, man-loving and modest life.” Pagans consider as pious those people who “believe real life is in “eating and drinking, for in the morning we die,” and do not consider Christians pious who consider real life to be of little importance, who strive for one thing, to know God and His Word, and what is the unity of the Son with the Father, what is the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these Beings and the difference of the united Spirit, the Son and the Father, who know, that the expected life is beyond all expression, if only they go there pure from all unrighteousness” (12). After this, Athenagoras gives reasons why Christians refuse to follow the instructions of the pagan cult. Images of gods are the work of human hands; The gods represented in images, judging by what poets and philosophers tell about them, were criminal and pitiful people. Explaining the gods as the poetic personification of forces and natural phenomena is a wasted effort and, moreover, this does not justify the veneration of these gods. “The Creator of the Universe and Father has no need of blood, or smoke, or the fragrance of flowers and incense, being Himself the most perfect fragrance and lacking nothing within or without. “If we, recognizing God as the Creator, Who contains and observes everything with knowledge and all-controlling wisdom, raise clean hands to Heaven, then what other sacrifices does He need?” And that Christians do not recognize and do not honor those gods that the pagans honor, this is a completely unreasonable reproach: those who accuse Christians of atheism because they do not honor the gods they recognize do not agree among themselves regarding the gods. If Christians are wicked, then all cities and all nations are wicked, because they do not all worship the same gods (13-14). Further, if Christians, like pagans, accepted certain substances as gods, then they would turn out to have no concept of the true God, for in this case they would equate the destructible and perishable with the eternal. The world is beautiful, but not it, but its Creator should be worshiped: if I am amazed at the beautiful structure of the sky and the elements, I do not worship them as gods, knowing that they are subject to destruction, then how will I call those things gods that artists - people - are known to me? There is not a single statue of the gods that does not derive its existence from man. If they are gods, then why did they not exist from the beginning? Why are they younger than those who made them? Why did they need people and their art to exist? They are earth, stones, matter - and skillful work (1517). “But some say that these are only images, and the gods are those in whose honor the images are made, and that the prayers addressed to these latter and the sacrifices refer to the gods and are performed for them.” But first of all, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that all the stories about the gods agree that the gods did not exist from the beginning, but each of them was born in the same way as we are born; and if there was a time when they did not exist, then they are not gods, for the eternal is without beginning, and that which has received existence is subject to corruption. “And I say,” notes Athenagoras, “the same as the philosophers” (18–19). Having briefly noted the inconsistencies in pagan mythology and the inconsistency of the allegorical explanation of myths, the apologist says: “In this way, those who deify fables theologize, not noticing that everything they bring in defense of the gods confirms what is said against them... Having retreated from the greatness of God and not being able to rise higher in their minds, for they have no desire for a heavenly abode, they settled on the types of matter and, having fallen down, they worship the changes of the elements, just as if someone mistook the ship on which he is sailing for the helmsman. But just as a ship, even if it was equipped with everything necessary, means nothing if there is no helmsman on it, so the elements, although arranged, are useless without the Providence of God. The ship by itself will not float, and the elements will not move without the Creator” (20–22). Answering the objection: how do some of the idols act, if not the gods to whom the pagans erect statues, for it is impossible for soulless and motionless images to act on their own, without a mover, Athenagoras says that miracles attributed to idols must be attributed to demons. The fallen angels had a lust for virgins and, overcome by the flesh, gave birth to giants or demons from them. “These angels, who fell from heaven and dwell in the air and on earth and can no longer ascend to heaven, as well as the souls of giants, who are actually demons wandering around the world, perform actions, some - namely demons - corresponding to the nature that they received, and others - namely angels - to the lusts that they had. The prince of matter (the spirit that was created by God and appointed to control matter and its species), as can be seen from the events themselves, invents and arranges things contrary to the goodness of God” (25). Demons attract pagans to idols, for they are attached to the blood of victims and enjoy it (23-30). In the second part (31–36), Athenagoras more briefly refutes two other charges against Christians: Oedipal incest and Thyestan suppers. The apologist counters the first accusation with the doctrine of retribution and moral strictness, by virtue of which even a lustful look and thought are considered sinful. Those who have God as the model of their entire life, so that everyone is pure and not reproachful before Him, and will never allow any sin in their thoughts. “If we were convinced that there is only one real life on earth, then one might still suspect that we serve flesh and blood, or indulge in greed and voluptuousness; But. since we know that God is present both night and day in our thoughts and words, that He is all light and sees what is in our heart, then we are also convinced that, having left this life, we will live another life, better than this one, the heavenly one; and not earthly. About those who are not allowed to use their sight for anything more than what God created their eyes for, that is, they were a light for everyone, who consider a voluptuous glance to be adultery, since the eyes are made for a different purpose, and who await judgment even for their thoughts - can one think of them that they lead a depraved life? We do not look at human laws, from which another villain can hide - I showed you at the beginning, lords, that our teaching is revealed by God - but we have a law that commanded us to observe the greatest integrity between ourselves and our loved ones” (31-32). Christians limit marriage to the goals of procreation. Among them there are many men and women who grow old celibate, hoping to be more closely united with God. If a virgin and chaste life brings one closer to God, and evil thoughts and desires move away from Him, then Christians, avoiding evil thoughts, avoid such deeds all the more. “We hear,” says the apologist, “the proverb: “a harlot reproaches a chaste woman.” For those who have set up a marketplace of fornication and offer to young men vile havens of every shameful pleasure and do not even spare men, committing male acts on men, and in every possible way insulting the most beautiful and comely bodies and dishonoring the beauty created by God... they are the ones who accuse us for what they recognize in themselves and which they attribute to their gods as something praiseworthy and worthy of their gods. Adulterers and child molesters insult chaste and monogamous people...” (34). It is also contrary to common sense to accuse Christians of fiesta suppers, at which they allegedly eat babies. Christians do not want to look at someone justly executed: who will accuse them of murder and man-eating? They do not strive to see the fight between gladiators and animals in the belief that watching a murder is the same as committing it. If Christians. claim that women who poison unborn babies commit murder and will give God an account for the poisoning, then how can they kill a person themselves? It is not typical for one and the same person to consider a baby still in the womb as a living being, about whom God also cares, and to kill one who was born to life; It is not typical to abandon a born child, since those who abandon them commit infanticide, and at the same time kill someone who has already been fed (35). Eating infants also contradicts the Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead. What kind of person who believes in the Resurrection would agree to become the tomb of those who are about to be resurrected? However, the author now does not want to introduce detailed discussions about the Resurrection, so as not to reproach him for retreating (36). In conclusion, Athenagoras asks the Emperors to honor him with approval because he refuted the slander and proved the piety, meekness and good behavior of Christians. He expects justice in relation to people who pray for the power of the Emperors, so that the son will inherit the kingdom from the father and so that their power will become more and more established and spread. “This is useful,” he says, “for us too, so that we can lead a quiet and serene life and willingly carry out your commands” (37). IV. 2. About the resurrection of the dead (Περì ἀναστάσεως νεκρω ν) After the “Petition for Christians” in Arefa’s codex there is a work “on the resurrection of the dead”, with the inscription του αὐτυ περì ἀναστάσεως νεκρω ν and with the signature: Ἀθηναγόρου περì ἀναστάσεως. At the end of the “Petition,” the author interrupts his brief presentation of the doctrine of the Resurrection with the following words: “but we will postpone the discussion of the Resurrection” (36). Thus, the author of the “Petition” himself points to a special treatise on the Resurrection that will soon appear, which is rightly seen in the surviving work “On the Resurrection of the Dead.” The doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead was a favorite topic in ancient Christian times. Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Methodius of Olympus and many others, whose names are unknown, wrote about him. The author of the work “On the Resurrection of the Dead” says that many talked about the resurrection, but, in his opinion, they substantiated it with insufficient completeness (14). The author's own treatise is an attempt to prove the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead in a purely philosophical way. He takes the doctrine of the resurrection in its entirety from the general church belief and seeks to substantiate it completely speculatively: therefore he omits all evidence from the Holy Scriptures or Church tradition. If he (in Chapter 18) cites the apostolic words, then not in order to find in them proof of the thoughts he reveals - but in order to express what has been proven in the words of the Apostle that are convenient for his purpose. Substantiating the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection, the work of Athenagoras is at the same time polemical in nature, addressing unbelievers and doubters in order to prove to them that they have no reason for their unbelief and doubt, since not believing what is not itself incredible is characteristic of people who do not have a sound judgment regarding the truth (2). The work falls into two parts. The first (1–10) refutes objections to the possibility of resurrection. Unbelievers who, with the appearance of reasonableness of their doubts, doubt the resurrection, must provide evidence that God has neither the power nor the desire to unite human bodies that have been subjected to death and destruction and restore them to the same human image. If they cannot provide such evidence, then they should remain silent and renounce their unbelief as blasphemy against God. We can provide evidence that God has the power and desire to raise the bodies of the dead. God can raise the dead because He has the knowledge and power to do so. a) God has the necessary knowledge, since He knows the organization of the bodies destined for the resurrection in whole and in parts. He knows exactly where every part of the destroyed body is located; He knows the elements of which the body consisted, if they were completely inaccessible to the human eye. Even before the formation of the human body, God knew the parts of matter of which they would be composed. It is clear that even after the destruction of the whole He knows where every particle of the material necessary for the new formation of the body is located; since it is more to foresee what does not yet exist than to know already existing objects after their destruction. b) God also has sufficient power to resurrect bodies. For, if in the first creative act He called human bodies into existence out of nothing, then He can resurrect them again after their destruction. He could form matter without form and give it form; the same creative power can revive the dead and give incorruption to the corruptible. He has the power to bring the scattered parts of a destroyed organism back into unity. The objection of philosophers that some people are devoured by animals, and these animals become food for people, so that parts of the human body undergo numerous metamorphoses, why it is impossible for each person to return his own body, Athenagoras considers to be based on a false assumption. For God, the Creator and Provider, indicated to each organism the nutrition corresponding to its nature, which, due to the process of digestion and assimilation of food, passes into the being of the eater. If an animal or a person eats the human body, then it does not turn into the food indicated by God and corresponding to nature, and the human body eaten, contrary to the order established by God, does not pass into the being of the walker and is again ejected through the process of digestion. c) But God has not only knowledge and power, but also the desire to raise the dead, for God wants everything that is righteous and worthy of Him. The resurrection of human bodies would be impossible if it were an injustice for those being resurrected or for other creatures, but this cannot actually be said: there is no injustice in it either in relation to the Angels, or in relation to those resurrected, or in relation to their soul and body. It is also worthy of God, because the bodies of the resurrected will be more glorious than the previous bodies and incorruptible, otherwise creation itself must be considered unworthy of God. The second part (11–25) is much longer; in it the author seeks to prove the reality and necessity of the Resurrection and provides arguments for this purpose; a) From the reason for the creation of man ἀνθρωπος); b) From the natural properties of man (ἀπò τη ς κανη ς πάντων ἀνθρώπων ὡ ς ἀνθρώπων φύσεως); c) From the doctrine of righteous Judgment (ἀπò τη ς του ποιήσαντος δικαίας κρίτειος), and d) From the ultimate goal of man (ἀπò του τέλος του ἀνθρώπου ). a) Man is called to existence not without a purpose and is endowed with soul and body not in order to live like animals only for a certain period of time, but in order to have eternal existence, like other creatures created in the image of God. Everything that is endowed with reason cannot be intended for a transitory existence or for serving another creation, but for an independent existence. The only purpose of his existence is to use a rational being directed towards God; he must be a witness of the glory of God and His wisdom reflected in everything. This purpose of existence provides man with his eternal continuation. If the body goes through various stages of development, then death and resurrection are also one of many temporary changes, and only with the resurrection from the dead does it enter into the final form of being (11-13). b) By nature, a person consists of soul and body. The synthesis or living union of body and soul which constitutes his being requires the eternal continuation of the existence of body and soul. But such eternal existence is unthinkable without resurrection. If there is no eternal existence and resurrection, then everything is in vain, the creation and development of human nature is in vain, the curbing of passions and the exercise of virtues are in vain. The spiritual and moral properties of a person require the continuation of his existence. Wisdom, insight, the moral virtues of moderation, chastity and courage are determined by the general activity of the body and soul. Only with a harmonious combination of both can he strive to know God and imitate His righteousness. Without a doubt, the body is destroyed when a person dies. However, this destruction is a consequence of his corruptible existence, and resurrection to incorruptibility and eternal existence is proof of his similarity to his spiritual being. If the connection between soul and body is temporarily interrupted through the destruction of parts of the body, then it is necessary to remember that even during sleep, spiritual forces and the activity of the senses weaken, in order to later come to life with new strength. That is why sleep is rightly called the brother of death. In death, as in sleep, the vital activity of the soul and body is interrupted. With awakening and resurrection, this anomaly is destroyed, consciousness returns and the unity of soul and body is restored (14–17). c) Complete destruction of the body is excluded by the doctrine of Divine Providence and righteousness. If there is a Righteous Judgment, then it must extend to the whole person, to the body and to the soul, and the corruptible must, according to the Apostle, be clothed with incorruptibility. If only the soul received a reward for good deeds, then this would be an obvious injustice to the body, since some virtues are primarily performed by the body, which takes part in the struggle of the soul, and some vices are performed primarily by the body. Virtues and vices are unthinkable in one soul; therefore it is absurd to attribute reward and punishment to the soul alone. Therefore, the body must be resurrected in order to take part in the reward of the soul. It would be unreasonable for one soul to assimilate the consequences of virtues and vices when they are the work of both. And if there were no reward for human actions, then people who fight passions and care about justice and virtues would be much more unhappy than unreasonable animals (18–23). d) What has been said is also confirmed by considering the ultimate goal of man. Man, as a rational being, has a higher goal than irrational creatures. Animals are satisfied with sensual pleasures; people, gifted with an immortal soul and rational judgment, cannot be content with them. Since the goal of his existence, which goes beyond the sensory, cannot be achieved in this life, its fulfillment must be sought in another life. But if a person is a synthesis of soul and body, then there is no bliss of the soul without the body, why should the body be resurrected. Both in unbroken communion should enjoy endless joy and contemplation of the eternal God (24-25). IV. 3. Author of the “Petition for Christians” and the treatise “On the Resurrection of the Dead” In the Codex of Arethas, both works, the contents of which are stated above, bear the name of “Athenagoras, a Christian philosopher from Athens.” But we do not have any information about the author himself. In all patristic literature, Athenagoras is known, or at least named, by only two witnesses. Methodius of Olympus († 312) in his work περì ἀναστάσεως (1:37, 1) cites several lines from the “Petition for Christians” (24), calling its author Athenagoras (καθάπερ ἐλέχθη καì Ἀθηναγόρα ). A century later, the 5th century church historian Philip of Sides speaks about him, or, more precisely, the unknown author of a brief account of the primates of the Alexandrian catechetical school, which he extracted from the “Christian History” of Philip of Sides. According to him, Athenagoras flourished during the reign of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius and presented his petition for Christians to these Emperors; initially he wanted to refute Christianity on the basis of the books of Holy Scripture, but he converted to Christianity and was the first head of the Alexandrian school; his student was Clement of Alexandria, the latter's student was Panten. This testimony about Athenagoras is full of inconsistencies and contradictions: Athenagoras could not have been at the peak of his activity already under Hadrian and Anthony Pius, and his Apology was addressed not to these Emperors, but to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; in the same way, Athenagoras was not the first head of the Alexandrian school, just as Clement was not the teacher of Panten, but on the contrary, and precisely at the time when, according to the instructions of the named author, Athenagoras should be the head of the Alexandrian school, Panten was at its head. From this entire message, only one thing can be considered probable, that Athenagoras wrote the Apology and was in Alexandria. He could have had some kind of relationship with the catechetical school. As the inscription of the "Petition for Christians" shows, Athenagoras, like other apologists, was a philosopher by profession and was from Athens, or at least lived there for a long time. The attribution of the “Petition for Christians” and the treatise on the Resurrection to Athenagoras is very insufficiently verified. Actually, the only witness is the codex of Aretha, together with the lists derived from it. For the “Petition for Christians”, confirmation of the testimony of the Code of Arethas is also a reference to it in Methodius of Olympus. But not a single writer mentions the treatise “On the Resurrection of the Dead,” not even Methodius, who knew Athenagoras and himself wrote the work περì ἀναστάσεως. Despite this paucity of evidence, it can now be said that it is universally accepted that a) there is no reason to doubt the identity of the author of both works and b) this author was precisely the philosopher Athenagoras. IV. 4. Characteristics of Athenagoras as a writer and theologian Athenagoras, like other apologists, sees true philosophy in Christianity, because its basis is in perfect, Divine truth and it has rational content, giving a satisfying and generally understandable solution to the questions on which all true philosophers worked; In contrast to ordinary philosophy, Christian philosophy comes from Revelation and continues to spread according to the will of God. “Poets and philosophers,” says Athenagoras, “did not turn out to be so capable of comprehending the truth, because they thought to acquire knowledge of God not from God, but each on his own; therefore, each of them taught differently about God, and about matter, and about forms, and about the world. And what we know and what we believe, we have as witnesses the prophets, who, by inspiration from the Divine Spirit, proclaimed both about God and about Divine things. Of course, you too (address to the Emperors), rising above others with wisdom and reverence for the truly Divine, will agree how unreasonable it is to abandon faith in the Spirit of God, Who moved the lips of the prophets as instruments, and to turn to human opinions (Legat., 7; cf.: 9). Worldly wisdom and Divine wisdom are different from one another, just as truth is different from sophistry: the first - prophetic and theological wisdom - comes from heaven, and the second - worldly wisdom - from earth (Legat., 24). But, despite such a decisive shade of the concept of Christian Revelation, in the works of Athenagoras there is a greater influence of Greek philosophy than other apologists known to us, which is why he is called “the Christian philosopher from Athens” or “a Christian in the clothes of a philosopher.” There is no doubt that Athenagoras, not only before converting to Christianity, was intensively engaged in philosophy, but even after that he retained the habits of a philosopher both in his proofs and in his disposition of thoughts, especially in his essay “On the Resurrection,” he uses philosophical terms and forms; as in his presentation, he adheres more to the purely Greek language than his Christian contemporaries. Judging by numerous quotes, cursory mentions and judgments about places from famous philosophical, poetic, mythological or historical works (places from Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Empedocles, Plato, Callimachus, Plutarch and others are cited), Athenagoras was a highly educated and well-read Greek, and, with his characteristic keen sense logic and clear dialectics, it must be admitted that he not only knew the philosophical and especially Platonic works quoted and touched upon in his “Petition” by name and general content, but thoroughly studied and mastered the metaphysical and logical views of the cited authors and, above all, Plato. In dogmatic-historical terms, both works of Athenagoras have very little significance due to the paucity of specifically theological content in them. In them - with the exception of the teaching about the Trinity, about angels and demons, about the resurrection and reward in the afterlife - there is absolutely no mention of the sacraments and teachings of the Christian faith, such as, for example, Baptism, the Eucharist, and especially the death of Christ on the cross, in general about Christology and soteriology. Christ in His historical and human appearance - as the subject of Christian dogma and the general Christian consciousness of that time - is not named by name either in the “Petition” or in the essay “On the Resurrection”. The entire Christology of Athenagoras is exhausted by the doctrine expressed in certain places about the Logos “Son of God”, as the principle and mediator of peace. As the grain of Christianity, along with monotheism and the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh set forth in the second work, there is high and pure morality, the practice of the virtuous life of Christians, which, according to the plan and purpose of his “Petition,” is strongly brought to the fore. The most important for determining the dogmatic views of Athenagoras are the 10th and 24th chapters of the “Petition.” In the first of them, Athenagoras writes: “We recognize one God as universal, eternal, invisible and impassive, immense and immeasurable, comprehended by one mind and reason, filled with light and beauty, spirit and ineffable power, Who with His word He created and arranged everything and contains everything. We also recognize the Son of God, and let no one find it funny that God has a Son, for we do not represent God the Father and the Son in the same way as the poets fable, whose gods are no better than people. The Son of God is the Word of the Father in idea and action, for according to Him and through Him all things were created, because the Father and the Son are one. And since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, according to the unity and power of the spirit, then the Son of God is the mind and word of the Father. He is the first birth of the Father, not because It happened - for God from the beginning, as the eternal mind, had the Word in Himself, being eternally verbal (λογικòς ὤ ν), but He came from Him in order to be the idea and effective force for all material things, which were in the form of qualityless nature and inactive earth, when the lightest particles were mixed with the heaviest. Our words are confirmed by the Spirit of prophecy: “The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways into His works.” We affirm that this very Holy Spirit, acting in the prophets, is an outflow (ἀπόρροιαν ε ἶ ναι) of God, flowing out and returning like a sunbeam. So, who after this will not be surprised to hear that those who confess God the Father and God the Son and the Holy Spirit are called atheists and recognize their power in unity and difference in order? However, our Theological teaching is not limited to this: but we also recognize the multitude of angels and servants whom the Creator and Maker of the world, God, through His Word, appointed and distributed to rule the elements and the heavens and the world, and everything that is in it, and their ordering.” In the 24th chapter we read: “We recognize God and the Son - His Word - and the Holy Spirit, namely, united in the power of the Father, Son and Spirit, for the Son is the mind, word and wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit is an outflow like light from fire. We also admit other forces that rule over matter and through matter, namely one hostile to God, not in the sense that it was something opposing God, such as, for example, hostility to friendship according to Empedocles, or night to day in heavenly phenomena (for if anything opposed God, it would lose its existence and would be destroyed by the power and strength of God), but in the sense that this force is contrary to the good God..., this adversary is the spirit surrounding matter, originating from God, just as the other Angels originated from Him, to whom was entrusted the management of matter and its species. For this is the structure of the Angels, so that they serve God in providing for what He has created, so that God has a comprehensive and general providence for everything, and the Angels assigned to them have providence for the parts. Just as people have the freedom to choose good and evil (for you would not reward the good and punish the evil if vice and virtue were not in their power, and some turn out to be correct in what you entrusted them with, and others - unfaithful), so do the Angels. Some of them, free, as they were created by God, remained in that for which God created them and determined them, while others abused both their nature and power; such is the prince of matter and its types, and others who make up the fortification around the first... these fell into lust for virgins and were conquered by the flesh, and he became careless and crafty in the management entrusted to him. From those who had communication with virgins, the so-called giants were born... These angels, who fell from heaven and live in the air and on earth and can no longer ascend to heaven, as well as the souls of giants, who are actually demons wandering around the world, perform actions, some, namely, demons, corresponding to the nature that they received, and others - namely, Angels - to the lusts that they had; the prince of matter... invents and arranges things contrary to the goodness of God” (24, 25). The dogmatic teaching of Athenagoras contained in the above words is quite definite, and only some points require brief explanations. From the purpose of the Apology and the accusations that were brought against Christians in the time of Athenagoras, it is absolutely clear that the unity of God, in contrast to the plurality of pagan gods, must constitute an essential part and a necessary assumption of the entire doctrine of God revealed by Athenagoras. Indeed, Athenagoras persistently expounds this doctrine of the unity of God, exalted above the world, time and space, and sharply separates Him from matter, everything corporeal and sensory, depicting Him as an absolutely transcendent being in terms of Platonic philosophy. This transcendence of God requires the existence and activity of a Divine mediator, the Logos, to bring into being and preserve the world. In the doctrine of the Logos, Athenagoras comes into contact with the views and sayings of Justin, but in its general construction it reveals a significant dependence on Plato. Athenagoras, from considering the Logos as the principle of peacemaking, ascends to the Logos, Whom God has from eternity. The Logos or “Son of God” is the first birth of God, but not as if He came into being only for the purpose of creating peace: He was always in God; From the beginning He was with the Father as the mind and Word of God. God, as eternal reason, eternally had the Logos, since He Himself is from eternity λογικός, νου ς, λόγος. But monotheistic interests force Athenagoras to insist with particular force on the unity of the Logos with the Father. He affirms this close unity between God and the Logos not only in the time before the manifestation of the Logos for the purposes of peacemaking, but also for the Logos, when He, together with creation and after the creation of the world, became, as it were, immanent to the world. The Son came from His immanent, eternal existence with the Father in order to show Himself in matter only as idea and energy. Thus, the birth of the Son is, as it were, reduced to the image of the creative manifestation of the Logos: His “coming” is not a new way of being in comparison with the previous being in God, but turns out to be only an action from His eternal immanent relation to the Father. The Logos is an active mediator in God’s relationship to the world: through Him the creation and arrangement of the world is accomplished, and by Him the world is preserved in its existence. In this last relationship of God to the world, as the Provider who imparts life, the third Person of the Trinity, the Spirit, also appears: God, by His Spirit, governs all created things and affirms both the difference of God from things and at the same time His unity (Legat., 5). It comes from God, like light from fire. The world is contained by Him, and He imparts knowledge of God through the prophets. But in Athenagoras, the noted monotheistic interest appears to such an extent that, despite all the apparent clarity in his confession of the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Trinitarian concepts, especially the Logos, so lose their specific content that the question is raised whether by these concepts we mean different Divine Persons or different manifestations of a single Divine essence in relation to the world. However, here one can rather see the lack of precision in terminology so common among pre-Nicene writers. Athenagoras paints the ideal of Christian life in bright and exciting colors (chapters 31 and 33). In his ideal assessment of the moral life of Christians, Athenagoras gives too much praise to celibacy and calls the second marriage specious adultery (εύπρεπής μοιχεία), and the one who enters into a second marriage “discreet adulterer.” Therefore, Athenagoras is often accused of being inclined towards Montanistic views, but completely unfairly: in this case, Athenagoras would have decisively rejected the second marriage and would have branded it with the name αἰσχρά μοιχεία. Against the reproach for the licentious life of Christians, Athenagoras with particular force points out their moral strictness and says that many remain celibate into old age in the hope of uniting more closely with God, while for those who are married, childbearing is the measure of their desire; the second marriage is a sign of intemperance and is considered as a violation of the fidelity promised to the first spouse: “he who departs from the first wife, even if she has died, is a hidden adulterer, both because he violates the order of God, for in the beginning God created one husband and one wife, and because he destroys the closest connection of flesh with flesh, which occurred through sexual union” (33). In general, Athenagoras reports from Christian doctrine and morals only what he considers necessary for his immediate goal. He is convinced that brief instructions are enough for opponents to form a correct idea of ​​Christianity. Having outlined the main provisions of the dogmatic teaching of Christians, he says: “here is a little of the great and a little of the many, so as not to tire you (the Emperors) with the big. Those who taste honey or milk, and from a small part learn about everything - whether it is good” (12). Athenagoras is inferior in originality of thought to Justin and Tatian, but significantly surpasses them, especially the latter, in the ability of literary presentation, in the purity and beauty of language, simplicity, clarity and consistency of plan. His speech flows calmly and reflects the author’s firm consciousness of the correctness of his convictions and the irrefutability of the arguments, which he knows how to use for the revealed provisions with logical consistency. His “Petition for Christians” is a brilliant apology in the proper sense of the word. With purely legal precision, he refutes the reproaches of the pagans directed against Christians, combining his polemics with constantly respectful, even panegyric appeals to love, to the truth and sense of justice of the Emperors. His polemics are full of dignity and recede into the background before positive evidence based on Christian doctrine and moral teaching; it is in the first part that he presents in places a brilliant presentation of Christian doctrine in philosophical form, and in the last he gives an excellent depiction of Christian morality against absurd accusations. The great merit of Athenagoras is that he set himself the task of philosophically substantiating and presenting as a requirement of reason the doctrine of the resurrection, which is difficult for pagans to understand. Given the indicated merits of the works of Athenagoras, it seems somewhat strange that they had such little distribution in antiquity: even Eusebius does not mention them at all. A. Harnack’s attempt to prove the identity of the “Petition” of Athenagoras with the second Apology of Justin on the basis of evidence from the codex of 1364 (Cod. Paris. 450) was recognized as unlikely by its author himself (Gesch. der altchristl. Litt. Th. l, Leipzig, 1893, S. 257). It is necessary to recognize as more consistent the explanation according to which the works of Athenagoras found few readers due to their purely philosophical nature, as a work written with great care, supplied with scientific references; and the conciliatory panegyric tone, in contrast to the polemical nature of Justin's Apologies, did not correspond to the mood of the Christians, who for a long time were still in a very difficult situation without rights and under the threat of constant persecution from the Government, as the persecution of Christians in Gaul showed in the very near future. V. 1. Ancient news about the literary activity of Theophilus The name of Theophilus takes us to Antioch, the capital of Syria - a place of collision and mixing of Greek and Eastern culture. The prominence of the Antiochian Church dates back to the early days of Christianity. Founded by the Apostle Paul, ruled by the Apostle Peter as its first bishop, counting among its worthy successors the martyr Ignatius, it has long preserved the high traditions of its origin. Theophilus was the sixth bishop of the Antiochian Church. In the “Ecclesiastical History” (4:24) of Eusebius we read the following message about him: “From Theophilus, who was the bishop of the Antiochian Church, we have reached: three books of the initial teaching to Autolycus, a book with the inscription: Against the heresy of Hermogenes, in which he gives evidence from the Revelation of John and several other catechetical works. Since at that time heretics, like tares, were no less harmful to the pure seed of the apostolic teaching, the shepherds of the Church everywhere tried to drive them away from the flock of Christ, like wild animals, sometimes with instructions and admonitions to the brethren themselves, sometimes by open struggle against enemies, sometimes by oral contests and refutations, sometimes through writings, denouncing their opinions with the most precise arguments. Theophilus also rebelled against them, along with others; this can be seen from his excellent book written against Marcion - it, along with the above-mentioned ones, has survived to this day.” Thus, in the time of Eusebius, the following works of Theophilus of Antioch existed: three books to Autolycus (τρία τà πρòς Αὐτόλυκον στοιχειώδη συγγράμματα), a work against the heresy of Hermogenes, a work against Marcion and catechetical works (κατηχητικà βιβλία). Blessed Jerome does not limit himself to repeating the news of Eusebius, but supplements it with new data that speaks of his independent acquaintance with the works of Theophilus. In “On Famous Men” (25) he writes: “Theophilus, the sixth bishop of the Antiochian Church, under the Emperor Marcus Antoninus Vera, wrote a book against Marcion, which exists to this day. He also wrote three books on Autolycus, one book against Hermogenes, and other short and excellent treatises relating to the creation of the Church (breves elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem ecclesiae pertinentes). I have read commentaries on the Gospel and on the Proverbs of Solomon known under his name, which, it seems to me, do not resemble the grace of form and the language (phrasi) of the above-mentioned books.” Jerome points to Theophilus’ commentary on the Gospel two more times. In the Epistle to Algasia (Ep. 121 ad Algasiam) he writes: “Theophilus, after the Apostle Peter, the seventh bishop of the Antiochian Church, who, by bringing into one creation the sayings of all four Evangelists, left us a monument of his talent (ingenii), in his comments speaks of this parable in this way (Luke 16:1-8) ...”, and then follows an explanation of the parable of the unrighteous. manager He also speaks about Theophilus’s comments in the preface to the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. In the West, even earlier, Jerome mentions the work of Theophilus to Autolycus Lactantius (Instit. div. 1:23: Theophilus in libro de temporibus ad Autolycum scripto ait). From later times, only the testimony of Gennadius of Marseilles has survived (De vir. ill., 34), who, speaking of Theophilus of Alexandria, mentions the “tres libros fidei (al.: defide libros)” known under his name - probably the three books to Autolycus of Theophilus of Antioch. We no longer find here any indication of the literary activity of Theophilus of Antioch. But what is especially surprising is that the tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches knows little about him: with the exception of the compilers of acta Parallela and the chronicler John Malala, not a single historian mentions Theophilus as a writer - not even Photius - not a single dogmatist, not a single martyrologist. These are the threads of the legend about the literary activity of the Antiochian bishop Theophilus, leading to the only manuscript of the Middle Ages - in which the “three books of Autolycus” have come down to us - precisely to the manuscript from the library of St. Mark in Venice (11th century). In the text of the manuscript the book is simply inscribed: “Θεοφίλουπρòς Αὐτόλυκον”, but in the table of contents of the manuscript, written by the hand of the copyist of the entire manuscript, a more extensive inscription is given: Θεοφίλου πατριάρχου ἕ κτου τη ς μεγàλης Ἀντιοχείας πρòς Αὐτόλυκον Ἕ "" V. 2. Three books to Autolycus The three books to Autolycus represent three different works, and not three parts of one work, and were caused by oral conversations between Bishop Theophilus and his friend (ἕ ταιρος) pagan Autolycus, who allowed himself to laugh at the name and religious teaching of Christians and acted as a defender of the pagan cult. In the First Book, consisting of 14 chapters, Theophilus talks about monotheism, the knowledge of God and the resurrection of the dead. Autolycus mockingly asked Theophilus to show him his God. Theophilus replies: “Show me your man, and I will show you my God; show what the eyes of your soul see and the ears of your heart hear,” and reveals the subjective conditions of faith, pointing out the dependence of religious knowledge on the purity of mood. “Just as the bodily eyes of sighted people see the objects of this earthly life and perceive the difference between light and darkness, between white and black, ugly and beautiful, right, proportionate and wrong, disproportionate, or as the ears distinguish sounds, so exactly are the ears of the heart and the eyes of the soul to see God. And God becomes visible to those who are able to see Him, whose spiritual eyes are open. Everyone has eyes, but for others they are covered in darkness and do not see sunlight. And although the blind do not see, the sunlight still exists and shines, and let the blind complain about themselves and about their eyes; so you too, my friend, the eyes of your soul are darkened by your sins and evil deeds. A person must have a soul as pure as a shining mirror. When there is rust on the mirror, a human face cannot be seen in the mirror; so a person, when there is sin in him, cannot contemplate God.” Devotion to carnal passions covers the soul with darkness, and God cannot be revealed in it until it is cleansed from all filth. “And you, my friend, are so darkened by iniquities that you cannot see God” (2). To the further demand of Autolycus: “You who see, describe to me the image of God,” Theophilus replies: “The appearance of God is indescribable and inexplicable, for it cannot be seen with carnal eyes; His glory is infinite, his greatness is immense, his height is incomprehensible, his power is immeasurable, his wisdom is unsearchable, his goodness is inimitable, his benefits are ineffable” (3). The name (θεός) designates only one side of His activity. “He is called θεός - διà τò τεθεικέκι, because He placed everything in His fortress, and διà τò θέειν: the word θέειν means - to run, move, produce, nourish, provide, manage, revive everything." All the properties we attribute to Him are only partial definitions of His being (4). Just as the soul in a person is invisible to people, but is known through the movement of the body, so God cannot be seen with human eyes - He is contemplated and known from His Providence and actions, from the creation of the world and its management. But this knowledge must be preceded by moral life, faith and fear of God. “If you understand this, friend, and live purely, holy and righteously, then you can see God; First of all, let faith and the fear of God be established in your heart, and then you will understand this. When you put aside mortal things and put on immortality, then you will see God as you should. For God will raise up your immortal flesh together with your soul, and then, having become immortal, you will see the Immortal, if you now believe in Him, and then you will know how unjustly you spoke about Him” (7). The resurrection of the dead, which Autolycus did not believe in, is justified primarily by indicating that in all matters faith precedes and is necessary. “What farmer can get a harvest if he does not first entrust the soil to the seed? Who can cross the sea unless he first trusts the ship and the helmsman? What patient can be cured if he does not first trust the doctor? What art or knowledge can we learn if we do not first surrender ourselves and trust the teacher? So, the landowner trusts the land, the sailor trusts the ship, and the sick person trusts the doctor, but you do not want to trust God, having so many guarantees from Him. God created man from non-existence into existence, brought him into this life... Do you believe that the statues created by people are gods and do wonderful things; and you do not believe that God, who created you, may one day recreate you” (8). Further, Theophilus briefly points out the unreasonableness of the pagan teaching about the gods (9-10), against the demands made on Christians to worship Caesar, establishes the true nature of the relationship with the Emperor: “I will honor the king, honor him, not by worshiping him, but by praying for him; I worship God - Who truly is the true God - knowing that the king was created by Him. He is not God, but a man appointed by God, not to be worshiped, but to judge righteously. He is entrusted with government by God, and just as he does not allow anyone placed below him to be called kings - for the name of king belongs to him and no one else is allowed to be called by this name - so worship does not belong to anyone except the one God (11). Against Autolycus’s ridicule of the name of Christians, Theophilus explains: “We are called Christians because we are anointed with the oil of God, and what is anointed is pleasant, beneficial, and should not be subject to ridicule (12). Theophilus again returns to the question of resurrection and provides evidence of the possibility from natural phenomena: the change of day and night and seasons, the growth of plants from seeds that die in the earth, decompose, then grow, the phases of the moon, the restoration of the strength and beauty of the body. “All this produces the wisdom of God in order to prove that God can accomplish the general resurrection of all people (13). “So do not be an unbeliever, but believe. I also did not believe before that this would happen, but now I believe after I have understood these evidences and together read the sacred writings of the holy prophets, who, by inspiration from the Spirit of God, predicted the past as it happened, and the present as it happens, and the future as it will be fulfilled. Thus, convinced by what is happening and was previously announced, I now do not remain in unbelief, but believe, obeying God. You too, if you want, obey and believe in him, so that if you don’t believe now, you won’t be forced to believe then through eternal torment?” These punishments were predicted by the prophets, and the philosophers and poets who came after them stole the teaching about them from the Holy Scriptures in order to give credibility to their opinions. “If you want, you should carefully read the prophetic writings, and they will lead you in the surest way to avoid eternal torment and receive the eternal blessings of God”... “Since you, my friend, said: show me your God, then this is what my God is, and I advise you to fear Him and believe in Him” (14). Theophilus precisely indicates the reason for writing the second book at the very beginning of it. “In the conversation,” he says, “which we had with you a few days ago, dear Autolycus, when you asked me who my God is and took some time to listen to my words, I spoke to you about my religion; then we again parted amicably from each other and each went to his own home, although at first you received me sternly: you know and remember that our teaching seemed stupid to you. Since after that you yourself asked me, although I am ignorant in words, I now want, in this book, to more thoroughly prove to you the uselessness of your work and the futility of your service in which you are, and at the same time present the truth clearly to you through some of your historical tales, which you read, but perhaps do not fully understand” (1). The second book is much more extensive than the first - it consists of 38 chapters. Theophilus proves the inconsistency of idolatry first of all on the basis of the material properties of the gods and then on the basis of the contradictory opinions of Greek poets, philosophers and historians about the origin and essence of the gods. They themselves unwittingly admit that they do not know the truth. They spoke under the inspiration of demons: the poets Homer and Hesiod, inspired, as they say, by the muses, spoke under the influence of fantasy and seduction from a spirit that is not pure, but deceitful. This is clearly proven by the fact that those possessed by demons, even at the present time, are conjured in the name of the true God, and these false spirits themselves admit that they are demons who once acted in the named poets. However, some of them, having come to a sound state of mind, said something in agreement with the prophets, so this serves as evidence against themselves and against all people (2-8). Theophilus contrasts these representatives of the pagan world with “people of God, filled with the Holy Spirit, true prophets, inspired and wise by God himself, who received knowledge, holiness and righteousness from above”; they were “organs of God and vessels of wisdom from God.” They all spoke in agreement with each other about what happened before them, and about what happened under them, and about what is now happening before our eyes. The prophets set forth a clear teaching about the creation of the world and man, which Theophilus speaks about in some detail, presenting and evaluating biblical events with the introduction of an allegorical element, but in an animated and thoughtful manner. Then follows the narrative of the Fall and its consequences and the initial history of mankind before the confusion of languages ​​and the scattering of peoples throughout the earth (9–32). “Which of the wise men, poets, and historians you call could tell the truth about this, when they lived much later, and introduced many gods, who themselves were born many years after the construction of cities - after kings, nations and wars?.. All others are mistaken, and only Christians possess the truth, since we are taught by the Holy Spirit, Who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold all things” (33). Towards the end of the book, some instructions of the prophets about true worship of God and a God-pleasing life are set out, for which he even refers to the authority of the Sibyls and the testimonies of some Hellenic poets. “So,” concludes Theophilus, “he who wants to learn must learn. Try to meet with me more often, so that, hearing the still living speech, you will truly know the truth” (34-38). The third book consists of 30 chapters and aims to refute the objection of Autolycus that the books of Holy Scripture to which Theophilus refers are recent in time, and at the same time to show the idle talk and immorality of the works of Hellenic literature, which Autolycus diligently read (1-8). The last thought gives Theophilus a reason to object to the widespread accusations of Christians in society of illegal mixing and eating human flesh. The best refutation of these fabrications is the teaching and life of Christians: among them, chastity is practiced, abstinence is observed, monogamy is revered, purity is preserved, untruth is destroyed, sin is eradicated, justice is respected, the law is revered, God is honored; God is confessed, truth reigns, grace preserves, peace protects, the Word of God guides, wisdom teaches, life rules, God reigns (9-15). Only in the second half of the book does the author begin to present a detailed chronology so that Autolycus learns that the teaching of Christians is not new and not fabulous, but ancient and more reliable than all pagan poets and writers who wrote about the unknown. It is not difficult to prove that the writings of the prophets are older than the beginnings of Greek history and literature, even older than the time of myths: Moses lived 900 or even 1000 years before the Trojan War. The antiquity of the world is calculated on the basis of the chronological instructions of the LXX, and from the creation of the world until the return of the Jews from captivity is considered 4954, and from this event until the death of Marcus Aurelius is considered to be 741, so the duration of the world until the death of Marcus Aurelius is considered to be 5695 years (chapters 16–33) - Theophilus invites Autolycus to diligently read his books in order to have an adviser and a guarantee of truth. a) The time of writing the Three Books of Autolycus To determine the time of origin of the three books of Autolycus, the calculation of the antiquity of the world in the third book, where the terminus adquem is based on the death of Marcus Aurelius, is essential; at the same time, Theophilus refers to the chronography of the nomenclator Chriser, the freedman of Marcus Aurelius, “who described everything - both names and times, starting from the founding of Rome until the death of his patron and autocrat Verus.” Consequently, Chriser’s work was also published only after the death of Marcus Aurelius, which followed on March 17, 180. On the other hand, Theophilus not only does not mention the death of Marcus Aurelius’s successor, Commodus, but does not even include the years of the reign of this Emperor in his calculation. Thus, we can assume that the third book was written at the very beginning of the reign of Commodus, that is, in 181–182. As for the first two books, they could have been written much earlier, since the connection between all the books is purely external and does not necessarily require close temporal continuity. b) Author of three books to Autolycus In the news of antiquity and in handwritten tradition, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, is named as the author of the three books to Autolycus. Information about him is very scarce. From the work itself it is clear that its author was originally a pagan and converted to Christianity in adulthood, after long reflection and careful study of the Holy Scriptures, especially the prophets (1:14). Hellenically educated, he had some knowledge of the Hebrew language, as evidenced by his attempts to explain Hebrew words (Saturday, Eden, Noah - 11, 12, 24; III, 19). Depicting paradise, Theophilus says: “The Tigris and Euphrates are well known to us, since these rivers are close to our countries” (II, 24) - from this we can conclude that the East was not only the place of residence, but also the birthplace of Theophilus. It is difficult to decide whether he was a Syrian, but it is certain that his language and education were Greek, He was a bishop of the Antiochian Church. Eusebius calls him the sixth Bishop of Antioch (Chron.adan. Abr. 2185; Hist. eccl. 4:20), and Jerome - sometimes the sixth (sextus Antiochensis ecclesiae episcopus: De vir. ill., 25), sometimes the seventh (Antiochenae ecclesiae septimus post Petrum apostolum episcopus: Epist. 121, ad Algas., 6) - however, this difference is explained solely by the fact that in the first case Jerome does not include the Apostle Peter, and in the second he considers him the first bishop of Antioch. Eusebius also gives the closest indications regarding the time of Theophilus's episcopate: in the Chronicle, he dates Theophilus's accession to the episcopal see in the year 2185 from Abraham, that is, in the 169th year of our era, and the beginning of the reign of his successor Maximin to the year 2193 from Abraham, that is, in the year 177. Since there is no data about such events in the Antiochian Church that would prompt the installation of a new bishop during the life of his predecessor, it is natural to assume that Maximin took the see after the death of Theophilus. But in this case, the year 177, indicated in the Chronicle of Eusebius as the year of Maximinus’s accession to the see, introduces difficulty in resolving the question of the author of the three books to Autolycus, since it stands in clear contradiction with the conclusion from the third book, according to which Theophilus was still alive in the years 181–182 and at that time continued his literary activity. There is no other news about the time of Maximin's bishopric; It is only recognized as firmly established that Serapion, the successor of Maximin, assumed the episcopal see in the year 190–191 (Adolf Harnack. Gesch. der altchristl. Litterat. Theil II, Bd. I., S. 208–213). Since there is no doubt that the third book to Autolycus was written after the death of Marcus Aurelius, it remains to assume that Eusebius made a mistake either in determining the year of accession to the department of Theophilus’s successor, Maximinus, and therefore in the death of Theophilus, or in the assimilation of the three books to Autolycus by Theophilus. There were attempts to prove that the books to Autolycus were indeed written by Theophilus, but not by the Bishop of Antioch, to whom they were attributed by Eusebius, but by a younger contemporary and fellow countryman of Bishop Theophilus (Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum. Oxoniae, 1689, p. 171, 182; C. Erbes, Die Lebenszeit des Hippolytus nebst der des Theophilus von Antiochien in: Jahrbücher protest. Theol. Bd. 14, 1888, S. 617–632). But since it is much easier to make a mistake in the chronological indication than in determining the identity of the author of the works, the testimony of Eusebius that the author of the three books to Autolycus was the Antiochian Bishop Theophilus is considered unshakable: Eusebius did not accurately indicate the year of accession to the department of Theophilus’s successor, Maximinus, and Theophilus died no earlier than the year 182. Therefore, there is no reason to seriously doubt the reliability of the tradition of Eusebius that Bishop Theophilus was the author of three books to Autolycus. V. 3. Other works of Theophilus that have not survived to our time a) In the books to Autolycus, Theophilus several times refers to a previously published work in which he spoke about the serpent or the devil (II, 28), about the genealogies of the first people (II, 30), about the history of Noah and his sons (I, 30-31; III, 19) and, perhaps, about legends regarding the pagan gods (III, 3). Theophilus does not indicate the title of this work. It consisted of at least two books and the first bore the special name “on history”, this can be concluded from the words of Theophilus, with which he points to the genealogies of the first people: (II, 30). This work of Theophilus has not survived. The Chronicle of John Malala contains nine quotations from “the very wise chronographer Theophilus”; but it is not possible to determine whether he extracted these quotations from the said work of Theophilus of Antioch, or mixed with it another later writer. b) Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 4:24) mentions the book of Theophilus with the inscription: “against the heresy of Hermogenes” (Πρòς τὴν α ἵ ρεσιν Ἑ ρμογένους), in which he cites evidence from the Revelation of John. c) Eusebius knew the “excellent” book of Theophilus against Marcion (Hist. eccl., 4:24). d) Eusebius also points to “certain catechetical works” of Theophilus (τινà κατηχητικà βιβλία), which Jerome (De vir. ill., 25) calls “short and excellent treatises relating to the creation of the Church” (breves elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem ecclesiae pertinentes). Nothing more is known about all these works (6, c, d). e) As was said, Jerome several times mentions Theophilus’ commentary on the Gospels and on the Proverbs of Solomon, and he combined the texts of the Gospels into one whole and explained this Gospel harmony itself, and not the text of the four Gospels. Jerome himself expresses doubts about the attribution of the comments to the Bishop of Antioch, Theophilus, on the basis of differences in language and structure of speech. But these comments were destined to become the subject of lively debate in recent times. In 1575, M. de la Bigne published, under the name of Theophilus of Antioch, a Latin commentary on the Gospels, which consists of four books and contains short and lengthy scholia to selected passages, with a predominant allegorical character. In the manuscript that dela Bigne used, this work was attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria. But de la Bigne assigned him the name Theophilus of Antioch on the grounds that in the third book, dedicated to the Gospel of Luke, there is that explanation of the parable of the unrighteous steward, which Jerome reported under the name of Theophilus of Antioch. This opinion of de la Bigne was accepted by some former scientists; however, it soon gave way to another view, that the commentary was a compilation, the author of which was a Latin writer of the 5th century. But recently de la Bigne’s view found unexpected support in the famous scholarly treatise of Zahnz, who, with enormous scientific apparatus and wit, tried to refute the established view that the commentary is only a compilation of various Latin commentaries on the Gospels, to indicate internal signs of its origin from Theophilus of Antioch (Der Evangelienkommentar des Theophilus von Antiochien in: Forschungen zur Gesch. desneutestam. Kanons. Theil II, Erlangen, 1883). He was opposed by A. Harnack, who in detailed explanations showed that the scholia, both on internal and external grounds, cannot be the work of Theophilus of Antioch, but are a simple compilation from the works of Latin church writers: Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Arnosius and others. These evidences of A. Harnack might have had the value of only probable conclusions, if purely external evidence had not been added here: A. Harnack found in Brussels a manuscript of a commentary written around the year 700; in it the commentary is preceded by a prologue, the author of which himself characterizes his work as a collection of passages from the most ancient interpreters. Further controversy only further revealed the inconsistency of Th's view. Zahn convinced that the commentary attributed by him to Theophilus of Antioch did not belong to him and was composed later than the time of his life, although the time of its origin has not been precisely established (perhaps at the end of the 5th century in Southern Gaul). V. 4. Characteristics of Theophilus of Antioch as a writer and theologian Thus, Theophilus developed a broad and multifaceted activity: he wrote in defense of Christianity against the negative attitude towards its dignity on the part of the pagans and in defense of the Church faith against modern false teachers, as well as for the instruction of believers. Theophilus of Antioch as a writer and theologian can be judged only on the basis of his three books to Autolycus. They clearly show a writer who received a rich and versatile Hellenic education and has extensive reading in literature and history. In the philosophical field he is inferior to Justin and Athenagoras and does not bear the name of Philosopher; however, not being an original writer, in his apology he everywhere reveals independence of judgment and skillfully defends his professed religion. Theophilus calls himself “ignorant of words” (ἰδιώτης τω @ λόγω) – II, 1; compare: 2 Cor. 11:6), but the three books of Autolycus show that this is nothing more than a rhetorical turn: he writes easily and naturally; his speech is rich in images, which is why Jerome already noted the grace and attractiveness of the style (elegantia – De vir. ill., 25). In formal terms, Theophilus' work should be ranked among the best works of this period. In his attitude to philosophy, Theophilus resembles Tatian; he never once calls Christian truth philosophy, since this name in his eyes was too discredited; for him Christianity is “the wisdom of God.” Christianity and philosophy are strongly opposed to each other. The religious and moral culture of the Greeks is traced back to poets, historians and philosophers II, 3 and other places). But poets and philosophers express contradictory judgments (II, 5); the latter contradict each other (II, 4; II, 8; III, 7) and even themselves (III, 3). All so-called philosophers, without exception, cannot be of serious importance; even Plato, the most venerable of them in his philosophy and the wisest of the Hellenes, is not higher than Epicurus and the Stoics and spoke inconsistencies (III, 6 and 16). Poets and philosophers composed myths and stupid tales (II, 8). Their way of thinking is useless and godless (III, 2). All of them, loving empty and vain glory, neither knew the truth themselves, nor led others to the truth (III, 3). The wisdom of philosophers and poets was essentially demonic wisdom: they spoke at the inspiration of demons (II, 8). Therefore, Divine Revelation was necessary. In His foreknowledge, God knew in advance the nonsense of vain philosophers (II, 15) and from ancient times announced the truth through the prophets, who set it out in the Holy Scriptures. This truth concerns the knowledge of God, the origin of the world and its history, as well as the virtuous life. Therefore, Theophilus in the second and third books introduces mainly the prophets, as representatives and guarantors of Christian truth; but at the same time, he refers more often than other apologists to the New Testament writers. For him, Evangelists are no less than prophets - men of God and spirit-bearers (II, 22; cf. II, 9); the prophets and evangelists spoke inspired by one Spirit of God (III, 12). Of the New Testament writers, he is named by the name of John, and is clearly ranked among the Spirit-bearers (II, 22). In general, the voice of the Gospel (ἡ εὐαγγέλιος φωνή) is called the sacred word - ἅ γιος λόγος (III, 13). Sayings from the Epistles of the Apostle Paul are also often cited and placed along with the writings of the prophets and evangelists (III, 14), as the Divine word (ὁ θει ος λόγος). However, Theophilus had to agree that not only the Sibyl proclaimed the truth - she can be ignored, since she was a prophetess among the Hellenes and other peoples (II, 36) - but that also the poets and philosophers clearly spoke in accordance with the prophets about the righteousness of God, judgment and punishment, about the providence of God in relation to the living and the dead, although against their will (II, 37 and 38, 8). Theophilus offers a twofold explanation for this fact. On the one hand, he sees the reason for this agreement in the imitation of Holy Scripture, in the fact that poets and philosophers stole the teaching from the law and the prophets (II, 12 and 37; I, 14); on the other hand, he admits that the pagan writers themselves, when the demons left them, spoke in agreement with the prophets about the unity of God, about the future Judgment and about other truths (II, 8), and this agreement cannot be surprised, since the freedom and self-determination with which man is endowed from creation should imperceptibly lead him to correct knowledge and to obedience to God (II, 27), as soon as he ceases to be under influence of demons. Theophilus contrasts the basic principle of pagan philosophy and the prevailing mood of an educated society regarding knowledge with the doctrine of faith, which precedes everything (ἀπάντων πραγμάτων ἡ πίστις προηγει ται – I, 8) and reveals the subjective conditions of faith, pointing out the dependence of religious knowledge on the purity of the soul (I, 2–3). Some points of Theophilus' Theology are important in the history of the revelation of the positive content of the Christian doctrine. Thus, for the first time among all Christian writers, there is an application of the term Τριάς to the Divine, namely, Theophilus writes: “those three days that were before the creation of the luminaries are images of the Trinity of God, His Word and His Wisdom” (II, 15). Theophilus uses the expression: God, Word and Wisdom wherever he wants to name the Divine persons of the Holy Trinity (I, 7; I, 10, 15, 18). The explanation of the above short passage is significantly complicated by the allegory used; but despite all this, the thought is clear enough to correctly assess the meaning of the significant formula. Further, in the doctrine of the Logos, Theophilus distinguishes between Λόγος ἐνδιάθεχος - the Word from eternity existing in the bosom of the Father and Λόγος προφορικός - the Word before the creation of the world born from the essence of the Father together with His Wisdom: “God, having His Word in His own bosom, begot Him, manifesting Him together with His Wisdom first of all. He had this Word as the Executor of His creations and through Him He created everything. It is called the Beginning because it rules and rules over everything that is created through Him. It, being the spirit of God, the beginning, the Wisdom and the power of the Most High, descended on the prophets and through them spoke about the creation of the world and everything else.” Theophilus speaks more clearly about the Logos in another place: “we truly represent the Son always existing in the bosom of the Father (τόν ὄντα διà παντòς ἐνδιάθετον ἐν καρδία Θεου); for before anything happened, God had Him as an Advisor, since He is His mind and thought. When God wanted to create what He had determined, He gave birth to this Word, externally manifested, the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), not, however, so that He Himself was deprived of the Word, but He gave birth to the Word and always remained with the Word. This Word, which is God and born of God, the Father of the Universe, when He wants, sends to any place, and when It appears, it is audible and visible and is in a certain place” (II, 22). In these words, the eternal existence of the Word in God is clearly defined as a personal existence with God, although the difference between the Logos existing in God (Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος) and the Manifested Logos (Λόγος προφορικός ) has not been precisely established. Less clear is Theophilus' teaching about the Holy Spirit, whom he calls the Wisdom of God; however, he undoubtedly understands him as the third Person of the Holy Trinity. In Theophilus we find a vivid depiction of the high moral life of Christians (III, 9–15), which he gives, like other apologists, in refutation of the dirty accusations brought against them by pagan society; no less clearly he expresses the consciousness of the world-saving significance of the very fact of the existence of Christianity: “The sea,” he says, “presents to us some semblance of the world; for just as the sea - if it were not supported by the tide of rivers and springs - would have dried up long ago due to its salinity, so the world, if it did not have the law of God and the prophets, from whom flow sweetness, mercy, truth and the teaching of the holy commandments of God, would have perished long ago due to malice and the sins multiplying in it. And just as there are inhabited islands on the sea, abundant in good waters and fruitful, having calm places and harbors in which those exposed to storms can find refuge; Thus, God gave the world, troubled and overwhelmed by sins, assemblies called holy Churches, in which, as in well-appointed harbors, the teaching of the truth is preserved, to which those who wish to be saved resort as soon as they become lovers of the truth and want to avoid the wrath and Judgment of God.” But Theophilus considers it necessary to warn Autolycus against heretical societies, which are like rocky, waterless, barren islands, full of wild animals, uninhabited and dangerous for those who sail and are subject to storms - ships are crushed over them and those who approach them perish: heresies are not guided by the word of truth, and those who deviate from the truth perish from their error (II, 14). A special place among the monuments of apologetic writing is occupied by the most beautiful work known as the “Epistle to Diognetus.” To this day, it is considered either among the writings of the Apostolic Men, or among the apologetic literature of the 2nd century; the reason for this is, on the one hand, that neither the name of the author of the Epistle, nor the identity of the addressee - Diognetus - nor the time of origin is known; on the other hand, in the fact that in its nature and content the Epistle represents a transition from the epistolography of the apostolic disciples to the apologies of the 2nd century. The story of the Epistle to Diognetus is one of the most romantic episodes in the history of literature: it is the story of a single manuscript discovered in the 16th century and lost in the 19th (L. B. Radford. The epistle to Diognetus. London, 1908, p. 7). This manuscript belongs to the 13th or 14th century and is known under the name Codex Argentoratensis (from the Old Latin name of the city of Strasbourg - Argentoratum). The codex apparently represented the second half of the Corpus operum S. Justini. A note on the manuscript shows that it once belonged to the famous scientist Reuchlin (1522). Around 1560 she was in the Maurinsky monastery in Alsace. In 1586, a copy was made from it by the famous scholar typographer G. Stefan, and soon after that another list was made. Based on this manuscript, the Epistle to Diognetus was printed in 1592 and 1593. The text of Stephen's edition formed the basis for subsequent editions. Between 1793–1795, the manuscript was included in the Strasbourg Library. Here it was again carefully studied in 1842 and 1861 for the Otto editions. In 1870 (August 24), the manuscript was lost in flames when the Alsace fortress was besieged by German troops. Therefore, to install the text, it is currently necessary to use copies from it (one of them is in the library of the University of Tübingen, the other in the library of the University of Leiden) and those comparisons that were made for the scientific editions of the Epistle. The original Strasbourg manuscript had significant textual-critical merits, but the manuscript itself was carelessly copied; however, in two places the original also had omissions, as the copyist of the manuscript himself noticed in the margin, namely: at the end of the 7th chapter and at the conclusion of the 10th chapter. a) Contents of the Epistle to Diognetus The letter, as preserved in the Strasbourg manuscript, consists of 12 chapters and represents a response to the request of the high-ranking pagan Diognetus for clarification regarding Christianity. “I see, most powerful Diognetus,” says the author, “you have a strong desire to know the God-worship of Christians and attentively and with lively sympathy you ask about them, in what God do they trust, and how, in serving Him, they neglect the world and despise death, do not recognize the gods revered by the Hellenes, and do not observe Jewish superstition, and what kind of love they have for each other, and why this New Year or institution came into life only now, and not before” (1). Having invoked God's blessing on himself and on the addressee, the author does not answer the questions posed in the exact order and, first of all, points out that Christians reject paganism, since the objects of its worship are material and the worship itself is unreasonable. “When you have cleansed yourself of all the prejudices that dominate your mind, and you have rejected the habitual opinions that seduce you, when you have become new, as if you were just born, since the teaching that you will listen to, even by your own admission, is new, then consider not only with your eyes, but also with your mind, from what substance and what form are those whom you call and honor as gods.” Pagan gods are soulless images made of wood, clay, stone and metal. To show them veneration is to contradict common sense, and the cult performed by them on the part of the pagans is rather not an honor for them, but an expression of disdain and insult (2). But why do Christians have different reverence for God than Jews? True, they honor the one God and recognize Him as the Ruler of the Universe, and as a monotheistic faith, Judaism is true, but the whole spirit of Jewish worship makes it unacceptable for Christians. Jews believe that God needs human offerings. “If they, offering sacrifices to God through blood, incense and burnt offerings, think with such honors to glorify Him and to provide something to Him who needs nothing, then, it seems to me, they are no different from those who show the same respect to insensitive gods who cannot accept that honor” (3). The vain appearance of the Jews in observing the ritual law is meaningless and ridiculous. Consequently, Christians act justly, moving away from superstition and deception of the pagans, and from Jewish vain care and vanity (4). Next, the author talks about the distinctive features of Christianity, its origins and its results. The characteristic features of Christianity are revealed in the lives of Christians, which give clear evidence of the sublimity and Divinity of the religion itself. “Christians do not differ from other people either in country, or in language, or in everyday customs. They do not inhabit special cities anywhere, do not use any unusual dialect, and lead a life no different from others. Only their teaching is not a fruit of thought or an invention of people seeking novelty; they are not committed to any human teaching. But, living in the Hellenic and Barbarian cities, where they had their share, and following the customs of those inhabitants in clothing, in food and in everything else, they represent an amazing and truly incredible way of life. They live in their Fatherland, but like aliens; have a share in everything and tolerate everything like strangers. For them, every foreign country is the Fatherland, and every Fatherland is a foreign country. They get married like everyone else, give birth to children, but they don’t abandon them. They share a meal, but not a bed. They are on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey established laws, but by their lives they surpass the laws themselves. They love everyone and are persecuted by everyone. They are not known, but they are condemned; they are killed, but through this they are brought to life; they are poor, but they enrich many; lacking everything and abounding in everything. They are dishonored, but thereby they are glorified; they slander them, and they turn out to be righteous; they curse them, but they bless them; they are insulted, but they repay them with honor; they do good, but they are called as villains; being punished, they rejoice as if they were given life. The Jews are at enmity against them as against strangers, the Greeks persecute them; but those who hate cannot tell the reasons for their hatred” (5). “Christians are the soul of the world: as the soul is in the body, so are Christians in the world. The soul is spread throughout all members of the body, and Christians throughout all the cities of the world. The soul, although it dwells in the body, is not corporeal, and Christians live in the world, but are not of the world. The soul, being invisible, is placed in a visible body; Likewise, Christians, being in the world, are visible, but their worship of God remains invisible. The flesh hates the soul without being offended by anything, because the soul forbids it to indulge in pleasures; so the world hates Christians, from whom it does not suffer any offense - because they arm themselves against its pleasures. The soul loves its flesh and members, despite the fact that they hate it, and Christians love those who hate them. The soul is enclosed in the body, but itself contains the body; so Christians, imprisoned in the world, as if in prison, themselves preserve the peace. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal abode; so Christians live as strangers in the corruptible world, awaiting incorruption in Heaven. The soul that has endured hunger and thirst becomes better; and Christians, being punished, multiply more every day. So glorious is their position, into which God has assigned them and from which they cannot refuse” (6). This picture of Christian life is followed by a brief teaching on the Christian religion. Its origin is unique, as the self-revelation of the Divine - it is a philosophy originating from Heaven. Christians are not handed over an earthly invention, they are not so carefully trying to preserve the invention of any mortal, and they are not entrusted with the disposal of human secrets, but the truly Almighty and Creator of all, the invisible God, Himself infused into people and imprinted on their hearts the heavenly truth and His holy and incomprehensible Word. He did not send to people any of His servants, or an angel or a prince, but the Artist and Creator of all things Himself, by Whom He created the Heavens, by Whom He enclosed the sea within His boundaries, to Whom everything was subjugated: the Heavens and everything that is in the sea; fire, air, the abyss, everything that is high and deep and in the middle. This is Whom He sent to the people. But he did not send it to show them His power; bring them into fear and horror. He sent Him with kindness and meekness; He sent as a King sending the King of the Son, sent as God, sent to people, sent as saving, as persuading; He sent as one who calls, and not as one who persecutes, He sent as one who loves, and not one who judges; He will send one day as a Judge, and who will endure His Coming? (7) “Which man knew what God was before He Himself came? None of the people saw or showed God; He revealed Himself; He revealed Himself through faith, which alone is granted to see God. For the Lord and Creator of all things, God, Who created everything and put everything in order, showed people not only His love, but also His long-suffering. He has always been like this, is and will be: good, kind, merciful and true, He alone is good. He accepted a great and ineffable intention, which He communicated to His only Son. As long as He kept and kept His wise advice secret, it seemed that He had abandoned us and had no care for us. But after He revealed through His beloved Son and declared what had been prepared from eternity, He gave us everything together: to be participants in His benefits, and to see Him, and to act” (8). Answering the third question: why did this Kingdom of God appear so late on earth, the author of the Epistle explains that it was necessary to first prepare people to accept it; it was necessary for people themselves to come to the realization of the impossibility of achieving salvation on their own. “When the measure of our unrighteousness was fulfilled and it was completely revealed that punishment and death should be expected as a reward for it, when the time came in which God, out of boundless love for mankind and out of His only love, proposed to finally reveal His goodness and power, then He did not hate us, did not reject us, did not remember our evil, but with patience endured it and Himself took our sins upon Himself. He gave His Son as an atonement for us, the Holy One for the wicked, the Innocent for the guilty, the Just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the Immortal for mortals. For what else could cover our sins but His Righteousness? Through whom could we, the lawless and the wicked, be justified, except the Son of God? The iniquity of many is covered by one Righteous One, and the righteousness of one justifies many wicked people. So, having previously discovered the powerlessness of our nature to receive life, and now having shown us a Savior who can save even that which could not be saved, God wanted to dispose us in both ways so that we would believe in His goodness, honor Him as Nourisher, Father, Teacher, mentor, physician, wisdom, light, honor, glory, life, without worrying about clothing and food” (9). This Divine love is the explanation and source of the love of Christians about which Diognetus asked. “If you also desire this faith, you will immediately receive knowledge of the Father. God loved people, for whom He created the world, to whom He conquered everything on Earth, gave them intelligence and understanding; He allowed them only to turn their gaze to Himself; He created them in His own image; He sent His Only Begotten Son to them; He promised them the Kingdom of Heaven and gives it to those who love Him. What joy will you be filled with when you know the Father! How will you love the One who loved you so much in advance! When you love, you will become an imitator of His goodness.” An imitator of God is one who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbor, who, having superiority in something, benefits another inferior to himself, who distributes the gifts he receives from God to those in need and becomes, so to speak, God for those who receive from his hand. “Then you, being on Earth, will see that there is a God living in Heaven, then you will begin to tell the secrets of God; then you will love and marvel at those who suffer torment because they do not want to renounce God; then you will know the deception and delusion of the world, when you actually learn to live in Heaven, when you despise the imaginary death here, and fear the real death prepared for those who are condemned to eternal fire” (10). In the last two chapters (11–12) the speech is addressed to the catechumens and to Christians in general. The author emphasizes that he speaks not as an interpreter of human wisdom, but as a “disciple of the Apostles” (ἀποστόλων μαθητής) and in concise terms teaches about the Word, the ways of salvation and Christian mysteries. Only by faith can the truths revealed to the disciples by the Word of God be known. The Son of God established the Kingdom of His grace and knowledge in the Church (11). Whoever belongs to it by faith and life is a fruitful tree in the restored Paradise. Knowledge alone puffs up, while love creates. Knowledge and life stand in the closest intercommunication and mutually determine each other; It was not in vain that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were planted side by side in Paradise. “Whoever thinks to know anything without true knowledge, not attested by life, knows nothing, he is deceived by the serpent, because you do not love life.” “Let the knowledge of your heart and life be the true word acceptable to you. Having planted this tree and bearing fruit, you will always receive from God what you desire, which neither the serpent touches nor deception penetrates.” b) The question of the authenticity of chapters 11 and 12 Already the first publisher of the Epistle to Diognetus, Heinrich Stefan (in 1592), pointed out that the 11th and 12th chapters of the Epistle represent a separate passage, which originally formed part of another work and only by some accident was added to the Epistle to Diognetus; the latter actually ended with the 10th chapter. And now most researchers recognize these chapters as inauthentic. The reasons for this are as follows. The copyist of the manuscript himself noted in the margin to the last words of the 10th chapter that his original had a gap in this place (καì ὦ δε ἐγκοπὴν ε ἶ χε τò ἀντίγραφον). The theme of the Epistle, as it is posed and defined at the beginning, is exhausted by ten chapters of the Epistle, and all questions are sufficiently answered. The tenth chapter can be ended with its present indication of the Judgment, which is to be faced equally by both persecutors and the persecuted, and in the omission only the initial conclusion is probably lost. A natural connection of thoughts between chapters 1–10 and 11–12 cannot be established. On the contrary, one cannot help but see a noticeable difference in style: in chapters 1–10, with all the grace and liveliness of speech, the language is distinguished by simplicity and clarity; whereas in chapters 11–12 the expressions are pretentious and strained, dark and difficult to understand. The author of chapters 1–10 of the Epistle only wants to give an answer to the questions put to him; the author of chapters 11–12 appears as a “teacher of the pagans” (διδάσκαλος ἐθνω ν). No less surprising is the change of address: in chapters 1–10 the speech is directed to Diognetus alone; Chapters 11–12 are addressed to all who wish to become disciples of the truth. On this basis, they decisively declare that chapters 11–12 constitute an alien and later addition to the Epistle, probably a fragment of an unknown homily to the catechumens. Heinr vigorously opposed such decisive conclusions. Kihn (Der Ursprung des Briefes an Diognet. Freiburg, 1882 and Patrologie, Paderborn, 1904), proving the integrity of the Epistle and the authenticity of chapters 11-12. But the reasons he gives do not seem convincing. Researchers who reject the authenticity of chapters 11–12 strive to find the work or author to whom this passage of semi-poetic homily could be attributed. Even in the first half of the 19th century, it was suggested (Bunsen) that this fragment belongs to the great work of the anti-Gnostic theologian Hippolytus of Rome, “Refutation of all Heresies.” Dräseke renewed this hypothesis (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. (1902), but Adolf Harnack (Gesch. der. altchrist. Litter. Th. 2 Bd. 2 Leipzig, 1904, S. 232) expressed doubt whether this work of Hippolytus needs such an addition: its present ending seems quite appropriate. Bonwetsch collected a significant amount of evidence that practically convinced Harnack that the 11-12th chapters were taken from some lost work of Hippolytus, and DiPaulin recently (Theolog. Quartalschr. 1906, I,). 28–36) again tried to prove Bunsen's theory about the lost conclusion of the Refutation. Meanwhile, other researchers recognize the evidence based on parallel passages from the works of Hippolytus as not convincing enough and find it possible to confirm (Lightfoot, Westcott) the Alexandrian origin of the passage. c) Question about the author of the Message and the time of its origin The manuscript in which the Epistle to Diognetus was preserved, as stated, was, apparently, the second part of the collection of works of Saint Justin, and the Epistle itself is placed in it as the work of Justin (του αὐτου). Relying on the testimony of the manuscript, the first publisher of the Epistle - Heinrich Stephen - published it (in 1592) as a work of St. Justin, with whose name it was associated for a whole century. Tillemont (Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, t. II, ed. 2. Paris, 1701, p. 372) was the first to challenge the evidence of the manuscript on the basis of the very noticeable difference between the graceful, classical style of the Epistle and the language of the works of Justin, alien to literary merit. This difference is so great that it cannot be explained either by the special purposes of the works or by the distance in time of their composition: it follows from the difference in the literary individuality of the authors. In the very content of the Epistle one cannot help but see significant deviations from Justin’s views: Justin’s views on idolatry, as an instrument of the spiritual power of the devil, on Judaism, as Divine preparation for the Gospel, on the Gospel itself, as the completion of the work of Λόγου σπερματικου in the minds of people, and above all the Greeks philosophers - completely alien to the teaching and tone of the Epistle. Having rejected any relation of the Epistle to Saint Justin, scientific criticism was left without any solid ground for determining the author of the Epistle and the circumstances of its origin. The Strasbourg manuscript is not only the only basis for a review of the text, but at the same time the only source of information about the Epistle. There is no other news about the Epistle coming from antiquity: neither Eusebius, nor Justin, nor other writers of Antiquity and the Middle Ages, from whom one might expect indications of the Epistle, do not mention it at all. Therefore, research into the origin of the Epistle to Diognetus should be based solely on its text itself, and since there are no chronological indications in the text, the widest field remains for any assumptions. The attempt to date the origin of the Epistle to the time before the 70th year of the 1st century (Tillemont) can only be mentioned: it is clearly untenable and, in general, the nature and content of the teaching set forth in the Epistle excludes the possibility of its origin in the 1st century. The desire to recognize the Epistle as a monument of the post-Constantinian time (Fr. Overbeck, Über den pseudo-justinischen Briefan Diognet. Basel, 1872) or even of the Renaissance (J. Donaldson. A critical History of the Christian Literature and doctrine from the death of the Apostles to the Nicene council. vol. II. London, 1866, p. 126–142), since both the textual tradition (manuscript of the 13th or 14th centuries) and numerous signs in the Epistle of its origin during times of persecution, which, due to the simple and sincere tone of the Epistle, cannot be considered a disguise, speak against such bold hypotheses. Therefore, at present, no one disputes that the author of the Epistle lived either in the 2nd or 3rd century, but within these limits no agreement has been reached to date, since the internal signs extracted from it do not provide compelling grounds for certain conclusions. Some (Bardenhewer, Kihn, Krüger) speak in favor of the 2nd century; others (Harnack, Batiffol, Ehrhard) - for the 3rd century, however, allowing for the possibility of the origin of the Epistle at the very end of the 2nd century. But the advantages of probability are on the side of the 2nd century for the following reasons: Christianity is still considered a new religion; the life of Christians - a living faith, a joyful readiness to endure suffering - is also rich in features from the early period of the existence of the Church; not only the hatred of the pagans, but also the hostility of the Jews is also expressed in violent actions, the absence of any polemic against later heresies, even unclear indications of gnosis and, moreover, in its early form, the way of quoting the Holy Scriptures according to the meaning and not the letter. In general, neither in the questions of Diognetus, nor in the answers of the author of the Epistle can one indicate anything that, in an impartial judgment, could be considered incompatible with the position of Christianity in the 2nd century. But under these conditions, of course, it is impossible to decide who was the actual author of the Epistle. Researchers feel complete freedom in their assumptions regarding the author of this “pearl of the patristic age.” They called Clement of Rome, Apollos, Codratus. But these are mere conjectures, supported only by internal evidence, which, in the absence of external evidence, can only serve to determine the character of the Epistle: they only call attention to certain special features of style and doctrine, which resemble the language of some famous authors. Here we can pay attention only to the last attempt - to recognize in the Epistle the work of the Athenian philosopher and apologist Aristides (Doulcet, Kihn, Krüger). The basis for this is the fact that the Epistle to Diognetus in its first chapters, not only in individual expressions, but in its entire content, is closely related to the Apology of Aristides; it contains a common repetition of what was said in the latter. But these coincidences are not sufficient not only to establish the identity of the author, but even the simultaneous origin of both monuments. On the other hand, it is impossible to speak definitely about the dependence of the Epistle on the Apology: the similarity in the depiction of the life of Christians in both, perhaps, depends solely on the same conditions of their origin; in addition, it is necessary to refrain from drawing decisive conclusions; and in view of the known homogeneity in the matter of apologetic literature and the resulting similarity in the expression of thoughts, as well as in view of the possible dependence of monuments of apologetic writing on known and unknown, but lost originals (for example, κήρυγμα Πέτρου). d) Theological and literary character of the Epistle In addition to a vivid and animated depiction of the life of Christians, the Epistle simply but very clearly reveals significant dogmatic provisions, which were given literally when presenting its content. These provisions can be briefly formulated as follows: a) no person on his own can achieve perfect knowledge of God: no one among people has seen or shown God - He revealed Himself through faith, which alone is granted to see God; b) He revealed Himself through His Word - Logos; c) this word is Christ, the own (ἴδιος) and Only Begotten (μονογενής) Son of God, immortal (ἀθάνατος), incomprehensible to the human mind (ἀπερινοήτως) Logos Almighty God, Artist and Creator, by whom God created all things; d) The Son of God became man. The Incarnation of the Son is seen as an expression of God's love. Its purpose is to reveal heavenly truth and redeem man. There is no hint here of any theological difficulties in the question of the relationship between the Divine and the human in the incarnate Word. He is God in such a true sense that His Coming is described as the coming of God, the Atonement He accomplished, the taking on of our sins by God, His Revelation as the Revelation of God about Himself. At the same time, He is truly human. He is not called Jesus or Christ in the Message, but He was sent not only “as God by God” - but also “as man to men”; e) He is the Savior, given by God as a ransom for us; only through Him could the lawless and wicked be justified (7-9). Stylistically, the Epistle is a pearl of Ancient Christian literature, with which hardly any other work can be compared in purity, liveliness and power of language. Both the content of the Epistle and the way of presenting thoughts reveal an educated author, probably of the Platonic school, a deeply convinced Orthodox Christian with a sublime, spiritual understanding of the religion he professes. A hitherto unresolved riddle is presented by the work of Hermias the philosopher: “The ridicule of non-Christian philosophers” φιλοσόφων, Irrisio gentilium philosophorum). Under this name is known a small satirical treatise, full of cheerful and often caustic humor about the contradictions in the teachings of Greek philosophers about God, the creation of the world, the essence of the soul, matter and spirit. It consists of ten chapters. The author bases his reasoning on the words of the Apostle Paul: “the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God” (1 Cor. 3:19). “It seems to me,” he says, “that this wisdom began with the fall of the angels, and that is why philosophers, when expounding their teachings, do not agree with each other either in words or in thoughts.” The author confirms this position by indicating the diversity of their judgments about the soul: “Some of them recognize the human soul as fire, like Democritus, others as air, like the Stoics, others as the mind, others as movement, like Heraclitus, others as evaporation, others as the force flowing from the stars, others as a number endowed with the power of movement, like Pythagoras, others as the water that gives birth, like Hippo, others - for the element of the elements, others for harmony, like Dinarchus, others for blood, like Critias, others for spirit, others for unity, like Pythagoras; the ancients also thought differently. There are so many opinions about this subject. How many arguments of philosophers and sophists who argue among themselves more than find the truth! Some say that the nature of the soul is immortal, others that it is mortal, others that it exists for a short time; some reduce it to the state of animals, others decompose it into atoms; some claim that she passes into the bodies of nature, others assign her such a wandering for three thousand years. What should we call these opinions? Is it not a chimera, as it seems to me, or stupidity or madness, or absurdity, or all of these together? If they found some truth, then let them think alike, or speak in agreement with each other - then I will willingly agree with them. But when they tear, so to speak, the soul, transform it - one into such a nature, the other into another, and subject it to various material transformations, I confess: such transformations give rise to disgust in me. Now I am immortal and rejoice, now I am mortal and cry; then they decompose me into atoms - I become water, air, fire; then I am neither air nor fire, but they make me a beast or turn me into a fish and I become the brother of the dolphins. Looking at myself, I am horrified by my body: I ​​don’t know what to call it—a man, or a dog, or a wolf, or a bull, or a bird, or a snake, or a dragon, or a chimera. The lovers of wisdom transform me into all kinds of animals, terrestrial, aquatic, flying, multi-species, wild or domestic, dumb or vocal, dumb or intelligent. I swim, fly, soar in the air, creep, run, sit. Empedocles finally appears and makes me a plant” (1–2). Then the author moves on to the diversity of philosophers in the doctrine of the principles of nature. “If I met Anaxagoras, he would teach me this: the beginning of all things is the mind - he is the culprit and ruler of everything; He puts the disorderly into order, gives movement to the motionless, divides the mixed, arranges the discordant. I like this teaching of Anaxagoras, and I completely agree with his thoughts. But Mellissus and Parmenides rebel against him; the latter, in poetic verses, proclaims that existence is one, eternal, limitless, immovable and completely equal to itself. Again, I don’t know why, I agree with this teaching, and Parmenides displaces Anaxagoras from my soul. When I imagine that I am firmly established in my thoughts, Anaximenes, in turn, comes out with another speech: I tell you,” he shouts, “that everything is air, if it is thickened and compressed, then water is formed, and if it is divided and expanded, then ether and fire; upon returning to its natural state, it becomes pure air; and if it thickens, it changes. I again go over to the side of this opinion and already love Anaximenes, but Empedocles rebels against this and so on” (3-4). The author consistently dwells on the opinions of Protagoras, Thales, Anaximander, Archelaus, Plato, and Aristotle. “I’m already tired,” he says, “excited by thoughts here and there. I will stop at the opinion of Aristotle and no other teaching will disturb me” (5). “But what should I do? My soul is attacked by old men, the most ancient of the philosophers mentioned... But even these old men argue among themselves.” The author addresses Pherecydes, good Democritus, weeping Heraclitus, the most beautiful Epicurus, Cleanthes. “Despite the large number of these philosophers, another crowd of them comes to me from Libya: Carneades and Clitomachus; rejecting the teaching of all other philosophers, they themselves assert that the nature of things is incomprehensible and that some falsehood is always mixed with the truth. What should I do after so much tedious research? How can I free my mind from so many opinions? If nothing can be comprehended, then the truth is removed from people, and the notorious philosophy chases the shadow rather than possesses knowledge of things” (7). Finally, Hermias dwells on Pythagoras and his teaching that the beginning of all things is unit and that the elements arise from various forms and numbers. Pointing to the teachings of Pythagoras about the number, form and measure of fire, air, water and earth, he continues: “I again, inspired, despise the house, the Fatherland, my wife, children and do not care about anything else, I ascend into the very ether and, taking Pythagoras’ elbow, I begin to measure the fire. Measuring Zeus is no longer enough. If such an important being, a great body and a great soul, that is, I, ascends to Heaven and does not measure the ether, then the dominion of Zeus will disappear. Having measured the ether and informed Zeus about how many angles fire has, I descend from the sky and eat olives, figs, garden vegetables, then I move on to water and its wet element, I begin to measure with my elbow, finger, half-finger, and at the same time its depth, so that Poseidon will learn from me how great the sea is over which he rules. I will walk around the earth in one day, examining its number, measure and figure, for I am quite sure that not even one inch of the Universe will escape such a great and wonderful being as I am. In addition, I even find out how many stars are in the sky, and how many fish are in the water, and how many animals are on the earth, and, putting the world on the scales, I can easily find out how much I weigh in it. Inflated with the knowledge of such things, my soul seemed to become the mistress of the whole world” (9). “But Epicurus, leaning towards me, says: you, my friend, have measured only one world, meanwhile there are many worlds, and they are all limitless... Having stocked up on the necessary food for several days, without any delay, I begin to wander through the worlds of Epicurus, easily fly over the borders of Tithis and the Ocean, and, having arrived in a new world, as if in another state, I measure everything in a few days. From here I am again transported to the third world, then to the fourth, fifth, tenth, hundredth, thousandth, and finally where? All this is darkness of ignorance, black deception, endless delusion, empty imagination, incomprehensible recklessness." In conclusion, the author says that he expressed all this with the aim of making it clear how philosophers contradict each other in opinions, how their research is lost in infinity, stopping at nothing, and how unattainable and useless the goal of their efforts is, not justified by either evidence or common sense (10). “The ridicule of non-Christian philosophers” is known in sixteen manuscripts, mainly from the 15th century, and only one of them - the Patmos - belongs to the 10th century (R. Knopf dates it to the end of the 11th or better than the 12th century). Since this work was not mentioned anywhere either in antiquity or in the Middle Ages, only assumptions can be made regarding the time of its composition and the identity of the author. A further circumstance that significantly complicates research regarding it is that in the work itself no points of support can be found, thanks to which it would be possible to determine the date of the treatise, even approximately, but with more or less certainty. Therefore, in determining the time of origin there is much more disagreement than regarding the Epistle to Diognetus, which can only be noted here in general terms. In the past, there was an attempt to identify the author of the work in question with the church historian Sozomen on the basis of some passages in his “Ecclesiastical History” (1:18; 2:5; 3:17; 5:1), where pagan philosophers (Lambecius) are discussed. But the groundlessness of this view was then thoroughly revealed (Cave) by pointing out stylistic and factual differences in both texts; in addition, it was rightly noted that Ermiy Sozomen was not a philosopher, but a lawyer. In general, in the 18th century, scientific opinion leaned towards the 2nd or 3rd centuries. In the 19th century, the publisher of the work W. F. Menzel (Leiden, 1840) again raised doubts about his belonging to the apologetic period and believed the author’s lifetime to be no earlier than the 5th century. There was no shortage of opposing views that strongly opposed such a late date; especially energetically and thoroughly refuted Menzel's opinion - Otto (Corpusapolog. Christianorum saeculi secundi. Vol. IX lenae, 1872, p. XXXVII sqq.), but Menzel's view was accepted and justified against Diels' objections (Doxographi Graeci. Berolini, 1879, p. 259 sq.). In general, the view that Hermias wrote in an apologetic time or a little later, contrary to Menzel, had many supporters (Möhler, Alzog, Nirschl, Schmid, Gesser - Jungmann, G. Krüger, X. Funk, W. Christ, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard, W. Widmann, W. Gaul, Bauschen, Kihn, Di Pauli), who attribute its origin to the end of II or the first half of III century. Dielsa's view is defended by Adolf Harnack (Gesch. Der altchristl. Litt. Th. l. Leipzig, 1893 S. 782; Th. 2. Bd. 2. Leipzig, 1904, S. 196), placing the origin of “Rocky” in post-Constantinian times. Finally, R. Wendland, based on the similarity he observed between “Rocky” and the dialogue “Theophrastus” by Aeneas of Gaza (the first half of the 6th century), put forward the hypothesis that Hermias may be identical with the addressee of the same name in the 129th Epistle of Procopius of Gaza. In order to find some definite basis for resolving the question of the time of origin of “Rockiness,” it has recently been considered necessary to start from the establishment of the relationship of “Rockiness” to Cohortatio ad gentiles (A. Di Pauli, Die Trrisio des Hermias. Paderborn, 1907), and they prove the dependence of Cohortatio on the work of Hermias. In this way it turns out to be possible to establish, at least approximately, the terminus adquem for the dating of the “Mockery”; since according to the latest research (Widmann, Gaul, Krossalla) Cohortatio was written no later than the twenties of the 3rd century. Therefore, "Rocky" was written before the year 220. The antiquity of the origin of “Rock” is also indicated by the inscription of the work in all manuscripts: Ἑ ρμείου φιλοσόφου διασορμός τω ν ἔξω φιλοσόφων. Of course, the basis does not lie in the name of the author, since identifying Hermias with some writer of the same name in antiquity is a futile effort: Christian antiquity knows quite a few people with this name, and all of them with equal right can be recognized as the authors of the work in question. But it is necessary to pay attention to the author’s predicate - φιλοσόφως. This name suits a number of apologists of the 2nd century: Aristides, Justin, Athenagoras, pseudo-Melito, and in this case it has a certain historical imprint. Therefore, in the inscription “Mockery” there is clearly a certain underlying tendency, namely, the opposition between Christian and pagan philosophy is emphasized as strongly as possible; such a tendency was completely far from the apologetics of later centuries - it constitutes a characteristic feature of ancient Christian apologetics. Further, the soil on which this kind of work appeared suggests a time of heated conflict between Christianity and pagan philosophy. True, at the end of the 5th century, the sophists of Syrian Gaza carried out an energetic struggle against the last offspring of ancient philosophy - Neoplatonism. But several researchers (Otto, Bardenhewer, Di Pauli) have already drawn attention to the fact that Hermias does not mention Neoplatonism or its main representatives in a single word. He directs his weapons against the Platonists, Peripatetics, Stoics, Pythagoreans, Epicureans, etc., and does not name the Neoplatonists Plotinus, Porphyry or Proclus. It goes without saying that he wrote for his time and ridiculed precisely those systems regarding which he knew that they were taught and enjoyed authority in public schools. And this observation goes back at least to the 3rd century. On the other hand, the work of Hermias is noticeably influenced by Lucian, with whose works Hermias was undoubtedly familiar. Based on all these considerations, we can assume that “Rocky” was written between the years 180–220. From a dogmatic-historical point of view, the work of Hermias has no significance, since only the reference to the Apostle Paul indicates that it was written by a Christian and means the fight against the enemy of Christianity. There is no strictly logical evidence against the teachings of philosophers; the author touches on it very superficially and does not pay attention to the internal connection of philosophical positions; however, this was not part of his task: he wanted to present in a caricature form the contradictions of philosophical systems that had one meaning or another in his time, and he undoubtedly succeeded. The first known ecclesiastical writer in the Latin West who wrote in the Latin language was the author of a work excellent in form and content entitled Octavius. This is an apology in the form of dialogue. The work survives in a single 9th-century manuscript (Cod. Parisinus 1661), as the eighth book (Octavus liber - Octavius) of Arnobius's apology "Adversus nationes". Therefore, the manuscript does not indicate either the actual author of the work or its title; We learn about this only from the testimonies of Lactantius and Jerome. They certify (Lactantius. Div. Instit. 5:1, 22; 1:11, 55; Jerome, De vir, ill., 58; cf. Ep. 70 ad Magnum, 5) that the work was called "Octavius" and that its author was Marcus Minucius Felix. The author himself, at the beginning of his book, explains why he gave such a title to his work: it is dedicated to the memory of his good and faithful friend Octavius, an excellent and pious man. “When in my memories,” says the author, “I go back to the time of our collective friendly life, what first of all catches my attention is the conversation that Octavius ​​once had with Caecilius, infected with superstition, and which, with its persuasiveness, turned him to true religion” (1). The Apology of Minucius Felix is ​​a reproduction of this conversation; The defender of Christianity against the pagan Caecilius is Octavius, after whom the entire work is named. VIII. 1. Contents of the Apology Octavius arrived in Rome for a meeting with Minucius, as well as on his own business. Since the friends had not seen each other for a long time, they spent two whole days “in a mutual outpouring of friendly feelings” and telling each other about everything that happened during the separation. It was autumn, the September holidays had arrived, and since the courts were closed, the friends decided to go to Ostia, where they could enjoy the sea baths and continue their friendly conversations. Early in the morning they went to the seashore; Caecilius was also with them, who, seeing the statue of Seralis, according to pagan custom, raised his hand to his lips and stamped a kiss on his fingers. Octavius, noticing this, turned to Minucius with the following words: “It is not right, brother Marcus, for a person who is inseparable at home and outside the house to be left in the darkness of popular ignorance and to allow that on such a beautiful day he bows before stones that are only dressed in statues, doused with incense and decorated with wreaths: you know that such a delusion applies both to his and no less to your shame” (2). The walk continued. Friends admired the splash of the waves and the boys playing on the seashore. Octavius ​​talked about his journey by sea. Caecilius did not take any part in the conversation: embarrassed, with a sad look, he silently stood aside. When he was asked about the reason for this, he answered: “I am greatly worried and pricked by the words of Octavius, with which he reproached you for negligence, and through this not directly, but all the more strongly accused me of ignorance. I don’t want to stop there: I demand an explanation from Octavius. If he agrees to enter into an argument with me, he will learn that it is much easier to argue in a friendly circle than to reason about a subject the way philosophers reason. Let’s sit on the stone rampart that guards the baths and juts out into the sea - here we can rest from the journey and debate more freely” (4). The proposal was accepted. Minucius Felix had to take on the role of arbitrator and therefore sat in the middle between both interlocutors. The first word was given to Caecilius, who began to speak in defense of paganism and attack Christianity. He opens his speech with a skeptical doctrine about the inaccessibility of all knowledge to the human mind. There is no reliable knowledge especially about what lies beyond the earthly. Philosophical research remained inconclusive. It is worthy of indignation if some uneducated ignoramuses (Christians, of course), alien to the concepts of the simplest arts, dare to talk about the essence of things and the Divine, about which philosophers of various schools have been arguing among themselves for so many centuries. The limitations of the human mind are so far from the knowledge of God that it is inaccessible to either what is above us in the sky, or what is contained in the deep bowels of the earth; it is not given to him to know and comprehend this, and it is even wicked to try to penetrate these secrets. We could be considered happy and prudent if, following the ancient saying of the sage, we were more engaged in knowing ourselves. The Christian teaching about the creation of everything by God is a fiction, since knowledge can explain the origin of everything that exists by the theory of various combinations of the original elements that existed in the depths of nature: all parts of the Universe were formed, located one next to the other and arranged from their random collision, and everything again comes to its source, returns to its beginnings without any artist, without a manager, without a creator - what kind of creator is there - God? Why religion, this fear of the Divine, this superstition? Nor can the doctrine of Divine Providence be accepted. What can we say about the various unexpected phenomena that, without order, indiscriminately, destroy the flow of everything that exists? During a shipwreck, the fate of the good and the evil is the same, without any consideration of the merits of either. Innocents and criminals alike die in fires. When some destructive infection rages in the air, everyone dies indiscriminately. In the fury of war, the best men die faster than others, and so on. From all this, Caecilius draws the following conclusion: either the truth is hidden in the darkness of the unknown, or, which is most likely, everything is governed without any laws by a fickle, capricious chance (5). When, therefore, you encounter either chance or mysterious nature everywhere, is it not best and most honorable to follow the lessons of our ancestors as guarantees of truth, to adhere to a faithful religion, to honor the gods whom our parents taught us to fear before we knew them better? We should not talk about gods, but should believe our ancestors. Religion, received from our ancestors, is a universal heritage and has already sufficiently proven its saving power. It is widespread in all states, provinces, cities, it is ancient, and antiquity is worthy of respect; it was confessed by those who were wiser than us and lived closer to the time of the gods. To this ancient religion the Romans owe their piety, which is the basis of their greatness, and their universal power as the reward of their piety. By bringing to itself the religious cults of all nations, Rome deserved to be the king of the world. Churches and churches serve as both decoration and fencing of Rome; they are sacred more because they contain native and foreign gods than because they are rich in precious gifts and decorations. This religious system of Rome, throughout its past history, has clearly demonstrated its strength in numerous facts of supreme help. It was not in vain that the ancestors so carefully observed the predictions of augurs, turned to fortune-telling using the entrails of animals, erected churches, and built altars. It would be long to talk about the mercies and blessings of the gods manifested in events of distant times; suffice it to say that all these observations lead to the fact that inspired soothsayers close to God predict the future, warn of dangers, provide healing to the sick, hope to the dejected, help to the poor, comfort to the unfortunate, relief to the working people (6-7). “So,” says Caecilius, “although the nature and origin of the gods are unknown to us, yet all peoples agree and firmly believe in their existence, so that I cannot endure such audacity of the impious recklessness of those people who would reject or destroy a religion so ancient as it is useful and saving.” Caecilius moves on to a depiction of Christianity as it seemed to him. He finds no words to express his indignation at the fact that people of a wretched, forbidden, despicable sect are boldly rebelling against the gods, who recruit followers into their unholy society from the very filth of the people, from gullible women, deluded by the frivolity of their sex, people who in nightly meetings with their fasts and inhuman dishes come together not for sacred rites, but for filth. These are people hiding, running around the world, mute in society, talkative in their shelters. They despise churches as tombs of gods, reject gods, and mock sacred rites (8). This wicked society must be completely eradicated or destroyed, since its moral state seems monstrous. Christians form some kind of suspicious secret union: they recognize each other by special secret signs and have love for each other, without even knowing each other. In addition, their mutual relations are suspicious from the moral side: everywhere between them some kind of love connection is formed; they call each other indiscriminately brothers and sisters in order to turn ordinary fornication into incest through the sacred name. The base nature of their religion is proven first of all by the fact that they venerate the head of the lowest animal - the donkey and the genitalia of the primate and priest, worship the criminal crucified on the cross, during the initiation of those newly entering their society, they perform the terrible rite of killing the baby, drink his blood and share his members among themselves, during night meetings they indulge in debauchery, allowing incest (9). The truth of all this, or at least most of it, is proven by the very mystery of this religion. In fact, why do they try in every possible way to hide and make secret for others what they honor, when praiseworthy deeds are usually performed openly? Why do they not have any churches, no altars, or generally accepted images? Why do they not dare to speak openly and hold their meetings freely, if not because what they honor and so carefully conceal is worthy of punishment or shameful? Their God is a ridiculous fiction. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and yet invisible: they cannot show Him to others. Further, Christians threaten the burning of the Earth and the whole world with its luminaries, predicting its destruction, as if the eternal order of nature established by Divine laws could cease, the connection of all elements and the composition of the sky could be destroyed and the vast world, so tightly united, could be overthrown (10). But the most absurd thing of all is their teaching about the resurrection of the dead, the inconsistency of which is proven by many considerations: Christians foretell destruction of the sky and stars, which we leave in the same form in which we find them, while they promise eternal existence to themselves, people who have died and collapsed; Because of their belief in the resurrection, they abhor the burning of the dead, and condemn this custom of burial, as if the body, if it were not committed to fire, would not decompose in the earth by itself in a few years. Believing in the resurrection of the dead and promising themselves blessed eternal life after death for some, and eternal torment for others, Christians make God an unrighteous Judge, who punishes in people the work of lot, and not the will, since not all people become followers of the Christian teaching arbitrarily, but only those chosen by God; resurrection cannot take place without the body, since without the body there is no mind, no soul, no life. – But with what body will they be resurrected? If it is the same, then it has long since collapsed in the ground; if with a new one, then in this case a new person is born, and the old one is not restored. Countless centuries have passed, and not one of the dead has returned from the underworld to give us a convincing example of the resurrection. “All this is nothing more than the inventions of a disordered mind, absurd dreams, clothed by false poets in lovely verses, and you, gullible ones, were not ashamed to attribute to your God” (11). The seduction of the belief in the resurrection leads Christians to sad consequences: poverty, torture, death, deprives them of the most natural and legitimate pleasures and deceives them with illusory future bliss in exchange for the real disasters of present life. “Unfortunate ones,” exclaims Caecilius, “you do not live here and you will not be resurrected there. But if you have even a little common sense and prudence, stop exploring the secrets and laws of the Universe, leave the celestial spheres; Enough for you - rude, ignorant, uneducated people - is what is under your feet; whoever does not have the ability to understand earthly, human things should much less explore the Divine” (12). At the end of his speech, Caecilius invites you to imitate, as much as possible, Socrates, who, when asked about heavenly things, answered: “What is above us does not concern us.” The greatest wisdom lies in the recognition of ignorance. This way of philosophizing is safe for the unlearned and glorious for the learned. “In my opinion, one should leave everything doubtful as it is, and after so many and such great people remain in doubt, one should not boldly and recklessly rush with one’s opinion in the other direction, so as not to introduce absurd fables or destroy any religion” (13). Caecilius, apparently, was pleased with himself and, full of confidence in the strength of his arguments, said: “What will Octavius ​​from the generation of Plautus, the first of the bakers and the last of the philosophers, dare to say to my words?” It should be noted that Minucius Felix presented with amazing impartiality the pagan objections to Christianity; Having in mind to refute, he does not try to weaken the arguments of his opponent and put him in an unsightly light - even the prejudices of Caecilius are noted by him in a tone of obvious respect. Caecilius is a vivid and comprehensive exponent of the impression that Christianity made on the cultural world at its first external discovery; his speech tries to portray all the negative aspects of him, does not omit a single detail that could make a repulsive impression on the reader. He strives to expose as clearly as possible everything shameful, criminal, terrible and depraved that the imagination of an external observer of the Christian society could create. Even the good sides of Christianity, reflecting everything sublime, pure and perfect in humanity (love, brotherhood, mercy, courage during executions and torture, readiness to sacrifice life) - all this in the mouth of Caecilius, imbued with disgust and sincere contempt for Christianity, takes on a unique meaning in Christianity, as an expression of superstition, madness and debauchery. And all this was not invented by the author of the apology, but taken from contemporary reality, terrible for Christians. Octavius ​​was not embarrassed by Caecilius's confidence and was not slow in answering all objections. Caecilius, who at first showed himself to be an irreconcilable skeptic, theoretically denying any possibility of knowledge of the Divine, even His very existence, far from any thought about Providence, later became a defender of the traditions of antiquity, the ancient Roman religion, as the only true and saving one; His arguments were necessarily not logical. Octavius ​​took advantage of this flaw in Caecilius’s speech and first of all pointed it out. “I will not hide that from the very beginning I noticed uncertainty and instability in the opinions of the dear Caecilius, so that it is difficult to decide whether your learning was eclipsed or it was shaken due to error: he either said that he believed in the gods, or expressed doubts about them, so the uncertainty of his position does not provide solid support for my answer.” Having emphasized this contradiction between fundamental skepticism and actual adherence to the religion of the ancestors, Octavius ​​proceeds to refute Caecilius’s objections, following in the footsteps of his opponent and leaving nothing in his words without attention. Caecilius expressed that he was “disgusted, outrageous and painful that unlearned, poor, unskilled (Christians) undertake to talk about heavenly things.” Octavius ​​objects that all people, without distinction of age, sex or condition, are created rational and capable of understanding and that they received wisdom not as a gift of happiness, but carry it within themselves as a gift of nature; mental talents are not given by wealth, are not acquired by diligence, but are born along with the origin of the spirit itself. Therefore, there is nothing outrageous and regrettable in the fact that everyone is engaged in the study of Divine things, forms his own opinions and expresses them, since the essence of the matter is not in the dignity of the investigators, but in the truth of the study, and the more artless the speech, the clearer the proof, because it is not tinted with brilliant eloquence and the charm of words, but is presented in its natural form according to the guidance of truth” (16). Octavius ​​agrees with Caecilius that man must know himself and explore what he is, where he came from and why; but it is impossible to explore and know a person without examining the entire totality of objects, because everything is so connected and is in such unity and cohesion that if we do not carefully study the Divine nature, we will not understand the human nature. Having a face turned forward and a gaze directed towards Heaven and being gifted with the ability to speak and a mind through which we know God, feel Him and imitate Him, we should not, cannot but know the heavenly beauty that so amazes our eyes and all our senses. To seek on earth what should be on the heights of heaven is the most offensive blasphemy. The human mind necessarily comes to the idea of ​​​​the creation of everything by God, when it looks at the sky, delves into what is happening around it on earth - all this not only could not have happened, formed and come into order without the supreme Artist, without the most perfect Reason, but cannot even be perceived, explored and comprehended without the greatest effort and active help of the Reason itself. Especially in the beauty of our image it is revealed that God is an artist: an upright posture, a gaze directed upward, placed high, as if on a watchtower, and all other feelings located, as if in a fortification (17). This same perfection and order in nature testify that the world not only originated from the Supreme Mind, but is also supported by Him. God cares not only about the whole, but also about the parts. When, upon entering a house, you see taste, order and beauty everywhere, then, of course, you will think that it is controlled by the owner and that he is much more excellent than all these blessings - think, looking at Heaven and Earth and finding in them industry, order and law, that in the house of this world there is a Lord and Father of all, Who is more beautiful than the very stars and parts of the whole world. Thus one cannot doubt Industry. The question now is whether there is one God who rules the world or many. But this doubt is not difficult to resolve. The unity of God is already required by similar phenomena in this world: “there is one king for the bees, one leader for the sheep, one leader for the flock.” Do you already think that the supreme power in Heaven is divided? This one God, the Father of all, has neither beginning nor end; Giving the beginning to everything, He Himself is eternal; He was before the world, being the world to Himself. He called the non-existent into being with His Word, put it in order with His Reason, and accomplished it with His power. He cannot be seen - He is too majestic; It cannot be touched - It is too thin; He cannot be measured - He is above the senses, infinite, immeasurable and in all His greatness known only to Himself; our heart is too narrow for such knowledge, and therefore we only evaluate Him worthily when we call Him unvalued. Whoever imagines to know the greatness of God belittles Him, and whoever does not want to belittle Him does not know Him. And do not look for another name for God: God is His name. Words are needed when it is necessary to distinguish many gods with separate proper names for each of them; and for God alone the name God expresses everything. If I call Him Father, you will represent Him as earthly; if I call Him a king, then you will imagine Him to be carnal; If I call him Master, you will think of Him as a mortal. The way of speech of the people testifies to monotheism: stretching out their hands to heaven, they do not use any other name than God, crying out: “great is God, the true God.” Poets also glorify “the one Father of gods and men.” Almost all philosophers, although by different names, pointed to one God, so one might think that either today's Christians are philosophers, or philosophers were already Christians then. Polytheism is based on a later error, why, if the world is governed by Providence and is led by the will of one God, then it should not follow the ignorance of the ancients, carried away by their fables - it is refuted by the opinions of their own philosophers, to whom the authority of both antiquity and rationality belongs. To prove that popular deities do not exist, that they are only abstractions without reality, or people to whom the Divine honors have been appropriated by gratitude or fear, Octavius ​​refers to the authority of Prodanus, Diodorus and Euhemerus and briefly examines the “fables and errors” inherited from ignorant fathers (18–24). Caecilius argued that the religion of the Romans laid the foundation for their power, increased and established the power of the Roman people, that they owe their greatness not so much to personal courage as to their piety and religion. To this, Octavius ​​first of all notes that the very beginning of the “pious” Roman state is tainted by crimes (the fratricide of Romulus, the kidnapping of the Sabine women). Then the common cause of Romulus and subsequent kings and leaders was to drive out neighbors from their land, destroy surrounding cities with churches and altars, oppress captives, and strengthen themselves through the insults of others and their own atrocities. Everything that the Romans now have, own and use is all the spoils of their insolence; all their churches were erected from plundered property through the destruction of cities, the robbery of gods and the killing of priests. The Romans had so many victorious celebrations, so many wicked deeds, so many trophies taken from the nations, so many robberies committed from the gods. Therefore, the Romans are strong not because they are religious, but because they committed sacrilege with impunity. The Romans accept the religion of the conquered peoples and, after victory, worship the captive gods. They could not have as their patrons in war those gods against whom they took up arms; and what could those gods do for the Romans who were powerless to protect their worshipers against their weapons? The Roman gods themselves are well known (25). For the triumph of his cause, Caecilius, in addition to the miracles that the gods performed in favor of Rome, points to the predictions of the deities that were fulfilled, to the successes of those commanders who complied with the instructions of Heaven, explained by the augurs, and to the disastrous consequences for those who neglected them. This argument seems very weak to Octavius, and he denies most of the miracles that Caecilius counted. For him, these are stories of old women. As for the miracles that are better attested, they do not have the meaning that Caecilius attributes to them. They are the work of demons. This theory of demonic intervention, which allowed Christians to explain all the extraordinary facts of mythology, the gods who appeared, the statues who spoke, the fortune-tellers who predicted, and so on. Minucius adds to the evidence of all antiquity. How can you doubt their existence? Poets know this, philosophers say this, Socrates recognized this; sorcerers not only know demons, but with their help they perform all their miracle-like tricks. These unclean spirits or demons hide in statues and idols, inspire soothsayers, live in churches, act on the insides of animals, control the flight of birds, control lots, and pronounce prophecies mixed with lies. They turn people away from Heaven to Earth and from God to matter, they disturb human life and cause anxiety to everyone, secretly inhabiting people’s bodies like subtle spirits, producing illnesses, instilling fear in the minds, and so on. They are afraid of the approach of Christians, although they attack them from afar through the pagans. They, taking possession of the minds of ignorant people and influencing them with fear, try to arouse hatred against Christians before people find out; this is so that when they recognize Christians, they do not begin to imitate them or, at least, do not stop persecuting them (26-27). After this, Octavius ​​proceeds to refute those numerous and serious accusations that Caecilius directed against Christians on the basis of dark rumors, but which he himself was inclined to treat with confidence. Here Octavius’s speech acquires special strength and shines with a variety of arguments. All these fables, that Christians worship donkeys, eat the flesh of babies and indulge in debauchery in their meetings, have never been investigated, unproven, inspired and supported by demons. Among the pagans, this slander finds faith because among them such shameful deeds occur very often (28). No one can believe this, except perhaps the one who dares to do it himself. And Octavius ​​would like to meet with someone who says or thinks that among Christians, acceptance into their society is accomplished through the killing of an infant and his blood (30). As for the reproach that Christians deify the criminal man and his cross, the pagans are very far from the truth when they think that a criminal deserves or a simple person can be worshiped by God. Regarding the veneration of the cross, Minucius says: “We do not honor crosses and do not desire them. Perhaps, having wooden gods, you also honor wooden crosses as components of your Deities. But your very banners and various military signs, what else but gilded and decorated crosses? Your trophies of victory have the appearance not only of a cross, but also of a crucified man; We find a natural resemblance to the cross in a ship when it rushes along with its sails spread or approaches the shore with outstretched oars. In the same way, the yoke, when you tie it up, looks like a cross; and a person, when he, with outstretched arms, lifts up a prayer to God with a pure mind, imagines the image of the cross. So, the image of the cross is found both in nature and in your religion” (29). The fable about the immoral feasts of Christians is an invention of demons, launched in order to tarnish the glory of their chastity with the shame of disgusting dishonor and thereby alienate people from them before they could explore the truth. The pagans themselves are incestuous and weave this fable against Christians, contrary to the testimony of their conscience. Christians have chastity not only in the face, but also in the mind. Their meetings are distinguished not only by chastity, but also by sobriety. Further, Octavius ​​briefly rejects other accusations of the pagans: “although we reject your honors and purple robes, we are not composed of the lower rabble; We cannot be considered conspirators simply because we all have one virtue in mind and in our meetings we behave as quietly as each individual does.” Christians do not speak in public because pagans are ashamed or afraid to listen to them. If their number increases from day to day, this does not expose them to error, but rather serves to praise them: “a wonderful way of life forces everyone to be faithful to him forever and attracts strangers.” Finally, we recognize each other not by physical signs, as the pagans think, but by innocence and modesty. “We have mutual love for each other, which is regrettable for you, because we have not learned to hate, but we call each other brothers, which is hateful for you, as children of one Father, as partners in the faith, joint heirs of the promise” (31). To the reproach that Christians hide the object of their worship of God, have no churches, no altars, no images of the Divine, Octavius ​​responds with an animated confession of the invisible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. “What image of God will I make, when man himself, rightly considered, is the image of God? What church will I build for Him, when this whole world, created by His power, cannot contain Him? And if I, a man, love to live spaciously, then how can I enclose such a great Being in one small building? Isn't it better to keep Him in our minds, to sanctify Him in the depths of our hearts? Will I bring to the Lord God the sacrifices and gifts that He has made for my benefit, in order to present His own gift to Him? It would be ungrateful; on the contrary, the sacrifice pleasing to Him is a kind heart, a pure mind and an unblemished conscience... But - you say - God, Whom we honor, we cannot see or show to others; Yes, that’s why we believe in God because we don’t see Him, but we can feel Him with our hearts. For in all His deeds, in all the phenomena of the world, we see His ever-present power, which is manifested in the peals of thunder, and in the brilliance of lightning and in the clear silence of the sky. Don't be surprised that you don't see God. Everything comes into motion and shaking from the wind and its winds, but the wind and wind are not visible to the eye. We cannot even see the Sun, which is the cause of vision for everyone: its rays force the eyes to close and dull the gaze of the viewer, and if you look at it any longer, you will completely lose your sight. How can you see the Creator of the sun Himself?.. You want to see God with carnal eyes, when you cannot see or touch your own soul, through which you live and speak... God is the Creator of everything and the seer of everything; nothing can be hidden from Him: we not only do everything in the eyes of God, but, so to speak, we also live with Him” (32). Caecilius said among other things that it did not help the Jews at all that they worshiped one God and erected churches and altars to Him with the greatest zeal. Octavius ​​objects that when the Jews honored God, who is the God of all, then from a small people they became countless, from a poor people to riches, from slaves to kings. What happened to them subsequently, they deserved by their wickedness, and nothing happened to them that was not predicted in advance. They abandoned God before they were abandoned by Him, and were not defeated together with their God, as Caecilius said, but were betrayed by God to their enemies (33). As for the belief in the end of the world by fire, in the resurrection of the flesh and in the afterlife Judgment, this teaching is not new: Christians can refer to the sayings of philosophers - Pythagoras, Plato, the Stoics, and so on. “Indeed, who is so stupid and senseless as to dare to say that God, who could originally create man, cannot later recreate him?.. It is much more difficult to give existence to something that did not exist than to renew something that has already received it.” And all of nature inspires the idea of ​​a future resurrection: “the sun sets and appears again; the stars disappear and return again; flowers fade and bloom, trees bloom again after winter; seeds will not be reborn unless they rot first; so the body, for a time, like trees for the winter, hides its vitality under the deceptive appearance of deadness” (34–35). Towards the end, Octavius's speech becomes more energetic and animated. Christians, possessing true knowledge of God and hoping for a better future, already here on earth, despite poverty, renunciation of the blessings of the world and constant persecution, experience bliss. “We,” Octavius ​​concludes his answer, “despise the pride of philosophers, who, as we know, were corrupt people, adulterers, tyrants, who spoke so eloquently against the vices with which they themselves were infected. We represent wisdom not in outward appearance, but in our soul; we do not speak loftily, but we live like this; we boast that we have achieved what those philosophers sought with all their effort and could not find. Why should we be ungrateful? What can we desire more when the knowledge of the true God has been revealed in our time? Let us take advantage of our good, let us adhere to the rule of truth. Let superstition cease, let wickedness be put to shame, and let true religion triumph” (38). When Octavius ​​finished speaking, Minucius and Caecilius looked at him for some time in silent surprise. Minucius was greatly amazed at the art with which Octavius ​​presented proofs, examples and testimonies and repelled the enemies with the same arrows of philosophers with which they themselves arm themselves and presented the truth not only intelligibly, but also favorable (39). Caecilius broke the silence: “I congratulate Octavius ​​with all my heart,” he said, “and also myself, without waiting for the decision of our judge. We both won: Octavius ​​defeated me, and I won victory over error. As for the essence of the matter, I confess Providence, submit to God and recognize the purity of the religious society, which from now on will be mine” (40). Joyful and cheerful friends set off on their way back. Caecilius rejoiced that he believed, Octavius ​​rejoiced that he had destroyed errors, and Minucius rejoiced at the conversion of Caecilius and the victory of Octavius ​​(41). In the manuscript of the dialogue its author is not named. In the work itself, his friends call him Mark. His full name is Marcus Minucius Felix, preserved by Lactantius (Divin. Instit. 5:1, 22; compare: 1:11, 55) and Jerome (De vir. ill., 58; compare: Ep. 70, ad Magnum, 5). Both writers report that Minucius Felix was a prominent lawyer in the Roman Forum. The dialogue shows that he lived in Rome and was involved in judicial affairs (2), but it is not known whether he was a native of Rome or came here from Africa. The latter can be assumed on the grounds that his two friends, Octavius ​​and Caecilius, were Africans. About Octavius, the dialogue directly states that he arrived from an overseas province and came to Rome for a meeting with Minucius and on his own business. Caecilius, like the author of the work, lived in Rome, and was probably from Cirta in Numidia by origin, since he says about the speech of the famous rhetorician Fronto: Cirtensis nostri testatur oratio (9), and Octavius ​​in his objection calls him: “tuus Fronto” (31); This is also indicated by the inscription found in Cirta (in 1880): “Marcus Caecilius Quinti filius Quirina (scii, tribu) Natalis” - if the Caecilius mentioned here is not identical with the Caecilius of the dialogue, then in any case the family ties of the latter with Cirta are beyond doubt. Minucius himself testifies that only in his mature years “with the dispersion of darkness, he passed from the darkness of ignorance to the light of wisdom and truth,” and his friend Octavius ​​was ahead of him in the transition to Christianity (1). VIII. 3. Lifetime of the author “Octavia”; the time of origin of this Apology and its relation to Tertullian’s “Apologetics” The lifetime of the author and his friends, and hence the time of origin of the dialogue, has not yet been precisely established, despite the fact that special works have been devoted to the study of these issues. Already Lactantius and Jerome seem to contradict each other on this issue: Lactantius seems to suggest that Minucius wrote before Tertullian (Div. Instit. 5: 1, 22), while Jerome undoubtedly considers Tertullian to be the most ancient writer (De vir. ill., 53 and 58). The question naturally arises, which of the named writers should I give preference to? Until almost half of the 19th century, the general opinion was in favor of the correctness of Jerome's message. From this point of view, another question was resolved, which is of significant importance for determining the life time of Minucius Felix and the origin of “Octavius”, namely the question of the relationship between “Apologetics” Tertullian and “Octavia” Minucius Felix. Both of these works not only often develop the same material, but in some places they reveal a literal coincidence, which is why such a close dependence of one work on the other has long been assumed, which can only be explained by the fact that either Tertullian had before his eyes the work of Minucius Felix, or vice versa. Having recognized the great reliability of Jerome's message, they could only assert the dependence of Minucius Felix on Tertullian; As a further reason, the general consideration was given that Tertullian is known as an exceptionally original writer, a creative mind, paving new paths in various branches of theological science, why it is difficult to assume such a dependence of him on the work of a little-known writer. Since the Apologeticus was probably written in the year 197, the Octavius ​​of Minucius Felix could only have been composed after that. This view of the mutual relationship between the works of Tertullian and Minucius Felix has defenders even today, and epigraphic data are also used to support it. In 1880, an inscription dated 210 was found in Cirta, which names “Marcus Caecilius Quinti filius Quirina (sc. tribu) Natalis”; he was the triumvir of Cirta and built a triumphal arch in honor of the Emperor Caracalla (211–217). This Caecilius is identified with Octavius's opponent in the apology, who was also from Cirta. Since Caecilius appears in the inscription as still a pagan, a direct conclusion is drawn from this that Minucius Felix could write his apology only after the year 210, precisely in the years 238–246 (M. L. Massebieau) or in the year 248 (K. J. Neumanm) before the beginning of the persecution of Decius. Adolf Harnack (Gesch. d. altchr. Litterat. Th. l. Leipzig, 1893, S. 647) also recognizes the dependence of Minucius on Tertullian as probable, and believes the origin of “Octavia” in the 3rd century. There were attempts to attribute the origin of “Octavia” even to the beginning of the 4th century (V. Schultze). On the other hand, careful and detailed comparisons of the works of Tertullian and Minucius Felix lead (since the time of S. deMuralta - 1836) many researchers to define their relationship in the opposite sense, and this view has found wide circulation (Ebert, Schwenke, Reck, Boenig, Bardenhewer, Ehrhard and others). The reasons for this conclusion are as follows. In many places it is easy to notice that the thoughts that Minucius Felix only outlines find in Tertullian a detailed disclosure and further justification; for example, Minucius limits himself to a brief indication of the unreliability of rumor - fama (28), while Tertullian introduces a deliberate discussion about the nature of rumor - natura famae (7); Minucius considers it self-evident that gods cannot be made from people (21), and Tertullian reveals this position in an entire chapter (11). In some places the relation of both works can only be explained by Tertullian's dependence on Minucius; Thus, instead of “Nepos et Cassius in historia” in Minucius (21), in Tertullian (10) it reads “Cassuis Severus aut Cornelius Nepos”. Tertullian confused the historian Cassius (And century BC) with the much more famous orator Cassius Severus from the time of Augustus. The source of the error could only be a superficial or too hasty reading of the Dialogue (Compare also: Apolog., 16 and Octav., 9; Apolog., 24–26 and Octav, 6). To explain the similarity in thoughts and expressions between the works of Tertullian and Minucius Felix, another theory was put forward: while rejecting the dependence of one monument on the other, some (Hartel, Wilhelm) suggest the use by both authors of an ancient source that has not reached us. In this case, the origin of both works must be almost simultaneous, since otherwise their independence from each other can hardly be explained. Let’s begin our assessment of the stated judgments about the mutual relationship of Tertullian’s Apologetics and Minucius Felix’s Octavius ​​with the latter, against which quite serious objections are raised. The existence of a common source is based on a simple guess, and it is not even supposedly indicated which work Minucius and Tertullian could have used so widely. Meanwhile, “Apologeticus” and “Octavius” reveal this kind of contact, which can only be explained by the mutual dependence of both works, which is affirmed by almost all researchers. But the question of which of the two authors used the work of the other is in fact very difficult to resolve, since to date no definite grounds have been found that would force one to definitively lean in one direction or the other. One has to be content with the general impressions one gets from the work. In this regard, “Octavius,” at the first attempt to place him within a certain framework of ancient Christian writing, involuntarily forces one to take into account the fact that it is impossible to give a single internal basis for dating it later, in comparison with Tertullian’s “Apologetics,” and the attitude towards the latter is much more understandable if Tertullian read the most ancient Minucius Felix. In view of this, the prevailing opinion among researchers is that Tertullian was dependent on Minucius Felix. If Tertullian's Apologeticus was written in 197, then Minucius Felix's Octavius ​​must be dated to an earlier time. No objections to this can be indicated in the text of the dialogue. The nature of pagan accusations against Christians, the position of Christianity and the attitude of its confessors to the state and society (compare, for example, chapter 28) are very well understood in the 2nd century, however, they are completely impossible under the Syrian Emperors and hardly probable under Philip the Arabian. As for the Cirtinian inscription, it is still necessary to establish with absolute accuracy the identity of Caecilius mentioned in it with Caecilius of the dialogue; but this cannot be achieved, and then the possibility remains of suggesting in the Caecilian Cirtinian inscription the son or relative of the same name of Minucius’s friend. Further, the dialogue mentions the Fronto of Cirtinus in a form (chapters 9 and 31), which may lead to the assumption that this rhetorician, who died after the year 175, was either still alive or had recently died and still enjoyed considerable authority as a famous person. The victory over the Parthians in 162–163 (7) is mentioned as an event of the recent past. All this leads to the conclusion that Octavius ​​was written during the reign of Marcus Aurelius or, more likely, his son Commodus. But in determining the time of origin of the dialogue, researchers in this category fluctuate between 160–197 years. Thus, the development of Greek apologetics of the 2nd century towards the end of this century found parallel expression in the Latin West, and therefore Minucius Felix can be considered as the oldest Latin writer of Christian antiquity. VIII. 4. Essay “De Fato” Jerome knew another work circulated with the name of Minucius Felix: De fato vel contra mathematicos; but he himself doubted its authenticity (De vir. ill., 58; compare: Ερ. 70, ad Magnum, 5). Nothing is known about this work. One might think that it was attributed to Minucius Felix on the basis of the following expression in the dialogue: “but enough now to talk about fate - at another time we will discuss this with greater completeness and detail” (36). The author’s intention expressed here to present an argument about fate could have given rise to the compilation of a forged essay. VIII. 5. Literary and theological character of Octavius It can be considered a firmly established fact that Minucius Felix, when composing his dialogue, took as a model the work of Cicero: De natura deorum, and he transferred the role of the academician Cotta and the epicurean Vellius to the pagan Caecilius, and the place of the Stoic Balbus was taken by the Christian Octavius. This work determined not only the external form of the apology, but also a significant part of the content. In addition, the influence of another work by Cicero, De divinatione, and Seneca, De providentia and De superstitione, is also noticeable. The pagan Caecilius refers to the speech of the Cirtinian rhetorician Fronto, the teacher and educator of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, in which the latter, in agreement with public opinion, developed in detail the accusations of Christians in the Thyestan suppers and Oedipal incest (9); but it is impossible to determine to what extent Minucius used material from it for the speech of the pagan Caecilius, although some researchers persistently assert (see Aubè; Schanz; Harnack; Prof. A. A. Spassky. Octavius ​​Minucius Felix // Theological Bulletin. 1911. May. S. 178) that Octavius ​​was compiled to refute the speech of Cornelius Fronto and that its content determined the points of objection of Minucius Felix. Attempts to prove the dependence of Minucius on the Greek apologists - Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus - were also unsuccessful; The most common points of agreement are the apology of Athenagoras. In formal terms, in the art of posing and revealing questions, the apology of Minucius Felix is ​​a most beautiful work, which is quite worthy to take a place next to the best works of modern secular Latin writers. On all sides it bears a truly Roman imprint. The language is distinguished by ease and grace, the presentation is imbued with warmth, in places with hot animation, but without passion and harshness, the absence of which gives his polemics nobility and gentleness. Minucius presents the new religion in a form familiar to educated pagans. He addresses a circle of readers well acquainted with the popular philosophy of the second century. He looks for points of contact between prevailing philosophical views and Christianity and successfully finds them. Minucius Felix presents Christian truth as wisdom, naturally innate to every person (16): since a person has sermo and ratio and fulfills the task of exploring the Universe established by this gift, he finds Christian truth in his inner being. Christianity is a natural explanation and revelation of the truth contained in man and nature, the knowledge of the one God from the open book of creation. Christianity is therefore a true philosophy, and others may think that either modern Christian philosophers or philosophers (of antiquity) were already Christians then (20). But recognizing in human nature the natural light of wisdom, he notices that our thoughts, in comparison with the clarity of Divine knowledge, are like darkness; and while expounding the doctrine of the end of the world through fire, he unexpectedly interrupts references to various philosophers with the statement: “but we do not imitate them, but they borrowed some shadow of truth from the Divine predictions of the prophets” (34). What follows is a rather strongly expressed humiliation of philosophers and philosophy: “we despise the pride of philosophers... we boast that we have achieved what those philosophers sought with all their effort and could not find.” The basis for such an attitude towards philosophers must be sought in the clear consciousness of possessing God-revealed truth: “What should we desire more, when in our time the knowledge of the true God has been revealed?” (38). Thus, at the moment when Minucius turns his gaze to the teaching of the prophets and Christian truth, the natural knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of philosophers are plunged into darkness for him. Octavius ​​offers little for the positive development of Christian teaching. The Christian faith in him is presented primarily as monotheism (18) and the center of gravity of the Christian religion is placed in the practical implementation of the moral law, “a sacrifice pleasing to God,” he says, “a good heart, a pure mind,” an untainted conscience; therefore, whoever honors innocence prays to the Lord; whoever respects the truth makes a sacrifice to God; whoever refrains from deception appeases God; whoever delivers his neighbor from danger slaughters the best sacrifice - such are our sacrifices, such are the sanctuaries of God; With us, he is more pious who is more just (32). Minucius does not reveal the teachings about the Person and work of Jesus Christ, but only barely outlines them (chap. 9 and 28); does not speak about the Christian sacraments, does not give a single quote from the books of Holy Scripture. From here arose an attempt (R. Kühn. Der Octavius des Minucius Felix. Eine heidnisch philosophische Auffassung vom Christentum. Leipzig, 1882, as well as Prof. A. A. Spassky. Octavius Minucius Felix // Theological Bulletin. 1911. May. pp. 333–334) to reject the specifically Christian character of Theology Minucius and find in him a pagan-philosophical understanding of Christianity: Minucius allegedly understood Christianity as a moral-philosophical monotheism. It is true that Minucius goes through in silence the most revealing secrets of Christian teaching and life, but this is much simpler and more natural to explain by the purpose and entire structure of the apology. It begins with a speech by the defender of paganism Caecilius; Octavius ​​responds to it, adhering to the accusations of Caecilius in his objection. His task is to destroy the prejudices of the pagans; for this purpose, instead of biblical writers, he refers to the testimony of poets and philosophers and offers Christian truth in a form acceptable to philosophically educated pagans. In the apology itself there is a clear indication that the author did not consider all questions regarding the new religion to be answered. At the end of the conversation, Caecilius says: “There are still a few perplexities that need to be clarified for my complete understanding; but it will be more convenient to talk about them in freedom tomorrow” (40). Of course, it is possible to artificially tear out from the connection of speech individual provisions, thoughts, or even a whole cycle of them, which can be put into the mouth of a Stoic. However, we must not lose sight of the whole. It is unlikely that one will be able to find in a Stoic a teaching about the resurrection of the body, about the torments of hell, about suffering as tests sent from God. In general, the solution to the question of the theological character of Octavius ​​must be placed on a purely historical basis, evaluating the work in the historical setting of the apologetic time to which it belongs. Part II. Anti-Gnostic writing of the 2nd century Introduction. The general character and essential points of Gnostic teaching and the ensuing tasks of anti-Gnostic church writers While the apologists put so much effort into their writings to assist the Church in her struggle against pagan government, pagan society, popular religion and modern philosophy, other ecclesiastical writers devoted themselves to the service of the Church in Her struggle against doctrinal errors threatening Her faith, which did not deny the Church's right to exist, but sought to undermine confidence in the purity and integrity of Her Apostolic teaching. The most significant and most dangerous among these errors was Gnosticism, which is why the anti-heretical writers of the Second Century are called anti-Gnostics. The name “Gnosticism” is given to the entire set of systems that developed in the first half of the 2nd century, which represented either the effort of philosophical thought to absorb Christianity and transform it into simple religious philosophy, or the effort of religious thought, not content with the simplicity of the Gospel, to find in it a deeper, hidden meaning. In both cases, knowledge - (γνω σις) - sought to be placed in the place of the common Church faith - ( πίστις). The emergence and development of Gnosticism on the basis of Christianity must be recognized as a completely natural phenomenon. Christianity was preached as a practical doctrine of salvation; but from the very beginning it contained the need for theological reflection in relation to positive content: it provided an authoritative solution to the great problems that troubled the human spirit, but did not explain these very problems, and, thus, left room for further ones. research. Just as Jewish Theology was formed on the basis of the Old Testament, how these experiences of religious and philosophical worldview received special development as a result of the connection with Hellenic philosophy in Hellenistic Judaism (Philo), setting as its goal to open for those capable a deeper knowledge of religious truths and religious institutions, so in the New Testament gospel, as soon as it was forced to apply dialectical methods of revealing its content and become theology, they began to distinguish the popular, undeveloped point of view of simple Christian faith from a deeper penetration into religious truth and its mysteries (as already with the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 2:6; 3:2; 12:8). But since the question was about religious knowledge, which developed from positive historical religion, the desire of pre-Christian and outside Christian gnosis (for example, in Philo) was generally directed towards understanding the deepest meaning of historical facts, myths, mysteries and religious institutions behind the letter of religious narratives. Therefore, in Christian circles, the name “gnosis” is readily applied to experiments in establishing the hidden meaning of Holy Scripture through allegory (in the Epistle of Barnabas (1:5) τελείαν γνω σιν is an allegorical explanation of the ritual law of Moses). But the Gospel itself, in connection with the Old Testament, could become the subject of such gnosis on the basis of the philosophy of Philo and Hellenistic Judaism. In the Hellenic world, this could be facilitated by the established habit of seeking hidden religious and philosophical content under the cover of myths and mysteries (allegorical interpretation of myths by the Stoics, Plutarch and others). Further, in the great religious ferment of the time, a distinctive feature was the tendency in various mythological forms of religion to look for identical religious ideas, syncretically mix them and, at the same time, pay primary attention to Eastern cults. As a result, the fantastic world of ideas from the East was increasingly transferred to the West and became woven into the general mental movement of the time. In this religious ferment, Christianity with its teaching about the Redemption of the world was to occupy an important place, attracting attention with the originality of its content and its demand for absolute meaning; it mixed with various religious views, transformed them, but itself suffered significant distortions. In Christianity, they began to search for God's wisdom, the hidden secret, and by reinterpreting the apostolic teachings they created such fantastic doctrines in which the mere mention of the name of Christ with the names of His apostles can indicate their historical origin in the period of Christianity. This was Christian Gnosticism. His contemporaries already expressed dissenting opinions about its essence: while Igisippus saw the roots of gnosis in Jewish heresies, Hippolytus looked for them in Greek philosophy, mysteries and cosmogony. If, due to the lack of necessary data, Gnosticism has not yet been satisfactorily illuminated at the present time, then in any case there is no doubt that it represents the most diverse combination of elements of Christianity and Judaism, mainly Jewish sects, Philonian and Hellenistic gnosis, Platonic, Pythagorean and Stoic Theology, pheogonic and cosmogonic doctrines of Egypt, Chaldea, Persia and, perhaps, India, astrology and magic of the East, which generally found a warm welcome in the Greco-Roman regions of the Empire. To all these elements - mostly of low quality - was added extreme allegorism in exegesis with its fantastic interpretations. From all this material, the imagination created such strange, downright monstrous systems that it is sometimes difficult to believe in the possibility of taking them seriously. But in Gnostic systems it is necessary to carefully distinguish what constitutes the essence of their teaching from the images under which this teaching was offered and the more or less symbolic narratives in which it was developed. We will not go into a detailed review of Gnostic systems and will briefly note only what is essential in them, which is necessary for understanding the anti-Gnostic literature of church writers. The main tone of Gnostic systems is pessimistic. They clearly reflected the consciousness of the moral decay of mankind and the domination of evil in the world, penetrating the modern pagan world, forcing us to intensively seek means for revival, ways to liberation from moral evil and the establishment of purity and holiness in life. Like modern philosophy, Gnostic systems take on a predominantly ethical character; they should especially emphasize practical-religious motives. The Gnostics did not strive to found philosophical systems, not to establish theological schools - they wanted to elevate Christianity to the height of a frank religious worldview and through this create a conscious pious life and ensure absolute confidence in salvation and gather truly spiritual Christians in their societies, forming a truly pneumatic Church. The Christian idea of ​​the Atonement remained the focal point in the Gnostic religion. The problems that were resolved in all Gnostic systems boiled down to painful questions: b) How to understand the current state of man and the world; c) Who is the Redeemer and what is the Redemption; d) How a person can get rid of this world and move on to another life. The answer to these questions should free the spirit of Christianity, as an absolute religion, from false shackles and veils and, through this religion, resolve all the problems of existence for the human spirit and give it confidence in salvation. The main thoughts of Gnostic systems can be summarized as follows: a) Christianity should be understood in the sense of a religious worldview, as knowledge of the world process that leads to healing of the spirit. b) With the separation of the Creator of the world and the Lawgiver from the Highest God, the essential foundation of the Old Testament religion on which Christianity is based is destroyed. In place of the Old Testament doctrine of creation - alien to the ancient world - comes the idea of ​​a world process of a theogonic and cosmogonic nature, arising from the evolutions and emanations of the Divine primal principle. The present world is mostly reached through catastrophe, which always involves the fall of the spirit into the material, and lower or hostile forces to the Divine are the culprits of the present state of the world, in which the elements originating from God are held against their will in alienation from the Divine. c) Accordingly, the Christian doctrine of the Atonement is considered as the destruction of the world, the overcoming of cosmic forces and the liberation of the spirit from matter. d) Therefore, the distinctive feature of all Gnostic systems is dualism, although the method of distinguishing the two initial principles is not the same: here a whole scale opens up from the crude, materialistically understood, to the philosophically sublime dualism, to the pantheistically colored explanation of opposites from the indifference of the fundamental principle. e) The purely religious oppositions of the world and the Kingdom of God, flesh and spirit are explained in the sense of the opposition of cosmic forces and are transferred from the ethical sphere to the physical. f) Christ is placed at a turning point in religious history, by which at the same time he is elevated to the level of a turning point in all cosmic development. Christ signifies the entry and revelation of the Divine principle into the visible revelation of the unknown God and thus the beginning of a new life for all who are able to comprehend and perceive this revelation and subject themselves to the necessary ascetic demands. g) Christ is one of the aeons or potencies in which the Divinity is revealed; but this heavenly potency always differs from the visible form of its appearance in the world, either in such a way that this form is represented by an actual person who turns out to be a temporary bearer of the heavenly Christ, or in such a way that the corporeality of Christ, being of heavenly origin, is devoid of material qualities, or, finally, in such a way that the human image of Christ turns into a ghost (Docetism). h) All people are divided into pneumatics, capable of receiving the revelation of the spirit and Divine life, and iliks, doomed to destruction; Valentin also distinguishes between psyches that are incapable of true revelation of the spirit, but in ordinary faith they possess some knowledge of the Divine, as the lowest level of gnosis, and enjoy the bliss corresponding to this. i) Gnosis denies all Christian eschatology (the visible second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the kingdom of glory): the end of the world is the liberation of the spirit from the bonds of sensuality and the torment of finitude. i) The ethics of the Gnostics reflects the basic dualistic view: some sects demanded complete abstinence from matter and a strictly ascetic lifestyle, while others preached a daring disregard for all moral laws, on the basis that for a true Gnostic, external behavior is indifferent. Gnosticism posed a significant danger to the Church. The people who stood at the head of this movement were not ordinary thinkers and were distinguished by outstanding eloquence; in their lives they showed moral rigor, which helped strengthen their authority. These people sought to give the Church something that She did not yet have: a holistic understanding of history and the work of salvation, the philosophy of Christianity and its relationship to Judaism and paganism, a deeper understanding of Her faith. But in an effort to clarify this faith, gnosis destroyed it. He became in conflict with the Gospel in almost all the main points of teaching: in the question of the identity of God and the demiurge, the relationship of the Old and New Testaments, the universality of the Atonement, the personal unity of Jesus Christ and the real and sensory nature of His appearance, in the question of the meaning of His sacrifice, the resurrection of the flesh and the final destiny of man - he destroyed the simplicity of the Gospel and replaced its teaching. It was a sharp secularization of Christianity, philosophy substituted for revelation, an attempt by paganism to continue to live under the cover of the Church. Nevertheless, this strange mixture provided an attractive bait for inquisitive and insufficiently determined Christians. The strong effect of Gnosticism is also explained by the fact that this theosophy did not spread in the form of a scientific system of a philosophical school, but acted with practically religious tendencies, clothed in the forms of ancient mysteries. Its adherents, teaching to understand Christianity in this way, tried to organize themselves into communities and form esoteric societies of the initiated and perfect. The desire to give assurance of salvation required means that would provide tangible guarantees of this, like the pagan mysteries. Akin to the Eastern religions and close to the pagan mysteries, Gnosticism reveals in its cult the features of this double relationship: we find in it a whole system of initiations, sacraments, purifications, magical formulas, combinations of numbers, astrological predictions, amulets and palms, which sometimes recalled what was most sacred in Christianity, but which more often came from the grossest superstition or even represented forms of the most outrageous cynicism. But this whole set of rituals made a strong impression on differently minded people with its different sides. The nature of the life of Christianity itself, without a strong external organization, and without a strict and comprehensive formulation of the doctrine, with free prophecy still continuing to operate, represented fertile ground for the spread of Gnosticism, which was intensifying to even achieve dominance over the Church. The fight against gnosis was in fact the great cause of the Church. But she opposed the speculations and philosophical fantasies of the Gnostics not to a system, not to a rational synthesis of her faith, not to Theology in the proper sense of the word, but to Her Tradition, both in relation to the teaching and in relation to the Church organization. Without upheavals, without councils, without any of the solemn condemnations that in subsequent centuries became common in the fight against errors, the Church got rid of Gnosticism little by little, without crisis, by a simple vital movement, which in a healthy body is enough to clear itself of diseased germs before the most essential organs could be affected. Along with this church struggle, literary struggle also developed. Gnostic literature - with the exception of a very few works, preserved mainly in Coptic translation - has perished and is known only from passages that church writers inserted into their polemical works for the purpose of refutation. Only in rare cases are these remains sufficient to form an idea of ​​the whole work; therefore, there is no way to thoroughly judge the merit and content of Gnostic literature in general. But based on even the names of Gnostic works that have come down to us, it can be confidently stated that adherents of Gnosticism developed an extremely rich and varied literary activity. Gnostic literature was the first literature to emerge from Christianity that addressed the broad cultural circles of the Roman Empire and for the first time adopted their literary forms - poetry and prose, exegetical and dogmatic forms of study, religious stories. The literary height and richness of Gnostic writing are explained by the essence of Gnosticism and its internal connection with the dominant culture, to whose service they brought, through free interpretation and application, the most essential points of Christian teaching. Therefore, one cannot be surprised that anti-Gnostic, truly Christian literature was inferior to Gnostic literature in richness, variety and literary significance. She had to firmly guard herself from the seductive influence of the dominant culture and refuse its help, since this renunciation was a necessary precondition for observing Christianity in its true content and in its own strength. This opposition serves as proof that Christianity has not dissolved in the great cultural relations into which it has now entered, but has firmly retained its fundamental opposition, while Gnosticism is internally associated with the culture of the time, as its product, and finds its explanation in it. Relatively few writers came out in the literary defense of Christianity against Gnosticism, whose works suffered a fate no less sad than that of Gnostic literature. Of the whole group of anti-Gnostics, besides excerpts from the “Memoirs” of Igisippus, only a single work has survived to us in its entirety - the five books of Irenaeus of Lyons: “The Exposure and Refutation of False Knowledge” (Adversus haereses). This circumstance gives the work of Irenaeus exceptional significance: on the basis of it, one can more closely determine both the literary character of polemical writing, which does not yet set as its task a systematic presentation of the entire Church teaching, and the main theological point of view. The task of the anti-Gnostics was to prove the exceptional truth and correctness of the Catholic teaching and, above all, to defend and explain those positions that were either disputed or distorted by the Gnostics. In contrast to Gnostic dualism, it was necessary, first of all, to justify faith in one God, Who, through a free creative act, called into being the whole world, both spiritual and material, and established the dogma of the actual incarnation of the Son of God and His redemption of man with all the necessary assumptions and consequences of this truth of the Christian doctrine. In this regard, it was necessary to reveal and illuminate the sources of knowledge of Church dogma and the distinctive features of revealed truth: against Gnosticism, not only was the authority and dignity of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments affirmed, but in particular the Catholic principle of tradition was revealed and it was proven that heresy contradicts the Apostolic tradition and is a falling away from the Ecumenical faith of Christianity. This struggle, more than the attacks of pagans and Jews, contributed to the development of Church Theology: it forced the defenders of Church teaching to penetrate deeper into the content and basis of faith, and expanded their own point of view; in the disputes, the language of Church Theology began to be formulated and for the first time the need was felt to give it more stability, accuracy and certainty. I. The most ancient Antingostics before Irenaeus: Miltiades, Agrippa Castor, Rodon, Philip of Gortyn, Modest, Muzanus, Igisippus There is evidence that some of the apologists opposed Gnosticism and wrote special works for this purpose. Thus, Justin published a work directed against all heresies that had come before him (Σύνταγμα κατà παςω ν τω ν γεγενημένων αἰρέσεων) and there may be a special treatise against heresy Marcion, and in his essay “On the Resurrection” he came out with a refutation mainly of Gnostic positions. Miltiades wrote against the Gnostics and especially against the Valentinians. Theophilus of Antioch left treatises against the heresy of Hermogenes and against Marcion. As far as is known, the following writers waged a literary struggle exclusively or predominantly against Gnosticism: Having reported information about these ancient writers, Eusebius says: “the writings of very many others have reached us, whom we cannot even name by name; all these works belong to the Orthodox writers of the Church, as can be seen from the interpretation of the Divine Scripture contained in them, but the names of their authors are unknown to us, because they are not indicated on the books” (Hist. eccl., 5:27). These unknown writers probably include, first of all, the “divine elder and preacher of truth” mentioned by Irenaeus, who wrote against the Valentinian Mark, skilled in sorcery (Adv. haer., 1:15, 6). Among the Orthodox champions who armed themselves against the developing Gnosticism not only with oral denunciations, but also with written evidence, Eusebius singles out Igisippus, who wrote “Memoirs” (ὑπομνήματα) in five books; He repeatedly uses evidence from this work (Hist. eccl., 4: 7–8). II. Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon II. 1. Information about the life of Saint Irenaeus The most outstanding and most authoritative church figure in the fight against Gnosticism in the last quarter of the 2nd century must be recognized as Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, the great and most influential father of the Church at a very important and, one might say, critical moment in its historical existence, in view of the clearly revealed opposing trends in the understanding of Christianity. For the first time, Saint Irenaeus is mentioned only in the year 174. Imprisoned in prison, the Lyon martyrs did not cease to be interested in church affairs and sent a Letter to the Roman Bishop Eleutherius regarding the Montanists, choosing for this presbyter Irenaeus, about whom they gave the best certification in the letter: “We have entrusted this letter to you to our accomplice and brother Irenaeus and we ask you to have favor with him, because he is a zealot for the covenant of Christ. If we knew that position brings righteousness to someone, then we would first of all present Irenaeus to you as a presbyter of the Church, to which degree he is” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:4). If the Lyons confessors call Irenaeus not only a brother, but also an “accomplice” (κοινωνός), then from this it would be fair to conclude that he himself personally experienced the outbreak of persecution in one way or another, and perhaps his very choice as delegate to Rome was due to the desire to preserve life and strength valuable to the Church. But, being such a prominent personality in the Lyon Church, Irenaeus by origin and upbringing did not belong to Gaul, but to Asia Minor. Here he was born and spent his youth in Lower Asia, that is, in one of the cities located on the western shore of the Asia Minor coast, perhaps in Smyrna or in the vicinity of this city, in which his teacher Polycarp was bishop; Irenaeus himself speaks about this in his Epistle to Florinus: “When I was still a boy, I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:20); This is also confirmed by the generally well-attested connection with the Churches of Asia and Gaul and the tone in which Irenaeus speaks about the Church teachers of the Asia Minor province. He was Greek by nationality. Irenaeus was born, one might think, into a Christian family. A good acquaintance with poetry and philosophy, with the techniques of rhetoric and dialectics, which he discovers in his main work that has survived to us, testifies to a caring upbringing and broad education; but pagan philosophy did not attract him to the same extent as Saint Justin - on the other hand, it did not cause the negative attitude that is found in the argumentation of Tatian and Tertullian. The influences under which Irenaeus spent his youth were especially favorable to the development in him of a strict adherence to the purity of faith, combined with the wisdom of the heart. The churches of Asia Minor in the first half of the 2nd century occupied first place in the Christian world - both in doctrine and in organization. Their missionary activity was broad and intense; literary productivity is remarkable. The long life and exceptional authority of the Apostle John resulted in the formation of the Theological School, which counted among its ranks many outstanding writers - unfortunately, only fragments or even just titles have survived from their numerous works. In this school, undoubtedly the most prominent member was Saint Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, a friend of Saint Ignatius, a zealous opponent of Gnosticism, Cyrinthus and Marcion. He was not only instructed by the Apostles and treated many of those who saw the Lord, but the Apostles also made him bishop of the Smyrna Church. His age, character and relationship with the Apostles marked him as the predominant interpreter of the Apostolic tradition: he always taught what he learned from the Apostles, what the Church also transmits, and what alone is true (Iren. Adv. haer., 3:3, 4). His instructions were listened to with great attention. The authority of his judgments was emphasized by the expressiveness of his movements. Irenaeus was his most attentive student in his early youth. His kindred spirit was deeply impressed by the firmness of the teacher’s faith and his pious horror of freethinking. In old age, amid the worries of episcopal service in distant Gaul, he recalls this happy time with great enthusiasm. In the Epistle to Florinus, who was also a listener of Saint Polycarp and fell into heresy, Irenaeus writes about Polycarp in the warmest terms: “while still a youth, I saw you in Lower Asia with Polycarp; then you were famous at the court of the King and sought his favor. I remember what happened then more clearly than what happened recently, because the knowledge of childhood, strengthening along with the soul, takes root in it. So, I can even name the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked, I can draw all his entrances and exits, outline his image of life and appearance, outline his conversations with the people, describe his treatment of John, as he himself told - and with other self-videos of the Lord, depict how he recalled their words, how and what he heard from them about the Lord, how he recounted His miracles and teachings, about what received the legend from people who saw it themselves. The Word of Life - and all its sayings were consistent with Scripture. By God's mercy to me, even then I listened carefully to Polycarp - I wrote down his words not on paper, but in my heart, and the grace of God helps me to always keep them in fresh memory. I can testify before the face of God that if this blessed and Apostolic elder had heard anything similar (to the heretical teaching accepted by Florinus), he would have exclaimed and, stopping his lips, as usual said: “Good God, until what time have You preserved me, that I must endure this too.” Then he would leave the place where he listened to such speeches, sitting or standing” (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:20). The vividness and distinctness of his memories, clarity and definiteness in the depiction of details from the life and conversations of St. Polycarp irrefutably confirm that St. Irenaeus was a real disciple of St. Polycarp; he imagines the figure of the elder, his gait, entrances and exits, features of body movement, can describe his conversations, recalls the words that he used to often repeat and talk about the instructions received then, as those that have grown together with his soul and from youth (ἐκ Παιδός) became part of his being. All this strongly speaks against the assurances (A. Harnack. Die Chronol. der altchristl. Litterat. I, 328) that Irenaeus only saw Polycarp by chance and listened to his sermons several times, but was never his student in the proper sense and did not have close communication with him. The noted features of Irenaeus’ memories of Polycarp suggest that the close relationship between them was not limited only to the time when Florinus listened to Polycarp: they lasted for a number of years and, perhaps, under his leadership, Irenaeus grew from a youth into a mature husband. Saint Polycarp was only the primary, but not the only teacher of Saint Irenaeus, and the source of information about the Apostolic teaching. Irenaeus speaks of a certain presbyter who himself was not a direct disciple of the Apostles, but heard (the teaching) from those who saw the Apostles and were their disciples (Iren. Adv. haer., 4:27, 1). This presbyter, whom he does not name, and who was undoubtedly younger than Polycarp, fought against Gnosticism; Irenaeus learned a lot from him (4:27, 1–32, 1). In addition, he often refers to other elders he revered (1, praef. 1:13, 3; 3:17, 4; 3:21, 5; 5:17, 4; 1:15, 6; 2:22, 5; 5:5, 1; 5:30, 1; 5:33, 3; 1:36, 1). We do not know their names and numbers - what is certain is that many of them saw John, the disciple of the Lord, and that Irenaeus attached great importance to their testimony: in concluding the proofs of more difficult positions, he repeatedly reinforces his arguments by appealing to the authority of Polycarp and other presbyters - disciples of the Apostles - better than himself, with whom he treated and fragments of whose teaching he preserved. This communication of Saint Irenaeus with Polycarp and the elders receives important significance in judging the merits of the testimony of Saint Irenaeus. The rich completeness of Asia Minor legends, which he, on the basis of personal experience, introduced into his work against Gnosticism, convincingly show that he spent a significant part of his life in Asia Minor. When and under what circumstances Irenaeus left Asia Minor and ended up in Gaul, we do not know. One can only assume with probability that even before traveling from Lyon in the year 177, he was in Rome, namely, around the year 154, when the capital of the Empire under Bishop Anicetus was visited by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna. The latter's stay in Rome and his conversations with Anicetas regarding the Quartodeciman practice of the Asia Minor Churches are described by Irenaeus with such details that require his personal presence at the same time (Adv. haer., 3: 3, 4; in the Epistle to the Roman Bishop Victor in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 5:24). But this stay of Irenaeus in Rome could not have been particularly long and was not accompanied by any noticeable activity of his here as a teacher, since otherwise it would not be clear why the Lyons confessors recommend Irenaeus to Bishop Eleutherius, as a church figure unknown to him, although Eleutherius was a deacon under Bishop Anicetus. That Irenaeus ended up in distant Gaul is not surprising. The inhabitants of Gaul were enlightened by Christianity, as well as in general they became acquainted with civilization from Asia Minor. The closest communication was maintained between the Churches of both countries, and many church customs of Asia Minor were preserved in Gaul until later times, despite the dominant influence of the nearby Roman Church. Bishop Pofin of Lyons was undoubtedly an Asia Minor and stood close to the Apostolic Age, and in childhood, perhaps, saw the Apostle John. Through him the Gallic Church, from the very first moment of its historical existence, received direct Apostolic tradition. Under him, Irenaeus was a presbyter of the Lyons Church and enjoyed such respect here that when Bishop Pofin, in the year 177 or 178, at the age of 90, became a victim of persecution (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:5), the eyes of the shocked community turned to him, and he was elected as the successor of Saint Pofin: Irenaeus became the head of the Lyons flock in a very difficult time. time: people's hatred had not yet subsided and, perhaps, demanded more and more victims; The best members of the Lyon Church were removed from the midst of living figures by the merciless hand of persecutors. Unfortunately, we do not have indisputable data about the nature and success of the episcopal activity of Saint Irenaeus. Gregory of Tours (VI century) reports that Irenaeus in a short time made Lyon a completely Christian city (Hist. Franc. 1:29). Even if this news is significantly exaggerated, then, on the other hand, no matter how late and legendary the news about the missionary activities of Irenaeus is, the facts underlying them must be recognized as reliable: Irenaeus did not limit his activities to Lyon, but sent missionaries to neighboring regions, especially to the Celts. Of course, thanks also to the leadership of Saint Irenaeus, the Lyon Church reached a high degree of internal development, as can be seen in the work of Irenaeus himself against the Gnostics, written during his bishopric in Lyon. Undoubtedly, he means, first of all, his Church when he writes: “it is impossible to list the gifts that the Church (scattered) throughout the world received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and daily manifests for the benefit of the nations”... “His (the Son of God’s) true disciples, receiving grace from Him, perform (miracles) in His name for the benefit of other people, in accordance with the fact that how each of them received a gift from Him; for some truly and undoubtedly cast out demons, so that those liberated from evil spirits often become believers (in Christ) and turn to the Church; others have foresight of the future, visions and prophetic speeches; others heal the sick through the laying on of hands and restore them to health. Even the dead rose again and stayed with us for quite a few years” (Adv. haer., 2:32, 4; cf.: 5:6, 1). To a large extent, Irenaeus’ activities were aimed at combating Gnosticism, which undoubtedly posed a great danger to the new Gallic Churches; he came here the same way and, perhaps, at the same time as Christianity itself, and namely, from the East, with which Lyon has always maintained the liveliest relations. One of the manifestations of this struggle of Saint Irenaeus was the essay: “Exposing and refuting false knowledge.” Not limiting himself to the boundaries of his diocese, Irenaeus lives in the interests of the Universal Church and acts here with great success. In his Epistle to Florinus, he points out his heretical errors and, without convincing him, writes to the Bishop of Rome, recommending that he take action against the heretical presbyter. In the year 190 or 191, Saint Irenaeus took an active part in the then aggravated Easter dispute. As is known, the Churches of Asia Minor and others, including the Roman Church, disagreed on the issue of the time of celebrating Easter. All agreed that the death of Jesus Christ followed the 14th of Nissan; but while the Asia Minors based their calculation of the time of the holiday solely on the Lunar month, other Churches combined the Lunar month with the days of the week; The people of Asia Minor celebrated Easter on the 14th of Nissan, and other Churches celebrated Easter on the following Resurrection. Already in the year 154, Bishop Anicetas discussed this issue with Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna - but they did not come to an agreement, although this did not violate the good relations between them (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:24), which is why the dispute did not take on wide proportions. But when the famous adherent of Montanism - Vlast - wanted to spread the practice of Asia Minor in Rome, the Bishop of Rome decided to take energetic measures to eliminate the disagreement: he convened regional councils and, supported by them, demanded that the bishops of Asia Minor, headed by Polycrates of Ephesus, conform to the general custom. Polycrates refused: he and the bishops of Asia Minor do not want to change the traditions received from the Apostles and previous bishops, and in response to Victor’s threats he decisively declared: “I am already sixty-five years old in the Lord; I had relations with brothers throughout the Universe, I read all the Holy Scriptures, and I am not afraid of threats; my elders told me: it is proper to obey God rather than man” (Victor wanted to cut off all of Asia from the unity of the Church and with his letters declared the brethren there completely deprived of all communication). Many bishops disagreed with Victor and advised him to take better care of peace, unity and love with his neighbors. When, therefore, a tempting division was being prepared in the Church, a particularly energetic word about peace and patience came from Lyon, from the peace-loving Bishop Irenaeus. He agreed that the sacrament of resurrection should be celebrated on the Lord's Day, however, he also advised Victor not to excommunicate entire Churches for their faithfulness to their faithful ancient custom. He points out to Victor that differences in church practice concern not only the celebration of Easter, but also fasting: “such a difference in the observance of fasting did not occur in our time, but much earlier, among our ancestors, who probably did not observe great precision in this and passed on their simple private custom to their offspring; nevertheless, they all maintained peace, and we live in peace among ourselves, and the agreement of faith is confirmed by disagreement regarding fasting.” Irenaeus further reminds Victor that his predecessors at the Roman See did not observe the Asia Minor custom in celebrating Easter and did not allow their own to observe it; despite this, they maintained peace with the brethren who came to them from those Churches in which that custom was observed, although its observance must have seemed very strange to those who did not observe it; No one has ever been rejected for this custom. To confirm what has been said, Irenaeus recalls Anicetas’s interview with Polycarp on this issue. – Victor conceded, and the impending division was prevented. Eusebius ends his story about this with the following words: “Thus, Irenaeus, a peacemaker by name, was a peacemaker (εἰρηνοποιός) and by disposition.” Regarding the Easter dispute, Irenaeus had correspondence with many other leaders of the Church (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:24). Irenaeus' intervention in the Easter controversy took place between the year 189, when Victor took the Roman See, and the year 192, the year of the death of Emperor Commodus. There is no information about his life after this time. The time of Irenaeus’s death is also unknown. Usually, his death is supposed to be in the year 202 or 203, on the assumption that he suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Septimius Severus, but this opinion does not have any serious basis. Only later witnesses crown Irenaeus with the crown of martyr. Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius and Jerome (De vir. ill.) say nothing about this. The most ancient text which gives him the predicate of martyr is Jerome's commentary on the prophet Isaiah (ad 64:4~sq.). Gregory of Tours (Historia Francorum 1, 29; Liber in gloria martyrum, 49) wants to give more detailed information about the martyrdom of Saint Irenaeus, but he himself undermines the reliability of his narrative by placing the martyrdom in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius. Given this situation, the news of the death of Saint Irenaeus should consider his martyrdom at least controversial: probably Saint Irenaeus lived to the end of his days in peace after an active and fruitful episcopal service for a quarter of a century. Particularly controversial is the question of the chronology of the life of Saint Irenaeus, the exact setting of which is all the more important because Irenaeus, as a witness to Church tradition for us, has such significance as no other church writer before Eusebius. But on this issue, the opinions of researchers differ greatly: while some believe the birth of Irenaeus at the beginning of the 2nd century, others push it back to the middle of this century. The most prominent representatives of these views at present are Th.Zahn and Adolf Harnack. According to Th. Zahn, Irenaeus was born around the year 115, and according to Adolf Harnack, shortly before the year 142, perhaps between 135–142, and in no case earlier than the year 130. Thus, the difference reaches 15–27 years. It is explained both by the lack of direct chronological data regarding the early period of Irenaeus’ life, and by different explanations of the material that can currently be used to determine the time of his birth. Undoubtedly, there are unacceptable provisions in dating Th.Zahna so early; Thus, to determine the time of Irenaeus’s life, the first starting point can be the years 177–8, when Irenaeus, as a presbyter of Lyons, traveled to Rome with the Letter of the Lyons confessors to Bishop Eleutherius. Judging by the tone of the confessors’ recommendation, it seems very unlikely that Irenaeus was already 62–63 years old at that time, as this should follow from the established Th. Zahn dates his birth in the year 115. But, on the other hand, the chronological definitions of Adolf Harnack cannot be considered convincing already in view of the obvious instability in them and fluctuations within as much as 12 years (130–142). If we take into account, firstly, the testimony of Irenaeus that the Apocalypse of John was written “not long before our time, almost in our century (σχεδòν ἐπì τη ς ἡμετέρας γενε ᾶ ς), at the end of the reign of Domitian” (Adv. haer., 5:30, 3), on the other hand, his relationship with Polycarp, which, undoubtedly, was not short-lived, but due to the strength of the impression they made, should have been expressed in a long-term leadership of the already conscious young man, then, probably, we will not be far from the truth if we put the time of Irenaeus’s birth around the time that Adolf Harnack considers it possible to assume as the earliest, that is, around the 130th year. In this case, it turns out that until the age of 25, Irenaeus could be in communication with Polycarp and benefit from his instructions; at the age of about 40–50 years, he was a presbyter and then a bishop of the Lyons Church, and died at the end of the 2nd or beginning of the 3rd century as an approximately 70-year-old man. II. 2. Literary activity of Saint Irenaeus The outstanding bishop of the Lyons Church and a zealous champion of the purity of the Apostolic teaching did not feel literary recognition in himself. He speaks about himself, starting, at the request of a friend, to compile his main work: “It’s not that I have the skill to write or master the art of words, but love prompts me to reveal to you and all your loved ones those teachings that until now have been hidden in secret.” He warns his friend not to demand from him, living among the Celts and, for the most part, dealing with a barbarian language, neither the art of speech, which he has not studied, nor the writing ability, which he has not tried to acquire, nor the beauty of expressions, nor the fascination that are alien to him” (1, praef.). But in the circumstances of the life and work of Saint Irenaeus, there was no shortage of very solid motives that forced him, even without the request of his friends, to take up his cane in order to defend the dear cause of observing the purity of the right teaching. Therefore, ancient evidence speaks of the wide literary activity of Saint Irenaeus and names many works written by him. The main source of information about the works of Irenaeus is Eusebius, who shows a special interest in the Bishop of Lyon. Quotes from other Greek writers supplement it either with new fragments of works named by him, or with the names and excerpts of works not named by him; The Syrian and Armenian fragments are important. Irenaeus wrote the following works: 1) “Exposure and refutation of false knowledge” - Ἑ λεγχος καì ἀνατροπὴ τη ς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως known under the abbreviated title: Προς τàς αἱρέσεις (Cyr. Hieros. Catech., 16:6) and Adversus haereses (Hieron. De vir. ill., 35). This work shared the fate of other anti-Gnostic monuments in that the Greek text was lost; Only numerous passages have been preserved from ancient Greek writers - from Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius and others. Based on these quotes, the first of the five books of the work can be restored almost in its entirety. From ancient catalogs of manuscripts it is concluded (Th. Zahn and Ph. Meyer) that in the 16th and 17th centuries the work of Irenaeus was still known in Greek and hopes are expressed (Fr. Loofs) that the Greek text of this work can still be found. All the more valuable is the surviving Latin translation of the entire work of Irenaeus, which is of very ancient origin; one might think that it was already known to Tertullian. Probably, in Gaul, or even in Lyon itself, a translation of it was prepared soon after the publication of the work (Batiffol. Lalittérature grecque, p. 106). There are, however, opinions that its place of origin was northern Africa (E. Wolflin). A thorough study of all the available manuscript material of the Latin translation (Fr. Loofs. Die Handschriften der lateinischen Übersetzung des Irenaeus und ihre Kapitelteilung. Leipzig, 1890) shows that all its copies, falling into two (or three) groups, can be traced back to one common primary source of the 4th or 5th century - why the Latin translation Irenaeus has such a good textual tradition as few ancient writers have. In literary terms, the translation is not of high quality, being written in barbaric Latin; but it has the important advantage that it reproduces the original text with the most conscientious accuracy and such literalness that often only a reverse translation into Greek provides the key to understanding. Recently (in Texte und Untersuch. Bd. 36, 3. Leipzig, 1913) an Armenian translation was published Books 4 and 5 of the work of Saint Irenaeus. Fragments of it in Syriac have also been preserved, but it has not yet been established whether, on the basis of them, it is possible to conclude that there was a Syriac translation of the entire work - it is more likely that only the surviving passages were translated into Syriac. The ownership of the work in question by Irenaeus is so thoroughly attested that there is no doubt about its authenticity. 2) Proof of the Apostolic Sermon (Ἑ πίδειξις του ἀποστολικου κηρύγματος ). Until recently, not a single line was known from it; they knew about him only from the words of Eusebius, who in his “Church History” (5:26) reports that Irenaeus wrote a work dedicated to his brother Marcion, as proof of the apostolic sermon - εἰς ἐπίδειξιν του ἀποστολικου κηρύγματος. But in December 1904, the scientist, Echmiadzin Archimandrite Karapet Ter-Mekerttichian discovered in the Armenian Codex of the late 13th century, stored in the library of the Church of Our Lady in Erivan, the full text of this work of St. Irenaeus, which was considered lost irretrievably. The Code is a collection that, in addition to the works of Irenaeus (the 4th and 5th chapters of “Exposure and Refutation” and “Evidence”), contains several unpublished treatises of different contents, which, according to the remark of Fr. Karapet, are important in historical and critical terms. Together with Archdeacon Erwand Ter-Minassiantz, Karapet Ter-Mekerttichian made as accurate a translation of the Armenian text into German as possible, which, together with the Armenian original and the necessary summary, is published in Texte und Untersuchungen. Bd. 31, 1 (third series Bd. 1, 1) Leipzig, 1907. Adolf Harnack divided the newly discovered work into one hundred small chapters and added an Afterword and Notes. In the found manuscript, the name of Irenaeus is placed before the whole collection, although it was not repeated later in front of the newly discovered work. The author's name is not indicated in the work itself, but its affiliation with Irenaeus of Lyon is beyond doubt. There is also no reason to suspect its integrity. Adolf Harnack considers it unnecessary to prove both. The history of ancient Christian writing shows that Irenaeus, apparently, was not one of those writers whose name was used to distribute forged works, and in this case, external evidence of authenticity is in full agreement with the internal properties of the work. The inscription of the entire codex with the name of Irenaeus, the title of the work: “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon,” the name of Marcion at the very beginning - all this sufficiently indicates that this work is the same as the one mentioned by Eusebius. In addition, in the work itself (Chapter 99), its author refers to his previously written “Exposure and Refutation of False Knowledge.” Finally, the entire content of the monument, the way of expressing thoughts and the nature of the teaching set forth in it bear the stamp of origin from the same author to whom the “Adversus haereses” belongs; This is confirmed by the numerous parallels in both works, which, however, are of such a nature that, despite their large number, the newly discovered monument cannot be recognized as an extraction from a previous work, or a mosaic of expressions taken from it, or, finally, a conscious imitation of it: the parallels are explained simply by the fact that the same author speaks about the same subjects. 3) Apology, which Eusebius speaks of (Hist. eccl., 5, 26): “a very short and especially necessary word against the Hellenes, entitled “On Knowledge” - καì τà μάλιστα ἀναγκαιότατος , περì ἐπιστήμης ἐπιγεγραμμένος ). Jerome (De vir. ill., 35) is incorrectly translated: contra Gentes volumen breve et de disci plina aliud - Eusebius speaks of one, not two works. The work has not survived and nothing more is known about it. 4) “On Unity of Command, or that God is not the Creator of evil”, πονητὴν κακω ν – (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:20) – a work addressed to the Roman presbyter Florinus. From it Eusebius preserved a long and very interesting passage, from which it is clear that in his youth Irenaeus personally knew Florinus, when the latter, as a court official, accompanying the Emperor (Antoninus Pius) and living in Smyrna, tried to gain the favor of Polycarp. Later, having become a Roman presbyter, he discovered a penchant for the false teachings of the Valentinians, and this gave Irenaeus a reason to warn and admonish Florinus. “This teaching, Florin - how to put it more condescendingly - is not a sound teaching; it does not agree with the Church and plunges those who believe in it into the greatest misfortune; Even heretics outside the Church never dared to preach this teaching; It was not preached to you by the elders who preceded us, who listened to the Apostles themselves.” Then Irenaeus remembers Polycarp and asks Florina how this “blessed and apostolic elder” would react if he heard something like that. At the time of writing this work, Florinus, apparently, had not yet broken ties with the Church, since Irenaeus points out to him that his teaching does not agree with the teaching of the Church and that the kind of teaching that he preaches was not dared to be preached by heretics who were outside the Church. 5) Florin did not heed the admonitions of Irenaeus, separated from the Church and fell into the error of Valentin. Irenaeus wrote for his sake (δἰ ὅ ν), but no longer to him, an addressed treatise on the eight (σπούδασμα περì ὀγδοάδος) (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:20). The only fragment of this work in Eusebius contains an appeal not to Florinus, but to the copyist of the book with a conjuration by the Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious Coming, when He will judge the living and the dead: “revise your copy and carefully correct it according to this original from which you copied, also rewrite this spell and add it to your copy.” The theme of this work was undoubtedly a refutation of the teachings of Valentine. The loss of this work is especially regrettable because in it Irenaeus persistently explained his connection with the first generation after the Apostolic men, which Eusebius deliberately noted. 6) The message “about the schism” - Περì σχίσματος, directed to Authority (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:15~and 5:20). Eusebius names Blastus in connection with Florinus and says that he fell into almost the same error as him (5:15). Based on this, Theodoret of Cyrus claims that Vlast was carried away by the teachings of Valentinus (Haeret, fab. comp. 1:23). Since Eusebius does not say anything about the content of the Epistle of Irenaeus, in view of the hints of Eusebius and the statements of Theodoret, it was believed that the Epistle of Irenaeus was devoted to the refutation of Valentinianism. In modern times, attention has been paid to the testimony of pseudo-Tertullian (Libellus adversus omneshaereses, 22) that Vlast was a quartodeciman, and therefore the subject of the Epistle of Irenaeus is the question of Easter, with which the title of the work is consistent. 7) Eusebius reports that regarding the dispute over Easter, Irenaeus had correspondence with very many primates of the Churches; including one letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, written by Irenaeus on behalf of the Gallic brethren. From the latter, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., 5:24) cites the passage discussed above. The Syriac fragment of the Epistle of Irenaeus to Bishop Victor probably also refers to the same Epistle. Eusebius knows of only one such Epistle of Irenaeus, and the mention of several epistles to Victor begins only from the time of Jerome (De vir. ill., 35: aliae ad Victorem episcopum Romanum de quaestione paschae epistolae; cf.: Phot., Bibl., cod. 120: πολλάκις). In the Syriac passage, Irenaeus tries to persuade Victor to pay attention to the blasphemous writings of Florinus, which have a harmful effect even in Gaul, and to cast them out from his midst, since they serve to reproach the Roman Church, because their author boasts that he belongs to this Church. Their author not only harms his followers, who are predisposed to blasphemy against God, but also harms the Orthodox, because through his books he instills false teachings about God into their minds. The passage gives the impression of authenticity and cannot be suspected even if it is not taken from the Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, because the question of the number of letters of Irenaeus to Victor cannot at present be decided in a definite sense. 9) Among the primates to whom Eusebius wrote on the issue of Easter could have been the Bishop of Alexandria. A Syriac passage has been preserved with the inscription: “Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who was privileged to listen to the Apostolic Disciple Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and Martyr, and who was therefore justly held in great esteem, wrote in an Epistle to an Alexandrian that it is proper to celebrate the Feast of the Resurrection on the first day of the week.” The accuracy of the inscription inspires confidence, and the fragment itself gives no reason for doubt, since in the Epistle to Victor Irenaeus states that the sacrament of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on Resurrection Day (Eus. Hist. eccl., 5:20). 10) Eusebius says (Hist. eccl., 5:26): “there is also a book of various discourses (βιβλίον τι διαλέξεων διαφόρων), in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon and quotes from them some sayings (compare: Hieron. De vir. ill., 35). It is believed that this was a collection of conversations. Eusebius does not give any information about the contents and nature of the collection. In the Sacra Parallela there is a passage ἐκ τω ν διαλέξεων of Irenaeus: “the duty of a Christian is nothing else than to think about death.” 11) Maximus the Confessor (PG 91:276) quotes three sentences from the words of Irenaeus to Deacon Demetrius of Bien about faith: περì πίστεως λόγων. The earliest evidence of these treatises or speeches on faith is unknown. 12) The inscription above the Syriac fragment speaks of Irenaeus’s compilation of an interpretation of the Song of Songs. There are no other traces of this comment. The content of the fragment, that there are two people in every person, is quite suspicious. 13) In the Sacra Parallela, under the name Irenaeus, a fragment is given from an essay on the essence of the universe (περì τη ς του παντòς οὐσίας). But, according to Photius (Bibl., codex48), this work, belonging to Hippolytus, was attributed by some to Irenaeus. 14) In the Sacra Parallela, Saint Irenaeus learned another work about the Holy Trinity (περì τη ς ἀγίας Τριάδος) from which one assumption is extracted. The last three (Nos. 12–14) works are incorrectly attributed to Irenaeus. 15) In “Refuting and Refuting False Knowledge” (1:27, 4; 3:12, 12) Irenaeus expresses his intention to refute Marcion on the basis of his own works. It is hardly likely that he would publish such a work, since there is no news of its existence. 16) Of particular note is the story of the four Greek fragments of Irenaeus, which are called the Pfaffian fragments. Tübingen professor and chancellor Chr. Pfaff. († in 1760) published in 1715 four excerpts from the works of Saint Irenaeus that he found in the Turin library. The first passage speaks of true gnosis, which consists in the understanding of Christ; the second is about the new offering established, according to the prophecy of Malachi, by the Lord in the New Testament; the third demands an end to the strife over the issue of holidays and fasts, which are tearing the Church apart in violation of faith and love; the fourth is about the appearance of the Son of God after the fulfillment of times and about His Second Coming for the elimination of all evil and for the emergence of everything. The publication of these fragments at the same time caused controversy about their ownership by Irenaeus, and Pfaff himself vigorously defended them. The question of their authenticity remained open during the second half of the 18th and 19th centuries. There has been no thorough scientific study of them. Only at the very end of the 19th century, two experts on ancient Christian literature took up Pfaff’s fragments - Fr. X. Funk and Adolf Harnack. The latter most convincingly and probably definitively proved that Professor Pfaff, who allegedly discovered the fragments, was in fact their author - having committed a forgery. By their nature, all fragments stand in close connection; they are mosaically composed from numerous passages of the New Testament, and their text is consistent with the Textus Receptus. Then, all four fragments are thoroughly imbued with echoes from “Exposure and Refutation,” and precisely from those passages of it that were known in the Greek text at the beginning of the 18th century. In addition, all four fragments serve as a clear expression of Pfaff’s theology: in the first we see Pfaff’s pietism, in the second – the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist, in the third – his hopes for the reunification of the Churches, through overcoming and eliminating the external in Christianity, in the fourth – his belief in universal restoration (apocatastasis). Finally, they also point out that Pfaff never spoke definitively about the manuscript from which he took passages; No such manuscript was found in the Turin Library, and it is not allowed to disappear without a trace. Thus, of all the rather numerous works of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, we have the opportunity to speak definitely about only two: “The exposure and refutation of false knowledge” and about the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” - we will now move on to a more detailed study of them. II. 3. “Exposing and refuting false knowledge”: content of the work, time of origin; sources of information about Gnosticism The literary struggle of Saint Irenaeus with Gnostic teaching had its basis in the fact that some disciples of the Valentinian Mark penetrated into the region of the Rhone River and deceived the Gallic Christians with their teaching; The books of the presbyter Florinus, who had fallen away from Valentinianism, also had a harmful influence on them, and in general it is necessary to think that Gnosticism, which had spread so widely throughout all the borders of the modern Christian world, could have had success in the young Gallic Churches. The immediate reason for compiling the work “Exposing and Refuting False Knowledge” was the request of a friend, probably a bishop, to acquaint him with the errors of the Valentinians and give him guidance in refuting them. Accordingly, Irenaeus wants first of all to bring to light, to “convict” (ἔλεγχος), the teaching of heretics that is often hidden in the mysterious darkness, and then to “refute” (ἀνατροπή) it; hence the title of the work: Ἑ λεγχος καì ἀνατροπὴ τη ς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. According to the original plan, the work was designed to consist of two books, of which the first should contain “Refutation”, and the second – “Refutation”. But by the end of the second book, it became clear that it was necessary to supplement the refutation with evidence from Holy Scripture, which is why the following books are already outlined here (2:35, 2: demonstrabimus in libris consequentibus). Having added a third to the two books, Irenaeus hoped that his friend would receive from him a complete refutation of all heretics and would with confidence and firmness confront them in defense of the true and life-giving faith, which the Church received from the Apostles and passes on to its children (3, Preface). But then the third book was not enough - a fourth and, finally, a fifth book appeared. The content of the work is as follows: Book I. After preliminary remarks on the attractiveness of heretical ideas, which, cunningly dressed in tempting clothing, appear in their appearance to be truer than truth itself, and a modest statement of the absence of any special ability in the author for the task at hand, Irenaeus proceeds at once to an exposition of the Valentinian system, which, as the most widespread, the most fully developed, and the most popular of all, forms the main subject of his polemic. Irenaeus believes that by refuting it, he thereby defeats the rest of the Gnostic systems. He notes the main features in which Valentine’s teaching differs from the Orthodox Faith - first of all, dualism - the most fatal error of all systems; secondly, the fantastic and arbitrary interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, to which Valentinus turns, without giving due importance to the true meaning of the Divinely inspired word; thirdly, incongruous moral practice and, in particular, points to the custom of demanding money for communicating the sacraments, and fourthly, the opposition between people of spiritual and material nature, with a double teaching for each class. He likens their handling of the Holy Scriptures to the compilation of poems from scattered verses of Homer, which inexperienced readers mistake for excerpts from the original works of Homer. He further emphasizes the unstable character of the teaching of the Valentinians and the ever-increasing pomp of the speeches of their successive teachers, and ridicules their efforts to surpass each other in terminology. From Valentinus, Irenaeus moves on to his students Secundus, Ptolemy, Colorvas and Mark and points out their contradictions with Valentinus and each other. To Mark - to his teaching and wicked and deceptive actions - he pays especially much attention, apparently more than he deserved; but, undoubtedly, Irenaeus had sufficient grounds for this. His mysterious theories about the properties of numbers and letters of the alphabet and other results of the “pseudo-scientific method” are patiently refuted, with only rarely the indignation or disdain of the author breaking through; Irenaeus is also very restrained in assessing the moral side of the teachings of a man who, through the use of magical formulas and stimulating ceremonies, produced a particularly harmful effect on women. Mark, as portrayed by Irenaeus, appears to be simply a deceiver operating with great success, and his teaching is a proof not of his own faith, but of the credulity of his hearers. Finally, Irenaeus comes to the realization of the need to depict the teachings of Valentinus in his sources and moves on to a narrative about the teachings of the ancient Gnostics - “matres et patres et proavi” (1:31, 3) Valentinians - Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Cyrinthus, Ebionites and Nicolaitans, Cerdon and Marcion, Tatian and the Encratites, Ophites, Cainites. Concluding the book, Irenaeus writes: “now they (the heretics) are exposed, and the discovery of their teaching is a victory over them. Therefore, I tried to imagine and discover the entire poorly built frame of this fox, for not much would be needed to refute their teaching when it became known to everyone” (1:31, 3, 4). Book II. In the second book, in a long series of complex arguments, Irenaeus reveals great skill in dialectics, defending the soundness of the teachings of the Church and revealing the weak points of its opponents; He lays out the contradictions in Gnostic teaching against the true concept of God and makes the case for monotheism. The main teaching of the Gnostics, that the Creator of the world is different from the first and highest God, is untenable, while the Church teaching about the unity of God and the creation of the world by the Word of God bears the stamp of truth. The Gnostic teaching about the eons, which are mediators in creation, is borrowed from Greek mythology and philosophy: Irenaeus compares the mythology of the Gnostics with the mythology of the comic poet Antiphon, Homer, Hesiod, with the cosmogonic theories of Thales and his followers and shows that the Gnostics in general do not have a single original feature. Thus, he notes the essentially pagan character of Gnosticism and its complete inability to understand God, Revelation. The author criticizes the arbitrary allegorical and mystical explanation of the Holy Scriptures by the Gnostics, who sought to justify their teaching about the eons with biblical figurative expressions and parables and for this - following the example of Jewish cabalism - used the meaning of letters and numbers. When explaining the Holy Scriptures, it is necessary to start from the known and from sayings that do not allow different interpretations and from here move on to the dark and figurative. The author accuses the Gnostics of making man the measure of everything and striving to go beyond the limits of human knowledge, forgetting that God alone is omniscient and that above the realm of the knowable lies the realm of Divine revelation. Finally, a refutation is given of Gnostic anthropology, which distinguished between spiritual, mental and material people, and the doctrine of the transmigration of souls. Book III. Irenaeus moves into the area of ​​positive Christian evidence and provides a refutation of the Gnostic teachings from the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition - two inseparable sources of Christian truth. Heretics refer first to one of them, then to the other, but in reality they justify their innovations by perverting both: when they denounce heretics from the Scriptures, they turn to the accusation of the Scriptures themselves, as if they are incorrect, have no authority, are different in presentation and that from them the truth cannot be discovered by those who do not know Tradition; when they are referred to Tradition, which comes from the Apostles and is preserved in the Churches through the succession of tradition, then they resist Tradition, saying that they are wiser not only than the elders, but also the Apostles, and that they have found the pure truth (3:2, 1-2). Irenaeus reveals that the source of Christian truth is the teaching of Christ and His Apostles, first taught by spoken word, and then in written documents. He proves this by developing the idea of ​​​​the continuity of the Apostolic tradition and more often by defending the exclusive authority of the four Gospels. In this regard, he especially energetically put forward the doctrine of the Universal Church as the authoritative guardian and interpreter of the Christian faith; in case of any doubts about the correctness of understanding, he points to the possibility and necessity of turning to the Apostolic Churches, and in particular to the Roman Church, as genuine treasuries of true tradition. Establishing himself on these foundations, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of the One God, the Creator of the world and the founder of the Old Testament; then move on to Christology: Christ, true God and true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is the Redeemer of all people. At the conclusion of the book, Irenaeus, against the teachings of Marcion, affirms the righteous Divine government of the world, manifested in rewarding the good and punishing the evil, and expresses a loving wish for the conversion of opponents to the Church of God. Book IV. The fourth book continues to reveal the same issues as in the previous one, and he also substantiates what was said with the “sayings” of the Lord. Against Marcion’s teaching that Christ came to reveal a new and hitherto unknown God, Irenaeus defends the identity of the origin of the Law and the Gospel, as having their origin from the same God. The Old Testament ritual law had educational significance and ceased to exist with the advent of the New Testament, but the moral law continues to have binding force and only now reaches its full meaning. To refute the objections, Irenaeus refers to the authority of the bearers of church ministry. At various points in the book he examines questions of the highest importance for theology and the history of the Church about the Holy Trinity, about the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice, about the universality of the atonement, about the origin of evil, about free will, about the Christology of the Old Testament, about the meaning of Apostolic succession in the episcopal ministry, and so on. In general, the fourth book has the greatest richness and variety of content of all five books. Irenaeus summarizes the result of his reasoning and arguments in this book in the following expressive saying: “True knowledge is the teaching of the Apostles and the original structure of the Church throughout the world and the sign of the Body of Christ, consisting in the succession of bishops, to whom the Apostles handed down the Church existing everywhere, and it has come to us in its entirety with genuine observance of the Scriptures, accepting neither addition nor decrease.” (4:33, 8). Book V. The fifth and last book begins with a promise to supplement the proof “from the other sayings of the Lord” and from the Apostolic Epistles. Its main theme is the doctrine of the Resurrection of the body in connection with the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ, partaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers. The resurrection of the body is the distinctive teaching of Christianity in contrast to the spiritualistic and metaphysical views of the soul. Irenaeus, according to his promise, considers this issue exclusively on the basis of Holy Scripture and the Church, without transferring it into a speculative and mystical area. The final chapters are of particular interest. The doctrine of the resurrection of the body naturally raises the question of the final purpose of man and the Second Coming of Christ. Irenaeus in eschatology is an adherent of chiliastic teaching. Following the tradition coming from Papias and other respected members of the Church of Asia Minor, he teaches about the Coming of Christ to earth to reign for a thousand years with the saints. The work, as can be seen from the prefaces to various books and conclusions, was written more than once. From the preface to the Third Book it is clear that the first two books were sent by Irenaeus to his friend before he began writing the third book. From the prefaces to the Fourth and Fifth Books it is also clear that both the Third and Fourth Books were handed over to the addressee immediately upon production, before the completion of all work. Thus, a fairly significant period of time could have passed between the writing and publication of the first and last books, but there is no data to determine exactly how long. In the Third Book (3:3, 3), Eleutherius is named as the modern bishop of Rome, who occupied the see from 174 to 189; in addition, throughout the entire work, partly tacitly, partly it is clearly attested, that the Church uses at least the outside world, and this could have been during the reign of Commodus (180-192), and not Marcus Aurelius. Therefore, the composition of the work must be attributed to the second half of the bishopric of Eleutherius. The last two books could have been written even during Victor's bishopric in Rome (189–198/199). The work “Exposure and Refutation of False Knowledge” reveals its author’s good familiarity with Gnostic systems and to this day represents the most reliable source for resolving the highly complicated issue of the ancient history of Gnosticism. The main sources of information about the teachings of the Gnostics for Irenaeus were the works of the Gnostics themselves - Ptolemy, Mark, Marcion and some others, apparently mostly anonymous, not preserved to this day. In addition, Irenaeus personally addressed representatives of Gnosticism and received messages from those who were returning to the Church from heresy. He considers accurate knowledge of heresy to be a necessary condition for a thorough and successful refutation of it. “Whoever wishes to convert them (heretics),” he says in the Preface to the Fourth Book, “must know exactly the systems of their teaching, for it is impossible for anyone to heal the sick when he does not know the illnesses of unhealthy people. My predecessors, and much better than me at that, could not satisfactorily refute the followers of Valentinus, because they did not know their teachings.” That Irenaeus read church and especially anti-Gnostic literature is clear from his above remarks about writings directed against Valentine. He quotes the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Romans (5:28, 4), names the Epistle of St. Polycarp to the Philippians (3:3, 4), the “Five Books” of Papias of Hierapolis (5:33, 4), the “Shepherd” of Hermas (4:20, 2), the work of Justin Martyr against Marcion (4:6, 2; cf.: 5:26, 2). There is no doubt that he used Justin’s Syntagma against all heresies, and was also familiar with his Apologies and Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. In literary terms, the work reflects the conditions of its origin and suffers from the shortcomings that depend on them. Irenaeus submits to the natural flow of material and ideas and does not show any desire to introduce them into the tight framework of a pre-planned plan, hence the lack of methodological structure; the connection and development of thoughts is constantly disrupted by deviations from the topic and excursions into the area of ​​private issues. But, on the other hand, Irenaeus, despite his very modest judgment regarding his literary abilities, appears in this work as far from an ordinary writer. His language is simple, but without any trace of the Celtic barbarism, which he fears in the preface to the First Book. He writes easily and smoothly. With great clarity of thought and expression, he possesses a wealth of knowledge; His penchant for thoughtful speculation is especially remarkable. Tertullian already called it omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator (Adv. Valent., 5). II. 4. “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon”: title of the work, addressee, time of origin, purpose of writing, content, comments about its significance as a newly discovered work We call the newly discovered work of Irenaeus of Lyons: “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon”, Ἑ πίδειξις του ἀποστολικου κηρύγματος. But it is difficult to decide how it was inscribed by the author himself: εἰς ἐπίδειξιν του ἀποστολικου κηρύγματος or ἐπίδειξις κτλ. The Armenian translation testifies in favor of the latter; but Adolf Harnack, not daring to speak out with complete confidence, still leans more in favor of what Irenaeus wrote more modestly: (Λόγος) εìς ἐπίδειξιν, since otherwise, in his opinion, Eusebius would have structured his speech differently in his message (Texte und Untersuch. Bd. 31, 1. Leipzig, 1907, S. 54). But perhaps Irenaeus himself did not give his work any inscription and it was formulated only by Eusebius in accordance with the clearly expressed purpose of the work - to present evidence of the truth or reliability of the Apostolic Gospel on the basis of Holy Scripture (mainly prophecies). Since there is no certainty that Eusebius writes out the exact title of the work and since, further, its inscription in the Armenian manuscript is undoubtedly based on a handwritten tradition of an earlier time, perhaps reaching back to the Greek original, then, in our opinion, the name of the newly discovered work, attested by the Armenian translation, should be retained: Ἑ πίδειξις του ἀποστολικου κηρύγματος. Who was the Marcian to whom the work was intended by the author is unknown: in the monument itself, except for the name, no further indications are given regarding his identity; Eusebius doesn’t add anything either, calling him simply a brother named Marcian. Essentially, nothing can be objected to the assumption of I.V. Lightfoota that this Marcian is the same person with whose hand “Martyrium Polycarpi” was written, and who also bore the name Marcian; but, on the other hand, it is impossible to satisfactorily substantiate this assumption, since there is no information about this last Marcian and his relationship with Irenaeus, except for the natural conclusion that he was close to Saint Polycarp and therefore could have been well known to Irenaeus, and that he occupied a prominent position among the Smyrna brothers. Marcian, as can be seen from the Preface of the work, was on friendly terms with Irenaeus, and at the time when Irenaeus wrote his work, he was not in Lyon: Irenaeus expresses regret that he cannot constantly be with Marcian in order to make this earthly life easier for each other, spending it in continuous general conversation about useful subjects; separated physically, he does not want to miss the opportunity to talk with Marcian in writing (1). From the tone of the Preface and the purpose of writing the work, one can conclude that Marcian was a layman, but there is no sufficient basis to assert this decisively. On the question of the time of origin of the work, we can only say that it was written after the work “Against Heresies,” since the author already refers to it (99). The third book of the latter was written during the second half of the bishopric of Eleutherius in Rome (174–189); and since it was followed by the Fourth and Fifth Books, written undoubtedly at some intervals, the treatise belongs to the last decade of the Second Century, being one of the last works of Saint Irenaeus. The goal that Irenaeus pursued in his work, sending it to Marcian, is clearly indicated at the very beginning of it: he sought to present in brief words the preaching of the truth in order to strengthen Marcian’s faith; for this purpose he sends him “an important written reminder, so that in a little he may receive much, and in a little he may know all the members of the body of truth, and in a short time he may hear the proof of Divine things. Then Marcian’s salvation will become fruitful and he will force all false believers to lower their gaze, and to those who want to know sound and blameless teaching, he will be able to present it with all decisiveness (1). This is how the goal set determines the nature of the presentation throughout the work. The author does not lose sight of the modern conditions of church life, which call for an energetic struggle against heretical teaching in its various ramifications and discoveries, as evidenced by the last chapters (98-100), and the polemical opposition of the essential points of true Christian teaching to heretical one forms the basis of all his reasoning - it undoubtedly determines both the choice and the formulation of questions. But the speech itself is conducted in a completely calm tone, without direct, clearly expressed polemics with false teaching and without a specific indication of the errors of heretics (except for the last chapters mentioned). The basis for the presentation of true Christian teaching is the “Canon of Faith”, as it was communicated at Baptism, and to prove its reliability, arguments and texts of the Holy Scripture common in the 2nd century are cited, borrowed mainly from Old Testament prophecies, the content of which is revealed and commented on in the application to New Testament events with the aid of an allegorical and mystical explanation of the facts of Old Testament history. Thus, in this work, Irenaeus speaks not as a polemicist or even as a scientist, but as a shepherd and catechist, presenting in a publicly accessible form the correct view of the history of the Salvation of mankind. Irenaeus’ desire to reveal as clearly and as thoroughly as possible the essential points of the “Canon of Faith” and to impress them more deeply in the minds of Marcian and other readers of the work also explains those repetitions in the presentation, which partly make it difficult to accurately determine his plan. It goes without saying that Irenaeus did not set out to write a work strictly proportionate in parts; however, even repetitions do not violate the planned sequence in the disclosure of intended thoughts. After a preliminary brief address to Marcian (1), from the second chapter Irenaeus begins to carry out the task at hand and, having mentioned the need for the consciousness of truth to “keep the soul and body pure,” indicates that purity of the soul is achieved by undoubted observance of the “Canon of Faith” communicated at Baptism, which is performed in the name of God the Father and in the name of Jesus Christ, the incarnate and died and risen Son of God and the Holy Spirit (5). The author, in various combinations, reveals the three members of the “Canon of our Faith” outlined by this formula, dwelling in particular detail on the first of them, setting out the doctrine of the One God, the highest Spirit, the unhappened, incomprehensible beginning of everything, the Creator of heaven and earth and the whole world, the Creator of Angels and people, good, merciful and righteous, the Nourisher of all, the King and Judge. There is no other God either above Him or after Him, the height and greatness of this God is indescribable. He created everything with the Word and adorned everything with the Spirit. The second member of faith is the Word of God, the Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom all things came into being; He appeared to the prophets and at the end of time became a man in order to abolish death and reveal life and unite people with God. The third member is the Holy Spirit; To them the prophets prophesied, the fathers learned the Divine, and the righteous were brought to the path of righteousness; at the end of time He poured out upon humanity throughout the earth in a new way, renewing people to God. The Holy Spirit leads to the knowledge of the Son, and the Son leads to the knowledge of the Father. This first part of the work ends with the 8th chapter. In the second part - from the 9th to the 42nd chapter - the author sets out the history of Divine Revelation in the world from the Creation of man, the Fall, the Flood, the calling of Abraham and until the conversion of the pagans to Christ through the Apostles sent by Him. It begins with a speech about the seven heavens, inhabited by the Powers, Angels and Archangels, who serve God, and the author again emphasizes that the whole world, including the Angels, was created by God, Who gave laws to the whole World so that each creature remained in its own area, without transgressing the limits established by God. This God is glorified by His Word, which is His Son, and by the Holy Spirit, which is the Wisdom of the Father of all. With the narration of the creation of people and their life in Paradise, the author opens a condensed - however, shading out essential details - account of the initial history of mankind, then moves on to the history of the Israeli people before their conquest of the land of Canaan and at the end mentions King David and his son Solomon, who built the church of God. He does not recount the further history of the people of Israel; for his purpose it was enough to briefly indicate that prophets were sent to this very people, who, through the Holy Spirit, guided the people on the path and returned the fathers to the almighty God, became the heralds of our Lord Jesus Christ, predicting that in the flesh He would come from the house of David, being the Son of God, who from eternity was with the Father; He was born before the creation of the world and at the end of time appeared in human form to the whole world. The author does not present the events of New Testament history, obviously because he considered its facts to be generally known; from the Old Testament prophets he directly proceeds to pointing out the fruits of the Redemption accomplished by Christ, arguing that only through the Coming of the Son of God could people become partakers of incorruption. He only notes the meaning and significance of the main events of the Lord’s earthly life. The history of the creation of the first people and their fall gives the author indications of the means of recreating and restoring fallen man: humanity fell to death through disobedience, and its abolition was possible only through obedience; death had dominion over the body - the Word became flesh, so that by the same body he could abolish death; the body of the first man was created from virgin soil - the Lord is born from the Virgin; Through the virgin's disobedience, man became mortal - through the Virgin's obedience he receives life; the crime was committed through the tree - by nailing the Son of Man on the tree, the knowledge of evil is destroyed and the knowledge of good is given. The Cross established the fellowship of all those scattered throughout the Universe and called on all sides to the knowledge of the Father. Thus, the promises given to the fathers are fulfilled: the Son of God became the Son of Abraham and David; The Word of God became flesh to destroy death and give life to man. He sanctified our birth and abolished death. At the same time, He showed the Resurrection, becoming the firstborn from the dead, and in Himself resurrected fallen man, raising him to Heaven at the right hand of the glory of the Father. There is the closest and inextricable connection between all the facts of the Lord’s redemptive work on earth: if He was not born, then He did not die; if he did not die, then he did not rise from the dead, if he did not rise from the dead, then he did not defeat death and did not destroy its dominion, and if He did not defeat death, then how can we rise to life, having fallen into death from the beginning? The Forerunner, John the Baptist, prepared for the acceptance of the Word of life, proclaiming about Him that He is the Christ on Whom the Spirit of God rests. His disciples and witnesses of all His good deeds, teachings, sufferings of death, resurrection and ascension are the Apostles, who, after receiving the Holy Spirit, were sent by Him into the whole world and called the pagans, cleansing their souls and bodies with the Baptism of water and the Holy Spirit; they fulfilled the calling of the pagans foretold by the prophets. Irenaeus ends this part of the work with a call to walk in truth, holiness, righteousness and patience: The apostles taught to keep the body blameless for the resurrection and the soul undefiled. From the second half of the 42nd chapter, the main and essential part of the work begins, the content of which determines its title. Irenaeus defines the purpose and meaning of further reasoning in this way: “That all this was supposed to happen, the Spirit of God announced this in advance through the prophets, so that faith would be strong in those who serve God in truth. For what was impossible for our nature and therefore should have seemed incredible to people, God announced this in advance through the prophets, so that through what was said before, that is, many centuries later, was then fulfilled as it was said before, we would understand that it was God who from the beginning told us about our salvation” (42). Accordingly, Irenaeus cites a whole series of prophecies that speak of the eternal existence of the Son of God and His activity in the Old Testament (43–52), the Incarnation and birth (53–66), His healings (67), suffering and death on the cross with many details, descent into hell (68–82), Resurrection from the dead, Ascension, being at the right hand of God and coming to Judgment (83–85). Summarizing all that has been said, Irenaeus writes: “If the prophets predicted about the Son of God that He would appear on earth, and also announced where on earth and how and in what form He would appear, and the Lord took upon Himself all these prophecies, then our faith in Him is firmly founded, and the tradition of preaching is true, that is, the testimony of the Apostles, who were sent by the Lord throughout the world to preach the Son of God.” (86). But the prophets announced the very embassy of the Apostles to preach, and their calling and salvation of the pagans, not through the Law of Moses, but through faith and love implanted by the Holy Spirit. According to the prophecies, the Word of God changed the hearts of the pagans, which is why the Church is so fruitful among the saved. After life has been given to us by this calling, we must not return to the first legislation, for we have received the Lord of the law, the Son of God, and through faith in Him we learn to love God with all our hearts and our neighbors as ourselves. For Christians there is therefore no need for the guidance of the law. Calling on the readers to give glory to God, who saves us with His unsearchable and incomprehensible wisdom and from Heaven proclaiming to us the salvation that we alone could not achieve, the author exclaims: “this is the beloved preaching of the truth, and this is the image of our salvation, and this is the way of life, which the prophets predicted and Christ fulfilled, and the Apostles betrayed, and the Church entrusted to her children throughout the world. It (that is, the truth) must be preserved in its entirety with a strong will and in a God-pleasing manner, with good deeds and a sound direction of thought” (98). As a conclusion to the work and a conclusion from everything that preceded it, Irenaeus warns the reader against various errors of his time, which he classifies as heresies in relation to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: one should not separate God the Father from the Creator of the world, one should not deny the Incarnation and reject the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We must beware of all erring people and abstain from their morals if we really want to be pleasing to God and receive salvation from Him. In its content, the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” does not provide almost anything new in comparison with the data that was known from the anti-Gnostic work previously written by Irenaeus: it is necessary to very carefully look for new thoughts and new messages. Here Irenaeus reveals the same basic thoughts that he clarified in polemical form in “Adversus haereses” - especially in books III-V. There is nothing new or remarkable in the very method of revealing the subject: Irenaeus uses the same arguments and texts that were usually used at that time and which were already used by Irenaeus himself in “Adversus haereses”, and the evidence is grouped around various questions in a form that cannot satisfy people accustomed to a strict order and methodical connection of thoughts: often a question that, apparently, has already been revealed and exhausted, appears again after a few pages, from the same text through idiosyncratic interpretation, various ideas are extracted. True, the textual apparatus in the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” does not have the same volume and variety as in the “Adversus haereses”; but important texts are found in both works, explained in the same sense and used for the same purposes; some differences in interpretation are explained quite naturally by the difference in points of view and objectives of both works. But supplementing with new data the existing information about the Theology of Saint Irenaeus, the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” is undoubtedly important for an accurate and comprehensive disclosure of the teachings of the famous father of the Church, introducing some new touches into it, better clarifying its spirit and outlining the personality of Irenaeus himself from new sides. II. 5. The main provisions of the Theological teaching of Saint Irenaeus Of the numerous works of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, only two have survived to us in their entirety: “The Exposure and Refutation of False Knowledge” and the treatise “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon.” But even on the basis of them we can form a fairly clear idea of ​​the distinctive character, main provisions and content of the Theological teaching of the outstanding Father of the Church. Although the first work was written against Gnosticism and, in particular, against the Valentinians, in it Saint Irenaeus in detail and clearly formulates such provisions of Church teaching that go far beyond the limits of private polemics and in which he anticipates the refutation of heresies that subsequently arose, revealing the essential aspects of the teaching of the Church. If the second work also has in mind the modern needs of church life, calling for an energetic struggle against heretical teaching in its various forms. If in it the polemical opposition of the essential points of the true Christian teaching to the heretical determines both the choice and the formulation of questions; However, here the author expressly states his task is to expound to his beloved friend Marcian “all the members of the body of truth” and give him “an important written reminder” containing “the precious preaching of the truth,” “the image of our salvation,” “the way of life which the prophets foretold, Christ fulfilled, the Apostles handed down, and the Church entrusted to her children throughout the world.” The very method of studying the truth and the special insistence in revealing the details of certain provisions of Church teaching in Saint Irenaeus are determined by his polemics with Gnosticism. In contrast to Gnostic theories, the Church felt the need not to create something new, but to affirm what the Church had possessed from the beginning of its existence. And Saint Irenaeus, contrary to the a priori speculations of the Gnostics, is entirely based on the facts of Revelation; in his opinion, the task of Church science is not to change the content of Revelation, not to invent another God other than the Creator, another Christ or the Only Begotten, but to carefully examine the thought of what is said in the parables and agree with the content of faith, to reveal the economy of human salvation, to explain the forms of Revelation and the purpose of the Old and New Testaments, to prove the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection on the basis of the unshakable the conviction that the whole Church has the same faith throughout the world (1:10, 3), which she received from the Apostles and preserved pure and intact. Thus, the concept of Church truth is put forward and revealed against Gnosticism. But what are the sources for accurate knowledge of this truth? “We learned about the arrangement of our salvation,” says Saint Irenaeus, “not through anyone else, but through those through whom the Gospel came to us, which they then preached (orally), then, by the will of God, handed over to us in the Scriptures, as the future foundation and pillar of our faith” (3:1, 1). In the full conviction that “the Scriptures are perfect, since they are spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit” (2:28, 2), Saint Irenaeus, so to speak, lives in the Holy Scriptures: on the basis of it he refutes his opponents and from it he develops his Theology. As a source of truth, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments have equal importance: the prophets, apostles and all the disciples of the Lord taught the truth (3:2, 1; 24:1); therefore, next to the evidence from the Old Testament books, evidence is given especially from the Old Testament prophecies, which foreshadowed all the teaching and facts of the faith (Demonstr., 43-86); yet the Old Testament Scriptures reveal the history of the Salvation of Mankind. Especially remarkable is the testimony of Saint Irenaeus about the Gospels; “So great is the reliability of these Gospels that the heretics themselves bear witness to them and, based on them, everyone tries to confirm his teaching” (3:11, 7). There should be four Gospels, as is customary in the Church - no more and no less: “It is impossible for there to be more or fewer Gospels than there are. For since there are four quarters of the world in which we live, and four main winds, and since the Church is scattered throughout the whole earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life, then it must have four pillars, spreading incorruption from everywhere and quickening people” (3:11, 2). However, in the fight against Gnosticism, the Holy Scripture cannot be recognized as the final authority, firstly, because heretics distribute a lot of apocryphal and spurious works in order to amaze people who are meaningless and ignorant of the true scriptures (1:20, 1), and secondly, because, reading the genuine scriptures without love for the truth, they are not convinced (3:11, 7), thirdly, because they explain them according to their imaginations (2:10, 2, 3; 3:12, 7; 3:21, 3). “When they reprove (heretics) from the Scriptures, they turn to the accusation of the Scriptures themselves as if they are incorrect, have no authority, are different in presentation and (they say) that from them the truth cannot be discovered by those who do not know Tradition; For the truth was not delivered by writing, but by a living voice” (3:2, 1). From here follows a natural need for a criterion that would provide reliable guarantees against all perversions. Such a criterion is Church Tradition, which has the highest authority and according to which the Holy Scriptures must be understood. But this position also had to be defined and explained in the most precise way, in contrast to the judgments of heretics. “When we,” says Saint Irenaeus, “refer them to Tradition, which comes from the Apostles and is preserved in the Churches through the succession of presbyters, then they resist tradition, saying that they are wiser not only than the presbyters, but also the Apostles, and that they have found the pure truth,” that they “undoubtedly, intact and purely know the hidden sacrament” (3:2, 2). The Gnostics saw themselves forced for their ideas, which were alien to the general Christian teaching and contradicted it, and which they, however, presented as the highest understanding of Christianity, to seek foundations in sources parallel to the sources of Church tradition. They referred to their own secret tradition, to the imaginary Apostolic men who told them the genuine religious truth coming from Jesus Christ: Basilides on Glaucias, the companion of the Apostle Peter, or on Matthew, Valentinus - on Theudas, the companion of the Apostle Paul, the Ophites - on Mariamne and through her on James, the brother of the Lord, and so on. This seemed to shake the general conviction that the Church stands in unity of spirit with the Apostolic preaching, and the need arose clearly, convincingly and, so to speak, officially to show the actual ways of the true Apostolic tradition. The entire dignity and significance of the Church's content of the tradition of faith lies in the fact that it is an expression of the Apostolic teaching. The proof of this basic position in Saint Irenaeus is carried out in two ways. On the one hand, on the basis of the Apostolic Scriptures, Saint Irenaeus asserts that Church tradition contains the same thing, and not some other teaching. On the other hand, the identity of the Church teaching with the Apostolic teaching is established formally through history. The Church contains the teaching preached by the successors of the Apostles - the bishops of the Churches. Between them and the Apostles there is an undoubted continuity through succession coming from the beginning (principalis successio). By virtue of this they received the sure gift of truth (charisma veritatis certum). “Therefore the elders in the Church ought to be followed, those who have the succession of the Apostles and, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received, by the good pleasure of the Father, the sure gift of truth” (4:26, 2). “Where the gifts of the Lord are, there we must learn the truth from those who have ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, a sound and blameless life, and uncorrupted and uncorrupted teaching” (4:26, 5; cf.: 5:20, 1; 4:33, 8; 3:3, 1, 3). “Everyone who wants to see the truth can learn in every Church the tradition of the Apostles, revealed throughout the world, and we can list the bishops installed by the Apostles in the Churches, and their successors before us, who taught nothing and did not know what these heretics are inventing.” There can be no question of any secret teaching - to which the Gnostics refer - since “if the Apostles had known the secret mysteries, which they communicated to the perfect separately and secretly from others, they would have given them especially to those to whom they entrusted the Churches themselves - for they wanted those whom they left as their successors and to whom they transferred their place of teaching to be perfect and impeccable in everything” (3: 3, 1). Based on this, Saint Irenaeus, in full conviction regarding the indisputable justice of the principle he revealed, can pose the following significant question: “What if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures? Should they not have followed the order of the Tradition given to those to whom they entrusted the Church” (3:4, 1)? From what has been said, it follows that the teaching of the Apostles with historical authenticity can be found mainly where they themselves acted: “if a dispute arose about some important issue, would it not be appropriate to turn to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were converted and to obtain from them what is reliable and clear regarding this issue” (3:4, 1)? Saint Irenaeus could list the succession of primates of all Churches from the Apostles to his time. For the sake of brevity, he confines himself to listing the bishops of the greatest and most ancient and well-known Church, founded and organized in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, since, of necessity, every Church agrees with this Church, due to its predominant importance” (3:3, 3). Having listed the Roman bishops from the Apostles to Eleutherius, Saint Irenaeus concludes: “In this order and in such succession, Church tradition from the Apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this serves as the most complete proof that the same life-giving faith has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles to the present day and has been handed down in its true form” (3:3, 2). Thus, only the teaching of the Church is true, since it contains the truly Apostolic Tradition: the Church has the Scriptures originating from the Apostles and likewise the oral Tradition traced back to the Apostles, the preservation of which in its intact integrity is guaranteed by the uninterrupted succession of the episcopacy. Therefore, only in the Church is there truth, Spirit and grace. From this it follows that “one should not seek from others the truth, which is easy to obtain from the Church, for the Apostles, like a rich man in a treasury, completely put into it everything that pertains to the truth, so that everyone who wants to takes from it the drink of life” (3:4, 1). But in the final instance, the authority of the Church is the work of the Spirit of truth living in the Church, preserving the integrity of Her faith and the infallibility of Her teaching. “The preaching of the Church is constant everywhere and remains unchanged and has testimony from the Prophets and Apostles, and it always through the Spirit of God, like a precious treasure in a beautiful vessel, retains its freshness and makes the very vessel in which it is contained fresh; for this gift of God is entrusted to the Church, just as the breath of life was given to the first-created man, so that all the members who receive it would be quickened... Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace, and the Spirit is truth” (3:24, 1). The totality of truths received by the Church from the Apostles and observed by Her in inviolable integrity, Saint Irenaeus calls the “Rule of Faith” (κανών τη ς πίστεως), “the unwavering rule of truth” (καν ὼ ν τη ς ἀληθείας ἀκλινής ). It is a comprehensive and sufficient expression of truth, which can be understood more or less perfectly, but which cannot be changed (1:10, 2-3). This “rule of truth” usually means the Confession of Faith pronounced at Baptism, for which there are grounds in the works of Saint Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1:9, 4; Demonstr., 7). But, on the other hand, in them we also find indications that the “rule of truth” embraced the entire faith or the entire preaching of the Church (1:10, 1; 5:20, 1), not only dogmatic teaching, but also moral precepts and the order and structure of Church government (5:20, 1). That the “rule of truth”, the “body of truth” was not limited to a brief statement of faith, this is sufficiently evidenced by the work of Saint Irenaeus “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon”, where in the 98th chapter the author says regarding everything he stated earlier: “This is the precious preaching of the truth, and this is the image of our salvation; and this is the way of life, which the prophets foretold, and Christ fulfilled, and the Apostles betrayed, and the Church entrusted to her children throughout the world. It (that is, the truth) must be preserved in its entirety with a strong will and in a godly manner, with good deeds and a sound direction of thought.” Be that as it may, Saint Irenaeus found the “Canon of Faith” ready and fully established in the Church, and did not just introduce it - this is the whole strength of his proof: he had to appeal to what had long been known and recognized by all. The tradition to which he refers was considered the rule of truth not only in Gaul, but everywhere where the name of Christ was preached. “Although,” says Saint Irenaeus, “the languages ​​of the world are different, the power of tradition is the same: the Churches founded in Germany, in Iberia, in Gaul, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya and in the middle of the world do not believe differently and have no different tradition. But just as the Sun, God’s creation, is the same throughout the world, so the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all people who want to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1:10, 2). Thus, on the one side is the faith of the Church in a firmly defined unity, with the stamp of truth both in its origin and in the methods of preservation, and on the other is a motley variety of systems of false teaching, mutually contradictory and mutually superior to each other in emptiness. Heretics “being blind to the truth and having lost their way, inevitably wander along different roads, and therefore the traces of their teaching are scattered here and there without any agreement or connection. The path of those who belong to the Church goes throughout the whole world, because it has a firm tradition from the Apostles and allows us to see that everyone has the same faith... And the preaching of the Church is true and firm, since in it (the Church) the same path of salvation is indicated throughout the world” (5:20, 1). Having set out the Creed of the Church, Saint Irenaeus concludes: “having accepted this teaching and this faith, the Church, although scattered throughout the whole world, carefully preserves them, as if living in one house, believes it equally - as if having one soul and one heart, preaches it, teaches and passes it on in agreement, as if She had one mouth” (1:10, 2). II. 6. The teaching of Saint Irenaeus about God Moving on to presenting the details of the Theological teaching of Saint Irenaeus, we must first of all dwell on his teaching about God. The concept of God occupied a prominent position in the dispute between Church Theology and Gnosticism; It is at this point that the peculiarity of Gnostic ideas and their difference from Church teaching most clearly emerges. On the other hand, Saint Irenaeus was the first of the church writers to defend the Christian concept of God against Gnosticism and explain its deepest foundations. The main misconception of the Gnostics was that they imagined God the Father to be different from the Creator. In contrast, the presentation of faith in both works of Irenaeus begins with the doctrine of one God, Creator, Almighty and Savior. The highest God is also the Creator. The entire Old and New Testament testifies to this (3:9–15; 4:9. 3). The same God gave the law and the gospel (4:9. 3; 3:12. 11). God is an intelligent Spirit; mind (νου ς) and thoughts (ἔννοια) are not special beings, but different aspects of the one Divine Essence (2:13, 3–6, 8; 1:12.2). God is known not through speculation, but from His own Revelation, which is why we should not indulge in endless guessing about God according to our own opinions, but we must provide such knowledge to God Himself (2:28. 6 ff.; cf.: 2:25. 4; 26. 1; 28. 1). “The Lord has taught us that no one can know God unless God teaches, that is, that God is not known without God, but that God should be known, this is the will of the Father, for those to whom the Son will reveal Him will know Him” (4:6. 4). By His greatness He is unknown to creatures, but by His love He is always known through Him by whom He created all things: this is His Word, the Lord Jesus Christ (4:20. 4; cf.: 4:20. 5-6). The same God is righteous and good (3:25, 1, 4; 2:30, 9). God created the world with His Word and His will (2:30. 9; 2. 4; 3. 2). He is free and sovereign and was not a slave of necessity in order to allow the world to come into being against His will, as with the Gnostics (2:5. 4). In relation to the world, He is the Lord to whom everything is subordinate: the will of God must dominate and govern in everything, and everything else must yield to Him, submit and be in His service (4:34. 4; 28. 7). Often and persistently affirming the unity of God against the Gnostics, Saint Irenaeus teaches no less clearly about the trinity of Persons: this is what the Church confesses (1:10, 1), and this is what the believer finds in the Holy Scriptures (4:33, 15). “With God is always present (ad est Deo) the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, through whom and in whom (per quos et in quibus). He created everything freely and independently (4:20. 1; 1:10. 1; 4:7. 4; 2:28. 6; 5:6. 1, etc.). The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is set out especially clearly in the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon” (3; 5; 6). Thus, in contrast to the abstract Gnostic teaching about God, Saint Irenaeus reveals the teaching about the living Ruler of the world. His will creates and acts in everything, but the highest goal of this will is the Salvation of man (3:20. 2.; 4:37. 7). The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as well as the energetic emphasis on the identity of the creative and saving will of God and the combination of omnipotence, love and righteousness in God, introduce specific vital features into the concept of God. Saint Irenaeus says very little about the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, considered outside the economy of Salvation. A man of tradition, in the fight against opponents who endlessly multiplied the systems of births and Divine actions ad intra, he refrains from speculation. He prefers the name “Son” to the name “Word”. The Son is as true God as the Father: “The Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord; and the Father is God, and the Son is God, for he who is born of God is God... The Son, since He is God, receives from the Father—that is, from God—the Throne of the Eternal Kingdom and the Anointing, like none of His fellows” (Demonstr., 47). This is such a definite “Nicene” place in the “Proof of the Apostolic Sermon”, which is not found in the “Reproof and Refutation of False Knowledge.” In the Divine dignity of the Son, Saint Irenaeus sees a necessary condition for Redemption. The Son is identical with the Word (2:28. 6; 3:18, 2; 3: 16:6), born of the Father (2:28. 6; Demonstr., 47). Saint Irenaeus considers the comparison of the birth of the Son by the Father with the utterance of a human word, so common among apologists, to be incorrect and unacceptable, since this contradicts the teaching of the eternity of the Son (2:13. 8; 28. 5). When asked how the Son was born from the Father, Saint Irenaeus answers: “no one knows that work, or birth, or naming or revelation, or whatever else anyone will call His ineffable birth..., but only the Father who begat and the Son who was begotten” (2:28. 6; cf.: 2:18:8). The Son’s own purpose is not creation, although He is called “the hand of God” by which the world was created (4:20. 1; 5:6. 1), but the Revelation of God: in creation itself the Word reveals God the Creator, through the world - the Creator of the world and the Lord, through the formation of man - the artist who created him, through the Son - the Father who gave birth to Him. Through the law and the prophets the Word proclaimed Himself and the Father. Through the Word itself, made visible and tangible, the Father appeared: everyone saw the Father in the Son, for “the Father is the invisible of the Son, and the Son is the visible of the Father” (4:6. 6). “The revelation of the Son is the knowledge of the Father, for all things are revealed through the Word” (4:6. 3). “The Son, eternally existing with the Father, from ancient times and even from time immemorial reveals the Father to the Angels, Archangels, Authorities, Powers and everyone to whom God wants to reveal himself” (2:30. 9; 4: 6. 5 – 7; 7. 3; 4:20. 7). As for the Third Person of the Holy Trinity - the Holy Spirit, Saint Irenaeus does not directly call Him God, but he presents Him as eternal (5:12. 2), existing with the Father before every creature (4:20. 3). In relation to the Father, the Spirit is His Wisdom (for example, 4:20. 3, etc.), His likeness (4:7. 4). The Son and the Holy Spirit are the two hands with which God created and formed man (4, praef.; 4; 4:20. 1; 5:6. 1). In relation to the Church, the Holy Spirit is truth, grace, the guarantee of immortality, the beginning of unity with God (3:17. 2; 3:24. 1; 5:8. 1; cf.: 4:33. 7). To them the prophets prophesied and the fathers learned the Divine and the righteous were brought to the path of righteousness; at the end of time He poured out in a new way upon humanity throughout the whole earth, renewing man for God (Demonstr., 6). The Holy Spirit is a necessary Actor in the regeneration and salvation of man: in Baptism, “God the Father gives us grace for regeneration through His Son through the Holy Spirit. For those who carry the Spirit of God within themselves are brought to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son brings them to the Father, and the Father allows them to partake of incorruption. Therefore, without the Spirit it is impossible to see the Son and without the Son it is impossible to approach the Father, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son and the knowledge of the Son is through the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is communicated by the Son, in accordance with His ministry, according to the good will of the Father, to those whom the Father wills and as the Father wills” (Demonstr., 7). II. 7. The teaching of Saint Irenaeus about man The Gnostics especially persistently sought to resolve the question of where evil came from in the world, and in relation to man, they showed a dualistic principle in dividing people into spiritual and material by nature. Saint Irenaeus teaches that good and evil in man are not explained by different natural inclinations; if evil were in man by nature (φύσει), then a correct assessment would be impossible (4:37, 2). The beginning of evil is in the free will of man and in the fall of our ancestors. God from the beginning created man free, having the power to do the will of God voluntarily, and not under compulsion (4:37. 1, 3, 4. 3). As a created being, man could not be perfect from the very beginning of his existence: by obedience he had to approach his Creator and little by little achieve perfection and incorruptibility (4:38, 1, 3). Man could not become immortal before he became righteous (4:39, 1, 2; 38, 4). Disobedience brings death (4:23. 1), while obedience brings immortality (4:38. 2). Therefore, the good are immortal, and the evil deprive themselves of immortality (4:34. 2). In Adam, who transgressed the commandment, all mankind became disobedient and in him fell into sin and death (3:23.3; 5:12, 13). a) The history of the salvation of mankind Having mercy on man, God expelled him from Paradise so that he would not remain a sinner forever and so that his sin would not be immortal and evil would not be endless and incurable. He delayed sin by putting death and stopping sin and making an end of it through the destruction of the flesh that should be in the earth, so that man, having once ceased to live for sin and dying to it, began to live for God (3:23. 6). “God prepared from the beginning the salvation of man and consistently and successively gave him four covenants: from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Moses, the legislation under Moses and the covenant of the Lord, renewing man and, as if on wings, lifting and elevating people into the Kingdom of Heaven” (3:11. 8; 4:9. 3). Although the first two Testaments contained only natural commandments, those who fulfilled them were justified (4:13. 1; cf. 4:15. 1; 4:16. 3). The third was the law of slavery, but slavery to God, and led to Christ (4:15); (4:12.5). The Gospel is the law of love and freedom (4:12. 2. 5; 4:13. 2). The Last Testament is related to the previous one, as action is to empty speech, a righteous mood is to external activity (4:28, 2; 13, 1. 3), as fulfillment is to prophecy, harvest is to sowing (4:34. 1; 11. 3. 4; 16. 1; 25. 3). If the Old Testament was intended for one people, then the new one is for all mankind (4:9. 2). In the New Testament, the requirements for lifestyle increased, the punishments for those who do not believe the Word of God increased, but at the same time grace and joy increased (4:11. 3; 4:28. 3). The Christology of Saint Irenaeus. The New Testament was given by Jesus Christ. He is the Redeemer, as Saint Irenaeus insistently repeats, not different from the creative Word; Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate (3:16, 6; cf. 3:9, 3; 16. 7–9). “That which was in the beginning with God—the Word—by whom all things were created, which also was always inherent in the human race, in the last times, according to the time predetermined by the Father, was united with His creation and became a man capable of suffering” (3:18. 1). “The Only Begotten Word of God, always present in humanity, united with His creation by the will of the Father and became flesh, and is precisely Jesus Christ our Lord, who suffered for us and rose for us and is to come again in the glory of the Father to resurrect all flesh and reveal the rule of righteous judgment to all created by Him. The invisible became visible, the incomprehensible became encompassed, the alien to suffering became suffering” (3:16. 6). Saint Irenaeus, as can be seen, places particular emphasis on the fact that the Logos or Son of God actually became man. But most decisively, Saint Irenaeus rebels against the Gnostic separation of the Word and the man Jesus. “The heretics falsely assert that Jesus, who was born of Mary, is different from the Christ who came from above - we should not think that one was Jesus and the other Christ, but we should recognize one and the same” (3:16. 2). And at Baptism, it was not Christ who descended on Jesus - and there is not another Christ, but another Jesus, but the Word of God, the Savior of all, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, who is Jesus, who took flesh and was anointed by the Father with the Spirit, became Jesus Christ (3:9. 3; cf.: 2:3. 7; 12:7; 16:8; 17:4). The incarnation of the Son of God was real: His flesh and blood were real (3:18. 6, 7; 3:22, 1, 2); according to the flesh He was our brother, of our race, formed from the same matter as we are (5:14, 3; 3:13, 3; 3:22, 2). The birth of the Word - the eternal Son of God - from Mary was effective (3:22. 1, 4-10). His incarnation extends not only to the body, but also to the soul (3:19. 2; 4: 6. 7; Demonstr., 36, 37, 92, 53, 32, 40). Having become man, Christ went through all of human existence with all its ages and also subjected himself to suffering in order to appear in everything as a perfect teacher (2:22. 4; 3:18. 7; 3:17. 4; 3:18. 1. 6; 3:19. 2; 3:22. 2; 5:21. 2). Saint Irenaeus does not explain how the unity of the Word and humanity was accomplished. He designates it as commistio communio Dei et hominis (4:20. 4), (4:33. 11; cf.: 3:16. 6; 3:19. 1). But he clearly affirms both the unity of person and the duality of nature: “He is the Word of God, He is the only begotten of the Father, Christ Jesus our Lord (3:16. 9; 3:19. 2. 3). “The Word itself, made flesh, was hanged on a tree” (5:18. 1; 3:9. 3). On the other hand, Saint Irenaeus says that the Savior was truly God and truly man, to be a mediator between Heaven and Earth, to defeat the demon and win legally (3:18. 7). He was a Man in order to be tempted, He was a Word in order to be glorified (3:19. 2. 3; cf. 3:16. 3). b) The teaching of Saint Irenaeus on the atonement Saint Irenaeus defines the purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God in this way: “For this purpose the Word of God became man and the Son of God the Son of Man, so that man, united with the Son of God and receiving adoption, would become the Son of God; For we could not possibly have received incorruptibility and immortality unless we were united with incorruptibility and immortality, unless first, corruption and immortality became what we are, so that the corruptible could be swallowed up in incorruption and the mortal with immortality, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (3:19. 1). Saint Irenaeus denotes the essence of the Redemption accomplished by Christ with the often repeated concept of ἀνακεφαλαίωσις - the head, the main idea of which is that Christ - as the second Adam - in Himself unites all humanity, including the first Adam, that He penetrates and sanctifies it with His Spirit, gives life to it with His life, and through this resolves ancient disobedience and abolishes death (Demonstr., 7:38). The positive side of ἀνακεφαλαίωσις is the message of a new life, the negative side is the resolution of the ancient one. But this “heading” is possible only because the Son of God accepted the nature of the first Adam and became an organic part of humanity. When the new Adam entered ancient humanity, He, as a new ancestor, became the beginning of the generation of the living, just as the first Adam was the ancestor of mortals. Thus, the incarnate Son of God became the new head of humanity and restored everything that was lost in Adam (3:18. 1; 3:21. 10; 5:23, 3). In the Incarnation, humanity receives fellowship in the immortality and incorruptibility of the Word (3:19. 1; 3:18. 7). The Lord propitiates for us the Father, against whom we have sinned, and with His obedience covers our disobedience and gives us fellowship with our Creator (5:17. 1). The mighty Word and true Man redeemed us with His Blood, He gave Himself as an atonement for those who were subjected to captivity. The Lord gave His soul for our souls and His flesh for our flesh and poured out the Spirit of the Father for the reunion and communion of God with man. So, the truth was not violated, and the ancient creation of God did not perish (5:1. 1; 5:2. 1). His death was an atoning sacrifice for us (4:5. 4). The fruits of the Redemption are victory over the devil, our reconciliation with God, restoration of the image of God in us, divine adoption, immortality and incorruptible life received in and through Christ (3:18. 7; 3:19. 1; 3:23. 1. 7; 3:24. 1; 4:14. 1; 5:1. 1; 12. 6; 5:14. 1; 5:16. The means to share in these fruits is faith in Jesus Christ; by this faith the patriarchs and righteous people of the Old Testament were saved (4:2. 7; 4:5. 4; 4:7. 2; 4:13. 1) - but faith combined with the fulfillment of the commandments: “to believe in Him means to do His will” (4:6. 5; 4:13. 1; 5:10. 1-2). Christ poured out the Spirit of the Father on people to establish fellowship between. them and God (5:11). But the Spirit abides in the Church, as a vessel of the Spirit. Thus, only the Church penetrates, quickens and sanctifies Her members with the Holy Spirit (3:24. 1), and this she does through teaching and grace-filled means. The Holy Spirit, dwelling in the human race, resting on people and living in the creation of God, does the will of the Father in them and renews them from weariness into the renewal of Christ (3:17. 1). Through this, the essence of man does not change, but when the Spirit of God indwells him, man is improved to Godlikeness. A person who has been grafted in by faith and received the Holy Spirit does not lose the essence of the flesh, but changes the quality of the fruits of works and receives a different name, meaning his change for the better, and is no longer called flesh and blood, but a spiritual man (5:10. 2). Thus, through the Spirit, the former nature is restored, which is created in the image and likeness of God (5:10. 1); this process will reach its conclusion in resurrection and glorification (5:8. 1). Therefore, in the new state of human life, the Spirit is the internally determining principle and man, under His life-giving influence, becomes what he should be and what he was not. II. 8. Doctrine of the Eucharist In contrast to the errors of the Gnostics, Saint Irenaeus develops the doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist. While the Gnostics denied the reality of the human body of Jesus Christ, they agreed with the Church in faith regarding His real presence in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of this sacrament. Saint Irenaeus points out this contradiction to them. He demands from the Gnostics an explanation of how, in accordance with their teaching, they can say that the bread on which thanksgiving is performed is the body of their Lord and in the cup there is His Blood, when, according to their views, the bread and wine were created by the demiurge. Further, as they say, is the flesh subject to corruption and does not participate in life, which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord? “Just as bread from the earth, after calling God over it, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the Resurrection” (4:18. 4-5). Therefore, those who despise the dispensation of God and deny the salvation of the flesh and reject its regeneration, saying that it does not participate in incorruption, are foolish. But if she is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with His Blood, and the cup of the Eucharist is not the communion of His blood, and the bread that we break is not the communion of His body (5:22). Thus, it is clear that Saint Irenaeus teaches about the true body and true blood of the Lord in the sacrament of the Eucharist. But the Eucharist is not only a sacrament: it is a sacrifice. When the Lord said the words: this is My body, this is My blood - “He taught the new offering of the New Testament, which the Church, having received from the Apostles, brings to God throughout the world” (4:17. 5). The offering of the Church, which the Lord taught to bring throughout the world, “is considered by God to be a pure sacrifice and pleasing to Him” (4:18.4). II. 9. Eschatology of Saint Irenaeus The essence of the eschatological teaching of Saint Irenaeus is briefly expressed in the concluding words of his great anti-Gnostic work: “the first-born Word descends into creation - that is, into creation - and is embraced by Him, and on the other hand, creation receives the Word and ascends to Him, rising above the Angels, and is made in the image and likeness of God” (5:36. 3). Saint Irenaeus strongly rebels against those who think that the souls of the righteous immediately after death ascend to the Heavenly Place. He believes that just as Jesus Christ descended into the underworld before the Resurrection, so the souls of Christians will go to an unknown place assigned to them by God, and there they will remain until the Resurrection, awaiting it, then, having received their bodies, they will go before the face of God (5:31. 2). This time before the appearance of the Antichrist will last six thousand years (5:28.3). Saint Irenaeus especially persistently reveals the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. He proves it by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ Himself (5:31.2), the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in us (5:13.4), and the essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist (5:2.3; 6:18.5). At the end of six thousand years there will follow the resurrection of the righteous, who will reign with the Lord for a thousand years (5:32–35). At this time, the creation, renewed and liberated, will bear fruit in abundance of all kinds of food from the dew of heaven and from the fatness of the earth (5:33. 3). St. Irenaeus paints a vivid picture of the blessedness of the righteous, citing Papias and the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, and supporting his evidence with the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9: “And the wolf shall feed with the lamb...”). After the thousand-year reign the end will come: a general resurrection will follow, and everyone will appear in his own body (2:35, 5; 2:34. 1); then - Judgment (5:32. 1). A new Heaven and a new Earth will be created (5:36. 1). The punishment of sinners will be eternal (4:28, 2; 4:40. 1. 2; 5:28), and the reward of the righteous will be eternal (4:28. 4; 5:36. 1), which will consist in seeing God and possessing Him (4:31. 2; 4:35. 1). According to the testimony of the elders, even in this state of perfection there will be different degrees of bliss: “there are differences between the dwelling of those who have borne fruit a hundredfold, and those who have borne fruit seventyfold, and those who have yielded thirtyfold: some of them will be taken to Heaven, others will live in Paradise, and others will dwell in the renewed city.” Through these degrees they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father. Death will be destroyed, and the Son, to whom the Father has subjected all things, will Himself submit to the Father, so that God may be all in all (5:36. 2). The presented possibly concise presentation of the essential provisions of the Theological teaching of Saint Irenaeus shows that, as a theologian, Saint Irenaeus surpasses all the writers of post-apostolic times who preceded him in the brightness and clarity of thoughts and in the clarity of presentation. It was given to him to master the treasure of Christian knowledge in its pure form and comprehend it in living connection, as the “body of truth.” He was the first to present a complete view of the relationship between God and the world, revealed from the own principles of the Christian faith, and established the fundamental principles of Church Theology, which remain essentially unchanged for all subsequent times. The teaching expressed in his works and the information conveyed here are especially important in view of the extremely characteristic and exceptional features of his personal relationships and the circumstances of his life: he is the last disciple of the direct disciples of the Lord, in Asia Minor, through Saint Polycarp and other elders, disciples of the Apostles, he hears the living Apostolic voice and perceives the spirit of the Apostolic teaching; as presbyter and bishop at the opposite end of Christendom - in Lyons - he connects East and West; he enters into personal and written communication with many Churches and especially with the Roman Church; from the beginning to the end of his public ministry, he takes an active part in the life of the Universal Church. It is difficult to imagine more favorable conditions for learning the truth regarding the faith of the Church, and therefore Saint Irenaeus is a classic witness about Church teaching, Church tradition and Church organization not only in the Asia Minor and Gallic Churches, but also in all the Churches of the then Christian world; and not only for its time, but also for the entire previous period right up to the Apostles, and in this testimony, according to the scientific state of the issue today, the most significant thing is that the Universal Church at the end of the 2nd century remained fundamentally an Apostolic Church, preserved the Apostolic tradition intact, was the bearer of the Apostolic teaching and explained it with Apostolic authority.