The teaching of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon about divine wisdom or spirit compared to the apostolic

Assumptions about the philosophical origin and nature of this doctrine of pseudo-Solomon - The instability of these hypotheses on the most important points - About the identity of spirit and wisdom and the divine personality of the intended subject - This eliminates the philosophical meaning of the doctrine, as purely biblical in its content - Therefore, on this issue, the book of the Wisdom of Solomon could neither reward Hellenistic concepts nor incline towards them Apostle of tongues. The non-canonical book of the Wisdom of Solomon is brought into consideration of the apostolic gospel because through it St. Paul allegedly became acquainted with the Hellenistic religious elements and, having assimilated them, then turned to Hellenism proper. But consideration of issues regarding cosmology, anthropology and eschatology has not yet confirmed this idea 1. It now remains for us to examine the convergences regarding the doctrine of the “spirit” and life “according to the spirit,” about predestination and paganism, in order - after a general conclusion - to move on to assumptions about Hellenic influences on the Apostle, when in the end his “Gospel” in origin and essence is finally revealed. Analyzing the gospel of St. Paul in comparison with pseudo-Solomon, we found that the Apostle still remains exclusively a servant of the Lord, proclaiming the truth of the great redemptive feat. But this deliverance was necessary for the reason that man is powerless to create his own salvation. At this point, a close consonance with the Jewish author is again revealed, about whom it is commonly thought that he professed “philosophical” helplessness in overcoming dualistic oppositions, irreconcilable and ineradicable by natural human means. Wasn’t the great educator of paganism imbued with the same tendencies here? This question is answered by “genetic” hypotheses regarding the doctrine of the divine spirit. The position and meaning of this point in pseudo-Solomon is completely clear when critically interpreting the book in question. It supposedly preaches the complete powerlessness of the individual in knowing God and, accordingly, doing it due to the predominance of materiality, which completely suppresses the spirit, being originally incompatible with it by nature. But - on the other hand - the Jewish writer fully accepted divine revelation and saw in it an exact revelation of the will of the Almighty, sufficient for knowledge - along with the obligation and accessibility of execution. There was a serious conflict between philosophical premises and theological data. To eliminate it, it was necessary to admit the presence of supermundane energy, which more or less inseparably lives in the chosen “sons of God” (among the people of Israel) and “saves” them from naturalistic squalor. Thus, in a non-canonical document, the concept of “wisdom”, the artist of the cosmos and the educator of people, naturally appeared. This idea was not new to biblical doctrine, but it was put forward according to special doctrinal and theoretical requirements and, when they were satisfied, it had to acquire a similar coloring. Hence it is necessary that when detailed, the whole concept loses its traditional theological identity and dissolves in philosophical elements. It is noted that in the characterization of “Sophia” Platonic and Stoic features merge 2, while others also add the influence of Heraclitus 3. According to the meaning of dependence, St. Paul from pseudo-Solomon, all this passes on to the evangelist and - at least indirectly - affects his Christology 4. By this, the latter significantly renounces its usual ground in the preaching of the Lord the Savior and the confession of the primacy of the Church, but on the other hand, continuity is maintained in the dogmatic development of the Apostle, who, without breaking ties with the Jewish elements, finds in them support and materials for further constructions 5 . Hellenistic elements again penetrate through the non-canonical book, causing a radical transformation in Christological views when combined with judgments about the Spirit. It is clear from everything that these original additions helped to move forward and, serving the future, certainly had to triumph over the old reserves, suppress and displace them irrevocably. This process was fundamentally inevitable and was accompanied by the falling away of the Jewish-Jewish and biblical resources of the apostolic “Gospel”. Therefore, “the faith of the pagan church created by Paul was initially nothing more than Christianized Hellenism, and this is a direct development of pre-Christian Hellenism, which through Paul’s proclamation of Christ received the historical foundations for the formation of (church) society and its liberation from the shackles of national-Jewish positivism” 6. This conclusion, of course, will be logically flawless if 1) the non-canonical monument contains similar doctrines, 2) the Apostle borrows them and applies them according to a critical plan. We will focus our attention on these conditions. By the very intentions of the pseudo-Solomon, wisdom occupies a central position in his creation. However, the Jewish anonymous man appeals in the name of revealed truths and therefore had to draw all his wealth from them. This is stated by everyone in agreement, which is why it is not surprising that scholars of various persuasions see the source of explanations regarding sophia in the Old Testament 7 and - more particularly - in the book of Proverbs 8. Not so in commenting, where opposite trends are already observed. While some consider the concept itself to be originally Jewish 9 and in its development they see elements for the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity 10, while others categorically state that from the Old Testament poetic personification the mysterious sage created an artificial philosophical theory 11. It is natural that several currents are concentrated here. Combining them, the writer gives (VII, 22 ff.) a versatile description of wisdom, but this also reveals the influence of Stoicism, which taught about the multiplicity of attributes in the world soul 12. Therefore, the qualifications themselves are purely Stoic 13 with the assimilation of qualities common to πνεῦμα νοερόν and λόγος σπερματικός 14 . On this path, the author became close to Stoic pneumatism 15 and took advantage of speculations regarding the world spirit and God as an all-pervading and immanent mind 16 . Here not only the terminology of the 17 Stoics, but also the material definitions 18 are similar to them. Differences are also indicated using the concepts of Plato 19 , Heraclitus 20 and Anaxagoras 21 . With all this, the overall flavor will be sharply stoic, 22 and this justifies the corresponding conclusions. Even in well-intentioned interpretations, wisdom is personal, since, not being a person 23, it is nevertheless not a simple property of God and not an independent substance 24, as it is sometimes presented 25. As a result, it retains only the dignity of an inseparable emanation from the divine essence 26 as an expansion or “outpouring” of the latter 27 . With such judgments, Sophia turns out to be a deity poured into the world through his divine energy, which is why in pseudo-Solomon we are obliged to admit a softened Stoic pantheism 28, and this one - according to its nature and origin - contains traces of Stoic materialism 29, expressed in some predicates 30. With its properties, wisdom exhausts all divine effectiveness and, being hypostasized by the power of God 31, is like a “second god” 32. With it, another equal value is unthinkable. And, in fact, the threefold (IX, 1. 2. ХVI, 12. ХVIII, 15 ff.) mention of “logos”, rooted in the Old Testament, is alien to philosophical typicality 33 and does not exceed the dimensions of poetic personification 34 of the omnipotent word of God 35 or reproduces Stoic logology 36 . In the remarks about “spirit” we simply have different names for the common object 37, and it is also outlined in the book of Wisdom 38 in the same way as Sophia. This substantive unity 39 is accompanied by substantive solidarity. It is stipulated that – with Stoic concepts and terms – there are no pantheistic overtones 40, but at the same time it is verified that the “spirit” is both different and inseparable from God, being His breath 41. This coincidence, according to the most important feature, forces us to transfer here all other descriptions of wisdom, since it merges with πνεῦμα when it is equal to πνεῦμα κυρίου and πνεῦμα ἅ γιον 42. Here, moderate exegetes also treat light touches of Stoicism in speech about the spirit, 43 while others discover indelible Stoic features 44 with all the inevitable consequences. The very combination of both concepts is similar to the Stoic confusion of wisdom with divinity as an all-pervading spirit 45 and is equally associated with the communicatio idiomatum. And since the first is revered as a “light outflow from God” 46 and, by its sharply emanatic origin 47, is imprinted by materiality 48 , then the latter is no less affirmed for πνεῦμα 49 , emanatively detached from its original principle, although not to the point of complete independence 50 . Again, a harmonious agreement is obtained, and this helps the correct comprehension of the bearer of all the listed objects. By the entire nature of its relationship between the Creator and the cosmos, this subject is a necessary connection for them, for it is recognized as a soul 51 of the Platonic type 52 and at the same time emanatively generalized with the Almighty. It follows from this that both sides could not otherwise come into contact with each other, and this already shows echoes of metaphysical-ontological dualism 53 with the beginnings of the idea of ​​​​the transcendentality of the deity 54 . Therefore, cosmic existence is not directly obliged to God and arises only through wisdom, for which He is the cause 55 , and the mission of the world organizer falls to the lot of sophia 56 , which plays an active mediating role 57 . In this form, it carries out all the functions of the Logos of ancient Greek philosophy and later Alexandrinism 58 and therefore serves as a historical preliminary and natural preparation for the latter. Thus, according to various motives and influences, wisdom is rewarded with a share of originality necessary for the success of mediation. On this subject we hear only isolated voices that this is a simple figure of living poetic depiction 59 . Most people think quite the opposite. It is believed that personification goes further than bare substantiality 60, since independence is revealed - along with God 61 and for the world 62. Sophia will be, as it were, a personal being 63 with all the properties of personality 64. True, this hypostasis does not reach completeness 65 and has not been molded into a distinct idea of ​​personality 66 . Nevertheless, the peculiarity is accepted with decisiveness 67, and the result will be that the pseudo-Solomon did not bring his development to the level of Philon's δεύτερος θεός 68. Pneumatological contemplations precisely correspond to this observation, for the spirit as a mediator is endowed with the features of personal 69 hypostaticity 70 . As a result, we find for the entire body of data that in the philosophical treatment of the main biblical views 71 the author, evading the latter, approaches the formal hypostasis later proclaimed in Alexandrian logology 72, with which he is extremely closely related 73 in consolidating speculative philosophical concepts with the Old Testament idea of ​​wisdom 74. This point concentrates all the importance of the question taken both for understanding the very object of our speech and for genetic applications to the apostolic gospel. In the first case, the mediating personality supports beliefs in the dualistic premises of the book, which reconciles the original opposites in it. Then the concept itself will be forced theoretically by conditional philosophical needs. This is an artificial dogma, devoid of any real meaning. But St. Paul actually picks up and adapts all these elements, why should we think that with him the second divinity of the supermundane Christ has the equal dignity of doctrinal abstraction without real justification, and all the predicates found necessarily apply to it. For the Jewish writer, the spirit is identified with wisdom 75 and perceives some materiality 76, and therefore it is no less true for the Apostle that he has the Holy Spirit. is not a real personal beginning 77 and coincides with the exalted Christ 78, whose pneumatic divinity will be a completely theoretical fiction, for it does not exceed the level of the philosophical doctrine of the “apocrypha” regarding σοφία - πνεῦμα. If you consider all these diverse aspects, then it will not be difficult to comprehend and agree that everything here is focused on the idea of ​​​​the personal independence of the mediator, as invented for theoretical needs and - therefore - philosophically lifeless in appearance. Without this - with realistic personifications of the properties of God - there are no materials for the doctrine of the second divine hypostasis, and the Hellenic evangelist will appear independent in his Christology, for which new supports and a different understanding of all the details are necessary. In general, the subject of borrowing must be in advance, and for us the whole task comes down to finding whether it is indisputable in a non-canonical monument with all critical typicality. “Genetic” interpreters answer in the affirmative, and in this case the voice of Catholic orthodox-conservative and (partly) Orthodox commentators is for them. The latter state doctrinal progress 79 in the fact that, undergoing Hellenization in verbal expression 80, the Jewish principles are personified with such boldness 81 that wisdom almost ceases to be an attribute of the divine 82 and is “as if a special hypostasis of the Divine” as a “special power different from Him” 83, although it is not completely rejected 84. Others go further and directly find transcendental wisdom 85, which, equated to a deity 86, is no longer a creature 87 and not a simple personification 88, but an absolute hypostasis 89 - second next to God 90. According to the subjective dignity of self-conclusion 91, it is depicted as divinely personal in itself 92 and in its revelation as “word” 93, differing from its objective revelation in the finite world, where it approaches the Stoic Logos 94 and is therefore characterized by Stoic predicates 95. The originality of pseudo-Solomon does not lie at all in the fact that he did not rise to philonic hypostasis, but in his negation and rejection of all created definitions 96 . Thus the mediator turns out to have the characteristics of divinity 97 and will be the forerunner of the New Testament Son of God 98 . From the point of view of Christian dogmatics, such an understanding is quite possible and legitimate, since it is permissible for it to even speak of plurality 99 when faith in the Holy Trinity is professed. However, such a transfer of the later to the earlier is not entirely appropriate, as long as we describe the latter in its true historical outlines and in all the darkness, not yet dissipated by the illumination of the implementation, before which even much of what later became irresistible for everyone was not foreseen... The main thing for our special purposes is that this technique is far from being in genetic interests, imbued with reverse aspirations to explain the latest from the previous. Here everything is directed towards an independent depiction of the second, with strict compliance of the content with the conditions of origin. Here the emergence is motivated by the need for reconciliation between ontological extremes. And if this is fulfilled perfectly by wisdom, then with it another similar value is impermissible due to its very excess. This is where speculation about the spirit is important. For him, it is sometimes assumed that he is parallel and, as it were, independent on a par with Sophia 100, but then he will have neither a reason nor a goal for being itself. Hence, it is natural that in critical interpretations of a non-canonical book the identity of wisdom and spirit 101 is categorically affirmed with the assimilation of this understanding to the Apostle Paul 102, which was supposedly generally determined by the pneumatology of apocryphal writing 103. Critical calculations are saved, and yet the very accuracy shows that in them all the parts fit together. This does not speak about the objectivism of impartiality and makes us guess about other stretches of the interpretation being analyzed, in which the spirit is suppressed by wisdom, not without the desire to akin these concepts to Philon’s theory, where the first is almost completely unnoticeable and is completely absorbed by the Logos. All these observations oblige us to strictly consider the actual facts. In them, sometimes wisdom and the Holy Spirit of God are put forward in the equal dignity of mutually replacing designations (Prov. Sol. IX, 16), - only both of them are united not in themselves, but according to their source in the sending down from God and in this respect are identical with each other, like two reflections that agreeably reveal before our eyes the radiance of the unapproachable sun from different sides. This means that this community indicates only the inseparable combination of all qualities, without merging them with each other. Naturally, pseudo-Solomon calls the enlightening divine wisdom (IX, 10) not just spirit, but the spirit of wisdom (VII, 7) - to express its special property in rationality (διὰ τοῦτο εὐξάμην, καὶ φρόνησις ἐδόθη μοι ἐπεκαλεσάμην , καὶ ἦ λθέν μοι πνεῦμ a σ o φίας ). Therefore, πνεῦμα does not cover σοφία in its entirety and is for her (I, 4-6) the holy spirit of education (ἅ γιον πνεῦμα παιδείας) and love for mankind ( φιλάνθρωπον πνεῦμα σοφία), which is inherent in her nature (according to var. lect. φιλ . πν . σοφίας, lat. benignus est enim spiritus sapientiae). Consequently, wisdom simply contains some properties of pneumaticity, which does not disappear in it without a trace. Now the converse also necessarily follows, that wisdom is not absolutely adequate to the spirit and does not exhaust its entirety. And we read that “in wisdom there is a spirit” (VII, 22: ἔστιν ἐν αὐτ ῇ – σοφία – πνεῦμα κτλ, Latin est enim in illaus intellectus – intelligentiae)‚ which through this is included in the scope of the first only partly, which is why a little lower wisdom is directly mentioned (VII, 24) due to the peculiarity of its own being. They usually refer to the variant (ἔστιν) αὐτή or α ὕ τη (σοφία) πνεῦμα and in its tone comment on the main reading 104, but in fact even now everything is resolved by the same result. If we look closely at the structure of the phrase, we will see that it states the equality of wisdom with the spirit only with its known definitions, according to which it is likened to sophia, without being it in the totality of its merits. And as soon as the enumeration captures the entire mass of pneumatic traits, then we will have to accept that wisdom, having still new specific attributes, is richer than the spirit and again differs from it. In all these points, the difference is quite characteristic - and the defenders of the opposing view themselves do not hide the fact that pseudo-Solomon, speaking about the incorruptible Spirit of God abiding in everything (CP, 1), distinguishes it from wisdom according to the reflex of his primordial Jewish religious contemplation 105. In this case, we do not have the right to encroach on the author’s beliefs and smooth them out according to our own considerations. Some difference in spirit and wisdom will be undeniable. But along with it, their close solidarity is no less undeniable, and in wisdom there is a spirit, and wisdom is inseparable from the spirit, for πνεῦμα σοφίας (VII, 7) is not genitivus appositionis, where the appended more precisely designates the same object, as precisely such (πνεῦμα σοφία ). This guess is not confirmed by the 106 parallel mention of (1, 5) πνεῦμα παιδείας, since it has an irresistible qualifying energy, which in a similar saying emphasizes that wisdom is characteristic of the spirit. This interweaving of two dissimilar currents - separation and fusion - is extremely important and helps to accurately understand both factors. Their relationships, disparate almost to the point of exclusivity, are revealed satisfactorily only on the assumption that they themselves are identical in their source and differ only in the reproduction in themselves of its special manifestations. It is natural that in their carrier the latter are combined and therefore can be equalized and replaced in a solidary witness to the incarnating principle, in which the power of God is spiritual (XI, 21: λικμηθέντες ὑπὸ πνεύματος δονάμεώς σου). In turn, it is equally true that reflections of different sides, without connection with their subject, are certainly separate, revealing different aspects to the perceiving subject. Subsequently, it turns out that this isolation does not have an independent ontological support, since each member of the pair draws its existence from its own object and, when separated from it, cannot exist in the same way as a ray disappears when the sun disappears. This directly suggests that the personality of a literary image does not exceed the dimensions of poetic personification and does not in the least speak about an individual personality, even if vaguely depicted by the author. For πνεῦμα, which sometimes appears with characteristic hypostaticism (Pr. S. I, 7), this is sufficiently illustrated by the quoted example (VII, 7), in which the “spirit of wisdom” sent down from above (πνεῦμα σοφίας) is identified with the divinely enlightened human mind (φρόνησις). This means that in pseudo-Solomon the spirit does not turn out to be strictly personal even by design itself - and this is quite natural for Jewish religious contemplation 107 in the pre-Grace era 108 . In this case, the universally accepted affinity of pneumaticity with wisdom involuntarily inclines to an equal judgment about the second. What do the closest qualifications give on this issue? They are collected in abundance with a detailed description (VII, 22 ff.) of the wise artist of everything and, apparently, are designed for absolute comprehensiveness. Here Sophia appears to be the true teacher of humanity in everything hidden and clear, and the basis for this is that she has a spiritual nature (VII, 23:... ἔστιν γὰρ ἐν αὐτ ῇ πνεῦμα κτλ.) with all its most important properties. The latter provide her with the perfect fulfillment of her educational mission, however, under the condition of communication with her, when her spirit penetrates into all intelligent, pure, subtle spirits (VII, 23:... νοερῶν καθαρῶν λεπτοτάτων).In this case, wisdom will be in line with others, which will assimilate three of its own predicates and even with strengthening (cf. VII, 22: πν . νοερόν ... λεπτόν . 23:... διὰ τὴν καθαρότητα ). That’s why the whole difference between them is more power-like or quantitative than qualitative-essential. And about the second group there can hardly be any doubt that it simply assumes minds capable and worthy of divine illumination. This is indisputable by the very mixture of signs of pneumaticity, since in wisdom itself they mark certain qualities and do not at all indicate personalities. Otherwise, we would get the extremely strange idea that personal sophia contains many individualities. And since this is in every possible way impossible and unnatural, then the “spirits” will be simple personifications of intellectual and moral human differences, which are mentioned (VII, 27) with expressiveness that wisdom, passing from generation to generation into holy souls (εῖς ψθχὰς ὁσίας), prepares friends of God and prophets, and for the soul the evil one is inaccessible (I, 4). With this understanding, we will have to accept that - due to its complete congeniality with personifications - wisdom itself does not emerge from the boundaries of living poetic hypostasis. However, this does not at all resolve it into mere abstraction, since by the meaning of the rapprochement itself it turns out to be the inseparable and always effective power of the all-wise God. In the meantime, the personality is not found, and further enumeration does not provide it, for here its insight is causally motivated in sophia by reference to the purest natural mobility (VII, 24: σοφία), which is justified by natural purity as the purest divine outpouring (VII, 25: ἀτμὶς γὰρ ἐστιν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως), which wisdom is in the dignity of the bright radiation of eternal light (VII, 26: ἀπαύγασμα γὰρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου). This sequential selection of images is connected by mutually subordinating γὰρ and through them all its members converge to their starting point in revealing and substantiating in wisdom its everywhere penetrating pneumaticity, with which all its typical features necessarily and completely share, since they characterize them. But according to this pneumatic insight, wisdom in no way appears to us as a person and therefore can be even less such according to other predicates that describe an already personified property. And no matter how high the plasticity of this most relief delineation, where the author exhausts all the colors to bring his figure to life as much as possible, - with all this, we do not have strong exegetical urges to see a person in her until it is convincingly argued that the object of this characteristic is personal - in the “spirit” of wisdom. The second leads to the opposite, which is why the first will be a corresponding personification that does not directly testify to the existence of its own hypostasis. This is also supported by the final result, in which wisdom, in its superiority, is opposed to malice (VII, 30; σοφίας δὲ οὐκ ἀντισχύει κακία), and the latter is never declared personal, even if it refers to the personal culprit in the devil 109. So far we have not gone beyond personifications. What do the numerous other qualifications say? In them, wisdom determines the competence of knowledge and states its actual saving power among people based on historical examples. On the authority side, its advantages are unshakable. She dwells in holy heaven at the throne of the glory of God (IX, 10), sits on the throne of God (IX, 4) and is, as it were, the Lord’s cohabitant (VIII, 3). With such intimacy, she is inseparable from the Almighty, actively participates in all His functions and knows everything. She is with God, understands His works and was present at the very creation of the world (IX, 9). In this title, wisdom is naturally initiated into all the secrets of the mind of God and, in the conceived divine plans, chooses the best for implementation (VIII, 4) 110, serving as a mediator of fulfillment (IX, 1) in the cosmic dispensation (VII, 21), which incomparably exceeds all human art (VIII, 6). All this certainly protects the prerogatives under discussion, but only because wisdom is close to the Almighty. All the gravity of pseudo-Solomon's considerations is directed towards protecting this continuity, which provides such exceptional awareness. This tendency already does not favor the hypothesis of termination, which is alien and, perhaps, hostile to the special author’s intentions. And if we weigh all the particular predicates in all their energy, then Sophia will appear before us only as the wisdom of God and will merge with God in integral individuality. Any attempts at disunity will lead to the fact that, despite its divine advantages, it would displace the deity itself. Thus, being the mystery of the divine mind, wisdom is αἰρετίς τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ (τοῦ θεοῦ: VIII, 4). This is not at all a simple meeting 111, but Sophia takes on the high role of independently implementing divine projects, among which she evaluates the degree of suitability 112. It is clear that with a personal interpretation, the actively active divinity suppresses and obscures the ideally inventive one, turning it into an abstraction, when once again the only wise God remains. Consequently: if the tendency of the entire description is not in harmony with the bifurcation, then realistic details, which do not allow a strictly literal understanding, do not affirm it. In them we should see the poetic plasticity of a living image of the living power of God. This is undoubtedly due to their clearly improper application to various objects. Thus, wisdom “has cohabitation with God” (VIII, 3), but Solomon “decided to take her into cohabitation” (VIII, 9); the second does not presuppose personality, and therefore the first does not clearly testify to it. This means that in this group it is impossible to see direct evidence in favor of a special individuality precisely because of their sharp hypostaticism, almost tilting towards bigism with the absorption of God in His wisdom. It goes without saying that for the Judeo-Biblical thinking of the anonymous writer, the completely opposite was more dogmatically reliable 113 . This also illuminates references to the facts of discovery in history. Here, wisdom has been a divine savior for the chosen ones since the fall of Adam (X, 1 ff.), has always been a blessing in his righteous descendants and especially patronized the people of God when she delivered them from oppression, resisted kings with wonders and signs, was a cover during the day and replaced the starry body at night, carried them through the Red Sea, drowning their enemies, and throwing them out of the abyss, etc. Reader New Testament books at the same time involuntarily recalls the corresponding concepts regarding the providential actions of the divine Son and in this insight considers similar speculations of the distant past. But through this, the natural gradualness in the revelation of the mysteries of God is disrupted. Here an objective judgment must prevail, which, recognizing the factual identity of the phenomenon, considers each stage of its discovery among people in a given historical perspective. From this point of view, the pseudo-Solomon picture takes on a slightly different character. Her supreme figure is truly full of inexhaustible vitality with all the prerogatives of divine individuality. Wisdom is imbued with divine greatness and functions with the autonomous authority of the arbiter of the destinies of the world along with God (cf. X, 5... ἄμεμπτον θεῷ). Jehovah Himself seems to fade away before her, almost to the point of disappearing, because Sophia stands up for the Almighty in all His incomparability. Then we will have that with wisdom there is no longer room for God, and since this is absurd, it is clear that here is the Lord before us, wisely ruling the universe and all its currents. Such an observation is also justified exegetically by textual evidence. The guidance of the Jews freed from captivity is completely assimilated by wisdom, and by the hand of the holy prophet it arranges their affairs in reaching the Promised Land (XI, 1 ff.) along the entire wondrous path, covering the heat of the day and dispelling the darkness of the night (X, 17). Naturally, in the narrative itself, her name is still expected, meanwhile it suddenly disappears completely, and the actual mover is called the Almighty, for He gives water (XI, 8 ff.), punishes the wicked, has mercy on the repentant and settles His chosen ones in the intended destiny, having destroyed the former inhabitants (XII, 6 ff.). During this period, in the story of pseudo-Solomon, we find a completely opposite property, that God completely abolishes wisdom, which had dominated hitherto with no less singularity. This mutual exclusion in equal dignity and in the general sphere of implementation of the adopted plan irresistibly convinces us that we are faced with the same subject. And such was, of course, God, and for Him wisdom will only be a corresponding revelation of why its hypostasis turns out to be a literary personification according to the fundamental religious confessions of the author. This result is consistent with previously obtained data and is justified by other approaches. Even the relief of the image refers to them, as if necessarily suggesting personal strength. Here it is important to highlight that such features in the book being analyzed are not only wisdom. We mean the initial episode of the glorious deliverance of the Jewish people in the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt. At this time, “Thy almighty word (God) descended from heaven from the royal thrones to the middle of the pernicious earth, like a formidable warrior. It carried a sharp sword - Your unchangeable command and, having become, filled everything with death; it touched the sky and walked on the earth” (XVII, 15.16). This description is hardly inferior in plasticity to messages about wisdom and with compressed energy boldly sketches a portrait of individualistic distinctness. This “word” is God’s and divine, although it does not merge with the Lord. On the other hand, it is not a simple personification of the will of God, because it was the bearer and executor of its terrible definition. In all this, the exact parallelism with the data about Sophia is indisputable. But there are few scholars who understand a personal logos in the quoted passage, and these rare commentators start from a previously formulated conviction in the personality of wisdom and apply it to the “word” in identity with the latter 114. In the question of the nature of Sophia itself, such argumentation is certainly unsuitable and fictitious. Undoubtedly for everyone, nothing more than that the “word” comes forward in the role and area where wisdom was dominant. Hence it is true to the point of immutability that now this wisdom appears under the form of the “word”, since at this moment it completely absorbs it. Therefore, to comprehend the first, we must find out independently what this “logos” itself is? He is called the savior of the Israelites wounded by snakes, for “it was not grass or plaster that healed them, but your all-healing word, O Lord” (XVI, 12: ... ἰώμενος ). We think no one will object that the closest thing is to understand this news in the sense of a divine signal (cf. Ps. CVI, 20). And such a direct understanding of the reader is strongly supported by the very connection of speech, where the commentary given is ensured by the fact that God “has the power of life and death, brings down to the gates of hell and raises up” (XVI, 13). From here it necessarily and inevitably follows that in the present case everything was arranged by His life-giving power, which, with personal isolation, would with equal activity take away all this energy from the source. If this is not permissible, then the result will be the personification of the all-conquering and regenerating effectiveness of God. This property appears even more directly in the third mention that God created everything with His “word” (IX, 1: ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγ ῳ σου). Here it was difficult for the author to accept an original personality simply because, next to “logos,” wisdom is also called the organizer of man (IX, 2). It goes without saying that pseudo-Solomon absolutely could not accept two homogeneous creative agents, and they would be dual designations of a single creative principle, and such was the Almighty (XI, 18, etc.). In relation to Him, the “word” will be similar to its position among people for whom it is a spark in the movement of the heart (II, 2). When applied to the creation of the world, this imagery was all the more legitimate because it flawlessly expressed the biblical teaching about the universe according to the wise command of God. The only obligatory premise here is that “logos” characterizes only the latter 115, and by identity with it, wisdom serves as a revelation of this all-encompassing subject 116. At the end of all the research, the previous thesis is formulated that in pseudo-Solomon sophia does not bear the typical properties of strict personality and - together with the “spirit” and “word” that replace it - is more like poetic individualization 117. For this reason, we return to the starting point of our analysis with the exegetical result that, according to the classical list (VII, 22 ff.) of all the qualities of wisdom, one cannot categorically conclude that the anonymous person himself saw a person in her. Taken together with other observations, this leads to the conviction that it is doubtful that the Jewish writer allowed for a special divine person. This conclusion is also protected by some side considerations. There are two of them, and both of them are based on the ambiguity of the numerous predicates given in the book from the point of view of their own nature. Here, first of all, the gloominess of the idea of ​​​​their true bearer is born. Wisdom is usually considered as such, since all efforts of literary plasticity are devoted to it. With all this, in the foreground of the entire picture the figure of the spirit stands out so clearly that it is possible to recognize it as the center and final point of the entire image. And, indeed, some commentators find in the words analyzed “a clear indication of the New Testament teaching about the Trinity,” but at the same time they state that the whole coloring of the sayings is more suitable for the Holy Spirit than for the Son 118. We do not say that this hypothesis is true, and we know that it is associated with the vagueness and even eccentricity of fundamental beliefs about the subject being treated 119. What is important for us is that such different interpretations are conceivable regarding the object understood by pseudo-Solomon. If the latter were clear to the writer’s consciousness and depicted in the form of a typical individuality, then its special features would certainly be minted in literary reproduction with sufficient specificity, characteristic only of one specific individual, even if not fully comprehended. In any case, one cannot expect that the author would not be able to express that he thinks of a certain personality, since she was before his eyes. Then there would be no room for disagreement about the essence of genuine contemplation, given the legitimacy of disparate opinions in assessment. Meanwhile, we encounter something completely opposite, and therefore we must think that the mysterious anonymous person did not have a clear personal image in front of him, since this is not found in his description. At the same time, it is quite natural that the vagueness of the concept is accompanied by confusion in the qualifications themselves. Here is the second remarkable property of the abstract in question. In it we are directly struck by the accumulation of a whole mass of predicates, and it is difficult to find even an approximate classification for them. Defenders of personal understanding offer a general distinction, supposedly “next to the subjective-divine Wisdom” they also talk about “another cosmic Wisdom, acting and revealing itself in the created-objective world as intelligence and power immanent to it” 120. Justifications for such confusion are also presented - in the very nature of the subject, which in relation to God can be viewed from different sides of its display, from which the obligation for the exegete is derived to strictly sort all attributes according to their dignity 121. All these arguments do not achieve their goal and rather deviate from it. We agree that pseudo-Solomon testifies to the eternal and created wisdom. It is indisputable for everyone that the scale for this division is the actual chronological moment, inseparable from the consolidation of the corresponding advantages. This does not in the least concern the question of personality, and the personality of created wisdom is acceptable with equal plausibility. Consequently, the chronological-ontological point of view did not at all authorize the introduction of predicates on hypostatic properties, why their appearance would be unconditionally incomprehensible, and then individuality turns out to be doubtful for the entire set of qualifications. In turn, personality does not contain chronological elements in itself, and the introduction of the latter is not naturally caused by speech about the person as such, because it can be both beginningless and finite. For this reason, leaps from individualistic to chronological characteristics become unmotivated, inseparable from the weighing of the merits themselves. All these considerations indicate that the hypothetical confusion of predicates is almost incredible, since there was no objective support for combining them and for a free transition from one to another, since divinity did not raise questions about hypostaticity, and this did not directly contain chronological postulates. Therefore, thinking about the divine hypostasis, the author was deprived of any reason to depict it as impersonal and merge it with the created, for this would be a completely different subject. Personality is not really impersonal and cannot be described as such, or we are forced to accept that it was not presented with a distinct personality at all. But if, in an objective sense, living and unexpected transitions among disparate definitions are absolutely not justified, then there will be no solid ground for their corresponding understanding. Hence the inevitable and irremovable instability of all constructions. For example, created-objective wisdom is assumed 122 in references to its mobility, penetration and prophetic enlightenment (VIII, 23. 24. 27). In this form, cosmic sophia, crashing abruptly into the worldly sphere, would in turn be supplanted by the second and then move forward again with the same energy. It hardly needs to be said that such an interweaving would be simply strange, creating a decisive confusion, which the writer could not allow if he himself did not suffer from confusion. Under these conditions, the commentator has no objective criterion for impartial exegesis, and everything will depend on the subjective assessment of the terms used. Naturally, purely secondary tendencies play a large part in this, inclining even one scientist to different views. It is suggested to us that the three above-mentioned signs of wisdom assimilate the qualities of the Stoic νοῦς into the dignity of immanent cosmic rationality. Elsewhere on this point it is categorically stated that “there are no serious reasons to see here an indication of the divine mind immanent to the world in the Stoic-pantheistic sense; It is more consistent with Old Testament views to understand here the presence of Sophia is not substantial, but only effective, in the sense of the biblical teaching about the omnipresence of the Divine and the New Testament about the presence of the Logos in the world (John I, 10)” 123. Such vacillation of interpretation clearly illustrates the instability of the concept itself, and this would be impossible with a more or less clear conviction in the personal typicality of wisdom. This forces the assumption of its impersonality, when it will be a property of God, wise in Himself and in all His discoveries. This understanding, being natural and normal, easily eliminates all mysteries and dispels puzzling nebulae. Personal representation turns out to be quite natural if only the personal Jehovah acts everywhere and all fragmented reflections are reduced to Him, behind which the divine hypostasis necessarily shines through. But along with this, wisdom is actually not personal and is unlimited within the deity, and in the cosmic sphere it manifests itself in the forms of finite existence 124. In this view, everything is harmoniously coherent and logical, because it characterizes the general force by its source and carrier, by qualities and dignity, by activity and particular actions. Along with the negation of personalistic judgment - in the end of everything - we also acquire a positive coverage of the subject, as not hypostatic for the religious contemplation of the Jewish author. This fundamentally protects opinions in favor of literary and poetic personification, which was appropriate and achieved special liveliness by attention to the person, who held energy at all stages and in all respects. The entire totality of the obtained data inevitably leads to the summary conclusion that textual grounds do not allow us to assert that - the under-legal son of the old covenant - pseudo-Solomon proclaimed the hypostatic distinction in the deity and accurately separated wisdom from the Lord Almighty 125. The facts on this score are so solid and indisputable that with all the efforts to separate, we have to state “inaccuracies” that are irreconcilable with the isolation of wisdom from Jehovah 126, since she, being the organizer of everything (VII, 21 and cf. VIII, 6; VIII, 5), then turns out to be simply co-present with God during the Creation of the World (IX, 9). Now we have a strong exegetical thesis that the analyzed non-canonical book personifies divine wisdom, remaining below the norm, where there would already be a hypostatic nature of the copy, identical to the original. Along with this, the most important conclusion is that the motivation, support and material for the undeniably high and plastic personification are drawn entirely from the very real object, which forced it to be described with individualistic relief, although it was not clearly comprehended by its strictly personal typicality. Both of these points are valuable in themselves and are extremely important for further research into the origin and intrinsic nature of the concept being interpreted. If in it the essential connection of the natural inseparability of wisdom with God is more likely and more consolidated and the former abides in all created things, then, obviously, there is no primordial dualistic duality, when matter is an independent principle and does not have direct contact with the deity. In turn, the rapprochement and merging of sophia with pneumaticity does not allow us to talk about the dualistic adversativity of spirit and materiality 127. Given the truth of all this, we must accept that the author personifies not at all out of the interests of reconciling incompatible extremes, which is why his speculation does not at all imply dualistic principles and - therefore - does not reflect them at all. At this point, we must return to our ontological-cosmological observations and, confirming them with independent data of a different order, we again draw new support here. It is usually stated that pseudo-Solomon professed metaphysical-anthropological dualism, in which God’s own influence on the material substrate is impossible, and the peacemaking process requires outside reconciling participation. But for the very success of such a mission, it is imperative that this agent separates himself from both sides and does not blur between them. This inevitably creates a bias towards a personal image, which is both a necessary satisfaction and factual evidence for dualistic premises. One here is inseparable from the other. We previously did not find the original dualistic duality, but now, in accordance with this result, it is revealed that there is no mediation with the dualistic character of the unifying personality, since everywhere the personification of the power of God appears before us, permeating the entire universe with inseparability from the Lord 128 . This harmonious solidarity is the highest justification, which, being true in general, also warns for a particular case that we should not look for dualistic preliminaries for it and adjust to them. And contrary to philosophical interpretations, it is reasonably stated that “in our book there is not the slightest hint of the metaphysical necessity of the mediating role of Sophia-Logos between the abstract-without-predicate Deity and the individual-concrete realm of existence” 129. This is undoubtedly the doctrine of creation by God Himself, where it cannot be argued that the Lord is not accurately called instead of wisdom, since for any interpretation it remains an axiom that it is the second that is substituted, at least in the form of individualistic detachment. This means that in all respects it is quite indisputable that the non-canonical document does not put forward its concept for the sake of the theoretical needs of a philosophical-religious structure in which the desired unity would not be achieved. Then it directly follows that this is not an artificial concept of subjective ingenuity, not the fruit of logical operations without a factual lining, but - in the eyes of the author - the living energy of its own divine effectiveness was reproduced in it. Pseudo-Solomon mentions it only because he is convinced of its real existence. The origin of an idea will be objective and it will accordingly be imprinted on its nature only in its characteristic typicality. Thus we come to consider the predicates of wisdom. If it is not attracted for stoic-pantheistic needs, then we are deprived of any reason to comment on it in such a tone, and attempts of this kind will be a tendentious imposition of the unrelated. The refined terminology of qualifications with its school-philosophical overtones is considered a sharp denunciation of our views. On this subject, conservative exegetes admit 130 that, building on the basis of Old Testament images, the mysterious preacher adhered to them in his very hypostasis 131 . However, the literary depiction rather says that the biblical principles involved are processed philosophically in the spirit of logology 132, which is why, even seeing here a theological doctrine, they liken wisdom to the Stoic logos 133 or the world soul 134. Given such difficulties, the hypothesis that the Stoic-pantheistic definitions relate exclusively to the cosmic revelation of the deity 135 when it penetrates and animates everything immanently, combining in itself the Stoic-pantheistic descriptions, seems much happier. The entire commentary is conducted in this tone, without any considerations with philosophical echoes in the speech about the pre-eternal Sophia 136. In our opinion, this method does not have an unshakable exegetical support. He is not at all favored by the irresistible fact that the very distinction in wisdom is not marked by the non-canonical book with even approximate clarity. Naturally, it would be even less legitimate to classify by scale, the existence of which is quite doubtful. It is not surprising that sustainable strength cannot be achieved along this path. And we know that, for example, purity is adopted by both forms (VII, 22. 25 and cf. 23 fin. 24) without any difference, but the same is true for the epithet φιλάνθρωπος (VII, 23 init‚ I, 8), which is then applied to the righteous (XII, 19), and it is taken from Stoic Vocabulary 137. Then, the philosophical imprint in the accepted two groups of predicates is certainly equal in brightness of color, for the latter is strictly individual everywhere and does not blur into abstract pointlessness. We must agree without any subterfuge that the vocabulary of pseudo-Solomon is clearly philosophical in its entire enumeration of the properties of wisdom 138 . Denial of this comes up against the deadly sharpness of all exegetical and philological information and, without yielding fruitful results, discredits biblical apologetics itself. It must be admitted that Sophia appears to us in a stoic-pantheistic attire. Given its origin from dualistic demands, it naturally follows that this is a pantheistic-Stoic speculation. This is not given directly at all if the concept arises independently of such precedents. Then it is equally possible that it absorbs the intelligible qualifications without being exhausted in the least by them, and therefore will be superior to them in its dignity. This is precisely the case under consideration. For him we recognized that the Lord is conceived in him in the essential wisdom of his nature and all manifestations. But it is hardly plausible that the author, imbued with biblical contemplations and appealing with them against rational human wisdom, decided to imagine and depict stoically and pantheistically the God of Israel himself. And in fact, in him we see that everything comes down to divine wisdom, which - therefore - penetrates all being and serves as an eternally animating spirit for everything. It is clear that in this capacity it perceives pantheistic omnipresence and is described in the appropriate language, but according to the source of its energy it assumes an extra-cosmic divinity, separate from the world as a created thing, why this wisdom will not be pantheistic, since its divinity does not dissolve in phenomenality and is concentrated beyond the boundaries of everything that happens. On the other hand, creating everything and controlling everything vitally, Sophia has all the attributes of the Stoic Logos, for it is the animating rational force of the universe. Naturally, here the author uses the Stoic vocabulary. With all this, his “spirit” is not limited to cosmic finitude and enters it only through its effectiveness according to the benevolent spiritual energy of the Supreme God. For this reason, wisdom will not be at all stoic as a divinely cosmic vivifying principle. As a result, it turns out that Sophia - according to the view of pseudo-Solomon - perfectly possesses those properties that were proclaimed with partisan extremes by stoicism and pantheism. Therefore, it is normal and fair that these relations are marked by terms developed in these schools and inevitable in the literary circulation of the speech of that time. Along with this, it is equally true that this did not at all embrace the entire wealth of the subject, who was only a bearer of these qualifications, without identifying with them. It certainly surpasses philosophical speculation, and therefore private reflections are not akin to them in nature. Such a conclusion is logically obligatory and from its principle it necessarily perceives its reality, which is alien to philosophical and theoretical abstraction. This is illustrated by a detailed analysis of some rapprochements. Of these, emanative materialism 139 is especially suitable here. Under dualistic premises it cannot be eliminated. They state the mediation of two incompatible adversativities that are united in this petition. The latter turns out to be the center of mutual communication of natures, each of which is imbued with an opposite character. since all this is allowed for the genesis of phenomenal cosmicity, as an indisputable reality, then divine pneumaticity turns into an abstraction and in fact becomes an immanently omnipresent cosmic mind. In fact, it turns out that in these systems we have only the materialization of spirituality, although the spiritualization of materiality is also refined materialism. At the same time, the very adversativity of the deity to the material substrate forces the doctrine that the former draws closer involuntarily - through mechanical rejection and uncontrollable “outflow” from his being. The very harmony of such a course of consideration convinces of its inseparability from the conditioning dogmatic preliminaries, but pseudo-Solomon did not have them, which makes it clear that he could not accept unmotivated conclusions. And we know that his wisdom, being in the material world, lives in it only by divine activity, but with its being it directly rests in God, from Whom it completely borrows its nature. Given its materiality, it would turn out that the Lord himself is material, however, this is in every possible way absurd and is not at all emphasized in the monument under consideration, where the critics themselves are trying to discover completely opposite tendencies towards the spiritualistic self-conclusion of Jehovah. Then sophia in the eyes of the author will be immaterial 140, and for it an emanative origin is unthinkable, 141 especially since it always remains substantially in God. This example clearly demonstrates that the Stoic-pantheistic predicates do not at all say that the Jewish writer’s idea of ​​wisdom was evoked by these philosophical postulates and was adequate to them in nature. She herself does not have the school-philosophical spirit in herself and, of course, cannot communicate it to others. Here we necessarily come to genetic convergences and acquire solid ground for their objective assessment in application to the question of the dependence of the Christological contemplations of the Apostle of Tongues on purely Hellenic speculations. The first, immediate and most important thing is clear in its inevitability that St. Paul could not borrow what was not in the source itself, and at this point the invasion of the Hellenic elements is simply incredible. But since such conditions are required for the consistency of the genetic process, then it turns out that knowledge of this manual in its true dimensions and qualities would not give it its own Christological concepts. This second thesis is actually supported by observations regarding the personality of Sophia. We think about her that she was not imagined by the writer and is not his personality. Such a conclusion is justified by the fact that otherwise “spirit” and “word” would claim this with no less justification, for they are individualized in quite the same way. However, the trinity of mediators is unacceptable for the very task of reconciliation and their common goal shows that all of them separately are not suitable for it in the role of original agents and must merge with each other with the loss of personal claims in the dignity of the energy of God. All predicates that presuppose precisely divine power in its many different manifestations also tend towards this result. The liveliness and plasticity of the image relate specifically to the personal culprit in God and do not authorize us beyond the fact that pseudo-Solomon was approaching hypostasis 142 and in this sense served as a precondition for later theological development in the theoretical treatment of the subject under discussion 143 With all this, this is not yet an indisputable personality. In this case, it does not immediately seem quite plausible that the Apostle would make of her a premium, typical hypostasis and through her turn the historical Jesus into the pre-eternal Logos, the Son of God. Here there would be much more in the conclusion than in the premises, where exactly the asserted result is not contained. We do not argue that - when used personally - the analyzed predicates were colored with personal shades and became personal evidence. For this reason, it is completely normal that after such an application and in the light of it, they already related to the personal principle, which was later historically revealed in Christ 144. From this side, it is natural and legal that in the wisdom of the non-canonical book of St. Paul would have envisioned a personal divine intercessor with all the benefits of natural sonship with God. This is true for us with all indisputability, but we emphasize and defend only that such personal clarity was completely inaccessible to the Jewish author and is not expressed in his abstract. Then the apostolic personal exegesis will say that in it the past is explained from the present, and the personal Redeemer of history attracts to himself the weak rays of His scattered radiance, illuminating them with his personal individuality. Here the evangelist himself brings in his own independent understanding and, of course, cannot take it from the object of his own commentary. The opposite is absolutely incredible, and this is what genetic interpretations require. They accept that the personal Old Testament Jewish concept elevated Jesus the Redeemer to the degree of beginningless divinity and led to the creation of a second divine hypostasis, which was neither in Christ, nor in reality, or was no more than in theoretical theological speculations. In fact, we see something completely opposite: in a utilized source, the personal idea does not stand out in relief and receives its certainty from a previously known and recognized divine personality. Therefore, St. Paul does not borrow, but rewards from the fullness of his knowledge, which illuminates all the gloomy fortune-telling and foretellings of providential propaedeutics. Now we have that the concept of the pre-eternal spiritual-divine singularity of Christ was not drawn from a non-canonical document and therefore does not owe it the most particular predicates, like them, and is not located in the school-philosophical extreme of pantheism or stoicism. In this sense, Apostolic Christology, neither by nature nor by properties, is conditioned in its origin by the views of pseudo-Solomon and does not receive from him Hellenic-philosophical influences that would be accompanied by the transformation of all primordial Christian dogma in the Hellenistic spirit. Therefore, interpretations of this kind are doomed in advance to the sad fate of arbitrary interpretations and do not meet with real support. This fundamentally determines the fate of genetic comparisons, where the original transformations of the supposed Hellenic invasion are noted. Modifications of apostolic Christology, when fertilized by Hellenic-philosophical elements, are determined by criticism from the essence of the latter and from this side they develop logically and are easily guessed. The point of departure will again be metaphysical-ontological dualism. With it, a person, due to his carnality and the sinfulness that is inseparable from it, is in a break with the deity and is alien to any natural communion with him. And since this state is rooted in the very nature of everyone, then no one can live and behave like God. If something else is actually observed and proclaimed, this thereby expresses that a higher intervention is recognized, which must be continuous in the case of continuity and normality of the spiritualized moral flow. Assimilating such an influence to the regenerating Christ, the Apostle of the tongues was forced to think of the Lord as immanent in all who have been blessed. Here St. Paul supposedly uses, through the Book of Wisdom, the stoic-pantheistic concept of omnipresent and all-pervading energy 145. At the same time, it is obvious that the latter acts revitalizing only due to its opposition to material inertia, into which it pours its share of morally functioning activity, which is why it is strictly pneumatic. Accordingly, Christ will be a completely spiritual subject and will be united to the point of indifference with the Holy Spirit. These are two truths that are attributed to the Hellenistic renunciation through the medium of pseudo-Solomon. Their originality and Hellenistic physiognomy are explained from the nearest details. In genetic interpretations it is stated that “man by nature is simply a rational soul without a spirit, at the same time burdened with the burden of a sensory body and therefore incapable of comprehending the divine and doing good, if it were not given from above the animating power of the Holy Spirit. But how can this animating power be available to humanity? Hellenism did not give an answer to this question - parallel to the fact that for Pharisaism another question about how the Jews could achieve righteousness worthy of the Kingdom of the Messiah was impossible. And just as the last (question) for the Christian Paul was resolved by the propitiatory death on the cross of the Messiah Jesus, so the first was illuminated through the resurrection of the Messiah Jesus. In it, the second Adam appeared and acted as a “vivifying spirit,” for which he was created from the beginning (1 Cor. XV, 45). Through this, a new vital force was revealed to humanity, which frees everyone who perceives it in faith from the enslaving power of sin and death nesting in the flesh. The evil, anti-pneumatic and ungodly desire that prevailed in carnal man, which interfered with the doing of good and the fulfillment of the law, is overcome by the highest life attraction, which from the animating spirit of Christ passes on to those of Christ and makes them new people... This way to the principle of new religious knowledge in atonement [propitiation] is added to the principle of the new moral life of the sons of God and spiritual people in the image of the second Adam, the firstborn of many brothers. This second side of Paul’s theology is revered by Christianized Hellenism, just as the first side is Christianized Pharisaism” 146. However, it is not yet clear where Hellenistic participation actually lies, since everything is gleaned from the actual resurrection of Christ or, more precisely, from a unique understanding of it. But here it is necessary to take into account that the very difficulty arose on the basis of the Hellenistic contemplation of the unspiritual helplessness of the fleshly man, and here the Apostle accepted the Hellenic premises of the Book of Wisdom (chap. VIII-IX and more particularly in 1 Cor. II, 6-16 from Prov. Sol. IX. 13-17) 147 . At this point, the apostolic doctrine about the lack of spirituality of natural man and his renewal by the divine energy of the Holy Spirit has its support in Hellenism 148. This innovation was necessarily accompanied by a characteristic transformation of the prevailing early Christian views. The evangelist sees in his quickening divine factor not just a miraculous messianic power, sporadically revealed in individual impulses and wondrous actions. For him, this is the embedded and inseparable “law of life in Christ,” the unchangeable beginning of feelings, thinking, desires and behavior. And Hellenistic theology preached that divine wisdom or the Holy Spirit descends from above into souls and, remaining in them constantly, makes friends of God and prophets, rewards them with all knowledge and virtues, and even introduces them to eternal life (cf. St. Sol. ch. VII. VII. IX). “Here lies the root of Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit.” However, the abstract idea refers to the Spirit of the risen Christ, when spiritual revival is associated with faith in the Lord and with the sacramental acts of its witnessing in the Christian union. Through this, in mystical sacramentalism, theosophical ideas become religious realities with specific content and energetic fascination 149. Then the original modifications will be crowned only by the fact that Paul's teaching on the Church, baptism and the Eucharist will be dated and illuminated from his Hellenistic pneumatology, taken from the book of Wisdom 150. All this transformation in its origin is conditioned by the immanent introduction of Christ’s spirituality into the sphere of fleshly materiality. The quickening Christ directly merges with the Spirit 151 similarly to the non-canonical biblical document, along with which the apostolic concept also takes on some features of materiality 152 . It is inevitable that the special individuality of the Spirit is absorbed by the personality of the spiritualizing Lord 153 and disappears upon identification with Him to the degree of mathematical equality ὁ κύριος τά πνεῦμα 154 . In this pneumatic refinement, which freely dissolves the personal isolation of a real historical subject through unfettered penetration into all phenomenality, Christ - in the apostolic understanding - gains access to constant co-existence with all his participants and is necessarily reflected in all the functions of their grace-filled existence. In this case, the influence of Christ is already expressed in private extraordinary acts, which are the only ones possible with the isolation of two individuals, of which one acts only as they come into contact, and the other responds only according to the quantity and degree of its perception. Hence, in the atmosphere of individualistic messianic contemplation of the primacy of brotherhood, the actual partial discovery of Christ's grace in facts of unusual tension was permissible. From now on, the Lord, as it were, merges with his associates and regulates all their grace-filled functions as the most important factor in normal Christian behavior. Therefore, the influence of Christ is embodied in ordinary forms of renewed life and transforms it all according to its own type. St. Paul coincides with pseudo-Solomon, for both of them produce from the divine Spirit not merely ecstatic momentary acts, but the permanent character of a godlike dispensation. Of course, the Jewish writer puts forward more the intellectual and contemplative side of the idea to the detriment of its application in the field of will - this is an important difference. However, in the central position they converge, and this affirms a “direct connection” with the book of Wisdom with the necessary result that “the religious idealism of Paul’s pneumatology is closely related to the Hellenistic idealism of his time” 155. Given such premises, it is not surprising that the concept of Christ - God's power and wisdom (1 Cor. I, 24) comes close to the speculations of the non-canonical monument and is commented on from it 156. Apostolic Christology receives complete validity of theoretical development and practical suitability, but this advantage is fraught with decisive self-condemnation of a fatal nature. All of its original roundness lies in the fact that it moves away from the early Christian speculations and is formed independently of them. We agree that in the end there is a better theory, and yet it inevitably follows from here that the Apostle is deprived of support and justification in tradition, and this is the only valuable thing when describing a genuine fact. Then it will turn out that the evangelist’s objective reality is replaced by subjective conjecture, and he commits a forgery, even if involuntary and unintentional. It is no less necessary that the news of the concept will be alien to the captured object and does not arise from its deep understanding, which is why it turns out to be only an illegal adaptation of resources taken from another sphere of rational Hellenic ingenuity. For all these reasons, there is no doubt that such interpretations will be eliminated and disappear by themselves, once it is proven that there was no such break with tradition, and St. Pavel, having factual data, did not turn to outside sources. Let's look at the issue in all relevant aspects. First of all, it must be remembered that no side effects have yet been discovered in the formation of the apostolic doctrine. For the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, this thesis is indisputable because it does not contain strictly personal predicates from which the doctrine of the premium individuality of the eternal Christ could genetically grow. They are trying to avoid this disagreement, even agreeing that in the non-canonical document a “simple personification” is depicted, for, being parallel to the word, sophia supposedly enters into a close relationship with the Christian Logos when it appears to be the internally creative force of the righteous race 157. This hypothesis leans completely in the opposite direction and tends to dispel the very concept of pre-eternal personality, meanwhile we are talking about the emergence of this concept, as generally recognized for the Apostle of Languages. The latter gets rid of external transformative influences, and without them there will not be the slightest motive to deviate from the traditional flow of Christological contemplations. Therefore, the originality he assimilates is also questionable. Their essence - according to critical fortune-telling - was that the members of the primal Christian union recognized only the momentary ecstatic influences of the Messiah and did not see in him the inseparable regulating energy of every believer: St. Paul thought backward and regarded Christ as the immanent factor of regenerated life without its being disrupted by extraordinary revelations. In this formulation, the contrast is very sharp 158 and it will certainly require external pressure to shift Christian thought from its previous path. But it is easy to notice that both of these provisions in all their parts are edited with tendentious extremes, contrary to true objectivity. For the early Christian brotherhood, according to historical information, it is unshakable that the outpouring of the Spirit was abundant here to an unprecedented level, which was not repeated to such an extent in the Pauline communities. If this is a fact, then all theories are unnecessary, since everything comes down to an impartial statement that the hitherto dominant tension has ceased in its high intensity. In this case, the whole task will be to explain this witnessed phenomenon, and its mystery is sufficiently illuminated from the very course of events. The early Christian era was the time of the founding of the Church, endowing it with all the means for the future, when it had to develop from ready-made reserves, which at the beginning were handed over to it in the fullness of its unusualness and inconvenience for the previously prevailing way of life. Here both the accumulation of all the life-giving spiritual energy and its extraordinary manifestation are equally natural. This was the time of planting Christian seeds in the cosmic soil, where all the power of future development was contained, which is why growth began quickly. In this case, the easing of extreme tension simply indicates that the process has entered its channel and does not require extraordinary resources, being completely ensured of corresponding prosperity. From this point of view, the difference between the evangelist will not be subjective at all and is motivated by the difference in the most described moments. It would be a different matter if it were said that this change rests on the disappearance of a functioning factor, which dies on its own or is suppressed by another. Of course, in this case, both Christological dogmas would be disparate, regardless of their objective strength and even if they are equally false. But for this it is necessary that earlier it was confessed that the power of interest can manifest itself only with miraculousness and in the realm of the miraculous, not allowing more calm activity, and the later conviction was diametrical and said that the only way is the ordinary functions of life. Again, it is irrefutable that this is not at all in the documentary data. In them we read that extraordinary changes were strictly confined to the most important stages of apostolic history, such as the opening of the Church of Christ on the day of Pentecost and the consecration of the mission among the pagans at the baptism of the centurion Cornelius. Along with this, all such facts were associated with the exceptional personalities of the creators of the church body itself, which was then supposed to grow and strengthen. But the early Christian era was not at all limited to these phenomena or similar luminaries. With a few Apostles, we see a whole host of ordinary confessors of the Crucified One who did not claim supernatural gifts. It is not surprising that their life was not embraced by ecstasy, although it did not cease to be truly Christian. Her property is characterized by the fact that she was faithful to her principle in all its bends, and in her everything external exactly corresponded to its internal idea. Therefore, united in the Lord, the early Christians dwelt together and had everything in common (Acts II, 44 ff.). At the same time, the external order was not a simple appendage, independent of internal revival, but was caused and fueled precisely by the latter, since the community of property rested on the fact that “the multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul” (Acts IV, 32.34 ff.). Everywhere the inseparability of such Christian energy is affirmed, which with its vitality determines human behavior in all its stages and forms. For this reason, deviation in appearance turns out to be a reproach of the internal creative principle, from which it turned out that the material concealment of Ananias and Sapphira was not accepted at all as a simple error 159 and was punished with a terrible death as an insult to the Holy Spirit (Acts V, 1 ff.). Likewise, fluctuations in the spiritual sphere of impartial unity were accompanied by confusion in the property sphere, and the election of spirit-bearing men was required for ordering (Acts. VI, 1 ff.) so that they maintain the spiritual level of all – even economic – relations. It is enough to consider these observations, and we will receive that for the primacy of brotherhood, complete penetration of the grace of Christ is affirmed, which embraces each and every one and normalizes their entire being, translating it according to its type in all external manifestations. It would hardly be fair to say that the influence of Christ here was and was recognized only as extraordinary and momentary, since this exhausted the entire order of life. Or rather, it is completely contrary that the spiritualization of Christ is thought of as an everlasting internal factor. Then another objection is possible, that even in this case the early Christian life would be extraordinary, exceeding the framework of ordinary everyday life. In part this is undeniable, but it can be explained quite naturally from the fact that the creative force was extraordinary and therefore was cast into adequate forms. One cannot expect anything else based on the very merits of the subject. The whole importance lies in the fact that the latter embraces everything within itself, and outside its sphere Christian life itself is not allowed. See "Christian Reading" 1903, Nos. 2, 5, 8, 10 and 12. A. Edersherm, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I 2, p. 32 and according to the translation of Fr. M. P. Fiveysky I, p. 41. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 297 ff.: “Bekanntlich hat derselbe ( λόγος ) hei Philo- Johannes eine Doppelwurzel: einerseits die rein alttestamentl. Anschauung vom Wort oder vom Geist (Engel) und der Weisheit Gottes, andererseits die hellenisch philosophische Idee vom λόγος als vernünftigem Weltdurch waltungsprinzip. In Soph. Kapitel 7 sehen wir eben den hochinteressanten Prozess der Zusammenwachsung beider Wurzel; denn die ganze Schilderung besonders Vers 22–28 zeigt eine Kombination von Prov. 8, and φοιτ ᾶ ν, διέρχεθαι. διὰ πάντων ". But along with this, it is stated as an indisputable fact that “der eigentliche philosophische Vater des λόγο ;-Begriffs in diesem Sinn einer objektiven Weltpotenz Niemand anderes als unser Heraklit ist, obwohl erst die Stoiker jene Idee derart in den Vordergrund gerückt haben." Then "ausser den Stoikern, denen z." B. ? erste griechische Philosopher des für sich seienden νοῦς , nehmlich Anaxagoras mit seinem λεπτόν oder λεπχότατον zu begegnen." O. Pfleiderer, Das Urehristenthum, S. 1 162–163. Ernst Teichmann, Die paulinische Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht, S. 69–70. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urehristenthum, S. 305 1. Dr. Franz Kaulen, Einleitung in die heilige Schrift A. and N. T. II 2, S. 283. D. V. Pospehov, The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, p. 197. J.A. Schmid. Das Buch der Weisheit, S. 38. † K. Siegfried in Die Apokryphen des A. T. von E. Kautzseh, S. 477. D. V. Pospehov, Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, p. 349. D. V. Pospehov on page 190, 1. See further below pp. 640, 801. 653, 820. E. Echürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II 2, S. 756III 3, S. 379. Ed. Reuss, Das Alte Testament ubersetzt VI, S 351. Ven. Fred. W. Farrar in Apocrypha ed. by Henry Wace I, p. 407b. James Drummond, Filo Judaeus I, b. 219. S. Siegfried, Philo von. Alexandria als Ausleger des A. T., S. 8 et cf. 23. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 23, S. 271. See also P. Wendland, Art. "Alexandrian Philosophy" in The Jewish Encyclopedia I (New York and London 1901), p. 370. E. Echürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II 3, S. 757III 3, S. 380. Prof. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 195. Ven. Fred. W. Farrar: History of Interpretation, p. 126 in Apocrypha ed. by Henry Wace I, b. 407 a. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 294. O. Zöckler in Kurzgefurster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften A. und N. T. IX, S. 357. R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, p. 255. Wed. and C. L. W. Grimm in Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des A. T. VI, S. 19. 20. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 192. K. Siegfried in Die Apokryphen des A. T. von E. Kautzsch, S. 477. D. V. Pospelov, The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 349–352. D V. Pospelov on. page 348. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 297. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 1621, as well as his Vortrag: Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Berlin 1903), where pseudo-Solomon’s wisdom is equated with the “Stoic-Heraclitean world spirit.” S. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des A. T., S. 8. Paul Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Solomos, pp. 63–64. C. L. W. Grimm in Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des A. T. VI, S. 19. 152ff. 158. Prof. S. H. Toy states that the wisdom of pseudo-Solomon is substantially identical to both the Stoic (Art. “Wisdom Literature” in The Encyclopedia Biblica ed.by Prof. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black IV, London 1903, col. 5330) and Philonian Logos (Art. “Book of Wisdom of Solomon” ibid. IV, col. 5341), even if the author himself did not accept the Stoic doctrine (col. 5347). James Drummond, Filo Judaeus I, b. 226. James Drummond ibid. I, p. 225. Eg. in Paul Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Solomos, S. 66. James Drummond, Filo Judaeus I, b. 221. James Drummond ibid. I‚ r. 224. Emanatism in the doctrine of wisdom-spirit was found in pseudo-Solomon and † Prof. J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testaments (Leipzig 1795), S. 102ff. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 195. Max Heinze ibid., S. 196: “sind Anzeichen da, die wenigstens eine Annäherung an den stoischen Materialismus erkennen lassen.” Prof. Hermann Siebeck, Geschichte der Psychologie I, 2, S. 152. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 346. 3472. Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs pendant les deux siècles antérieurs à l'ère chrétienne, p. 2 198, 1. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 201. Cf. And Paul Wendland, Art."Alexandrian Philosophy" in The Jewish Encyclopedia I, p. 370. E. Sch&uuuml;rer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II 2, S. 879.157111, S. 557.56. James Drummond, Filo Judaeus I, b. 226–229 So, for example, O. Kirn, Art. "Logos" in Realencyklopädie von Prof. A. Hauck XI 3, S. 601: 31–34. Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs, p. 205 2 et cf. 2 198, 1 about the “word”. James Drummond, Filo Judaeus I, pp. 215, 216–217. D. V. Pospehov. Book of Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 352. James Drummond, Filo Judaeus I, b. 214. James Drummond ibid. I‚ r. 215. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 194–195. D. V. Pospehov, Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, pp. 352–353. Paul Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Salomos, pp. 62–63. Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 193–194, 195. K. G. Bretschneider, Systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik und Moral der apocryphischen Schriften des a. T. I, S. 242: “eine Lichtemanation aus Gott.” Phil. Fried. Keerl: Die Apokryphenfrage, S. 180–182; Die Apokryphen des a. T., S. 37. Max Heinze, Art. "Emanatismus" in Realencyklopädie von Prof. A. Hauck V 3 (Lpzg 1898), S. 333:24–27: “zunächst scheint in der griechischen oder hellenischen Philosophie deutlich von einer Emanation wenigstens einer kosmischen Macht die Rede zu sein in dem Buche von einer der Weisheit, das bekanntlich viel aus der stoischen Lehre herübergenommen hat, in dieser Beziedung aber über die Stoa hinausgeht.” Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 196. Max Heinze ibid., pp. 198–200. See and Rev. Prof. H. V. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 268 1. Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs pendant deux siècles antérieurs à l'ère chrétienne, p. 141 2. Ed. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen III, 2 3, S. 272. Ed. Zeller ibid. III, 23, pp. 271–272. H. Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie judéo-alexandrine, p. 227 not. Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs pendant deux siècles antérieurs à l’ère chrétienne, p. 140 2. Michel Nicolas ibid., p. 198, 205 2 James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 226. Ernest Havet, Le Christianisme et ses origines IV, p. 398. J.Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheits-Lehre der Hebräer, S. 349. E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II 2, S. 756III 3, S. 379. Prof. Dr. Friedrich Überweg says the same thing (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie I, Berlin 3 1867, S. 226, § 63) that wisdom, as the power of God operating in the world, is distinguished by pseudo-Solomon from the divine being itself. E. Schürer ibid. II 2, S. 757III 3, S. 379. Ed. Berns, Das Alte Testament übersetzt VI, S. 349 (“als ein persönliches Wesen”). 362.5. H. Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie judéo-alexandrine, p. 253–254. Lic. Dr. Theodor Simon believes that in pseudo-Solomon wisdom is separated from God, in the dignity of hypostasis (Der Logos, Lpzg 1902, S. 18), and it is only depicted differently under the guise of λόγος 'a, with which it is identical (S. 30–31). Wed. S. Schulman,Art. "Cardinal Virtues" in The Jewish Encyclopedia III (New York and London 1902), p. 573, as well as Prof. Emil G. Hirsch,Art. "God" ibid. VI (New York and London 1904), p. 4, that Sophia in Ave. Sol. there is a personality, but only as an instrument, and not as a delegate of God. J.Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheits-Lehre der Hebräer, S. 349–350, 387. Aug. Ferd. Dähne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der judisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie, S. 155. A.Fr. Gfrörer, Philo und die jüdisch-alexandrinische Theosophie IP, S. 227–228 assimilates to the author the idea of ​​personal specialness (“Wesen für sieh”) for wisdom, although the pseudo-Solomon did not achieve full consciousness of this concept. Prof. Johannes Lücke, Commentur über das Evangelium des Johannes I 3 (Bonn 1840), pp. 267–268. Compare below on pages 640,798. Ed. Reuss, Das Alte Testament übersetzt VI, S. 347. J. Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheits-Lehre der Hebräer, S. 335. J.Fr. Bruch ibid., S. 335. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 1621. D. V. Pospehov, Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, p. 432. D. V. Pospehov on pp. 192–193. See and Rev. E. R. Bernard in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings IV, p. 532 a. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 208 2. O. Pfleiderer ibid., S. 2092. So even Prof. B. Weiss, Die Religion des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart und Berlin 1903), S. 197 ff. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 210 2. See L. Hackspil, Études sur le milieu religieux et. intellectuel contemporain du Nouveau Testament II: Les êtres intermédiaires § 1 (La Sagesse) in Revue biblique internationale X, 2 (1-er avril 1901), p. 213. L. Hackspil ibid. X, 2, p. 215. L. Hackspil ibid. X, 2, p. 212. 213. L. Hackspil ibid. X, 2, p. 214. Book S. N. Trubetskoy, The Doctrine of Logos in its History I (Moscow 1900), p. 88 and in “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology” VIII, 40 (Book V for 1897), p. 826. L. Hackspil in Revue biblique internationale X (1901), 2, p. 215. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Idea of Logos in the Old Testament in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 462. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian in connection with the previous historical development of the idea of Logos in Greek philosophy and Jewish theosophy (Moscow 1885), p. 92. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 463. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, pp. 463–468. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, pp. 467, 468–474, 484–488. 491–493. See also F. Vigouroux, A Guide to Reading and Studying the Bible translated by Fr. Vl. V. Vorontsova II, 1 (Moscow 1902), pp. 993–994. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 483 ff. 488. See and above on pp. 637, 769. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, p. 87. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid., pp. 88–89. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid, pp. 90–91. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, p. 92. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid., pp. 89–90. Prof. M. D. Muretov ibid., pp. 91–92 Cf. and above on pp. 637, 770. Prof. Eduard König, Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit Einschluss der Apokryphen und der Pseudepigraphen des A. T. (Bonn 1893), S. 489. In the same tone, it is said in relation to the book of the Wisdom of Solomon about “its important significance for the New Testament teaching about the true λόγος” (A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I 2, p. 32, 3 and according to the translation of Fr. M. P. Thebean I, p. 41, 3), from which they later obtain (for example, from Rev. James Moffatt, The, Autonomy of Jesus in "The Expositor" 1901, IX, p. 229, 1) convergence with the Gospel of John, - in particular - regarding the ideas of the spirit and wisdom. Dr. Franz Kaulen, Einleitung in die heilige Schrift A. und X. T. II 2, S. 283: “Von der im Neuen Testamente klar vorgetragenen Lehre über die heilige Dreifaltigkeit erscheint hier schon die Gewissheit der Mehrpersönlichkeit und Wesenseinheit Gottes.” Same with Prof. Dr. Heinrich Reusch, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Freiburg im Breisgau 3 1868), S. 146. See also pp. 632, 712. 653, 820. The inclination in this sense is noticeable, for example, in Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 202. See also K. G. Bretschneider, Systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik und Moral der apocryphischen Schriften des a. T. I, S. 246, 249 and 235. Joh. Lücke, Commentary über das Evangelium des Johannes I, S. 267. ed. Grafe in Theologische Abhandlungen C. v. Weizsäcker gewidmet, S. 278. Aug. Ferd. Dähne, Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie II, S. 178. Karl Reinhold Köstlin, Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis und die verwandten neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe (Berlin 1843), S. 396. 397,1. See book. I, pp. 850, 522. See, for example, James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 216. Prof. Dr. Franz Feldmann (Textkritische Materialien zum Buch der Weisheit gesammelt aus der sahidischen, syrohexaplarischen und armenischen Übersetzung, Freiburg im Breisgau 1902) accepts readings- πνεῦμα σοφία for Pr. Sol. I, 6, ἰδιότητος for II, 23 (see above pp. 512–513) and part ἐν [αὐτῇ] for VII, 226 (S. 42. 46. 58), and Joseph Holtzmann, not allowing (DiePeschitta zum Buche der Weisheit: eine kritisch-exegetische Studie, Freiburg im Breisgau 1903, S. 32 ff.) Margoliuth's assumptions (see above p. 440 ff.), for Vil, 23 prefers (S. 83. 104) νοερόν καθαρὸν λεπτότατον compared to birth. pad. plural h. νοερῶν καθαρ hmm ν λεπτότατων . J.Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheits-Lehre der Hebräer, S. 345–346. See James Drummond, Philo Judaens I, p. 216. However, Prof. is also inclined to recognize the identity of wisdom and spirit. W. Bousset (Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, S. 342. 377), even admitting that the biblical-Jewish concept of “sophia” has support almost in Parsism (S. 490–491), which was brought here back from Prof. Otto Pfleiderer (Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, S. 16), but this is rightly noted (Prof. Dr. Hermann Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments in Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments herausg. von Prof. W. Bousset und H. Gunkel I [Göttingen 1903], S. 9 Anm and cf. 26), that even earlier there were similar religious beliefs, which we - in turn - can consider an echo of the original religious traditions. A. Edersheim testifies that rabbinical references do not at all indicate faith in the personal dignity of the Holy Spirit (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah P, p. 199, 1 and according to the Russian translation of Fr. M. P. Fiveysky I, p. 252, 4), which is why “the idea of the latter’s activity in all great events was familiar to Israel at that time, although his individuality was not fully comprehended” (I 2, r. 1521, p. 193). Wed. and below on pp. 648, 815. For this reason alone, the thesis that “the hypostatic understanding of the Spirit of God (in St. Paul) is a heritage of Judaism” is incredible,” from which an even more false conclusion is drawn that such a teaching does not agree with the Christian idea of ​​God and therefore does not exactly fit into the circle of views of Christianity: See Mag. d. theol. Emil Sokolowski, Geist und Leben nach den Schriften des Paulus (Heiligenstadt 1903), S. 2: These 10. In this sense, for the Old Testament consciousness it is stated that although the Holy Spirit appears earlier than the Word, it is more as an action of God than a hypostasis (Prof. Friedr. Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte, Halle a. S. 2 1890, S. 34), which is so suppressed by the traits of personification (L. Hackspil in the Revue biblique internationale” XI, 1 [1-er Janvier 1902], p. 69), that “in the era of the New Testament the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. was still in the process of education” (p. 71). However, it is no less certain that already the first Christians expressed some kind of trinity in the deity (see Very Rev. J. H. Bernard, The Apostolic Benediction in The Expositor 1903, XI, p. 374. 375), and St. The Apostle Paul apparently suggests a difference between the exalted Christ and the Spirit (Emil Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihren Beziehungen zu einander, S. 226), which is why it is indisputable that even outside human subjectivity a reality is recognized for the second (S. 157), sometimes directly commented on in the sense of personality (see Rev. E. R. Gould, Art. "Spirit" in Encyclopaedia Biblica ed. by Prof. T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black IV, col. From here it is natural that the idea of ​​trinity is present in the deity in N. Z.: See Prof. Dr. Reinhold Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I (Erlangen und Leipzig 1895), S. 14. All this sufficiently eliminates those cited by Prof. M.D. Muretova (in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 466) considerations of the opposite nature. For this interpretation of the term αἰρετίς, see and C. Siegfried in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings IV, p. 929 a. Wed. and to approx. 112. So does Prof. M. D. Muretova in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 487. Wed. C. L. W. Grimm in Handbuch zu den Apocryphen des A. T. VI, S. 169. See also on pp. 644, 809. 647, 812. Dr. J. Hamburger, from the purely Jewish point of view of personalistic monotheism, categorically states in Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums III, 6 (Lpzg 1901), S. 46; III, 3 (ibid. 1896), S. 43, that the hypostasis here supposedly disagrees with the Bible. We see all this from Prof. M. D. Muretova (The Doctrine of the Logos in Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, pp. 90–91), and W. E. Ball concludes that if in the Book of Wisdom the “word” is a person, then it means that the author was borrowed from Philo (St. Paul and the Roman Law and other Studies, pp. 104–105), who is also sometimes taught that in his book sophia stands out as a special beginning (see above pp. 352, 981). Then further combinations are obtained. Seeing in pseudo-Solomon the identification of wisdom with logos - with hypostatic independence in the former (M. Friedländer, Geschichte der judischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christenthums, Zürich 1903, S. 62-63. 64), - these are precisely the concepts found in the Alexandrian theosophist (S. 66 ff.), from which it is naturally assumed that, along with the Jewish anonymous St. Paul also knew Philo, borrowing from him ideas about man as the church of God (1 Cor. III, 16. VI, 19. 20. Rom. XII, 1: see S. 295), and about Abraham as the father of believers ( Gal. III, 6 - 10. Rom. IX, 7. 8. IV, 16. 17. Eph. II, 19. III, 3. 5 – 7), and not only carnal descendants (S. 310 ff.); some Jewish writers directly derive the last apostolic thought from rabbinic Judaism (see † Rabbin Predicateur Elijah Benamozegh, Morale juive et morale chrétienne. Examen comparatif. Paris 1867. P. 292 suiv. and cf. 284). Of course, these conclusions are erroneous to the extent that the premises are false, and it is hardly subject to dispute that in any case it is not clear that Philo’s logos has a personality (see also Pfarrer Agathon Harnoch, De Philonis Judaei λόγῳ inquisitio, Regiomonti 1879, p. 36 sqq.), although this point lies the very center of Alexandrinism and - specifically Philonian teaching (cf. Max Freudenthal, Die Erkenntnislehre Philos von Alexandria in “Berliner Studien für Philologie und Archäologie” XIII, 1, Berlin 1891, S. 3). Therefore, one cannot even agree with the position of Ernest Havet, as if “the logos of Wisdom (Solomon) is only the memra of the Targuls” (Le Christianisme et ses origines IV, p. 399), because here “the external revelation of Jehovah is designated, called in the Bible His glory (kabod), and later His radiation” (schechinah). However, A. Edersheim exaggerates the matter if, seeing here an echo of the ancient tradition (The Life and Timos of Jesus the Messiah I 2, p. 47 and in Fr. M. P. of Thebes I, p. 59), he claims that “Memra is a hypostasis (cf. and book I, pp. 664, 75), although her permanent personal existence is not indicated” and she “is not identified with Messiah" (I 2, p. 48I, p. 60). All this will be a certain extreme, even if we assume the influence of Alexandrian Hellenism on the development of the idea of memra (L. Hackspil in "Revue biblique internationale" XI, 1 [1-er Janvier 1902], p. 59. 63 suiv.), where the process has not yet reached the philonic stage (p. 66). It is not entirely clear if W. E. Ball says that wisdom is personification (St. Paul and the Roman Law and other Studies, p. 102), like the word (p. 105), but they are not identical (p. 103 – 104)... Wed. more Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften des alten Testaments von Prof. Dr. J. H. Herbst, herausg. von Prof. Dr. B. Welte II, 3 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1844), S. 166 ff. Prof. Albrecht Thoth, Dio Genesis des Johannes-Evangeliums (Berlin 1882), S. 29. Very Rev. Edward Hages Plumptre, Art. "Apocrypha" in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by W. Smith I (London 4863), p. 83 a. † Br. F. Westcott, Art. "The Wisdom of Solomon" ibid. III (London 1 1863), p. 1782 a A Concise Dictionary of the Bible (London 5 1880), p. 1013b. See Prälat D. th. etph. Karl v. Lechler, Die biblische Lehre vom heiligen Geiste (Gütersloh 1899), S. 57: “...steht nichts im Wege, die Wendungen (in Kap. 8, 22–31) alle auf die zweite oder auf die dritte Hypostase der Trinität zu beziehen. Sie passen mehrfach ebenso gut auf den heiligen Geist als auf den Sohn. Doch stimmt die besondere Färbung eines jeden dieser Aussprüche viel mehr mit dem, was die Schrift sonst vom heiligen Geiste sagt.” W. E. Ball also admits that "the author of the Book of Wisdom prepares the way for the doctrine of the personality of the Holy, Ghost" (St. Paul and the Roman Law and other Studies, p. 102). See book. I, pp. 721 ff., 215. Prof. M.D. Muretov, The Doctrine of the Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, p. 89. Note that above (p. 87) the author mentions “the created-objective Wisdom of God, embodied and revealed in the finite world.” Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, pp. 466–467. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, pp. 89–90. Prof. M. D. Muretov in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 491. From this point of view, it is true that for the immediate Old Testament consciousness, the “Angel of Jehovah” is “not a messenger of God, different from Him, but a revelation of Him in human form” (Prof. G. Buchanan Cray, Art. “Ange1” in Ensusloraedia Viblis ed. bu Prof. T. K. Scheune and J. S. Black I, col.166). Therefore, A. Edersheim, although he admits that in Judaism there was a distinction between God who is unapproachable and who appears (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I 2, p. 45 and according to the translation of Fr. M. P. of Thebes I, p. 57) - with the acceptance of the pre-worldly existence of the Deliverer (I 2, p. 1751, p. 222), for which the synagogue supposedly allowed for divine personality (I 2, p. 1791, p. 227), but this scientist is forced to state that “the idea of ​​a divine personality and the unity of two natures in the Messiah seems alien to the Jewish audience of Jesus of Nazareth, and initially even to His disciples” (I 2, p. 1711, p. 218). On the contrary, it is indisputable that strict Judaism was extremely hostile to any hint of the slightest isolation in the deity and was ready to condemn R. himself for this. Akiba (see also Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Basher, Due Agada der Tannaiten I: von Hi1e1 bis Akiba; zw. Auflage, Strassburg 1903, S. 216–217). This is also the main reason for Jewish intolerance towards “renounced books” (see our book I, p. 833 ff.), which were subject to burning even if the name of God was found in them (see M. Friedländer, Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christenthums, Zürich 1903, S. 477), whether to attribute them to Jewish Gnostic sectarians (ibid., S. 470 f.) or Christian (W. Basher, Due Agada der Tannaiten I 2, S. 338, 2) or directly to Christians, starting with the Evangelists and Gospels (Prof. Ludwig Blau, Art. “Gilyonim” in The Jewish Encyclopedia V, New York and London 1903, pp. 668–669), for these persons preached a kind of bitheism (M. Friedländer ibid., S. 482). In this sense, Jewish authors still defend the purely human character of the Deliverer in Jewish expectations (Kaufmann Kohler, Art. “Eschatology” in The Jewish Encyclopedia V, p. 213 a-b) and supra-naturalistic features assimilate the influence of Parsism (p. 214a-b), which is why scientists accept real pre-existence strictly only for messianic benefits (Paul Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba, Tübingen und Leipzig 1903, S. 126), and for the Messiah himself it is assumed that realistic concepts about him grew out of the saga of the primeval hero who liberated the cosmos from demonic monsters (S. 218). From this point of view, it is possible that the book of Enoch and other similar documents were recognized as heretical and rejected by nomistic Judaism precisely for their inclination towards the idea of a personal pre-worldly Messiah (Prof. S. v. Orelli, Art. “Messias” in Realencyklopädie von Prof. A. Hauck XII 3, Lpzg 1903, S. 737: 5–6), although in the named Apocrypha see shades of a polemical nature against Christianity (S. 732: 12–15). Max Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, S. 197. This eliminates the overly confident remark of E rnest Navet (Le Christianisme et ses origins IV, p. 399) about the Book of Wisdom, as if “its author distinguishes and contrasts body and soul, matter and spirit.” F. S. Sopubeare, Critical Notice on Weinstein in The Critical Review XIII, 51 (April, 1901), p. 545: “In the Wisdom of Solomon there is as yet no “second God”, no hypostasis of wisdom apart from God. “She is the mind of God as planning and as creating.” Wed. and Dr. N. I. Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada II: Die Alexandrinische Agada (Göttingen 1901), S. 13. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of the Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, p. 91. D. V. Pospehov. Book of Wisdom of Solomon, page 197. Samuel Davidson, An Introduction to the Old Testament III, p. 400. D. V. Pospehov, Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, p. 432. J.Fr. Bruch, Die Weisheit Lehre der Hebräer, S. 335. So book. S. N. Trubetskoy, The Doctrine of Logos in its history I, p. 89 and in “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology” VIII, 40 (Book V for 1897), p. 827. See and Dr. J. Hamburger in Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums III, 6, S. 45; III, 3, S. 43. Cf. Paul Wendland in The Jewish Encyclopedia I, p. 370. Prof. M. D. Muretov, The Doctrine of Logos by Philo of Alexandria and John the Theologian, pp. 89–90. 91. 92. We find this, for example, in prof. M. D. Muretova in “Orthodox Review” 1882, II, p. 462 ff. Edm. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, S. 293–294. See pp. 481, 280 above. 482, 286. 496. 499. 500. 545. 555. 614. 620. See also Ferd. Christ. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes I (Tübingen 1841), S. 58–59, where it is said about wisdom-spirit: “Diese, mit den Emanations-Ideen der alten Welt in engem Zusammenhang stehende, Vorstellung weist uns schon auf ein neues, heterogenes Princip hin, das zur alttestamentlichen Religionslehre hinzukam, auf den Einfluss jener Ideen, aus deren Vermischung mit der Religionslehre des A. T. in Aegypten die bekannte alexandrinische Religions-Philosophie hervorging.” Wed. and James Drummond, Philo Judaeus I, p. 225. Cp. Rud. Cornely, Introductio specialis in libros sacros Veteris Testamenti, p. 235–236. Wed. at Rev. Prof. Georye T. Purves, Art. "Logos" in A Dictionary of the Bible ed. by J. Hastings III (Edinburgh 1900), p. 134 a. See also the remarks in Arthur Titius, Dio neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit II, S. 230, that the teaching of the book of Wisdom paved the way for the formulation of the idea of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. This means that if to the Old Testament consciousness the “Angel of Jehovah” seemed to be “the form of the appearance of the one God” (cf. on pp. 642, 846), then from here it is still impossible to conclude, together with O. Kirn (in Realenciklopädue von Prof. A. Hauck XI 3, S. 601: 25–26), that this was actually the case. Wed. Prof. W. In usset (about N. Weinel’s book, Die Wirkungen des Geistes usw.) in “Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen” 1901, X (Oktober)‚ S. 761–762. Accordingly, it is also stated that, according to the view of St. Apostle Paul - everything that is actually human is unconditionally sinful, which is why in Christianity only supernatural gifts are found to be active among people: see Walter R. Cassels, Supernatural Religion III 3 (London 1877), p. 356–357; popular edition (ibid. 1902), p. 776. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 1 474–175. O. Pfleiderer ibid. S. 161 1. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 30 2: “...die paulinische Lehre von der Geistlosigkeit des natürlichen Menschen und seiner Erneuerung durch die göttliche Kraft des heiligen Geistes ihren Anknüpfungspunkt im Hellenismus hat.” The very basic idea in this statement is questionable, since the Apostle Paul clearly distinguishes between the Spirit of man and the Spirit of God (see Emil Sokolowski, Geist und Leben nach den Schriften des Paulus, S. 1: These 2). ABOUT . Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 1 257–258. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 187, Amn. 4 zu S. 187: “Mit Recht setzt Pfleiderer de Lehre des Pis von Kirche, Taufe und Herrnmahl in Abfolge von seiner hellenistischen, mit dem Buche Sap sich berührenden Lehre vom Geist.” See also book. I, pp. 719 ff., 215. ABOUT . Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 208 2. O. Pfleiderer ibid., S. 209 2. O. Pfleiderer ibid., S. 210 2. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 211 2. Prof. Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert V. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance II (Lpzg 1898), S. 474, 1. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes I, S. 57–58. Wed. Prof. Otto Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften und Lehren im geschichtlichen Zusammenhang, zw. Auflage, I (Berlin 1902), S. 273. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum I 2, S. 273 fin. ff. And Prof. Wilhelm Bousset declares the complete originality of the Apostle Paul to be the view that ordinary Christian life is from the Spirit (see “Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen” 1901, X, S. 760); true, at the same time “das gesammte Christenleben wird zum Wunderwerk Gottes” (S. 761), but still there is such a “fundamental neue Auffassung vom Wirken des göttlichen Geistes in den ruhenden und gleichmässigen Erscheinungen des Christenlebens” (S. 767), that here making an “abyss” according to compared with previous concepts (S. 760). This is precisely where the innovation of the Hellenic evangelist lies (Emil Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus in ihren Beziehungen zu einander, S. 197. 215), that he was the first to condition the entire normal course of Christianity through the action of the Spirit of God (E. Sokolowski, Geist und Leben nach den Schriften des Paulus, S. 1: These 3) in all respects (E. Sokolowski in both of these books on p. 40 ff.). It is clear that for the Writer, property relations are not determined by the proximity of the “parousia” - contrary to the contrary assurances of Oskar Holtzmann, Leben Jesu (Tübingen und Leipzig 1901), S. 398. You might be interested in: