Книга Деяний св. апостолов

Book of Acts of St. Apostles has Position and Significance in the New Testament Canon according to objective historical requirements. It opens with the following introduction: “I spoke the first word about everyone, about Theophilus, even as Jesus began to do and teach, even to the day, in which he commanded the Apostle with the Holy Spirit, he chose them, and ascended” (Acts I, 1-2). With this categorical warning, the “second” scripture of St. Luke is brought into direct connection with the “first”, as a direct application to it. From here his place and dignity are accurately and unmistakably determined. The earliest narrative was devoted to a detailed and comprehensive depiction of the works and teachings of Christ the Savior until the completion of the redemptive mission in the ascension. Here the Lord’s feat was completely completed, reaching its complete revelation and unconditional historical revelation. Creation has already turned out to be a fact of the past, not requiring and not allowing any factual or historiographical addition, but along with this, it is no less fair and necessary that if the saving gospel of the Redeemer had divine power and corresponding reality - and this is indisputable - then it must certainly have an equal future in the sense of continuation, development and approval. A good tree could not fail to bear fruit - and, of course, - according to its kind. In this case, for the further process, it is imperative by its very essence that it proceeds in the spirit of the ministry of Christ, for which we need persons who would assimilate it and be authoritatively authorized for this mission. This is the inevitable conclusion, which certifies that the “second word” to Theophilus deals with precisely this stage of Christian action in history and gives us a true picture of how the deliverance founded by the Lord was consolidated in the world, receiving its characteristic realization on earth. Therefore, in the book of Acts we find the history of the growth of the already created kingdom of God in its normal and predestined course, even if by supernatural means worthy of the energy and grace of Christ. In this capacity, the work under consideration is a precious link in the chain of sacred New Testament monuments, since it captures the most important aspect of Christ’s feat. The latter would not have been perfect and complete if it had been confined to the personality of the Redeemer himself and had not revealed all its reviving and renewing power among the people for whom it was specially designed. Otherwise, it would have turned out with certainty that Christ would not die (Gal. II, 21). Likewise, the written proclamation was supposed to represent the actual application of the fundamental principles of the Christian revival. We find all this completely in the book of Acts. Here it directly and organically adjoins the Gospel and is inseparable from it, just as in fact these moments followed one after another. Naturally, the sacred writer calls his new creation the “second word,” which through this acquires a place in the New Testament canon in accordance with the real course of things, showing us the spread and dominance in the universe of the sacrament of the redemption of people by the grace of Christ. This idea must first of all be expressed The title of the book “Acts of the Apostles” is adequate to its content The saving sacrifice was made by the Son of God. He is the only organizer of grace-filled reconciliation, and for that very reason the only owner of all the gifts of Christian inheritance. It is clear now that others could only acquire from Him and through Him. For this reason, the communication of the benefits of Christ presupposes persons authorized by the Lord and endowed with special means. These were only the disciples of Christ who, according to the prophecy, accepted the promise of the Spirit, continuing the redemptive mission of the Son on earth. Only Apostolorum erat proprium praedicare (Hilari in Matt. X, 9 ad vers. 30: M. lat. IX, 965). This means that the forward movement of the gospel of Christ must certainly be apostolic, as is necessary in the work of God. Here is a completely legitimate basis for the name of this holy book Πράξεις τῶν Ἀποστόλων. It is not known exactly when it appeared. John Chrysostom seems to admit its originality, saying (in princ. Act. I, 3: M. gr. LI, 72): “Paul, who had the grace of the Spirit, did not miss the inscriptions on the (Athenian) altars, but you pass without attention the titles of the Scriptures. He did not miss what the Athenians, the idolaters, wrote, but you do not consider necessary what the Holy Spirit wrote.” However, in the quoted passage the thought is expressed too dogmatically - in application to the then current text, and not in the form of historical news, echoes of which are nowhere found in St. father in other places. But, in any case, it is true that this is an ancient designation that gave rise to very early apocryphal imitations (for example, “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” of the 2nd century and, perhaps, from the end of the 1st century) and was sometimes literally transcribed in ancient translations (Syrian, bohaїrica, Armenian-Erpenian) and even in Latin commentators (in libro Praxeos vel Praxeon Hilaria in Math. XIV, 20: M. lat. IX, 1000). Accepting this fact, many find the indicated title to be inconsistent with the content, since the book itself tells only about the Apostles Peter and Paul, of whom the second did not belong to the rank of the XII, although he occupies the title of the Writer primarily; the others are mentioned briefly and most of them are kept bare by name. This bewilderment is quite serious, because - given its intractability - we will have to agree that either Luke himself was unable to cope with his task, giving instead of the whole something fragmentary, distortedly illuminating events, or the Church misunderstood the apostolic work, giving it an unusual meaning. To eliminate these fundamental difficulties, they usually refer (Rud. Comely; I.P. Nikolin, Acts of the Holy Apostles, Sergiev Posad 1895, pp. 172–173) that in authoritative codes it is not read αί πρά ξεις τῶν αποστόλων, but only πράξεις αποστόλων: so B (in the signature), D, etc., St. Athanasius (epist. fest. 39: M. gr. XXVI, 1177, 1437), John Chrysostom (in princ. Act. I, 3: M. gr. LI, 71), Euphalius. This name will simply mean “Acts of the Apostles” - without a numerical definition of the persons described, and the apostolic dignity will be common, a common noun for all “messengers” of the Gospel, not limited in application only to a select host of close disciples of the Lord. There is some possibility in this interpretation, but it was hardly intended and is not at all directly expressed by the above variations in the Greek texts. And then such an understanding does not at all exhaust the entire depth of the subject and therefore does not meet the requirement presented by it. We know that the “Acts” depict the spread of the kingdom of Christ in the world through the authoritative and authorized servants of the Lord, and only the twelfth “foremost” were and remained such. St. Luke would have contradicted himself and cast dogmatic doubt on this entire majestic process if - contrary to the essence of the task – focused especially only on its secondary engines, meanwhile, it was fundamentally sought to ensure that here there were not just worthy successors, but undeniable deputies of Christ. Therefore, the historiographer certainly had to understand the Apostles in their own and strictest sense, in order to protect the course of development of the Christian Church with irresistible certifications that the spread and establishment of the gospel of Christ was carried out according to its norms, in its spirit and power. The title of the books should state categorically that these are truly “The Acts of the Apostles themselves,” close to Christ and personally sent by Him for universal preaching. How many of them are depicted and what feats are depicted? - this is a completely different question. The importance is not in quantity, but solely in the principle itself that the work of Christ was built by the hands of Christ’s faithful servants. It was precisely this idea that dominated the writer’s thoughts, which is why he punctually reports on the replenishment of the XII and allows only “one of those who were with them at all times when the Lord Jesus was present and treated them, from the baptism of John until the day on which He ascended from them, and was with them a witness of His resurrection” (Acts I, 21-22). For this reason, the election itself was accomplished by the will of the Spirit by lot. But since everything here comes down to a visual justification of the fundamental thesis, then the entire historiographical task was revealed in its concrete factual disclosure. It did not at all require that all the deeds of everyone be recorded, just as it was not necessary for the Gospels, according to St. John the Theologian (XXI. 25; XX, 30). The only thing necessary was that apostolic history be depicted in accordance with its internal goal, and the latter be reduced to the Gospel proclamation in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the universe (Acts I, 8). since the Apostle Peter especially stands out at the beginning, it is therefore quite natural that the greatest attention is devoted to him here, and the silence about others sufficiently convinces that they also labored in the same spirit, although less noticeably and not so responsibly; a story about them would not add anything significant, cluttering the book with heterogeneous factual material and thereby even darkening the somewhat dominant idea. In the second and most part of the Acts, St. is depicted everywhere before us. Paul, who did not belong to the host of the XII. By God’s dispensation he was destined to reach “the last of the earth,” and this is a completely legitimate reason that further we read in Luke only almost about Paul’s evangelism. With all this, the activity of the Apostle comes from those “before”, is regulated by them and is established in agreement with their authority, just as Paul himself protects his full dignity only by unity and identity with them. Being “a chosen vessel” (Acts ix. 15) “neither from man nor by man, but Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal. I, 1), he nevertheless fulfilled his entire great mission in complete solidarity with the pillars of the Church, from them he received the sanction of “free” service among the pagans and delivered reports to them, submitting to general church discipline in the interests of the Christian good. This means that here too we have actually apostolic acts, for they come from an apostolic source and are committed by a man who is undoubtedly an apostolic one, although he was not a “self-witness” of the Lord during His earthly life. With this understanding, justified in principle and in fact, the title of the book will exactly coincide with its content and again shows us that it authentically reproduces the works of the plenipotentiary successors of Christ’s exploit in the sense of the direct application of saving redemption in the creation of the kingdom of God in the world. In the exploits of the messengers we must find and see the fulfillment of the covenants of the Sender, since they are indisputable Apostles of Christ. Therefore, Luke’s “second word” - by depicting the apostolic preaching in the person of its main bearers - presents to us a further stage in the historical revelation of the gracious deliverance of Christ. This determines The purpose and nature of apostolic historiography If the above is now undeniable from different sides, then the task itself was exhausted when the work of Christ received perfect development and assured strength. In essence, what was needed was the complete factual consolidation of the covenants of the Lord, their ineradicable implementation into the structure of world life. Once this has been achieved, then the normal process of Christian prosperity is ensured in its continuity and regenerating influence on the minds and hearts of people. To reveal this movement from strength to strength - this was the main goal of the Writer. He takes up the work only because the question here is about the salvific revitalization of the universe by the grace of Christ, which by its very nature could not remain closed in itself and necessarily had to reveal its divine action. Naturally, the actual reminder of this was less of a cold and soulless photograph, but was aimed at mediocrely educating readers in a beneficial sense. The history of the gospel sermon itself turns into a sermon and calls to the foot of the cross. And St. Luke clearly expresses this inner intention when he calls the book of Acts the “second word” and equates it with the “first”, where by an accurate and impartial reproduction of events he wanted to achieve that “Theophilus would recognize the solid foundation of the teaching in which he was instructed” (Luke I, 4). Here the historical image takes on a deeply edifying character, and a private dedication guarantees distribution through the faithful hands of a reliable and authoritative dignitary magnate. Of course, even this did not require chronographic punctuality, since convictions are established not on the number of facts, but on their fundamental merit. The same is completely indisputable for apostolic historiography - only with the transfer of personal applications to the entire reading mass. At this point, Luke’s exhorting missionary aspirations organically converge with his objective historical plans. The latter are completely obvious and indisputable to us. “Acts” is directly considered a second creation in comparison with the Gospel and therefore should continue it, giving us a picture of the spreading redemption of Christ. And it was designed for the salvation of the whole world, which is why the story does not need to extend beyond the moment of the establishment of Christianity in the dominant center of the then “universe”. But, being exclusively the work of God, this deliverance - in accordance with its origin - can only be created by divine authority through God's chosen performers. It is clear that this story is entirely apostolic, since it was the Apostles who were the successors of the gifts and ministry of the Lord, fulfilling their evangelistic mission by implementing the covenants of Christ. How was the kingdom of God actually built on earth by divine means through God-sent messengers? - the Writer answers this question in detail with his historical story, of which he irresistibly convinces It has its justification in the resurrection. The Lord’s saving providence for man has not yet ended - and in the anxious expectation, “whether in this summer He will restore the kingdom of Israel,” one hears from Him a decisive rejection of such impatient hopes: you cannot understand the times and years that the Father has set in His power (Acts I, 6-7). This is hidden in the unknown depths of the wisdom of God; The disciples were to continue the work of the Teacher for the time being - of course, in His spirit and strength. That is why, at the beginning, we see them constantly remaining with the Lord and, until the very moment of the Ascension, teaching about the destinies of the kingdom of God, which they were supposed to spread and establish in the world. For this, the Apostles were previously called by Jesus Christ himself and now received direct commands from Him in this sense, but with a decisive condition - to wait in Jerusalem for the “promise of the Father” in order to open their evangelistic mission (I, 2-11). In this consciousness of their destiny, they prepare with humble prayer for such a great feat and, without willfully anticipating the intentions of God, according to the word of the Apostle Peter, they care only about replenishing their host by choosing - instead of Judas, a most worthy substitute, who will be indicated from above. It was Matthew (I, 12 – 26), who satisfied all the “signs of the Apostles” presented (2 Cor. XII, 12). But even now they are not active, because they have not yet received the promised Spirit. Only on the day of Pentecost, in His abundant outpouring, were all the necessary means communicated to them, and from there their evangelistic ministry was revealed miraculously - by the successful preaching of St. Peter, and the internal creation of the emerging Church is revealed by the complete unity of its members in everything (Second chapter). External expansion does not come at the expense of internal strengthening and organic development - and the Christian life - with the captivating fragrance of purity, holiness and love - actually contributes to the evangelistic word. It is not surprising if then the power of God is perfected in human weakness during the healing of the lame man in the church; It is no less clear that the Apostles are trying to attract their fellow tribesmen to it, recommending to them the path of repentance for their denial of the Righteous One and for deicide, for which they must return to the great promises of the prophetic past, fulfilled in the risen Christ (III chapter). But the good will of God requires the good will of man and evokes instinctive opposition to the evil one. The Sanhedrin imposes a ban on the lips of the Apostles, and they cry out to God with great boldness and succeed with great grace (IV40;-I ch.). The single deviation of Ananias and Sapphira does not retard this growth, since it is immediately stopped by the apostolic court, which testified that the ideal of Christ was preserved intact both theoretically and practically. Graceful progress proceeds with rapid steps and overcomes all barriers of bonds and scourgings (V I chapter). From now on, the work of God became human, acquiring a strong organization in the institution of the “seven”, who themselves take a fruitful part in the preaching of the Gospel (VIth chapter). Thus, from a few members, a Christian community is gradually formed with a certain structure that guarantees its earthly prosperity and unrelenting growth. In its divine essence, it is a formidable and dangerous figure for the entire existing, deeply false way of life, because it no longer wants to simply get along with it, but strives to displace outdated decay, replace and absorb it. The zeal of Stephen, who loudly expressed these intentions, opens the eyes of the Jewish leaders, and they pay with cruel death for their inevitable misfortune, without averting it at all (chap. VII). The foundation is solid and cannot be destroyed. Therefore, the evil opposition is actually accompanied by the extensive spread of the gospel throughout Judea and Samaria. For Christianity, a new era begins of the most extensive service according to the Evangelical zeal of the Apostles and the “deacon” Philip, who introduces a noble eunuch from distant Ethiopia to the chosen flock (VIII chapter). Everything indicated that the gospel would soon be revealed to the whole world, unhampered by national and geographical boundaries. And at this time, the Lord prepares for Himself a worthy vessel of grace by referring to His name as the “persecutor” Saul (IX, 1–30) and provides scope for his universal mission by preceding it in the proclamation of the Gospel in Palestine (IX, 31–43) and - especially - through the calling of Cornelius (Xth chapter). The baptism of a pagan - in addition to the gates of proselytism, was then an extraordinary fact, which aroused great bewilderment even in St. Peter, but there was such a compulsion of the divine command that everyone had to agree: God gave repentance to the stomach with the tongue (XI, 1-18). Thus, a place opened up for the creation of a purely pagan Church, which indeed soon arises in Syrian Antioch and - through the labors of Barnabas and Saul - achieves such influence and such a flourishing state that it enters into communication with Jerusalem and helps it in material difficulties (XI, 19-33). Meanwhile, and there, despite the tyrannical persecution of secular power, the word of God grew and multiplied (chap. XII) - and this served as a clear sign of its all-conquering gracious power. It is clear that now it was necessary to give him complete freedom, which is why, according to divine inspiration, a plan was drawn up in Antioch for an extensive missionary journey, officially entrusted to Barnabas and Saul. They, “having been sent by the Holy Spirit,” pass through Cyprus, Pamphylia and Lycadonia and - with a joyful feeling of blessed success - return back (XIII - XIV chapters). The experience of this missionary practice was amazing. The evangelists invariably adhered to the principle that salvation was offered first of all to Israel, and therefore they always and predominantly appealed to the Jews and tried to act through the synagogue. But at the same time, it became clear that “the hearts of these people have become coarse and their ears are hard to hear.” The preaching of the Gospel more often aroused irritation and anger in them, but the pagans accepted it with ardent readiness and everywhere discovered the fruits of faith. Without predetermining the fate of the people of God, it could be said with certainty that - for now and in large numbers - the Hellenic soil was both more in need and better suited for the Gospel. This was the greatest fact of Christian history. Its exceptional importance is undeniable in its most fundamental sense. It turned out that Jewish prerogatives did not in the least contribute to the speedy assimilation of Christian redemption, and pagan “atheism” did not interfere with the depth and swiftness of the perception of these benefits. From this it inevitably followed that there was no need to impose the yoke of Jewish legalism on the Greeks, and the benefits of evangelization rather required the opposite method. A radical and decisive crisis was approaching, and Christian thought naturally paused before it in thought. The doubts of the weak and the objections of the stubborn were only an external reason for an authoritative and final consideration of this issue, which was discussed at the Apostolic Council (XV, 1-34). The result was favorable for the pagans, for the Apostles were pleased not to place on them the embarrassing legalistic burden. Here lay the direct blessing of the pagan mission, which is now revealed in all its power. But even earlier, St. especially advanced in this field. Paul, and the success of his fruitful work was a clear sign of the divine election of this person for this Gospel feat with all the rights of the apostleship of Christ. Naturally, the Writer’s entire attention is then focused on it, since the Palestinian “testimony” is considered complete and secured to the extent that it is predetermined by the Lord. However, admitting a pagan into the Church does not equate to the expulsion of a Jew, and least of all allows one to forget about the latter in missionary work. That's why St. Paul first heads to his former regions and tries not to go beyond Asia Minor and generally stick to the Aegean coast 309. His cherished destination was Asia with the famous Ephesus. But the Spirit does not allow the evangelist even to Bethany and leads him to Troas to the shores of the desired sea, beyond which lies the center of Hellenic splendor and pagan darkness. There was one more step left to take, and yet the great missionary, only after special instructions, boarded a ship sailing to Macedonia. However, even on this purely Hellenic basis, he, first of all, appeals to his fellow tribesmen and only if they persist, transfer his word to the pagans. In Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea - everywhere he meets the opposition of Judaism and reaps rich fruits among the Hellenes. The Athenians were neither an exception to this rule nor a refutation of such experience. With their skepticism and indifferentism, they showed nothing more than that a refined mind and high knowledge - like Jewish privilege - do not serve as a favorable condition for obtaining salvation and, due to their self-sufficiency, are sometimes an obstacle, although in themselves they do not contain anything essentially hostile. This is clearly seen in the example of enlightened Corinth, where St. worked successfully for about two years. Paul. He joyfully sees in this a great blessing of God and, without stopping in Ephesus, hurries to Jerusalem for the holiday to share his news with the church (XV, 35-XVIII, 22). Strengthened and encouraged by the brothers, St. Paul is now rushing to the Asian metropolis in order to kindle there an unflickering and unquenchable torch for all of Asia Minor. His three-year activity had an extraordinary influence and radically shook all the primordial worship of God there. The frantic revolt raised by the silversmith Demetrius could not destroy traces of evangelistic energy, for the retreating Apostle left behind him faithful and experienced disciples, capable and worthy to continue the saving mission. He himself carried out evangelism in Hellas and Macedonia, from Philippi he returned to Troas and through Miletus by sea he reached Ptolemais, from where he went to Jerusalem (XVIII, 23 - XX, 16). The cordial reception of the brothers strengthened his spirit, and he was able, not without satisfaction, to survey his entire evangelistic course with a searching gaze. Before him arose joyful pictures of the revitalization everywhere by the rays of the rising sun of truth, which, spreading everywhere, did not allow or tolerate a weakening in the power and beneficence of its light. In this regard, there were all guarantees of a happy future with full hope for the increasing extensiveness of the gospel of Christ. On the other hand, the soil turned out to be very grateful. She willingly and deeply accepted Christian seeds, which, naturally, should bear fruit according to their kind. Consequently, from this point of view, no danger was foreseen, and in this case it was undoubtedly that the Gospel was firmly planted here, and the whole point now is in the continuation, which is quite indisputable due to the multitude of faithful disciples. It was necessary to look for a new field and, moreover, in a special place, so that it would be central for vast areas and serve as a convenient focus for the Christian mission. In these interests, St. Paul had long ago decided that it was fitting for him to see Rome (XIX: 21). This meant turning the civil capital of the then world into a metropolis of Christian evangelization, influencing through the eternal city to all ends of the earth and gradually transforming the entire order of life. Then the complete crowning of the apostolic feat would have come. But if even before every moment of missionary expansion was accomplished according to the will of God, then all the more such a grandiose enterprise could not be built on human considerations alone. This is what actually happened - contrary to all usual calculations. On the advice of the primate of the Jerusalem Church, Apostle James, and to eliminate Jewish suspicions and abuses - St. Paul takes part in the Nazirite vow; However, this act of benevolent condescension only caused a violent rebellion. The critical tension had already reached its extreme acuteness, and the Christian leaders sought to resolve it in favor of an independent Gospel, showing by the example of its heralds that it in no way led to renegade and rejection of Israelite vows and pious religious customs. This deprived the enemies of the last support for a plausible struggle, and they, foreseeing their death, hastened to eliminate it in a rebellious manner. This is the whole answer to the unexpected and fatal episode. The apostle ends up in a fortress and courageously defends himself before the Sanhedrin, and God reveals to him that in this way his great intention “to testify in Rome” will be realized. The criminal plan of the Jews forces the captain to escort the arrested man from Jerusalem to Caesarea, where, due to the delays of the greedy Felix, he languishes for two years. Under Festus the process turned faster, but St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, demanded the immediate trial of Caesarea and, having confessed his faith before Agrippa and Bernice, was sent to Italy. Heavy bonds helped the Apostle to discover the impurity of his enemies and gave him many occasions and reasons to proclaim the name of Christ before those who actually could not, or did not want and were not disposed to hear about it. The long and dangerous voyage was also not without manifestations of the power and mercy of God through St. Paul, why he arrived in Rome not without a good recommendation for him from the centurion before the highest authorities. And the “voivode” immediately allowed the prisoner to live separately, guarded by one warrior. Freedom of speech remained entirely with him, and he immediately made an attempt to attract the Jews to the “hope of Israel.” The inertia of his fellow tribesmen again revealed to the Apostle that “the salvation of God was sent to the pagans.” And, without a doubt, this confidence of his was fully justified when for two years he preached the kingdom of God to everyone who came and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness without restraint (XXI, 18-XXVIII, 31). The cherished goal of the aspirations of St. Paul was achieved, and at the same time the story about him is naturally interrupted, showing its ideological and literary roundness Factual-artistic objectivism of the image and the completeness of the book of Acts Peering at the movement of the writer's story, we cannot help but notice in it strict consistency and harmonious continuity in the arrangement of individual moments with the unity of the main idea running through the entire scripture. We are talking about the influence of Christianity as a regenerating and all-conquering force - and we necessarily expect an image of its sources and properties, internal structure and external appearance. This is what is given to us in the very first pages of the book of Acts. But this power is absolutely saving and therefore organically requires application to others in order to demonstrate its power and to preserve its natural dignity. Accordingly, she actually immediately begins to work in the indicated direction. The nearest and most related, of course, is the primary object of its activity, and salvific nature protects against violent oppression and forced subjugation. And we know that Christianity first of all turns to Judaism and always tries not to break ties with it. However, persistent confrontation always causes energy to be diverted in another direction, where it finds suitable material to unfold in all its splendor and grandeur in a favorable sphere. It is natural that - due to the opposition of Israel - the Gospel goes beyond the borders of Jerusalem and gradually makes its way into the pagan world, in order to then acquire exclusive dominance there. In general and essential terms, we are presented with a picture of Jewish and pagan preaching, and hence the two most important parts of the narrative, depicting 1) the struggle for the Jews, for the sake of the promised evangelization (I-XV, 34), and 2) the victory of the gospel in paganism (XV, 35 ff.). If a justified break with the native environment is impossible without diligent, even bitter, experience, and if successful transfer to foreign soil does not happen without preliminary preparation, then these stages are no less necessary in the image than in life. So in the first half we get two sections representing the structure of the Palestinian church (I - VIII, 4) and the gradual transfer of Christian preaching to pagan peoples (VIII, 5 - XV, 34). The latter happened, of course, because the Hellenes turned out to be especially receptive to the Gospel word and its beneficial influence. Then it is between them that the gospel develops with amazing tension, which - under given conditions - necessarily achieves its characteristic triumph. It is now clear that the pagan mission is revealed in two periods: 1) approval (XV, 35 - XXI, 16) and 2) final triumph (XXI, 17 ff.). The course of Christian history coincides exactly with the commandment of the Savior, that the Apostles should be witnesses to Him in Jerusalem and throughout Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth (I, 8). With all this, this is not a deliberate and tendentious adaptation of the writer to the taken formula, since everything rests on the very property of the phenomenon under consideration, in which all the moments must certainly follow precisely in this order. One can say that historical events were located according to the promise of the Lord and look at this from different points of view, but one absolutely cannot refuse the historiographer complete and unfeigned objectivism. In this regard, St. Luke is impeccable in every way, since he only reveals and shows the true essence of the subject. In this way, its special purpose, rooted in the inner depth of the historical event being reproduced, is unconditionally justified. The salvation of God is accomplished only by the will and power of God: - this thesis is illuminated with dazzling brightness by the Writer, since in him we clearly see that everything happens in accordance with the supreme plans. Divine in its foundation and Founder, Christianity turns out to be equally divine in its spread, just as there is no doubt that it is alien to any egoism - even in the sense of self-preservation, is filled with boundless goodness and therefore immediately begins to function everywhere with its characteristic life-giving nature. But in this case, there must be divine mediation here everywhere, because the human, in itself, is not able to create and normalize the Divine. This factor is equally obvious from the dignity of the leaders at all stages of early Christian development. The succession of the redemptive ministry was handed over to the Apostles, and they were to bring Judaism and paganism to grace. Hence, apostolic supremacy is required on both points. And at first, the majestic personality of St. is presented to us everywhere. Peter, strong in word and deed, laying the foundation, ensuring continuation, finding new paths, guiding and blessing the exploits of others. Without his permission, nothing is done, and together with John he brings down the Holy Spirit on the converted Samaritans and goes around the surrounding areas. We hear little about the other Apostles, but for us it is fundamentally and only important that there is not the slightest disagreement, which is why we are forced to think that the evangelists worked in solidarity, diligently and successfully. So: the exclusive apostolic participation in this area is certified with factual irresistibility. The same is true for Hellenic evangelization. It is preceded by the baptism of Cornelius to St. Peter and originates in Antioch under the authority and under the control of the Jerusalem Brotherhood (Acts XI, 22 ff.). Obviously, his approval must be seen in the development of the pagan mission through Barnabas and the specially invited Saul, and is loudly reflected in the conciliar-apostolic recognition of its complete equality with the Palestinian-Jewish one. Then it almost entirely passes into the hands of St. Paul, for whom the very circumstances of his calling testified to his divine mission, identical in dignity with the apostleship of those “before.” That is why, de facto, he had continuous and close communication with the “self-witnesses” - with their souls and hearts they participated in his feat. Consequently, from this side too, divine mediation in the Hellenic-Christian gospel through the apostleship of Christ is undeniable. Reality harmoniously responds to its internal idea and reveals it, itself establishing itself on this in its normal reality. Here again the main tendency of St. finds its unshakable justification. Luke - to show the apostolic structure of Christian history as it spread throughout the pagan world. And again, this completeness is not acquired at all artificially, because it does not run counter to the actual state of things, but directly and entirely follows from here. This truth is clearly demonstrated by the very nature of events, that they are true to themselves in everything, always express their norm, and are exactly what they should be. True, the whole story is grouped here around two persons - the Apostle Peter and St. Paul - and they dominate everything both in life and in its depiction. This is the usual method of all ancient and best historiography, that it primarily focuses on individual outstanding figures and draws on them the entire multilateral movement in all its actual vicissitudes. With his narrative of this nature, the Writer only once again confirms his original glory as a widely enlightened and literary educated person, possessing sufficient reserves and good technique of historiographical creativity, high in elegantly correct style and scientific processing of material. However, in this respect, he is far from artificial tendentiousness and significantly surpasses his “secular” predecessors: the latter often show a violent narrative concentration with the unlawful elevation of some heroes and the unjust humiliation of others to the point of completely ousting the masses of the people, playing only an impersonal arithmetic role, and Luke has nothing of the kind, even to an approximate extent. We see believers there (Acts II, 44. III, 32. V, 14), who are mutually “brothers” among themselves, not excluding the Apostles (VI, 3. XI, 1, 29. XII, 17. XV, 7, 13, 32, 33, 36. XVII, 10, 14. XVIII, 27. XXI, 7, 17, 20. XXVIII, 14, 15), we rarely hear about teachers (XIII, 1), as well as about friends (XXVII, 3), but we constantly meet a meeting of students (I, 15 – 16. VI, 1, 2. IX, 26. XI, 26, 29. XV, 10. XVI, 1. XVIII, 27. XIX, 1, 9, 30. XX, 1, 7. XXI, 4, 16), who are no less active in all church affairs than the elders (XI, 30. XV, 2, 4, 6. XXII, 23). This is an organically united and inextricable brotherhood, serving not just as a background or a mechanical tool for leaders, but as their basis and support. In this perspective, Peter and Paul are only primi inter pares, for they do not have their own power or piety (III, 12), but equally receive everything from a common source in God. Therefore, coming forward in their responsible feat, they do not occupy the whole picture at all and are depicted on it among the equally saints by grace (IX, 13, 32). And in fact, we find them everywhere in the retinue of unanimous and active helpers in the field of Christ. Here are characteristically illustrative types, thereby confirming the presence in the entire church body of a dominant, unchangeable rule. They most clearly reflect the basic principle of apostolic creation, common to all, and it is quite natural that through their creative exploits St. Luke illuminates his fundamental, dogmatic view, which did not require either a lot of detail or photographic punctuality in reproducing every little detail. And for this he had all the factual data, since in the very course of events the Apostles Peter and Paul emerged as creative leaders. Through them, the Writer shows us early Christian history precisely because it itself really shone in them in its purely apostolic structure in the spirit of the sacred covenants and true principles of Christ, if all this was especially embodied in these two pillars, forcing us to assume the same in all others as the most important property of a worthy Christian. Again, there is a strict coincidence of goal and implementation, and historiographical objectivism must necessarily contribute to exhorting intentions regarding the affirmation of all Christians through Theophilus in the divine teaching. As a result, it turns out that Christianity is outlined by St. Luke with principled and factual comprehensiveness. Being divine power, it increases with divine power; since the latter is salutary and irresistible, the entire universe in its fundamentals submits to it. In the two-year Roman preaching of St. Paul, without a doubt, his hopes that - despite the stubbornness of the Jews - the Gentiles would hear were justified. This means that now the historical triumph of the Gospel was revealed here and the enduring prosperity of Christ’s grace on earth was ensured. Having reached this limiting point, the Writer has exhausted his dogmatic task and immediately interrupts his story at the most convenient moment. According to the inner meaning of the topic taken, he had no reason to go further, and his work turns out to be completely finished. In this fundamental observation we gain a solid basis for an impartial judgment about the author's supposed literary plans. It has long been suggested that, following the example of Greek historians, St. Luke thought of giving his readers a narrative trilogy, and only circumstances unknown to us prevented its intended ending 310. In modern times, Prof. especially tried to argue this hypothesis and make it a scientific axiom. W. M. Ramsay 311 not without success 312 . He draws attention to the term (in Acts I, 1) τόν πρῶτον (λόγον), having in mind the following features. According to philological observations, sanctioned by the high authority of the competent Hellenist Friedrich Blass, in Κοινή and in the New Testament Greek the difference between comparative and superlative degrees was almost completely smoothed out, which is why the first began to be expressed in a positive form, and - which means - πρῶτος was used instead of and with the energy of πρότερος. With this understanding, Acts will simply be a later book compared to the previous one in the Gospel, as the early work of St. Luke, and their arithmetic calculation does not require continuation at all. In this case, the triadological idea falls by itself. But we must agree with Ramsey that the stated philological generalization is far from absolute and allows for significant limitations, and then the style of John the Theologian cannot be directly applied to the Writer. It is true that in Stephen’s speech τρῶτον (VII, 12) is equal to πρότερον and in Slavic is conveyed through “pervey”, but this could have been taken vertatim from a Hebrew source. Along with this, it is no less certain that the Apostle Paul, who repeatedly uses the positive degree, uses πρότερίν (2 Cor. I, 15.) Heb. IV. 6. VII, 27), τό πρότερον (Gal. IV, 13. 1 Tim. I, 13), τήν προτέραν άναστροφήν (Eph. IV, 22). τάς πρότερον ήμέρας (Heb. X, 32), and his companion utilizes the ordinal πρῶτος in the usual sense as in Acts (see especially XII, 10 διελθόντες δέ πρώτην φολακήν καί δεοτέραν ), and in the Gospel (II, 2. XI, 26. XIII, 33. XIV, 18. XVI, 5. XIX, 16. XX, 29). Then nothing prevents us from seeing in τόν πρῶτον λόγον the “first word,” which by its name would be incomprehensible if it did not imply its continuation. But the latter could arithmetically be unlimited, and this, in relation to literary human work, would be completely absurd and virtually unthinkable. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the continuity generally accepted for such works, and such for historical works was the trilogy. In this case, Acts turns out to be the second book, which follows the first and refers to the third, according to historiographical practice and norm. All this is correct theoretically, but in no way forced for Luke 313, since it was not an absolute law, an indispensable law for everyone. For this reason, we must concede that philologically it is not at all asserted that the author immediately intended the third word as an obligatory part. Τόν πρῶτον (λόγον) looks entirely backward and not forward, and makes it only probable that Luke's historical narrative was inscribed Ό δεῦτερος λόγος. There is no doubt that the story of the Writer is interrupted unexpectedly for us, and we await and would passionately desire further reports about the fate of St. Pavel. We must add to this that this is only our subjective attraction of natural curiosity, but we have no right to use it to measure the inspired New Testament writing. In this regard, it presents extremely characteristic features that eliminate all our impatient demands. We do not have a real biography about any of the Apostles, and fragmentary information is conveyed dryly and casually on various random occasions. Apart from James Zebedee, there is not even a cursory note about their death in all the New Testament monuments, and even about John the Theologian it is not said where, when and how he “glorified God” with the death that was foreshadowed to him by the Lord himself. Silent and - often - dark and contradictory tradition: - this is our main, almost exclusive source in this area. It is clear from everything that in the apostolic era there was little interest in the personal events in the life of the evangelists, so that even the early inquisitiveness on this subject (for example, in Papias and Igisippus) was no longer able to fill in the enormous gaps in this regard with definite strokes. In general, tradition always relies on New Testament allusions and only develops and embellishes them. In sharp contrast to this, apocryphal literature abounds in biographical and legendary details and is sometimes completely exhausted by them. A clear sign that biographical detail did not interest the sacred writers at all. And it seems not difficult to guess the essential and blessed reason. The New Testament authors depict the foundation, spread and establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. And in fact and in its idea - the latter was the entire work of God, where all human participation was secondary, mediating and contributing, doing what was commanded, but not producing anything with its own strengths and merits. The individual element was necessarily and inevitably obscured almost to the point of complete elimination, so that the will of God, accomplished in human weakness, would appear all the more clearly in everything. The latter serves only as an agent of the power of God and is captured only by connection with it, and no more and no further. From this point of view, the continuation of the story about the great Apostle of tongues was both unnecessary and not necessary for the evangelistic work. As far as we know from the Pastoral Epistles, his subsequent ministry was devoted to the preservation and expansion of the former, which was fully revealed and laid strong and unshakable foundations for the normal development of church life according to the covenants of Christ. In this case, this period was more personal in nature and directly fell under the formula of St. John Chrysostom: εί καί Παῦλος ήν, αλλ᾿ ἄνθρωπος ῆν. It is now clear that with his divinely inspired thought, the Writer was least inclined to publish an imaginary third book - and it probably did not exist even in the project 314. Then the completeness of the Acts will be certain. They have the goal of depicting the universal spread of divine salvation according to the divine plan and perfectly achieve this result through the objective reproduction of the apostolic preaching to the world center in Rome, hastening the Lord, and confirming the word with subsequent signs (Mark XVI, 20). This harmonious coincidence of idea and implementation best certifies The unity of the author of the book of Acts with the elimination of hypotheses about the mechanical compilation of scripture from different sources 315. The very thought of the latter should not seem strange or arbitrary. Priest The author more than once emphasizes his direct participation in events through the form “we” 316, and here it is impossible to see (along with Baur, Zeller, Overbeck, etc.) a simple literary device in view of the liveliness of these narratives and the undeniable conscientiousness of the compiler. This seems to distinguish his personal acquaintance from the secondary acquaintance acquired through various benefits. And in itself it is unacceptable for the narrator to be present at all the acts under review, which is why the question of appropriate guarantors arises with necessity. Then, in the processing of the material, it is easy to see its various groupings around several outstanding personalities, from which a guess is involuntarily born about individual biographical experiences, uniquely combined by the compiler. It is easy to understand that this was an extremely convenient tool for criticism in her tendentious constructions of the early Christian era, and she hastened to use such a grateful tool with such zeal that her history in relation to the book of Acts seems a terrible story of suffering 317. Let us present the most important things so that the main lines and essential trends can be outlined. Already Königsmnann (in Pott’s Sylloge commentt. III: De fontibus commentarium sacrorum, qui Lucae nomen praeferunt etc. 1798) - by analogy with the first part, tried to dissect the second, and J. S. Riehm (De fontibus Actuum apostolorum, Trajecti 1821), adopting the latter from Luke, found numerous sources in it. Science entered through this on the seductively slippery path of hypotheses and dreams when Schleiermacher (see Prof. T h. Z a h n, Einleitung in das N. T. II, S. 2 441: 1) under “we” suggested Timothy, who did not coincide with the editor who brought together various news, about what he guessed from the omissions in the stories, the lack of communication and some contradictions reflecting disharmonious manuals. E. Th. Mayerhoff (Hist. - krit. Einleitung in die Petrinischen Schriften I, Hamburg 1835) extended the authorship of Timothy to the entire scripture and thus opened up scope for finding materials during the work of this later companion of Pavlov. We see something similar in E. A. Schwanbeck (Ueber die Quellen der Schriften des Lukas 1, Darmstadt 1847): “we” he identified with Silas and the final publisher assimilated the biography of Peter, the rhetorical tale of Stephen and notes about Barnabas (IV, 36 ff.; IX. 1 - 30 and XII, 25 - XV, 4). Fr. Bleek (in "Studien und Kritiken" 1836), Ulrich (ibid. 1837, 1840) and W. M. L. De Wetle (Kurze Erklӓrung der Apostelgesfhichte, 1841) returned to Schleiermacher's idea and paved the way for the Tübingen reconstructions with the assignment of the book of Acts to the 2nd century. Even Heinrich Ewald, who was not involved in this destructive trend, accepted “Judeo-Christian sources” in the form of the history of Peter (I -V. VIII, 5 - 40. IX, 32 -XI, 32) and the history of Stephen-Saul (VI, 1 - VIII, 4. IX, 1 - 31). The first was also recognized by Bernhard Weiss, who made partial divisions and selections based on the criterion of probability and reliability (see Einleitung in das N. T.). Η. H. Wendt (in Kritisch exegetisches- Handbuch – zur Apostelgeschichte – von H. A. W. Meyer, 7-te Aufl.) counts as “we” or Luke all the content from Chapter XIII and XI, 19 – 21. 27 – 28 and in the earlier one allows written material only for the episode about St. Stefan. In general, the duality of sources was first projected by the Dutch school in the person of, for example, W. E. van Manen’a (PauIus, I: De handelingen der apostelen, Leiden 1890), who argued that for a long time the “Acts of Peter” (Ad. Hilgenfeld) and the “Acts of Paul” grew out of the travel diary, until they were merged into a compact whole about 150 year. Martin Sorof (Die Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte, Berlin 1890) decided to more closely characterize the understood manuals: one is the most ancient Hellenic-Christian, indebted to Luke and from the first part embracing I, 1 ff., abstracts about Steran, about the emergence of the Antiochian Church, about southern Asia Minor travels and additions to passages with “we” that already belong Timothy and have a Judeo-Christian connotation, which is reflected in the entire composition of the book. Paul Feine explains this property of the “Acts” (in “Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie” 1890, I; Eine vorkanonische Ueberlieferung des Lukas in Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte, Gotha 1890) by the intrusion of the Judeo-Christian Jerusalem legend dedicated to Peter into the chain of the Hellenic-Christian story, which is not at all is violated only from the Xllllth chapter. However, even now the exact relationship between the two currents remained uncertain. This task was undertaken by Friedrich Soitta (Die Apostelgeschichtë ihre Quellen und ihr geschichtlicher Wert, Halle 1891). In his opinion, almost two-thirds of the entire composition falls on A, which is distinguished by its liveliness and verisimilitude and is rightfully revered as the work of Luke. But he suffered greatly from the introduction of Judeo-Christian elements from B with his passion for the miraculous and legendary and the desire to equate Peter with the Apostle of tongues. This element prevails in the first part (I, 4 – 14, 18 – 19. II. 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 9 lines. 43. IV, 35 lines. V. 1 – 11, 17 lines, 21 lines. VI, 8b – 15. VII, 1, 55 lines, 58b – 60. VIII, 1–3. IX, 3–31. VIII, 5 –40,36 – 43. XI, 1 – 18, 22 – 26. XII, 1 – 24), but quite noticeable in the second (XIII, 6 – 12, 44 – 49. XIV, 3, 8-20. XV, 1 –4, 13 – 33. XVI, 20 pages. 24–34. XVII, 6–9.XIX, 1b–7, 11–19, 24–41. XXI, 10 pages., 20b–26. XXII, 30–XXIII, 10. XXVIII, 17–23). This interweaving is due to R = Redactor, who carried out his work with some skill, perhaps even before the end of the 1st century. This attempt only showed more clearly that from a literary critical point of view, two sources for the current composition of the Acts are very few, for the later editor, with his additions, finds himself without guides and materials. Carl Clemen (Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe, Halle 1893, S. 58 – 161) already invents as many as four manuals: 1) N. Η. = Historia Hellenistarum with news about Stephen (VI, 9 -VIII, 1b, not alien to later interpolations) and about the founding of the Antiochian Church (XI, 19 - 21, 24a, 26); 2) N. Re = Historia Petri, embracing chapters I – V. introductory remarks to N. N. (VI, 7 – 8, 11 – 15. VII, 37, 60. VIII, 2), information about Simon the magician (VIII, 4–13, 18–24) and the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch (VIII, 24–40); 3) N. Ra = Historia Pauli from the XIIIth chapter, (however, with editorial additions), based mainly on 4)I. Pa – Itinerarium Pauli, appearing (in XVI, 10 f. XX, 5. f. XXVII, 1 f.) under the formula “we”. From this reconstruction it necessarily follows that individual completed narratives could not be united immediately into the current book, but had to undergo many operations on the part of three editors: a) the first R inserted fragments with “we” into the “history of Paul” and embellished it in places with episodes of a miraculous nature (XIV, 8 - 18. XVI, 23b - 34. XVII, 19 - 33. XVIII. 12-17. XIX, 11 – 1, 15–41. XX, 17 ff.); b) the second R) (Redactor judaicus) - between 93 and 117 years - put a lot of effort into the Judaistic recoloring of the former text and added quite a lot of data to it in this sense (IX, 32-43. X, 1 -XI, 18, XV, 1 - 4, 13 - 18, 20 - 22. XVI 1-3. XXI. 20b - 22. XXII, 1–16, 19 – 21. XXIII, 1–10. XXIV. 16 – 24); c) it fell to the third R (Redactor anti judaicus), who labored under Hadrian (117 - 138), to weaken the machinations of his predecessor with balancing inserts (these include IX, 1 -31; XII 1-25; something in chapters XIII and XIV; XV, 5-12,19, 23 - 33, 41; XIX, 4, 6, 14. XX, 19b, 25 – 35, 33a. XXIII, 25 – 30). The extreme complexity of this “monstrous hypothesis” 318 necessarily encouraged simplification in order to save at least the main critical tendency - and so Johann jüngst (Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, Gotha 1895) again takes up the construction of two sources - Peacockian A and Ebionite B, which under Trajan - Hadrian, in the period from 110 to 125, were processed by an unknown R in the sense of “Judaizing Paul.” However, in this game with three X's there was too much artificiality, why Ad. Hilgenfeld (in “Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie” 1895, I, S. 65–115; II, S. 186–217; II, S. 384–447 et seq.) continued to essentially insist only on the Petrinistic manual of the first part, Johann Weiss (in “Studien und Kritiken” 1893, S. 480 – 540; 189, S. 252 –296) evilly destroys the Klemen system of various editors, one of whom corrects and distorts the other. “D. Lit. – Zeitung” 1895, Nz. 18) directly called all these experiments unsuccessful, the philologist A. Gercke (“Hermes” III, S. 373 – 392; “Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen” 1894, S. 77 ff.) considers them “resting on sand”, although he himself dates the book of Acts to the moment 100 and values it very low. Therefore, the condensed presentation shows how obscure and complicated the question of the sources of the Writer is. It is no less clear that all attempts in this field were unsuccessful and remain ephemeral to this day. To go into a detailed analysis of them would be completely in vain, since the competitors in the torture of the book of Acts are eating themselves, since, for example, Jungst calls Clement’s system “super artificial,” and the latter declares the construction of his critic “truly super artificial.” In the end, the result is that all the experiments noted are fantastic in their very design and in their execution lack the most important properties of historical probability, which is why we do not need to worry about their fate. The Dutch ultra-critical school, with its arbitrary microscopic selections and divisions of New Testament texts, is a living, denouncing conscience of such a trend, since its violent attacks are accompanied by monstrous deformities. For us, only one fundamental idea of ​​​​a critical attack on literary merit is important. In its assessment, it is necessary to eliminate all subjective desires and sympathies with an inclination towards the pre-occupied denial of tradition in general and the preserved textual type in particular; – on the contrary, we must take all Scripture in its true scope and actual meaning. Then we will find that the main support of all critical reconstructions is supposedly the lack of unity and coherence in the whole composition, the randomness in the arrangement of parts, the mechanical accumulation of heterogeneous and diverse fragments. If this is true, we would have to engage in a more simplified analysis, since we do not agree with our predecessors. But this compulsion is not yet visible at all. What is extremely characteristic here is the observation that all critics unreservedly admit that in the Writer the Peacock source is intertwined with the Petrinist one, and both are colored with a mixed color. In this case, the inevitable conclusion is that - in essence - they are identical in tone and coincide with each other in mood. But this will already be the unity of matter and illumination and rather requires the unity of the compiler, excluding many authors with disparate and, perhaps, diametrical tendencies, since the existing disharmonies are easily explained by the difference in the objects described and the data at hand. At this point, critical skepticism defeats itself, with its own downfall, and indirectly confirms the traditional theory. All that remains at his disposal now is the fact of the grouping of events around the personalities of Peter and Paul and the difference in their individual evangelistic depiction. But the latter completely disagrees with the critical dogma about the leveling of both Apostles and testifies to the internal contradictions of the entire movement. In general, the noted point of literary-factual duality is undeniable, and no one rejects it. The whole question is why exactly does it follow from here - at least - a duality of sources coming from two authors and expressing two early Christian currents? We are told that at the beginning the figure of Peter is predominantly put forward, and this is only permissible in a special biography of him. The second part is also evidenced in relation to Paul. But let this be an artificial literary device: we know that, being generally accepted scientifically at that time, it is fully explained and justified by the dominant idea of ​​the book, which reveals the principle of unchanging and everywhere apostolic supremacy during the spread of Christianity in Judaism and paganism. In these interests, the writer himself could arrange his material in this way, because he needed it according to the essence of the task. As for artificiality, it will also be a completely dubious prejudice until it is argued with irresistibility that the Apostle Peter was not the main mover of the early Christian community and that the Hellenic mission is not obliged to the exploits of St. Paul, who worked here more than all his brothers. Criticism exposes its wrongness here too, sharply highlighting the contrast between these evangelistic pillars and thereby confirming that - each in their own field - they really were ahead of everyone both in word and in deed. By the strength of this, it is indisputable that the phenomena are depicted in Luke historically objectively, and this presupposes one impartial compiler who used reliable information and his own observations. At the same time, all the supports for critical fiction are undermined, the unsuccessful constructions of which only convince of the unity of the book of Acts. Visual and irrefutable proof of this is provided by her The language is specifically examined from the perspective of the third Gospel by J. Friedrich 319 and philologically illuminated by prof. Fr. Blassa 320. in the Acts the author himself dominates everywhere Κοινή) or Ἐλλινική δι λεκτος, which does not coincide with the Attic ancient and later, but is not certainly alien to them, and the latter is even its most important element 321. This Hellenistic speech marks a considerable decline in comparison with the Attic one. All the subtle touches were lost, and the detailed composition could not be scrupulously artistic in the absence of the previous richness of all sorts of tones for the smallest tints. Against this background, the third Gospel and the book of Acts stand out noticeably for their great perfection, and the second of them, according to Prof. Fr. Blass (p. 18) – έλληνικώτερος, which is argued ad exempla by reference to the elegant combination of particles τέ καί δέ 322. In this sense, the identity of both writers and the unity of language of the sacred historiographer are philologically confirmed. They try to weaken the last conclusion by pointing out the difference in syllable in the first and second parts, but this undoubted phenomenon has its root in the distinctive features of the things depicted, since at first the narrator sticks closer to the purely Jewish sphere, then he moves further and further away from it. Naturally, the Jewish element there is more significant, here it is less and weaker, since the writer could not talk about sea voyages and adventures in the terms and style of the Old Testament and rightly writes (in Acts XXVII, 41) stranded) instead of the expected έπῶκειλαν τὸ πλοῖον. In accordance with this substantive division, he, of course, had heterogeneous sources: for the abstract about the Jerusalem-Palestine mission and its leaders, these were Aramaic documents or their Eurasian paraphrases in Greek and direct stories of Eurasian participants; when describing the works and exploits of the Pavlovs, Luka conveyed his own observations and perceptions and independently processed the messages of other guarantors, more Hellenistic, at least in the strength of missionary practice in the Hellenic regions. Under these conditions, it is extremely significant that the linguistic tone and timbre of speech in both sections remains similar. Then, Eurastic termini technici, in the genus τὸ ἔθνος in the sense of “pagan,” were inevitable in the Christian depiction of biblical and New Testament facts and acts and are scattered throughout the entire book, where the language necessarily varies with a change of pictures that are different in content and color. That is why the linguistic elements under consideration cannot be distinguished by specific authors if, for example, the Hellenistic “prologue” of the third Gospel is immediately accompanied by densely Jewish passages. Luke had different legends, and he only uses them, applying and transmitting them in relation to the historical situation of the events and persons themselves. Everywhere he is an original narrator, for whom the only true thing is that his language is sacredly Hellenistic and forcibly indicates in him a person living in the atmosphere of the emerging Jewish-Greek church, speaking similar to it and monotonously. The Attic advantage testifies simply to his typical individuality and eliminates all fantastic conjectures about the impersonality of the supposed dark compiler. They are also subverted by many of the book's general properties. This is noticeable, first of all, in the vocabulary. Thus, Luke has up to 140 characteristic words, of which up to 94 are found in Paul, from whose writings he is more closely aligned with the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians 323. For the undeniably authentic messages of Paul, there are common terms with them - in the third Gospel 83,324, in Acts exclusively characteristic of them and this scripture up to 49,325. This means that the vocabulary here is quite Peacock, but there are many (compared to other New Testament authors) rare words and even ἄπαξ είρημένα. The presentation reveals the prevalence of speech at the expense of its conciseness: τήν δδὸν ένώπιον τοῦ πλήθους (Acts XIX, 9), when a shorter version would have been sufficient (in XVIII, 6) άντιτασσομένων δέ τινων καί βλασφη ούντων (cf. also XIV, 3); διά τῶα χοιρῶν αυτῶν (XIV, 3) instead of δι ’ αύτών; excessive άναστά; with έξηλθεν (X, 23), etc. In the use of particles, the historiographer more noticeably than others avoids their mechanical piling up, more carefully observes the chronological continuity of times (participium aoristi putting parfecti verbi finiti or partkipii praesentis first: I, 24), is more successful in the use of participles and in the use μέν and δέ. However, in the last point the strictly antithetical structure is not maintained throughout: in the first speech of St. Peter once αλλά (11, 16) and there is no corresponding μέν, but in the second it occurs three times (III, 13, 21, 22) in the absence of άλλά, which is used four times in address before Agrippa (XXVI, 16, 20, 25, 29) with double μέν (XXVI, 4, 9) without coordinating δέ. It seems capricious here that there is a change from regularity to deviations from it and a game of combining particles. But in these features, the unity of the literary and linguistic basis acquires a unique and indelible imprint of individual creative thought, always equally characteristic; - in her expression, she plays with elusive modulations throughout the entire work and everywhere appears with the sharp clarity of her originality, which does not allow for either diversity or chance. This is the typicality of a holistic and balanced personality, and only in it does the noted stylistic and linguistic feature find its motivating and productive cause. From this side, philologically competent observations exactly coincide with previous conclusions about the guiding idea and external structure of the Acts and again confirm their literary unity. In turn, the desire to find different sources most likely indicates that the book in question has all the Historical accuracy 326, assuring the writer is fully aware. From the factual side, this thesis, of course, needs detailed explanations, but in essence it is not disputed even by those who push the analyzed book into the depths of the 2nd century, because the utilized manuals were ancient. But here we encounter an alarming difficulty in the strong fluctuation of textual tradition, in the bifurcation of its currents 327. Thus, Greco-Latin Codex D or Bezae Cantabrigiensis sec. VI 328 deviates greatly from the usual textual type and contains important differences for which there are no suitable analogies in the entire mass of New Testament variants. And his voice is not alone. E (cod. Laudianus Oxoniensis) from the end of the 6th century, also Greco-Latin, embracing only the Acts, and M from the 11th century coincide a lot with it. (manuscript of the Ambrosian Library in Milan No. 137); from Latin: f (cod. Floriacensis) of the 7th century, now in Paris; p (Parisinus, n. 321) saec. XIII and W (Wernigorodensis) saec. XV. Then the Syriac (Peshitta and Philoxenian) and Coptic-Saidic translations are added here with their special readings, and among the patriotic authorities - Irenaeus, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, Cyprian, Augustine and - partly - Tertullian 329. Taken together, all these sources provide an extremely unique text of an original nature 330. Its essential features can be classified under the following headings. I) In this group there are often examples of prevalence in the expressions, III, 1 note about the ninth hour is preceded in D by the introduction of τό δειλινόν - “in the afternoon.” IV, 1 τά ῤ ἡματα ταῦτα . IV, 3 καί ούκ ήν έν αύτοίς διάκ ισις ούδεμία. V 18 καί έπορεύθη είς ἔκαστος εις τά ἴδια, VI, 8 (after λαῷ διά τού όνόματος Κυρἰου ). VII, 29 καί οῦτως έφυγάδευσεν Μωσῆν - all these are additions D. In the story of the vision, Saul is given (in F) the following detail (IX, 8): sed ait ad eos: levate me de terra. Et cum levassent ilium, nihil videbat apertis ocules 331 . There are no less new details in the news about the activities of the Apostle Peter in Caesarea, as well as from there, for example, about his preaching in different places (διά τῶ χωρῶν διδάσκων αύτούς), and he said in advance καί λόγον ποιούμενος (XI, 2). About the event in Antioch and Pisidia during the period of the first journey of St. Paul is reported that, despite the irritation of the Iconian Jews, δ δέ κύριος ἔδωκεν ταχύ είρήνην (XIV, 2) and that the enemies came from there to Lystra even at the time when the evangelists (XIV, 19) “were there and taught" (διατριβ ντων δέ αύτῶν και διδασκόντων) 332. XVI, 19 άπεστέρηνται ) τῆς έργασί ς αύτῶν , ῇ ς εζχ ν δι ’ αύτῆς and XXI, 39 έν Τάρσφ δέ Κιλι κίας γεγεννημένος are remarkable only for the elongation of the phrase for the same thought, which in XXII, 26 is strengthened by the repetition that the centurion heard, δτι Ρωμαίον έαυτόν λέ γει. In XVII, 12 and 15, the faith of many Bereans is contrasted with the unbelief of others and mention is made of passing through Thessaly with the impediment of preaching here from the Spirit. Already in these additions a somewhat sick precision is revealed, but it emerges even more clearly II) in chronological indications. In I, 5 we have ἔως της πεντηκοσ ῆς, and in II, 1 καί έγενετο έ and ταίς ήμέραις έκείναι; τοῦ συ ᾿πληροῦσθαι τήν ῆμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστηκοστῆς πάντων έπί τὀ αύτὀ ..., so that the meeting was before the day of Pentecost, the outpouring of the Spirit on the very feast in the morning (cf. II, 15). In XV. 30 it is explained that those sent with the apostolic decree to Antioch έν ήμέραις όλίγαις κατῆλθον and, obviously, were in a hurry with the good news, meanwhile the journey to Jerusalem was far from quick (XV. 30, 33). XVI, 11 notes that the departure from Troas was τῆ έπαύριον. XVII, 19 with his μετά δέ τινάς ήμέρας κτλ reveals that the Athenians did not immediately become interested in the teachings of St. Paul and were not immediately invited to the Areopagus. In XVIII, 19 it is emphasized that the Apostle entered the Ephesian synagogue τῷ έπιὀντι σαββάτ ῳ, and in XIX 9 it is added that he preached in the school of the tyrant άπὀ ώρας πέμπτης ἔως δέκατης. XX,18 defines his Ephesian stay - according to XX,31 - ώς τριετίαν ῆ καί πλείον and departure for trial in Rome appoints (in XXVII, 1) τῆ επαύριον, like the whole description of the voyage much more detailed. III) The same tendency is manifested in the most precise notes about topography, various factual relations and characters. In XI, 27 – 28 it reads: εις᾿έξ αύτών όνομάτι A γαβος σημαίνων ..., from which it follows that the Writer was one of the participants in this Antioch meeting. From XII, 1 it is said that Herod's persecution was concentrated on έ and τή Ί ο. δαᾳ. XII, 10 is completed in the sense that - upon release from prison - the Angel and Peter are first κατέβησαν τοιύς έπίά σταθμούς. In XVI, 35 edition τήν άγοράν , και άναμνησθέντες τόν σεισμόν τόν γεγονότα εφοβήθησαν και άπέστειλαν τους ῤ αβδούχους κτλ. reveals to us the immediate motive in the change in policy of the Philippian military leaders. In XVIII, 18, 21 ff. and 27 there is some additional information about Aquila, Priscilla and Apollos. In XIX, 4 ff. the number of Sceva's sons is reduced to two (XIX, 16 άμφοτέρων). In XX, 15, Trogillia is mentioned (as in the Slavic translation according to text, rec) and in XXI, 1st Worlds after Patara. About the path from Caesarea to Jerusalem it is said (XXI, 10): ούτοι δέ (those who accompanied the Apostle) ῆ αγον ήμ ᾶ ς πρός ους ξενισθώμεν, καί who in this review is considered a resident of not Jerusalem. XXIV, 27 explains that Felix kept Paul in prison not without the influence of his wife Drusilla (διά Δρούσιλλαν). In XXVIII, 16 and 19 it is reported more extensively and separately: ? παρεμβολής ..., καί έπ κραζόντων (τῶ and Ί ουδαίω). Αίρε τόν έχθρο v ᾑ μῶν ..., άλλ ’ ἴνα λυτρώσωμαι τήν φυχήν ου εκ θανάτου. All these specific illustrations sufficiently convince how deep and significant differences this peculiar edition contains, which, among other things, served as the basis for the hypothesis of a “Western” review of the New Testament text, which originated in the East (and, most likely, in Asia Minor), but was widespread and has more representatives in the West. This means that the very fact of this unparalleled individual typicality is completely undeniable, and then the whole point is only in its scientific interpretation. Here, for a long time and usually, they tried to reduce all the features of D to simple variants, and their abundance was explained either by arbitrariness, supposedly understandable for a historical book, or by special trends, for example, Judaistic (Credner; A. Resch). There can be no doubt that all such interpretations are fundamentally false in their motivation, for the Acts were no less canonical scripture for the Church, but in general remains incomprehensible and cannot be explained satisfactorily in terms of the very options why, why and for what purpose all these changes and additions were allowed in purely factual data. The latter also speaks decisively against Judaistic tendentiousness, which is completely unthinkable to carry out and grasp in such indifferent details without a previously accepted and persistent pre-occupation, which is completely refuted by the neutral objectivity of the document itself, as a purely historical abstract. Finally, it is also important that D is not at all a single authority and has a considerable retinue of solidary witnesses, which, of course, could not arise by the random whim of an unknown and incomprehensible glossator. F. N. Chase - with the sympathy of J. Rendel Harris 333 - thinks to explain all these features by the influence of the Syriac interpretation, but it is very unconvincing, since 1) it could hardly have captured with its influence such a wide area as is certified for the edition under consideration, and 2) reveals a close affinity with D only in the later Philoxenian translation, where a completely opposite relationship is permissible. Prof. W. M. Ramsay 334 sees in these widespread deviations a good real commentary from the 2nd century of Asia Minor origin and uses his information with confidence and zeal. The same goes for Prof. Ad. Harnack is extremely averse to D 335 and claims that D is not a single text, but “a complex of proofs and glosses that already belongs to the first half of the 2nd century” 336. From the factual side, this hypothesis is not applicable to the entire set of original textual differences, because they concern not only Asia Minor, extend far beyond just topography and chronology and are not limited only to the book of Acts, but - in part - also cover the third Gospel. With such a scope of the compiler, who felt the right to make all sorts of corrections, it would be natural to expect more significant and systematic additions and changes from him. As a result, we find that D with his allies represents too sharp an exception, which is not even in the weakest degree supported textually by other New Testament writings. Obviously, this is a completely unusual phenomenon, and therefore there must also be a special reason for it. Moreover, all options have the appearance of historical factual probability and thus involuntarily raise a guess about their possible originality, going back to the author himself. In this sense, already about 25 3 years ago, the famous Dutch critic Johannes Clericus (Jean Leclerc, born in Geneva 1657) suggested that Lucam bis edidisse Actus 337. A complete and precise substantiation of this idea belongs to modern times and is given in the works of the Gallic professor of Hellenistic philologist Friedrich Blass 338. We owe to his energy and competence a complete and firmly argued theory, which embraces all the facts and is designed to cover all possibilities. Therefore, it deserves somewhat more special consideration. Having established a group of related Class D monuments, Blass analyzes their deviations from the conventional, dominant text. At the same time, it is revealed that all of them do not at all resemble external and alien layers, but are in a living organic connection with the whole and in language completely correspond to the style of the Writer. Thus, in the story about the stay of St. Peter in Caesarea it is explained that Cornelius could meet the Apostle when entering the city because he was warned about his approach by a slave sent to meet him (X, 25 and cf. v. 8), and the verbs used here (in vv. 24 and 25) τεριμένειν (cf. Acts I, 4) and έκπηδ ᾶ ν (cf. Acts XIV: 14) are characteristic of our book. The rumor of the Jerusalem brothers about the acceptance of the word of God by the pagans has its factual basis in the fact that St. Peter did not preach for a short time (διά ίκανοῦ χρόνου = per tempus non modicum), formed a considerable community and along the way preached the gospel to the surrounding countries (διά χωρῶν); The terminology here is again the Descriptive one, similar in subtle shades and consistent with all the circumstances (for κατάντησεν cf. Acts XVIII, 19, etc.). In the same vein are most of all the significant differences of the textual type, which - to avoid misunderstandings - is denoted by Blass by β. Since everything noted is true, we are scientifically forced to accept that all these features are imprinted with the character of genuine primacy and, therefore, belong to the “author” or compiler of the book of Acts himself. Nothing else is acceptable and unthinkable, because such a forgery would be a phenomenal exception, almost a miracle, and it cannot be allowed without an irreducible necessity, which in our case is not at all seen. Under these premises, the entire textual history is depicted in approximately this form. The “Second Word” was intended for the noble dignitary Theophilus, and naturally the writer tried to present him with a copy that was in good working order and even better in appearance, as is always and everywhere the case under similar conditions. But on the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the author could immediately achieve the desired perfection in all aspects. worn and had to produce a preliminary edition. Therefore, it is likely that - according to the conditions of the then book business 339 - the Acts were originally written on cheap papyrus (like the Aristotelian fragments stored in London) and were dotted with insertions, amendments, remarks, etc. Already from this rough corrected text, various “editions” could have been formed due to the inattention or freedom of the copyists, as evidenced by ancient evidence, eg Galena (XVII, 1). Moreover: - from the testimony of Catullus (XXII) about the poet Souffin, we know that the latter rewrote his poems more than once and finally released them on charta regia 340; it is also probable for the work of (pseudo-) Aristotle, discovered in modern times, Περί πολιτείας A θηναίων. But then the Ciceroan question rightly arises (epist. ad fam. VII. 8:2): quis solet eodem exemplo plures (epistulas) dare qui sua manu scribit? And Luke, most likely, was a poor man and, not having a servus et area with him, had to rewrite “cleanly” himself and at the same time again allowed himself quite a lot of proofreading, as is still the case with each of us, who gives several variations of various properties when rewriting. From here, naturally, two forms of one work emerged and two textual movements inevitably followed. This phenomenon does not contain anything unusual or strange even according to the latest literary practice, and from the most ancient it is appropriate to recall the special edition of the third Demosthenian Philippika. But here are closer – substantive – illustrations 341. By blessed Jerome, - Aquila published his Greek translation of V. 3. in two editions. By Tertullian’s own admission, his Adversus Marcionem went through three revisions, and the book “Against the Jews” was published in two editions – Adv. Judaeos and in Adv. Marc. III, 7–24. lnstitutiones of Lactantius were distributed both in the original form and in the “imperial” one - with dedication and appeal to Constantine (Constantine imperator!) with appropriate textual changes. Eusebius wrote the work Περί τῶν έν Παλαιστιν ῃ μαρτυρησάντων around 311 - 314 briefly, adding it to the VIIIth book of the “Church History”, but between 319–324 presented in more detail in a separate independent work. A similar thing is accepted for the speech of John Mavropod (about 1050) in praise of Basil V., Gregory B. and John Chrysostom. Paschasius Radbert composed his treatise De corpore et sanguine Christi back in 831, but 13 years later he adapted it for the royal addressee, Charles the Bald. Prof. Fr. Blass recalls two more editions of Apollodorus' χρονικῶν, and Svida reports on Ἀττικῶν ονομάτων έλδώσεις δύο. For a later era, it is enough to point out the five editorial variations of the English poem Piers the Plowman 342, three of which are due to the author himself. How many similar examples are there in Slavic writing? It is now clear that the hypothesis under consideration is theoretically probable and historically plausible. It is not surprising that in the scientific world it was met with sympathy by the majority, 343 and some proclaimed it a discovery (Eb. Nestle) almost downright brilliant (O. Zockler). Of course, there is no shortage of opponents who are no less decisive in their judgments 344. The strength of their objections should serve to determine the actual value of the noted theory. They are trying to undermine it both in general terms and in specific applications. They usually refer to the fact that the projected review in its textual guarantors often coincides with the dominant one, merges with it even in the most characteristic features and therefore disappears in its typicality, turns out to be non-existent separately. This, of course, is true to a large extent, but even after all such exceptions there is a considerable remainder that cannot be reduced to simple variants, and everything else can only be said that both current varieties come from a common first type 345, from where it is quite natural that in the historical course these reviews were mutually intertwined and mixed up textually, and not a single list represents them in their original integrity 346. It is no less true that β is not fully maintained in all its differences and, being more extensive, sometimes conveys the matter more briefly. This predicament retains its full force for Blass's opponents. The whole question is where and by whom is it eliminated easier, simpler and more rationally? And the above observation directly shows that an experienced and powerful hand is visible here, giving orders freely and - at an outside glance - even capriciously, while a later commentary would mechanically give continuous addenda et corrigenda. Author's corrections are never just cuts or expansions, always allowing for both. Therefore, contractions are quite possible in the literary works of Luke, and the whole task of science is to guess the immediate motives and explain specific cases of compressed reproduction (for example, in IX, 12. XV, 20, 29 [cf. XXI, 23]. XVII, 18 and 31. XX, 6. XXVII, 11 - 13), the presence of which It is absolutely possible, as is their reasonable interpretation. From actual data Prof. W. M. Ramsay analyzes two important examples 347. About Paul’s return - after the third evangelistic journey it is said (XXI, 16-17): “Some disciples from Caesarea also went with us, escorting us to a certain long-time disciple, Mnason the Cyprian, with whom we could stay. Upon our arrival in Jerusalem, the brethren warmly received us.” The immediate meaning of the phrases seems to be that Mnason was in the holy city and arranged for travelers there on the recommendation of guides, but then it will be extremely strange that the Apostle and his retinue did not have a reliable shelter in Jerusalem and needed dual mediation for this. We find the answer in D, from where it is clear that we are talking about an intermediate village, and the presence of a Cypriot in it is not at all surprising after the early news of evangelistic walks in the surrounding countries of the Cypriots and Cyreneans (XI, 20). Such an understanding is necessary and factual. The distance from Caesarea to Jerusalem reached 86 millia passuum, 639 Russian fathoms each, or only about 110 of our versts, 115 kilometers. This area is difficult to cover in one day's march, and D relies on two days for the entire journey, with an overnight stay at Mnason. This presentation of the matter is so natural and reasonable that Prof. W. M. Ramsay (- together with J. Rendel Harris -) puts it into the regular edition, to which it is alien and can only be assimilated with manual D, which is why this text is more original. And if in it the aorist ῆγαγον (ήγον) expresses the achievement of the goal, then the last was precisely the intermediate stop, and not at all the one preceding it, as W. M. Ramsay claims, in vain referring to the improbability of such a long journey. True, in D the speech turns out to be not entirely harmonious, but it was later corrected, and this is quite consistent with Blass’s theory. In XXI, 1, in the sea route from Ephesus after Patara, Myra is also called Myra (κάκείθεν είς Πάταρα καί Μύρα), and before us is a new geographical point, which was later eliminated by the author. According to W. M. Ramsay, such a phrase is completely unthinkable in the mouth of Luke, because it would turn out that the travelers found a ship in Myra, but it remains unknown how they got there through Patara. This conclusion is drawn by analogy with the mention of Timothy (XVI, 1), whom prof. Ramsay considers a Listrian; however, here the grammatical structure is different - εις Δέρβην καί είς Λύστραν - and clearly notes that cities are thought of separately and sequentially. In view of this, it is more natural to connect a note about a certain student with a second one, as the closest to it, although we must not forget that this is not at all certain, and, for example, Blass recognizes Timothy as a Dervian. If disagreements are possible here, then it is all the less fair to accept the unconditional categoricalness of the too general edition of είς Πάταρα καί Μύρα, where there is no topographical-chronological clarity and only a summary description is given, as further (XXI, 2) it is said vaguely: καί without specifying the place itself. This means that D does not at all deny that the ship was found in Patara, and the later entry of Mir would be completely incomprehensible, since there is absolutely nothing special connected with them. Therefore, it was legitimate to omit them later in order to avoid misunderstandings and because they were unnecessary for the narrative depiction. Myra was an important port, about which everyone knew without any explanation that passing ships necessarily came into it to stock up on everything necessary for further sailing on the open sea and to gain heavenly favor by making sacrifices to the “sea god”; the role of the latter passed in Christianity to St. Nicholas of the World of Lycia, and hence the later cult of St. Nicholas the Sea or Wet, patron of the fleet and navigation. All of the above sufficiently explains why the Worlds were named in the first edition and removed from the second, making the reverse process implausible. Analysis of the objections gives, in our opinion, a solid result favorable to the Blass hypothesis, and it itself very successfully and comprehensively reveals all the editorial differences in the Descriptive text. Likewise, the actual relationship between both reviews speaks quite convincingly in its favor. According to the indisputable voice of tradition, the first Gospel was first written “in Hebrew,” but soon the original was replaced by a Greek translation, which, as more suitable for use, completely replaced its original. Likewise, the final literary form of Acts received predominant significance, predominant influence and almost exclusive distribution, while the original was preserved by a few and can only serve as a guide for the specific interpretation of the dominant, abbreviated type. This analogy, of course, is very incomplete, but it will be extremely impressive if we add and weigh that the “Jewish” original was extremely inconvenient for the general public, was soon compromised by sectarian distortions and had to be eliminated by the vital interests of the world Christian mission, meanwhile these difficulties did not exist in relation to the book of Acts, and there was no need for a complete displacement of the primary, lengthy exposition. We have exhausted everything that is most important in the textual tradition of the Depisatelsky story and can now state that the latter does not raise doubts about its content from this side either. At the same time, the path to recognition opens Factual reliability of the book of the Acts of the Apostles according to the very source of the information reported in it. On this subject there are certainly convincing grounds in the very features of narrative speech. It is conducted in the form of an objective abstract, which is more than once interrupted by subjective and individual intrusions on the part of the author. In the story about the events in Troas during the second apostolic journey of St. Paul uses the phrase (XVI, 10): “we decided to go to Macedonia,” and it cannot be understood otherwise than in the sense that the writer himself was in the evangelistic retinue. He appears in this form in the news of the end of the Ephesian rebellion, when it is read that those who came forward “were waiting for us in Troas” (XX, 5). This “we” is again found in the speech about the departure from Caesarea to Rome (XXVII, 1: “when it was decided for us to sail to Italy”) and clearly appears in the note about our arrival in the eternal city (XXVIII, 16: “when we came to Rome”). All such indications are random and do not provide solid support for clarifying the immediate details of the historiographer’s accompaniment of the great missionary. Naturally, great fluctuations and considerable controversy are possible on this score. There is no doubt, however, that even if the story in the third person does not necessarily exclude the mysterious companion from among those who were present during certain episodes, then “we” directly demand his presence. And such passages make up about 1/10 of the book of Acts (97 by 1007 verses) 348. Therefore, it is extremely important for us that a very large number of significant events in Pavlova’s history took place before the writer’s eyes and were observed by him directly. Even if it wasn’t Luka, the critics agree that these are the notes of an eyewitness, even if they were later added to the entire work from an unnamed diary, and nothing more is required to assess the reliability of the messages. Here a close proximity to St. is stated. Paul to the Writer himself, or to his unknown guarantor. By this we are necessarily forced to think that the Apostle of Languages ​​himself conveyed to his trusted companion about the outstanding facts and acts of his missionary exploits. From the example of Timothy, we know well how carefully he chose his employees, and from the aggravation of the fundamental issue of Hellenic evangelism because of Titus in Galatia (Gal. I, 3) one can see his closest, purely apostolic mutual relationship with his helpers. It is clear that with such intimate internal connections, it is natural and obligatory for all of its called participants to be precisely aware of the apostolic work, since they performed it with personal apostolic responsibility. From this we see that a significant part of the book of Acts is almost an eyewitness account - directly or indirectly. But here one is greatly surprised by such an unexpected and unmotivated use of the form “we”, and this person appears in a kind of Deus ex machine, without being in the least necessary for the resolution of a tangled conflict, since there was none in any of the obvious cases. In fact, this did not happen, because there could not be such sudden and fragmentary rapprochements. Timothy is not a model or justification for a more decisive repetition, because there, both the recommendation of the brothers and the needs of the mission, it is satisfactorily revealed why and why he was taken ex abrupto to the great ministry. Nothing of the kind is noted or suggested here anywhere, and therefore for a reasonable understanding we must allow early contact between the evangelist and the disciple. And D testifies that the prophet Agabus in Antioch predicted the coming famine, συνεστραμμένων δέ ῆμῶν (XI, 27 - 28), among whom the writer will be, as a member of this assembly. The events of Antioch are then brought before his eyes, and through the other Antiochians he has reliable access to a thorough knowledge of the various movements in this important early Christian church. It is hardly necessary to argue specifically that such a dual medium - the Antiochian community and the Apostle Paul - opened up a wide and sure opportunity to collect good and abundant material regarding the historical destinies of growing Christianity. Thus, regarding the conversion of Saul, it was borrowed, of course, from his own lips, and this greatest event was closely connected with the activities of Stephen, whose speech was to be deeply imprinted in the soul of the young Pharisee and is sometimes tendentiously considered the fundamental principle of Paul’s theology, but, undoubtedly, is heard in certain consonances in the apostolic epistles. Consequently, on this subject too the source is clear and impeccable. Otherwise, it is more difficult to trace, although there are enough strongholds there. It is noted that, together with Paul, the referent was in Caesarea with Philip (XXI, 8), and this latter, who actively participated in the early Christian movements (VI, 5.VII, 5 ff.), - of course - was not slow in revealing all the secrets of the glorious past regarding the proclamation of the name of the Crucified 349. It is not unimportant that at this time the Jerusalem prophet Agabus also came here (XXI, 10), who had solid and extensive information about the primacy of Christianity. For this reason, it is worthy of attention that St., who once upset St. Paul John Mark again gained his fatherly favor and was with him in Rome (Col. IV, 10; Philim. 24 and cf. 2 Tim. IV, 11), where the Writer was also. Such a meeting and fellowship guaranteed a lot. The nephew of Barnabas (Col. IV, 10) was the son of Mary, who owned her own house in Jerusalem, which, apparently, was an old and common, generally accepted refuge for believers (Acts Xll, 12). It goes without saying that in this pious family, dear Christian traditions and bright memories were carefully collected and carefully preserved. Their knowledge to Mark is indisputable, but it is no less certain that he accurately reported them to his companion, if we see that the latter speaks with obvious punctuality and vivid liveliness about the deliverance of St. Peter, not forgetting even the “youth” Rhoda, with her fears, joys, etc. Finally, the name of Mark is found in the first Epistle of Peter (V, 13), and all ancient authoritative data confirm his close connection with this Apostle, why he was the bearer and “interpreter” of the traditions of Peter, that is, ancient, complete and indisputable. The participation of Aristarchus, Gaius 350 and Sila 351 is also possible. If we consider all of the above, it turns out that almost the entire content of the work in question comes down to the testimonies of participants and eyewitnesses and does not require other, dark sources and aids, which criticism so vainly seeks in other risky ways. For the first part, both written 352 and oral materials 353 are indisputable, for the second it is Luke himself 354. Difficulties and questions are resolved by the simple fact provided by the book itself that The writer was a companion of St. Pavel and through him and with him he was in close communication, with the apostolic circle and with those who initially labored in the field of building the Christian church. The truth of this thesis stands very firmly and does not lend itself to critical attacks, since the immediacy of the descriptions is clearly reflected even in extraneous, technical details 355. Let’s not talk about the vanity of tendentious fortune-telling, as if “we” is only an artificial literary device and, being a pure fiction, does not presuppose any specific personality other than the falsifier. This is decisively refuted by the very nature of the corresponding stories with their plastic clarity and punctual clarity. Likewise, such an imposture would be a wonderfully unusual thing in all New Testament literature, where nothing analogous can be indicated for such a dark use of the form “we,” especially since this forgery would be completely pointless, since this phrase is used quite rarely and is not associated with any special interests, and the person himself remains in an unknown shadow. Ancient literary falsifiers knew how to act more boldly and directly. A much more serious objection is that the book of Acts contradicts the letters of St. Paul, but in his companion this is completely unthinkable. We would forever be broken on our heads if such a damning statement turned out to be true even to the smallest extent. But it should be noted in advance that the criticism here proceeds from a subjectively tendentious understanding of the personality of the Hellenic evangelist and distorts the true apostolic image, as it is presented in Paul’s own writings and in the Acts. The Apostle is portrayed as a ferocious antinomian and a fanatical enemy of Jewry. It is clear that such a monstrous type does not reconcile with historical reality and denies it, proving that in it he is simply impossible and, therefore, never actually existed. In his epistles, St. Paul appears as a beleaguered polemicist, focused exclusively on the dogmatically abstract defense of the attacked fundamental positions, and - therefore - opens up one-sidedly. Therefore, in the Catholic Church it was preserved more in the epistolary image than in the epistolary 356, for the second was narrowly theoretical and only the first was vitally integral, although not as consistent as the actually polysyllabic. True, the “Protestant consciousness” does not want to know anything about such a Paul, 357 but this is only an old prejudice, devoid of scientific solidity. Prof., impartial in this matter. Hell. Harnack even testifies to apostolic ritualism that Paul, being a natural Jew, could perform ritual and similar acts with a clear conscience on the spur of the moment, but he did this voluntarily and with original piety wherever missionary interests in relation to the Jews did not interfere with this. Paul did not simply “become” a Jew for the Jews, but in fact was and remained a Jew as well. Nothing in his letters speaks against the fact that, while in the holy city, he participated in the church cult along with his Jerusalem brothers. According to the letters to the Romans and Galatians, this seems to be impossible, but this interpretation is not at all necessary. No less permissible is an expanded understanding of Pavlova’s evangelistic personality, and comparison with others convinces of its strength 358. Here the very critical basis turns out to be shaky, and it is natural that, according to this, only arguments corresponding in content are accepted, which are considered strong precisely because of their weakness. All the examples given speak to this. According to the Writer (IX, 8 ff.), it apparently turns out that - after his conversion - Saul remained in Damascus all the time and from there - through the machinations of the Jews - he retired to Jerusalem, where he was recommended by Barnabas as a “disciple”, and in the letter to the Galatians these moments are separated by three years - with a trip to Dravia, after which the newly enlightened one went to the holy city directly to “spy” Peter and - besides him - saw there only James, brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:15 – 19). The difference in these abstracts is undeniable, but they are in no way mutually exclusive. Their variations and features are understandable and inevitable, since the goals here are not the same: one monitors the external course of events and notes the external change of the most important stages, the other penetrates into the inner world of the luminaries and discovers the hidden driving causes of phenomena. Naturally, there is no coincidence in the details - and it talks about the assassination attempt of the Jews, here it is determined for what reasons and why Saul went specifically to Jerusalem. In accordance with his intentions, St. Paul conveys only the intended meeting, and the Writer mentions the external conditions of the Jerusalem stay, and his vague “Apostles” (Acts IX, 27) does not in the least contradict the duality of such in the persons of Peter and James. As for the Arabian episode, the chronological terms of Acts (IX, 19, 23) - “certain days” and “full days” - by the nature of the biblical language, completely allow application to the whole triennium, although in themselves they would not imply it. There is no direct hint of intermediate removal, but there is still enough space for it. We think so. At first, Saul’s Christian preaching was almost completely fruitless and caused unfavorable surprise, but then he became more and more strengthened and confused the Jews with the Christian argument itself (Acts IX, 21-22). The closest chronological continuity, which is unlikely both psychologically and factually, is hardly acceptable here. In our opinion, in this case, a break connecting both moments is required, which historically was the Arabian retreat of Pavlovo. This means that agreement on this point is far from impossible, and the integrity of the Writer is satisfactorily defended 359. This is true for the other example as well. According to Paul (in I Thess. 1, 2, 6), he wanted to remain alone in Athens and - to console the Thessalonians - he sent Timothy to them, whom he later met in Corinth. According to the report of Acts (XII, 14 - 15. XVIII, 5), Silas and Timothy remained in Berea when the Apostle went to Athens, ordering their speedy arrival, although in fact they did not come to him even at the beginning of his Corinthian life. From these very comparisons it is clear that the commanded haste was relative and could in fact be limited by unforeseen conditions, and therefore is also compatible with Timothy’s journey to Thessalonica. We are not told where and from where exactly this dispatch was ordered and arranged, and different probable combinations are permissible here. It is quite conceivable that - having previously counted on the Athenian cooperation of the above-mentioned persons - St. Paul on the spot, taking into account the whole situation, found it not so necessary and preferred to send them to Thessalonica in view of the zealous and fierce agitation of the members of the Thassalonian synagogue (Acts XVII. 13), about which he gave orders to the assistants who were in Berea through the Bereans who accompanied him to Athens. This hypothesis satisfies all the demands of objective scientific inquisitiveness and seems the most plausible, for the Writer mentions the Apostle’s expectation in Athens of Silas and Timothy (XVII, 16) and their brief arrival, of course, would be noted with punctuality. All the ambiguity is created only by the conciseness of Paul's phrase, but sometimes it is also caused by Luke, who is distinguished by his strict economy of language 360. This includes the third case of the Writer’s restraint (XVI, 6. XVIII, 23) in the news about the Galatian church, where, judging by the letter to it, the evangelist worked not briefly but for a long time. But one event can always be conveyed both concisely and at length, without distorting the truth in the least and even serving it with equal zeal. All that is required is that there be justifying motives for this that reasonably explain such deviations. For the Apostle, they are understandable and consist in the fact that he is addressing the Galatians themselves and, naturally, reproduces in full the scenes of his stay with them - not as an objective reference, but by direct reminiscence. When depicting the Asia Minor period of Paul's second apostolic gospel, the historiographer primarily monitors the implementation of the dictates of the Spirit and therefore does not dwell long on Galatia, which was not included in the intended evangelistic plan, as indeed St. At first Paul stayed there almost due to illness (Gal. IV, 13). But according to Acts, the first visit to this area was not fleeting - we must guess about this from a decisive note (Acts. XVIII, 23), that during the second visit to Galatia the Apostle “confirmed all the disciples there” (έπι – στημίζων πάντας τούς μαθητάς), and this suggests a far from immediate early activity of a missionary-educational nature. We will not go into unnecessary details on this symphonic issue. For a concrete judgment, the given illustrations are sufficient. We readily and openly state that the agreement between Acts and the Pauline epistles is not entirely easy and often rests on hypothetical premises. However, all this is possible without any sacrifice of scientific techniques 361 and with undoubted gains for scientific knowledge. Then we do not need to be embarrassed or bothered by tendentious objections that the Apostle Paul’s writing type does not coincide with his self-image. We can calmly limit ourselves to the counter-demand that criticism first exhaust all scientific means to reconstruct a complete biography based on the data of these two classes and irresistibly reveal the absolute impracticability of such a task due to the fundamental mutual contradiction between them. This is the obligatory critical norm in relation to all similar literary monuments. Since in our case it is not fulfilled, we have an indisputable scientific right to accept the most probable possibility that the Writer was a close companion of Pavlov 362 . From here it follows with necessity that the “second word” to Theophilus came from the same person as the first, and this last one, according to firm tradition, was composed by St. Luka. Therefore it must be thought that The writer is the Evangelist Luke Whoever rejects this formula with the skepticism of stubborn denial is, first of all, obliged to convince that St. Luke is not included in “we” and was not Pavlov’s intended companion here. In this sense, several assumptions have been made, and their analysis should serve to indirectly illuminate the real subject. Since the time of Schleiermacher, many (De Wette, Ulrich, Davidson, Bleek, Meyerhoff, Sorof) have tried to convince that it was Timofey. From a theoretical point of view, there is nothing incongruous in this guess, but in fact it is eliminated by the direct words of the book (Acts XX, 4-5), that when the Apostle returned from Hellas to Macedonia, he was accompanied to Asia by Sosipater Pyrrhus, a Bereyan, and from the Thessalonians Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gaius the Dervian and Timothy, and the Asians Tychicus and Trophimus, and “they, having gone forward, they waited for us in Troas.” Here Timothy clearly differs from “we”, and criticism is forced to consider only Tychicus and Trophimus as having moved in advance, but δέ (Ἀσιανοί δέ, Τυχικός καί Τρόφιμος) notes the distribution of the mentioned persons among local groups and forces us to assign ούτοι to their entirety with the inclusion of Timothy, who even with another interpretation is not at all supposed to be among “us.” The guess (Scwanbeck'a) about Power (Silouan) is eliminated no less easily and irrevocably, since the form of “we” disappears precisely where he found himself alone with Paul, differing from “us” who were specially under the Apostle (XVI, 17: α ὓ τη κατακολουθοῦ ( ήσα ) σα τῷ Παύλ ῳ καί ήμίν . 19; covered by a specially named face of Power. Tite's thought arose in critical circles (Horst, Kneucker, Krenkel, Jacobsen) as a result of the unsatisfactory nature of all others and - in its essence - is supported only by this artificial combination. It is as difficult to refute it as to prove it, because there is absolutely no real data for this hypothesis. Nevertheless, its groundlessness is undeniable, which is understandable at least from a single consideration. From the Epistle to the Galatians (II, 1 ff.) it is clear that during the “second” visit to Jerusalem, St. Titus was with him as his trusted personal representative, whose presence caused tense complications and threatened with extremely dangerous, almost fatal difficulties. For us here it is absolutely indifferent what kind of visit the Apostle actually had: whether it was due to famine (Acts XI, 30. XII, 25), to the Apostolic Council (XV, 2 ff.), or at the end of the second missionary journey - this still does not concern our question. The only thing that is important and significant is that the characteristic “we” is not found anywhere here, and this is incredible if Titus were the writer, because the author in his historical abstract would have omitted the most outstanding moment of his participation in the teacher’s evangelistic work and would have emphasized his name in those episodes where he did not play a special role. This is a truly unacceptable contradictio in adjecto, freeing us from any further disputes!... Now it is enough to compare the two rows to get a solid result. We are offered different persons who are not called tradition, but one specific one is directly indicated first and is in complete agreement with the second: - is it possible here to hesitate in a convinced choice? This means that there is not the slightest incentive and sufficient excuse to consider the Writer, the companion of the Apostle Paul, not Luke, but some unknown and incredible literary figure. It is equally impossible to distinguish him from the third Evangelist, about which hopeless and incorrigible critics fuss so much. We will not talk about the “philological” similarity of both books, because their close similarity in language has been sufficiently revealed and is almost generally accepted. We will dwell on the essential property of any historical work that chronological punctuality is obligatory for it. Even a third of the weather forecaster does not shine with it in abundance, but for the beginning of John’s sermon, which is closely connected with the opening of the public ministry of Christ, numerous and precise chronological indications of a synchronistic nature are given (Luke III, 1-2; cf. Art. 23). Nothing of the kind is seen in the book of Acts, and this is where doubts and objections arise. At first glance, the noted phenomenon indeed seems unexpected and incomprehensible in a specifically historical work, but before any amazement and denial, you need to think about the subject itself and carefully weigh all the data. Then we will understand that in the history of the Chief Apostolic there is no even remotely equal event reminiscent of the actual onset of the saving deliverance of Christ. It was the turning point of the entire world trend and the source of Christian life, arising from it and with it unconditionally secured in its existence. Therefore, in the latter, only continuous development is permissible with the internal continuity of all stages, of which all are - in principle - the same, since they are equally based on the divine fundamental principle common to them. From this point of view, it would be subjective arbitrariness to deliberately put forward certain individual points, which in this case would require, for the most part, chronological dating, and this weather chronicle did not at all correspond to the tasks of sacred historiography with soteriologically dominant ones in it practical interests. This quite satisfactorily explains the absence of synchronistic convergences in the Acts, although one cannot help but recall that the Jerusalem famine is called the former επί Κλαυδίου (IX, 28). Then there is no doubt that in the “second word” to Theophilus there are still more chronological terms. Not all of them are clear to us, but the primary reason for this is that our information in this area is insufficient, and we do not know all the factual relations and the actual state of affairs, where everything should be resolved with certainty in one direction or another. Beyond these limitations and exceptions, we are left with sufficient reference points for probable chronological calculations. The most important for the general chronology must be recognized as the direct testimony of the Writer (XXV, 12. XXVI, 32) that St. Paul was sent to Rome under the hegemon Portius Festus. About his predecessor Felix it is said that - upon his recall - he was accused by the Jews before Nero (October 13, 54 - June 9, 63) very seriously and was saved from cruel punishment only through the intercession of his brother Pallant (Jos. Flavii Antiqu. XX, 89), who was poisoned by that emperor in 62 (Tacit. Annal. XIV, 65), why the change of “rulers” of Judea should be earlier than this date. Another indication is that Josephus, born in the first year of Caius (Caligula: March 16, 37. - January 24, 41), or in 37–33 AD. Chr., says that at the age of twenty he went to Rome to intercede for the priestly relatives condemned by Felix (Vita 3, 1), and this leads to the 60s. It is difficult to admit that the Jewish historian was too slow with his protective mission, which opened only with the dismissal of Felix, and in this case there is enough time until the year 62. Therefore, it is not without reason that the year 61 is accepted for the appointment of Festus 363. Subtracting from here the two-year Caesarea imprisonment (Acts XXIV, 27), we will have the 59th year for the arrest of Pavlov. This fits exactly with historical accounts of Felix. According to Tacitus (Annal. XII, 54), he - as the ruler of Samaria - and Cuman of Galilee were summoned to the Syrian governor Quadratus in 52, but the former acquitted himself and, apparently, soon gained power over Judea 364. It is not surprising now if in the year 60 the Apostle says to Felix (Acts XXIV, 10): έπιστάμενος. All these comparisons and coincidences suggest that St. Paul was arrested in 59, remained in prison until 62, and was under supervision in Rome until 64. This chronology, of course, is only approximate and does not harmonize with the ancient definitions (Eusebius in Chron. according to ed. L. Schone II. 148 sqq.; Blessed Jerome De viris iilustr. VII; cf. Euphaelius in Zacagnius, Monum. vet., p. 529, and Cramer in Caten. ad Ret. Rpost.), which assign others terms: Felix was sent to Judea in the 10th–11th year of Claudius (in January 50/1 or 51/2 AD), Festus - in the second year of Nero (in October 55/6), Albinus - in the 7th (61st) AD. This scheme is shared by some modern authorities 365, and - in itself - it does not undermine the competence of the Writer, but only is doubtful regardless and completely in vain creates conflicts between the historical testimony of documents, for which there is neither reason nor justification. Eusebius draws his information from Julius Africanus 366, who here adjoins Josephus, but during the period under discussion the latter is insufficiently informed and punctual 367 and does not always confirm the church historian, as is clear from the example closest to our speech: according to Josephus Fl. It turns out that the Egyptian rebel, who, before the days of Pavlov’s arrest, carried away four thousand robbers into the desert (Acts XXI, 33), acted under Felix (Antiqu. XX, 8:6) during the reign of Nero - and this is in accordance with the Scriptural data and the chronology designed above, while according to the Eusebius system of St. Paul came to Jerusalem under Claudius (January 24, 41 - October 13, 54). This means that all these disagreements do not at all undermine the chronological awareness of the Writer, and if his mentions, made randomly and vaguely, give rise to different interpretations, then this does not contradict the author’s personality of the third Evangelist, because the latter’s more special note about the Quirinian census continues to give rise to many disputes and hypotheses. This point rather confirms their literary solidarity, which is quite understandable given personal identity. This conclusion is also justified by another testimony of the Writer (XII, 19 - 23) about the death of King Herod Agrippa I (37, 40, 41-44 AD), who - according to Josephus (Antiqu. XIX, 8: 2) - died in Caesarea in the fourth year of Claudius, or in the year 44 368, and according to the book of Acts (XII, 25) this was around the time of Barnabas and Saul's stay in Jerusalem as Antioch envoys there to help in the event of a famine (XI, 27-30). Here they say 369 that the last event is depicted with incredible features, as if it happened “throughout the entire universe” (XI, 23), which is why the entire abstract about the charitable mission from Antioch is false. But the Writer does not say that all this happened with the strictest simultaneity 370, but only “at that time” (XII, 1), which included several episodes and was in no way covered only by the fact of the hunger strike. Then one cannot in any way assert that the latter is conceived as having become a “universal” misfortune in one year of Herod’s shameful death. This is a completely arbitrary reinterpretation, supposedly a disaster swept over the orbem Romanam at once and in a short period of time, for the story can be understood in the sense of the different times of the defeat in different places of the empire. And in this sense, there are enough historical justifications. Suetonius (Claud. 18) states assiduae slerilitates in the reign of Claudius, other witnesses mention a famine in Rome at the beginning of it (Dio Cass. LX. 11. flurel. Victor. Caes. 4), in the 9th–10th or 11th year (Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene II, 152–153, according to Armenian text and according to Saint Jerome; Oros. VII, b, 17; Tacit. Annal. XII, 43), and in 8-9 m and in Greece (Euseb. Chron. 1. cit.), the difficulties of the capital strongly convince the rich grain suppliers in the Mediterranean. This is primarily Egypt, but there is no obstacle to including Judea here. It was under Claudius (about 45) that the Jewish proselyte Helen, the mother of the Adiabene king Izatus, helped the suffering Jerusalemites with life products, purchasing bread in Egypt and figs in Cyprus (Jos. Flav. flntiqu. XX. 5: 2). Doesn't this correspond to the Descriptive phrase in its reasonable meaning, that starvation affected different areas of the Roman Empire? And could anyone speak and understand it differently if the obvious absurdity of such an interpretation, which doomed an entire rich state to extinction, was obvious to everyone? But due to the exaggeration characteristic of the ancients, it was quite permissible to talk about repeated hunger strikes in individual provinces as a “universal” famine. In relation to Judea (and Jerusalem), we can, of course, imagine the famine that happened under Helen of Adiabene around 45. Even if we assume that Barnabas and Saul remained in the holy city throughout it, then their return to Antioch will fall on 45, since a two-year duration of fasting is hardly possible. As a result, we find that the Descriptive date is quite acceptable in fact and provides sufficient support for approximate calculations, but is this disharmonious with the historiographical manner of the third Evangelist? Wouldn't it be more correct to say the opposite? The return arrival of the Antiochian envoys is associated with the most important decision of the Antiochian Church on the special development and expansion of Christian evangelization (Acts, XII, 1 ff.). This moment was the dividing line for a new, worldwide mission and chronologically qualifies quite reasonably as a turning point in the movement of apostolic history, that is, in the spirit of St. Luke. Likewise, the subsequent chronological notes are given very successfully, because the arrest of the Apostle was accompanied by the spread of the very gospel of Christ to the center of the entire Roman Empire in accordance with its essential requirement and divine purpose (Acts XIX, 21. XXIII, 11. XXVII, 24). Particular chronological calculations - corresponding to the gradual progress of the Writers' story - are associated with great difficulties and are subject to special study, but for our immediate purpose this is not required here. The only thing worthy of attention is the general conclusion that, although he is not overly generous with chronological information, the historiographer uses them skillfully and applies them, by the way, in the most convenient cases. This is the characteristic method of the third weather forecaster, and due to the undoubted similarity with him in this respect, the Writer is naturally identified with the Evangelist. Such scientific observation again certifies the truth of the original tradition, that the apostolic age is outlined by the experienced hand of St. Luke. The ancient common opinion 371 - in addition to its originality and ubiquity - has all the properties of factual authority. It calls him an Antiochian, and Codex D expressly lists Luke as a member of the Antiochian Brotherhood. Priest the chronicler was a companion of the Hellenic evangelist, often participating in well-known historical events and forming with him a united “we” - and according to the apostolic epistles, it is indisputable that Luke was with Paul in Rome both in the first (Col. IV, 14. Philip. 23) and in the second (2 Tim. IV, 10) bonds. It is clear from this that he really accompanied the Apostle of Languages ​​and was in close and long-term ties; he was for him a “beloved” “follower” who maintained self-sacrificing loyalty to his teacher in difficult times of betrayal by others. This Luke was a doctor by education and profession and, of course, had a relatively high scientific enlightenment, and this again coincides with the undoubted literary merits of the third Gospel and the book of Acts. It is no less clear that a man of the most philanthropic profession was drawn to the salvific healing of the sick pagan world and joined the great missionary precisely at the moment when he decided to step onto the soil of Greece. From all sides and from all points of view, the ancient Christian and continuous conviction is brilliantly justified, as if having faint echoes in textual variations 372, that the Writer was St. Evangelist Luke. In this case, there seems to be no reason or incentive to reject The authenticity of the book of Acts, attested very firmly and clearly. Already in the Epistle of Clement, the words of the Lord “it is more pleasant to give than to receive” are quoted (1 Cog. 2), and they are found only in the Writer (XX, 35), whose work is clearly assumed in Barnabas (epist. 19) and in Διδαχή (4), in the epistles (Smyrn. 3 and Acts X, 41; Magnes. 5 and Acts 1, 26) and in the acts of martyrdom of St. Ignatius the God-Bearer (5 and Acts XXVIII, 13–14), in Polycarp of Smyrna (Phil. I, 2 and Acts, II, 24. X, 42), in a letter (acquired by J. Quarr in “Hermathena” XXII, p, 318–357 to Hippolytus of Rome) to Diognetus (3 and Acts XVII, 24 ff.) and in Justin Martyr (Apol. I, 50 and Cohort, ad Graec 10 cf. Acts VII. 22; Dial. c. Tryph. 36 and Acts XXVI, 22). Tertullian (adv. Marc. V, 2) directly mentions the book of Acts, which was in circulation among the Ebionites (Epiphan. baer. XXX, 16), Severians (Euseb. h. e. IV, 29), Manichaeans (August, de utilit. credent. 7; contra Adamant. XVII, 5; contra Faust. XIX, 31) and Theodogus (Epiphan. haer. LIV, 5), is known to the compiler of the apocrypha “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” (Test. Beniam. 9, 11) and to the pagan Lucian and - as sacred scripture - is explained by I. Chrysostom. Witnesses of the Western tradition are the Muratorian fragment, the letter of the Lyon and Vienne Christians and Irenaeus, from the Africans we have Tertullian and from the Alexandrians - Clement and Origen. It is not surprising that in Eusebius (h.e. III, 25) the Acts are ranked among the τά όμολογούμενα, and his statement states that this favorable judgment rested on the general consent of everyone due to the continuity of Christian tradition, or because of its originality. From this point of view, critical doubts about the authenticity and antiquity of the corresponding patriotic monuments are not particularly important, because they - in principle - do not in the least weaken their true witnessing power. The fact is that it does not simply state the bare fact of the existence of one or another New Testament book, but each is accepted in its apostolic dignity and recommended for its obligatory sacredness, and this indicates its early existence and church sanction. A recent falsification, of course, could not immediately acquire such exclusive authority, and the mere ubiquity of the latter is incompatible with the idea of ​​forgery. It goes without saying that for the appearance of literary counterfeits there must be a solid motive in the persistent demands of life, so that they do not arise ex abrupto and seem not miraculous, but natural products to satisfy actual needs. It is usually thought and advertised that in this case this causative agent was a conciliatory desire, which wanted to smooth out the extremes of Petrinism and Paulinism and bring both of these directions closer together, which is why the image of the Hellenic missionary is adapted to the Apostle of the Circumcision, which in turn is adjusted to the stylized personality of Paul, so that something in between is obtained, adopted and perpetuated by the “Catholic” church. Such trends hardly corresponded to the mood of that era, when, for example, from Clementine we know too well that now it was necessary not to equate Paul with Peter, but, on the contrary, to endow Peter with Pavlov’s speeches and acts. Any other understanding and construction will be non-historical and, therefore, not real, or false. Finally, it should be noted that the book of Acts is not being taught to some Christian luminary of apostolic times, but to Paul’s modest companion with a name that is not at all loud. This feature is the best confirmation of the factual truth of the tradition, which otherwise, like all apocryphal-apocalyptic modern works, would be able to adorn itself with a more brilliant aura. Criticism must, with scientific solidity, reveal why the Acts are attributed to the invisible apostolic man Luke, and cannot explain this with approximately convincingness, why its most sober representatives do not see any other outcome than to agree that he actually accompanied the Hellenic missionary and he owns the sections with “we” and all related parts in the form of a whole historiographical book, which will be his author’s literary property. But if we have before us the true creation of Pavlov’s companion Luka, then Time of publication of the book of Acts cannot be pushed beyond the boundaries of the apostolic age 373, although the exact date is not easy to find. The writer's story is interrupted by the mention of the two-year stay of the Apostle Paul in Rome, and from here many - since the time of Euphalius - have argued that it was then that this Paulinist work was compiled, mostly devoted to the life story of the Hellenic missionary. But this opinion is based on the shaky assumption of the simultaneity of events with their written representation, which is in every way and always unfair in principle and in fact. The newest scholars add an additional auxiliary argument, as if - otherwise - Luke would not have kept silent about the further fate of his teacher. Such fortune-telling is based on a false understanding of the book of Acts as a purely historical work, meanwhile, it pursues completely ideological interests and puts forward individual personalities only to the extent that they correspond to them, which is why individual details were not needed for it in all realistic features. Acts is not at all a biography of two early Christian luminaries 374 and in no way exalts either one or the other 375, but depicts the historical implementation of the saving divine plan - and when the latter turns out to be fulfilled - the writer immediately ends according to the pious conviction that permeated the entire work: soli Deo gloria! 376. A more precise date is found in Irenaeus (Contra haer. III. 1у М. gr. VII, 244, and Eusab. h. e. V 8:3) in the words about Peter and Paul, that μετά δέ Τήν τού των ἔξοδον published their Gospels Mark and Luke, and ἔξοδος usually means exitum vel excessum e vita (cf. Luke IX. 31. 2 Peter I. 15) 377. However, such an interpretation of this particular expression encounters some difficulties and is not absolutely certain and obligatory everywhere (see Heb. XI, 22: περί τής ἔξόδου των υιῶν Ί σραήλ from Egypt). On the contrary, in the Latin fragment of this hereseologist it is read that after a certain interval the Apostles exierunt in fines terrae (M. gr VII, 844) for preaching the gospel according to Mark's testimony about them (XVI, 20), that έκεῖνοι δέ ξελθόν ες έκήρυξαν πανταχοῦ. For these reasons, the term έξοδος in our case can mark the “departure” of the Lord’s disciples from Palestine to different countries for missionary service. But even if we understand it in the generally accepted sense, this does not irrevocably solve our question, since it is not without right that they guess (Prof. Fr. Blass) that the evidence in question appeared ex conjecture in view of the phrase 2 Peter. I, 15, where the evangelist says: τήν τούτων μνή ην ποιεί ῇ θαι , and has no independent factual-historical value. Much more important is another circumstance, closest to the subject of our speech and quite undoubted scientifically. It is not without reason that the book of Acts was conceived together with the third Gospel 378. It is at least admitted that at the conclusion of the Gospel historiography, the author had a plan for the apostolic one 379 ready. Therefore, the distance between them in time of origin could only be small. And about the first it is stated that it was published before the destruction of Jerusalem 380. All scientific probability is on the side of this. The writer depicts the worldwide spread of Christianity and its royal establishment in the pagan Roman Empire. At the same time, he does not hide the fact that such an expansion of the evangelistic mission was actually associated with considerable complications and difficulties for the most impeccable conscience of the confessors of the Crucified One, who adhered to the forms and norms of Jewish worship. The collapse of the Jerusalem shrines untied this tangled historical and dogmatic knot and directly freed everyone from Judeo-religious attachments and subordination. It is hardly conceivable that St. Luke did not note this cardinal point, so essential for his fundamental purposes, if he continues to protect the rights and practice of Hellenic evangelism with systematic references to the inertia and resistance of Israel. Therefore, it is legitimate to assert that the writings of Luke came out before the fall of Jerusalem 381 How long before this fatal catastrophe? - we cannot determine even from the specific instructions of the third Evangelist, in which the thunder of war with all its horrors seems to be heard. But the whole atmosphere was then saturated with clear harbingers and general premonitions of an imminent disaster, clear in all its main outlines, and Christians knew about it with all accuracy according to the direct prophecies of Christ, who noted many things with specific detail (Matthew XXIII, 32 f. XXIV, 1 f. and parallels). Under such conditions, Luke's clarity is not at all surprising and does not require direct observation at all, if we know from reliable examples that, by special insight, even minor historical facts were sometimes clearly foreseen in advance. We are more likely to get closer to the desired edge by considering whether Luke's writings postulate the death of Pavlova? And on this point, disagreements are possible and there are, but we personally completely deny this premise. It is absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable for us that an evangelistically devoted disciple would limit himself to stating that the Apostle preached the kingdom of God in Rome and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness without restraint (Acts XXVIII, 31), when he knew that Paul’s lips were bound with mortal bonds in the Roman capital precisely for missionary boldness and all preaching teaching fell silent forever 383 . This is psychologically unthinkable and incredible in view of the cheerful tone of the Episatepe speech, which clearly suggests that the two years ended happily, opening up more encouraging prospects for complete liberation. For these reasons, we accept that the book of Acts was published before the death of Pavlov 384 in the early 60s 385 - around 65. This dating is also justified by some general considerations regarding New Testament writing, which in its dignity was ensured only by its apostolic origin, because only the apostolate authorized evangelism 386. Christian tradition was well aware of the fundamental inconvenience that some works were not compiled by “secularists,” and therefore tried to protect them with the sanctioning approval of the latter, when the second Gospel was approved with the consent of Peter, the third with the permission of Paul, and the works of all three weather forecasters with the blessing of John the Theologian. This testing need, no doubt, was even more clearly recognized and felt more vividly during the publication of the New Testament writings - amid the fierce unrest of the yet unformed Christian communities. No wonder St. Paul, despite the innumerable missionary burdens, carefully excluded his assistants from active participation in his literary relations and always acted here on his own behalf. Therefore, it is appropriate and legitimate to assume that the “second word” to Thaophilus was processed under the supervision of the great Apostle of Languages. He unmistakably foresaw his departure to the Lord and, of course, conveyed this sad news to more than one Timothy (2 Tim. IV, 6 ff.), and his only “prisoner” Luke (IV, 10) knew about this exactly. The approach of this grave catastrophe naturally evokes an urgent need to look back and reproduce all the exploits of the good apostolic movement, to preserve them for posterity for edification and encouragement to appropriate imitation. From this point of view, the book of Acts, which satisfied these needs, perfectly coincides with the evangelistic and pastoral care of St. Paul about the Christian brothers and acquires the authority of the last apostolic testament. Question about the place of publication of the book of Acts With such a chronology, it is decided in favor of Rome, to which the blessed one pointed. Jerome (De viris illustr. VII). Other ancient news dates Luke's apostolic activity - most of all - to Achaia, but they relate to the later period of his independent evangelism and do not shake our guess, inevitable due to the actual concatenation of historical events. And the fact that the Writer does not identify the most insignificant Italian towns, such as “Appian Square” and “three hotels,” may indirectly say that the work was carried out under their direct observation and at a distance from the Palestinian scenes, just as the original readers were thoroughly familiar with the Italian topography, i.e. they were Roman Christians. The textual tradition is stronger, and it serves as a good witness on the issue under consideration. His serious hesitations are revealed by the hypothesis of two reviews, of which the particular one is traced back to the original copy written in Rome, which remained here and was distributed from here, why - with β - it is also called “Roman” in contrast to the corrected one, which is called “Antioch”. And all reliable facts are precisely consistent with this idea, since the guarantors of the extensive textual type are - almost exclusively - Western in origin, application and use. It is clear that their primary source is located in the center of the West, which was Rome, where, obviously, it received its real existence in the primary edition of the Descriptive Work. Finally, the formulated opinion also illuminates the conditions for the formation of the literary duality of the book of Acts, if we accept that the Apostle Paul looked through the first notes of his student and made his comments about the changes and corrections that were made by Luke later (in Antioch) in connection with all the dachas. Naturally, the revised text received special authority, and the primary one retained the private interest of the detailed testimony of the accomplice. The totality of all the stated grounds and considerations involuntarily tilts in favor of Rome as the place of writing, and brings the book of Acts itself under the control and blessing of the great evangelist. This fundamentally guarantees The reliability of the speeches reported in it I) Speeches of the Apostle Paul 387 This question is distinguished by literary critical complexity and cannot be solved theoretically. The reasons for this are as follows. Everyone agrees that Luke has great historiographical merits, as a historical narrator, as a master of words, a subtle stylist 388 with the literary art of the Hellenic 389 almost incomparable 390, with a great gift of stylistic imitation of the most diverse persons and complications 391. But this is precisely where legitimate doubts and suspicions arise. Linguistic mastery is distinguished by purely Hellenic characteristics and is associated with literary negligence regarding historical-factual, real accuracy 392. We know that St. Luke knows how to deeply and intimately enter into the being of the characters and is extremely successful in content and form in assimilating certain speeches for them. Naturally, one now asks whether these latter were not a clever invention of the writer himself and were not retouched by him in his own way, even contrary to what the speaker understood, even if only on the basis of some documentary materials? If the answer is affirmative, all the didactic material of the third Gospel and Acts loses all objective historical value, and about the characters depicted we will have to think that they are drawn according to the subjective author’s template - with a certain bias and individual bias. Such assumptions are all the more acceptable because all this was characteristic of ancient historiography, which did not cultivate realism at all, loved to create types and endow them with desirable speeches and manners. We see this already in the earliest of the special historians, Herodotus, when, speaking about the interregnum in Persia (III, 80–82), the conclusion of the dignitaries with reasoning about the advantages of democracy, oligarchy - in the spirit of the Greek sophists and with the obvious calculation of justifying the defender of the latter, Darius. This is not so much a historical narrative as a prose drama, where instead of living figures there are characters, instead of historical action there are stage performances. We are given, as it were, “fables in faces.” In Thucydides, rhetoric directly predominates - in long and elaborate speeches that reflect more specifically the political views of the writer than true history. In his story about the conspiracy of Catiline, Sallust himself added the phrasetic orations of the Roman senators, although he was present at these events and could directly hear and punctually reproduce everything that was said there at that time. The same features are observed in other classical historians (for example, Cassius Dio and Tacitus) and thereby confirm their generally accepted normativity. It is necessary to expect similar techniques in Luke, who in his didactic parts stands in the middle between Herodotus and Tacitus, with their ethical-dramatic tendencies, and between the supporters of rhetorical interests, Thucydides and Sallust. Everywhere he has an idea over facts, to which he is rather inattentive and, not observing accuracy, often falls into disharmony. The medical training recognized for Luke did not save him from the indicated defects, because it did not have modern punctuality, due to the lack of a physiologically anatomical foundation, and did not establish a strict distinction between medicine itself and all kinds of religious healing. And it cannot be denied that Luke was not alien to this view of Christianity as a miraculous healing power 393 for which persons served only as objects of application. Everything convinces us that in Luke the spirit of Greek historiography reigns, careless with regard to factual detail, but partial to the typological method, with people and events simply personifying known truths in their words and actions. And Luke is under the spell of his great ideas, which were more real to him than the facts themselves. This spiritual inclination should have been especially evident in the reported speeches - and in the book of Acts they supposedly bear such features that they clearly only illustrate the different sides and directions of primacy Christianity in its development towards worldwide spread and complete dominance. Factual cases always approach the didactic content too subtly, and it is fully justified by them, but this continuous and harmonious correspondence looks extremely artificial. As a result, it is stated that in Luke the artistic literary master seems to absorb and drown the realistically accurate historian, taking away much of the objective significance from his works. Thus, advantages are resolved by disadvantages, and we are significantly limited in precious materials for the early Christian era. It is impossible to reconcile with such sad results without the most careful examination, which we will first carry out in relation to Pavlov’s speeches in the book of Acts. 1) The speech in Dentiochi of Pisidia (Acts XIII, 16–41) is the first surviving example of the special missionary experience of St. Paul, and from it it is all the more reasonable to judge the historical accuracy of Luke because he was not present there, which means that if this speech is historically acceptable, it is even more indisputable for others where the Writer himself was; if it is doubtful, then skepticism is permissible regarding everyone else, since he did not hesitate to allow fabrications in the most unfavorable case for him. And they energetically emphasize to us the similarity with the speeches of Peter and Stephen, which by their commonality can suggest that here we have the author’s loci topici, and not at all the words of living persons. But the theories about the fundamental dogmatic differences between Paul and those “before” and about the radical revolution produced by Stephen’s preaching towards the Paulinism he prepared are only critical fictions, and we can no less legitimately deduce from the noted community that the Apostles had an independent, objective basis in one and obligatory for all tradition. To undermine the Antioch speech, precise specific data is required, but there is none. This speech has an Old Testament biblical flavor and, having briefly outlined the fate of God’s chosen Israel, states the salvation accomplished by the death of Christ, to which he calls the “children of the race of Abraham” and those who fear God. The biblical flavor is quite understandable for the “word of instruction” in the synagogue after reading the law and the prophets when addressing Jews and proselytes. Biblical passages are quoted and commented on in a Pauline way. The not entirely unexpected mention of John the Baptist is explained by the fact that his disciples met and, obviously, had influence in Asia Minor and throughout the Hellenistic world (Acts XVIII, 25, XIX, 3). The content and character of the speech are quite Peacock and correspond to its purpose. Wanting to attract the trusting attention of listeners, St. Paul, like a Jew to the Jews, speaks of a national history that is dear to all of them, then from a consideration of the Old Testament he moves on to the Savior promised therein, testifies to His death and heavenly exaltation, and ends with admonishing warnings: - Wasn’t all this the most natural in understandable historical conditions? Of course, there are no specifically Paulinian doctrines here, but the latter, in their acute exclusivity, were invented by criticism, and on the other hand, we do not see them, for example, in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, for St. Paul knew and knew how to communicate and withhold the most important dogmatic points in a timely and appropriate manner for his missionary interests. Consequently, for the Angiokhian speech, its Peacock origin in terms of material and method of processing is quite clear. 2) It is more difficult for such an assessment to make the speech of the Apostle Paul in Athens (Acts XVII, 22–31), because it is specially adapted not to pagans in general, but only to a certain Athenian public, for which the note about the “unknown God” could be quite successful. True, for us it is associated with some ambiguities, but in the oratorical-missionary sense, constructing a speech on the thesis of an unknown God, who should not be turned into unknown deities, is a masterful technique, and Prof. Ap. Harnack rightly sees no reason why it should certainly be learned by Luke, and not by Paul himself 394. Indeed, in essence, the preacher for his success had to find a convincing point of support for the listeners in the most skeptical audience. For Judaism such Old Testament soil served, and in paganism it was represented only by a feeling of dissatisfaction in the search for the “unknown” and - therefore - with a readiness to accept what is revealed and knowable. It is clear that the point of departure was taken correctly, but then the further path was directly outlined - a decisive denunciation of idolatry and the inevitable responsibility for adherence to it before the court of the Predestinated Husband, after His resurrection. The entire development of thoughts is natural and logical, as well as factual matters are certainly probable, for the educated Greeks, even with the theoretical denial of the popular cult, were ready to justify the latter through allegorization and valued eschatology too little, at most allowing for the absorption of human existence in the bosom of nature. Therefore, there was a significant need to remind about this most important religious truth, and it seemed to the listeners more curious than serious. All this should have suggested that in this environment it was not yet possible to count on any solid success, why the only fruitful task could now be only to awaken dormant souls from spiritual slumber, to arouse in them doubt about their quietism, to stir up and revive higher inclinations. This caused some commonality of content, similar in nature to Paul's similar appeal to the pagans in Lystra (Acts XIV. 15–18). Because of this, it is clear that in the Athenian speech there is no Pauline doctrinal distinctness, and the preacher does not touch upon human divisions, which are destroyed only in Christ, but speaks expressively about his natural unity in order to provide influence for grace-filled reconciliation, and the latter to establish on the natural mutual ties of all people and on their innate aspirations for God. These concepts, while not entirely embodying Peacockism, are quite consistent with it. The commonality of materials did not provide convenience for detailed construction, and hence it is not surprising that Athenian speech is not distinguished by pictorial expression, but this also confirms its actual historicity and the perfect punctuality of Luke. The writer, of course, was capable of “composing” a more brilliant example, but he preferred moderation in paying attention to documentary information about where he, apparently, had not been. The same is indicated by an objective note about the little success of Athenian preaching 395, for why was it necessary to invent entire episodes and decorate them with oratorical colors, contrary to the main trends about the victorious spread of Christianity, when here it is depicted as almost a fiasco? Meanwhile, considerable stylistic zeal was applied here, since in its Hellenic form Athenian speech is classical and it alone is capable of creating the highest literary reputation 396. The whole diction is also convincing of its authenticity - it is very original, but not specifically Lukin, since there is only one word characteristic of Luke (καθότι), with 19 non-Lukan ones. In terms of formal processing, it cannot be called directly Pavlinistic due to the presence of 14 non-Pavlinistic terms, but it is still indisputable that it contains one word - specifically Pavlovian (σέβασ a) and two vocabulary characteristic of Pavlov (εύκαρπείν and άνθρώπινος) non-Lucanistic words. In the introduction to the speech (Acts XVII, 16 - 21) there is a completely different proportion: 9 non-Lucanistic sayings with three clearly Lucanistic ones: διαλέγεσθαι, είς τάς άκοάς, σταθείς. All these features require us to agree that Luke had a documentary report in which he slightly edited the introduction, and left the abstract of the speech as intact as possible. And if any doubts are still permissible, then, extending exclusively to the qualities of the source, they shade the more strongly the historical objectivity of Luke. Hence the general conclusion is formulated by Prof. Hell. Harnack: “As for the speech in Athens with its prelude in XIV, 15 ff., then - if criticism ever again finds eye and taste - no one will any longer deny that here the genius in the selection of thoughts is as great as historical fidelity, even if it summarized in a few words what Paul probably offered to the pagans in his fundamental missionary sermons” 397. 3) Speech of St. The Apostle Paul in Miletus to the Ephesian elders (Acts XX, 18-33), being very significant in its setting and on the occasion of its utterance, should have been firmly imprinted in the soul of Luke, who was present there, and has all the data in favor of its historical authenticity 398, being a generalization of the original words of Paul 399. It is forced to this conclusion by its strong consonance with the Pauline epistles, which is why it is sometimes (Schulze in “Studien und Kritiken” 1900. S. 123) considered directly compiled from 1 Thess., like others (for example, W. Soltau in “Zeitschrift für die neutestamentIiche Wessnschaft” 1903, S. 123 – 154) use this observation to undermine the reliability of all Paul’s speeches in the book of Acts. But this is already a one-sided and tendentious interpretation, and the fact of frequent and characteristic coincidences is indisputable. a) Acts XX, 19: “... working for the Lord (δίλεύων τφ Κυρίφ) with everyone humility and many tears." Rome I, 1: “Paul is a servant (δοῦλος) of Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. II, 3: “And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in great trembling.” 2 Cor. X, 1: “I am personally modest among you” b) Acts. XX, 20: “I did not miss anything useful that I did not preach to you.” 1 Cor. X, 33: “And I please everyone in everything, seeking not my own benefit, but the benefit of many.” c) Acts. XX, 24: “...shall I end my course (τον δρόμον μου) with joy.” Gal. II, 2: “Let me not flow in vain, or tekoh” (τ έχω ῆ ἔδραμον). d) Acts. XX, 32: “And now I commend you to God, who is able to give you an inheritance with all Col. I, 12: “giving thanks to God the Father, who has called us to share in the inheritance of the saints in e) Acts XX, 33 – 34: “I did not desire silver, gold, or clothing from anyone. Sami You know that these hands have served my needs and the needs of those who were with me.” 1 Thess. II, 9: “You remember, brethren, our labor and exhaustion: working night and day, so as not to to burden any of you, we preached.” 1 Cor.IV:12: “And we labor, working with our own hands.” 2 Cor. XI, 9: “...and in everything I tried and will try not to be a burden to you.” f) Acts XX, 35: “working like this, we must support the weak.” Rome XV, 1: “we, the strong, must bear the weaknesses of the powerless.” These comparisons fully confirm the long-known truth that “no other passage in the book of Acts comes into closer contact with Paul’s epistles than this particular (Miletus) speech,” and it is important that “its very themes are not found anywhere else in the entire book” 400 and, therefore, are actually caused by the described historical conditions, to which they exactly fit. The above parallels, which incline in favor of the Milesian speech, are supported by some of its features. These include, for example, its not entirely consistent treatment, unnatural in a literary compilation, and completely understandable in an oral presentation: thus, at verse 32, the entire development, having reached its logical conclusion, should have been interrupted, meanwhile, further small indications follow. It is objected that verse 28 postulates an episcopal order in the form of an unknown saint. Paul, but this subject is extremely obscure and cannot serve as a decisive argument in any direction, simply because at this point no contradiction with the apostolic views is seen or found. And the difficulty in verse 28 of the combination by which the atoning blood is proclaimed to be God’s, although of course Christ’s, rather speaks of the punctuality of the reproduction, for the forger would not have allowed such awkwardness. The reference to verse 29 is hardly serious, since the Apostle Paul, from the experiences of his life, should have foreseen the dangers for his communities from the fierce wolves that penetrated there, as, for example, Corinth and Galatia too painfully testified. The language itself has a purely Peacock typicality, for we have specially Pauline sayings πλήν ὂ τι, καί νῦν ίδού, δεσμά καί θλίψεις, νουθετεῖν, or characteristically Peacock, but alien to Luke: μή φείδεσαι, ταπεινοφροσύνη, ύποστέλλεσθαι , νυκτά καί ήμέραν , ό συμφέρ ov. The verb περιποιείσ αι is characteristic of Paul (1 Tim. III, 13) and Luke (Evangel. XVII, 33), but is used by them in different senses, and in the Milesian speech (Acts XX, 28) it has a strictly Paulinistic application. 4) The speech before the procurator Felix (Acts XXIV, 10 - 21) serves as an example of a judicial-legal apology and in this regard is the only one of its kind, most precious for us because it gives us some understanding of the defense of the Apostle in Rome before the court of Caesar, and in the epistles of St. Pavel did not have to take such a legal point of view. Therefore, it can be assessed only by internal signs. What is noteworthy here, first of all, is the strict correspondence of the content with the purpose and state of affairs. Before the pagan ruler, who was formally looking at the whole “Pavlovo case,” it was completely useless to debate dogmatic issues, but it was only necessary to prove the absence of “corpus delicti” in the civil legal sense of the state. The whole argument is directed towards this, with which the Apostle tries to convince that he is completely innocent of the unrest that occurred, for which the Pharisees had no reason even dogmatically, for the speaker was and remains I agree with them regarding the resurrection of the dead. In all this one gets the impression of direct reproduction, which is also ensured by the (probable) presence of Luke in this speech. The sufficient art of legal construction is in accordance with the image of Paul known to us - a missionary who knew how to perfectly adapt to any situation (cf., for example, 1 Cor. IX, 18 ff.) and here - as a Roman citizen before a Roman dignitary - a judge - successfully and appropriately using the technique of captatio benevolentiae. but the latter was not the simple hypocritical dexterity of a flattering talker, but a missionary wise and factually substantiated inclination of the listeners in favor of great and saving truths: this is true for the speeches of the present, Athenian (Acts XVII. 21), before the Sanhedrin (XXIII, 6) and before Felix (XXIV.10) 401. And it is hardly acceptable for pure science and convincing for anyone to assume that the analyzed speech could most likely have been composed by Luke, when we see that it is completely natural and in the mouth of St. Pavel. And if they exploit (Prof. H. H. Wendt), that it is unworthy of the Apostle to put forward the only point of similarity between himself and the Pharisees, keeping silent about the many differences, then how else could he act in the interests of creating a favorable atmosphere for discussion? And the Pharisees and St. were well aware of the fundamental disagreements. Paul did not at all hide this before them, but now (Acts XXIV, 21) he simply applies the former case when considering this case in the Sanhedrin (XXIII. 6 ff.), in which the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead generally attracted great attention (XXIV, 15). The statement about Paul's coming to Jerusalem to deliver alms to his people is tendentiously disputed, since it is probable both in fact and in historical importance. The idea of ​​a general resurrection - of the righteous and the unjust - is in vain considered to be non-Paulinistic, and therefore it cannot be compellingly relied on in a polemic against the authenticity of the speech under review. If traces of Luka’s retouching hand are seen in literary polishing, then we must not forget the unusual for her, but characteristic of Paul, sayings άπρόσκοπος, συνε δησις, δι ’ τῶν with probability for him ἂ παξ λεγο ένων like ευθύμως and ασκείν. 5–6). The speeches in Jerusalem during the arrest (Acts XXII, 1–21) and in Caesarea before Agrippa (Acts XXVI, 2–29) have much in common, and this is justified by the commonality of the position of Paul, who in both cases spoke before a Jewish audience and had to appeal to the Jewish religious consciousness. It is no less natural and legitimate that autobiographical details predominate in these speeches. The apostle stood in the face of immediate danger, when it was only necessary to eliminate the fatal explosion and it would have been completely inappropriate to enter into abstract dogmatic debates. It was simply necessary to calm the agitated passions and the inflamed prejudices of the offended religious feeling, and for this it was only important to prove that he was not a traitor, not a traitor and not a blasphemer. Of course, here references to facts of life that were obvious to everyone were the most appropriate and convincing. True, before Agrippa II St. Paul concerns messianic aspirations and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, but such fundamental truths of faith, of course, were not alien to the mind of this depraved king, and a reminder of them could serve to awaken his national-religious conscience in favor of the accused bearer of national Jewish ideals. From these sides, everything in both speeches is natural. True in general, this judgment is however subject to great suspicion in particulars, for in factual reports there are many disharmonies in the book of Acts itself and in the epistles of Paul. This we have in relation to the most important moments - the history of Paul - about his conversion (Acts XXII, 6. XXVI, 12 and cf. IX, 3; 1 Cor. XV, 8) and about the commission of the gospel in the pagan world (Acts XXII, 14. XXVI, 15 and cf. IX, 13; Gal. I, 11, 15). It is undeniable that there are some dissonances on these points, but did the Writer really not notice them at all? And if “yes,” then why did he “compose” three, even four (including the Roman one in Chapter XXVIII) speeches and introduce deliberate inconsistencies into them himself? Isn’t it more correct to scientifically accept that he had reliable, authoritative and obligatory sources for him, which he reproduces with complete objectivity 402? Therefore, there is no doubt that the apparent inconsistencies are not at all so significant in the issue under consideration. It is already characteristic that the disharmony with Pavlov’s self-testimonies is very weak and therefore in no way excludes the authenticity of the analyzed speeches. On the contrary, there are much more discrepancies with other instructions in the book of Acts itself, but this rather speaks of the conscientiousness of Luke, who inviolably quotes his sources without artificially adapting them to each other. Given his well-known literary skill, it was, of course, easy for him to avoid any contrasts between his own compositions. And one cannot here refer to his Hellenistic inattention to realistic details, for the question was about the most important facts with which Luke connects all his constructions to the point that the latter rest on them and fall with them. Here, authorial negligence is simply unthinkable, and accuracy is all the more acceptable since the inconsistency is seen by us only because the events themselves are not available to us in detail, which could be fully reconciled by the realiter. In general, the content does not seem incredible in the mouth of Paul, and the ancient Greek proverb “cruelty is a prick of fire” (Acts XXVI. 14), used by Aeschylus (Agam. 1b24) and Pindar (Pyth II, 173) with slight modifications, for him is no less plausible than the proverb “to carry this in a coal” (XXVI, 23), since they were common and could be used in Palestine in Aramaic. The language of both speeches contains features that are explained by their properties. The apology before the Jews is a translation from the “Hebrew” and therefore retains Aramaisms in XXII, 19–20 and, probably, in XXII, 16. Naturally, this translation belongs to Luke and reflects his linguistic qualities (and not Paulinistic) - σύνειμι, εύλαβίς, έξαίφνης (also in Mark XIII, 35), ὐτ ῇ τ ῇ ωρα έπιστάς. Contrary to this, in the speech before Agrippa, with 8 clearly Lucanistic sayings, there are no less than 12, which are characteristic only of Paul, and not Luke. In two terms common to both, an exclusively Paulinistic meaning is preserved: ἠ γείσθαι to honor oneself (XXVI, 3) -10 times (except Heb.) in this meaning in the Apostle of Languages (2 Cor. IX, 5. Philip. II, 3, 6, 25. III, 7, 8 2. 1 Thess. V, 13, 2 Thess. III, 15. 1 Tim. 1, 12. VI, 1) and not once in Luke; καταντ ᾷ ν metaphorically (XXVI, 7) only in the first (1 Cor. X, 11. XIV, 36. Eph. IV, 13. Philip. III, 11), while in the second it is always literally (Acts XVI 11. XVIII, 19, 24. XX, 15. XXI, 7. XXV, 13. XXVII, 12. XXVIII, 13). The Attic form ῖσασιν (-instead of οῖδασιν -) is used (XXVI, 4), but it is used specifically by the Hellenic evangelist in Ephesus. V, 5. A review of Paul's speeches in the book of Acts yields favorable results in favor of Luke's possible historical accuracy. This conclusion is confirmed by Regarding them 403, the general conviction is expressed that they too smooth out and soften the characteristic typicality of Petrov’s image and bring him closer to the equally stylized portrait of the Hellenic evangelist, and this indicates the active creative participation of conciliatory tendencies that belong to the later period of the creation of the “Catholic Church.” It is clear that, along with the latter, the corresponding speeches of Petrov are transferred from the apostolic era and turn out to be completely fictitious or completely perverted when they are literary processed in a compilation of the book of Acts. This principled judgment is not so categorically confirmed by private remarks and constantly requires exegetical stretches and textual violence. This means that at the very basis there is something artificial here, which is easily exposed by the simplest considerations. For the stability of a formulated conclusion, it is necessary that it justify itself in all its premises and successfully achieve its scientific goal. But we saw that the speeches of St. Paul are alien to any unreality and, on the contrary, are distinguished by sufficient historical authenticity. In this case, by parallelism with them, Petrov’s speeches should be recognized as no less authentic, for both of them will be equally consistent with the demands and moods of the age of Paul, that is, the apostolic, when both of these great evangelists lived and acted. Indisputable factual analogies also convince us of this. In ancient Christian literary monuments we have many falsifications of the property assumed by critics, and all of them are imbued with the spirit of decisive straightforwardness, which does not allow ironic gradualism and ideological compromises. We will limit ourselves to a reference to the “Clementines”, which is close to our topic, where the Apostle Peter is depicted with some Paulinistic touches, but for that from St. For Paul, as such, there remains nothing individual except heretical wickedness. There one displaces and absorbs the other, but in the Acts we find something completely different, that “Luke does not prefer either of them” 404 and, therefore, is alien to the slightest interests of deliberate accommodation between them, just as criticism itself constantly trumpets the sharp difference between the Petrinistic and Paulinistic elements in the Writer. Obviously, there was no need for mutual adjustment, since these were precisely the true historical facts, which fully explained and supported themselves. At this point critical reconstruction suffers its most severe internal defeat. According to its objectives, it strives to clarify the historical darkness, which is created by the paucity of documentary evidence. It was necessarily required by its very purpose that criticism eliminate the existing vagueness and, if possible, make up for the existing insufficiency, and in return for this it is proposed to mercilessly sacrifice precious materials in the form of Peter’s epistles, which are rejected as inauthentic. Is anything particularly useful for faith and knowledge obtained after such heroic self-denial? After all, then we are left without almost any sources, and everyone knows that in an airless void light does not shine and illuminates nothing. . . The same is inevitable in historical knowledge, to ensure which we must take the entire body of extant materials in the book of Acts and in the Epistles of Peter, without forcing them in advance with theoretical prejudices. Let us now take a look at the surviving “speeches” of the Apostle Peter (Acts I, 15 – 26. II. 14 – 36, 38 – 40. III, 4 – 6, 12 – 26. IV, 8–12, 19, 20; 24 – 30. V, 3–9. V, 29–32. VIII, 20 – 23. IX, 34; And in their essence they are like that. A detailed analysis clearly shows that, in terms of their special content, the writing speeches of the Apostle Peter strictly coincide with his messages 405 and can serve to protect or fail the latter. In any case, the relationship is such that suspicions against the epistles cannot be directly transferred to the speeches, and their signs are quite legitimate and fair to extend to the former, because the apostolic speeches are communicated in all their thorough historical context and - therefore - allow specific verification of their authenticity. A careful comparison with the conditions depicted by the Writer clearly convinces that Petrov’s speeches exactly correspond to them in content and tone, and therefore should not raise objective doubts about their historicity. Otherwise, we will be forced to discard the historical part of the Acts and thereby commit scientific self-destruction for the sake of school theoretical phantasmagoria. Is it possible to understand and justify such a crushing destruction of a rich property received by legal inheritance? Perhaps this would be somewhat excusable if the latter turned out to be false and fictitious, falsely assigning undue value. In this sense, they say that the Writer gives an artificially forged image of Peter, as a Judaist, but stylized according to the type of Paul, to whom he was ideologically opposed and practically hostile. But what should we necessarily expect from Peter historically? He was a Jew by birth and a Jew by views, and his adoption of Christianity took place without the severe catastrophes that preceded Saul’s conversion. It is fair to conclude from this that Peter saw in Christ the perfect realization of the Old Testament Jewish aspirations and therefore considered the Lord the Savior to be their final interpreter, obligatory for all Israel in terms of redemptive dignity and dogmatic authority. For him, the apostolic mission of an evangelist at the circumcision is quite natural, and in this mission, was it not most natural that the preacher would start from the sacred Jewish traditions and explain them in the spirit of Christianity, as the divine completion of the entire saving industry? All of Peter’s written speeches are, of course, in harmony with these norms, being historically completely appropriate in his mouth. There is not the slightest deviation in principle for the sake of extreme peacockism, invented and defended by critical tendentiousness. All such cases are covered incorrectly and biasedly. If Christ himself and the Gospel are essentially divine, then His person and work are also divine and cannot be constrained by temporary adaptive frameworks. Redemption and evangelism are universal and, of course, require the subordination of previous accommodative methods, sanctioned, but transitory and practically adapted to a specific national environment. And don’t Petrov’s speeches confirm this or give something more and ideologically unacceptable? Isn't it rather necessary to say quite the opposite based on documentary evidence? It is very remarkable in them that Peter motivates the admission of pagans into the Church of Christ with actual signs of a grace-filled calling and, because of them, considers traditional restrictions to be such that now cannot hinder the dictates of the divine Spirit (Acts X, 47. XI, 17). This position of factual justification for the universal application of the gospel of Christ by St. Peter also resolutely held at the Apostolic Council (Acts XV, 7 ff.), expressing his original and fundamental view that the Gospel, by virtue of its divinity, is immense in purpose, but actually expands according to direct instructions from above. Is this a specific “Paulinism”, or an obligatory “evangelism”, irresistible to everyone with a conscious perception of the faith of Christ? And do the data from Paul’s epistles contradict this in any way? In an account of the most striking episode of the Antioch conflict, St. Paul reveals complete unity with Peter in the principled confession of the absolute dominance of the saving faith, but emphatically notes that his great brother did not immediately and in fact did not draw all practical conclusions, conforming them with the imperative voice of missionary experience (Gal. II, 14 ff.). Are not all of Petrov’s speeches in the book of Acts similar in their ideological side, and isn’t their historical reality protected by the living voice of the Apostle Paul? Then we can only talk about literary processing. And in this regard, Petrinistic originality is indisputable with undoubted Lucanistic typicality 406, but this combination is most likely historically, and5o St. Peter spoke, of course, in Aramaic, huh. Luke knew this language well and was able to translate into Greek successfully 407, that is, in his own style, but while preserving the distinctive features of the original. A careful examination convinces of the historical authenticity of the Petrovs’ speeches and the accuracy of their reproduction by the Writer 408. The same conclusion justifies III) speech of Archdeacon Stephen 409 It is said about it that it was the anticipation and primary source of Paulinism and therefore virtually impossible in such an early Christian period, or historically unreal and literary fiction. With this formulation, the entire solution to the question comes down to clarifying the actual relationship between Stefanova’s sermon and the perspective outlined by the Writer. Is there a mutually guaranteeing symphony between them, or a one-sided destructive dissonance? The content of Stephen's speech (Acts VII, 2 - 53) is set out in the following summary 410: “God initially communicated to the history of Israel a development that would lead to the fulfillment of the promises given to Abraham in exactly the same way as it was realized through Jesus of Nazareth, and which would end with the abolition of the church cult and the change in the law of Moses, but Israel... expressed its constant and stubborn resistance to the Holy Spirit by rejecting Christ. However, just as before God, despite the opposition of Israel, always carried out his will in its history, so now Jesus Christ will fulfill everything that he came to do for the salvation of man, and unbelieving Israel, like their fathers, for disobedience to God and Christ is subject to rejection, but now - complete, since in Christ is the fulfillment of all the promises of God to Israel.” This means that the main points of Stephen’s sermon were the provisions that 1) Christianity was the crown of the law, ending and absorbing it, and therefore 2) the acceptance of Christianity is legally obligatory and messianically salvific, while rejection is nomistically sinful and individualistically disastrous. Under what conditions and for what reason did these thoughts develop? Stephen was in Jerusalem at that time the most inspired and energetic evangelist in word and deed, with a fiery, active temperament and a great offensive character towards his former co-religionists. Naturally, this offensive swiftness leads to inevitable clashes and heated debates, and its crushing nature prompted opponents to eliminate the storm at its very roots and forever. Stephen was arrested and tried on charges of blasphemy. In this he now had to defend himself, but was this legally imputed fact real? St. Stephen nowhere categorically denies it, which is why it is necessary to assume an incorrect interpretation of the speeches of the Stephens against the law and cult, since here blasphemy against God was seen (Acts VI, 11). From this it is clear that Stephen rejected nomism in its history and worship of God not unconditionally, but only as a divine and therefore eternal institution in the saving providence of God. However, such thoughts, being equally disgusting to the Jews in the mouths of the pagans, were not blasphemous on their part and became such only among the nomists, who thereby became renegades and traitors. To be completely justified in his conscience before the judges, Stephen had to prove that he was not an apostate or a traitor to the law, and this was possible only on the sole condition that he strictly obeyed the latter in his anti-Jewish Christian polemics. The needs of personal apology necessarily turned the speaker to an objective illumination of nomism in historical insight. This means that the historical and factual defense was caused by the specific state of affairs and is quite probable. In the speech itself, it was necessary to justify that the transition to Christianity and Christian commentary on legalism were in no way blasphemous in essence. For this purpose, it was necessary to reveal that nomism is entirely on the side of the accused, and therefore condemns the accusers themselves. Since he is a Christian, this inevitably affirms that the law, by its nature, purpose and action in history, was messianic and ends in Christian fulfillment, in which it is completely dissolved with all its special institutions. Here Christian conversion is necessary by virtue of legalism itself and provides all its saving benefits, graciously drawn only from Christianity. In direct proportion, opposition to the latter will not be an accidental act created by misunderstandings about the work of Christ and the apostolic preaching, but is the inevitable result of a misunderstanding of the very soul of nomism with a corresponding violation of it throughout history, which is resolved by the godless and irreparable murder of the foretold Righteous One, Christ the Savior. The categorical conclusion now is that Stephen is legalistically right in his Christianity, and his enemies are nomistically criminal and legally inexcusable in their violent anti-Christian obstinacy. The goal of the speech is achieved: – Stefan has fundamentally and factually proven his nomystical correctness, which is binding on all listeners. It can be said that for the interests of individual apologetics the whole treatment seems too long, yet it would have been easy to end everything shorter, more energetically and without needlessly irritating the audience with sharply accusatory passages. But we must not forget that Stephen acted as a Christian evangelist, defending not so much his own face as the cause he was promoting, and the latter, due to its debatability for the Jews (Acts VI, 9), required a convincing nomistic justification, which, due to the very oppositeness of the clashing views, necessarily received a reproachful formulation. Therefore, we must agree that Stephen’s speech, being completely original 411, presupposes a special source 412 and is personally and fundamentally fully supported in its historical reality by the entire factual situation. Here, the rejection of the first will inevitably entail the rejection of the second. But... “what is this destruction for?” To save the reasonable gradualism and pragmatic coherence of Christian development in the apostolic era? And this pattern is allegedly violated by the fact that Stephen’s speech is imbued with a later peacocking, impossible at the time indicated for it. However, everything in this sense is limited to the preaching that the Gospel completes the law and Christianity normally replaces nomism, being a divinely unlimited fulfillment of it. But was this a subsequent acquisition of Pavlova’s theoretical thought, and does not it serve as an essential expression of the Christian fact itself? And didn’t every conscious convert from Judaism understand this by virtue of the Christian confession itself, as divinely legalized and universal? In this case, the elimination of factual conclusions will not require the cassation of historical Christian phenomena? Some people accept something similar with tendentious audacity, denying the existence of both Christ and the Apostles - with the inclusion of Paul, but what kind of science is this, which - contrary to its meaning - does not create anything, but destroys and devastates everything, leaving behind only theoretical mirages and subjective phantoms? And the speech of Archdeacon Stephen, which has all historical probability, and all the other didactic and reproductive parts of the book of Acts in no way lead to such sad and terrible results. An impartial analysis of the Peacock passages strongly convinces Prof. Hell. Harnack, that “out of the freedom that the ancient historians acquired for themselves to insert whole speeches in appropriate places (whether these will be abstracts about what was actually said, or their own projections -), Luke made a wide but happy use. Just as in the Gospel the deeds and words of Christ alternate (Acts I, 1), so exactly both of these elements should be located in the second book. Speeches predominate in the first and last quarters of it, while in the second and third they recede spatially, but they are all the more significant here. According to our perception and, perhaps, equally to the first readers, the highest points are the speeches in the 15th, 17th and 20th chapters; however, the initial ones, like Christ’s speeches, are truly fundamental, and the final ones assure readers that their great missionary Paul was the mediator of the Messiah called by God and a great witness for Christ before rulers and kings” 413 . And the study of the Petrovs’ speeches “confirms that the Writer writes not as a poet or artist, but as an accurate historian, and in the form of other people’s words, even in fragmentary phrases, conveys not his own thoughts, but only what was actually once said by the persons mentioned by him” 414. In the end, the didactic element in the writing narratives turns out to be completely guaranteed in its historical truthfulness and literary authenticity. But then it is all the more certain Factual Accuracy of the Book of Acts Its writer was an apostolic husband of living traditions and depicts many things in which he was a direct participant, moved events and experienced all the vicissitudes, which is why for his historiography he is largely both an actor and an auctor. At the same time, St. Luke was in close contact with the most eminent personalities of the apostolic era and through them had reliable access to detailed and accurate information. This means that his material is actually real and historically indisputable 415. And this impression of possible reliability is so irresistible that it is categorically recommended “in relation to such a historical work as the book of Acts, critical restraint even for those parts that represent something striking,” for “a better knowledge of known sources and the discovery of new ones have exposed the injustice of hasty judgments about the early Christian tradition” 416. And if we approach the Acts with the latest chronological requirements, then they satisfy even the highest claims regarding chronological dates and in decisive points - as far as we can control them - turn out to be solid, although the lack of continuity in the chronological thread 417 is regrettable and it can be argued that even regarding chronological uncertainties this work is a venerable historical work, and in general - the recognition of the reliability of this book is enhanced by detailed study the author's chronographic method in everything where he speaks and where he remains silent; in general, this is a truly historical literary work 418, capable of withstanding competition with similar contemporaries and, for example, according to chronological indications, Luke is sometimes more reliable than Philo 419. We must not forget that the historiographical accuracy of the ancient writers was very conditional, and here a comparison of the New Testament authors with them perfectly illustrates their merits. “If we,” says prof. W.M. Ramsay – if we compare the New Testament writings with the best examples of classical literature, we will be struck by many more difficulties in the latter than in the former” (cf. 144). For concrete clarity, one colorful example is sufficient. In 51 BC Chr. Cicero traveled throughout Asia Minor, about which there are many of his letters for this time and for 2 - 3 subsequent months. Despite the abundance and detail of messages and statistical notes, there are a lot of ambiguities that cause disagreements and disputes in interpretation. According to O. E. Schmidt, Cicero completed 126 miles (at least 155 kilometers!) from Philomemium to Iconium in three days, i.e. 42 miles (about 52 kilometers) daily, but for a man of sedentary city life at 55 years old this is incredible, which is why Schmidt himself considers Cicero’s usual daily journey to be 30 miles, and W. M. Ramsay lowers it to 25. Once Cicero says that on his way he stopped for 2 days in Leodicea, 5 - in Alami, 3 - in Sinnad, 3 - in Philomelia (epist. ad Atticum V, 20), in another place he names the numbers 2, 4, 3, 3 (er. ad Fam. XV, 4), in the third - 3, 3, 3 (er. ad Att. V, 16): - and such contradictions are found in letters at a distance of only a few days! Cicero has the same instability in dates regarding plans for the future. During his short stay in Laodicea, he wrote twice to his friend Atticus that he would return to Cilia around or after May 15 (ep. adAtt. V, 21. VI, 1), to another friend he then appointed a time for this around May 1 (ep. adFam. Xlll. 57), in two more letters he indicated May 7 (ep. adAtt. VI, 2; adFam. II, 13) 420. This parallelism, which characterizes the basic properties of the quantities being compared, allows us to summarize the final result in the sense that Acts contains material that is rich and possibly reliable in both the didactic and narrative parts. Let all this be indisputable, but the processing of even documentary data can be very different in quality and form, and - consequently - in merit. This means that it is now necessary to consider the matter from this side in order to determine how great Historical and literary value of the book of Acts Here, first of all, it is important that St. Luke does not overload his work with unnecessary material and does not pile it up mechanically and randomly, but, on the contrary, accepts it with strict analysis, applies it with reasonable economy and arranges it according to an ideologically consistent plan. He penetrates with his spiritual gaze into the inner recesses of disparate facts and - as a whole - contemplates in them the majestic picture destined from ancient times of the uncontrollable growth of the Christian gospel from the glory of Jerusalem to the power of Palestine to the light of the revelation of all languages. For him, the present rests on the past and foreshadows the future, as is typical of true geniuses, always hovering in all three directions and spheres 421. Here history naturally becomes a slender, pulsating organism. Therefore, with the Writer, all the details come to life and live, as the apostolic life itself flowed with a life-giving spring. And if there is no greatest reproach and gravest shame for the historian, that he deadens in school schemes and scholastically kills existing reality with his mechanical correctness, then for St. Luke's best literary recommendation is a simple objective statement that in him all factual phenomena are enlivened by their life-giving, creative spirit. This property is equally applicable to the broad grouping of historical data that centers around the personalities of Peter and Paul. This was the dominant manner of the highest and exemplary ancient historiography, and in the Writer it unfolds in all its splendor, because it especially contributes to the relief shading and most precise understanding of the historical movement, which fully expresses and reveals. This is not difficult to understand and easy to prove. St. Peter appears most prominently in the first pages of the book of Acts, and here every line is imbued with his influence, directly and indirectly reduced to him. But isn't this natural, but artificial? After all, it is here that we see the creation of Christianity on Jewish soil and in contact with the sacred covenants of Israel, and St. Peter was the Apostle of circumcision (Gal. II, 7, 9) and a typical exponent of the principle of the Israeli gospel. Therefore, the historian connects all the threads with him involuntarily, for they actually converged in Peter. He was the ruling, regulating and unifying center - and the Writer quite legitimately looks from here at all the peripheries of this circle in the apostolic firmament. However, this center inevitably had to move in accordance with the destined course of the Gospel, which went beyond the borders of Judaism and through Hellenism spread to the whole world. It is natural that with such an immense horizon the entire perspective changes, and new dominant figures stand out on it. Before us now is a vast expanse of the pagan universe, covered in centuries-old darkness with faint glimpses of “light shining in the darkness.” They needed to be fanned into a living flame of an unquenchable fire, not flickering in its brilliance, organically penetrating everywhere and warming everything with the energy of rebirth. It goes without saying that the one who accomplished this historical feat should have shone most clearly against the illuminated background of the orbis Romani, and such was St. Paul. It is not surprising that henceforth his great missionary personality comes forward almost without distinction, since it was both the source and focus of world evangelization, just as de facto he was the Apostle of uncircumcision and a minister of the gospel to the pagans. In all these respects, the most particular, personalistic grouping coincides with genuine Christian progress, revealing it from the side of internal motives and in external concrete manifestation. And such harmony of the ideological with the real, the general with the individual, is the most beautiful quality of an objective-historical image, if it does not want to forget that life does not exist without fundamental foundations and that it is successfully created by its best bearers, who conquer the inert masses and excite them to activity. With such a composition of the entire work, individual episodes are included in the whole, enhancing the artistic impression, like tones and halftones in a painting by a true master. All that has been said sufficiently defines the scientific and literary merits of the historiography of the Acts and evokes fair praise from competent authorities. Here the voice of Prof. is most distinct and impressive. Hell. Harnack, who comprehensively and critically studied the book in question. Its general theme was to historically present the power of the spirit of Christ in the Apostles 422, since Luke rightly considers only them to be empowered for the Christian mission 423. But this required a heartfelt comprehension of the very essence of the Gospel of Christ in all its innumerable and diverse manifestations, why the very idea of ​​​​a holistic and accurate reproduction of events precisely in this light was as simple as it was ingenious 424. But early Christianity was too thickly colored with Judaistic flavor, and it was necessary to have direct contact with it and close acquaintance 425 in order to correctly guess and reveal its true nature. From this side, the very enterprise of describing the matter in such a tone was extraordinary courage 426, and its fruit was that Luke turned out to be the first historian of the Church who, in his first-class work in composition and style, gave something completely exceptional and enduring 427. Here we have a correctly developing historical image, where the apostolic-church history is organically connected with the gospel, and both receive strong stability of mutual and own continuity; in this regard The writer turns out to be the creator of the apostolic tradition along with the Gospel 428, and his work is not only a valid historical work in its entirety, but also reliable in many of its details 429, successfully complementing Paul’s epistles 430. An undisputed expert in the field of ancient classical Greek literature, the late Professor Friedrich Blass categorically testifies to the Acts that “this book does not only stand out for its beautiful structure, but also reveals an art that would not be in the least unworthy of a Greek or Roman writer” 431 . Another authoritative secular professor (of Humanity) W. M. Ramsay, in his numerous articles and special studies, expresses sincere surprise and deep respect for the historiographical work of St. Luke and places it almost above all similar works, both in the general concept and in the literary treatment of details. Fully joining these well-deserved reviews, we, for our part, must add that the high art of the Writer consists in strict fidelity and inspired brightness in reproducing the saving deeds of the divine Artist, masterfully collecting in literary concentration the life-giving shining rays of the sun of truth in Christ Jesus. This is what motivates and guarantees the New Testament canon. Sacred and dogmatic meaning of the book of Acts The sacred-dogmatic significance of the book of Acts is that it accurately and irresistibly shows the divine structure of the Church of Christ on earth for the redemptive renewal of humanity in all generations of the age. Being the supernatural fruit of God's infinite love, Christianity necessarily requires a divine perfecter, independent of cosmically elemental limitations, but transforming them by supreme power. Only in this case will it be solid in its foundation and beneficial in its influence. It goes without saying that this element of true divinity is equally necessary in further development, since here even the slightest deviation from this norm threatens to transform the royally ruling principle into a slavishly adaptive one. Therefore it is imperative that what is divine on Golgotha ​​must be so in history throughout the universe. The Book of Acts, in an objective narrative way, convinces to the point of tangibility that this essential requirement has always been observed in the historical process and without change. The earthly mission of the Lord is over, and He ascends to His Father. Nevertheless, the disciples do not remain orphans and receive the promise of a Comforter who will abide with them forever. This is the Holy Spirit, equal in honor and equal in essence, having and being able to continue the work of Christ with adequate divinity. From now on, He is the main driving factor of Christianity, its restoring and preserving force. In this respect, Christian prosperity was completely assured in principle and could not actually waver. And we know that the Apostles remained in solitary silence until they were illuminated from above - and only now their preaching gospel is revealed. The latter, through the Spirit, was Christ’s and clearly revealed its divine extra-worldliness with accompanying signs and wonders (cf. Mark XVI: 20) at all the most important moments of the historical early Christian life. From this it directly followed that the divine energy had the tools both capable and worthy to implement its plans. And this is beyond doubt, since the Apostles of Christ, the bearers of the Lord’s promises and the true successors of His earthly ministry, appear everywhere on the pages of the Acts. Therefore, their feat is no less unshakable and contains all the guarantees of divine salvation. All the importance here is concentrated precisely in the principle of the apostolic construction of the Church of Christ - and it is completely indisputable for it according to the supremacy of St. Peter in the first period and according to the dominant activity of God's chosen Paul in the second. There was no need to talk about all the particulars, because their solidarity is presupposed by the very harmony of the movement. Under such conditions it was impossible for the goal to be unfulfilled or to suffer in its purity in its actual implementation. And here it is absolutely immutable that the commandment of Christ is about apostolic witness, by the power of the Spirit, in Jerusalem and in all Juda and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth (Acts. I, 8) - was the defining norm of the Christian gospel, completely penetrating and steadily guiding it at all stages of the progressive march of the Gospel of Christ. That is why Christian growth proceeds with consistent gradualness, alien and forced inertia and human haste, for it is indissoluble from internal self-control and is confident in its triumph. It is not surprising that Christianity achieves complete success and, in the civil center of state dominion, acquires dominion over the universe (Col. II, 23). This coincidence of divine fulfillment by divine means in accordance with divine destiny was the greatest guarantee of the future, its eternal indestructibility and inexhaustible vitality. The Church - Christ's in its foundation and Founder - was Christ's through its heralds and in its very spread, which is why it will remain Christ's throughout the entire course of earthly existence: - this is the unshakable result of the Descriptive historiography in the crowning of the Gospel justification with apostolic construction and in the divine provision of its future absolute triumph, when God will be all in all (1 Cor. XV, 28). Sofia (Bulgaria). 1930, V, 12 (IV, 29) – Monday. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichtë Untersuchungen (Leipzig 1908), S. 87. So, for example, Credner, Ewald, Meyer, Jacobsen, Fr. Spitta, I. P. Nikolin (p. 338). St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (London 1896), p. 27–28. Cm. Prof. T h. Zahn. Einleitung in das N. T. II, S 1 369–371; 2 375 – 377. T h. Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas...,S 2 48. Privatdor is similar. Arnold Rüegg, Die Lukasschnften und Raumzwang des antiken Buchwesens and “Studien und Kritiken” 1896, I, S. 95, 101. On πρώτος and πρότερος, comparative and superlative degrees in Luke, see “The Expositor” 1904, VIII, p. 133. See also Ant. Beck, Der Prolog des Lukas-Evangeliums (Amberg 1900), S. 42. Prof. Joh. Evang. Belser, Einleitung in das N. T, S. 2 126–127. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 50. Prof. James Moffatt, An Introduction, p. 286. For a condensed summary of this issue, see the article by Prof. Otto Zöckler, Die Apostelgeschichte als Gegenstand hoherer und niederer Kritik in “Greifswalder Studien” (Gütersloh 1895), S. 109 ff. Cf. I. P. Nikolin, Acts of the Holy Apostles, page 1 words by Prof. D. I. Bogdashevsky (Archbishop Vasiliy), Experiments in the Study of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, issue II: Book of the Acts of the Apostles (Kyiv 1911), pp. 46 ff. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte S. 30 2. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 9. That's what Prof. calls it. D. I. Bogdashevsky (Archbishop Vasily), Experiments in the study of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, vol. II, pp. 47, 6. Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte Werke desselben Verfassers (Halle a. S. 1880), where the main thesis is argued quite convincingly, although the statistics of various approaches are not always correct. Acta apostolorum (Göttingen 1895), p. 14 sq.; his Philology of the Gospels, London 1898. See also T h. Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil (eine Laienstudie), Leipzig 1897; zw. Aufl. ibid. 1899. Cm. Prof. Friedrich Blass. Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen 1895, S. 3 ff.; 2 Aufl. ibid. 1902, S. 3 ff. E b. Nestle even mentioned (in “Philologus” LIX for 1900, S. 46 ff.) the Writer had echoes of Euripides’ speech, but Prof. And I bert Thumb stated (Die grechische Sprache im Zeitaltez des Hellenismus, Strassburg 19E1, S. 226) that in these points there was a source in the vernacular language, from from which both Euripides and the New Testament author individually drew. See Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S 206 Prof. Ad. Harnack ibid., S. 205. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 15 Anm. For a review of the new literature on the reliability of the book of Acts (Chase, Selwyn, Benson, Bartlet, Backmam, Bernard) see The Church Quarterly Review LV, 110 (January 1903), pp. 388 - 403, and in its favor (against P. Schmiedel) see ibid. LIII, 105 (October 1901), p. 8 sqq. See H. Coppieter's, De historia textus Actorum ApostoIoruTi. Lovani 1912, and by this wed. “Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique” IV, 3 (15 Juillet 1903), pp. 471–476. About him, see also Fg. Blass, Zur Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte in “Studien und Kritiken” 1898, III S.532–542, where the reading of some passages is checked from the original in comparison with the printing edition (in 1864) of Scrivener; but in 1899 it was published in Cambridge (in two volumes, a phototypical reproduction of Beza’s codex. See also Pastor Ferdinand Graefe, Der Codex Bezae und das Lukasevangelium: textkritis he Bemerkungen zum Lukasevangelium in “Studien und Kritiken” 1898, I, S. 116 140. See also M''scellanea Cassinense. . . per cura Dei P. Benedittini di Montecassino Tipografia di Montecassino 1897. Here in "Anonimi de prophetis et prophetiis" (p. 17 - 23 in patris tica) ex cod. Sangallensi 133 sacr. IX there are similarities with D August, p. in Acts XI, 27-28 (p. 21: congregatis autem nobis, surgens ex illis nomine Agabus) and XIX, 2–7. See also Prof. Ad. Harnack in “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1898, 6, Sp.71 – 173. A possible reconstruction, given the available material, is given by Acta Apostolo,rum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: secundum formam quae videtur Romanam edidit Fridericus Blass, Lipsiae 1895. See and Prof. Theodor Zahn, Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas in Forsch mgen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altchristlichen Litteratur, 9, Teil, Leipzig 1916. Prof. Fr. Blass 11, 28: ἕ φη δέ προς αύτούς – „ έγείρατέ με άπ ό τῆς γης “. Καί έγει άντων αύτόν, ουδέν εβλεπεν άνεωγμένων των όφθαλμων. So in Slavic in Actus Epistolaeque Apostolorum palaeoslavenice ad fidem codicis Christinopolitani saeculo XII scripti edidit Prof. Aemilianus Kaluzniacki (Vindobonae 1896), p. 33: “He who comes and learns....” Four Lectures in the Western Text of the New Testament, London 1893. See his works: The Church in Roman Empire before A. D. 170 St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen. Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 97 ff. Lukas der ftrzt, S. 73. Prof. James Moffatt, An Introduction, p. 311: “Such phenomena (cases of desplacement due to the iyists) taken together with the fact that by the midle of the second century (i.e. within fifty years of its compeo, sition) divergent recensions of the text were current, might suggest thaf Luke did not publish the book himself, whMelhe roughnesses of the extant text, which have set correctors early at work, prompt the design that the author did not mange to revise his δεδτερος Λόγος for purposes of publication.” See Semler, J. J. Wetstenii libelli ad crisin atque interpretationem Novi Testamenti, Halis 1766, p. 8: "Clericus jam olim, nomine Critobuli Hierapolitani usus, fere fuit in haesententia, Lucam bis edidisse Actus. Nec Hemsterhusius alienus fuit ab hac sententia, forte bis Apostolus quaedam scripsisse." Die zwiefache Textüberlieferung in der Aposteigeschichte in "Studien und Kritiken" 1884, 1, pp. 86-119. De duplici forma Actorum in "Hermathena" XXI, pp. 121 - 143. Ueber die verschiedenen Textformen in den Schriften des Lukas in "Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift" 1895, IX, S. 712 - 725. Neue Textzeugen für die Aposteigeschichte in "Studien und Kritiken" 7896, 111, S. 436-471. Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum lieber alter: editio philological apparatu critico, commentario perpetuo, indice verborum illustrata, Göttingen 1895. Acta Apostolorum sive Lucae ad Theophilum liber alter: secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, Lipsiae 1896. Philology of the Gospels, London 1898. Zu den zwei Texten der Aposteigeschichte in "Studien und Kritiken“ 1900, I, S. 5 – 28. For the development of this issue, see Prof. Otto Zockler in “DerBeweis des Glaubens” 1896, S. 438 ff.; 1898, I, S. 28–35; Pastor Ferdinand Graefe, Die Doppelausgabe der Schriften des Lukas: Sonderabdruck aus der Kirchlichen Monatsschrift in Hefte für evangelische Weltanschauung und christliche Erkentnis, I. Serie, Nr. About this, see Theodor Birth, Das antike Buchwesen in seinem Verhӓltniss zu Litteratur, Berlin 1889 (and in the presentation of Prof. Ap. G. Lebedev in the Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers, XXXVII volume for 1888, book 1, pp. 153–252: “Profession church writer and bookmaking in ancient Christian times"), and about the meaning of this in relation to the writings of St. Luke, see Arnold Rüegg in “Studien und Kritiken” 1896, I, S. 94 ff.; cp. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur 11, 1, S. 247, i. Wed. T h. In i r t h, Das antike Buchwesen, S. 57 ff. For these examples see Prof. Fg. Blass, Acta Apostolorum I, p. 32; II, p. VI, 96; Joh. Drӓseke in “Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie” 1894, II, S. 192–206; O. Zöckler in “Greifswalder Studien”, Gütersloh 1895, S. 132–133; Eb. Nestle, Philologia sacra, 1896, S. 43. See Edw. for The Vision of Piers Plowman. M. Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography (London 1894), p. 290, and in the dissertation of O. Mensendiec k'a, Charakterentwicklung und ethisch-theologische Anschauungen des Verfassers von Piers the Plowman (Leipzig 1900). See Joh. Drӓseke in "Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie" 1894, II, S. 192 - 206, and in "Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie" 1895, No. 23; Prof. Ad. Julicher, Einleitung in das N. T., Freiburg i. Br. und Leipzig 1894, S. 271; G. Salmon, Introduction to the Study of the N. T., Dublin 1894, p. 597 sqq., and in "Hermathena" XXI, pp. 225-242; C. Weymann in "Historisches Jarbiicher der Görresge-sellschaft" 1894, S. 906 ff.; C. Holzhauer in "Evangelische Kischenzeitung" 1895, No. 17; E b. Nestle, Philologia sacra, S. 38 ff., 55–56, in "Christlische Welt" 1895, No. 13–15 (cp. "The Expositor" 1895, IX, p. 235 sqq.) and in "Studien und Kritiken" 1896, I, S. 102 ff.; O. Zöckler in "Greifswalder Studien" 1895, S. 109-145, and in "Der Beweis des Glaubens" 1896, S. 438 ff.; Prof. Joh. E v. Belser in "Biblische Studien" I, 3 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1896), S. 140–145, and in "Theologische Quartalschrift" 1896, III, S. 493; "Revue de theologie et de philosophie" 1896, IV, pp. 378–386; H. J. W h i t e in "The Critical Review" 1896, 111, p. 246; Prof" P. E w a I d in Realencyklopadie XI. S. 704; T h. Vogel, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas..., S. 2 70; Prof. T h. Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T. ll 2, S. 341 ff., and in Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons IX, Prof. Ad. “Zeitschrift fur wessenschaftliche Theologie” XLl (N. F. VII), 3 (1899), S. 382–399 (466). Cp. "Theologischer Jahresbericht" XV. 1 (Braunschweig 1896), S. 122–125. Arnold Meyer, Die moderne Forschung iiber die Geschichte des Urchristentums (Freiburgi. Br. 1898), S. 26. ..Revue biblique international" Vll (1898),–2, p. 288. The Church Quarterly Review Lll), 105 (October 1901), pp. 7-8. D. Heinrich Appel, Einleitung in das N. T. (Leipzig 1922), pp. 170, 178. Prof. Dr. Paul Fein e, Einleitung in das N. T. (Leipzig 1923), pp. 78–79. Prof. James Moffat, An Introduction, pp. 309–311. See F. Blass in “Studien und Kritiken* 1909, I, S. 11, 19. This easily explains why reconstructions of both types turn out to be different, for example, for Ad. Hilgenfeld and Fr. Blass, which Prof. specifically – and in vain – points out. James Moffat, An Introduction, p. 3,310. Cm. -The Expositor" 1895, 111, p. 213 sqq. See Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 48, i, Prof. Ad. Harnack: Lukas der Arzt, S. 111 – 112: Die Aposteigeschichte, S. 151 – 152, 185. Prof. Ad. Harnack: Lukas der Arzt, S. 97; Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 122–123. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 152, 157. Prof. Ad. H a r n a s k, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 119, 122. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 84–85. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 131. Such are, for example, descriptions of a sea voyage to Rome, about which see J a m e s Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck ol St. Paul with Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, and the Ships and Navigation of the Ancients (fourth Edition), revised and corrected by Walter E. Smith, with a Preface by the Lord Bishop of Carliste and a Memoir of the Author), London 1880; Dr A. B r e u s i n g, Director der Seefahrtschule im Bremen, Die Nautik der Alten, Bremen 1886. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S 121. Prof. A d. Harnack, Neue CJutersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, S 55. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S.180–181. See and Rev. P. Mordaunt Barnard in "The Expositor" 1899, IV, p. 317–320. Note on Acts IX. 19 ff. S. D. Chambers, comparing Acts with other Greek writings, “sacred” and secular, comes to the conviction that “Luke imposed himself a strict economy in language”: see “The Journal of Theological Studies” for March 1924. See for this and G e o. W. S 1 a g k, Harmony of the Rets of the Apostles Philadelphia 1897. As you know, some go so far in this regard that they are ready to assimilate both the book of Acts and the third Gospel to the Apostle Paul himself. See, for example, Howard Heber Evans, Saint Paul the Author of the Acts of the Apostles and the Third. Gospels, London 1884. There are considerable fluctuations in determining the time for the recall of Felix (about which see Prof. E. Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes l 2, S. 483 ff.; I 3. S. 577 ff. and cp. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Zweiter Theil (Chronologie), erster Band: Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenaeus nebst einleitenden Untersuchungen. Leipzig 1897. S. 233). Most accept the year 60, but some suggest earlier dates Kellner - November 54. Val. Weber and O. Holtzmann – 55th, Fr. Blass and fld. Harnack - 56th. Cp. Prof. Theodor Mommsen, Romische Geschichte V, S. 525. The dates of Eusebius, with which the chronological calculations of Prof. Oscar Holzmann, wholly defended Ad. N a g pas k (Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius lb 1, S. 334 ff.), according to which he had the facts of the life of the Apostle Paul (S. 237 ff.): conversion in 30 (after the death of Christ or a year after it), first visit to Jerusalem - in 33, Apostolic Council - in 47, arrest - in 54 (53), imprisonment in Caesarea - in 54 (53) - 56 (55). This scholar based himself on the fact (S. 235) that Pallas lost his importance at court in February 56 (Tacit. Annal. XIII, 14–15). But 1) this dating is not at all indisputable, for it is obtained by an arbitrary correction (see Prof. Th Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T. II 3, S 618–649) of the fourteenth anniversary of the birth of Britannicus on the fifteenth (S. 238), and 2) Harnack himself agrees (S. 233) that Pallante did not immediately lose all the influence that (even if indirectly) through various means) could continue even after, and then we have no right to assert that he could only help Felix around the year 56. On the contrary, we know that Pallant was poisoned by order of Nero in 62 and was therefore considered a powerful and dangerous person even at this later time, which is why his early intercession could retain its force in friendly court circles even after death, although Josephus seems to be confused on this point. See more comments from Prof. W. M. Ramsay in "The Expositor" 1897, III. Wed. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur II, 1, S. 235, 241. Wed. in our brochure, About the Quirinian census in connection with the Nativity of Christ (Kiev 1913), pp. 29–30. Wed. to this sacred I. I. Dobronravov, Persecution of Herod Agrippa I against Christians: historical commentary on the XII chapter of the book of Acts, Sergiev Posad 1911. See Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes I 2 ,S. 474; I 3, S.S. 67–568. Prof. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, p. 48 sqq. Only at St. I. Chrysostom (in Ascens. Domini et in principum Act. hom. II, 8: M. gr. LII, 780) and in Patr. Photius (ad Amphil. quaest. 123, ai. 145: M. gr. Cl, 716) notes the hesitation that the book of Acts was adopted by some to Clement of Rome, others to Barnabas, others to Luke, but here there is undoubtedly a confusion with the Epistle to the Hebrews - the confusion is accidental and, perhaps, not even original, but due to later thoughtless proofreading or gloss (in Chrysostom) why the authenticity of the purported homily is sometimes disputed), because no one has ever expressed anything like this about the “second word” to Theophilus. Acts XX, 13, which says that “we went ahead to the ship and sailed to Assus to take Paul from there,” one Armenian commentator reads like this: “but Luke and those who were with me went on board,” and since the phrase here turns out to be unclear and the person sought could not be Paul, who had to be accepted only later, then Dr. .J. Rendel Harris quite plausibly projects the following text... but J. Luke, and those who are with me." See The Expository Times XXIV, 12 (September 1913) p. 530a-531b, and cf. ibid. XXV, 1 (October 1913), p. 446. And before Prof. Ad. Harnack argued that the Acts should be dated to 80–93 (Ceschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur 11, 1, S. 250) or even only a short time after the destruction of Jerusalem (Lukas der Arzt, S· 18). Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 5. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 6. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte. S. 49. Prof. O. D. I. Bogdashevsky (Archbishop Vasily), Experiments in the study of the Holy. Scriptures Η. 3., no. II: Book of Acts of the Apostles p. 78. See above on pages 31, 32 1, 77 4. See Prof. Joh. Evang. Belter, Einleitung in das N. T., Freiburg im Breisgau 1901, S. 123, zw. Aufl. ibid. 1905, S. 125. See Prof. A d. Harnack: Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 220; Neue (Jntersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, S. 81 ff. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, R. 81. For relevant examples, see Prof. F g. In I a s s ’ a, Evangelium secundum Lucam (Upsiae 1897), p. VII -VIII. It must also be borne in mind that the ancient “life writers” liked to concentrate on the last years of their heroes and often dwelt especially on their deaths: see Prof. James M o f a 11, An introduction, p. 629. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, S. 81, 85. ) Prof. Ad. Harnack: Die Apostelgeschishte. S. 219–221; Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, S. 63 ff. ) Cp. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte S. 15 See above on page 113. This section is compiled according to the treatise of Prof. Percy Gardner, The Speeches of St. Paul in Acts in Essays on S Jme Bibitical Questions of the D y by Members of the uiversily of Cambridge ed. by Prof. H. B. S w e t e, London 1909, p. 378–419. See also the corresponding sections in the dissertations of Iv. A. Arobolevsky, The first journey of St. Apostle Paul preaching the Gospel (Acts XIII-XIV), Sergiev Posad 1900; O. D. S. Glagoleva, The Second Great Journey of St. Ap. Pavla, Tula 1893; Hieromonk Gregory (Borisoglebsky), The Third Great Evangelical Journey of St. Ap. Pavla, Sergiev Posad 1892; N. D. Protaslova, St. Al. Paul at the trial of Festus and Agrippa (Acts XXV – XXVI), Moscow 1913. Prof. O. D. I. Bogdashevsky, Experiments in the study of the Holy. Scriptures N. 3., no. II, p. 10 ff. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Ar t. S.80. Prof. Ad. Harnack: Lukas der Arzt,S. 146;Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 74. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 68. Prof. Ad.Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 152: “Lukas ein Meister in der Nachbildung von Stilarten gewesen ist.” Prof. Ad.Harnack, Lukas des Arzt, S. 80 ff. Wed. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 100–102. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 95. Wed. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 102. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 110. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 409: “Die Rede zu Milet ist somit hochst wahrscheinlich eine authentische Rede, soweit von der Authcntie kurzer Referate die Rede sein kann.” Prof. James Moffatt, An Introduction, p. 305: “of the later speeches, that at Miletus is probabby nearest to a summary of the original words of Paul.” Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 109 Anm. 1. See and Prof. Ad. Harnack: Die Aposteigeschichte, S. 181; Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte, S. 58, 60–62 Prof. A d. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 110. See prof. F. I. Mishchenko, Speeches of St. Ap. Peter in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, Kyiv 1907, etc. about this dissertation in the “Theological Bulletin” 1911, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5,7–8, pp. 364–379, 754–771, 221–239, 467–492 “critical remarks” by Prof. M. D. Muretov, as well as his Ancient Hebrew prayers under the name of the Apostle Peter with appendices: about the literary features of the works of Apostle Peter and about the meaning of the term καθολικ ς “, St. Tr. Sergius Lavra 1905. See F.I. Mishchenko, page 349: "We see between the speeches of Apostle Peter in the Acts and his epistles an amazing coincidence in the main points and spirit of teaching. Both in the speeches of the Acts and in the epistles one spirit blows, one direction prevails. Reading the speeches, we find essentially the same views as in the epistles. Only one natural explanation can be given for such a striking similarity in teaching - this is the fact that the author of the messages had to pronounce those speeches that are set out in the Acts. In our opinion, the internal content of the speeches provides convincing evidence that their content belongs to St. Peter. See F.I. Mishchenko, page 350: "In the presentation of the speeches, on the one hand, there are features that are alien to the original style of the Writer, and for the most part correspond to the character of Apostle Peter and sometimes directly repeated in his writings. On the other hand, through all the speeches in equal measure there are turns and expressions that undoubtedly belong to the pen of St. Luke." See Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S. 84,,. See F. I. Mishchenko, pp. 353–354. Especially about it, see the treatise by K. V. Orlov, Speech sz. The First Martyr Stephen: its general character, task and content in the Theological Bulletin, 1900, No. 9 and 10, pp. 1–27, 167 – Ϊ88. Wed. still with Prof. D.I. Bogdashevsky (Archbishop Basil), Experiments in the study of the Holy. Scriptures N. 3., no. II, pp. 15–16. See K.V. Orlov, p. 188. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 109. Prof. James Moffat, An Introduction, p. 606, 631. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 16. Prof. F. I. M. Shchenko, Speech and St. Apostle Peter in the book of Acts, page 305. On the question of the historical authenticity of the book of Acts, see, and "The Church Quarterly Review" LKi, 105 (October 1901), p. 8 sqq. (against Schmiedel'H); LV, 113 (January 1903), pp. 388-405 (about modern modern literature). Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S.205. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S.45. Prof.Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S.41. Prof.Ad. Harnack, Neue Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschihte, S. 80, 1. Sir W. M. Rams, The First Christian Century: Motes on Dr Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (London 1911), p. 143–149. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 9 1 . Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 4, 6. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der Arzt, S 103. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte, S. 224. Prof. Ad. Harnack, Lukas der ftrzt, S. 117. Prof. Fridericus Blass, Acta Apostolorum I, p.13. You might be interested in: