Emperor Julian the Apostate and literary polemics with him St. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria in connection with the previous history of the literary struggle between Christians and pagans

Contents Preface 1. Religious and philosophical trends in the era of the struggle between Christianity and paganism. 2. Literary controversy between Christians and pagans before Julian and St. Kirill. I. Polemical writings of the pagans; general remarks about their fate and authors; the main objections of pagans to Christianity. II. Polemic-apologetic writings of Christians, judicial and scientific apologies, their main ideas and the main techniques of apologists in defending Christianity 3. Julian the Apostate, the circumstances of his upbringing and life, his restoration of paganism in the Greco-Roman Empire and his attitude towards Christians; religious and philosophical views of Julian. 4. General remarks about the work of Julian against Christianity and the work of St. Cyril in refutation of Julian. Polemical techniques of both authors. Julian and Celsus. 5. Contents and historical and literary analysis of the works of Julian and St. Kirill. I. General point of view, religious revelation and the attitude of Hellenism, Judaism and Christianity to it. II. Judaism in comparison with Hellenism. Moral teaching of the Jews. Cultural significance of the Jewish people III. Christianity and Judaism. Christianity, upon its appearance in the Greco-Roman world, as a religion that not only did not put up with ancient beliefs, but also sought to take their place, naturally encountered opposition from everyone who cared about the interests of the ancient religion. This opposition came, on the one hand, from state power, which linked the strength of state foundations with the old religion, and on the other hand, from philosophy, which saw in Christianity a danger both for the ancient religion, which it took under its protection, and for itself. Opposition to Christianity from government authorities began very quickly and continued for 3 centuries in a series of bloody persecutions. Philosophy did not come out to fight him immediately, but only when his successes became too obvious and grandiose. Pagan writers subjected the new religion to criticism, which could not go unanswered by Christians. A literary struggle began between representatives of the old and new worldviews, which continued even when Christianity had already become the dominant religion in the Greco-Roman Empire. In the proposed work, we took as the main subject one moment of this struggle - the literary polemic of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria with Emperor Julian the Apostate; but in view of the fact that the polemical works of these authors are strongly dependent on previous works of this kind and are not preserved in their entirety, we first set out the general content of the previous literary polemics between Christians and pagans, prefacing this presentation with another chapter, which characterizes the general mental movement of the era of the struggle of Christianity with paganism, a movement that casts historical sanctification on both the polemics of pagans against Christianity and Christian apologetics literature that did not remain outside the influence of the ideas of the time. Neither in Russian nor in foreign literature is the polemic of St. Cyril with Julian the Apostate was not the subject of special study. There are only small comments about it in the editions of the works of both authors and in works that generally treat the literary polemics between Christians and pagans in the first centuries after the birth of Christ, such as, for example, in Kellner’s study: Hellenismus und Christenthum. The literature that we used as a guide for this essay concerns only those chapters that are actually the introduction to the essay; Therefore, in further reviewing the most important works from it, we do not go into their detailed consideration and evaluation. In clarifying the general ideas of polemicists and apologists of early times, we used, in addition to their own writings, mainly the following studies. Aubë Histore des persecutions de l'eglise; deuxieme serie – la polemique paienne a la fin du ll0e siècle. Paris 1878. This work sets out the history of the literary polemics of pagan writers against Christianity in the 2nd century, namely Lucian of Samosata, Rhetor, Philostratus, Fronto and, especially, Celsus, whose work is given in a literal translation from Origen, and the author drew attention to the restoration of the sequence of thoughts in the work of Celsus. The author does not touch on the writings of Christian apologists, but in Chapter 1 he gives a general description of the state of Christian theological thought in the 2nd century and the history of heresies of this century. Kellner: Hellenismus und Chritenthum. Koln. 1866. This work, just like the previous one, sets out the content of the literary polemics of the pagans against Christianity, but it covers a longer period: in addition to Louisan, Celsus and Philostratus, Kellner talks about the polemical works of Porphyry, Hierocles and the Emperor Julian. N. Lebedev: The work of Origen against Celsus - Moscow. 1878. Historical and literary study of the polemical and apologetic work of Origen; In the introduction, the author made an outline of previous apologetic literature, especially the works of Justin the Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, as the founders of that direction (Alexandrian) in Christian theology, one of the main representatives of which was Origen. The following works on the history of this era and its philosophical movements served as material for us to characterize the general mental movement in the era of the struggle between Christianity and paganism: Matter: Essai haisorique sur l'ecole d'Alexandrie t. I-II. Paris. 1820 – a comparative study of Greek literature from the time of Alexander the Great to Alexander Severus; The author, in historical sequence, gives us information about the works of scientists, philosophers, rhetoricians and poets of this vast period, following the continuity of philosophical ideas and changes in external conditions that influenced the prosperity or decline of science and literature. Little space is given to each author, but the information Matter reports is taken from primary sources and is accurate. Vacherot: Historie critique de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, t. I-III. Paris. 1846 - 1851. This work, very extensive, has a more specialized subject - the history of Neoplatonic philosophy, its emergence; flourishing during the times of Plotinus and Porphyry, decline under Iamblichus and revival in the system of Proclus. The author sets out in great detail the views of representatives of Neoplatonism, especially the main ones - Plotinus, Porphyry. Iamblichus and Proclus, clarifying the attitude of this school to Christianity, its connection with ancient philosophy and the ideas of the Alexandrian Jews and its influence on the further history of philosophical thought, especially in the Renaissance. The presentation of philosophical teachings is always clear, definite and close to the original sources: in some sections there are noticeable gaps - nothing is said about the moral and religious views of Plotinus. In addition to the historical significance of the Neoplatonic school, the author in the last part of the 3rd volume clarifies both the absolute meaning and the philosophical value of the ideas of Neoplatonism. J. Simon: Histoire de l'ecole d'Alexandrie t. I-II. Paris. 1845. – An essay of the same nature as the previous one; the main subject of his research is Neoplatonic philosophy, a historical review of the systems of Plotinus, Porphyry, Amelia, Iamblichus, Proclus, etc. Scientifically, this work is lower than the previous one; the presentation of the philosophical views of the Neoplatonists is not distinguished by such definiteness and accuracy as that of Vacherot, and is too often interrupted by the reasoning of the author himself, expressing his personal assessment of the systems presented. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus. St. Petersburg, 1868. – The best essay in Russian for getting acquainted with the philosophy of the main representative of Neoplatonism; a detailed study of the philosophy of Plotinus, whose works the author constantly quotes. Chastel: Histoire de la destuction du pagaisme dans l'empire d' Orient. Paris. 1850. This work sets out the history of the fall of paganism in the Greco-Roman Empire, the reasons for its decline and its final struggle for its existence. For us, only the chapters depicting the state of paganism in the first centuries A.D. were significant. and the internal changes that occurred in him during this period. Boissier - “La fin du paganisme.” Paris. 1894; Russian per: Moscow. 1892. edited by. M.S. Korelina. The author devoted only a smaller part of his work to paganism - several chapters where the state of paganism in the 4th century is depicted, the last attempts to revive dying polytheism, and the attitude of Christian emperors towards it. Most of the work depicts the relationship of Christianity to ancient culture, how Christianity, having triumphed over paganism, assimilated the fruits of Greco-Roman civilization and thus preserved them for new peoples. Jean Revillë la religion a Rome sous les Severes. Paris. 1886 Russian lane Moscow 1898, edited by. V.N. Linda. Jean Reville introduces in his essay the state of the Greco-Roman religion in the 3rd century. before it had to give way to the dominant religion - Christianity. He depicts that internal evolution in paganism, which consisted in the transformation of Greco-Roman polytheism into a syncretic philosophical religion composed of Greek and Eastern elements, and which revealed both the weakness of paganism and its temporary revival. The essay aims to show that this state of paganism clearly explains to us the victory of Christianity over it and clarifies the direction and content of the theological movement in the 4th century, when Christian writers fought against paganism and at the same time developed Christian teaching under the influence of the ideas of Greek philosophy. In addition to these works, we used for the introductory chapters many others that were of comparatively less importance to us; these are: Albert de Broglie, – L Eglise et l' empire romain au IV siècle. Paris. 1866; A. Beugnot, – Histoire de la destruction du paganisme en Occident. Paris. 1835. History of the philosophy of Windelband, Fouille, art. Chistovich: Neoplatonic philosophy and its relationship to Christianity. (“Christ. Reading” 1860–1861), etc. The extensive literature about Emperor Julian deals mainly with his personality, biography, his attitude towards Christians as a ruler, and his religious and philosophical views. We used it along with Julian's own writings for a brief outline of his life and religious and philosophical ideas. Of the ancient authors who wrote about Julian and whose works serve as a source of information about him, they were Julian’s contemporaries, while others lived in the immediate vicinity of him. Christian writers portray the personality and activities of the apostate emperor for the most part in the darkest colors, while most pagan writers are his panegyrists. Of the Christian authors, the most valuable for the historian Julian are the works of Gregory the Theologian (2 incriminating words on King Julian), who was not only a contemporary of Julian, but also a friend of his in the Athenian school. Much information about Julian is found in Socrates and Sozomen. Each of them dedicated an entire book of their church history to Julian (Socrates III, Sozomen V). They were born at the end of the 4th century. and they lived, therefore, shortly after the reign of Julian, so that they could collect information about him from the first sources from persons who knew Julian personally and were witnesses of his reign. A significant part of the information they report is borrowed, however, from written sources - from the works of Gregory the Theologian, Livanius, Julian himself, other information is reported by them for the first time, but not all of them are reliable, especially from Sozomen, who is generally less accurate and more trusting. Bl. Theodoret, in the third book of his history, also sets out the history of the life and work of Julian. In addition to these authors, they also wrote about Julian - St. I. Chrysostom: a word in memory of the Hieromartyr Babyla, St. Cyril of Alexandria: Ten books against Julian, Philostorgius in his ecclesiastical history, Rufinus in his writings on the reign of Julian and some others. From pagan sources, the work of Ammianus Marcellinus is very important, in which he reports on the life and activities of Julian from the time of his appointment as Caesar until his death. A constant companion and friend of Julian, who occupied the position of bodyguard with him and accompanied him on all campaigns, Ammianus was better than anyone familiar with Julian, both with his public activities and with his personal life; on the other hand, of all the historians of Julian, he is undoubtedly the most truthful and impartial; treating, in general, Julian with great respect, he knows how to criticize him at the same time when necessary, for example, he condemns Julian’s superstition and his unfair attitude towards Christians. The writings of Livanius (letters and speeches to Julian, especially the funeral oration Epitaphios) are also important. No one understood Julian’s ideas and aspirations more than his former teacher and friend, who was in constant correspondence with him. But, on the other hand, Livanius is very partial towards his beloved student and, in addition, rhetorical figures are often heard in his praise of Julian, which must be taken into account when assessing his evidence. The information reported about him by the pagan historian Zosima is characterized by the same biased attitude towards Julian. In the newest literature about the Emperor Julian, as in the ancient, many works are imbued with a tendentious desire to humiliate or extol the personality of Julian. We will indicate only the most famous works: Fr. Strauss, – “Der Romantiker auf dem Throne der Caesaren” Mannheim 1847. Neander, "Der Kaiser Julian and sein Zeitalter". Leipzig 1813. H. Rendall, – “The emperor Julian; Paganism and Christianity". Cambridge. 1879 – an essay with rich bibliographical information. A. Naville, “Julien l'Apostat et sa philosophie du polytheisme.” Paris. 1877. A short essay elucidating Julian’s religious and philosophical views based on his writings. Rhode. - “Gesch. der Jeaction Kaiser Julians." Jena. 1877. E. Lame – “Julien l'Apostat”. Paris. 1861. A. Reville – “L'empereur Julien”. (Revue de l'hist. des religions t. XII, XIV. 1866). Mucke, – “Flavins Clavdius Julians nach den Quellen”: Gotha. 1896. Vollert. – “Kaiser Julians religiose und philosophische Ueberzeugung.” 1899. Koch – “Kaiser Julian, seine Jugend und Kriegsthaten.” 1900. S. Negrï "L'imperatore Giuliano ;l'aportata". Milan. 1902. P. Allard – “Julien l'apostat” (I-III) Paris. 1900–1903. An extensive work describing in great detail the life and work of Emperor Julian; The author's judgments are independent and based on a careful study of primary sources and good familiarity with the history of the era. In the introduction, the author depicts the evolution of religious and philosophical ideas in Greco-Roman society in the time of Julian, the state of morals, and civil institutions. In Russian - an essay by Y. Apfionov. "Emperor Julian and his attitude towards Christianity." Kazan. 1877 Here the life and work of Julian, and his attitude towards Christians as a ruler are described. An essay of a compilative nature, compiled from the above-mentioned works of French and German authors published before 1877. 1. Religious and philosophical trends in the era of the struggle between Christianity and paganism. The era in which the struggle between Christianity and paganism took place was not only not distinguished by hostility towards religion in general, but can be characterized primarily as an era of religious faith. 1 After the previous period of religious skepticism and frivolity, when the former gods were openly joked about and brought out even on stage, when the skepticism of the school of Pyrrho denied the possibility of not only religious, but also any other knowledge, when the materialism of Epicurus relegated man to the same level as animals and plants, a reaction occurred in Greco-Roman society - a thirst for faith, a thirst for the divine, a thirst for religious knowledge awoke. 2 This mood was reflected in an extraordinary sensitivity to any new source of knowledge; and the more urgently the need for religious knowledge was felt, the more ready there was to accept someone’s beliefs based on this need alone and immediate feeling, and not on logical convictions; the less positive knowledge there was, the more trusting they were towards new, untested sources; the more skepticism there was, the less the difference between reliable and unreliable, truth and error, the closer to mysticism and superstition; everything mysterious, mystical even attracted us with its obscurity, humanity and very unprovability. 3 To meet these needs of the time, the influence of the east appeared. The victories of Alexander the Great introduced the peoples of the east and west to each other, and from then on frequent relations began between them, which subsequently received full scope and freedom when the Rissian rule united these peoples under its rule. At the same time, there was a clash of different civilizations, beliefs, customs, and morals. 4 This clash revived the mental life of society and gave it a special character and direction, known under the name of Alexandria on behalf of the city that was founded by the great conqueror, and which then became the capital of mental life and the birthplace of the most glorious systems and philosophical schools of this period. 5 Alexandria had the appearance of a completely international city: there were representatives of Asia Minor, Africa, Judea, Syria, Chaldeans, Egypt, Greece, Italy; 6, the successors of Alexander the Great strengthened the city’s importance as a center of intellectual life, patronizing education and establishing a famous museum where scientists from all countries could study with generous support from the government, freed from public duties. 7 Following Alexandria, other international centers of learning arose or were revived throughout the empire - in Athens, Ephesus, Smyrna, Antioch, Seleucia. 8 The mutual acquaintance of different peoples with each other forced them to abandon national exclusivity and respect what was good in others. The East could not bow before the great creations of Greek thought and turned to their most careful study. On the other hand, he himself became almost a revelation for the West. The Greeks, having lost faith in their philosophy, greedily turned to a new source of religious knowledge; They were attracted by the extreme antiquity of Eastern religions, and their symbolism, and mysticism, and their fantastic nature and courage in solving all issues of religious thought. 9 Eastern cults - especially Mithra, Osiris and Isis - began to quickly spread in Europe and gained enormous popularity here. 10 At the same time, all sorts of eastern superstitions, astrology, magic, and theurgy penetrated here. 11 The civil authorities hospitably received foreign gods. The political wisdom of the Romans inspired them with the idea of ​​​​making their allies not only the conquered peoples, but also their gods, and, preserving to each subject people its laws, institutions and customs, they preserved their beliefs and accepted their gods into their pantheon. 12 The world of the gods increased enormously, so that, according to Petronius, in the Roman Empire it was easier to find a god than a man. 13 At the same time, more order, discipline and subordination were introduced into it. Individual gods are subordinate to one supreme Being and appeared as his vicegerents on earth; each of them received a country or people, or simply an element, or some kind of activity under their control. 14 It is not difficult to notice that Olympus was completely modeled on the Risian state with its centralization of power, with its numerous prefects and subprefects in various countries and with a mass of smaller officials; Only the philosophers who put the world of the gods in order, considering our world according to Plato’s doctrine to be a reflection of the higher world, thought that it was not the world of the gods that was modeled after the world of people, but, on the contrary, that the world of people was modeled on the world of the gods. However, foreign gods did not always increase the number of native gods; philosophical theories of that time tried to merge them, especially the main ones, with the Greek gods. The absence of dogma in the Greco-Roman religion, a strict system enclosed in a certain code, made it extremely mobile and elastic; after the victory of Rome over Greece, the religions of both countries completely merged, although there was not much similarity between the cheerful gods of Greece and the stern patrons of Rome; 15 the same tendency is noticeable now in relation to the gods of other conquered peoples. Now the ideas that the truth in all religions is the same, only under different forms, that at the basis of all religions lies one great primitive religion, which is their common source, are becoming especially widespread (we find this idea in Aristotle). 16 Since Eastern culture is older than Western culture, Eastern religions are considered closer to this first religion, communicated by the gods themselves, and the Greeks borrowed their religious views from the East; We find such an idea not only among Eastern thinkers, such as Philo, who considered Jewish books to be the source of Plato’s philosophy, but also among Greeks, for example, Numenius, who said that Pythagoras and Plato borrowed their philosophy from the east in Egypt and Judea. 17 Since, in fact, there was no such similarity between the individual religions of the East and West as was pointed out between them at that time, and since the sensual and fabulous character of religious myths, and especially the Greek ones, did not at all correspond even then to philosophical ideas and, in general, to the degree of intellectual and moral development of society, philosophy tried to adapt them to its ideas through allegorical interpretation. This attitude towards myths is found quite early in Greek philosophy; it was in use among the Sophists and was especially developed among the Stoics. In the Alexandrian era, the allegorical method became most widespread, and we find it at this time in Greek philosophy, Jewish theosophy, and Christian theology. Through him, the Greek religion was spiritualized, comprehended, and only thanks to him could it last for several more centuries. In the allegorical interpretation, the most fabulous pagan myths became heralds of great truths, and the most immoral ones received a moral and edifying meaning. 18 Myths received the meaning of a revelation communicated to people by the gods themselves, and the poets who conveyed them were divinely inspired people; but only this revelation was communicated in the form of fables, as it was clearer for the understanding of people of that time, who could not understand it in an abstract form. It is only necessary to reveal the true meaning of the fables, which is what the philosophers did. 19 The return to ancient philosophy in the Alexandrian period parallels the return to religion. Along with the meaning of revelation, the meaning of authority grows. Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers are surrounded by an aura of almost divine greatness. They are studied in the most careful way, they are constantly referred to in literature, which has never been so dotted with quotations as at this time, their own works are published under their names in order to give the latter more authority. Particularly widespread were works with the names of two semi-mythical personalities - Orpheus and Hermes Trismegistus. The veneration of ancient authors was prepared to a large extent by the work of learned Alexandrian philologists of an earlier time, who compiled enormous philological commentaries on their works. But, at the same time, just as the commentators were only philologists, and their work, sometimes petty, had the consequence for them of the reduction and impoverishment of their own philosophical thought, 20 now the attitude towards the ancient authors has become much freer. The living thought of the philosophers of the Alexandrian era managed to disobey the ancient authors so much as to follow them blindly; the authority of their predecessors did not allow them to break with the brilliant traditions of Greek philosophy and kept them within the circle of questions and problems posed by the latter; but where it would be incongruous to follow their authority, or where previous views did not agree with the prevailing ideas of modern times, the Alexandrian philosophers preferred to interpret them in the same way as myths and adapt them to their own views. The general conciliatory tendency of the century was also reflected in the attitude towards the ancient philosophers; - if all religions were considered essentially similar, then the same similarities were found between philosophical schools; there is only one religion and one philosophy. The philosophical doctrines of this time were eclectic in nature; they mixed ideas from different philosophical schools on the one hand, and from East and West on the other. 21 The common ground for the unification of these ideas was the philosophy of Plato, 22 which, in its sublime idealism, most of all corresponded to the spirit of the time and came closer to Eastern philosophy than other Greek systems. The basic ideas of Platonism appear sharply in all the philosophical teachings of this time, both Western and Eastern in origin. All these doctrines proceed from the dualistic opposition of the earthly and the heavenly and strive to bring these two worlds closer together. 23 In the ontological part of the system, this rapprochement is achieved through a multitude of gods and demons, constituting an unbreakable chain connecting God with the world, and God, as the last link of this chain, infinitely rises above the world in the epistemological - the doctrine of revelation, as a source of knowledge, and the revelation itself is presented in two forms, on the one hand, as a historical revelation, contained in the works of poets and philosophers, and on the other hand - as a revelation immediate, to which every person is capable by nature itself, as a being having a soul of divine origin. We have seen that in reality the historical revelation had no absolute significance for the Alexandrians; the instability of religious traditions, the lack of dogmatism in them made it possible to understand and interpret them very freely; The authority of philosophers was also for them the charm of great personalities rather than divine messengers. On the contrary, the doctrine of personal revelation receives more and more development in the Alexandrian doctrines and becomes one of their most characteristic features. 24 The highest degree of revelation is achieved in a mystical state of ecstasy, when a person directly unites with the Divine. At this mystical point both the epistemology and morality of the Alexandrian doctrines are united. Ecstasy is the goal towards which a person's whole life should be directed; the means for this, or, what is the same, the rules of morality are asceticism in relation to the flesh, the elevation of the spirit above the interests of this world and the aspiration to the divine world, or contemplation. Eclectic teachings arise at this time in the form of a revival of the ancient doctrines of Plato and Pythagoras - in the form of neo-Pythagoreanism and Platonism; there is much in common between them, and in neo-Pythagoreanism, which appeared in the 1st century BC. Chr., the influence of Plato is found even stronger than the influence of Pythagoras. The main points in it were Plato's ideas about two worlds - the ideal and the material, about the divine ideas reflected in the sensory world, about the soul of the world. 25 The influence of Pythagoras was reflected mainly on the mystical side of the doctrine - the neo-Pythagoreans believed in magic, omens, oracles, and dreams. Among the neo-Pythagoreans, Numenius (at the end of the 2nd century AD) had a great influence on subsequent thinkers; his views 26 were very typical for his time; we encounter in them the idea of ​​the complete agreement of Plato and Pythagoras, the Eastern origin of Greek philosophy, the rapprochement with the latter of Jewish theology, which Numenius treated with great respect (he owns the famous expression: “What is Plato if not the Attic Moses?” 27 In the system of the Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea, we find ideas about a number of demons connecting God with the world, allegorism in relation to myths, ascetic morality, indicating the main goal of human life in likening God. 28 The combination of Eastern and Western ideas was most typically and fully expressed in the theosophy of the Alexandrian Jews. We find the beginning of this trend in Jewish theology with Aristobulus (about 150 BC). From the 29 excerpts from his works that have survived to us, it is clear that he developed the idea of ​​​​the similarity of Greek philosophy with Jewish books, and that in order to show the actual similarity between the two, he allegorically reinterpreted the Jewish books. 30 We find a whole system of mixed Jewish and Greek origin in Philo (c. 39 AD). – Philo considers the sacred books of his people the greatest and divinely inspired treasure of wisdom, which served as a source for Greek philosophers; these are the books he only wants to follow; but, commenting on them, he allegorically interpreted the entire Old Testament history - the story of creation, the Fall, the flood, stories about the life of the patriarchs, even various individual expressions, proper names - not only of people, but also of places, holidays, even animals and plants mentioned in the Bible; It must be noted, however, that in addition to the spiritual meaning found through allegorical interpretation, Philo also recognized the literal historical meaning of Holy Scripture. With the same goal - to bring the Old Testament books closer to the dominant ideas of the time, Philo defended them from accusations of anthropomorphic ideas about God and revealed the moral meaning of the ritual law. Philo had a tremendous influence on subsequent religious and philosophical literature - on Jewish Kabbalah and the Talmud, on Christian theology, and on Gnosticism and Neoplatonism (through Numenius. Philo's system is based on the dualistic opposition of God to the world. God is immeasurably exalted above the world; Not a single human concept can express His perfections; He is above all perfection, above goodness, above unity. We can only say about God that He is not and affirm His existence, but we cannot define Him and bring Him closer to our understanding with any signs. As immeasurably elevated above the world, God cannot enter into any relationship with it Himself, but at the same time He is the source of all being, life and perfection in the world. To explain this active attitude of God to the world, Philo develops, on the basis of Platonic philosophical ideas and the biblical teaching about angels, the doctrine of mediators between God and the world; his view of these intermediaries is rather vague - on the one hand, they are the properties of the Divine and the ideas of God, and on the other, they are personal beings, servants of God and executors of His will; – Greek and Jewish teachings are intertwined with him. The totality of these forces is the Logos, which Philo calls the divine mind, the highest of the angels, the firstborn son of God, the second god, the prototype of the world, its soul. From God all perfections and blessings are spread to the world; the source of imperfections and evil in the world is matter; in particular for man - in his essence lies the cause of every sin and every calamity. Therefore, the primary task for a person should be liberation from sensuality, from all passions and sensual pleasures. But this is only the first stage of religious and moral life. The ultimate goal of man is direct union with God. 31 Systems with a strong predominance of the eastern element were given by Gnosticism. These systems have all the characteristic features of their time; they proceed from the dualistic opposition of God and the world, spirit and matter, good and evil, elevate God above the world to an unattainable height and connect Him with the latter through a whole series of eons, among which the Christian Logos is lost; in moral life they require contemplation and consider religious ecstasy to be its goal. Gnostic systems are distinguished by their boldness of thought and amazing wealth of imagination. But the elements of Greek philosophy are completely suppressed in them by Eastern influence. 32 In the 3rd century, the basic ideas that we saw among the Platonists, Pythagoreans, and Alexandrian Jews developed into a harmonious and complete system known as Neoplatonism, which can be considered a direct continuation, completion and last word of ancient philosophy. The founder of Neoplatonism is considered to be Ammonius Saccas, about whom almost only is known that he sought to agree between Plato and Aristotle 33 . The true creator of Neoplatonic philosophy and its most brilliant representative was the student of Ammonius Plotinus (204 (5) - 270). In his system, Plotinus wanted to satisfy the religious and philosophical demands of the time exclusively on Greek soil, as opposed to the distortion of Greek ideas, which he saw in systems of Eastern origin, especially in Gnosticism, against which he even wrote a special essay. Plotinus wanted only to be a faithful student and interpreter of Plato; 34 However, his philosophy could only appear in the Alexandrian period and, just as Philo, wanting to follow only Jewish books, actually created a mixture of Jewish and Greek ideas, so Plotinus, although not to the same extent, experienced the influence of the East in his system. The starting point of Plotinus' philosophy is the same dualistic opposition of two worlds, like other systems of that time. There cannot be a direct relationship between these worlds - divine and human, spiritual and material; something in between is necessary, which would be in contact with both worlds; this average is the soul. There are, therefore, three basic elements of existence - spirit, (mind) soul and body. 35 But Philo also had a desire to place God - the first principle above the mind; in the mind, thinking and being are distinguished, and the first principle must be alien to any difference, it is, therefore, above the mind. Plotinus goes even further in the dialectical development of the concept of the first beginning and other basic concepts of the system. Since the first principle must precede everything, Plotinus places it above not only reason, but also all being and beyond the boundaries of all knowledge. No definition can be applied to it; More decently than any other name one could call it good, but it is higher than good, it is higher than beauty; out of fear of limiting the first principle to some signs reminiscent of the real world, Plotinus deprived it of all signs and made it completely inaccessible to definition and understanding. The One is a simple inactive essence, the first cause of everything. 36 Consciousness already gives them a second beginning. This second principle is the mind, which is related to the first as light is to the sun. Here the thinking and the thinkable are already distinguished; here, therefore, is the beginning of difference and movement. The content of thinking of the second principle is, on the one hand, the One, and on the other hand, it itself, or the totality of its ideas. 37 Thus, the mind is the creator of the ideal intelligible world, the world of ideas. But these ideas are not just thoughts, they have real existence. 38 Divine ideas are the prototypes of the things of this world; and the sensory world arises as a necessary correspondence to mental ideas. 39 The first mind creates ideas as prototypes of the things of the world, and does not yet have a direct relationship to the world. The true world-forming principle that gives life to these ideas in the visible (sensory) world, the true creator of the world is the third divine principle, the Soul. 40 It is generated by the mind and belongs to the divine world, but at the same time, on the other side it is turned to the sensory world; Thus, Plotinus was forced to divide the Soul, the mediator between the ideal and sensory world, into a higher soul, which is turned to the mind and belongs to the divine world, and a lower soul, united with the body and generated by the higher soul. 41 And the ideas themselves, before becoming images of things, are refracted in the concepts of the Soul, and already according to these concepts the Soul arranges the world to which it communicates the image of these concepts. 42 The soul is the source of all life and animation in the world. 43 From her come individual souls - gods, demons and people; each soul is an image of the world Soul; it is also connected on the one hand with the mind, on the other with the body. But there is a great difference between individual souls; The gradual gradation in which the beginnings of the spiritual world occur in Plotinus continues here. The first creation of the world soul is the sky, the world of heavenly gods, the visible images of which are the stars. As the first product of the soul, the world of God comes closest to it; there are no changes in time, constancy, harmony and bliss reign here; The heavenly gods know neither memories of the past nor hopes for the future; they live only in the present. Their bodies are formed from a very thin light ether. 44 Demons represent a lower level compared to the gods; they live between heaven and earth, below the lunar path, in the upper layers of the earth's atmosphere, their souls are not so dispassionate and perfect, and their bodies are not as subtle as those of the gods. 45 The souls of people are even more imperfect than those of demons, and their bodies are even rougher. But man is not yet the last manifestation of the world soul. The soul of the earth, spiritualized like other planets besides man, manifests itself, but weaker, in the mental life of animals, in the growth of plants, in the mechanical growth of inorganic bodies. 46 Each new generation of the soul is thus lower than the previous one, and this series of diminishing perfection continues until perfection completely disappears, until light, gradually decreasing, becomes darkness, good evil, spirit body. This is how matter arises, which is nothing more than a lack of perfection, goodness, a lack of being, non-existence. Dualism, thus, although somewhat illogically and unexpectedly, disappeared, matter is something that does not exist - a simple shadow and boundary of being, and everything that exists is spirit; from the moral side, there is also no evil, because everything that exists is good, and evil is like matter. The material elements known to us are not matter, because they change and take on opposite properties; matter is that which serves as the basis for the changes of these elements, something that has no definitions - the simple possibility of being. 47 If Plotinus's metaphysics depicts the world to us as a series of stages of gradually decreasing perfection, starting with the absolute and ending at the extreme boundary with matter - the absence of any perfection, then his morality requires a reverse ascent to the absolute. The highest goal for a person is union with the Divine, the first requirement of morality is renunciation of sensuality. The birth of a soul in a body is its fall from the ideal world, the body for it is shackles, a coffin, a prison, so a person, first of all, must fight sensuality. However, ascetic rules are not particularly important in Plotinus’s morality; he does not even demand a strictly ascetic life from everyone and considers some pleasures permissible. 48 The positive side of morality is more developed in him - the elevation of man to God. This exaltation can only be achieved through likeness to God; but if we take into account that the ideal expressed in Plotinus’ concept of the highest God is characterized by a state of complete peace and inactivity, then it will be clear that Plotinus sees the likeness of God mainly in contemplation. 49 Civil virtues, according to Plotinus, have significance in moral life, but only a lower and preparatory one. 50 The true sage frees himself from all activity, from everything that can involve him in the interests of this world, from the ties of kinship, friendship, love of the fatherland, and turns to the contemplation of true intelligence and beauty. The first step for this can be the contemplation of beauty in sensory objects, as a divine element in the material world - then a person must delve into the contemplation of beauty in the soul, its properties and activities, in beautiful morals and actions, from spiritual beauty he must turn to ideal beauty; here a person renounces even more from the sensory world and immerses himself in himself, in his mind, which is a reflection of the first mind, 51 and as in the reflection, by nature it contains all the wealth of the first mind. But the content of the first mind does not yet constitute the highest limit for the elevation of a person - above this level there is also an elevation above thinking itself - an unconscious state of ecstasy, when a person is filled with the deity and directly unites with the One, so that any difference between one and the other disappears. This higher state is rare and not available to everyone; and since it was, human language is not able to convey it. 52 The contemplative character of the Plotinian system, and in particular this doctrine of mystical union with the deity, most clearly reflects Eastern influence on it. Greek philosophy of former times was not at odds with real life; she was closely connected with art, literature, political life; Plotinus, on the contrary, requires withdrawal from the world, renunciation of all social responsibilities and connections, and self-absorption. Such was the general spirit of the time under the influence of the East. Plotinus's student Porfiry published and popularized the works of his teacher. In general, he was faithful to Plotinus and differed with him only on private issues. 53 But with Iamblichus, a student of Porphyry, a new period begins in the history of Neoplatonism. Philosophy leaves its path of free thinking and enters into contact with popular religion. Until now, philosophy has not left the confines of the school of lovers of speculative thinking; now philosophers fill churches and take an active part in liturgical cults, sacrifices, and theurgical rites; the philosopher turns into a priest and magician. 54 The reason for this turn lies partly in the personality of the reformer of the school - Iamblichus, originally from Chalcis, who, with the intelligence and education of a speculative philosopher, combined the inclination towards mysticism and the ardor of imagination of the Eastern man, and who, along with the philosophy of Plotinus and Porphyry, carefully studied the doctrine and cult of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Indians and Persians. 55 But, of course, if it were only Iamblichus alone, his views would not have received wide dissemination, and if the new direction prevailed over the old, if the glory of Iamblichus eclipsed the glory of his teacher Porphyry during the latter’s lifetime, then the reason for this is that Iamblichus’ reform best met the needs of the time. Philosophy has always had the disadvantage that it exists for a few, and the philosophy of Plotinus was no exception in this regard; his metaphysics was too abstract, his morality pursued its goal along too long a path and was designed for a person living and able to live a contemplative life. The masses were looking for positive religious beliefs and more or less simple means of communication with the Divine, and for life - laws and rules that determine this life, but do not separate a person from his environment and from his ordinary activities. With his reform, Iamblichus vulgarized, so to speak, the philosophy of his predecessors, giving it a religious form, and spiritualized the popular religion, giving a philosophical meaning not only to gods and myths, but also to its cult - sacrifices, prayers, spells and all sorts of rituals in general. The union of Neoplatonic philosophy with popular religion is often explained by the danger that threatened both from the increasingly widespread Christianity. 56 This consideration is correct, but there is no need to present the matter too crudely, as if philosophy, not at all sharing popular beliefs, recognized them only in order to find support against a common enemy, and vice versa, religion for the same reasons united with philosophy. Their union occurred much earlier, when no danger from Christianity was yet visible; the predecessors of Neoplatonism, such as Apollonius of Tyana, Plutarch, Apuleius, Numenius, in their views stood very close to popular beliefs and paid a lot of attention to the liturgical cult; especially Apollonius of Tyana, who, like Iamblichus, can be called as much a priest as a philosopher. 57 Philosophy has long adapted popular beliefs to its ideas when they lagged behind the latter. 58 Now she had to do it with greater intensity and with more energy. Christianity, spreading with extreme speed, even acquiring the significance of a state religion during the time of Iamblichus, threatened to completely destroy paganism, and at the same time Greek civilization, which was imbued with religion in everything - in literature, in art, and in public life; it was necessary to justify the old religion, revive it, spiritualize it, and philosophy persistently took up this task, which was not new to it; from the interpretation of myths she moved on to the rite of worship and theurgy and wanted to give them a meaning, a philosophical explanation; but this union did not save religion, but carried away philosophy along with religion; Neoplatonism could not revive old obsolete forms of life, while Christianity, trying to revive society, reviving individual people, making them morally better, spread more and more. A religious character was characteristic to a greater or lesser extent of all philosophical doctrines of the Alexandrian period, including the systems of Plotinus and Porphyry. We saw that she set man's first task to rise to the Divine - this was her central point. Both Plotinus and Porphyry accepted the myths of popular religion, of course, in an allegorical interpretation and brought the concepts of their metaphysics closer to the Greek gods. Thus Plotinus calls the One Uranus, the First Mind Saturn, the Soul of the world Zeus; they give rise to each other, as in myths; Saturn disfigures his father because the origin of Mind is the division of the One; Zeus overthrows his father, because the Soul, born from the Mind, itself becomes the creator and king of the world. 59 But such a rapprochement of philosophical concepts with the gods of Greek mythology does not play a big role in the philosophy of Plotinus and Porphyry and is rarely used by them. Recognizing that religion and philosophy are forms of the same truth, they develop, however, their system independently of religion and only sometimes resort to the latter to illustrate their positions; philosophy always remains in the foreground. Meanwhile, in Iamblichus, philosophical concepts, even more fragmented in a dialectical way, 60 are completely personified and with the broadest arbitrariness come close to the gods of different peoples; philosophy became in his system the revelation and interpretation of religion. 61 There were even greater differences between Plotinus and Porphyry, on the one hand, and Iamblichus, on the other, in relation to external cult and theurgy. Plotinus refuses to go to the church when Amelius invites him there; he says that the gods themselves must come to him; 62 he denied the power of prayers and sacrifices; he demanded from a person only internal improvement and striving for God. Porfiry absolutely did not allow material sacrifices to the highest God, for everything material is alien to Him, and we can honor Him only in silence with holy thoughts, and best of all, by becoming like Him. 63 The lower gods need to bring the firstfruits of the benefits that they give us, and the philosopher will bring them his good thoughts and will thank them for giving him the opportunity to contemplate them. 64 Porfiry especially condemns bloody sacrifices - they are offered not to the gods, but to demons. A true philosopher, a priest of the Most High God, is free from slavish dependence on external things, he will not bother demons, will not turn to oracles and the entrails of animals. 65 In a letter to Marcella, he speaks even more decisively: “The best cult that can be rendered to God is to form one’s soul in His likeness. This similarity is achieved only through virtue, for virtue alone lifts the soul to its fatherland, from where it came... It is not the words of the wise that have value before God, but his deeds; the wise man worships God without words, while the ignorant crowd insults the Divine even with prayers and sacrifices. Only the sage is a priest, only he is religious, only he knows how to pray.” 66 “The atheist is not so much the one who reveres the statues of gods as the one who mixes all sorts of mob superstitions into the idea of ​​God.” 67 “The victims of the reckless crowd are food for the flame, and their offerings are prey for the blasphemers, but you,” he turns to Matsella, make a church for the Divine out of your own heart. 68 However, Porfiry does not deny a completely external cult; he rebels only against those who think that God needs our sacrifices, and he can be appeased with offerings alone. 69 When, with the influence of the East, astrology, magic, and theurgy began to spread widely in the Roman Empire, philosophy needed to speak out regarding them, and Plotinus writes a special essay on “Can the stars have influence?” Plotinus is completely negative about the idea that the movement of the stars determines whether a person is poor or rich, virtuous or immoral, what profession he has, whether he is a musician or a rhetorician, a grammarian, a military leader, a king. But at the same time, according to Plotinus, the stars can give instructions regarding the future in our lives, not because they are forces that act hostilely or favorably on a person, but because everything in the world is in strict harmony with each other. harmony and interaction, so that based on the state of some objects one can conclude about others, one only needs to be able to understand this world harmony and interaction of things. 70 In essence, such reasoning is not so much a denial of mantics as an attempt to scientifically substantiate it, if not all, then at least in a certain part, and we will see that this particular theory of Plotinus found further development and wider application in the school of Iamblichus. Obviously, the passion for the mystical cult spread so much that it began to penetrate among the adepts of Neoplatonism, and Plotinus’s student Porphyry had to fight against it. In a letter to Anebon “On the Mysteries,” he casts serious doubt on the validity of theurgic rites, the possibility of summoning gods or demons, winning them to his side with various sacred actions, even threats, the appearance of gods in certain images, the possibility of distinguishing in these phenomena gods from demons and some gods and demons from others. 71 In response to Porphyry’s perplexity, a book “On the Mysteries” appeared with the name Iamblichus, but probably belonging to one of his students. 72 Here all the perplexities of Porfiry regarding cult and theurgy are resolved. The essence of theurgy, as explained in this book, 73 lies in the influence of the gods on our world; the possibility of this influence is determined by the fact that the gods have a body; but this body does not even limit them to place, therefore there are no ethereal, airy, earthly, water gods, only different environments accept them, each according to its nature and properties. This explains the differences in sacrifices and invocations. The very communication of the gods with our soul consists in the fact that the spiritual side of our soul is united with the spiritual nature of the gods. The images in which gods, demons, and heroes appear correspond to their nature and dignity, and this makes it possible to recognize them. The difference in nature also determines the difference in their actions - some act on the higher aspects of the soul, others on the lower ones, and others on the body. The highest goal achieved by theurgy is union with the deity - an extraordinary indescribable state in which God completely takes possession of a person and becomes one with him. This state is produced only by God; the external and sensual have nothing to do with it. If songs and music are used during theurgic rites, then their effect is explained by universal harmony, according to which everything that happens in the spiritual world has its symbol in the sensory world; in addition, for the soul they are an echo of that divine harmony that it heard during the period of its former life in the rational world. The power of sacrifices is also based on the mutual sympathy of things, in this case, victims and demons to whom sacrifices are made - fire, purifying the victims, makes them more suitable to the bodies of demons. The material side of the cult should not confuse anyone; there are non-material gods and there are material ones; although the essence of the latter is not material, only they have a body; on the other hand, man himself consists of soul and body; This is the basis of the duality of the cult; Spiritual cult is performed not to material gods and about the needs of the soul; material sacrifices are made to material gods and about the benefits of the body. Threats added to prayers are aimed at driving away the blind forces of nature that could interfere with the sacred rite. From this apology it is clear that the new direction in Neoplatonism sought to connect its innovations with the spirit and traditions of the school. External cult and theurgy are for him a means for the same goal that Neoplatonism had previously set - for union with the deity; Only in view of the fact that this goal was rarely achieved and not by everyone, later Neoplatonists wanted to make it more accessible. The basis for their external cult was the same on which Plotinus based the possibility of prediction - namely, the mutual sympathy of things. However, there was a very significant difference between the new and old directions. According to Plotinus and Porphyry, union with the deity, although rare, is achieved by human forces, through the psychological and moral development of a person. According to the teachings of Iamblichus, the same state is achieved by the action of mysterious symbols, which almost mechanically bring a person into communication with God, no matter who these symbols act on - on a person or on God. Everything here is supernatural and mysterious. 74 A philosopher, like Porfiry, was repulsed by the appeal to external cult as a means of achieving a higher goal; he could allow its influence only on the lower aspects of the soul, but not on the human mind; The author of “de misteriis” sees this means only in theurgy and considers it necessary for preparation even for the highest state of ecstasy. 75 Theurgy replaced free thought and morality in the school of Iamblichus, and philosophy, which once began with criticism of popular religion, ended up becoming its handmaiden. Emperor Julian also belongs to the school of Iamblichus, who made an attempt to return to paganism its former position as the dominant religion, which he had lost during the reign of his uncle Constantine the Great. Julian wanted to restore precisely that philosophical paganism that we saw in the system of Iamblichus, where sacrifices, theurgic rites and the entire external cult in general, as well as Greek and Syrian mythology, received a philosophical and moral interpretation. 2. Literary controversy between Christians and pagans before Julian and St. Kirill. I. Polemical writings of the pagans; general remarks about their fate and authors; the main objections of pagans to Christianity. At first, after the advent of Christianity, little was known about him. There were only dark rumors about him, as about an immoral and harmful Jewish sect; they said that at their meetings Christians indulge in the most vile debauchery and, in order to increase the severity of their crime, they deliberately call each other brothers and sisters, that they kill babies and use their blood for their sacraments, 76 they also accused them of atheism, because they had a negative attitude towards the state religion, refused to participate in religious rites, and on the other hand, they themselves had neither churches nor idols. 77 These stories and accusations incited the ignorant masses against Christians and caused persecution by the government. But the educated classes treated them with contempt and did not honor them with their attention. UNTIL the half of the second century we find nothing concerning Christians in pagan literature, except for brief mention of them in Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius. (The last two about the persecution of Nero in 64. 78) Only when Christianity spread throughout the empire, penetrated even into the highest classes of society and put up talented defenders of its teachings before the Roman emperors, did educated pagans have to pay attention to it and even enter into a literary struggle with it. Few monuments of this literary struggle have reached us. The works of Lucian, Philostratus, and Celsus have been preserved - the latter, however, not in its entirety - but, undoubtedly, in large part due to the fact that his Christian critic Origen reproduced it in most cases literally in his apology. Porphyry's work "15 Books Against Christians" was burned by order of the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III in order to rid believers of the temptation that this work represented; 79 only small excerpts from it remain in Eusebius of Caesarea, bl. Theodoret, Jerome and Augustine. The same religious jealousy was probably the reason for the disappearance of the polemical works of Fronto, mentioned in the Octavius ​​of Minucius Felix and Hierocles, the ruler of Bithynia under Diocletian, who wrote an essay against Christians (some information about his work was preserved by Lactantius 80 and Eusebius of Caesarea). 81 There were probably many more works against Christianity than we know even by name. So Lactatius mentions one pagan philosopher, who in 303 in Nicodemus composed 3 books against Christians, but who this philosopher was and what exactly he wrote against Christians, we know nothing from either Lactantius or other authors; Lactantius does not even call him by name. 82 In the writings of Lucian of Samosata (b. 120) there is still no serious analysis of Christianity. Lucian did not take up his pen with the goal of defending his native religion or any philosophical system; he himself is a skeptic in relation to religious and philosophical issues and in his mockery he does not spare any philosophy or religion. 83 In his works “Alexander or the False Prophet”, “Dialogues” and especially the death of Peregrine, he speaks of Christians with contempt, with disdainful condescension, as a pathetic superstition of naive people. 84 These unfortunate people, in his opinion, convinced themselves that they were immortal and would live forever, as their teacher promised them; Therefore, they despise death and often surrender themselves to it voluntarily. They despise all the blessings of the world and have everything in common, whereby any adventurer can take advantage of their simplicity and gullibility and enrich themselves at their expense, and then laugh at them. 85 Lucian was also credited with the work “Philopatris,” a small work that does not contain serious criticism of Christianity, but reveals in the author a fairly close acquaintance with Christian teaching. But, according to Gesner and Neander 86, this work cannot be considered to belong to Lucian; mockery of the teaching of Christianity about the one God in the Trinity, about the mutual relationship of the divine Persons force us to attribute it to a later time, when these questions especially occupied the minds of Christian theologians, and the remark about the hatred of Christians for the reigning emperor, who was then absent in a difficult war with the Persians, determines the time of the appearance of this work even more precisely - precisely in 363 during the reign of Emperor Julian. The work of the rhetorician Philostratus, the biography of Apollonius of Tyana, does not actually contain a polemic against Christianity, it does not even contain the name of Christians, and only by the similarity that is noticed here in the description of the life of a pagan sage with the life of the founder of Christianity, one can, not without reason, think that in this work the author wanted to oppose Christ to Christ, in his opinion, the best person in paganism, as Hierocles did later in his work against Christians. 87 More or less serious criticism of Christianity begins with the work of Celsus “The True Word”. Celsus was a very educated man of his time; from his writings it is clear that he is well acquainted with the literature of ancient Greece, as well as with the literature and religions of the eastern peoples - Hindus, Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians; in relation to all sciences, he stands at the level of the century, and in his polemical work this was expressed by the variety of points of view from which he attacks Christianity; he uses history, philosophy, law, and natural sciences for polemical purposes. Before entering into an analysis of Christianity, he obviously spent a lot of work studying both Christianity and Judaism. He read their sacred books and constantly refers to them in his essays; In addition, during his travels, he personally met Jews and Christians and entered into conversation with them. 88 With all this, he apparently is not familiar with his biblical books, he confuses Christians with Gnostic sects, 89 repeats the old reproaches of immorality against Christians. Which would not have taken place with a closer acquaintance with the life of Christians. He learned a lot about Christians from the Jews, who deliberately spread various fables about them in order to harm the success of their preaching. 90 Of the Christians, he spoke most of all with simple, uneducated people, who in many cases could not, of course, satisfy his curiosity. Regarding his statement: “I know everything that they (Christians) say and do.” Origen notes that Celsus gained his knowledge from some poor, uneducated people, so ignorant that they did not even know their own ignorance. 91 But Celsus also knows about the existence of educated people among Christians. 92 In his views, Celsus was a Platonist, although Origen wants to present him as an Epicurean: only he was a Platonist of his time, when the name of Platonism was given to a philosophy of an eccletic nature; With great respect we quote alongside Plato and other philosophers - Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Epictetus. In relation to religion, he holds the broadest views, recognizing all national religions as true. “In the beginning,” he says, the separate parts of the earth were divided among different rulers, who govern them each in his own way, and in each place everything goes well as long as they are governed by the laws established there, therefore it is ungodly to violate the laws that they (the rulers) established in each country at first.” 93 “Let everyone live according to the customs of their country,” 94 he says in another place. Therefore, he treats the Jewish national religion as worthy of respect and condemns Christians for innovation. 95 He has philosophical ideas about the gods; so he says that the Egyptians worshiped eternal intelligible entities under the emblems of animals. The Supreme God is understood by him as Plato’s unified, immobile, alien to change, infinitely distant from our world. From him came everything spiritual in the world, which is therefore eternal; material things originated from the lower gods and, like material things, they are subject to destruction. In relation to the superstitions of his time, Celsus takes a rationalistic point of view, laughs at street charlatans who show miracles, and at magic, 96 although his views on this issue are not particularly clear - in another place he recognizes magic as a means of entering into communication with the lower gods, but does not advise it, he is carried away by it, because it delivers only benefits for the body, and not for the soul. 97 After Celsus, the most powerful enemy of Christianity was Neoplatonic philosophy with its desire to create from the elements of religion and philosophy a system that would simultaneously satisfy both the philosophical and religious needs of man. Neoplatonism was all the more dangerous for Christianity because it had many visible similarities with it, especially in its doctrine of the Divine Trinity, the first Mind or Logos, and in its morality, which set man's goal to unite with God. The creator of the system, Plotinus, did not write anything against Christianity, except for his work against the Gnostics, which, very possibly, also applied to Christianity. 98 But in the person of Plotinus’s student, Porphyry, Christianity has already found a very strong literary opponent. But we have already said that only fragments of his work have survived. The learned opponents of Christianity have not abandoned their previous accusations of godlessness and immorality against Christians, but they do not limit themselves to these accusations, and having become more familiar with the new religion, begin a more thorough analysis; they criticize it from both historical and philosophical points of view, consider its origin, development, connection with Judaism, relation to other religions, modern and ancient; they critically examine the sources of Christian teaching - the holy books of the Old and New Testaments, analyze both individual points of Christian teaching and its general character. We will give a general overview of their polemics, focusing on its more significant points. The material for this is, first of all, of course, the work of Celsus; then, what is known from apologetic works about the objections of Porphyry and other Neoplatonists, and in general everything that has been preserved from the objections to pagan Christianity by Christian writers. In addition, we will have in mind the excellent work of Minucius Felix “Octavius”, containing a dispute between the pagan Caecilius and the Christian Octavius. Caecilius is a fictitious person, but there is reason to believe that Minucius Felix reproduced in his speeches the objections of a historical person - Fronto, who wrote an essay against Christians, and about whom Minucius makes a mention in Octavius; - firstly, the apologist was familiar with the work of Fronto, and, having taken upon himself the task of defending Christianity against the attacks of the pagans, naturally he should have had this work in mind; secondly, the personality of Caecilius, a very educated man, but more literary than philosophical, an enemy of all innovations, a conservative who defends the ancient religion not so much out of attachment to it itself as in the interests of the state, has much in common with the personality of Fronto, since his correspondence with his friend and student Emperor Marcus Aurelius, which has survived to our times, gives an idea of ​​it. 99 However, no matter how we look at the personality of Caecilius, his objections serve for us only as confirmation of what is contained in the main source of our information about the pagan polemic against Christianity - in the work of Celsus. For the pagans of the Alexandrian era, with their conservative direction, with their deep respect for the authorities of national religions sanctified by jealousy, Christianity, first of all, seemed to be an illegal innovation, not backed by ancient traditions, a human invention of recent times. Celsus and other pagan writers reproach him for his innovation. 100 Christianity was not associated with any nation; it addressed its preaching to all nations, but did not want to stand next to their religions, but, treating them negatively, wanted to replace them. Naturally, the pagans could not treat it the same way as other religions that lived side by side. True, Christians connected their religion with Judaism - they considered it a continuation of the latter, but the Jews themselves did not recognize them as their own, and the pagans also found that there was little in common between one and the other religion, that the God of the Old Testament was not at all the same as the God of the New, and His decrees were abolished by the one whom Christians call His Son. Thus, says Celsus, in the Old Testament God commanded the Jews to seek wealth and power, to multiply to fill the entire earth, to kill their enemies, not even sparing children and destroying their entire race; He threatened for not fulfilling His laws, and His Son, the man of Nazareth, gives completely opposite laws, declares that the rich will never have access to His Father, nor he who strives for power; he says that one should not worry about food and clothing, but should live like birds and wildflowers. 101 Confusing Christians with Gnostics, Celsus attributes these thoughts even to Christians themselves. Thus, Christians are a sect separated from Judaism. The Jews, according to Celsus, are generally characterized by “a spirit of partisanship, a tendency to strife and division; “once the Egyptians, following Moses, separated from their fatherland (Celsus considers the Jews to be Egyptians) in order to become Jews, and at the time of Jesus other Jews separated from their society to follow Jesus; Since then, they have continued to divide and split into separate sects, of which each wants to form its own gang. Such is their constant spirit, constant aspirations, and if all people wanted to become Christians, the latter would not want to be them. Separate sects are at enmity and quarrel among themselves and have nothing in common except the name, if only they also have that. This is the only thing they are still ashamed to leave behind. 102 The very origin of Christianity from the East, and in particular from among Judaism, diminished its reputation in the eyes of some educated pagans. Not everyone looked to the east and the Jews like Numenius, who thought that the west borrowed its civilization from the east and in particular from the Jews. 103 Some, on the contrary, were very unfriendly towards the strong influence of the East on the Western world; we have seen that Plotinus, in his work against the Gnostics, combats the invasion of Greco-Roman society by oriental fantastic and ill-disciplined thought; he only wants to follow the Greek sages. Celsus's opinion in this regard is more moderate, but still unfavorable for the Jews and the Christians who came from their midst. “It is impossible, of course,” he says, to reproach Christians for their barbaric origins; barbarians are quite capable of inventing teachings; but the wisdom of the barbarians in itself is worth little; it is necessary for the Greek mind to join it for its improvement, purification and development.” 104 And then, if among the barbarian peoples, some were indeed famous for their civilization and political power, as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Hindus, Persians, and their sages were the source of wisdom for the West, then, in any case, “no one thinks of counting the Jews among the fathers of civilization or giving Moses an honor similar to that of these ancient sages.” 105 Porfiry, calling Christianity “the offspring of ignorant Judaism,” 106 also did not think highly of Jewish culture, but he had great respect for the Jewish religion. In his opinion, “God testified the truth to the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, Medes and Jews”; like other peoples, Jews honor the self-born King God; they believe “in God the Father and the King above all, before whom heaven, earth, sea, the underworld and the very deities tremble; their law is the Father, whom the Jewish saints reverently honor.” 107 What seemed most daring to the pagans about the new religion was that it was preached by completely ignorant people, first some Galilean fishermen, and then various artisans, day laborers, slaves, and women. “It is worthy of indignation and condolences,” says the pagan Caecilius in “Octavia” of Minucius Felix, that some uneducated, ignorant, alien to the concepts of the simplest arts, dare to talk about the essence of things and about the Divinity, about which philosophers of different schools have been arguing among themselves for so many centuries.” 108 These are “people of a miserable forbidden, despicable sect,” “they recruit an unholy society of followers from the very dirt of the people, from gullible women who are mistaken by the frivolity of their sex.” 109 Celsus speaks with the same contempt about Christians - as uneducated, unlearned people, mainly from slaves, artisans and women. 110 Such a reproach, offending the ear of a modern person, did not seem strange to a person of the classical world; there the cultural and intellectual assessment of man prevailed over the moral one, and people who, due to the conditions of their life, stood mentally, in general, lower than others - like artisans, slaves, women - were treated with disdain; they were considered a lower breed of people, explaining their low mental level by their less perfect nature, and not by the external conditions of their upbringing and life. According to Celsus, it was even a principle for Christians to accept only fools into their society, rejecting all reasonable people, as if it were bad to be educated, as if this were an obstacle to the knowledge of God. 111 Another principle, according to him, was to accept into their society only vicious, immoral people. 112 It is not for nothing that they hide from people for their meetings, since if they knew what they were doing there, they would put them to death, and the government acts quite rightly in persecuting them, because they unite against religion and civil institutions. Analyzing the very teaching of Christians, pagan scientists had to especially dwell on those points that were in conflict with their own views; here, first of all, they came across the doctrine of the closest relationship of God to the world and especially to man, although the rapprochement of God with the world was the pinm desiderium of Alexandrian philosophy, however, the main and starting point of this philosophy was the elevation of God above the world, and their connection, as the goal and last word of all systems, was achieved through an endless series of intermediaries. God did not create our world himself, but through the lower gods and cannot interfere in his life, and there is no need for this, because everything in it is lawful and harmonious, thanks to the laws that the gods put into the very nature of the world, and which are inviolable. The Christian teaching about the creation of the world by the Supreme God himself directly and the constant providence of God in the world naturally aroused criticism from the pagans. Caecilius in Octavius ​​laughs that, according to Christians, “their God, whom they cannot see or show to others, carefully monitors the morals of all people, the deeds, words and even secret thoughts of every person, penetrates everywhere and is present everywhere; Thus, they imagine Him to be constantly restless, preoccupied and shamelessly curious, for He is present in all matters, in all places.” 113 The Christian doctrine of the incarnation of God was even more condemned; if in the creation of the world and in the providence about it God only descends to the material world through his participation in it, then in the dogma of the incarnation, Christians ascribe to Him a union with matter. For philosophers who considered matter to be infinitely distant from God, the source of all imperfection and evil, such a teaching seemed the height of absurdity. In the eyes of Neoplatonists, according to Bl. Augustine, God incarnate lost all meaning only because, being a word, he became flesh. 114 We see here how the philosophy of this time, despite its religious character and patronage of religion, diverged far from the latter. Pagan mythology was full of stories about the incarnation of gods and vice versa - about the deification of people; its gods constantly intervened in the lives of people, took part in their wars and quarrels, were carried away by their beautiful daughters and had children from them, and generally spent a significant part of their time on earth. Therefore, for a mind brought up on these myths, it was not at all difficult to accept the teaching of the new religion about the providence and incarnation of God; simple pagans went even further, sometimes mistaking the preachers of the gospel themselves for gods, as was the case in Lystra, with the apostles Paul and Barnabas. 115 But philosophers, based on their views, criticized these dogmas. In Celsus we find criticism of the dogma of the incarnation from different points of view. First of all, the incarnation would cause a change in God himself and, moreover, a change into a worse state, into matter, and God, by the very concept of Him, is alien to any changes; 116 if God needed to correct something in the world, then he, as omniscient and omnipotent, could, without descending from heaven, find out what was happening on earth and, knowing this, correct it, without taking on a human body. 117 On the other hand, the physical world, once subordinated to its own laws, does not allow any changes in itself from the outside and does not need these changes: the incarnation of God could only produce a catastrophe in it. 118 The moral world is not subject to outside influence; so-called evil is a necessary phenomenon, it has neither beginning nor end; it comes from matter and just as the nature of the whole remains the same, so there will always be the same amount of evil. 119 On the same basis that matter is the source of evil, the dogma of the resurrection of bodies was ridiculed almost more than other Christian dogmas; for the Alexandrian philosophers, especially the Neoplatonists, the very birth of man in the flesh was a consequence of the fall of man, a punishment for his sins. Alexandrian philosophers considered the first moral duty of man to be the elevation of spirit over matter, and the ideal of their moral aspirations was complete liberation from the shackles of matter and merging with the incorporeal divine essence. Naturally, Christian aspirations - to be resurrected again in their body for eternal life - seemed to them completely extravagant and insane. The hope for the resurrection of bodies, says Celsus, is a hope worthy of worms, “in fact, what human soul could wish to return to the rottenness of the body? Even some of you, i.e. Jews and Christians, Celsus continues, do not accept this belief, considering it absurd, disgusting and impossible.” 120 How often Christians had to hear reproach for their belief in the resurrection can be seen from the fact that objections to the resurrection of bodies were decisively dealt with by all apologists, and some even devoted special writings to this issue. 121 In these dogmas of creation, industry, and the incarnation of God, the pagans found one common idea of ​​the Christian worldview, which was completely inconsistent with their own naturalistic worldview - namely, the idea of ​​the central importance of man in world history. It is not difficult to see from the history of Greek philosophy that from the very beginning the mind of the Greeks was aimed at understanding the nature of existence; the first questions of their philosophical thought were cosmological and ontological questions - about the origin and essence of things; and even after the philosophy of Socrates made man the center of its attention, and the task “know thyself” was set as the foundation and point of departure for philosophy, human life and human history did not receive real meaning in the philosophy of the Greeks. Alexandrian philosophy, which emerged from religious and ethical questions, i.e. from questions about man, first of all, she built grandiose systems in which much more space was given to the emanation of the deity itself and to the cosmos in the broad sense of the word than to the history of man, which received the significance of only an insignificant page from the life of an immense whole. Christian philosophy, not at all against it, from the very beginning acted as a philosophy of human history; she dealt little with issues of world and higher-world life; it begins only with the creation of the world, but immediately becomes the history not of the world, but of man, the world serves only as a place where this history takes place, it was created only for people, and then the goal of human history will be achieved, it will disappear. The characters in this story are, in addition to man himself, other forces - God, good and evil spirits, nature itself; but they all act for the sake of man and for his purposes. Christians, of course, did not in fact limit world life to the history of one humanity; they knew that there was life in a higher world, and that for God, angels and demons, people were not the only subject of attention, but Christians did not have such extensive cosmogonies and theogonies as the Greek poets and philosophers, and this gave the pagans reason to think that they limited the life of the world only to their history. As for other creatures inhabiting the earth, the earth itself and other planets, Christians really considered their purpose for man and elevated him above them as a special, exceptional creation - in the image and likeness of God. 122 Such ideas seemed extremely strange and naive to the pagans. “Christians,” says Celsus, like worms gathered in a dung corner, or like a herd of bats, or like ants or frogs located near a swamp, not seeing anything around, interpret that after God they are above everything, that everything was created and exists only for them - the earth, and the water, and the air, and the stars, that God cares only about them and sends his messengers to them, and does not care about the rest of the world, and when some of them they have sinned, God will come and send His Son to consign the wicked to the flames, so that the rest may enjoy eternal life with him.” 123 In fact, Celsus objects, people are creations like everyone else; they are not only higher than animals, but in some respects even lower than them. Ants and bees have a no less wise social structure, 124 storks and phoenixes surpass us in love for their parents, snakes and eagles know the art of magic, mysterious medicines, the mysterious power of stones, 125 birds in general have a Divine vision of the future; there is no creature more faithful to an oath and more religious than an elephant. 126 And animals were not created for us at all: “If they say that we are the kings of animals because we catch them in the hunt and eat them, then why not think that rather we were created for them, because they also catch us and eat us? And we, in order to catch them, need traps, weapons, hunters and dogs, while wild animals are provided with sufficient weapons from nature for the same purpose.” 127 You claim that God has given us the power to catch them and use them at our pleasure; but it is well known that before people formed societies, built cities, invented arts and weapons, they were more often the prey of wild animals than those of them. 128 In the same way, thunder, lightning, and rain exist for humans no more than for plants, and the sun and night are as much for humans as for ants and mice; 129 and in general the world was not created for man, just as it was not for a lion, not for an eagle, not for a dolphin, but so that the universe, as the creation of God, constituted a complete whole and was perfect in all parts. Therefore, each part of the world should be considered not in subordination to another part, but in relation to the whole. God cares for the whole and never leaves it in His providence; he is not angry with people; just as he is not angry with monkeys or flies and never threatens them, since every creature inevitably acts according to the purpose that falls to it. 130 Even more absurd is that Christians consider the subject of God’s exclusive care not even of all people in general, but only of themselves - a small insignificant group of people. All opponents of Christians are indignant at the narrowness of their horizon, at their idea that God cares only about them, that a redeemer has come to them and for them, and that the rest of the nations are left by God to their fate. In his letter to Diognetus, the pagan asks Christians why Christ came so late and to only the Jews. 131 “Is it possible to believe,” says Celsus, “that only after many centuries God finally remembered the justification of people, and before He did not care about this at all.” 132 “And why did God send His Spirit to one little corner of the earth? It would be necessary for Him to breathe it into more bodies and send them here and there throughout the whole earth; - and why God sent his spirit to this despicable nation of the Jews, and not to other more famous nations.” 133 We find the same questions in Porfiry. 134 Celsus points out in Christian ideas about the relationship of God to calamus another general idea that does not agree with the worldview of the classical world - namely, the Eastern idea of ​​​​the struggle in the world of two principles - good and evil, God and Satan. Greek philosophy sought to present the world as one beautiful whole; Finding opposite principles in the world, she sought to bring them to unity, reducing one of them - matter - to zero, presenting it only as a shadow of another principle, rather than negative, non-existent. By this, both matter and the evil that was associated with matter were eliminated from the world, and the world received the appearance of a harmonious whole, where everything is perfect, where everything is in its place, and nothing needs correction. From this point of view, as we have seen, Celsus criticized the Christian teaching about the need for providence and the incarnation of God. From the same point of view, he rebels against the Christian teaching about Satan and evil spirits. This strange stupidity about great godlessness, he says, imagines that the great God has an adversary - Satan, that wanting to do some good to man He meets a creature that interferes with His intentions and which makes Him powerless. Christians, with their love for all kinds of discord, divisions and partisanship, even bring discord into the Kingdom of God, dividing it into two opposite sides. They borrowed this from stories about the titans rebelling against the gods, but they misunderstood these stories, which have an allegorical meaning. 135 Of course, not everything in the criticism of Christianity by learned pagans stemmed from the peculiarities of their philosophical views; in many points of Christian teaching they saw simply a contradiction of common sense and moral sense. And these objections to Christianity outlived them and are repeated to this day, when it is no longer possible to find a single Neoplatonist or Pythagorean, much less an adherent of the Greek religion. Usually, learned opponents of Christianity first became acquainted with the sources of its doctrine - the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments and then subjected these books to strict analysis in their writings; This acquaintance was sometimes very thorough. So Hierocles knew the Holy Scripture so well that Lactantius even suggested whether he had not previously been a Christian. 136 Hierocles tried to find contradictions in Holy Scripture, 137 attacked the apostle. Peter and Paul, as spreaders of false teaching; 138 in general, in his analysis of the sacred books, according to the testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote about him, he repeated Celsus, so Eusebius refuses to analyze it and refer readers to Origen’s work against Celsus. 139 Porfiry presented an extensive analysis of the sacred books in his “15 books against Christians”; Apparently, he sorted out all the books of the Old and New Testaments here; from the small fragments that have survived from this work, it is clear that Porfiry analyzed the Old Testament prophecies, among other things, those that are in the book of the prophet Daniel, and argued that this book does not belong to Daniel, but to an unknown author from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and contains not prophecies, but history; 140 in his analysis of the New Testament books, he laughs, among other things, at the frivolity of the Apostle Matthew, who immediately at the first invitation followed a stranger, 141 and at the naivety of the evangelists who called Lake Gennesaret the sea; 142 he also draws attention to the disagreement between the apostles Peter and Paul, as described in the Acts of the Apostles. 143 From the analysis of St. Quite a lot of books of the Old and New Testaments, made by Celsus, have survived. Celsus begins his criticism from the first chapters of the book of Genesis. He finds that the Jews, in their stories about the origin and first history of the world and man, borrowed a lot from the Greeks and other more ancient peoples, but only conveyed other people's traditions with their characteristic rudeness and ignorance and composed absurd fables that even old women would be ashamed to tell to put a child to sleep. The world is much older than the Jews thought, it has experienced many catastrophes in its history, but the Jews know only one of them - the flood, ridiculous fables that even old women would be ashamed to tell to put a child to sleep. The world is much older than the Jews thought, it has experienced many catastrophes in its history, but the Jews know only one of them - the flood, an absurd fable borrowed from the Greek legend about Deucalion; 144 Jews tell the most naive stories - about the creation of the world several days earlier than the days themselves appeared, 145 about God resting on the seventh day, as a tired worker rests when he needs to regain his strength, 146 about how God made man with his own hands in his own image, blew on him, extracted his wife from his side, 147 about the paradise planted by God himself, 148 about the serpent, the flood, the ark that contained all the creatures of the earth; 149 about how in subsequent history God provided donkeys, sheep, camels, and wells to his chosen ones. 150 Celsus laughs at the rudeness and anthropomorphism of these stories; - one cannot say that the great God gets tired, that He works with His own hands, even that He orders someone; God has no hands, no mouth, no eyes, no ears, no color, no figure. He could not create man in His image because He has no form. 151 “The most intelligent of Jews and Christians, says Celsus, blush at all these ridiculous inventions and try to free themselves from the difficulty by resorting to allegory.” 152 But both Celsus and Porphyry condemn Christians for applying the allegorical method to the interpretation of biblical stories, which they themselves used so widely. “These stories, says Celsus, do not allow allegory, and those to which they tried to attach it became even more absurd, because they show a reckless desire to create non-existent relations between things; 153 “the allegories attached to these stories show in those who do this more kindness and condescension than common sense. 154 The same crudeness of ideas is noted in the books of the New Testament, in the stories about the life of the incarnate God and in Christian expectations of the future life. Christians hope to go to a better land after death; there they think to see God with their bodily eyes, to hear His voice with their ears and to touch Him with their hands. 155 In general, these are religions of the flesh, not the spirit. It even seems to Celsus that Christians cannot even imagine how one can know God if He is not accessible to external senses; he advises them to awaken their spiritual eyes and direct their spirit to heaven in order to see God, and gives them several lessons from Plato about the difference between the sensible and the intelligible. 156 While ridiculing biblical stories and Christian beliefs, Celsus nevertheless admits that Christians also have good rules and opinions; only they were all expressed earlier and better by other peoples. “Coming later than the ancient sages, Moses learned from them and borrowed from them everything that was best established by him from his people, and at their expense he acquired for himself the name of the divine, which the Jews gave him.” 157 In the same way, what was said by the prophets was said even earlier by the Greek sages, only without this pomposity and this prophetic tone that we find in the Jewish prophets, as if they were speaking from God or His Son. 158 The same must be said about the commandments of the New Testament. Thus, the commandment to forgive offenses was borrowed from Plato’s dialogue between Socrates and Crito, and Christians only own the crude form in which this commandment is expressed. 159 The attitude of the pagans to the person of Christ himself is interesting. The person of Christ had a tremendous influence on His followers. That unattainably high, unusually bright image of Christ, which is depicted in the gospel, and which at that time was even more enlivened by oral stories passed down from generation to generation, greatly supported the first Christians in their cheerful heroic mood. The charm of this person was so strong that it affected even pagans. During the period of religious syncretism, for many pagans, Christ received a place among the great representatives of humanity and received the same tribute as they did, akin to religious awe. Emperor Alexander Severus had His image along with images of Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana. The Oracle of Apollo in Miletus speaks of Christ with great respect: “He was mortal in body, wise and performed miracles.” 160 In another saying the oracle says: “Christ, as the pious, dwells in heaven with the pious; So do not blame Him, but regret the stupidity of people whose death He was the cause of.” 161 Hecate says the same thing: “The soul in question is the soul of a pious person, but those who idolize Him are mistaken” 162. Porphyry, who cited these sayings in the Philosophy of the Oracles, obviously shared such a high opinion of Christ. Some pagans demonstrated their respect for Christ by trying in their writings to contrast Him with some famous person from their history; Thus Philostratus and Hierocles contrasted Apollonius of Tyana with Him, and Porphyry and Iamblichus opposed Pythagoras. Only in Celsus do we find a completely different attitude towards the person of Jesus Christ. Celsus sees in Him not only nothing divine, but also nothing remarkable or outstanding. If God, he says, had actually entered into man, He would necessarily have been distinguished by his height, beauty, strength, greatness, voice, eloquence, but this (Christ) was in no way superior to other people and even, as they themselves (Christians) say, was ugly and ignorant. 163 The humble image of Christ, who voluntarily and meekly endured blasphemy, slander and persecution of enemies and the betrayal of his own disciple, did not impress Celsus and even gave him cause for ridicule. This God of Christians, he says, even as a child cowardly fled to Egypt from the persecution of Herod. Subsequently caught and put on trial, He is saved in a shameful manner. 164 Before suffering, He asks God to deliver Him from this suffering. On the cross He cannot endure simple thirst, which the most ordinary person can endure, and even drinks bile and vinegar. 165 His character is irritable, prone to threats and curses; always addressing with the words: “Woe to you,” “I tell you,” He shows that he is powerless to convince his listeners with evidence and therefore uses means that are not suitable not only for God, but also for a sane person. 166 The insistence of the Jews in the church could not extract from him a single proof that He was the Son of God. 167 All that He could do during the course of His life was to convince a dozen criminals like Him - from boatmen and moneylenders. But even in them He did not know how to arouse trust in Himself; and those who lived with Him, who heard His voice, recognized Him as their teacher, - in a moment of danger, renounce Him, and one of them even betrays his teacher to his enemies. 168 No, Celsus concludes, it was not God, but man; His birth, His actions, His life are not characteristic of God, but of man, hated by God. 169 God did not protect Him when He was led to execution and did not punish those who crucified Him. 170 And if Christians have such a strong desire for innovation, then it would be better if they chose one of the more famous people - Hercules, Asclepius, Orpheus, Anaxarchus, Epictetus, than to idolize a person who ended an inglorious life with a shameful death; It would be better to choose from their own history Jonah, who came out of the belly of a fish, or Daniel, who escaped from the mouth of a lion. 171 Since Christians, as proof of the divinity of Christ and the teachings He preached, referred to the miracles performed by Christ and to the prophecies of the Old Testament, as being justified in it, pagan writers did a lot of analysis of these proofs. But we would be in vain to look for in the first opponents of Christianity the same attitude towards the miracles of the Gospel that we currently encounter in rationalistic criticism, i.e. like children's fables, essentially impossible. Never, except perhaps the Middle Ages, has there been such a superstitious time as this era; All sorts of eastern superstitions - magic, theurgy - so flooded the Western world at that time that even educated people often believed in them. Opponents of Christianity preferred to weaken the significance of the Gospel miracles rather than deny them, arguing that they were nothing special compared to the miracles of various famous pagans, and placing them even lower than the latter; Thus Philostratus contrasted the miracles of Christ with the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana. Even Celsus, who laughed at the eastern magicians and equated the gospel miracles with the miracles of the priests of Cybele, Mithras and Sabadai, considering them simple tricks, did not deny the possibility of miracles at all; he argued that miracles are not yet proof of the divinity of the person performing them, that Christ himself warned His disciples against various deceivers who would perform even greater miracles than Him, 172 Celsus criticized the Gospel miracles not as impossible, but as insufficiently confirmed; So, dwelling on the miracle of the resurrection of Christ, a miracle to which Christians attached mainly dogmatic and apologetic meanings, he finds that this miracle is not sufficiently proven, that it was seen only by a half-crazed woman, and someone else from the same gang - people whose disordered imagination created ghosts that they themselves desired, which happens often. 173 Christ had to appear to His enemies, to His judge, to the whole world; His execution had a lot of witnesses, but His resurrection had only one, but it should have been the other way around. 174 As for prophecies, Celsus eliminates the very method of such proof. Those absurdities that Christians and Jews tell about God, he says, will not become valid because they were predicted. One should not look at whether a certain thing was predicted or not, because one should not think about God that which is bad and unworthy of Him, even if in a fit of madness all people predicted it. 175 Judging by Celsus, opponents of Christianity also pointed out that the Old Testament prophecies were too dark and vague, so that they could equally rightly be attributed to different persons and different events, and Christians interpret them with boundless freedom and arbitrariness. 176 Full of fables, superstitions and false miracles, Christianity, according to the pagans, could only exist thanks to the gullibility of its ignorant followers - people who are usually the prey of all sorts of charlatans and swindlers; Christians cannot and do not want to provide any reasonable grounds to prove their teaching. According to Celsus, they consider wisdom to be evil and stupidity before God, and madness and stupidity to be good, and demand from their followers one faith, like the priests of Cybele, Mithras, Sabadius; 177 But among them, not one party agrees with another in matters of faith, and if everyone were guided by their rule: believe if you want to be saved, or leave, what should those who sincerely desire to be saved do? Maybe cast lots to find out which side to turn to, who to join? 178 Therefore, it is precisely that they require one faith, they do not accept into their society anyone learned or intelligent, but attract and can attract only ignorant people - tanners, cloth workers, slaves, women and children, who do not dare to open their mouths in the presence of educated people. 179 A reasonable man requires reasons for all opinions, and philosophical doctrines always offer evidence for their propositions. Plato does not impose his opinions on anyone and does not resort to miracles to prove them; he does not shut the mouth of anyone who would like to investigate what he promises; he does not demand that they first believe him that such and such a God exists, that He has such and such a Son, who, having descended to earth, told him everything. 180 II. Polemic-apologetic writings of Christians, judicial and scientific apologies, their main ideas and the main techniques of apologists in defending Christianity The victory won by the Christian religion over the ancient world was, first of all, of a moral nature. In a pagan society where debauchery, all sorts of vices, Epicurean enjoyment of life at the expense of other people's labor, violence and despotism reigned, Christianity appeared with the preaching of holiness, moral perfection, universal brotherhood and equality. And these new ideals were preached not so much through words as through the living example of the Christians themselves - the purity and holiness of their lives, the high heroism of the first Christian martyrs. At first there was no special theoretical system for the apology of Christianity, and the very life of Christians was the best apology for their teaching. This is how Christian theologians looked at it even when, due to the circumstances of the time, the work of scientific apologetics of Christianity had already received significant development. This conviction is expressed by Origen in the preface to his apology for Christianity against Celsus. “Jesus Christ,” he says, was silent when false witness was given against Him and did not answer anything when He was accused; He was convinced that His whole life, His deeds that He did among the Jews, justified Him more than all the speeches and all the apologies that He could use to expose these false testimonies and refute these accusations... And now, when they continue to slander Jesus (Celsus), He remains silent and is defended only by the purity of morals of His true disciples, which reflects all the accusations of opponents, and a voice that is stronger than the voice of slander. I am even afraid, Origen continues, lest my apology do injustice to the one represented by their life and deeds, and lest it darken the brilliance of the power of Jesus, striking the eyes of those who are not blind.” And Origen agreed to take on the task of refuting Celsus only after persistent requests from his friend Ambrose. The first apologies 181 appeared as a defense of Christianity against false accusations against it from the pagans, which had as their practical consequence the persecution and execution of Christians. The first apologists exposed false rumors spread about Christians and defended them from accusations of immorality and godlessness. Turning to the Roman emperors themselves, they asked not to blame them for the mere name “Christian,” but to investigate whether there was really anything criminal in the lives of people bearing this name. “We are accused,” writes Athenagoras in his petition about Christians, 182 “of three crimes - atheism, eating human flesh and vile Egyptian incest. If this is true, do not spare either gender or age, punish crimes without measure, completely destroy us with our wives and children, if any of the Christians live like animals... If all this is fiction and slander, a natural consequence of the fact that vice is opposite to virtue and, according to the law of God, the opposite rises against the opposite, if we do nothing such criminal, then it remains for you to examine our life, teaching, good disposition towards you, your house (emperors) and power and our obedience and thus grant us rights, at least the same, with our persecutors.” Apologists pointed out that in the life of Christians there is nothing immoral or dangerous for society, that they have a teaching about the true God, an exalted teaching, with which the best pagan philosophers agree; that it is impossible to persecute anyone for their beliefs and it is impossible to force them in matters of faith. The final purpose of their apologies was to defend the right of Christians to exist in the Roman state - both in the name of the height of Christian teaching and in the name of the principle of freedom of conscience. In the writings of the first apologists there is not yet an integral, developed system of defense of Christianity; they do not even contain a clear opposition of two worldviews - Christian and pagan; addressed to civil authorities, they sometimes have the character of more judicial than scientific protection. But with all this, the first apologists developed many techniques and methods for defending and proving Christianity, which later formed the basis for subsequent apologetic works, therefore, when characterizing Christian apologetics of the first centuries, we will also have in mind their writings. Actually, scientific apologies for Christianity are a response to polemical writings against Christianity by pagans. There were a lot of such apologies; About 30 Christian theologians wrote against Porphyry alone, according to the chronicle of Lucius Dexter (under 310); 183 of the best of them belonged to Eusebius of Caesarea and Methodius of Patara; but not a single one of Porfiry’s refutations has reached us; Eusebius of Caesarea (also owns an essay against Hierocles - an analysis of Philostratus's biography of Apollonius of Tyana regarding Hierocles' comparison with Christ. As far as we know, only Origen wrote against Celsus, and then about 100 years after the work of Celsus himself. Origen's work has survived to us, along with large excerpts from Celsus that are given in it. In addition to works directed against individual pagan authors who wrote against Christianity, there were many apologies against pagans in general; such as, for example, 8 books, Adversus gentes Institutiones divinae by Arnobius - Lactantius. De errore profanarum religionum - Firmicus Maternus, "Stromata" - Clement of Alexandria, "Evangelical preparation" and "Evangelical proof" of Eusebius of Caesarea, representing a complete system of scientific defense of Christianity against the attacks of the pagans, in particular Porphyry; the works of Athanasius the Great, “The Word on the Gentiles” and “The Word on the Incarnation of God the Word” and many others that have survived to this day. The writings of Christian apologists are polemical and apologetic in nature; on the one hand, they refuted paganism, on the other hand, they defended Christianity. Analyzing paganism in its essence and origin, apologists looked at it in general as a phenomenon of evil and error. This view is explored in more detail by Athanasius of Alexandria in his excellent treatise on the philosophy of history entitled “A Discourse on the Gentiles” 184 . In the beginning there was no evil, man enjoyed bliss in the contemplation of the divine image of God the Word, in whose image he was created; evil occurred because man, using his free will, diverted his mind and aspirations from God, in Whom is his good and purpose, to himself and sensuality. This is the beginning of sin, this is also the beginning of paganism 185. Since the image of divine things was eclipsed in man, he began to look for God in those very sensual things to which he directed his attention. At first he worshiped the heavenly bodies as God, then the various elements of the world, then people and their images, animals, plants, and so he descended lower and lower until he finally deified his own passions, which he personified in the image of people; the person even began to idolize individuals; 186 in support of the latter, Athanasius of Alexandria, like many other apologists, refers to the legend that Zeus himself, the first of the gods, was first a king in Crete, where his tomb is still shown, and to a modern example of the deification of Roman emperors. 187 In parallel to this, apologists had a different view of the pagan gods as demons; Having retained for them the pagan name of demons, which means the actual national gods, the apologists adopted for him the Christian concept of evil spirits cast down by God from heaven. These two views, however, are not in conflict with each other; the apologists did not imagine, of course, that the pagans consciously worship evil forces; the latter, according to the apologists, only took advantage of the ill-directed religious aspirations of the pagans and became their leaders on the path of error and immorality; thus, according to apologists, those whom the pagans considered gods - leaders of nations, were in fact evil demons 188. Sometimes apologists can find accusations of pagans in the veneration of idols, i.e. simple statues made of stone, wood or metal; 189 philosophers removed the justice of this accusation from their religion, explaining that idols are not gods, but only images of gods (Celsus) 190. This was indeed a somewhat strange reproach, especially since the apologists insisted on it, even accepting this explanation of the philosophers; They armed themselves in general against the external cult of the pagans, opposing it to their spiritual service to God, without temples, without any images of God, which cannot be made (Origen). 191 To confirm the general view of paganism, as a synonym for all immorality and error, apologists provided a lot of material from pagan mythology, which had long found critics among paganism itself. If one of the first and rather long-lasting accusations of Christians was their alleged immorality, then Christians could very successfully turn this reproach on the pagans themselves. “Be ashamed,” says Justin Martyr, addressing the pagans, “to attribute to the innocent what you yourself do openly, and to attribute what is characteristic of you and our gods to those who have nothing to do with it. 192 Apologists subjected the most severe criticism to pagan mythology with its stories about Kronos devouring his own children, the adulterer Zeus, the mother of the gods Tsibel, who castrated and made a eunuch her favorite, who was not inclined to commit adultery with her, because she was already very old, like the mother of all gods, and ugly; about Dionysus - drunk and frantic, about Apollo, herding the herds of Admetus, running in fear from Achilles, pursuing the girl Daphne, about shameless Aphrodite, about the lame god Vulcan, Adonis, who was engaged in hunting and was once wounded by a boar, Hercules, who corrupted twenty maidens in one night, etc. What kind of role model, said apologists, does the life of the Greek gods represent to people? Human laws are higher than their lives, and the law should not accuse people of crimes if they imitate the gods in these crimes; First, the gods themselves need to read the laws on punishments for adultery, child molestation, and insult to parents 193. Since educated pagans themselves had long ago ceased to believe what was told in these myths and recognized them only in an allegorical interpretation, Christian apologists had to deal with such an explanation of the myths. Apologists pointed out in this case that such an interpretation of myths is completely arbitrary, that the ancients knew them only in a literal historical sense. 194 But even if we consider the philosophical paganism that the pagans opposed to Christianity, then, according to the apologists, it turns out to be far from unsatisfactory; not to mention the fact that among the opinions of philosophers there are so many strange and absurd things, they all say completely different things on the most important issues, so you don’t know who to follow; even between the most famous philosophers Plato and Aristotle there was no agreement. This idea of ​​the contradiction of philosophers is found among all apologists; Ermiy even dedicated a small essay to her: “Mockery of Pagan Philosophers.” Apologists have made excellent use of the results of the struggle between the schools to highlight all the differences between them. In addition to the theology of philosophers, Eusebius of Caesarea also points out the theology of oracles, which survived until then and was shared equally by both the masses and educated pagans. The pagans pointed to oracles as proof of the truth of their religion and evidence of living communication between their gods and people; oracles played a very significant role in supporting popular religion. Christian apologists did not always deny the truth of the oracles' sayings, but explained it either by chance, or by the fact that the priests had previously secretly inquired about the circumstances of the one who asked the oracle's advice, or by the action of demons 195. If paganism itself, as a religion, is evil and delusion, then not everything among the pagans in their philosophy, sciences, and institutions is certainly bad; on the contrary, apologists recognized a lot of good things here and confirmed this in word - in their writings and deeds, diligently studying classical literature. Where is the source of this good? In answer to this we find two theories which are very definitely expressed by apologists and are found in parallel with one another, even in the same apologist, for example, in Justin Martyr; this is the theory of the action of the divine Logos in the pagan world and the theory of the pagans borrowing all that is good from the Jews from their sacred books. We find the doctrine of the divine Logos active in paganism, as well as in the Jewish people, already thoroughly developed by Justin Martyr. “Everything that was ever said and revealed good by philosophers and legislators, says Justin, all this was done by them as they contemplated the Word.” 196 On the basis of this teaching, Justin resolves the misunderstanding of the pagans that before the appearance of Christ God led only the Jewish people, leaving the pagans to their fate. The Divine Logos acted everywhere and led people to good everywhere; He sent prophets to the Jews, He revealed Himself to the pagans in their innate concepts of good and truth and through their wise men: so that the pagans knew the truth that Christ came to proclaim, and in this sense the best of them can be called Christians before Christ. “Everything that is said good by anyone,” says Justin, belongs to us – Christians.” 197 All those who lived according to reason are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, for example, Socrates, Heraclitus; Christians are philosophers among barbarians. 198 After Justin the Martyr, the doctrine of the action of the divine Logos in paganism found further development among theologians of the Alexandrian school (Clement). 199 The theory of pagans borrowing all that is best from Jewish books is found in almost all Christian apologists, starting with Justin Martyr. 200 Only Origen, without completely rejecting it, speaks out regarding it hesitantly. 201 But this theory was developed not by apologists, but by Alexandrian Jews. From them, apologists learned both the very idea of ​​borrowing and its evidence and confirmation from Greek writers. Developing this theory, apologists usually referred to the fact that the Jews are older than the Greeks, and Moses, the author of the first Jewish books, is older than all the Greek sages, that the Greeks generally borrowed their culture from the east, and in particular about some Greek writers, for example, Pythagoras and Plato, it is known that they traveled in the east, where they could get acquainted with the teachings of Moses; Apologists pointed out a lot of passages from Greek authors as borrowed from Jewish books. Science currently does not recognize this theory of Greek writers borrowing their best opinions from the sacred Jewish books as valid. 202 Now it is known that the ancient classics did not know the Holy Scripture - they did not read it themselves, without having a translation into Greek, and could not get acquainted with it through others, thanks to the exceptional isolation and isolation of the Jewish people and the absence of any influence on other peoples, especially Western ones. The very passages from Greek writers that Christian apologists pointed out as being borrowed from Jewish books, if you look at them without preconceived thoughts, sometimes do not represent anything similar to the latter. How, for example, can we say without preconception that Plato borrowed his doctrine of ideas from the words of God to Moses found in the book of Exodus: “Build the tabernacle according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain, 203 that Plato, having read this and not with proper contemplation assimilated the written words, thought that the idea existed separately and before sensible things; Meanwhile, we find such an explanation of Plato’s teaching about ideas in Justin Martyr. 204 The similarity in pagan legends about some events of the primitive history of mankind with the stories about them in the Bible can be explained by the common origin of peoples and the preservation of especially remarkable events in their memory. The height of some religious and moral concepts found among Greek philosophers, their close to Christian ideas about man’s duties, his freedom, the immortality of the soul, future life, punishments in the afterlife can be easily explained by the fact that a person, regardless of revelation, with the help of natural forces alone, can come to such concepts and ideas. Untenable in our time, the theory being analyzed could have been convincing for its time. Given the syncretic direction of philosophy in the first centuries of Christianity, when the most dissimilar doctrines were put into logical and historical connection, it could not seem strange, especially since the idea that the Western peoples borrowed their culture from the East and that the Jews possessed the revealed truth was shared by many Greek writers of that time. In contrast to paganism - the manifestation of evil and error - Christianity is the one true religion. If the pagan sages only sought the truth, then Christianity possesses it; if they found only particles of truth, then Christianity has it completely; if among them, truth is mixed with error, and they often contradicted not only each other, but also themselves, then Christian writers have amazing agreement among themselves. As the one true religion, Christianity must be the one common religion of all people and all nations. Philosophical systems, due to their abstractness, are inaccessible to the masses, even if they were completely true; there are many pagan religions, and they are false; theories that assert the truth and revelation of all religions and all cults do not have a solid foundation; they are caused by practical considerations - the desire to maintain the firmness of the state system of the empire with its diverse composition and the skeptical assumption that it is impossible to discover one common truth that is binding on everyone, and that therefore it is better for everyone to adhere to their national religion; For these reasons, Caecilius advises the pagans to adhere to the national religion in the work of Minucius Felix “Octavius”: “in human affairs everything is doubtful, unknown, false and only more probable than true; the knowledge of God is inaccessible to man. Therefore, isn’t it best to follow the lessons of our ancestors, as guarantees of truth, to adhere to a faithful religion, to honor the gods whom our parents taught us to fear before we knew them better? But if we consider all religions to be true, then we will have to lose every criterion of truth and goodness, because what is considered true and good by the Persians is not considered so by the Greeks, and thus the same phenomenon can be good in one place and bad in another 206. Apologists (Origen) 207 contrast Christianity with these diverse and contradictory laws of various national religions, as a single divine law, as a general criterion of truth and justice. From the point of view of this law, Christians relate to human laws; they accept and fulfill everything that is in agreement with it, and do not fulfill everything that is in contradiction with it; they cannot obey the cruel laws of the Scythians and Indians without violating the divine law; I can’t follow some of the Roman laws either. With this divine universal law, Christianity addresses the whole world, all nations without distinction, all classes, all smart and stupid people, virtuous and vicious. 208 Celsus recognized it as impossible for the various nations of Europe, Asia and Africa, the Hellenes, just like the barbarians, to follow the same law of life; Origen expresses complete confidence that Christianity will soon become their common religion. 209 Of the national religions, Christians consider only the Jewish religion to be true, because, in essence, it is one with Christianity, it was its preparation, and the Jewish prophets were sent by the same God who later sent His Son Jesus Christ. As a true religion, Judaism in its teachings, laws and institutions is incomparably higher than paganism 210. But in view of the fact that the Jews renounced the Christians, and in fact the Christians abandoned the Jewish ritual law, which was of such great importance in Jewish life, and the pagans even argued that Christians worshiped a different God than the Jews, in view of this, a very important task for the apologists was to establish a connection between the Old and New Testaments and explain why the Christians stopped the ritual law of Moses. They portrayed the historical connection in such a way that Christianity was the fulfillment of Jewish aspirations, the fulfillment of what was only depicted and predicted in the Old Testament. The ritual law in particular had precisely this meaning in the Old Testament; therefore, in the New Testament, when what was foreshadowed by it appeared, it lost its meaning. 211 Reconciling the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, the apologists made widespread use of the allegorical method, taking advantage to a large extent of the works of the Alexandrian Jews; The writings of the theologians of the Alexandrian school especially had this character. 212 While defending Christian teaching, apologists did a lot to develop it - mainly, of course, on those points that, being in disagreement with the views of their pagan opponents, were subjected to the latter by critics. In parallel with the ideas of pagan philosophers - about the divine Trinity, about the supreme God, infinitely elevated above the world, about demons - mediators between Him and the world, about matter as the source of evil, they developed the corresponding Christian teaching about God - in three persons, equal to each other, about the Son of God, 213 about angels, about the world. The whole world was created by God out of nothing, including angels and matter. Angels, thus, are only servants of God, and not gods, 214 and matter, as a creation, submits to God and this eliminates dualism in the world. As God’s creation and the beginning itself is inert and soulless, matter cannot be a source of evil. Where does evil come from? Apologists responded to this by teaching about the freedom of human will, about the possibility of giving it one direction or another. This doctrine was especially developed by Origen. 215 By the different uses of freedom, Origen even explains the difference between angels, men and demons, who were created equally perfect. Thus removing responsibility for evil from God, the apologists transferred it entirely to man and from this point of view sanctified the history of the fall of man, his subsequent life with all its misfortunes and the redemption accomplished by Christ 216. Essentially, evil is resistance to God, a violation of His laws; Thus, everyone who does evil, whether man or Satan - the first perpetrator of evil - is an adversary of God. Since the source of evil is the human will, which is free, it is impossible, according to Origen, to agree with Celsus that there has always been and will be the same amount of evil; According to him, this is not confirmed by experience 217. Since matter is not the source of evil, then the union of God or man with matter is not a fall in the moral sense. Thus, the objections of pagans regarding the Christian teaching about the incarnation of the Son of God and the future bodily resurrection of people are resolved - two points in Christian teaching that are most hated by pagan philosophers; Regarding the resurrection, apologists added to this the idea that our bodies after the resurrection will be more perfect, and pointed out images of the resurrection in nature 218. But, proving the possibility of the incarnation of God and the resurrection of bodies, apologists defended the Christian religion from accusations that in general it is a religion of the flesh, not the spirit, and that it even represents God in a sensual form. If a person is presented in the Holy Scriptures as the image of God, then only by his spiritual, and not sensual, nature; God has no body, and His perfections are reflected in the soul of man; That is why man is exceptional among earthly creatures and in his spiritual, mental and moral qualities is incomparably superior to animals, which live only an instinctive, and not a rational, conscious life 219. If the Holy Scripture says that God Himself created man from the earth, as if with His own hands, it says about God that He sees, hears, is angry, i.e. It is as if the organs of the human body and even bad human feelings, such as anger, are attributed to him, then all these and similar expressions must be understood in an allegorical sense; So the eyes and ears of God mean omniscience, anger means disagreement with His will of our actions, etc. 220. If it is said about the Son of God that He was born, lived as a man, ate, drank and died on the cross, then in judging Him one must distinguish between His divine and His human nature and relate human actions to the latter. 221 In contrast to the accusation of anthropomorphism and sensuality in the Christian religion, apologists developed a truly Christian teaching about God - as a spirit that can be comprehended only with the heart and mind, and not with sight, or touch, or hearing; about a personal God, full of love, Who is not afraid to stain Himself by entering into relations with the world, Who everywhere has in mind the good of His creations. The Christian religion is a religion of the spirit par excellence; she inspires her followers to seek only spiritual blessings, and the spirit of God, according to the Holy Scriptures, does not live in those people “who are flesh,” 222 “those who live according to the flesh are not pleasing to God” 223. This spiritual character of the Christian religion is reflected in its cult. The pagans themselves accused Christians of atheism, because they have no external cult - no temples, sacrifices or sacred images. This accusation was not entirely true, since Christians also had an external cult; but it was still so little developed that some apologists, like Minucius Felix and Origen, agreed that Christians really do not have an external cult, and they pointed to this as evidence of the spiritual nature of Christianity. The Christian God, says Octavius ​​in Minucius Felix, cannot be represented in an external image and Christianity brings Him a spiritual cult, a pious and virtuous life; a good heart, a pure mind and an unblemished conscience are the best sacrifice to God, and among Christians, it is not the one who brings a lot to the altar who is considered pious, but the one who is better and more just 224 . This idea is expressed even more strongly by Origen: our altars, he says, 225 are the heart of a righteous person, sacrificial incense is prayers emanating from a clear conscience, we make images of the Divine within ourselves when we form ourselves in the image of the Son of God, i.e. We instill in ourselves every virtue. And more than all the images we honor the One who is the image of God - the Son of God, who revealed in Himself the most perfect image of the Father. We cannot dwell for long on the content of the apologies of Christianity; this would lead us very far into the area of ​​Christian dogmatics; Having limited ourselves to these points, we will now say a few more about the methods that apologists used in defending the Christian religion. We have seen that the pagans represented Christianity as a religion of simple faith, not admitting of any reasonable proof. Of course, the very fact of the defense of Christianity by its followers showed the injustice of such an accusation, but still, in view of the fact that the apologists themselves retained the name of faith for their religion, this concept must be clarified. The reproach to Christianity that it is alien to all evidence and hostile to knowledge and reason apparently had a basis both in Holy Scripture and in the writings of Christian theologians. This idea could be suggested by some of the sayings of the apostle. Paul, as for example: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and destroy the understanding of the prudent,” 226 or in another place: “Look, brothers, who you are called, not many of you are wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. But God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the mighty and base things of the world, and God chose the base things and things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh should boast before God.” 227 Some Christian writers, like Tertullian, directly declared Christianity hostile to all philosophy 228. But, in fact, Christianity is certainly not hostile to knowledge; Tertullian's views remained his private opinion, and the ap. Paul, in arming himself against wisdom, meant, as the apologists explained, only the wisdom of this world, i.e. false philosophy hostile to religion 229. Origen points out many expressions of Holy Scripture, where, on the contrary, wisdom and knowledge are praised 230. If Christianity is sometimes content with the simple faith of its followers, then only in relation to simple uneducated people who do not have access to the highest kind of knowledge, so as not to leave them without knowledge of the truth (Origen) 231. However, even in this case, faith has its foundations, although incomplete and insufficient, namely trust in the one who tells the truth; such faith is not alien to anyone and one cannot do without it in life; So a farmer entrusts his seeds to the earth, not knowing, perhaps, whether it will grow them for him, a sailor entrusts himself to a ship, a sick person to a doctor, all the more, a person must trust God, having so many guarantees from Him 232 . In general, apologists retained the name of faith for the Christian teaching, not because it is accepted on simple trust, without evidence, but because it has special special evidence. This is clearly expressed by them when they contrast Christian teaching with philosophy, or faith in general, with knowledge. According to Justin Martyr, the elder who converted him to Christianity told him about the prophets: “In their speeches they did not indulge in evidence, for they are above all proof, being reliable witnesses of the truth: the very events that have already happened, and which are now still happening, force us to accept their testimony. Also, for the miracles they performed, they deserve faith 233. “The word of truth,” says the passage that has come down to us from the work “on the resurrection” 234, is free and autocratic; it does not want to be tested through arguments, does not allow its listeners to be examined through evidence; for its nobility and authenticity require that they believe the One who sent it, but the word of truth is sent from God.” Origen also speaks about such special proofs for the Christian faith, proofs of spirit and power.”235 Thus, apologists do not contrast simple faith with knowledge that requires evidence, but one type of evidence with another, historical and subjective evidence with dialectical evidence, and they oppose it because they recognize the first type of evidence in matters of religious knowledge as more thorough and convincing. Philosophical dialectics gave birth only to many schools with the most diverse opinions and thereby declared itself untenable; Christians point out that they do not need to seek truth through dialectics, the truth is given to them directly from God through the prophets, Christ and the apostles; They thus know the direct witnesses of the truth, and to prove that what was reported by these witnesses is the truth, they pointed, on the one hand, to the miracles that accompanied the preaching of Christ’s teaching, and the prophecies that were given about this teaching, its heralds and fate, on the other hand, to the high dignity of Christ’s teaching, acting on a person directly by the power of its persuasiveness. Miracles and prophecies, as evidence of Christianity, are given a lot of space in the writings of apologists. 236 Of course, we will not cite them here; they are known to everyone and are included in modern dogmatics and apologetics; we will make only a few remarks about this method of proving Christianity. The fact is that prophecies and miracles were cited for apologetic purposes not only by Christian writers, but also by their pagan opponents, and a simple reference to them in the fight against the latter would not achieve any goal. Christians called pagan miracles and prophecies either false or the work of evil demons, not God; the pagans pray to say the same about those miracles and prophecies to which the Christians themselves referred. It was necessary to establish a criterion for distinguishing true divine miracles and prophecies from false ones; we find this criterion in Origen. Origen considers the sign of true miracles and prophecies, distinguishing them from false ones, to be the high moral dignity of the persons prophesying or performing miracles, and the high moral purpose of their actions. In this respect there can be no comparison between the miracles of Christ and the pagan miracle workers; there is no higher person than Christ; His disciples also showed an example of the highest moral heroism, preaching the truth everywhere, despite all the obstacles, dangers, persecutions, and executions. Their miracles were always performed by them for the benefit of people, especially the resurrection of Christ, while no one benefited from the resurrection of Aristaeus or the miracles of Cleomedes, and the performers of pagan miracles themselves, such as Aesculapius, Hercules or Bacchus, were far from distinguished by impeccable morality, and for one good action there were many bad ones. 237 In the same way, there can be no comparison between the Old Testament prophets with the greatness of their moral character, with their firmness in convictions, the absence of any fear of kings and people - and the Delphic Pythia and other pagan fortune-tellers. The god Apollo himself, who spoke through the Greek oracles, should rather be condemned for his prophecies, because he did not demonstrate moral justice, ordering, for example, to give divine honors to a fighter, thus recognizing him as superior to Pythagoras and Socrates, whom he did not honor with such honor. 238 Origen points out another difference between the Jewish prophets and the pagan ones; the latter lost consciousness during the prophecies, were beside themselves and spoke as if in delirium, apparently they were possessed by demons, but the Jewish prophets predicted the future calmly and with dignity; under the influence of the power of God, their consciousness became clearer and purer, and their soul was filled with light. 239 The subjective proof of Christianity through its self-evidence and immediate persuasiveness gave a new meaning to calling it faith, and elevated it to the level of the highest most reliable knowledge. The honor of developing this proof of Christianity belongs to the school of Alexandrian theologians and, above all, to Clement of Alexandria. In his Stromata, paying due tribute to philosophy and dialectical proofs, recognizing them as very useful and necessary even for a Christian, he elevates faith above them, as the acceptance of something by self-evidence without evidence, and puts this method of knowledge in its simplicity and degree of persuasiveness above any other. 240 In this sense, faith precedes knowledge. It lies at the basis of all knowledge in the form of the basic principles of science, which are learned not through logical argumentation, but directly through contemplation; These are, for example, geometric axioms; elsewhere he understands faith in a similar way - as a direct sensation of truth. 241 Clement's thought regarding faith is not always clear; sometimes he understands by it in general the knowledge of everything that is inaccessible to experience and is comprehended by the highest abstraction, 242 but if we dwell on the definition of faith as the direct contemplation of truth, then the superiority of such a way of knowledge is undoubted; it is only necessary to show that Christianity actually satisfies this criterion of truth; in his Stromata, Clement wants to present Christianity in such a form, so that it directly influences a person in its favor, so that it acts on the heart like a magnet on iron, irresistibly attracting him to itself. 243 For this, first of all, it was, of course, necessary to bring forward the entire moral height, holiness, and divinity of Christian teaching and its precepts. But even in this form, according to Clement, Christianity could not have an effect on everyone: if feelings and reason are necessary for scientific knowledge, then to accept Christianity, as a moral preaching par excellence, new eyes, a new ear, a new heart are needed - this special kind of truth also requires special organs. 244 We find this idea in other apologists as well. According to Theophilus, Christianity requires from a person a certain moral purity, without which it is impossible to know God, just as it is impossible for a blind person whose eyes are covered in darkness to see, although objects of vision exist regardless of the state of a person’s vision. To Autolycus’s request “show me your God,” Theophilus replies: show me your man, and I will show you my God; show that the eyes of your soul see and the ears of your heart hear. When there is rust on the mirror, then a human face cannot be seen in the mirror, and a person, when there are sins in him, cannot contemplate God. So, show yourself - are you not an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief, a robber, a kidnapper, a molester of youths, etc. All this brings darkness, and just as illness in the eyes does not allow them to turn to the light of the sun, so you, my friend, are darkened by iniquity so that you cannot see God.” 245 The extremely rapid spread of Christianity provided apologists with factual proof of its high degree of persuasiveness. The success of Christianity is all the more surprising, apologists pointed out, that its first heralds were simple people who had not received any education, who had not taken lessons from either orators or philosophers; Christians are persecutors of Christ's teaching. “Don’t you see,” says the author of the letter to Diognetus, that the more they are executed, the more the number of others increases. This is not a human work, this is the power of God, this is proof of His coming. 246 And in this case, what is important is not just the quantitative spread of Christianity, but even more so the moral effect that it produces on people. “It inspires, says Justin Martyr, some kind of fear and has the power to strike those who have strayed from the true path, and at the same time serves as the sweetest tranquility for those who live according to it.” 247 In this moral effect of Christianity on its followers, Justin sees evidence of the divine messenger of Christ. In their moral purity, Christians differ so sharply from all other people that they constitute the brightest phenomenon in the world; they are the soul of the world, they spiritualize the world, give it life, and only they preserve it. 248 Athenagoras compares Christians with the most learned and educated pagans: “Are there, he says, among them those who are so purified in soul that they not only do not hate their enemies, but also love them, not only do not slander those who slandered them in advance - this is not so important, but also bless and pray for those who are plotting against their lives? And among us you will find uneducated people, artisans and elders, who, it is true, are not able to prove the benefit of our teaching in word, but in deeds they confirm its moral benefit. They do not repeat words, but do good deeds - they do not hit when they are beaten, they do not complain in court when their property is taken away, they give to the needy and love their neighbor as themselves.” 249 If Celsus considered it impossible to morally correct a person who had been vicious for a long time, and reproached Christians for making up their society of villains and criminals, 250 then Origen objected to him that nothing proves the divine power of Christianity more than the fact that it even makes criminals models of virtue, and that the disciples of Christ open the eyes of the spiritually blind and the ears of the deaf, who were unable to hear the voice of good; they revive these people to moral life, and there is nothing more amazing than the moderation, restraint, meekness, kindness, humanity and other high moral qualities that Christian teaching generates in its followers. 251 And the more Christianity spread, the more the number of its followers increased, the more powerful this historical proof of the divinity of Christianity acquired. How else can one explain, says Chrysostom, that eleven poor, ignorant, unenlightened Galilean fishermen transformed entire nations and turned them to their Teacher, Who suffered a shameful death and became famous precisely as a result of this. And if the pagans can suspect the miracles performed by Christ as proof of His teaching, then they must recognize an even greater miracle taking place before their eyes - the moral rebirth that the power of Christ’s faith produces in a person. 252 The apologists of the first centuries laid the foundation of the sciences of Christian apologetics; the basic techniques they used in defending Christianity have been retained in modern apologetics, and their main evidence is repeated to this day. For all that, their apologies cannot completely satisfy modern man; they belong to their time and in their content are determined by the needs of this time, revolving around issues that were raised by opponents of Christianity, and which were not always the same as at the present time. Some of their opinions, such as the theory that Greek writers borrowed their best opinions from the sacred Jewish books, are erroneous and are explained by the insufficiency of their historical information and historical criticism. Often, instead of proof of principle, they use ad hominem evidence. Entering into the environment of a society alien and hostile to them, where they were met with extreme contempt, as ignorant and stupid people who had the pretension to teach other incomparably more educated people, Christians, in order to defend their teaching, often tried to show its similarity with the teaching of the Greek religion and with the views of Greek writers and philosophers. Sometimes similarities between them really existed, but sometimes the convergence of Christian teaching with the opinions of Greek philosophers and poets was very strange. If the pagans laughed at the mission to earth, the incarnation and death of the Son of God, then the apologists pointed out to them their own stories about the sons of Zeus and their suffering, about Hermes, the messenger of the gods (Justin Martyr 253), about Bacchus, who descended to earth and then returned to heaven, about the birth of Plato from Amphictyone and Paollon (Origen); if Christ avoided the danger that threatened Him, then Aristotle, the apologists said, left Athens when they wanted to condemn him to death; Christ was betrayed by his disciple, but Plato was also abandoned by Aristotle 254. Such arguments, of course, did not decide the matter and only turned the objection he made to the opponent himself. It should be noted, however, that in these cases the apologists did not limit themselves only to these arguments, but also provided other stronger evidence. Much in the writings of ancient apologists has now lost its vital significance, because it was an analysis of religions that are now dead and not professed by anyone. On the other hand, many questions that should now be in the foreground in apologetic writings were not addressed at all then. These are questions about the existence of God, about the possibility of revelation, about the possibility of the so-called supernatural in the world, miracles and prophecies. It must be said that the field of ancient apologetics was much narrower than that of modern apologetics, and its tasks were easier because there was more common ground between the opponents; then one religion fought against another, and Christian apologists were only required to prove the superiority of their religion over paganism; Now there is a struggle between religion and unbelief, religious denial, and it is necessary to defend the very foundations of religion, the foundations of the religious worldview. 3. Julian the Apostate, the circumstances of his upbringing and life, his restoration of paganism in the Greco-Roman Empire and his attitude towards Christians; religious and philosophical views of Julian. Under Constantine the Great, Christianity decisively triumphed over paganism, becoming the dominant religion in the Greco-Roman Empire. But under Constantine’s nephew Julian, a short-term reaction occurred. Julian restored the ancient religion in all its rights and entered into the struggle against the new one both as an emperor and as a philosopher-writer, thus continuing the work of his predecessors on the one hand until Constantine the Great, and on the other hand Celsus and Porphyry. Julian was the son of Constantine the Great's brother Julius Constantius; he was born in 331. After the death of Constantine, his son Constantius and his two brothers Constantine and Constantine succeeded to the throne. Their accession to the throne was accompanied by the beating of all other relatives of the royal house who could act as contenders for the throne - two uncles, seven cousins, etc. Among them, Julian’s father and his eldest son died. Julian himself, who was not yet 6 years old at the time, and his other brother Gall were left alive for 12 years, the first due to his infancy, the other due to an illness that was considered fatal 255. It is difficult to say with complete certainty how guilty Constantius himself was of this beating; writers of that time judged this differently; 256 but, in any case, Julian always attributed the beating of his relatives to Constantius, 257 and the bloody drama of childhood, which left the deepest impression on him, gave rise to strong hatred and suspicion in him towards this cousin. Subsequent circumstances further strengthened these hostile feelings towards Constantius. A number of the most difficult years began for the orphaned boy. Suspicious Constantius separated the brothers and sent Gallus to Ephesus to Iconium, and Julian to Nicomedia. Julian's education was entrusted to the Nicomedia bishop Eusebius 258. There were many good aspects in Julian’s character that a truly Christian upbringing could give proper development to - he was fair, honest, stood above petty worldly interests, and showed a tendency towards asceticism. But Eusebius, a well-known champion of Arianism, who mixed the interests of religion with his personal, more of a court intriguer than a true minister of the church, himself alien to the spirit of the Christian religion, failed to instill it in his student. His lessons were dead and boring and could not bear fruit, falling even on good soil 259. The future opponent of Christianity himself sometimes embarrassed his teacher with questions in the form of bewilderments regarding certain Christian dogmas and biblical legends 260 . From Nicomedia, Julian returned to Constantinople with Eusebius, but in 343 or 344 Constantius transferred both brothers to the castle of Marcellus near Caesarea Cappadocia 261. In the new place they were surrounded with luxury, like royal relatives, 262 but even here, among the royal spies and slaves, under constant secret and obvious supervision, they felt like in a dungeon. “During the 6 years that we spent in a land that did not belong to us, Julian tells about his stay in Matsella, we were guarded like Persian captives. None of our friends had permission to visit us. We could not indulge in free conversation or any serious activity. Among the numerous and magnificent servants, we were forced to have only slaves as companions and to deal only with them. Young people of free classes could not come to us” 263. The daily life of the brothers was completely subordinated to the church regime. They went to church and read St. Scripture already in the rank of readers 264, visited the tombs of the martyrs, observed all fasts, distributed alms to the poor and personally participated in the construction of the church on the tomb of the martyr Mother. Gall did all this, apparently sincerely, but Julian did it with disgust; он послушно и аккуратно исполнял все то, что от него требовали, но это было послушание зверя, посаженного в клетку; по этому поводу, говорит Ливаний, 265 Эзоп написал бы басню не об осле, скрывавшемся в шкуре льва, а о льве, скрывавшемся в шкуре осла; в постоянном страхе за свою жизнь, видя вокруг себя одних шпионов, Юлиан научился превосходно лицемерить, но в душе ему противны были и окружавшие его люди, за учтивостью и угодливостью которых он чувствовал скрытый надзор, вражду и недоверие к нему, и все то, что эти люди вынуждали его делать изо дня в день. 266 The lessons of Holy Scripture, begun in Nicomedia, continued here; 267 apparently they wanted to make Julian a Christian bishop instead of Caesar. Among this religious upbringing and regime, which aroused only disgust in Julian, there was one influence to which he submitted more willingly and which had more results - the influence of the eunuch Mardonius, an old servant of the Julian family, a former teacher of his mother, who explained to her the poems of Homer and Hesiod. For the same purpose he was assigned to Julian. In Nicomedia he taught him Greek literature, now in Matsella he moved on to philosophy. This was not just reading the classics, this was a classical education; Mardonius made a strict choice between the books that he gave to his pupil, and tried to ensure that they had the deepest influence on his character, habits, feelings, way of thinking, so that they replaced for him all the entertainment of his youth - theaters, circuses, horse races 268. It was these very studies that first aroused in Julian that love for the ancient world, which is found in every line of his writings, and the conviction that he expresses in his refutation of Christianity 269 that the study of Greek authors makes a person better; but they also created a split in his soul, which prompted him to be even more secretive and restrained, showing himself outwardly to be a zealous Christian, while in his soul he was already striving for another world and already loved it, although he still knew it very little. В 350 г. Констанций по смерти обоих своих братьев остался единым правителем империи. Не имея наследников и чувствуя необходимость иметь помощника особенно ввиду войны с персами, он решился вызвать своих двоюродных братьев из Мацелла; Галл был облечен званием цезаря, а Юлиан стал продолжать в Константинополе свое образование. 270 However, Julian did not remain here long. Вскоре Констанций, опасавшийся симпатий, которые Юлиан завоевал у Константинопольского населения своей справедливостью и простотой обращения, предложил ему избрать для продолжения образования другой город. Юлиан избрал Никомидию 271 . At that time, the famous pagan rhetorician Livanius, one of the best and most talented representatives of dying paganism, lived in Nicomedia. Julian was forbidden to listen to his lessons, and he literally obeyed this prohibition - he did not go to the lessons of the famous rhetorician, but got himself his lectures and read from his home 272. Rumors of young Julian's sympathies for the ancient world quickly spread among the pagan party. In which the hope of restoring the ancient religion in the empire had not yet died; They began to look at the young relative of the childless emperor as the hope of the party. Thus, Julian acquired in absentia the most sincere friends and well-wishers among the representatives of paganism 273. He soon became acquainted with them personally, and this acquaintance resolved his doubts and determined his convictions. He became fascinated by the mystical, sublime philosophy of the disciples of Iamblichus, which was so consistent with his exalted nature and ardent imagination, and it seemed to him, who had abandoned some beliefs and did not yet have others, that he had found what he lacked and what he had been looking for for a long time. Личное влияние красноречивых представителей школы докончило обращение. These were the first good people he met and in them he saw a living example of what his old teacher Mardonius told him about, that Hellenism makes a person better. Neoplatonism acquired its most zealous adherent in him. Julian was especially attracted by the practical side of Neoplatonism, the mysterious means it offered to enter into relations with the gods, and he wanted to get acquainted with the most famous hierophants; for this purpose, he went from Nicomedia to Pergamon, where the head of the school of Edesius, the favorite student of Iamblichus, lived. But Edesius, already an old man, was embarrassed by the visit of the royal guest; he refused to initiate him into the mysteries himself and sent him to his disciples Eusebius, Chrysanthus and Maximus. Eusebius, himself a skeptic about theuria, did not satisfy Julian, and he went to Ephesus to see Maximus, who had a reputation for being very close to the gods. This time Julian was completely satisfied; “This is the man I was looking for,” he said about Maxim. After a month of preparation, which consisted of deprivation of sleep and food, the Ephesian hierophant initiated him into all the miracles and secrets of theurgy 274. Such elements usually lived at court, forming a staff of court flatterers and looking for an opportunity to occupy some prominent civil or even ecclesiastical position. Julian often had to encounter them, and he thought all the worse about them because among them he saw his personal enemies. Julian also saw bad representatives of the church, who especially brought down the reputation of Christianity in his eyes, because by their rank they should have been its light; he saw constant strife between the religious parties - Donatists, Ebionites, Docetes, Sabelians, Arians; one party pursued another; state power interfered in church disputes and, taking first one side or the other, increased the unrest. Subsequently, in a letter to the Bostorians, he wrote that Christians, all their sects, should be more pleased with his reign than with the reign of Constantius, when they “were persecuted, expelled, imprisoned, entire nations were massacred, which were called heretical; when in Samosata, Cyzicia, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Galatia there were entire cities and villages without inhabitants and completely destroyed.” The moral qualities of the fanatics did not at all correspond to their religious zeal, and Julian saw this, first of all, in the Emperor Constantius and most closely in the emperor’s relations with himself. 276 Apparently, upon their return from Macella, a better time came for Julian and Gallus, and Constantius’s attitude towards them changed; but Julian was right in never trusting him. In 354, Caesar Gall was killed by order of the emperor on suspicion of conspiracy; Julian was also accused of complicity in the conspiracy; he was arrested and kept in prison for 7 months, during which he felt sentenced to death. He was then called to court for an explanation; Thanks to the intercession of the Arian priests, who considered him one of their own, and the Empress Eusebia, who had special sympathy for him, Julian was acquitted. 277 After this, he received permission to go to Athens to listen to famous Athenian professors. This was the time of the most careful study of the classics in pagan schools. The charm of the Greek authors reigned over everything, both pagans and Christians. It is known that many pious Christians sent their children to pagan schools, and the latter had the strongest influence on their pupils. So bl. Jerome, who in his youth eagerly studied classical literature, subsequently, during the period of the most ardent passion for Christianity, could not forget his former school favorites. Retiring into the desert for feats of piety, he took with him, along with the Bible and the Gospel, also the works of secular writers; he renounced everything worldly, except them; exhausted from heat, hunger and other deprivations, he still re-read his favorite authors; “I fasted,” he says, “and read Cicero! After sleepless nights spent in bitter tears of repentance for sins, I took Plavga into my hands. If sometimes, having come to my senses, I began to read the prophets, their simple and careless style repulsed me immediately.” 278 The capital of classical education at this time was Athens. Here were the best schools and the best professors of classical literature “Athens,” says Gregory the Theologian, who himself received his education here, “the city is very dangerous for salvation, as pious people think, not without reason; it has more idols than the rest of Greece, and it is very difficult not to be carried away by their defenders and praisers.” 279 Julian fell into this center of revived paganism; it is clear that he found himself the most complete satisfaction here and devoted himself to the study of the classics with the most ardent enthusiasm. 280 Subsequently, he remembered his stay in Athens as the best time of his life. 281 But for now he had to still conceal his sympathies and convictions and, where necessary, show himself to be a Christian. Constant duality, the need to constantly hide himself and restrain himself despite his lively and active nature left a special imprint on his appearance. His friend at the Athens school of St. Gregory the Theologian describes him during this time as follows: “His appearance did not bode well; - the head is constantly in motion, the shoulders are always twitching, the eyes are wandering, the gaze is proud and angry, the gait is unsteady and unsteady, the nose reveals only arrogance and contempt, the mocking expression on the face, excessive and immodest laughter, constantly needlessly affirmative and negative shaking of the head, speech is indecisive and partly intermittent, questions are incoherent and disorderly and answers, no better, are confused one in the other, contradictory, without order or system.” 282 In 355, Julian was unexpectedly summoned from Athens to Milan with the rank of Caesar. He owed this to the concerns of Empress Eusevia and external dangers to the state from the Gauls and Sarmatians 283 . Julian, who became close to Athenian life and dreamed of remaining forever only a philosopher, was not particularly happy about this appointment. For an ascetic, accustomed to the simplest way of life, court etiquette seemed difficult and for a philosopher the craft of a soldier was completely alien. On the other hand, Julian was afraid of the fate of his brother Gallus 284. “How many tears I shed,” he later wrote to the Athenians, “I stretched out my hands to the acropolis of your city, begging Athena to save her servant, not to leave him. Many of you have seen this and can testify; the goddess herself knows how many times I asked her for death before I left Athens” 285. He wrote a letter to Empress Eusevia, begging him to reject this appointment from him, but did not dare to send it, considering correspondence with the emperor’s wife not entirely safe; 286 in the end, after consulting with the gods, he gave in and began to look at the change in his fate as a calling to restore the abandoned cult of the gods 287 . This now became his goal. The young Caesar, who first took a soldier's spear, very soon mastered the art of war and discovered such great talents as a commander that he won a number of the most brilliant victories over his enemies. He managed to completely drive the Gauls away from the borders of the Roman Empire, and soon his name alone became fearful to his enemies 288 . However, even now he could not consider his position completely secure. Court flatterers and various ill-wishers of Julian diminished the importance of his victory in the eyes of Constantius, criticized and ridiculed his military tactics, arousing the emperor’s distrust of Caesar, who was popular among the troops. 289 When the western provinces, thanks to the victories of Julian, could be considered safe from attacks by barbarians, the situation in the east, where the Roman Empire was threatened by the Persians, became more alarming. Constantius wanted to gather more troops there and sent Julian an order to send his best legions to the eastern border for war with the Persians 290. Some historians of the 4th century explain this order by the jealousy of Constantius, who wanted to weaken Julian, leaving him in Gaul without protection in the hands of the barbarians 291; так смотрел на это и сам Юлиан 292 . Приказание императора было встречено в войске Юлиана с ропотом; the old veterans, accustomed to both the place and Caesar, did not want to obey the emperor and proclaimed Julian Augustus 293. The moment was convenient for Julian to strengthen his position, get rid of constant fears for his fate and even life, becoming an independent ruler of the Western Roman Empire; на боевые качества и преданность своего войска он вполне мог рассчитывать. But Julian still hesitated at first and even yielding to the wishes of the army, made an attempt to end the matter peacefully through negotiations with Constantius; he sent Constantius a letter in which he told everything that had happened and asked him to recognize the fact and confirm him in the rank of Augustus 294. In his reply letter, Constantius accused Julian of usurping, refused to completely recognize him as Augustus, and demanded that he abandon his ambitious plans if he cared at all about his fate and the fate of those close to him; The emperor also made some changes in the composition of Julian's staff and senior administrative officials in Gaul 295. The one sent with this letter, exaggerating his authority as the imperial legate, himself began to reproach Julian for ingratitude towards the emperor, who looked after his orphan; “How,” exclaimed Julian, interrupting the legate, “who made me an orphan? And doesn’t my father’s killer know that by bringing up these memories, he only deepens my wound and makes me feel him more strongly?” 296. Now Julian no longer hesitated what to do - going back would be more dangerous than continuing the work he had started; he gathered his legions and quickly set out towards Constantinople to meet the emperor. But the death of Constantius decided the matter in favor of Julian 297. Having become emperor, Julian threw off the mask that he had worn for so long, and which had burdened him, and openly declared himself a servant of the former religion 298. The restoration of polytheism became his main task. He ordered the opening of pagan temples, closed under his Christian predecessors 299, and built many new ones, especially in Constantinople, which, having received the status of a capital already under the Christian emperors, did not have many pagan temples 300. The most abundant sacrifices 301 were lit on numerous altars. Everything that was hidden after the triumph of Christianity - all sorts of pagan soothsayers, haruspex, priests - they all appeared again. 302 Julian himself set an example of the most zealous piety. The imperial palace and the gardens surrounding it turned into a huge church with many gods and goddesses 303; in the palace itself there was a church of Julian’s favorite deity - the sun 304; every morning at sunrise and in the evening at sunset, Julian greeted him by sacrificing a bull to him; special sacrifices were made to the moon, stars, and geniuses of the night 305. On special holidays, the emperor carefully visited the churches of the capital, and it was a great pleasure for him to take personal part in the sacrifices, sometimes even in the role of a simple servant - carrying firewood, lighting and extinguishing the fire, slaughtering sacrificial animals 306. Julian, however, did not just restore paganism, he wanted to see it as he ideally pictured it in his imagination and, restoring paganism, he at the same time transformed it. 307 Knowing what influence priests could have on the people, he was especially concerned about the transformation of the priestly class. He established a strict hierarchy in this class, subordinating the priests of small cities to the chief priests of the provinces, and concentrated the highest administration in the hands of the high priest (pontifex maximus), i.e. the emperor himself, and for him personally this title was not a simple title, he really had supreme supervision over the cult and religious life of the entire country. 308 He raised the legal status of the priests, demanding that everyone respect them, even if they were unworthy of their title; 309 by the way, he did not order the priests to leave the church to meet the civil ruler 310. He especially tried to raise the moral state of the class. He ordered to choose priests from the most worthy persons, the most religious and morally high, regardless of their origin and position in society. 311 The regional priests were instructed to strictly monitor the moral condition of the priests subordinate to them. “Convince all priests,” writes Julian Arzakis, the high priest of Galatia, to lead a pure life or dismiss them from service if they, with their wives, children and servants, do not set an example of reverence for the gods.” He advises the priest to avoid all seductive shows, theaters, circuses, shameful activities, and to dress modestly. 312 He charges the priests with the duty of doing charity, and orders the construction of hospitals and strange reception houses everywhere for the care of various unfortunates, orphans, widows, the sick, and the poor. 313 Julian introduced reforms into the very worship of paganism, he gave it more monotony, 314 divided the services according to the hours of the day, 315 introduced singing 316 and a sermon in which the priests were supposed to interpret the true meaning of religious myths to the people. 317 In most of these reforms Julian conspicuously took as his model the Christian Church; 318 the consciousness of this sometimes breaks through in himself, when he points the pagans to Christians as an example to follow. 319 He seemed to want to create a pagan church and transfer Christian morals to pagan society. But the old wineskins turned out to be unsuitable for the new wine. The people did not understand the philosophical religion that Julian offered him, and did not share his religious zeal, and the priests, who even before, when their religion began to be threatened by the danger of Christianity, did not come to its defense, but left this matter to secular writers, were not able to justify the hopes that Julian placed on them in the revival of paganism. 320 Julian felt lonely. He emphasized that people go to the church only to applaud him, the emperor, and do not show any jealousy towards the gods. 321 Once in Antioch, during a festival, Julian made a sacrifice; suddenly it began to rain; весь народ и жрецы тотчас же стали искать себе защиты под соседней кровлей, и император один остался под проливным дождем около своей жертвы. 322 Другой раз в той же Антиохии, в день праздника Аполлону, он спешил в храм этого бога, ожидая увидеть громадное стечение народа, пышное убранство, многочисленные жертвы, и придя не нашел ничего; он думал, что приготовления находятся вне храма и народ ждет только его прихода, он спросил жреца, что приносит город; “Nothing,” answered the priest, “it’s just the goose that I brought with me.” 323 Равнодушие народа к предпринятому им делу не ослабляло его ревности, но возбуждало в нем недовольство, раздражительность, которые так часто проявляются в его сочинениях, и которые отразились на его отношениях к приверженцам ненавистного ему христианства. At first, Julian wanted to treat Christians as a philosopher who knows that one cannot force any beliefs on anyone. Livanius says that on the advice of some of his friends to stop the previous persecution of Christians, Julian declared that “with iron and fire it is impossible to force people to abandon false opinions regarding the gods, and that in vain the hand makes a sacrifice if the conscience protests against it” 324. Julian himself says the same thing in a letter to the Bostorians and Artabius; in his last letter he writes: “I do not want any of the Galileans to be put to death or treated unfairly, causing them any offense. I only want people who are holy and devoted to the gods to be preferred to them in everything.” But even from these words it is clear that Julian did not even think of giving equal rights to both religions. In fact, avoiding bloody persecution, which, as the experience of previous centuries had shown, could only increase the strength of Christians by multiplying the number of martyrs, Julian subjected them to a hidden, but no less severe oppression. He took a number of measures, the most skillful and cunning, to weaken the power of Christians. He summoned from exile all those exiled during dogmatic disputes, both heretics and Orthodox 325, as if guided by a sense of religious tolerance, in fact, according to Ammianus Maccellinus 326 in the calculation that the various parties would quarrel among themselves; he provided special patronage to the Jews, 327 long-time enemies of Christians and the inventors of all sorts of fables about the latter, and even undertook the restoration of their temple in Jerusalem 328. His famous edict, by which he prohibited Christian teachers from teaching in schools 329, could be especially important in its consequences for Christians; Having mastered classical education, Christians successfully turned their own weapons against the pagans; Now Christian boys were forced to either not study at all, or, going to pagan teachers, run the risk of becoming pagans. The more failures Julian experienced in restoring paganism, the worse he treated Christians. He hated them too much for a philosopher, and the caustic mockery with which he always spoke of Christians served as a poor guarantee that he would treat them like a philosopher who thinks that it is impossible to force anyone to change their beliefs. He deprives Christians of the estates that belonged to them, poisonously noting that their law requires them to be poor, and he wants to make their path to heaven easier” 330; dismisses the rulers of regions and cities. If they are Christians, because “their law forbids them to use the sword” 331; dismisses many other officials who refused to make sacrifices to the gods; persecutes Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, who was then one of the most zealous defenders of the Orthodox 332; sometimes he even reveals pettiness in his demands from Christians, completely inconsistent with the dignity of a philosopher, forcing, for example, Christian soldiers, during the distribution of awards, to throw a few grains on the pagan altar before approaching the emperor. 333 The restoration of pagan temples, which had already been converted into Christian churches, was accompanied in many places by real beatings of Christians and all sorts of violence and cruelty against them; 334 and if in Julian’s justification it can be said that this did not happen on his orders, then still the guilt remains with him that with his indifference to these violence he only encouraged them. What is the importance if one Greek kills ten Galileans, he said according to St. Gregory the Theologian regarding the massacre of Christians in one area. 335 Not only does he not punish the perpetrators of these cruelties, but on the contrary, those who wanted to punish them fall into disfavor with him. 336 The friends themselves tried to moderate the jealousy of the emperor and his overzealous associates. So Livanius interceded with the ruler of Arabia on behalf of a certain Orion, who was persecuted for his Christian beliefs. “If Orion, wrote Livanius, thinks about the gods differently than we do, then this delusion harms only him alone, but does not in the least serve as a reason to persecute him.” 337 “We should blush for our cruelties against Mark of Arethuz,” Sallust told Julian. 338 But Julian did not listen to the prudent advice of his friends, and rumors circulated among Christians that after the Persian campaign they would be subjected to even greater cruelty. Julian reigned for less than two and a half years (360–363); but this short reign was full of vigorous activity; Julian's main task was to restore the cult of the gods and fight against Christianity, but he also cared a lot about the internal life of the country in general and showed himself to be a very capable administrator. He died during the Persian campaign, wounded by an enemy arrow. Christians said that before his death he realized the futility of the work he had undertaken and his last words were: “You have won, Galilean.” 339 The pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, a friend of Julian and his companion in the war with the Persians, a friend of Julian and his companion in the war with the Persians, puts into his mouth another dying speech, somewhat artificial and involuntarily evoking the memory of the death of Socrates, but, in general, consistent with the character of Julian, a calm speech, full of consciousness of perfect duty, complete devotion to the will of the gods, whom he served all his life, and contentment both with the life he had lived and with the soldier's death he was dying. 340 Over his grave in the city of Tarsus, his successor, Emperor Jovian, erected a monument, with a small inscription that spoke a little about the deceased emperor. Jovian did not want this monument to awaken in anyone medical feelings towards the deceased and, following the well-known proverb of his people: de mortuis aut bene, aut nihil, he remembered him with a kind word as a brave warrior and a good ruler, but said nothing about what brought him great, but sad fame in history. 341 Julian's religious and philosophical views are not original; they entirely adhere to the system of Iamblichus, whom Julian treated with the greatest respect; he did not advance his school further and did not take a place in the history of philosophy, like his teachers: Plotinus, Pophyrius and Iamblichus; this is not explained by the size of his philosophical talent - he was very talented, but he did not even have the time to create anything significant in the field of philosophy; all his works were written by him in a very short time 342; a student first of Christian theologians, then of Neoplatonic philosophers, soldier, Caesar, emperor, he experienced too many changes during his short life. The main works from which one can get an idea of ​​his views are a hymn to the king of the sun, a hymn to the mother of the gods and a polemical work against Christians. Julian's theology represents the eclectic paganism characteristic of his time. Julian unites in his views the beliefs of the East and West, recognizing all national religions as true. In his opinion, all peoples worship the same supreme God and, in addition, are also under the protection of their own national gods. Of course, Julian, as a philosopher, could not take the myths of popular religion in their literal sense; he looked at them as fables, not worthy of trust, but told to people in ancient times because only they would not be able to understand the truth hidden in them in its pure form. He accepted myths only in a philosophical interpretation, which in fact made possible the unification of various religions and the reconciliation of religion with philosophy. But still, in the views of Julian, like his teacher Iamblichus, religion dominates over philosophy, and if he speaks of the gods as Platonic ideas and intelligible entities, then next to this we find in him a more anthropomorphic nature of ideas about the gods, when he talks about their intervention in human life and in particular in his own, and even about the appearance of the gods in visible, sensory outlines. Eastern gods and eastern religious ideas prevail in Julian's views over the Greek ones. His true god is the sun, the deity of the Syrians. But the visible sun is only the image of another sun - the invisible, ideal, and this, in turn, is the image of an even higher sun - the origin of everything 343. The last highest sun, as Plotinus’s one, is too distant from the world and it is not Julian’s living personal god, but the second sun, which Julian also calls Zeus, Apollo, Sirapis, Mithras 344. From the sun or Helios and the mother of the gods (the Greco-Roman goddess Rhea and the eastern Cybele) other gods 345 arose. It is difficult to establish the gradation in which Julian places other Greco-Roman and Eastern deities; his theology is generally vague and confusing and shows in him great freedom in understanding religious traditions. In any case, he did not preserve the ancient Homeric subordination of the gods and argued that Zeus, Apollo, and Pluto are not only equal to each other, but are the same thing. According to the three Solonians and the Neoplatonic triad in general, Julian divided all gods into three classes. The first class of the highest intelligible gods, not directly related to the world; - these are the first reasons for all perfection, goodness, beauty, strength; second class - intelligent gods, creators of the world; third class - eternal visible images of invisible gods - heavenly bodies 346. Through the gods, divine life spreads throughout the entire world, which is a reflection of the ideal world, and which therefore, with all its diversity, represents an amazing unity and harmony. As a reflection of the ideal world, it has its basis in it, and in it are the reasons for the diversity of creatures that inhabit our world, as well as the reasons for the differences in government institutions. Morals and beliefs of individual peoples 347. Having its foundation in the ideal divine world, this visible world will exist forever, as an eternal reflection of eternal ideas. Therefore, it is impossible to attribute to him beginnings in time, without transferring the temporal definition to the divine nature of the creator; “It is not even safe to imagine the beginning creation of the world, for Helios, without time, through his divine will, constantly gives birth to everything visible from the invisible.” This world has come from eternity without any temporal beginning and will exist forever. 348 Человек имеет двойственную природу; душа его происходит от верховного существа и родственна ему; the gods added a mortal body to the divine essence and thus created man. 349 Since many gods participated in his creation, they probably created not one person, but several ancestors of various peoples; 350 тело человека связано условиями земного существования, чуждыми душе; therefore the soul always strives for its divine source in the ideal world; - this is the goal of man, this is morality: everything should strive and return to the father and source of everything 351. Средством к возвышению духа служить, прежде всего, аскетизм; a person is full of the most unbridled aspirations and desires and must fight them, avoid all sensual pleasures, and be moderate in everything. 352 Julian recommends abstaining from animal food, especially from the meat of the pig, which is entirely an earthly animal and never looks at the sky; from fish, because they swim deep in the water, from the roots and fruits of creeping plants, from root plants; the latter can only be eaten with leaves because they are purified by light; You can eat birds because they fly high in the air 353. The ideal of morality for Julian is Diogenes, whom he respected to the highest degree; he saw in the cynical philosopher a man who put into practice the principles of Plato's philosophy, showing an example of complete freedom from external connections, from everything that subordinates the spirit to the body, who, “having neither city, nor house, nor fatherland, nor obol, nor drachm, nor slave, nor biscuit, which was sufficient for Epicurus to consider himself as happy as the gods, did not pretend to be equal to the gods in happiness, but boasted that he was more happier than the happiest of people" 354. In addition to asceticism, to achieve the goal of moral life, positive, uplifting activities, such as philosophy 355, and external means bestowed by the gods, such as sacrifices and theurgic rites, are necessary. “We have a body,” says Julian, and therefore it is necessary that there be something corporeal in the cult that we render to the gods.” 356 He attached extreme importance to these external means, looking at them as Christians look at the sacraments, and seeing in them a means of communication with the gods. But he did not want them to be looked at in a purely external way and considered sufficient to please the gods. “Don’t you know,” he writes to the cynic Heraclius, “that sacrifices, great and small, made to the gods have meaning only in conjunction with holiness, and without holiness, even a thousand sacrifices have no meaning in their eyes”; “Holiness is above all hecatombs”; 357 “initiation into the sacraments has no meaning for bad people, while people who live worthy of initiation receive from the gods the full reward for virtue, even though they have not been initiated.” 358 Julian justifies Diogenes, who shunned external cult, did not go to churches, did not bow before statues or altars, justifies him by the fact that he revered the gods in his soul; “thinking about the gods was enough for him; he respected them with all his heart, offering them everything that he owned, in my opinion, the most valuable - a soul sanctified by the thought of them.” 359 Julian was the most devoted son of his religion. It seemed to him that this religion had revealed to him his natural and still vague aspirations. “How many times,” he says, even in my youth, delighted with the brilliance of the light of Helios, I not only could not take my eyes off it during the day, but even at night, in a clear sky, I left everything to contemplate the beauty of the luminaries, not hearing anything that was said to me, and not realizing what I was doing myself. My attention was so intense and prolonged that they took me for an astrologer.” 360 It seemed surprising to him how others did not see the action of the beneficent hand of Helios everywhere. “Or are you the only ones insensitive to the shine that comes from Helios? He writes to the Alexandrians; you alone do not know that it is he who produces all the animals and all the plants. You consider God the Word of Jesus, whom neither you nor your fathers have seen, and do not honor him whom the human race has seen and revered from eternity, I want to say the great sun, the living, animated, intelligent and beneficent image of the intelligible Father.” 361 In his life, he himself clearly saw the hand of the gods, who, despite all the dangers to which he was exposed, despite the fact that he could not guarantee his life for a single minute, protected him all the time and brought him to the throne in order to make him an instrument for the restoration of their trampled cult. 362 And we saw that he most zealously carried out what he saw as his mission. Full of trust in the gods, he did nothing without consulting them. He could often be seen rummaging through the entrails of sacrificial animals, examining their hearts and livers, 363 carefully watching the flight of birds; 364 he pondered every random coincidence of facts, 365 the dreams he saw, trying to find in them an indication of the gods. 366 Exalted nature, he even felt the presence of the gods; it seemed to him that he “lives with them in constant communication, that they come down to earth to him” and sometimes “at night, touching his hand or hair, they interrupt his sleep”; he was so accustomed to them and knew them so closely that he could distinguish the voice of Zeus from the voice of Athena and the image of Apollo from the image of Hercules.” 367 He was surrounded by some kind of mystical atmosphere, full of mysterious events, omens, predictions, mysterious voices and visions, gods and goddesses. Julian remained faithful to the rules of his cynical morality on the throne. Never before had a Roman emperor lived with such simplicity as he did. He cleared his court of all luxury and of all the parasites left to him as an inheritance from his predecessors - numerous cooks, barbers, cupbearers and especially eunuchs, of whom there were as many, as Libanius put it, like flies in summer; 368 instead of them, he surrounded himself with old friends - philosophers and rhetoricians. 369 He was the strictest ascetic. According to Livanius, he never touched a woman, even after marrying Constantius’s sister Helena. 370 He ate only plant foods and then in very limited quantities, exhausted his body with frequent night waking and subjected it to the most cruel scourgings. 371 He even took his imitation of Diogenes to the extreme, to complete sloppiness and inattention to costume and everything external; for this, especially for his unkempt and insect-filled beard, during his stay in Antioch he became the subject of ridicule and libel on the part of the inhabitants of this city. 372 4. General remarks about the work of Julian against Christianity and the work of St. Cyril in refutation of Julian. Polemical techniques of both authors. Julian and Celsus. Julian began writing his work against Christians in 362–3. in Antioch shortly before the Persian campaign and continued it during the campaign itself. 373 It is not known whether he finished it or not, but, in any case, it has reached our time only in fragments preserved mainly by St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria and partly from Theodore of Mopsuet and Blessed. Jerome. At present, we cannot have a complete idea not only of the content of the entire work, but even of its volume. Blessed Jerome in his LXX letter (ad Magnum) says that it consisted of 7 books, and Julian’s literary opponent St. Cyril of Alexandria speaks only about 3 books. Perhaps in different lists Julian’s work was divided differently, maybe bl. Jerome read it in some refutation, consisting of 7 books, and fell into the same mistake as the historian Socrates, who, as we will see below, attributed to the 3rd book of Julian a passage relating to the 3rd book of the refutation of Julian made by St. Kirill; a third assumption is also possible, that bl. Jerome knew a more complete list of Julian's polemical works, and in that at least 35 year period (397–432) that passed from the above-mentioned letter to Bl. Jerome before the appearance of the work of St. Kirill, part of Julian’s work might have disappeared. This explanation is all the more likely because the ancient Christians, out of religious jealousy and out of fear of temptation for those weak in the faith, generally had the custom of destroying works compiled by pagans to refute Christianity, and the work of Julian actually produced such a temptation: according to the testimony of Cyril himself, through him “many frivolous and prone to apostasy among the believers conveniently fall into the error of Julian and become a pleasant prey for demons, and sometimes come to confusion and confirmed in faith, since they believe that Julian knows St. Scripture, citing many testimonies from it.” 374 St. Chrysostom even earlier St. Cyril directly testifies in his book “about St. Babyla against Julian and the pagans,” that the polemical writings of Julian are threatened with complete destruction, although he attributes this to the indifference of the pagans themselves to the writings of the apostate emperor; according to Chrysostom, “if anything remains from them, then, first of all, it can be found preserved among Christians.” It is not surprising, therefore, that by the time of the church historian Socrates, Julian’s work against Christians had actually become a bibliographic rarity. 375 But also from those 3 books that were known to St. Kirill, in refuting the latter, only the first one has reached us in more or less large passages, and only about it we can have a more or less complete idea. The contents of the 2nd book can be judged from small excerpts from the books of St. who have not reached us. Kirill. 376 The historian Socrates quotes one place from the 3rd book, 377 but, as we have already had the opportunity to notice, this place is taken not from the 3rd book of Julian, but from the 3rd book of St. Cyril, in the refutation of which Socrates must have read the work of Julian. Julian's writing against Christians early attracted the attention of Christian theologians and provoked their refutation. Theodore of Mopsuet wrote against him - “Against the charges raised against Christians by Julian the apostate”, 378 Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis - “Analysis of Julian’s absurd opinions”, Philip Sidet “Refutation of the books of King Julian against Christians” 379 and bl. Theodorite. Unfortunately, all that remains of all these works are the titles. 380 According to the testimony of Sozomen, Apollinaris of Laodicea also wrote against Julian. Sozomen says that Apollinaris sent his work to Julian himself, and when Julian sent it back with the words: I read, understood and condemned, the Christian bishops answered him: I read, but did not understand, because if I had understood, I would not have condemned. The same words are found in one of the letters of Basil the Great to Julian, but these letters are considered not authentic, 381 and in general the historical reliability of the story is doubtful. It is known that Julian wrote his work in the later years of his reign, and a refutation of it would hardly have had time to appear during his lifetime. Perhaps Apollinaris wrote against Julian in general, and not against his work. 382 In the 9th century. Patriarch Photius of Constantinople wrote against Julian, 383 but his work was lost. In general, of Julian’s refutations, only the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria: “In defense of the holy Christian religion against the books of the wicked Julian,” but it has not reached us in full form, but only in the first 10 books. How many books have been written under this title is unknown. The book of Leontius and John “On Sacred Things” contains excerpts from the following books XI-XIX, and in the sacred parallels of St. John of Damascus - from the XII, XV, XVI, XVII and XVIII books. To determine the time when Cyril’s work was written, we are given some data by the 83rd letter of Bl. Theodorite; - it says here that St. Cyril, having written his books against Julian, sent them for reading to John of Antioch and through him to the most learned Eastern theologians; Obviously, this was after his reconciliation with Eastern theologians; Obviously, this was after his reconciliation with the eastern bishops, i.e. after 432. 384 Julian conducts polemics against Christianity in parallel with the defense of Hellenism. From the very beginning, opponents of Christianity expressed bewilderment at how some ignorant Jewish sect could preach its opinions among a highly cultured Greco-Roman society. For Julian, this comparison of Hellenism and Christianity is the main technique. Having departed from the Christianity in which he was raised, and having become a pagan, he had to not only “explain the reasons by which he came to the conviction that the sect of the Galileans was only a human invention, having nothing divine,” 385, but also to show the advantages of paganism over Christianity. In addition, Julian thought that this comparison could best show the insignificance of Christianity. Hellenism is the religion of the greatest thinkers, poets, and statesmen who have always served as role models for him. The religion of the country, which seemed to him a country of all justice, wisdom and piety, and of which the several months spent in it left him with the best memories. How can a religion compare with it, which is barely 300 years old, which appeared among a small barbarian people who occupied a small corner of Palestine, which did not have any glorious past behind it, which did not give the world a single philosopher, whose founder was a simple carpenter, and whose first preachers were Galilean fishermen? Julian does not find anything good in this religion - neither in its teachings, nor in the lives of its followers. In his opinion, it is an unfortunate mixture of Judaism and Hellenism. This idea is readily developed by the latest historians of philosophy, but we should not exaggerate its significance in the mouth of Julian. Christians, he says, borrowed from both religions what is worst in them - from the Jews their frivolous contempt for the gods, from the Greeks - indifference in food and a dissolute way of life 386. Everything else in their teaching is purely human fabrication, in which there is nothing divine, and which are designed to seduce, through false miracles, that part of our soul that is most accessible to fables 387 . Julian does not find anything good in the life of Christians. He treats them with the greatest contempt, not calling them by any other name, like the Galileans. Comparing Hellenism with Christianity, he is amazed how Christians could leave the Greeks to go to the Jews. But, not remaining faithful to them, they invented something new and worse 388. It was very convenient for St. Cyril to use this same comparative technique to defend Christianity and refute Hellenism. At the same time, he had a suitable opportunity to touch upon precisely the weakest side of the latter, which other apologists also liked to dwell on. This is exactly how St. Cyril understands his task, and to Julian’s question why they Christians left the Greeks and went over to the Jews, and then, having changed and invented something of their own for the Jews, he, denying the validity of the last accusation, answers the first half of the question with reference to Julian’s own admission that “the Greeks made up incredible and monstrous fables about the gods,” such as the fact that Saturn devoured his children and then vomited them back, or Jupiter saved with his mother, had children from her, then married his daughter and, having slept with her, gave her to another. 389 In general, where are so many fables, says St. Kirill, ridiculous stories, childish, empty, full of stupidity, if not from them? They have such abomination that the best of them rebelled against the wicked poets. For Plato did not admit what was said by Homer, who brought out gods subject to human passions, paying for the death of relatives, like women. 390 Julian, of course, could always object that he does not consider myths to be true historical tales; he himself calls them incredible fables that are invented by poets, and contrasts Christianity not with them, but with Plato and other philosophers who discovered the true meaning of myths, hidden from the masses. St. Cyril anticipates this objection and gives an answer to it. Greek philosophers, and the wisest ones at that, although they sometimes called myths fables, generally believed them. The same Plato who rejected Homer’s stories accepted Hesiod’s theogony and expressed the idea that poets need to believe what the gods told them about themselves. Herodotus also believes what Homer and Hesiod reported about the origin of the gods, their names, and appearance. If myths are fables, then they should be ridiculed and not given any significance, but if they are treated with respect and even consider those whom they call gods to be gods, then they are believed. Obviously, only when, due to the shamelessness of myths, there is no way to agree with them, they are given the name of fictitious fables. 391 St. Cyril says that Julian himself feels the weakness of this side of his doctrine and therefore warns that those who wish to object to him should not act like clever lawyers who evade the case by making their own accusations, but should only engage in refuting his provisions, without touching his religion. Superstition, therefore, turns out to be among the Greeks, and not among Christians. As for Christianity, just the opposite of Julian’s statement, Christianity is not only not superstition, but teaches one to turn away from all fables and empty miracles, there is “nothing fictitious in it, nothing that cannot be given a reason.” What does Julian see as fables? Did Moses compose fables when he preached the one God, unborn, eternal, incorruptible, invisible, unchangeable, giver of life, king and Lord of all? How can we say that we have nothing true? Don't we have a carefully developed doctrine about God and the creation of the world? Isn’t knowledge of duties, free from all reproach and censure, drawn from Holy Scripture? Christian philosophy, both contemplative and active, is worthy of praise in itself and even among the adherents of Greek wisdom itself is a subject of surprise. 392 Therefore, if Julian asks Christians why he, having left the Greeks, went over to the Jews, and then invented something of his own and worse than Judaism, then Christians, for their part and with much greater right, can ask him: why did he, having abandoned Christ and deviated from the truth, loved lies, and, preferring the vile superstition of idolaters to the true concept of God, thinks that he judged correctly, and did not rather fall into the most extreme misconception. 393 St. Cyril did not think that everything was bad among the pagans. Like almost all ancient Christian writers, especially the Alexandrian school, brought up along with Christian sacred books and on Greek authors, he treated the latter, at least many of them, with great respect and where he found in them opinions similar to Christian ones, or simply disagreed with the views of Julian himself, he referred to them in the first case to confirm Christian teaching, in the second to refute Julian. This not new method of polemics in relation to Julian was all the more convenient because Julian could not avoid references to a philosopher of another school to which he did not belong. He believed in the unity of all philosophical schools of Greece; meanwhile, in fact, even among representatives of his Neoplatonic school there was no agreement on issues that were very significant from his point of view; for example, regarding the external cult, he himself disagreed with Plotinus and Porphyry. We have said that the references made by the ancient apologists to the Greek authors, in order to prove that they taught in a manner similar to Christianity, did not always show that similarity; in this regard, similar references from St. Cyril have more grounds, because he quotes mostly later authors who experienced a great and undoubted influence of Christianity, such as the Neoplatonists - Porphyry, Plotinus, Amelius and the Neopythagorean Numenius; Christianity entered both Neoplatonism and Neo-Pythagoreanism as a very essential element of their metaphysical and ethical teaching; very often also St. Cyril refers to the so-called Hermetic books; although he, like other church writers, attributes these books to Hermes Trismegistus, supposedly an ancient Egyptian writer, they were actually compiled no earlier than half of the third century A.D. 394 and also greatly influenced by Christianity; So it says about the Holy Spirit directly in the words of Christian symbols: “Everything needs him, for carrying everything, he animates and nourishes everything and comes from a holy source, he is always the giver of life to everyone.” 395 The main danger of Julian's work is St. Kirill sees that he can deceive the reader with his knowledge of Holy Scripture. Julian has no doubt about the identity of the Christian saints. books to the authors to whom they are attributed; so he considers the Pentateuch to be the work of Moses, although not in its entirety, since, according to Julian, Ezra added to them something of his own 396. He also does not doubt the authenticity of the acts of the apostles, the gospels, and even those miracles that are described there, although he tries to belittle the significance of the latter; he recognizes the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians as belonging to St. Pavel. But, without doubting the authenticity of the biblical books, he uses their very content to ridicule and even refute Christian teaching. With remarkable skill, he freely and abundantly selects biblical texts and facts, wanting to present their absurdity, contradiction to himself and common sense, and sometimes trying to interpret them to lead Christians to Judaism and through Judaism to Hellenism. He reveals the most extensive acquaintance with the text of St. Scriptures, incomparably greater than all previous opponents of Christianity. Having received a Christian upbringing, reading the sacred books in church as a cleric as a child and studying them under the guidance of Christian teachers, he knew these books, perhaps even better than many Christians. Instead of the throne, they prepared him for the clergy, isolating him from any influence of pagan philosophy and science; they wanted to make him a Christian theologian instead of an emperor; - when he became an emperor and an apostate, he repaid this evilly in his work, unexpectedly using the lessons of his mentors for completely different purposes for which they gave them. His literary opponent had to defend the text of St. books, establishing its true meaning against distortions. He often does this in more detail than necessary, for polemical purposes, but he writes not for Julian, who was no longer alive at that time, but for those who could be embarrassed by the writings of the apostate; these were generally weak in the faith, and for them it was necessary not only to refute the opinions of the enemy, but also to generally strengthen them in the faith and prevent other possible doubts. Defending biblical teaching and interpreting its texts, St. Cyril is greatly influenced by the allegorical direction of the Alexandrian school. The famous founders of this school, Clement and Origen, followed in the interpretation of Holy Scripture their Jewish predecessors Aristobulus and Philo, who allegorically interpreted the entire Old Testament. This direction aroused opponents, and the church condemned it in the same form as it was among the named church teachers, but the application of the allegorical method to the interpretation of certain passages of the Bible was recognized as legal and still exists. St. Cyril does not follow this method to the same extent as Clement or Origen, but he is not entirely free from their extremes. Proving, for example, that Moses and other Old Testament men knew about the second person of the Holy Trinity and even knew that it was called the “Word”, “Right Hand”, “Power of God”, St. Cyril refers to God’s words to Moses when promising to send meat to the Jews in the desert: “Will the hand of the Lord not be satisfied with food? Now you will understand whether My word comprehends you or not.” 397 Elsewhere God says: “I will lift up My hand to heaven and swear by My right hand”; 398 and that by the hand and right hand of God we must here mean the Son of God, this is clear, according to St. Cyril, from the fact that in another place God says: “By myself he swore,” for the Son is one with Him by nature. During the time of Joshua, God led the Jews across the Jordan on a dry bottom, so that all nations would know that “the power of the Lord is strong,” 399 just as Christ said about Himself “he will be clothed with power from on high,” 400 and that the power from on high is Christ, this is clear from the words of the apostle. Paul: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” 401 All these are expressions that, of course, could be used by adherents of the strictest monotheism, which does not recognize the existence of the Son of God, for example. Mohammedans. Telling about the appearance of an angel to Gideon, 402 St. Cyril interprets the words of the angel: “Put it (the sacrifice) on the stone” in the sense: “offer it to Christ,” for according to the apostle. Paul, “the rock was Christ,” and Gideon knew that Christ was called the rock. Establishing the meaning of biblical teaching, St. Cyril would like to use the authority of the Bible as proof of the truth of this teaching; he repeatedly points out that, according to Plato, one must believe what is told about the gods by their sons, i.e. poets, 403 and expresses surprise that the Hellenes accept the words of the son of Ariston without evidence, and do not believe the words of the saints - he did not do anything amazing, but the holy prophets have honesty, glory, deeds above human ones. But St. Cyril does not insist on such proof; he knows that for his opponent the authority of Holy Scripture matters little and therefore, to prove the truth of Christian teaching, he prefers either to refer to Greek writers and prove its rationality and height. Sometimes, however, he does not recognize the legitimacy of objections to Holy Scripture, the legitimacy of questions - why God did this and not otherwise, why, for example, He called other nations much later than the Jews, why He did not send them, just like the Jews, a prophetic spirit, did not give laws, etc. St. Cyril refers to the incomprehensibility of divine ways for us; we must believe in their intelligence even without understanding them. Such reasoning could still have meaning for those who really believed that such and such a fact happened and was the work of God; but Yulin, who did not admit this, needed evidence. Therefore, St. himself Cyril, in every case where he refers to the incomprehensibility of divine ways and the impermissibility of their interpretation on the part of man, gives, as far as possible, a rational justification of biblical facts. 404 Neither the work of St. Cyril, nor Julian’s work are completely original works. St. Cyril uses in his work to defend Christianity arguments that were developed by previous apologists, and which by his time had become current. He often repeats his predecessors not only in general thoughts and techniques, but even in individual remarks, in the facts and quotes he cites, both from Holy Scripture and from Greek authors. Regarding the latter, one cannot even always say whether he read them himself; Perhaps he borrowed their sayings second-hand - from Christian writers. In the same way, Julian largely repeats Celsus and Porphyry, and this again concerns not only his main objections, but also the details; he dwells on the same passages of Holy Scripture, biblical history and Christian teaching, like Celsus, and sometimes even repeats his mistakes and objections, which in his time had already become an anachronism. There is, however, a characteristic difference between Julian and Celsus; Celsus, like Porphyry, was, first of all, a philosopher; in this era of religious faith, and they had a negative attitude towards religion, but still they were the most rationalistic minds of their time and criticized Christianity from a philosophical, not a religious point of view. Julian was, first of all, a minister of the ancient religion, the most pious at the same time the most superstitious man of his time; therefore, he could not repeat much of what Celsus objected to Christianity, but on the other hand, he made that the center of his attention in Christianity. Which for Celsus had almost no meaning. Julian does not laugh, like Celsus, at the Christian teaching about providence, about the care with which, according to this teaching, God treats His creation, about His intervention in human life. His gods also shed their blessings on our world and treat with the most lively participation what happens in it - not only the lower gods and demons, but also the higher ones, like Zeus and Athena. Julian does not criticize the dogma of the incarnation, which was such an inconsistency with Celsus and the former Neoplatonists; he, who lived with the gods, heard their voices and saw their sensual outlines, could not find anything strange in this dogma. He himself tells in his work against Christians how Aesculapius, the son of Zeus, having descended to earth and taking on the form of a man, walked everywhere, healing the souls and bodies of people and scattering his blessings; he was only surprised that Christians deified such an insignificant, in his opinion, person as Christ. The new direction in Neoplatonic philosophy, to which Julian belonged, recognized the possibility of the incarnation of a deity, and Iamblichus saw this incarnation in Pythagoras; he even wrote a biography of Pythagoras, probably for the same purpose with which Philostratus wrote the biography of Apollonius of Tyana. Julian does not criticize the gospel miracles like Celsus; for him, life, and in particular his personal life, was full of miracles, while Celsus, if he did not deny the possibility of miracles, it was only a concession to the time, but he looked at the gospel miracles as nothing more than simple tricks. One of the strongest accusations against Christians for Julian was that they abandoned Jewish rituals and sacrifices, while Celsus puts a detailed accusation only in the mouth of a Jew with the purpose of showing that Christians cannot refer to the Old Testament law, and Porphyry directly considers blood sacrifices to be service to evil demons and demanded from the philosopher, who alone is the true priest of God, spiritual service to the Divine. Celsus attacks Christianity not only from a philosophical point of view, but also as a patriot who is very concerned about the integrity and strength of the Roman state; he attaches great importance to the fact that Christians refuse to participate in public celebrations, do not perform sacred rites associated with public service, that they even completely refuse to serve in the imperial troops. He was greatly worried about what he called the spirit of partisanship in Christians, that they were separating themselves into a special sect and forming, as it were, a state within a state. Apparently, this was even the main motive for him to come out against Christians with a polemical essay. By the time of Julian, such motives of hostility towards Christians had ceased to matter; Christians declared themselves to be good citizens and as brave warriors as the pagans, so that Julian, who, as an emperor, should have paid more attention to the attitude of Christians to the state than anyone else, does not at all bring the same accusation against them as Celsus. He probably shared another prejudice against Christians, which was very common among pagan believers, which we find even in Porphyry, 405 and with which Christian writers had to struggle a lot, namely, that Christians, as apostates from the gods, were responsible for the disasters that befell the empire. But in his polemical work we do not find this accusation either. In the harshness of his tone and the extremeness of his opinions about Christianity, Julian is very reminiscent of Celsus. Both of them find nothing good, either in the teaching or in the life of Christians. Only what could still be excusable for Celsus sounds very strange in the mouth of Julian, who knew Christianity better than Celsus. In general, Julian lacks what is, above all, required from a serious essay - impartiality; he hates and despises his opponent too much to remain fair to him. He even deliberately diminishes the importance of Christians, still portraying them as an insignificant local sect of “Galileans,” while this sect in fact already reigned in the Roman Empire and spread far beyond its borders. He turns a blind eye to the merits of Christians, which he himself recognizes elsewhere, sometimes resorts to arguments that contradict his own views, and even reproaches Christians for being subjects of Caesar. Recognizing that Christianity appeared only recently, he still wants to make it into a legend like the Greek myths. It is a pity that only small fragments remain of Porfiry’s work, and it cannot be compared with Julian’s work; although Livanius puts the latter above him, 406 this was hardly a simple passion of the famous rhetorician for his favorite student. We have the right to expect from Porphyry, a very important philosopher, a more serious analysis of Christianity, and the mere fact that his work caused more refutations than all others, and the Christian theologians themselves (Blessed Jerome) recognized its strength, shows that he was superior to the work of Julian. It is also interesting what new things were said by Porphyry against Christianity in comparison with Celsus. On the literary side, Julian's polemical work was written with the same skill as most of his works. “Julian’s style,” says Talbot, 407 seems surprising from a writer of an era of decline. One does not expect to find in it so much power and precision, so much wit and grace, and one can attribute to one only a long acquaintance with the best writers of the glorious times of Greece this pleasant taste and fragrance of antiquity. Only the tact that Julian lacks in his behavior, Talbot notes, is also lacking in his writings; the hot passion, the sharp impetuosity that opposition evokes in him, manifests itself in his style in disordered movements, in discordant tones, in unpleasant incongruities.” Hence, Julian always has some disorder in his works, lack of consistency in plan, abrupt transitions from one to another, which sometimes makes it difficult to follow the author’s thoughts. He wrote his essays very quickly and, apparently, did not take the trouble to smooth out the irregularities that he made the first time. However, in his polemical work against Christians, these shortcomings are much less noticeable; in general, this work is very lively and passionate, where the tone and mood are maintained to the end, where thoughts, even if falsity, and evidence, even if weak, are presented so skillfully that, without even convincing the reader, they force him to salute the literary talent of the author. Essay by St. Cyril is much more extensive than Julian’s work, although we know only part of it. Undoubtedly, it represents the fruit of long and conscientious work; the author reveals great scholarship in him, furnishing each of his positions with a variety of carefully collected evidence; he does not leave unexamined any of the opponent’s objections, provides for new ones that can be made, and generally tries to ensure that his Christian readers, for whom he writes, do not have any doubt about the truth and superiority of their religion. Where he has to touch on dogmatic issues, e.g. About redemption, about the Person of Jesus Christ, about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, he expounds Christian teaching at great length, and on some issues, for example. About the Face of Jesus Christ, develops it with greater clarity than previous Christian theologians. But from the literary side, the work of St. Cyril lacks the liveliness that distinguishes Julian's work. Its presentation is not always consistent. 408 This is partly explained by the properties of a polemical work, the author of which is not free to establish the order of his thoughts and must follow his opponent. In addition, in the objections of Julian St. Kirill does not distinguish between the main and the secondary and answers everything equally thoroughly and in detail with frequent repetitions. Since he does not write for Julian himself, his reasoning is not always adapted to the objections of his opponent; they are aimed at teaching believers in general and therefore are often in more detail than is necessary to refute Julian, and sometimes are not at all caused by the latter’s objections. Despite some disorder in Julian's work, for which St. quite rightly reproaches him. Cyril, 409 in this work there is a plan and even more definite than in other works of Julian. План этот указан самим автором в начале сочинения. “First of all,” he says, we need to define in a few words where and how the thought of God comes to us; затем, сравним то, что было сказано о Боге эллинами и евреями; Then, we will ask those who are neither Jews nor Greeks, why then they did not remain faithful to them, but separated from them and went their own way.” 410 Thus, he wants first to trace the origin of religious ideas in us, in order to show more clearly in their primitive and undistorted form what they should be. Then, since Christians connected their religion with Judaism, he dwells on Judaism in order to humiliate it before Hellenism and then moves on to criticize Christianity. 5. Contents and historical and literary analysis of the works of Julian and St. Kirill. I. General point of view, religious revelation and the attitude of Hellenism, Judaism and Christianity to it. Neoplatonism recognized the internal subjective source of religious knowledge. Only by immersing himself in the contemplation of the highest part of his being, which itself is the origin of the divine, can a person cognize God. We have seen that the highest form of knowledge of God is achieved according to Neoplatonism in an act of ecstasy - internal fusion and identification with the Divine. True, in the matter of religious knowledge, Neoplatonism had very deep respect for the authority of the ancient sages; it considered them divinely inspired and their teaching almost a revelation. But, of course, this historical revelation in no way contradicted subjective revelation - it was a replenishment for the latter, all the more valuable since internal revelation had different degrees and was not equally accessible to everyone; and the same Plotinus, in whom we find the strongest development of the idea of ​​subjective knowledge of God, and who, according to the testimony of other Neoplatonists, reached the highest degrees of contemplation, did not set himself any other task than to restore the teaching of Plato. In any case, man finds the main path and basis of knowledge of God in himself. Также думает и Юлиан. Unfortunately, on this issue only a few passages remain from him, cited by St. Kirill is not in the place where they should be according to plan, i.e. not at the beginning, and not even in Julian’s test, but in the text of Cyril himself. However, these passages are enough to determine Julian’s views. “It is impossible,” he says, to learn the knowledge of God, but it is given to people by nature; The first proof of this is that the desire for divinity is common to all people, and we see its manifestations both in private and in public life, both in individuals and in entire nations. For all of us, having been taught by no one, believe in some deity, but to say anything precise about Him is not only not an easy task for everyone, but is impossible even for those who know Him.” 411 If the concept of God is given by nature to men, then in the first natural manifestations of religious feeling we can see what this natural concept is and at the same time what it ought to be, because in the original expressions religious ideas appear in their true pure form, not distorted or obscured by later influences from preconceived doctrines and opinions. Julian finds that these first expressions of religious feeling are a confirmation of his religious views, that man himself instinctively rushes to the heavenly gods, images of the invisible gods. “No matter how many people we are, all of us, guided by nature, dwell on the sky and the gods who are seen in it, so that if someone invents for himself some other deity than this, he will still give him the sky as a throne and home, not because the earth does not allow him this, but placing the king of all, as it were, in the highest place, he thinks. That God looks from there at what is happening here” 412. Julian says the same thing in another place: “there is no one who does not stretch out his hands to heaven during prayer or an oath in the name of God or the gods, but everyone, at the thought of the Divine, rushes there. And this does not happen without reason, for it is observed that there is no change in the celestial things - neither decrease, nor increase, nor disorder, but their movement is always correct and occurs according to certain laws, certain phases of the moon, the rising and setting of the sun at certain times. From this people concluded that heaven is God and the throne of God. 413 Julian himself personally felt in himself a strong mystical desire for the light of the sun and the heavenly bodies in general and interpreted this desire as a natural expression of the connection of his soul with the heavenly gods. Guided by the same natural inner feeling, the Greeks quite rightly worship the heavenly gods. The Jews also have traces of this cult; Julian cites biblical expressions where heaven is called the throne of God. Only Christians have completely left the path of correct knowledge of God and reject the heavenly gods. The Jews also have traces of this cult; Julian cites biblical expressions where heaven is called the throne of God. Only Christians have completely left the path of correct knowledge of God and reject the heavenly gods. Analyzing Julian's views on the origin of religious ideas, St. Kirill finds that there is no reason to attach such importance to the fact that a person involuntarily fixes his gaze on the sky; “If everyone wants to look at the clouds,” he says, then this does not prove that the clouds are gods; Isn’t laughter enough for someone who, on such weak grounds, would fall into error?” And there is a great difference between God and the throne of God; therefore, if we consider heaven to be the throne of God, as the Jews called it, then this is still far from representing it as God, and the Jews did not think so. From the order and uniformity in the movement of the sky, one cannot conclude that it is God, but only. That it has its own creator. For “who gave him order and correctness of movement? Who distributed the phases of the moon? Who kept the movements of the sun within their borders? Isn’t there one head and ruler of everything?” To consider heaven itself to be God means to limit the nature of the Divinity to a certain place, which, like every creature, is perishable and subject to destruction 414. If Julian seeks support for his views in a natural religious feeling, which supposedly directs a person’s thought to the heavenly gods, then St. Cyril, considering religious truths to be a once given revelation, passed on from generation to generation, finds a strong argument in defense of Christianity in its antiquity; he attaches such importance to this argument that he devotes most of the first book of his work to it, before moving on to an analysis of Julian's work. Thus, at first the pagans proved the falsity of Christianity by the fact that it is a new phenomenon, now the apologists prove that Christianity is older than paganism, and, therefore, it possesses the revealed truth. St. Cyril points to the proverb - one is wise from another, i.e. wisdom is passed on from one person to another, from ancestors to descendants; therefore, it is necessary to seek truth from the most ancient peoples. Which people are older? In response to this, St. Cyril gives a long comparative chronology, according to which the Jews turn out to be older than the Greeks and others. peoples and their writers are older than the Greeks, so other peoples could only learn the truth from the Jews. The truth was communicated to the first people by God, and for some time it was common property, passed on from fathers to children. But then some people indulged in things sensual and fleeting; Because of this, they fell into wickedness and error, for the knowledge of God requires freedom from carnal pleasures and passions. Only Abraham remained faithful to the faith of his ancestors. He revered the one God, the Creator of everything, eternal, unborn, incorporeal, he even knew the mystery of the trinity of the Divine, although only figuratively. After him, the keeper of the truth was Moses, whose teaching was not different either from the teaching of Abraham or from the Christian. While the truth was preserved in this way, although sometimes among a few admirers of the true God, and reached the time of Christianity, the pagans were more and more mistaken and did not know the truth, “like drunken men, they rushed around with different opinions” 415. Christianity really had the advantage over paganism that it had a certain dogmatic system with which theologians connected the teachings of Judaism. What could the pagans oppose to him? Paganism had no dogmas, it only had the stories of poets and the opinions of philosophers. True, the philosophers of this era proved the unity of pagan religion and philosophy, considering the latter an interpretation of the former, and Julian himself called them “sisters,” because, in his opinion, philosophy, like religion, has a divine origin, namely from the god Apollo, 416 but their unification was too artificial, and most importantly, there was no agreement between the opinions of the philosophers themselves. There could be many examples of fundamental disagreement between Greek philosophers. St. Cyril draws attention to their opinions regarding the essence and origin of the world. Some say that the basis of the world is fire, others - air, others - water, etc.; some say there is one world, others many worlds; According to some, the world has a beginning, according to others it does not, according to some it is governed by providence, according to others it does not, etc. It is impossible to discern anything in common between these opinions; everyone says something different; “They, challenging each other’s thoughts, indiscriminately, recklessly spew out one thing or another;” - Isn’t it clear that they “seek the truth rather than have it?” 417 They sometimes even express things that disagree with their own views. “So, which of them, agreeing with them, will the researchers of truth choose the path free from error? What authority for persuasion do those have who have gone so far from the truth that they disagree not only with each other, but also with themselves? 418 Everything that was best among the pagans, everything in which Cyril himself saw similarities with Christianity, he explained, like other apologists, by borrowing from the Jewish holy books. In the 1st book, and partly in others, he develops this theory in great detail, citing from Plato, Pythagoras, Sophocles, Xenophon, Orpheus, Hermes Trismegistus many excerpts that, in his opinion, are similar to biblical teaching. To a large extent, these excerpts, especially from ancient authors, are already familiar to us from the apologies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea. St. Cyril points out in them the high rules of morality, close to Christian ones, the idea of ​​the one highest God and even all three divine persons - the concepts of the “Father of all,” the “Divine Mind,” the “Voice of the Father,” the “Word,” the “true Son of the Father,” the “soul of the world.” At St. Cyril has the same arguments as other apologists in support of the possibility of pagans borrowing their best opinions from Jews and the borrowing itself; – a detailed comparative chronology proving that the Jewish people are more ancient than others, as we have already talked about; indications of the travels of Greek writers in the east, especially to Egypt, where they could become acquainted with Jewish teachings; a reference to the fact that the Greeks in general were distinguished by their great lack of independence and tendency to borrow - their entire culture originated from the east. St. Cyril even claims, which other apologists do not, that Greek writers themselves mention Moses, and refer to Polemon, Ptolemy, Merdesius, Hellanicus, Philochorus, Castor, Diodorus. 419 Like previous apologists, St. Cyril finds that those passages from the Greek writers in which they agree with revelation stand somehow apart in their writings, without connection with their general views, and thereby testify to their origin from an extraneous source, and since in the sublimity of their content they far surpass everything else from these writers, it is obvious that they were borrowed from an inspired source, which was then the Jewish books; at the same time St. Cyril drew attention to the fact that only in these places did Greek writers agree with each other, while in everything else they disagreed. “When they spoke in accordance with the sayings of the divine Scripture, then it turns out that they were superior to themselves and agreed with each other, but when everyone imagines their own inventions, then they disagree with each other and from absurd opinions they become as if drunk and insane” 420. II. Judaism in comparison with Hellenism. Religious ideas of Jews. Julian finds that the Jews are no different in their religious ideas from the Greeks, except that they worship only one God and deny other gods; This monotheism, with all the features that it placed on biblical ideas about God’s relationship to the world, is the central point in Julian’s polemic against Judaism. Julian cites the biblical account of the creation of the whole world by one God, and subjects it to strict criticism from the point of view of his Neoplatonic views. For the Neoplatonist, who populated the highest divine world with many beings of the most varied degrees of perfection, who depicted this world with the broadest imagination and with greater detail than even our own earthly world, the biblical cosmogony seemed extremely poor, dry and boring in content. The enormous abyss separating the heavenly world from the earthly world is unfilled, and the great God himself directly creates our entire diverse world; - he creates other things, like the visible sky, earth, sun, moon, various animals, and other things that already existed, but were hidden, he separates, like water and dry land. 421 God appears to create only the lower sensory world, but nothing is said about the higher, rational world. Moses does not deny its existence - he mentions angels elsewhere and in the cosmogony itself about the spirit, but says nothing about whether they were created, and in general how they came about. 422 Judging by the fact that he speaks only about bodies located in heaven and on earth, one can think that he does not consider God the creator of any incorporeal being, but represents Him “only as the organizer of the matter subordinate to Him,” this is indicated by the first words of cosmogony: “The earth was invisible and unorganized.” 423 But even at these points the cosmogony of Moses is confusing and inconsistent. Moses says that at first the earth was invisible and unsettled, darkness was on the top of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters; then God created the light, the firmament and other objects. Obviously, Moses does not consider neither the abyss, nor darkness, nor water to be the creation of God, however, if light is the creation of God, the same should be said about all of this. By attributing the creation of everything in the world to God alone, Moses leaves unexplained the great variety of creatures that inhabit the world; “if there were no difference between heaven and man, between Zeus and snakes, wild animals and fish that swim in the sea, then there could be one creator of everything; but since there is an enormous difference between immortals and mortals, in order to add nothing to these mortal beings and take nothing away from them, it is necessary that the cause that created some be different from that which created others.” 424 The very method of creation is simplified to the last degree into one command “let it be,” which explains nothing in the nature and origin of creatures. The story about the creation of man is also empty and does not explain anything about the nature of man: “And God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness, and let him possess the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth; and God created man, in the image of God he created him, etc. 425 He wants to contrast this cosmogony of the great Jewish prophet, “with whom, according to Scripture, Julian ironically notes, God spoke face to face,” with the cosmogony of Plato, “who worshiped idols”; in the first he finds nothing but “let it be,” in the second he sees a complete explanation of the diversity and nature of creatures; the creation of the world is depicted here not as among the Jews, not as the creation of a thing according to one order, and the creature receives its nature not from the essence of the creator and may have nothing in common with him, but as a reflection of the rational world in the sensory world, and according to the diversity of the world, its creation is attributed not to one, but to many gods. Julian quotes from Plato’s Timaeus the words that the author of the dialogue puts into the mouth of the creator at the moment of creation, and which are addressed to the lower gods: “Gods of gods, I am the creator of you and of all things: what I have created will never perish, according to my will. It is true that everything created is transitory, but to desire the destruction of that which is well constructed and exists well is not a good deed. And so, since you are created, you are not immortal and not imperishable, but you will not perish, you will not suffer the fate of a mortal, for my will is stronger than the properties that you received at your origin. Find out now what I want to reveal to you. It remains to create three kinds of mortal beings: if they do not exist, heaven will be imperfect, for not all the creatures that it contains will have life. But if they are created by me and receive life through me, they will be wounds to the gods. Therefore, that there may be mortal beings, and that this world may be perfect, apply your nature to the creation of animal beings and imitate my creative power. I will give you the divine essence to spread to them as much as possible, and you, having joined the immortal to the mortal, produce animal beings, nourish them and, when they die, take them back to yourself.” 426 Thus, the Supreme God creates only immortal gods, who are called here gods of gods, because they also have their visible images in the luminaries, which are also gods; three kinds of mortal beings, i.e. people, animals and plants, are created by these immortal gods from the divine essence and mortal body and are condemned to decay in body, but are immortal in soul. Creation thus occurs gradually, and the diversity of creatures receives its explanation. After the cosmogony of Moses, Julian examines all the other stories of the first chapters of Genesis, which depict God's attitude towards the creatures he created, and laughs at their ignorance and rudeness. He repeats the ridicule of Celsus 427 over the stories about the creation of the woman, the serpent, the fall; he sees in them only funny fables, no better than Greek myths. “God said: it is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helper. However, this helper not only does not help him in anything, but deceives him and becomes both for him and for herself the reason for their expulsion from paradise. Is it likely that God does not know that a creature given to help a person will become for him a source of not good, but evil? What language did the serpent speak to Eve? Isn't it human? “Forbidding the people he created to distinguish between good and evil—isn’t this the height of absurdity? Can there be a more stupid creature than one who does not know how to distinguish good from evil? It is clear that it will not avoid one thing, i.e. evil, and strive for something else, i.e. good. God forbids man that which is the very beginning of rationality - the highest ability of man; for that the ability to distinguish between good and evil is a property of reason is clear even to the insane.” Therefore, the serpent was more a benefactor than an enemy of the human race; this is also evident from what follows, where God is portrayed as jealous. In fact, when He saw that man had gained the possession of reason, He drives him out of paradise, so that man would not eat of the tree of life, and says frankly: “Behold, Adam became, as it were, one of us in relation to the knowledge of good and evil, and now, lest he stretch out his hands, touch the tree of life, eat of it, and live forever. And he expelled his God from paradise.” “If all this is not a fable hiding some secret meaning, as I think, then this whole story is full of blasphemy. For to know that a helper given to a person will be the cause of his fall, to prohibit a person from knowing good and evil, that which alone can govern human life, and then enviously fear that a person, having remained alive, will not become immortal from a mortal - there is too much envy and malice in all this.” 428 The funniest thing is the Jewish idea of ​​how God controls the world he created. Like Celsus, Julian sees the height of absurdity, injustice and conceit in the idea of ​​the Jews that their people are under the special and exclusive protection of God. “Moses says that the creator of the world chose the Jewish people for himself, watched only over them and cared only about them. As for other nations, he does not make the slightest mention of how and by what gods they are governed, as soon as he gave them the benefits of the moon and the sun.” As proof, Julian cites several expressions from Moses, where Israel is called the firstborn son of God, and God is called the God of Israel. But this is not only a Jewish opinion - in this case, Julian might not have touched upon it. - it is also shared by Jesus and St. Pavel. The latter, however, “like polyps on the rocks, every minute changes his opinion about God, now proving that the Jews are the exclusive heritage of God, now claiming that the Greeks also have a part in it, since God is not only the God of the Jews, but also of the pagans.” 429 It is interesting to ask, “why, if God is not only the God of the Jews, but also of the pagans, why did He only send to the Jews the prophetic spirit, Moses, the anointing, the prophets, the law, miracles and finally Jesus... He waits for myriads or, if you like, thousands of years, leaving in ignorance and, as you say, devotion to the cult of idols, all nations from east to west and from the north until noon, with the exception a small people who occupied just one part of Palestine for no more than two thousand years. If this God is the God of us all, if He is the creator of everything, why did He neglect us? 430 Why will we honor Him if He is not interested in us, “not caring about life, nor about customs, nor about morals, nor about laws, nor about the political structure of nations”... if He did not send us teachers, legislators, or prophets, like the Jews. What should we think about Him? 431 We have the best opinions from the Creator; we think that He cares about all nations. He also “gave us gods who are in no way inferior to the Jewish God, and gave us blessings greater than them; He has sent us legislators who are as good as Moses, if some of them are not even better than him.” 432 “Our authors say that the creator of the world is a common father and king, that He divided the peoples between gods - the patrons of nations and cities. And that each of them governs within his own limits, as is characteristic of him. While in the father everything is perfect and united, in individual deities one or another force predominates. Ares manages the military affairs of nations, Athena is the goddess not only of war, but also of wisdom; Hermes is jealous of something that requires cunning more than courage. 433 In a word, every nation follows the nature of the God to whom it is taught. If experience does not confirm what we say, let all our beliefs be only fiction and madness, and let your beliefs be praised. And if what we say is confirmed by constant experience, and nothing has ever agreed with your teaching, then why this persistence on your part? Tell me why the Celts and Germans are brave, the Greeks and Romans are educated, above all, and humane, but at the same time courageous and warlike, the Egyptians are wiser and more judicious; The Syrians are not warlike and gentle, but gifted, ardent, agile, with a quick power of understanding. If we recognize no reason for this difference, but explain it as a matter of chance, then how can we recognize that the world is governed by providence? And if I know the reason for this, let them tell me in the name of the creator himself.” 434 To understand such reasoning, strange and naive for a person of our time, we must always remember that the gods of Julian are not just rulers of nations - a kind of earthly rulers, these are Platonic ideas, in relation to which the outside world, in this case individual peoples, are only a reflection. The properties of the gods are embodied in the nature of peoples, and if some peoples are warlike, others are cowardly, some are educated, others are ignorant, then this is a necessary expression of the nature of their gods, and at the same time their own, which only reflects the nature of God. These morals of peoples are unchangeable, and if all nations have their own laws, then these laws can add little to the nature of the nation and usually the laws themselves are adapted to the morals of the people; they are humane and lenient among peoples possessing these qualities, and cruel where cruel customs prevail. When Anacharsis, carried away by some Athenian laws, decided to apply them to the Scythians, the latter looked at him. Like crazy. The Roman Empire extended its rule very far, but among the peoples of the West there are almost no people capable of philosophy, geometry or any other science of this kind, and only a few of them have achieved success in the art of eloquence. Such is the power of nature. Where does this natural difference between peoples come from? 435 In one place Moses makes an attempt to explain the difference in languages ​​among individual peoples. - this is in a story about the confusion of languages. But this story, in addition to the fact that it explains nothing, is full, like other biblical stories, of the most absurd ideas about God. Julian gives it all verbatim, so that no one thinks that he is funny only in his presentation. Julian is amazed how one can believe this fable and not believe the one in which Homer talks about the Aloads, who decided to put three mountains on top of each other in order to climb to heaven. “If you believe the first fable, why do you reproach Homer with another. One can only tell the ignorant that people could build a tower to heaven; this is impossible, even if all people united for this purpose and even if they turned the whole earth into bricks.” And then: “you say that you have true concepts about God and at the same time you say that God was afraid that people would ascend to heaven, and therefore he descended to earth and confused their languages.” And why did He need to descend to earth—couldn’t He have done this without descending from heaven” 436. The difference in languages ​​is not yet that great. There are much greater differences in the laws and customs of peoples. “Which Greek does not consider it a crime to have intercourse with his sister, daughter or mother? But the Persians do not consider this bad. The Germans love freedom and cannot bear the yoke, while the Syrians, Persians and Parthians are timid and cowardly, just like all the eastern and southern barbarians, who, without exception, submit to the most despotic rule.” 437 How can we explain this difference in morals unless we recognize that the highest God has assigned each nation to a special demon? To explain it, like the difference in language, in one way: God said, and it became, also means to say nothing.” The nature of what is done must be consistent with the command of God. God commands, for example, that fire rise upward and earth fall down. But isn’t it necessary to carry out this order that the fire be light and the earth heavy”! If God wanted to make a difference between nations in relation to social life, He could not do it by a simple command, as in the confusion of languages, He had to create us so that we were different in this respect by nature between nations that have differences in life. 438 No matter how much Julian ridicules Jewish ideas about God. He does not consider the God of the Jews himself to be false. Not existing. This is the true real God, but only one of the folk gods - the Jewish God; Moreover, this is a God of very little significance, since He is entrusted with only an insignificant part of the earth and a very small barbarian people. Only great national pride could arouse in the Jews the idea that their national god is the highest God - the creator of the world, that the creator made some of them the subject of his care, leaving other peoples to the mercy of fate. Moses himself, the author of the first Jewish books, distinguished between the highest God and the people's gods - the sons of God, he taught that “there is only one God, who has several sons, between whom He divided the nations”; 439 talking about the confusion of languages, she deliberately obscured this fact and attributed it to God alone. However, his cunning was rather unsuccessful. He himself said that not one God came down from heaven, but several (“come”, “descended”), and he just doesn’t say who they are. Still, with his story, Moses makes it clear that those who descended with God were like Him, and, therefore, the confusion of languages, according to the testimony of Moses, must be attributed to several gods. 440 Recognizing the existence of other gods besides the Jewish God, Moses, as a true Jew who despises other nations, forbade the worship of other gods, because the God of Israel is a jealous God, punishing the sins of the fathers on children even up to the 4th generation; but since the gods of other nations are true gods, Moses, forbidding the veneration of other gods, did not order them to be slandered. His successor prophets went further; leaving the last commandment of Moses, in their insolence they wanted to destroy all true religious feeling among the Jews and ordered them to curse foreign gods, which Christians also borrowed from them. 441 To destroy the Jewish teaching about God and the creation of the world, Julian compares the cosmogony of Moses and Plato. In response to him, St. Kirill, for his part, examines both cosmogonies. He casually throws in a few remarks about the low moral character of the Greek philosopher in contrast to the high valor of Moses, as if with the thought that it would not be worth comparing them 442, but does not stop there and moves on to defend the Mosaic account of life. Julian reproached biblical cosmogony for the poverty of its content, for the fact that it poorly explains the creation of the world and says nothing about the origin of many things; so it says nothing about the origin of the abyss, darkness, water, on the other side of the entire spiritual world - angels, the Spirit of God, although all this is mentioned by Moses as existing. St. Cyril sees here, first of all, a reproach that Moses did not say anything about the first principles or elements that constitute the subject of the cosmogonic theories of ancient Greek philosophers, and Julian clarifies the special purpose and special character of the Mosaic cosmogony in comparison with the Greek ones. Moses does not consider it unimportant to reason about the nature of things or talk about first principles - all this is very curious, but Moses had in mind simple and unlearned people for whom reasoning about first principles would be incomprehensible, and he had a specific goal to instruct these people in religious truths and tell them what is necessary for life. His contemporaries held to the grossest errors; Having forgotten the true God, they began to worship creatures - the sun, moon, stars. Moses needed to distract them from such superstition; and he does it with great skill; “he does not say anything difficult or unnecessary, but only what can lead to good and glory to the Lord of all. Shall we not praise teachers who descend to the understanding of their students and, guiding them to understand hidden things, do not offer anything difficult at first?” 443. The ancients began to consider creation as God; they called the sky Jupiter, the earth Ceres, the sun Apollo, etc. Moses diligently warned against such a delusion, depicting all this: the sky, earth, sun, moon and other luminaries as the creation of one God. Moses also warns against other errors, into which, by the way, the Greeks also fell; in the first words of his cosmogony: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” he does not allow the thought of the co-eternity of matter with God and its independence; he clearly says that God created everything, and was not only the organizer and organizer of matter, as Julian wants to interpret the thought of Moses; and not only Moses thought so, but also many Greek writers, for example. Herme Trismegistus, who said that the whole world was created by the “holy creative word.” In the remark that “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,” Moses means to say. That the nature of the original elements cannot by its own strength avoid destruction and that for its existence the preserving hand of God is necessary. The expression “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” speaks of the creation of everything in general; the following lists the individual types of creation; here the already created earth gives nature to individual things, and God, on his part, gives them form, size, and the beginning of existence 444. After all, man was created. Before creating it, God considers how to do it and holds advice about it; God, of course, does not need to think and deliberate; these expressions are used in a figurative sense to show the especially high dignity of human nature 445. As for the highest rational world - the angels, the Spirit of God, although Moses does not directly say anything about their origin, it is already clear from the names that he attaches to them that the angels were created by God, and the Spirit is not created, but one being with him; it is Moses who calls the angels the servants of God, subject to His will, and calls the Spirit God's 446. Obviously, Julian tried to bring the cosmogony of Moses closer to Plato’s; not finding anything in him about the origin of the angels and the Spirit he mentioned, Julian wanted to give them his own explanation, placing the Spirit in the Platonic triad, and making gods out of the angels; in another place he calls the latter gods; he repeatedly pointed out traces of polytheism in the books of Moses, in the plural form of some expressions about God and in other cases. St. Cyril defends the holy Jewish books against the charge of polytheism. If in the history of the confusion of languages, for example, God speaks of himself in the plural: “come,” “descended,” then in these expressions the secret of the trinity of the deity is hidden. 447 If the Holy Scriptures speak of gods and Sons of God, then, in any case, not in the proper sense; these names are applied to people because they are created in the image and likeness of God; about people is spoken of in the saying of St. Scripture: “You are God and Son of the Most High”; people (descendants of Seth) are understood to be the sons of God, who, according to the story of chapter 6 of the book of Genesis, united with the daughters of men and produced giants. 448 Sometimes some people are adorned with the name of the gods for the height of their position or the sanctity of their life. In this sense, Moses uses this word in the expression pointed out by Julian: “do not slander the gods,” by gods here we mean the princes of the people; if Moses ordered the Israelites to destroy the altars and churches of those gods that other nations worshiped, it means that he could not give the same Israelites commandments not to slander these gods; that is why the prophets commanded the Jews to curse the gods. They did not contradict Moses at all. 449 Before turning to the analysis of the cosmogonic views of Julian himself, St. Cyril points out to him that the pagans cannot contrast the cosmogony of Moses with their own, because the opinions of their philosophers on the issue of the origin of the world are completely different from each other. It is true that Plato, whose cosmogony is cited by Julian, is usually singled out from among all philosophers, and Cyril himself agrees that his opinions are superior to others, but Plato is not free from shortcomings and contradictions and was refuted by his own student; then, if the speech that Plato puts into the mouth of God during the creation of the world is only a poetic fiction in which the philosopher attributes to God what he considers proper to Him, then it has no authority; and if Plato, attributing it to God, considered himself truly taught about the deity, then an analysis of it can show that this is not true. 450 The main feature of those cosmogonic and theological views that Julian opposed to Christianity was their pantheistic character; according to these views, the divine essence extends to all kinds of creations - first to gods, then to people, and finally to animals and not even plants. Christianity, in its parallel teaching about God, angels and people, recognized the substantial difference in their spiritual nature. From the point of view of this difference between Christianity and paganism, the Christian apologist had to criticize the cosmogony and theology of Julian. St. Cyril does just that, although he does not pursue this point of view with sufficient clarity and definiteness, responding more to the specific than to the general thoughts of the enemy. St. Cyril notices, first of all, that in his theology Julian confuses the natures of things, considering creation to exist together with God and in God and recognizing the existence of visible, sensory gods. 451 He then proceeds to criticize the very concepts of God and gods in Julian’s theology. National gods, who, according to Julian’s views, are the creators and rulers of nations, cannot in any way be called gods and, not being gods, cannot have creative power. 452 By the name of God is meant an all-good and all-perfect being in itself, not needing anything, the source and beginning of all good, and the national gods of Julian each have one kind of power, being incapable of anything else; one can only heal people, the other only knows the art of war or the art of eloquence. Thus, some people are superior to the Greek gods. Because among people there are those who master several arts. 453 Julian's ideas about the highest God are also incongruous and unworthy of the true God. Why could God refuse to create the world, entrusting it to other gods? Out of laziness or disregard for human affairs? But neither one nor the other applies to God; in addition, both pagans and Christians teach that God requires from us sacrifices to Him and a virtuous life, and this could not happen if He neglected us. Julian considers his theory necessary to explain the diversity in the world, to explain the existence side by side of great and small, spiritual and physical. But is the power that was sufficient for the production of the highest, insufficient for the lower? Why, why did God give some good gods, and others evil and inclining to evil? If He wanted good for people, why didn’t He entrust them to more experienced and just teachers, but gave them as teachers of debauchery - and after that, He still exacts from them and condemns those who live wrongly? Don't parents send their children to the best teachers? Don't we prefer honest servants to skillful helmsmen? Are we really going to think worse about God than about us? When the highest rulers of a person appoint wise and experienced people to govern the provinces, they rule not according to their own opinion, but according to the laws of the supreme power and force them to show all kinds of respect to it, and the gods of the peoples, appointed in the opinion of Julian by the highest God, do not allow people to know the true God and demand honors and sacrifices for themselves. If they do this at the permission of God, it means that He does not want to be worshiped; but then how do we consider those who worship Him and strive to know Him to be pious? And if He does not want people to be mistaken, and the gods, rulers of nations, to lead them into deception, then the gods are guilty of violating the will of their creator. Очевидно, они не боги. And as Christians teach, they are demons. After their fall, demons turned their evil activities towards people to prevent them from knowing the true God. They became their leaders and leaders, introduced wicked cults among them and began to encourage them to debauchery. 454 Parallel to the theory of national gods and together with the doctrine of national demons, St. Cyril, like other Christian theologians, develops the theory of national angels. To counteract the evil activities of demons, the Son of God sent angels to the peoples to snatch them from the power of demons and teach them all that is good. Since such a teaching could confuse someone with its closeness to the views of Julian, Cyril explains the whole difference between them; angels are not gods, but creatures of God, and when ruling nations, they demand worship not of themselves, but of the God who sent them. 455 The theory of national gods is subject to the harshest criticism from a moral point of view. St. Cyril says that it leads to the complete destruction of morality. If all the characteristics of peoples, good and bad, depend not on themselves, but on their gods, then there is neither good nor evil, but only one submission to necessity. A person is freed from guilt for any crime because he is forced to commit it, and there is no room left for human freedom. 456 Praise and blame, the admonitions of fathers to children, the instructions of teachers, the laws themselves, and everything useful in life become inappropriate. 457 To prove his theory of national gods, Julian pointed out with particular insistence that it was fully confirmed by the fact of the immutability and strict definiteness of the national characteristics of peoples. But St. Kirill proves that reality does not at all confirm this theory and national characteristics do not at all represent something permanent and strictly defined. To the dreamy admirer of Plato, who saw in reality not what is in it, but what he needs to confirm the ideas of his teacher, the Christian theologian points out, undoubtedly not unknown to him, a fact - that not all Greeks and Romans are honest and moral, and that not all barbarians are uncultured and unjust. The Assyrians, Gauls, Persians, Brahmins, and Jews have their own philosophy and magic, so respected by Julian. The Scythian Anacharsis himself. To whom Julian refers, he proved in his own person that even rude barbarians are capable of assimilating Greek culture. National characteristics are explained not only by the nature of people or their gods, but also by differences in upbringing, habits, and especially free choice, since a person can choose good even under the rule of evil laws. “We are not forced by the laws of nature and, as it were, by necessity, to be good and evil, but we become one way or another freely” 458 ; St. Cyril repeatedly returns to the doctrine of free will, which apologists usually developed in polemics with pagans, speaking about the origin of evil in the world. Defending the biblical tales ridiculed by Julian, St. Kirill is surprised how people who accept the absurd fables of Homer and Hesiod can laugh at them. What's funny about heaven is... That God created from the matter of Adam, and from him a wife, in that the serpent speaks in human language? Doesn’t Julian understand that a demon took the form of a serpent? If this too seems like a fable to him, then perhaps the stories of his Greek teachers will be more convincing for him? And St. Cyril gives a story about a horse that predicted the death of Achilles, about the Caucasus River that greeted Pythagoras, about Dido’s oak tree that had a human voice; according to St. Here, too, demons spoke to the father through the river, horse and oak tree 459. Julian laughs that God supposedly made a mistake in his calculations, creating a wife as a helper to her husband, while this helper herself sinned and drew Adam into sin, so that because of her it was he who was expelled from paradise and deprived of immortality. But the wife was given to her husband as a helper for the birth of children, and in moral terms she was not at all created with such firmness and constancy as to never deviate from the will of God. 460 God gave man free will, and he can determine himself both to what is true and to the opposite completely freely. Against Julian’s ridicule, as if God wanted to make people stupid creatures who did not even have a concept of good and evil, St. Cyril establishes the true meaning of the divine commandment and the essence of the Fall. The first people undoubtedly had knowledge of good and evil in paradise, because gifted with reason they received knowledge of everything necessary, 461 but having violated God's commandment and thus committed evil, they learned through experience the difference between good and evil; This is not what God wanted. St. Cyril explains at great length the meaning of the Fall and its connection with redemption; 462 with great thoroughness and for a long time he proves that the commandment given in paradise to the first people should have had great moral significance for them, that laws in general are very useful for morality, that all nature obeys the laws of the creator, and the very happiness of the creature lies in obedience to these laws. 463 These arguments, always addressed to Julian, are not actually caused by the latter’s objections and can only be explained by the purpose of the work for a diverse and large circle of readers. Julian, like other biblical stories, greatly distorts the history of the confusion of languages. The expression “tower to heaven” must be understood, of course, in a figurative sense; Moses does not say anything about the fact that God was allegedly frightened by the enterprise of people and therefore descended from heaven, and Juliana invented this very unsuccessfully - it is incredible that God, remaining in heaven, suffered damage, and having descended to earth, would have struck the enemies. If He was afraid, it would have been better for him to flee. The very fact of confusion of languages ​​of St. Kirill, for some reason, wants to take away even the meaning of punishment; - people, fearing another flood, wanted to protect themselves from it with a high tower, and God decided, in his opinion, to distract them from useless work by confusing their languages ​​- which was nothing bad for them, and thus giving medicine instead of punishment. 464 Julian says that, according to the Jews, God, having created the world, occupied himself exclusively with them, leaving all other peoples without any attention; from this he wants to conclude that the Jewish God is not the creator of the world at all, but simply one of the lower national gods. But Julian in vain hides behind evidence from the writings of Moses himself. Moses clearly says that the God of whom he writes was the creator of the whole world, and if Julian wants to contradict us on the basis of the words of Moses, let him believe them; and if God created the world, then of course He controls it, controls all the backgammon, and not just the Jews, which Moses does not say at all. The first books of Moses depict God's care for those people who were the ancestors of all mankind. Julian, having left the first books of Moses, only on the basis of that which speaks of Israel alone, wants to limit the power of God. But the One who later chose Abraham and his family was the One who created heaven and earth. The election of Israel placed it only under the special protection of God, but did not exclude the concern of the common creator for other nations. Both in Moses and later in the prophets we find evidence that even after the election of Israel, God retained his power and care for all other nations. This is also evidenced by the very biblical expression cited by Julian, in which Israel is called the firstborn son of God; if Israel is the firstborn son of God, it means that he also has other brothers, only they were called later than him when Christ came. 465 Why, after all, are Jews called to salvation earlier than other nations? St. Cyril does not recognize the legality of such a question - we leave it to doctors to give medicine to the sick whenever they want, and we accuse the highest God of doing this or that wrong. But at St. Cyril still has a remark that can serve as an answer to Julian’s question: “it is necessary, he says, that those who obey the law and deviate from polytheism should not be deprived of mercy, but at the same time learn to move towards the better, and prepare for the sacrament of Christ.” 466 And it is even more clearly stated in another place, where the biblical saying is given: “I found Israel like a fig tree that had ripened before.” 467 Israel, in its moral development, prepared itself for the calling more quickly than other nations; the first ripe brush was followed by others. The question still remains - why did Christ appear so late, waited for thousands of years, “leaving all nations except the Jews in ignorance and devotion to the cult of idols”? This question has always confused the pagans; we saw it already in the apology of Justin, in the letter to Diognetus, in Celsus; Porfiry puts it just as sharply as Julian: “For what reason, he says, did the good and merciful God allow all nations from Adam to Moses and from Moses to the coming of Christ to perish in ignorance of the law and commandments of God? Why did He (Christ) come at the last time, and not before such countless people perished? 468 St. Justin the Philosopher answered this question with the doctrine of Christ as the Word and Mind of God, in whom all people participate; According to this teaching, all reasonable people are Christians, even if they lived before the appearance of Christ. The word of God that lived in them was to their day the source of everything good and reasonable. This idea was generally adopted by Christian theologians, especially the Alexandrian school. Origen responded to Celsus in essentially the same way as Justin the Philosopher did to the pagans of his time. 469 The author of the letter to Diognetus does not recognize either paganism or Judaism as a preparatory meaning for Christianity and explains the later appearance of Christ by the fact that people needed to come to the consciousness of their sins before accepting the grace of Christ. 470 Bl. Jerome and Augustine, regarding such a question from Porphyry, noted that it is not permissible for a person to ask about something that is inaccessible to his mind. Augustine, however, gives for his part some explanation of the fact that confused Porphyry: “What was required, he says, was the actual preparation of the human race for its internal transformation by the event of the incarnation of God, and God prepared it with promises, types, miracles and prophecies; therefore, the ancient righteous were saved in the same way as the New Testament ones. 471 There is no answer to the question whether there was any hope of salvation for the Gentiles, because only the Jews had promises, transformations, miracles and prophecies. St. Cyril, like Jerome and Augustine, advises to refrain from such questions; but he still answers the question posed with the words of the apostle. Paul: “The Gentiles do what is lawful by nature, etc.” Man by nature has the knowledge of good; therefore, the pagans before the coming of Christ were not deprived of help for salvation. After the appearance of Christ, the pagans also received mercy, since they too were called in Christ. This is what the apostle says. Paul, calling God God and the pagans, and there is no contradiction in his words. St. Cyril says that the pagans had an even better lot than the Jews, because they received grace, not law, the spirit of freedom, not slavery. 472 But this concerns, of course, only those pagans who lived after the Nativity of Christ, whereas in the question we are talking about the pagans who lived before the Nativity of Christ and did not receive grace. Moral teaching of the Jews. If, in defending the Mosaic cosmogony against Julian’s attack on it, St. Cyril stood on the basis of a different worldview than his opponent, but in a comparative assessment of Jewish and Greek morality, both opponents stood on the same basis. There is always more similarity between people's moral concepts than between their religious and philosophical beliefs. And Julian’s moral views did not differ much from Christian ones, and in particular from the views of St. himself. Kirill. Just like Christians, Julian considered the main requirement of morality to love God and neighbor (letter to the high priest of Galatia), recognizing that the essence of the Divine is love, 473 and pointed out in God the metaphysical foundation of morality. “Our philosophers,” says Julian, command us to imitate the gods as much as possible. This imitation consists of contemplation. Since we, freeing ourselves from passions, engage in contemplation, we become like God” 474. St. Cyril accepts this position that morality is the imitation of God, and in another place he also agrees that morality consists mainly in contemplation; “The highest good,” he says in the words of Alexander, a student of Aristotle, “is in a pious life, piety in contemplation, contemplation in the knowledge of the best things, and the best things are generally recognized as divine things” 475. Here we are talking about goodness, not morality, but it should be noted. That in ancient philosophy the concepts of goodness and happiness were very closely related to each other and were united under one word good (bonum). If morality is an imitation of God, then the moral concepts of each people will depend on how they imagine their God. How do Jews imagine their God? According to Julian, Jews attribute all human weaknesses and vices to God. First of all, their God is jealous; He does not want any other god to be worshiped besides Him - this is His first commandment, which He motivates by the fact that He is a jealous God, punishing the sins of the fathers on the children; in another place it says: Our God is a consuming fire 476. Jealousy is definitely a bad feeling. We blame it in people, especially since it cannot be attributed to either angels or God, as the Jews do. The Jewish God is angry, irritated, swears, every minute moves from one opinion to another; anyone who has read the book of Numbers knows this. The Jews, seduced by Moabite women, fell into debauchery and idolatry; ha, it was God who began to destroy the people, but after Phinehas with his own hand killed one of the Israelis and the Maobite woman who had committed adultery with him, God said, according to Moses: “Phineas turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, he became jealous with my jealousy, and I did not destroy the children of Israel in my jealousy.” What trivial cause excites His wrath! Julian says: “What could be more ridiculous? If ten, fifteen, one hundred, let’s say even a thousand people dared to break the laws established by God, then it is necessary to destroy six hundred thousand because of these thousand people. It seems to me that it is better to save one evil one with a thousand good ones than to destroy a thousand good ones with one evil one.” “This creator of heaven and earth is repeatedly inflamed with such anger that he wants to destroy the entire Jewish people. If the wrath of a hero or some gloomy demon is terrible for cities and entire countries, then what would happen from the wrath of so much of the great god against demons, angels and people! 477 It is worth comparing the cruelty of this God with the meekness of Lycurgus, the leniency of Solon, or the justice and moderation of the Romans towards their enemies 478. What then will the Jews imitate in their God? Anger, irritability, wild rage; God is pleased with a man like Him: “Phinhas turned away my anger, because he was jealous of my jealousy among the children of Israel”; and God leaves His indignation because there is a man who shares His indignation. 479 Apart from the commandment not to honor foreign gods, because the God of Israel is a jealous God, and also the commandment about the Sabbath, there is nothing in the decalogue, according to Julian, that would not be known to everyone, that “every people would not consider it a duty to fulfill; "There's nothing remarkable. Only the punishments for violating these commandments are different among different peoples - some are stricter than Moses, others are the same, others are not so strict. 480 To defend the morality of Judaism, St. Cyril needed, first of all, to explain in what sense Moses used expressions such as jealousy and anger in relation to God. St. Cyril says that in Holy Scripture such and similar expressions are used in relation to God not in a literal, but in a figurative sense, adapted to our understanding. Thus, even parts of the human body are attributed to God - eyes to denote omniscience, ears - all-hearing, hands - the power of creation, legs - the ability to act. Likewise, anger and jealousy are spoken of as if He were experiencing these feelings. In reality this is not the case, because the divine nature is free from passions. If any actions of people deserve punishment, this is said in accordance with our words; - God is angry; we understand that we would never talk about anger in relation to God if it were possible to express divine things in non-human words. Thus, the degree of human understanding and the weakness of human language must be taken into account. 481 Also in a figurative sense it speaks of jealousy, of an oath on the part of God; when He does not want any of the good people to retire to false gods, when they say that He is jealous, not being able to express the power of love. Which He showed towards us. If they say that He swears, it means that He is angry with those who do not want to believe, and whose infidelity necessitates an oath. 482 Turning to the analysis of the story of Phinehas, in which, according to Julian, the bad idea of ​​​​the Jews about their God was especially expressed, St. Cyril says that it is in vain that Julian considers the reason why God wanted to destroy the Jewish people unimportant. From Julian’s point of view, of course, there was no crime in the fact that the Jews began to worship foreign gods, but he should have transferred himself to the point of view of the Jews themselves, who considered their God the only true God. St. Cyril objects to him from the latter point of view. If the greatest good is in the knowledge of God, then the greatest evil is in falling away from the true God, and we must glorify the Creator, Who removes the causes of this evil from people. 483 If God quickly moved from anger to mercy, then we should rather praise than blame that God is slow to anger and quick to show mercy. If they ask why God did not stop His anger at the very beginning, then it must be said that for the benefit of the people themselves it was necessary to declare them subject to punishment and say that God is angry with them. 484 The most immoral thing in the story of Phinehas, according to Julian, is that God, because of some thousand people, destroyed 600 thousand; both Julian and Cyril agree that it is better to save a thousand sinners because of one righteous person than to destroy a thousand righteous people because of one sinner; and, however, in a strange way, Julian in the story of Phinehas sees the death of many because of a few, and St. Cyril is the salvation of many because of one righteous man. Obviously, Julian imagines that only a few fell away from God - a hundred, a thousand people, and God destroyed 600 thousand and wanted to destroy the entire people; St. Cyril thinks that the whole people sinned, but for the sake of one righteous Phinehas, the people were spared, except for those who had fallen earlier before Phinehas discovered his jealousy. The book of Numbers does not say about the number of those who fell away - it says generally: “And Israel cleave to Baalpeor, and the wrath of the Lord was kindled against Israel.” There is no doubt that part of Israel could have been designated by the general name, but, in any case, it was a very large part, the majority, otherwise the use of the general concept would have been inappropriate. If we take into account that only Phinehas was jealous of the glory of God, then we can think that in addition to those who fell away, there were many who remained indifferent to the crime of their brothers and, therefore, to a certain extent also deserved punishment. The text of the Book of Numbers does not give any grounds to assume that there were a lot of those who fell away. In the excerpt from the Book of Numbers cited by Julian, there is still a disagreement with the Vulgate and the Greek text, the latter speaks of 24 thousand slain, and Julian speaks of 600 thousand. But at St. Kirill has no amendment to this. Presenting the Jewish God as punishing many for the sin of one, Julian finds the laws of Lycurgus, Solon and the Romans incomparably more humane. If such an idea of ​​​​God were true, then the laws of the latter would indeed be more humane, because they did not punish many for one. If it is proven that the first thought is completely wrong, then the conclusion from it falls by itself. But St. In this case, Cyril, in refuting Julian, also points out that both Greek and Roman legislators did not leave vice and crime unpunished - an indication that is not actually caused by the opponent’s objection, and the only thing that relates to Julian’s refutation is the idea that Solon and Lycurgus, whom he calls the best legislators, were especially concerned about protecting the cult and imposed the most severe punishments for neglecting it; 485 Consequently, the crime that the Jews committed was not at all as unimportant as Julian thought, and from the point of view of the Greek legislators. To reproach the Jews for the fact that their God can only be imitated in immorality was very inconvenient and thoughtless on the part of Julian, because this reproach could always be directed with incomparably greater force at himself and his religion. Nowhere are the gods depicted with such seductive and immoral adventures as in Greek religion; we have seen that in the hands of Christian writers Greek mythology has always been a weapon in the fight against paganism; against the emperor. Who planned to restore paganism, Gregory the Theologian pointed out the immorality of mythology: “If, he says, even when there is no bait to evil, it is difficult to turn people away from vice, then who will convince them to be meek and self-controlled, when they have gods as guides and patrons of passions, and to be vicious is even a commendable thing.” 486 St. Cyril refutes Julian in exactly the same way. – If one can imitate the Jewish God only in cruelty, and one must respect meekness, then which of his gods will he honor? Let us leave the murderer and traitor of Mars. They praise Minerva, a shameless dog fly who sowed discord between the gods, but she was not distinguished by meekness, but by military skill and prudence. And what about Apollo’s sister, who plundered the wealth of Aeneas and sent all sorts of misfortunes to entire countries and states? And her brother, who sent a disease to the whole army, from which many died? Anyone who imitates the Greek gods will not be soft and meek, but harsh and irritable. 487 The Greek gods give people the most seductive example of debauchery. Представим, говорит св. Kirill that we need to show beautiful young men that intemperance prepares death, and for wives and mothers of families. That a dishonest life will not go unpunished. But to exhort them to a good life, the speech of mentors is not enough. Let the picture depicting the life of the gods increase the power of the instructions. And then St. Kirill presents the content of the picture. First of all, the supreme god Zeus is depicted; near him is Ganymede, his son from Phrygia, living proof of his debauchery, Alcmene, with whom he did not satiate his passion for 9 nights, Semele and many other women. Next is Poseidon with the maidens he disgraced, Amymona, Alope, Hippotoea, and others; in a prominent place is a cheerful Aphrodite with a crowd of lovers, Apollo pursuing a girl running away from him, who later turned into a fragrant tree Daphne 488. Regarding the decalogue of Moses, Julian found that there was nothing surprising in it, nothing that was not known to all other peoples. In response to this, St. Cyril rightly notes: “Julian seems to have forgotten his words that some peoples are governed by good laws, while others have very loose morals, because the peoples are ruled by demons at will.” 489 Indeed, from Julian’s point of view, different peoples should not have the same moral concepts and laws. He even pointed out as a fact that moral concepts among different peoples sometimes diverge to the point of opposites. Therefore, when he says that the commandments of Moses are known to everyone, he undoubtedly contradicts himself. Against this very thought of Julian, St. Kirill doesn’t object; he does not defend the originality or higher moral dignity of the commandments of Moses in comparison with the moral legislation of other nations, but he wants to prove that the commandments of Moses cannot be blamed only because they are generally known, imagining that Julian made such a conclusion. One should rather respect that which is approved by all than that which is approved only by a few. If other legislators learned these commandments from Moses, the opposite could not happen, because Moses is more ancient than all of them, then, praising their laws, one should praise Moses. If their knowledge is acquired from nature, we should again praise them, because those decrees are better that are in agreement with nature. If Julian praises those who live according to these commandments, then why does he reproach the latter? If he reproaches, he will also reproach his legislators who agree with Moses. Cultural significance of the Jewish people According to Julian, God was unequally generous in His arahs to different peoples and specifically to the Jews, who vainly claim that God deals exclusively with them, “He gave nothing good, nothing great,” while He showered the rest of the peoples, especially sins, with all sorts of blessings. Every nation, except the Jews, can indicate a whole series of glorious names, starting with the most ancient - Hermes Trismegistus among the Egyptians, Nina and Bel among the Assyrians and Chaldeans, Chiron among the Greeks. Each nation became famous for its brilliant conquests, political power, great commanders, but the Jews were left with nothing but political insignificance and slavery. “Which kingdom will I point you to? - Julian asks, to the kingdom of the Persians, Aeacus or Minos of Crete, who, having cleared the sea devastated by pirates, conquered the barbarians to the borders of Syria and Sicily, extended the boundaries of the state territory not only to the islands, but also to all sea coasts? He shared with his brother Rhadamanthus the possession of the kingdom and the care of the peoples he ruled. Minos bestowed upon his subjects the laws which he had received from above from Jupiter, and Rhadamanthus carried out judgment according to these laws.” 490 He further tells the story of the Dardanians, the story of the flight of Aeneas, the founding of Rome; glorifies the king-philosopher Numa, lists various benefits bestowed by Jupiter on Rome, talks about the head found on the Capitoline Hill, about the shield that fell from the sky as a guarantee that the gods will always be the stronghold of Rome. Is there anything similar in the history of the Jews? Which famous people can they be proud of? Moses, Sampson, David? But the most severe and cruel of the Greek generals, says Julian, were more lenient towards their enemies than Moses was towards people who did nothing to him. 491 But David and Sampson were not at all so powerful in war, they were lower than the Egyptians and Greeks, and their power extended only within the borders of Judea. 492 “Why, Julian asks the Christians, did you leave our gods and go over to the Jews? Is it because the gods gave Rome power, and the Jews some time of freedom, and then continuous slavery among other nations? Look at Abraham - wasn't he a stranger in a strange land? And Jacob—wasn’t he a slave first in Syria, then in Palestine, and finally, in his old age, in Egypt? Was it not from Egypt, the house of slavery, that Moses led the Jews with his strong hand? And when they settled in Palestine, didn’t they constantly change their fate, like a Chameleon its color, now obeying the judges, now serving foreigners? After they began to be ruled by kings (in what manner, I will not say, for God for his part did not agree that they should be ruled by kings, and only redeemed their persistence by warning that they would be under worse rule), they lived in their land and cultivated it for several more than four hundred years. After that they were slaves to the Assyrians, Medes, Persians and finally to us” 493. “Answer me what is better: to constantly enjoy freedom and dominate for two thousand years over most of the land and sea, or to be a slave and subject to alien power? No one is so devoid of sense as to prefer the latter, for who can think that winning a war is worse than being defeated? Can anyone be so stupid? And if we are telling the truth, then show me one general among the Jews who could be compared with Alexander or Caesar. By the gods, I know that I am insulting these great people (by comparing them to the Jews). I only mention those that are better known; and there are still others who are inferior to them, and who are unknown to many, but each of them is more remarkable than everything that the Jews have like that.”494 If we move from military power to the internal state structure, then here too the Greeks, Romans and other peoples will have a huge advantage over the Jews; civil laws, judicial forms, government, all this is in the most pitiful state among the Jews 495. The mental superiority of Greece over all nations is undeniable. Julian admits, like many other Greek writers, that all sciences and arts first appeared among the barbarians, but points out that only in Greece did they find true ground and receive brilliant development; astronomy developed in Greece, although the first astronomical observations were made in Babylon, geometry, which originated in Egypt, arithmetic, invented by Phoenician merchants, music and harmony were created 496. The Jews have nothing of the kind, although “the hardworking Eusebius still wants to prove that the Jews have poems written in hexameter, and science, logic, the name of which he heard from the Greeks” 497. Whom can Jews contrast with the Greek sages and writers? “Is it possible to compare their great sage Solomon with the Greeks Phokimedes, Theognis, Isocrates? If you compare the instructions of Isocrates with the parables of Solomon, you will see that the son of Theodore is higher than the wisest king. They will say Solomon was devoted to the cult of God, but what is the point? Did not the same Solomon honor our gods, seduced by a woman? “In the eyes of an ascetic who, according to Libanius, had never touched a woman, such weakness of Solomon seemed extremely humiliating.” O greatness of virtue, O wealth of wisdom! - Juliana exclaims, he could not overcome the pleasure and he was seduced by the woman’s speech! If he was seduced by a woman, then do not call him a sage; if you consider him wise, then do not think that he was deceived by a woman”; And Julian, not missing the opportunity to imagine that polytheism was not alien to the Jews themselves, says that Solomon showed his wisdom and obedience to his God, who was not at all as jealous as the Jews imagine Him, that he made sacrifices to foreign gods. 498 Christians extolled their scriptures; they saw in them the highest wisdom, in comparison with which Greek wisdom was false philosophy. “Why,” asks Julian, “do you use Greek sciences if reading your writings is quite enough for you? It is better to ban them than sacrificial meat. Thanks to these sciences, everything that nature has put into you that is good is turned away from wickedness. And if any of you has any sense of common sense, he will immediately leave your wickedness. Therefore, it is better for you to withhold from our sciences than from sacrificial meat. But you know very well, I am convinced of this, all the superiority of our education over yours. Your writings cannot make anyone courageous or virtuous, whereas with us every person becomes better, even if he has the most unreceptive nature. And when a person, richly gifted by nature, becomes acquainted with our scriptures, he becomes a true gift from the gods for people. The evidence for this is clear. Take chosen boys from among you all, and if, when they reach adulthood, they are better than slaves, look at me as if I were crazy. And yet, you are so unhappy and stupid that you consider those books divine that do not make anyone wiser, more courageous, or better. And those from whom you can learn courage, wisdom and justice, you attribute to Satan and his admirers.” 499 All these advantages of Greece - in relation to political power, sciences, arts, etc. given to her by her gods as an expression of their special favor towards Greece, and therefore inextricably linked with the cult of the gods. Each god pours out his favors on this happy country. “Aesculapius heals our body; the muses, together with Apollo, Aesculapius and Hermes - the god of eloquence, form our souls; Ares and Ennio are participants and helpers in our wars; Vulcan rules what relates to art, and the motherless and virgin Athena manages all this together with Zeus.” Aesculapius (Asclepius) evokes particular favor and gratitude from Julian. Aesculapius is the son of Zeus, and the earth knows him through the productive power of the salt lick. “Having descended to earth in the form of a man, he first appears near Epidaurus; from here, going further, he extended his beneficent hand over the whole earth. He went from Pergamon to Ionia, to Tarentum and finally to Rome; then to the islands of Ko and Eges. He went around all nations on land and sea, healing wicked souls and sick bodies.” 500 “I swear by Zeus,” adds Juliana, he often healed the sick with medicine too. 501 The Jews in vain consider the revelation of the deity their privilege; 502 it was present among all peoples, although it happened rarely and was not accessible to everyone and not at all times. “Then it stopped among the Jews; it no longer exists among the Egyptians. The oracles fell silent over time. In view of this, the philanthropic Zeus, our father and ruler, so that we would not be completely deprived of communication with the gods, gave us sacred arts through which we can receive sufficient help in necessary cases.” 503 “Can the Jews boast that God has given them such blessings, Jews, to whom you have come from us?” 504. Answer of St. Cyril on Julian's panegyric of Greek culture represents the best part of his apologetic work. Just as previous apologists, in the fight against pagans, pointed especially to the moral heights of both the teachings and lives of Christians, so St. Cyril, in response to Julian's reasoning about the advantages of Greek culture, exposes the moral superiority of Christianity and puts forward a moral point of view for assessing the comparative dignity of people and nations. St. Cyril does not dispute the cultural advantage of Greece; he objects only to the extremes in Julian's view of the unculturedness of the Jewish people. The Jews were not at all so insignificant politically and powerless in the fight against the surrounding peoples. God sometimes sent them such victories, the likes of which were not found among the pagan peoples, whose gods often could not defend themselves. So, through the prayer of the prophet Samuel, the city sent by God drove out the enemies; Through one prayer of King Hezekiah, the terrible army of Rapsacus was defeated 505. The Jews also had doctors, of whom Julian is so proud, but only the Jewish doctors did not need medicine - they healed the sick with divine power and even raised the dead, which the Greek Hippocrates could never do. 506 The Hebrew language is not so bad and rude. And about Moses, the historian Eupolemus says that he gave the Jews a grammar. Their neighbors the Phoenicians borrowed this science from the Jews and passed it on to the Greeks through Cadmus. Thus, the Greeks themselves owe some of their culture to the Jews. 507 This fact, of course, does not humiliate Greek culture, but St. Cyril only points to it, without going into detail about it and referring to the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, where a lot is said on this issue. In general, St. Cyril admits that culturally the Greeks are superior to the Jews, they had more developed sciences and arts, philosophy, eloquence, their language is pleasant and sonorous like no other, their military exploits were higher than those of the Jews, and the Jews really did not have such generals and conquerors as they had. But what's the point? Why is Julian especially surprised here? One must be amazed at what leads to the highest glory and brings the highest happiness; and for this you do not need to speak well, engage in verbal intricacies and empty sciences. The ideal of a person is in wisdom - in the knowledge of the divine, of what is necessary for him, so that a person can make himself and others perfect people. Why do we need geometry, music or arithmetic? Engaging in them does not provide anything for leading a good and honest life. They will not help a person conquer unclean pleasures, the power of wealth, despise empty glory, free himself from passions and achieve virtues, without which a person has no value. You need to see a person with an outstanding mind, eloquence, education, but depraved and godless. But a wise man does not seek the glory of wisdom in empty words and false reasoning - otherwise he would be a verbal magician, and not an honest man. Julian can find the same views in his favorite teachers Socrates and Plato; they considered as artisans those who indulged in such empty pursuits, and considered only contemplatives of divine truth as sages. 508 St. Cyril did not even need to refer to Socrates and Plato in this case. Julian's own views on the highest good, on the dignity of man, essentially came very close to the views of St. just outlined. Kirill. We have already said that Juliana considered the highest good and duty of man to imitate the gods, consisting in a virtuous life, i.e. according to his views, mainly in contemplation, in the knowledge of divine things. Lian adopted virtue as the highest dignity and greatest importance in a person’s life, placing it above all the blessings of the world. Only one virtue, according to him, makes a person truly free. It smooths over social primacy; she makes a person happy from an unfortunate person, makes a king from a slave, and without her the king is a slave; a virtuous slave is freer than his vicious master. 509 But to recognize virtue as the only good and at the same time ask why Christians preferred the Jews to the Greeks and Romans, if the latter had power over the whole world, and the Jews were nothing but political nonentities, was inconsistent on the part of Julian. If we look at political and other advantages of the same kind as a gift from the gods for piety and, therefore, as evidence of the latter, then this position in itself requires further evidence, and it is very difficult to find this evidence. Julian himself, in the above expressions, suggests the possibility of a vicious lord and king, and society, about whose corruption, coldness and indifference to the gods he constantly complains, must have provided him with a lot of such examples. St. Cyril expresses bewilderment as to why Julian, while refuting Christianity, talks about the political humiliation of the Jewish people and the military advantages of the Greeks and Romans. His goal was to show that the Christian religion is false, and that the interpreters of divine dogmas did not achieve true knowledge of God, but the Greek sages acquired a correct understanding of what man needs, and deeply investigated both divine and human affairs. We are talking about who has the truth. And if the Romans surpassed the Jews and other peoples in military affairs, is this enough to condemn Jewish or Christian teaching? Aren't these different things? What is it that the descendants of Abraham were strangers and strangers? Does that stop you from thinking they were honest? Julian did not show that they were dishonest. And they are vicious and criminal. What's wrong with the Jews being under Roman rule? Does this indicate their dishonesty or delusion regarding God? And if it is dishonorable to obey the victors, then is it not the victors who do injustice to the vanquished? Why did Julian, being an emperor himself, not eliminate this injustice? If it is generally useful to live according to the laws, then why reproach those who live according to the laws of others? You cannot give royal power to everyone. 510 Just as the Jews are not humiliated by their political dependence, so the Greeks and Romans are not elevated by their political power. Julian says that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were great generals; I don’t envy you, answers St. Cyril, because they were atheists and idolaters. And again we are not talking about generals and athletes, but about divine and true religion. 511 Other cultural advantages do not elevate the Greeks. If some of them are distinguished by eloquence, this does not mean that they think correctly about God, are honest, just, holy... Why be surprised at those who speak in atheistic language, but have a corrupted heart and are deprived of true knowledge of God? Does God want brilliant words from us, and does He please empty speech? Doesn't he rather look at a man who is honest and lives well? 512 If your painting is higher than ours, this does not mean that we have deviated from the truth. Let you have both sculpture and painting, and we, having accepted the crown of truth, will achieve victory, having achieved knowledge of the Creator of everything and God. 513 Other gifts of the gods indicated by Julian, St. Kirill ridicules them as myths. These are the head found on the Capitoline Hill, the shield that fell from the sky. He does not deny the prophecies of the oracles, but only explains them, like other apologists, by the action of demons; with the coming of Christ, the demons were cast into hell - this explains the fact, incomprehensible to Julian, that the natural oracles fell silent. Aesculapius St. Kirill considers him historical, but a simple person; its origin, the culprit of which Julian considers Zeus himself, St. Cyril gives a different explanation, suggesting that his mother gave birth to him from some priest. If we evaluate God's gifts to people from a true point of view, then it cannot be said that the Jews did not receive anything great from God; quite the opposite - the Jews turn out to be the owners of what constitutes the highest good and the highest wisdom. Julian can hear confirmation of this from his gods themselves. Pythia, when asked which peoples are superior to others in wisdom, said: “Only the Chaldeans comprehended wisdom, and also the Jews, who honored the original king God.” 514 God showed the Jews his glory: he made them partakers of divine contemplation; He sent them a lawgiver earlier than other lawgivers and superior to them in wisdom and virtue, just as light surpasses darkness; they were given laws for the happiness of everyone; These laws prohibit everything dishonest and criminal and approve of every virtue. The teaching of Moses cannot be compared with the Greek, where it is told about a multitude of gods, disagreeing among themselves, excited by rage, stealing alien things, overthrowing states, debauching even with their own sisters, mothers and daughters. These are the rules of wisdom transmitted by them. 515 Because of moral laxity, all the authority of the Greek sages, even the best of them, is undermined. St. Cyril cites from Porphyry well-known stories about the prophets and in particular about the extreme voluptuousness of Socrates, Plato, Cimon and others. It is not known how much truth there is in these stories, but, in any case, we should not blame St. Kirill has his confidence in the stories, which are accepted by some even to this day. With these famous Greeks, St. Cyril compares Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel and other heroes of the Jewish people, whom, in the words of the apostle. Paul, the whole world was not worthy. 516 The Jewish leaders were inferior to the Greek and Roman in military prowess; but military affairs was not their occupation, they only repelled enemies, wanting to protect their fatherland, and did not, like Minos, make violent attacks on foreign property, for their law was the protector of justice. 517 Glorious Jewish men were distinguished by holiness and all sorts of virtues. Julian very cunningly, leaving those who were famous for the holiness of life, takes no one else as an example, and Solomon, like those besieging a city, rushes to weaker places. In terms of wisdom, Solomon is superior to the Greeks Phocimedes, Theognis and Isocrates indicated by Julian; he wrote his instructions earlier and better than them. If he fell, Julian must take into account that we do not rank him among the saints - prophets, apostles and evangelists. But also in moral terms, Solomon was superior to the greatest Greek sage Socrates; – Solomon was known for his wealth and extraordinary happiness; it is not surprising because he became a slave of pleasure, for wealth is more likely to promote prophets than virtue; but Socrates was poor and yet committed fornication to the highest degree. We can say about him what Julian says about Solomon: “Oh, the greatness of virtue! Oh, the wealth of wisdom!”, and not only about Socrates - the same should be said about the gods of Julian themselves. Having made a sacrifice to foreign gods, Solomon did not at all follow the admonition of his God, as Julian wants to present the matter - then God, in any case, would not have punished him. 518 If Christians have a negative attitude towards Greek wisdom and are not alienated from Greek writers, then, explains St. Cyril that it is nice to know everything, in particular Greek opinions about all things, and especially about God; on the other hand, by studying Greek authors, Christians have the opportunity to ridicule those who worship many gods and set up idols. Christians praise in Greek books only the sonority of their language, the arrangement of words and the harmony of speech, but reject their content as false; therefore they think that Greek books give nothing for holiness; whereas from Holy Scripture everyone really becomes better, it gives us true knowledge about God, raises our spirit above everything created, visible and invisible, it gives the beginning of a good life, directs us to justice. And if anyone still gives the Greek writers an advantage over ours for the elegance of their style, he prefers a golden cup with bitter herbs to a simple vessel with honey 519. III. Christianity and Judaism. Julian's criticism of Judaism was written so harshly that, judging by it, one would think that Julian treated Judaism with the same contempt as he did Christianity. But such an opinion would be completely wrong. Julian thought about Judaism quite well and, in any case, incomparably better than about Christianity. It is remarkable that such a difference in attitudes towards Christianity and Judaism is noticed among all the opponents of Christianity, and that the attitude of the Roman government towards both religions in the first three centuries is completely similar to the views of the literary opponents of Christianity. The Roman government persecuted Christianity. But Judaism was treated as a permitted national religion. The educated pagans who wrote against Christianity seemed to be trying to give only a scientific justification for the laws of the government; entering into a literary struggle with Christianity, they treated Judaism differently, and although they did not look at it with great respect, they still considered it the true religion, the revelation of the Jewish national God. We have already said that Julian also considered the Jewish God to be the true God and recognized the existence of divine revelation among the Jews. He condemned the Jews only for disrespecting foreign gods and for the fact that they attribute too much importance to their God, considering Him the creator and Ruler of the world, although in fact, in his opinion, this is only one of the folk gods and, moreover, of very little importance. “The Jews differ in nothing from the Greeks,” says Julian, “except that they believe in one God. This is precisely the teaching that is peculiar only to them, and completely alien to us. They have everything else in common with us - churches, sacred places, sacrificial altars, purifications, rituals; in this we do not differ from each other at all, or at least very little.” 520 This is a very high opinion of Judaism, especially in the mouth of Julian; and if in his work against Christians he strongly ridicules Judaism and assigns too little importance to the God of the Jews himself, then this, apparently, can only be explained by the fact that Christians connected their religion with Judaism, and his hatred of one religion responded to him with too much humiliation of another; Moreover, he ridiculed in Judaism exactly what, according to him, Christians borrowed from Judaism. In other cases, when the humiliation of Judaism was not necessary to wound Christianity, especially when it was necessary to support the former to the detriment of the latter, Julian treated Judaism much better and with greater respect. He wanted to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple; in a letter to the Jews, he asked for their prayers and himself expressed the hope of praying with them in their church to their great God. “I hope,” he wrote, “that you will offer earnest prayers for my kingdom to the great God and Creator, who crowned me with His hand, so that when I finish the war with the Persians, I can fulfill my long-standing desire to see your holy city of Jerusalem and give praise there with you to the great God.” 521 If from the point of view of the pagan of the Alexandrian era and especially the Neoplatonist, Judaism deserved all respect as one of the national religions - the revelation of one of the national gods, then from the same point of view Christianity seemed to have no right to exist as an innovation - an illegal deviation from the faith of the fathers. We find such an accusation among almost all opponents of Christianity. In some of his works, Julian also makes himself a resolute opponent of all innovations in the religious field and a supporter of a devoted domestic religion; Thus, in a letter to the high priest of Asia, Theodore, he says: “I avoid innovation in everything, especially in what has to do with the gods, and therefore I think that domestic laws should be strictly observed, since it is known that they were given by the gods themselves. They would not be so beautiful if they came only from people” 522. But in his polemical work, Julian does not accuse Christians of innovation; at least, he does not do this definitely and clearly in the surviving passages of the work. Attacking Christians, who, in his opinion, are neither Jews nor Greeks, but have betrayed both, he reproaches them not so much for this betrayal, but for the fact that they exchanged the best for the worse. He considers this change from better to worse to be a distinctive feature of the evolution of Christianity. First of all, leaving the ranks of the Greeks in order to go over to the Jews is strange and stupid. The entire first part of Julian’s surviving book is devoted to the development of this thought. But that would be nothing. “If you,” Julian says to the Christians, “had learned the teachings of them (the Jews), you would not be completely unhappy, and your new position, although worse than the first one when you were with us, would be even tolerable. Instead of several gods, you would only worship one, but at least you would not worship a person, or better yet, several miserable people. Then, submitting to a harsh and cruel law, full of barbarity, instead of our humane and gentle laws, you would be in a worse position, but you would be more holy and more pure in regard to the cult. But you, like leeches, sucked out the bad blood and left the good.”523 “The commandment to curse the gods is all that you took from them, and in everything else you have nothing in common with them” 524. Having borrowed from the Jews their disrespect for the gods, they took the worst from the pagans - “permission to eat everything, like the greenery of a garden,” “leaving the cult of higher beings and domestic institutions.” “Taking the wrong thing from both peoples. What they have as good, and what they have as worst, they have made up a mixture of bad elements (contextum malorum) and want it to be called religion par excellence 525. However, the Christians themselves did not think at all that they had changed Judaism; they only considered themselves faithful to the covenants of Moses and the prophets. But they even considered themselves more Jews in spirit, more sons of Abraham, than the Jews and sons of Abraham in the flesh. Julian had to take into account this opinion of Christians about themselves, and he examines it in some detail in his discussions about the disagreement of the New Testament with the Old. Celsus and Porphyry also pointed out the disagreement between the two testaments in order to prove the falsity of Christianity by its contradiction with Judaism; Christians attribute the origin of their teaching to the same God who gave the Jewish teaching, but these teachings do not agree with each other, therefore, either God contradicts Himself, giving different teachings at different times, or one of these teachings is false. Julian's goal in this case is different: he only wants to prove that having betrayed Judaism, Christians moved to the worse, although in the surviving passages we find more evidence of Christianity's betrayal of Judaism than criticism of the New Testament teaching. “Since they (Christians) claim,” says Juliana, “that they are different from modern Jews, and that they are true Israelites according to the prophets, the only ones who believe in Moses and the Jewish prophets who followed him, let us see in what they agree with those.” 526 Further, he wants to prove that, apart from contempt for the gods, Christians have retained nothing from Judaism, that in their teaching they completely disagree with the Jews. He points out, first of all, that by deifying Jesus Christ and teaching the Son of God, Christians betrayed Jewish monotheism. True, they try to find confirmation of this teaching from the Old Testament writers, but in vain. “Let us begin,” says Julian, “with Moses, who, according to them, predicted the birth of Jesus. Moses says not once, not twice, not three times, but many times that one must honor the one God, Whom he calls supreme, but he never talks about another god, although he talks about angels, lords and many gods. For him there is always one supreme God, but he does not know a second one, neither similar to Him nor dissimilar, which you have invented. If you find one word in Moses about this, you can point it out. For these words: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like Me from among your brethren; listen to Him” 527 are not said in any way about the Son of Mary. Even if you agree with this, then note that he will be like Moses himself, and not God, and will come from people, and not from God. And this other expression: “A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a ruler from his feet” 528 is said not about Him, but about the kingdom of David, which, as is known, ended with Zedekiah. However, in the Holy Scripture this place is read in two ways: instead of “until the thing put aside for him comes” (glorified until the day the thing put aside for him comes), you put: “until he comes to whom it was put off.” But it is clear that nothing here refers to Jesus, for He is not from Judas, you prove that He is not from Joseph, but from the Holy Spirit. You attribute the genealogy of Jesus to Judas, but you could not successfully make this forgery"; Julian finds that the evangelists Matthew and Luke disagree regarding the genealogy of Christ. 529 Without stopping at the last thought. Julian promises to deal with this issue in the second book of his work and again moves on to an analysis of the prophecies about Christ. “Suppose, he says, that this was a prince from Judah, but he was not God from God, and about Him it cannot be said with you that everything happened through Him, and without Him nothing happened.” Julian also dwells on the prophecy from the book of Numbers: “A star will rise from Jacob and a man from Israel.” 530 It is clear that these words refer to David and his successors, because David was the son of Jesse. If you can take anything away from these words, do it. But for one interpretation you gave to this passage, I will give you thousands.” 531 Julian then cites a whole series of quotations from Moses to prove that Moses believed in one God and ordered Him alone to be revered. Christians, of course, could always object that they worship not two, not three gods, but one God. Julian knew more than enough Christian doctrine to anticipate this objection. “Perhaps,” he says, they (Christians) will answer us: we do not allow either two or three gods, but I will tell them in turn that no, they allow this,” and as proof he cites the words of St. John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” 532 He considers this proof that “the Word was in God” to be quite sufficient for his purpose, without going into an analysis of theological reasoning about the agreement of the trinity of persons in God with the unity of the divine being. From other prophecies, Julian also cites the words of Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin will be pregnant and give birth to a son.” 533 “Suppose, says Julian, that this is said about God (about Jesus?), although this applies least of all to him, because this woman was not a virgin, she was married. But let's agree that this is so. Does Isaiah, however, say that the Virgin will give birth to God? And you constantly call Mary the mother of God. Does Isaiah say that the son born of the virgin will be the only begotten Son of God, the firstborn of all creation? Can you point out to me the expression of John in the prophets: “all things were through Him, and without Him there was nothing”? And what we affirm, listen to it from their own lips: “Lord our God, rule over us; besides you we know no other.” 534 Also, King Hezekiah prays to them: “Lord God of Israel, You who sit on the cherubim, You alone are God.” 535 Is there room for the second one?” 536 Julian sees another important point of disagreement between the New Testament and the Old in the relation of both to the ritual law. Julian attached extremely important importance to external cult in religion, and in Judaism he most appreciated the fact that the ritual side of religion was highly developed there; in this respect he left the Jews even above their sins. Christians, in this case, rejected the reproach of infidelity to the covenants of Moses, and Julian sees this as one of the main shortcomings of Christianity. Christians in this case rejected the reproach of unfaithfulness to the covenants of Moses. Julian knows this: “They say that God, in addition to the first law, established a second, that the first was given only for a certain time, and that the second replaced it because the first was its foreshadowing in the time of Moses; that this is a lie, I will prove it clearly, bringing not ten, but ten thousand testimonies from Moses, where he said that the law is eternal.” And having cited many such evidence, he adds: “I am omitting a large number of other places where Moses says that the law is eternal, I do not want to cite them, there are so many of them, and you must show me where it is said that Christ is the end of the law 537. Where did God promise another law than the one He established? Nowhere. There is no mention of changing the first one. Listen again to Moses: “Do not add a single word to what I command you and do not destroy a single word. Keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I have given you today. And cursed is the man who does not fulfill them all.” 538 And you not only consider it unimportant to reduce or increase the commandments written in the law, but you also look at the complete violation of the law as valor and nobility, seeking not the truth, but what pleases the mob” 539. Julian sees a betrayal of the Mosaic ritual law among Christians, first of all, in the fact that they abolished the Old Testament sacrifices. In contrast to Porfiry. According to the opinion that bloody sacrifices are made to evil demons, Julian considered these sacrifices especially pleasing to the gods. He wanted to impose this view of them on the Jews, finding confirmation of it in the biblical story of the sacrifice of Cain and Abel. Why did God reject Cain's sacrifice and accept Abel's? Julian indicates the answer to this in the words of God Himself, spoken to Cain: “If you brought well and divided badly, have you not sinned”? This answer was given to him by one very learned Christian bishop, but only this bishop, according to Julian’s story, could not explain to him what was displeasing to God in the “separation” of Cain, and Julian himself gave him an explanation: “among earthly things, some are animate, others are not animate; With the living God and the creator of life, animate beings are more valuable than inanimate ones, since they are involved in life and are close to the soul. Therefore, God was more pleased with the one who made the perfect sacrifice.” 540 In his desire to present that Jews are no different from the Greeks, Julian even claims that the Jews had a pagan ritual of sacrifice to the gods of the abominations of evil - the Averrunci and various sacred fortune-telling. He sees the first in the sacrifice of purification, when they took two goats and killed one of them, and released the other into the desert. He points out examples of the latter in the story of Abraham. Abraham resorted to sacrificial divination; the steward of his house was a man skilled in the art of divination. When God promised to give Abraham a son, He took him out of the house and, pointing to the stars, said that his descendants would also be numerous. “Tell me, Julian asks, why did the one who answered Abraham - is it an angel or God - why did He take Abraham out and point to the stars? - Didn’t He know, being inside the house, what a great number of stars appearing and sparkling at night? But I think he wanted to point to the current stars so that his promise would be confirmed by the definition of the sky itself, which governs everything and approves everything.” 541 “But lest anyone find this explanation far-fetched, I will confirm it with what follows directly. Further it is written: “He (God) said to Abraham”: I am God, who brought you out of the land of the Chaldeans to give you this land as an inheritance. Abraham said: How do I know that I will receive this land as an inheritance? The Lord answered: Take me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtle dove and a dove. He took it and divided it in half and put each part one against the other, but did not divide the birds. And the birds descended upon their parts, and Abraham sat near them.” Notice that the angel who appeared, or God, did not simply confirm his prediction, but through divination through sacrifices.” 542 In the same story, in the mention of birds flying at the victim, Julian sees fortune telling by the flight of birds. Julian thinks that Christians abandoned the Old Testament sacrifices because now there is no Jerusalem temple in which sacrifices were ordered, and fire does not descend from heaven, which cannot be replaced by alien fire. He refutes these only explanations for the abolition of Old Testament sacrifices, citing from Old Testament history examples of sacrifices being made outside the Jerusalem temple and with ordinary fire. Julian also reproaches Christians for not keeping the Sabbath, not slaughtering the Passover lamb, referring to the fact that Christ was once slain for them, not circumcising themselves, and not distinguishing between clean and unclean animals. To justify the fact that they abandoned circumcision, Christians referred to the words of the Apostle Paul that they were prescribed circumcision of the heart, not the flesh, and that the first, and not the second, circumcision of Abraham. “Excellent,” Julian replies ironically, “that means you have neither deceivers nor villains.” “But know that God gave fleshly circumcision to Abraham as a distinctive sign of the covenant with Him:...Circumcise your foreskin, and this will be a sign between Me and you and between Me and your seed” 543 . Having recognized every bird as clean, Christians were based on the vision of St. Peter, who in this vision was not commanded by God to consider unclean what He had cleansed. “But from what,” asks Julian, is it clear here that what God previously considered unclean has now been made pure? Moses said: Every animal that has a cloven hoof and regurgitates the cud is clean, and that is not so is unclean 544. If after Peter’s vision the pig became a ruminant, let us believe it, although it is a great miracle.”545 Having changed Judaism, Christians, according to Julian, did not remain faithful to the first preachers of their religion. In general, Julian thinks that Christianity was not always identical to itself, but changed in very significant points, with the only constant being the tendency to replace the best with the worst. And precisely at those points in which Christians betrayed Judaism, they betrayed their first teachers, this is regarding the veneration of Jesus Christ by God and regarding the abolition of the ritual law. Let's start with the last one. Christ, according to Julian, just like Moses, considered the Old Testament ritual law inviolable. He said, “I came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them.” 546 And further, “Whoever does not fulfill one of the smallest commandments of the law and teaches others to do so will be called lesser in the Kingdom of Heaven.” 547 “Since Jesus clearly commanded the observance of the law and established punishments against those who do not fulfill even one commandment, how will you defend yourselves who break all the commandments? Either Jesus is a liar or you obviously don’t keep the law.” 548 The deification of the Founder of Christianity began with Pa. John. “Neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark,” says Julian, dared to say that Jesus was Side; Only good John, noticing that a large number of Greek and Italian cities were infected with this error, and knowing without a doubt that the tombs of Peter and Paul were secretly venerated, was the first to dare to support this doctrine. 549 Namely, having said a little about John the Baptist, he again returns to the Word he preached and says: And the word became flesh and dwelt among us; 550 but how afraid he is to say this: nowhere does he name either Jesus or Christ when he speaks of God and the Word, but carefully and secretly, in some way deceiving our ears; he says that John the Baptist gave testimony about Jesus, that this is He who is to be considered the Son of God.” 551 I do not deny that John says this about Christ; To some wicked people, let’s say, it seems that Jesus Christ is a different matter, the Word that John preached is different; but this is not true; for he himself says that the one whom he calls God the Word is Jesus Christ, known to John. Notice with what circumspection, caution and pretense he introduces the godless denouement into his drama; with cunning and cunning he again dodges, adding: “No one has ever seen God; The Only Begotten Son, Who was in the bosom of the Father, He revealed.” 552 And so it was God the Word who became flesh; the only begotten Son, the One who is in the bosom of the Father; and if this is the One I think of, then you have seen God; for “He dwelt among you, and you saw His glory.” 553 Why then do you add that no one has ever seen God? For you have seen Him, if not God the Father, then at least God the Word.” 554 Julian, inclined, according to the fair remark of St. Cyril to attribute his own fabrications to Christians, even claims that Christians venerate not just one, but rather several people, meaning martyrs, without distinguishing between the veneration of Christ and the veneration of saints. 555 John laid the foundation for the deification of Jesus, but “what could be more vile than what you invented later, adding new ones to your old dead? You filled all the cemeteries, and the tomb, although nowhere is it told you to go to the tombs and honor them. You have reached such depravity that you do not consider it necessary to listen to words regarding this Jesus of Nazareth.” And Julian quotes the words of Christ, completely irrelevant: “Woe to you, scribes and hypocrites, for you are like decorated tombs: on the outside the tomb seems beautiful, but inside it is full of dead bones and all kinds of uncleanness,” 556 and then the words spoken in response to the disciple’s request to allow him to bury his father - “Follow me and leave the dead to bury their dead.” 557 The veneration of Jesus especially outrages Julian. If it was not clear to him how Christians passed from the Greeks to the uncultured and undereducated Jews, forever subordinate to another people, then he was even more bewildered by the fact that Christians followed Jesus. Just like Celsus, he does not see anything remarkable in the person of Christ and repeats the same reproaches against Him. “This Jesus whom you preach,” he says, “was a subject of Caesar.” “He convinced only a few Jews and the worst ones at that. During His life He did nothing worthy of memory; at least, the healing of the lame, the blind and the demon-possessed in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany cannot be considered a great thing.” 558 “What good did he do for his countrymen? This hard-hearted and stiff-necked people obeyed Moses but refused to follow Jesus. He who commanded spirits, walked the sea, cast out demons, who, as you say, created heaven and earth, could never change the opinions of even his friends and relatives for their own salvation.” In response to Julian’s accusation of Christians of betraying the Mosaic teaching and the law of St. Cyril fully and thoroughly develops the theological teaching about the unity of the Old and New Testaments. He proves that the Christian teaching about the trinity of the Godhead and in particular about the Son of God was not a betrayal of Jewish monotheism and was not unknown to Moses and other Old Testament people, and that the abolition of the ritual law by Christ was caused by the very nature of the Old Testament law, as the law of shadow and image. Julian himself is confused in contradictions - either, according to him, Moses believed in one God, or he recognized many gods. In fact, Moses recognized one God, and Christians remained faithful to this teaching, for their dogma of the trinity of the Divine does not contradict the belief in one God; all divine Persons are essentially one, they all have the same nature, although they differ as hypostases. 559 What Moses knew about Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is evidenced by Christ himself: “If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me”; 560 and this can be proven, says St. Cyril, in many places from the writings of Moses; but he is limited only to those that Julian examines. The words of Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren, just like me; listen to him” 561 cannot apply to anyone other than Christ. If, of course, this is just some kind of prophet, as Julian claims, then which one? There were many prophets. Here we are talking about Christ, whose ministry had much in common with the ministry of Moses. Moses freed the Jews from the slavery of Egypt, gave them manna in the desert, was a mediator between God and the people, a legislator: if we move from this image and shadow to the truth, we will see that Christ, in a similar way, freed us from the power of Satan, gave us, like Moses manna in the desert, himself into the holy meat, was for us a mediator between us and God the Father, gave us a law in which is not a shadow of the truth, but the truth itself. Only about Christ the Son of God could God say: “I will put My word in His mouth and He will speak.” The prophets said with reverence, like slaves: “Thus says the Lord,” and Christ speaks from Himself: “I want to be cleansed” 562, “Young man, I say to you, get up” 563, “Lazarus, come out” 564. The prophecy of Jacob: “A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a ruler from his own feet, until that which is set aside for him comes,” also cannot be applied to anyone else but to Christ. Christ appeared precisely when the princes of the tribe of Judah ceased; It is not true that David's kingdom ended with Zedekiah. Zerubbabel was from the tribe of Judah, and the last Jewish king, Herod, was a Judah by his mother. And Christ was from the tribe of Judah, because his mother Mary’s betrothed Joseph came from the tribe of Judah, and the law of Moses forbade taking wives from another tribe. Prophecy. “A star will rise from Jacob, and a man will arise from Israel and destroy the princes of Moab and take captive all the sons of Seth. And Edom will be the inheritance” 565 cannot be attributed, as Julian does, to David and other ancient Jewish kings, for they did not conquer the named peoples, but rather continuously destroyed them with implacable hatred; in addition, if this prophecy applied to the Jewish kings, then it would be better to say: “stars” and “leaders,” but here one particularly glorious star stands out. 566 Proof of faith in the Old Testament in a single divine trinity of St. Cyril finds in the plural form of some biblical expressions, for example. “let us create (plurality of persons) man in our image” 567 (unity of being); “Come, let us go down and confound their tongue” 568 “and the Lord rained fire from the Lord on Sodom” 569; also points to the appearance of three strangers to Abraham, to whom Abraham bows as one and whom he calls in the singular “Lord” 570. The commandment: “I am the Lord your God and there is no God besides me” 571 was given very wisely in order to warn the Jews against being carried away by pagan polytheism. But even then, when the Old Testament men spoke about one God, they meant by Him all three persons; So we read from the prophet Baruch: “This God is ours, no other can compare with him. He found every way of wisdom and gave it to His servant Jacob and to His beloved Israel. After that He appeared on earth and spoke among people” 572. The concept of the trinity of the Divine was not alien to the Greek sages. Plato has a doctrine of three divine persons: the Good, the Mind and the Soul of the world. A similar doctrine is developed by Porphyry, Numenius, and Plotinus. 573 “Since they recognized three first-born hypostases and asserted that the Divine essence refers to all of them and used the word triad, they approved of Christian opinions, and they had nothing lacking if they wished to apply the word consubstantial to the three hypostases, so that one would understand the nature of the Divinity, devoid of that triplicity by which natural difference is introduced and the hypostases are one lower than the other.” 574 They think that the Mind needs the First Cause and contemplates it in order to come to a more perfect state, likewise the Soul, which is third after the first, needs contemplation and communion with the Mind, which is called the second cause. And since they adhere to this idea and introduce differences into nature, they boast of empty fables. And we say that the Father is most perfect, and like Him the Son is, as it were, perfect from the perfect, and also the Holy Spirit. For the divine and ineffable nature lacks nothing, but abounds in perfection. 575 Since Julian, conditionally agreeing that the Word-God is from God and came from the essence of the Father, expressed bewilderment as to how Christians honor a man still born of a wife, therefore, a man, then St. In response to this, Kirill reveals the history and meaning of the incarnation of the Son of God and His redemption of people. “If we were to say that man became God and another God was added to the Holy Trinity, this would be the worship of man, and not anything else. What if... Holy Scripture preaches that the Son of God, the Word, proceeding from the essence of God and the Father, the Creator of everything, became like us in an incomprehensible way and remained God; what is incredible or reprehensible in our dogmas? 576 It was necessary for God himself to save people from the damage to their nature by sin. St. Cyril talks about the creation of the first people, their fall and the spread of original sin through them to the entire human race. Since all people were sinners, none of them could take upon themselves the work of common salvation. Why did God need to incarnate to redeem people, but He did not do this with one wave, with ineffable power? To this St. Cyril responds with the doctrine of the freedom of human will and the free nature of virtue. To clarify the possibility of the incarnation of the Son of God from the Virgin, he refers to divine omnipotence. Having united with the human body, God did not limit Himself, but remained the all-perfect and highest God, and did not become involved in sin, just as a ray of sun falling on dirt does not receive a stain. St. Cyril proves the very reality of the fact of redemption and the calling of all peoples in Christ by the fulfillment of prophecies. Data about this in the Old Testament. “If the very outcome of the matter did not confirm what was previously said, unbelief would be appropriate, and if from the matter itself it can be seen that everything that was predicted was fulfilled, and Israel, who did not betray the death of their Lord, lost friendship with God, and many nations were called through faith, then I cannot understand,” says St. Kirill, what led (such people) to unbelief.” 577 From the Old Testament prophecies about Christ the Redeemer, he points to the following: Ps. 131: 11; Ps. 49:3; Ps.44:6-8; Ps. 85:8; Ps. 71:11; Ps. 46:2–3; 2 Parallel 6:17–18; Var. 3:36–38; Is. 7:14 ; Is. 35:3–6; Is. 40:3; Is. 55:5; Zakhar. 2:10–11; Zakhar. 9:9; Is. 62, Dan. 7:13–14. If Christ, in whom the Son of God was incarnate, seems to Julian to be a very insignificant person, this is because, according to St. Cyril that Julian applies a purely human false assessment to Him. Do you think, says St. Kirill, what is valuable to us is also valuable to God? But if Jesus sought human glory. Wouldn’t it have been better for Him to leave the work of building the economy and not become a man like us? Why, you say, was He not born of some king or had a queen as his mother in the flesh? But human things are nothing to Him, although He receives the greatest honors from us. Julian asks what good did Christ do to his relatives? All. He became man so that we might be called His race; what could be equal to this? We have become partakers of the divine nature, filled with the Holy Spirit; God Himself reduced Himself to brotherhood with us. Is all this really nothing? 578 It was very easy to prove that the veneration of Christ by God was not an invention, and even then only hesitantly expressed by the Apostle John, but existed in Christianity from the very beginning, clearly preached by Paul, Matthew, Luke, and Mark. It is not even clear how Julian could reject this despite the obvious evidence of the apostolic writings. “I am surprised,” says St. Cyril, as he often turns to the words of Holy Scripture, so deviates from the truth, says that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Mark, nor Luke call Christ God” 579. In refutation of Julian, St. Cyril cites the following passages from the apostles - from St. Paul Romans. 8:8–9; Rom. 9, 3–5; Rom. 15:15–16; Cor. 2:8; euro 13:8; from ap. Matthew Matt. 1.20–21; Matt. 3:11–12; Matt. 13:40–41; from ap. Mark 1:1; Mk. 10:23ff; from ap. Luke Lk. 9:26; OK. 1:14, 16, 32, 76, 77, etc. Thus, ap. John was not the first to call Jesus Christ God, because Matthew, Mark and Luke wrote before him; and if at the beginning of his gospel he speaks about God the Word, and not about Jesus Christ, then only for the purpose that no one would think that the Word was timely for His birth according to the flesh. And that he also calls Christ God is clear from many places, for example: John. 1:1, 3, 14; In. 18etc. 580 There is no contradiction in his words “I have never seen God” (John 1:18) and “you have seen His glory” (ibid., 14), since in one place John speaks of God, invisible by nature, and in another - of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. 581 In response to Julian’s reproach that Christians, instead of the one Jewish God, worship not even one person, but many people, namely martyrs, St. Cyril establishes the true concept of the worship that Christians pay to martyrs. "St. We do not consider martyrs, he says, to be gods and we give them non-divine worship, a cult of love and purity. Because they fought courageously for virtue, preserved the purity of faith so much that they despised life itself, and left examples of amazing virtue.” 582 How does Julian decide to blame Christians for this, if the Greeks themselves had the custom of annually honoring soldiers who died in battle for the fatherland, and heroes in general? Only the Greeks honored vicious and immoral people, such as Hercules, to whom it is attributed as a great feat that he corrupted 20 girls in one night, Cleomedes, a cruel and inhuman fist fighter, little inferior to wild animals, Alexander the Great, who declared his friend, a supplier of corrupt women, to be a god; 583 and Christians honor truly holy people. St. Cyril refers to the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, who in this case is based on the words of Sanchoniaton, that the ancient Greeks, as well as the Phoenicians, Egyptians and other peoples, had the custom of considering as gods those who invented something useful for life, or deified the cosmic elements, assimilating to them the names of their kings. Thus, it turns out that it was not Christians, but rather the Greeks, who bestowed divine honors on people. 584 Julian’s reference to the words of Christ: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, etc.” and “leave the dead to bury their dead,” cited by him in order to prove that Christ also forbade the veneration of the tombs of the dead, St. Kirill rightly considers it completely inappropriate, because these words speak of something completely different. Christ himself approached the dead and their monuments (the resurrection of Lazarus, the son of the widow of Nain). Tombs and dead bodies have nothing morally unclean and cannot defile a person. About the Greek gods themselves, poets say that, being at first people and living in the earth, they later died and were buried in tombs, which were later turned into churches. Julian wanted to prove that Jews who followed the Mosaic Law and Christians went to the tombs in order to see prophetic dreams there. In confirmation of this, he referred to the words of St. Isaiah: “They are holy in tombs and caves for the sake of dreams”; 585 but in fact, St. objects. Cyril, while the Jews remained faithful to the law, they did not do this, and only when they deviated after other gods did they turn to the tombs and indulge in fortune telling through dreams. Jews were forbidden to get carried away by these false fortune-telling; Christians also condemn them, but among the pagans, worshipers of idols, fortune-telling through dreams was the most common thing; so even Pythagoras, so revered by the Greeks, dealt with them. 586 Justifying Christians for abandoning the Mosaic ritual law, St. Kirill explains the true meaning and significance of this law. The whole essence of the law was not in its letter, but in the moral, spiritual sense, and Christians who fulfill it in a spiritual way are guardians, not violators of the law. To relate the eternity promised to the law to its letter would be inconsistent with the Holy Scripture itself, where it is called eternal. God said through Moses about the Day of Unleavened Bread: “Let this be a memorable day for you; celebrate it forever”; 587 and through Isaiah: “My soul hates your new moons and your sabbaths and your festivals”; 588 How can it be that what God established through Moses is condemned by Him through the prophets? Obviously, God wanted the Jews to strive for the truth through the image, and not to fulfill only the outer side of the law. The Jew, eating bread without leaven and doing nothing else, thought that he was fulfilling the law. But in reality, does God need this? Does leaven defile a person? Then wouldn’t it be necessary to refrain from it all the time, and not just on the 7th day? The meaning of the law of unleavened bread is spiritual; leaven in the Holy Scriptures is a symbol of debauchery, and the law of unleavened bread commands us to guard against this debauchery and to be morally pure. In this spiritual way, Christians fulfill this law according to the commandment of the Apostle: “Let us celebrate not in old leaven, but in the absence of leaven of purity and truth.” 589 But God could not give the ancient Jews the same spiritual law as us, the law of truth; He had to hide the truth in an image, because the Jews then were still children and coarse in mind, incapable of perceiving the truth in its pure form. However, the Jews also had to seek benefit for themselves not in the letter of the law - it did not give them anything (in this sense, the commandments of the law are called “unkind” in Holy Scripture); and the Jews had to fulfill the law in a spiritual way, they had to beware not of bread with leaven, but of the leaven of debauchery, and those who fulfilled the law in this way became partakers of eternal life. It would be pointless to observe the ritual law now that the truth has come; when there is truth, its image and what foreshadowed it are no longer needed. That this new spiritual law was promised to the Jews, there is clear evidence of this in Holy Scripture; Thus, in the prophet Jeremiah, God says: “Behold, the days are coming when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not this kind of covenant. What I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days: I will put My laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.” 590 Guided by this, the apostles at the council rejected the ritual law as optional for Christians. And if ap. Peter observed Jewish rituals and because of this he had a quarrel with the apostle. Paul, who did not fulfill them, then St. Cyril explains Peter’s actions by saying that he wanted to provide possible assistance to everyone and then, preaching to the Jews, adhered to the law. 591 From the point of view of this general view of the Old Testament law, St. Cyril explains the attitude of Christians to the Old Testament sacrifices, circumcision, the law on clean and unclean food, etc. Christians rejected sacrifices not at all because now fire does not descend from heaven and there is no Jerusalem, in which it was only ordered to make sacrifices; - the commandments about not bringing alien fire for sacrifice and making sacrifices only in Jerusalem were given for the purpose of preventing Jews from clinging to another god, and were not always observed by the Jews themselves, as can be seen from the example of Abraham, David and Elijah. Christians reject blood sacrifices because God cannot be pleased with the killing of animals; He seeks worship in spirit and truth, and they offer Him a spiritual sacrifice, the only one pleasing to Him - a virtuous life. That God hates bloody sacrifices, evidence of this can be found in Julian’s teachers themselves. So Porfiry rejects bloody sacrifices and says that they were offered not to the gods, but to evil demons, and that the primitive cult was alien to them. The famous Delian altar was called the “altar of the pious” because animals were never slaughtered on it. If God nevertheless allowed the Old Testament people to make bloody sacrifices, it was only because they were accustomed to them in Egypt. “He knew that the high rules of the New Testament law and the performance of only spiritual worship would be difficult for Jews. “You did not hear or know about this,” God says to the Jewish people, “and I did not open your ears, for I knew that you would treacherously reject.” 592 But by allowing bloody sacrifices, God arranged so that these sacrifices would also contain a spiritual cult. They depicted the New Testament mysteries, so that the sacrifices in the images prepared the Jews for the perception of the gospel truth; on the other hand, morally good deeds were required from the sacrificer, without which the sacrifices lost all power. The legislator himself speaks about this through the prophet Jeremiah: “When they fast, I will not hear their petition, and even if they bring burnt offerings and sacrifices I will not accept them”; 593 for sacrifices in themselves are nothing. “Let’s take it,” says St. Cyril, “a Jew, circumcised and devoted to sacrifices, but at the same time dishonest, unjust and vicious, and not a Jew - uncircumcised in the flesh, not making sacrifices, but holy, just, not subject to vices and full of virtues - the second, wouldn’t it be better than the first, although he does not make sacrifices?” 594. Julian wanted to prove from the story of the sacrifice of Cain and Abel that the Jewish God was pleased only with bloody sacrifices. But this is not true. According to the law of Moses, it was possible to sacrifice not only animals, but also flour, grains, and oil. In the book. In Leviticus and in Deuteronomy, God commands the Jews to offer Him the firstfruits of their fruits when they enter the Promised Land. If He himself commanded that sacrifices from earthly fruits be offered to Him, then how could He reject Cain’s sacrifice because it was not from animals, but from fruits? Julian says correctly that Cain’s sin was in separation, and not in offering, but not precisely in the fact that he chose fruits from animals and fruits, but in that. That he chose not the best fruits. 595 The scapegoating sacrifice, which Julian focuses on in particular, wanting to bring it closer to the pagan sacrifices to the Averrunks, the gods who avert evil, has the same educational significance as all the Old Testament sacrifices, and has nothing to do with any Averrunki. Under the image of two goats, one of which was slain and the other was released into the desert, it depicts one Christ, who was slain for our sins and at the same time remained alive and became the conqueror of death. The desert here refers to the pagan peoples who remained barren for a long time, not yielding the fruits of faith and piety. The whole meaning of this sacrifice lay in the educational significance of this sacrifice, but it did not free the people from sins in itself; for if the blood of sacrifice alone is sufficient to free oneself from all unrighteousness, then why does not every sinner resort to this means? In any case, not due to a lack of goats, but because, as the apostle says. Paul, “it is impossible to take away sins through the blood of bulls and goats.” 596 The Jewish sacrifices were not accompanied by any fortune-telling. Julian, who saw them in the sacrifice of Abraham, is similar to those people who, watching the running clouds, see in them something that is not in them at all - centaurs, lions, people; According to custom, in this case he completely arbitrarily distorts the meaning of St. Scriptures. God showed Abraham the stars to compare his numerous offspring with them; but nowhere is it said that God indicates in the position of the stars the confirmation of his words. The ritual of passing between parts of slain victims was used by the Chaldeans when making an oath, and not for fortune telling, and God ordered it to be arranged for Abraham, adapting to the customs to which Abraham was accustomed to among the Chaldeans. And if birds of prey flew at the victims, and Abraham drove them away, then what is surprising? It is impossible for what is designated for the rite of oath to become prey for birds; but there was no fortune telling by the flight of birds here. There was no fortune telling on the part of Abraham's steward Eliezer when he chose a wife for his master's son; he wanted to find him a worthy wife and therefore asked God to make sure that the best girl he met offered him a drink of water; it was a prayer, not a fortune telling. 597 Moving on to another Jewish rite - circumcision, St. Kirill proves that it will also turn out to be completely unnecessary, useless, if you do not keep in mind its spiritual meaning. If it were better for a man to have his reproductive organ circumcised, why didn't God form him that way in the first place? On the other hand, if we consider everything natural to be the most useful and perfect, then it will be an imperfection if a person lacks something natural. It is a common belief among Jews and pagans that through circumcision the human body is freed from all bodily uncleanness. However, if they avoid carnal uncleanness, how will they endure the flesh and the things of the flesh, and the very source of the generation of children hidden within? It would be better to eliminate the very sources of uncleanness than to destroy by cutting off its channels. In fact, the nature of the body does not defile the spirit. What is the significance of circumcision? Its meaning is symbolic. It is an image of liberation from all spiritual impurities - passions and lusts. Only in this spiritual fulfillment is circumcision pleasing to God. Therefore, the prophet Jeremiah said to the Jews who were only literally circumcising: Circumcise to God, circumcise the hardness of your heart.” 598 If, in response to this interpretation of circumcision, Julian objects: and you have many dishonest and criminals, then he blames bad people, and not circumcision itself. Medicine cannot be blamed for the fact that some patients, overcome by their passions, do not receive fruit from it. Christian spiritual circumcision cannot be blamed because some, leading a bad lifestyle, do not use it. 599 Regarding the reproach from Julian for the failure of Christians to fulfill the Old Testament law on food, St. Kirill explains a truly Christian view of food. “Food does not bring us closer to God, for whether we eat, we gain nothing, or whether we do not eat, we lose nothing.” 600 “Every bird is good, and nothing should be discarded; for everything is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 601 “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy.” 602 Is it really possible to think that to purify the spirit one only needs to abstain from certain foods? Christians don't think like that; they do not reject any food as unclean, they are afraid only of crimes - adultery, greed, etc., which really defile the soul. If Christians abstain from food, and some of them even from what is necessary for the body, eating only bread, butter and vegetables, it is not because they consider it unclean, but in order to curb the lust of the flesh and sharpen their mental vision for contemplating the truth. It is also impossible to reject certain types of food as unclean because everything created by the Creator is good. And in fact, what is wrong with the fact that a pig does not regurgitate its cud, some animals do not have a cloven hoof, and some fish are devoid of scales and feathers? But if there is nothing wrong with this, then why did Moses prohibit animals and fish with precisely these signs from being eaten? In response to this, St. Kirill again gives a symbolic interpretation of the mentioned prohibitions. In Holy Scripture the word “leg” means the path of activity; the double hoof indicates many paths of virtue; burping chewing gum means they are distinguished by their learning. A person is required to be virtuous and teach others the same: “Whoever does and teaches will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” 603 Fish, devoid of scales, usually live at the very bottom in the mud - they represent people mired in intemperance and the mire of voluptuousness; and those deprived of feathers swim poorly and also indicate depraved people, gluttons, adulterers, incapable of swimming out of evil. Night birds mean unlearned people living in darkness, enemies of mental light. Moses wanted to warn against all these shortcomings, which are revealed in the inner meaning of these prohibitions. In Christianity, moral commandments are given directly, and since the image therefore turned out to be unnecessary, God abolished it in the famous vision of St. Petra. 604 From the analysis of Julian's first book it is clear that he considered Christianity in it only insofar as it, in his opinion, changed Judaism. Meanwhile, at the beginning of his work, he promised to analyze all the dogmas of Christianity, and St. himself. Cyril says that Julian ridiculed everything in Christianity - both teaching, laws, and sacraments. Obviously, the main part of the criticism of Christianity was in the following books that have not reached us. Small excerpts preserved from the books of St. who have not reached them. Cyril give us some idea of ​​the content of the 2nd book of Julian. In addition to the contradiction of the evangelists on the issue of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, which Julian promises to talk about in the first book, 605 we see from these passages that he dwells on many gospel narratives; obviously he subjected the Gospels to the most detailed analysis; he follows Christ step by step and ridicules everything that He “did, said, or suffered”; - laughs at the wonderful star that announced the birth of Christ to the Magi, at His temptation in the desert, at the Sermon on the Mount, at the division of rewards for virtue into inheritance of the earth, pardon, the kingdom of heaven, etc., at the parables of Christ at His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane; he indicates the disagreement of the evangelists in the story of the resurrection of Christ: according to the Evangelist Matthew, the women came to the tomb in the evening, and according to Mark - in the morning, according to the first they saw an angel near the tomb, according to the second - a young man, according to one - he told the disciples about the resurrection of Christ, according to the other they did not tell anyone, etc. (Neumann). In various places in the first book of his polemical work, Julian also gives a characterization of the followers of Christian teaching themselves in mental and moral terms. His opinion of Christians is as bad as Celsus’s opinion of them. First of all, Julian repeats in relation to Christians the hackneyed, but in his time already quite strange reproach, that their society consists exclusively of simple, ignorant, uneducated people. According to Julian, neither the Founder of Christianity himself, nor His immediate successors dreamed of a particularly wide dissemination of his teachings among the educated classes. “For them it was enough to deceive the maids and slaves, and through them several women and men of the kind like Cornelius and Sergius. If you find Tiberius or Claudius among them during the reign, even one famous person, think that I am lying about everything.” 606 But Julian thinks this way not only about the original Christian society of the times of Tiberius and Claudius, but also about his contemporary one. He says that every Christian who has tasted Greek education, if it contains at least some common sense, immediately abandons his wicked teaching, and thus only ignoramuses remain in Christianity. 607 This is already completely unforgivable for Julian, because before his eyes his most talented comrades in the Athenian school - Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, having received a secular pagan education, not only remained Christians, but also became zealous defenders of their religion. His famous edict on schools shows that he himself felt that reproaching Christians for ignorance is an anachronism, that having tasted Greek education, Christians do not abandon their religion at all; he saw the danger to paganism from that direction in Christianity that assimilated Greek culture. And which did not leave paganism any resources for existence, and wanted to deprive Christians of any opportunity to receive an education. Julian considers their moral depravity to be an inevitable concomitant of the mental poverty of Christians. In this respect, in his opinion, Christians remained faithful to their custom - to borrow the worst from those nations they imitated. Having borrowed their religious intolerance from the Jews, they took it to the most extreme limits. They are hostile not only to others, but also to each other when they have different religious opinions. “You destroy,” says Julian, churches and altars; “You kill not only those who remain faithful to the laws of the fathers, but also heretics of the same error as you, who do not honor the dead in the same way as you.” 608 Having borrowed from the Greeks their dishonest and dissolute way of life, Christians gather into their sect the worst elements of society and, having washed them with the water of baptism, declare them morally pure. Julian sees proof of this in the words of St. Paul addressed to Christians: “Neither idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor eunuchs, nor drunkards, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. You know, brothers, that you too were like this, but you were washed and sanctified in the name of Jesus Christ.” 609 “You see,” says Julian, that, according to Paul, they were such, but they were sanctified and washed by water, which has the power to cleanse and penetrate to the very soul. Baptism, he continues with mockery, does not heal leprosy, lichen, spots, warts, gout, dysentery, dropsy, nail-eater, no bodily disease, great or small, but it heals adulterers and predators, and in one word, all the vices of the soul.” 610 The same mockery of the sacrament of baptism is repeated by Julian in another place - in the satire "Caesari". Having ridiculed Constantine the Great, who, after a competition before the gods, together with other emperors, found a place for himself only with the goddesses of luxury and voluptuousness, Julian says that Constantine met here his son (according to some other publications of Jesus), convening from everywhere corrupters, murderers, perjurers, dishonest people of all kinds, to cleanse them immediately from all these vices with one water, and promising in the event of a repetition of the previous ones crimes, cleanse them again with a simple means - hitting yourself in the chest and banging your head. This strange understanding of one of the main advantages of Christianity, that it appeals to all people, both virtuous and vicious, we also find in almost literal expressions from Celsus: “Usually, says Celsus, people are called to the sacraments: whoever is clean from all filth, whoever is innocent in soul, whoever, knowing no evil, lives righteously and well, whoever is innocent in hands and not insane in tongue, come and receive cleansing. Let us listen to how Christians call into their society: whoever, they say, is a sinner, whoever is mad, whoever is a child, in a word, whoever is a pitiful person, the kingdom of God is open to him.” 611 Julian gives a picture of Christian morals in “Misopogon”, where he depicts the Antiochian society, which consisted mainly of Christians. He denounces the Antiochians for licentiousness, immoderation in pleasures, love for games, for theaters, for luxury in clothing and life, for shameless dancing, in shameful dependence on women who, through debauchery, attract young men to their religion. Julian connects all these shortcomings of the Antiochians with the Christian religion they profess, completely forgetting what he himself says in the same work, namely, that 400 years ago Cato condemned the morals of the inhabitants of Antioch. If in general, in relation to Christianity, Julian discovered too much hatred and passion for personal feelings to the detriment of truth for a philosopher, then in characterizing the moral state of Christian society, he completely loses ground. Even if the environment in which he was brought up was very bad in moral terms, he had to be convinced more than once in his life that, in general, in moral terms, Christians are far behind the pagans. He actually saw this difference between the two: reproaching Christians for borrowing their depraved lifestyle from the pagans, he thereby pronounces a condemnation of paganism with his own lips; he knows the real value of pagan society, he constantly mourns its decline, the impoverishment of faith and morality in it; 612 on the other hand, he sees that nothing is more conducive to the spread of Christianity than the high moral dignity of its representatives, their widespread charity, humane attitude towards foreigners, and holiness of life. His letter to Arzaky, the high priest of Galatia, where he gives the priest advice and orders to raise the morality of the priestly class, against the author’s wishes, came out as a panegyric to Christianity and a condemnation of paganism. Julian does not find here any other example of high morality for the pagans than in the society of Christians and Jews. “It would be shameful,” he writes to Arzakia, to deprive our poor of proper help, just as the Jews have no beggars, and the wicked Galileans impoverish ours along with theirs.” 613 True, in the virtues of Christians, Julian sees only hypocrisy, with the goal of further spreading Christian error, but this is already the voice of personal enmity, which does not want to see anything good in the enemy. “Accusing good people of hypocrisy,” Bletri rightly says, is a common technique of extreme prejudice and malice. Julian, with all his intelligence, did not see and did not want to see that such a large society as the Christians were then was not visible and could not even think about it. Hypocrisy will never be a vice of the masses. The crowd always sincerely is what it is.” 614 To reproach Christian society for the fact that it consists of simple, ignorant people, women and slaves, St. Cyril responds with the same thing that he said in response to a similar reproach against the Jews for their cultural insignificance. – You cannot praise or reproach people for external differences - poverty or wealth, nobility or ignorantity, slavery or freedom. People can be praised or blamed only for their moral merits or demerits, and they are not related to these external differences and relate to the nature of a person, and not to his position in society; The nature of all people is the same and is so constructed that it is capable of everything praiseworthy. Nothing prevents an insignificant person from being wise, a poor person from being just, or a slave from being honest. Famous Greek men were at first artisans; So Socrates was the son of a midwife and a sculptor, and he himself practiced sculpting; Zamolx the Oracian - was a slave of Pythagoras; Plato taught philosophy to a woman - the wife of Dionysius. Why attack Christ if He called equally women and men, educated and uneducated, rich and poor, slaves and free, to the knowledge of God? 615 Defending Christians against accusations of immoral life, St. Cyril had to explain the true meaning of the words of the apostle. Paul, to which Julian referred in this case, and to clarify the meaning of the sacraments as instruments of grace. It cannot be said that St. Kirill did not do this at all; he says absolutely correctly that the people referred to in the words of the apostle were vicious before their conversion, and after their conversion they took the path of virtue, but from his answer it is not clear how Christians looked at the moral state of all pagans in general who did not receive grace, and this is what Julian should have said, imagining that Christians choose the worst people into their society, leaving the best. In the edition of Cardinal Angelo Maia Bibliotheca nova partum (vol. II p. 492) two excerpts from the 7th book of St. are given. Cyril versus Julian, which are most conveniently attributed to this particular place. In them St. Cyril says that Julian reproaches Christians for praying for sinners, regretting evildoers, and showing mercy even to their enemies. Julian's words are not given literally here; He probably did not actually blame Christians for their good attitude towards sinners, but from the fact that Christians care so much about sinners and constantly preach to them, he drew the same conclusion as from the above words of St. Paul, namely, that Christians make up their society exclusively from vicious people. Julian could not believe the sincerity of virtue among Christians, he could even completely deny it among them, but his very concepts of virtue, of good and bad, were not at all as far removed from Christian ones as one might think from these passages from the work of St. Kirill. Criticism of Christian morals is best characterized by the polemical work of Julian, which, according to St. Cyril did not point out anything good in Christianity. Julian did not stop even before what Origen rightly considered the best apology, the best proof of Christianity - the holiness of the lives of his true followers. But even for him, with all his irreconcilable hatred of Christianity, it turned out to be impossible to completely deny the high moral qualities and exploits of Christians as an obvious and modern fact. All he could do in this case was to interpret the virtues of Christians as simple hypocrisy, with the goal of attracting as many people as possible to his sect. J. Reville: Religion in Rome under Severus 18–19 J. Reville: Religion in Rome under the Severas, Russian. lane 18–21, 136–139 pp. Chastel “Histoire de la destruction du paganism”, 103 pp. Chastel: Hist. de la dest. Du pag. 22–27; Wed J. Reville: Religion in Rome under the Severas, Russian. Per. 140, 189, 204; Allard: Julien l'Apostat, I, 6–8. J. Reville: Religion in Rome under the Severas, Russian. Per. 50, 51, 54, 55, 131; E. Vacherot: Histoire critique de l’ecole d’Alexandrie, I, 101–125. Vacherot: Histoire critique de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, I, 101; J.Simon: Histoire de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, I, 180. Vacherot: Histoire critique de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, I, 101; Wed J.Simon: Histoire de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, I, 195, 196. J. Simon: Histoire de l'ecole d'Alexandrie I, 184, 185; Chistovich: Neoplatonic philosophy and its relation to Christianity; (“Christ. Reading” 1860, II, 275–276. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, I, 102; Wed Chastel – Histoire de la destr. du paganism, 11. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, I, 104, 106; Chastel – Hitsoire de la destr. du pagan. 103–104; Wed J. Simon Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 189. Chastel-19–20; J. Reville: Religion in Rome 50–110. J. Reville: Religion in Rome, 139–152; Wed Chastel: Histoire de la destr. Du pagan. 19–20, 26–27. Histoire de la destr. du pagan, 16. Petronius, 17; Reville: Religion in Rome, 27. Sochin. Origen: Contra Celsum, VIII, 35, 37, 63–66; VII, 68; V, 25, 41; Vi, 80. Chastel – Hitsoire de la destr. du pagan. 16; Wed Allard: Julien l'Apostat I, 2. Chistovich: Neop. Philosophy and its relationship to Christianity; Christ. Read 1860, II, 265; Reville: Religion in Rome 22–23, 110–127. Bl. Theodorite: ed Sylburii. 6, 12. Vladislavlev: philosophy of Plotinus, 279 pp. Chastel – Hitsoire de la destr. du pagan., 113. Chistovich: Neop. Philosophy and its relationship to Christianity; Christ. Read 1860, II, 265–266; Wed Reville: Religion in Rome, 184–185. Chastel – Hitsoire de la destr. du pagan., 102–103; Chistovich: Christ. Read 1860, II, 270–273. Vacherot: Histoire de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, I, 103–125; J. Simon: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 95–98, 101, 102, 139. Vacherot: Histoire de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 106–108; , I, 103–125; J. Simon: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 96, 97; Wed Chistovich: “Christ. Read." 1860, II, 264. J. Simon: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 137–138. Chistovich: “Chr. Thu." 1870, II, 269. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 276–279; Vacherot: I, 318–330. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Reading" 1860, II part 269–270. Klinet Alex. Str. I, 342; Evsev. Kes.: Praep. Ev. X, 10, 14. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 314–318. Evsev. Praep. Evan. VII, 14, VII, 10, XIII, 12. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 140–142 Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 142–167; Wed J. Simon: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 122–124; Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 288–290; D. Gusev: The doctrine of God in Philo’s system, – right. Sob. 1881 Part III, 279–314. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 201–223. J. Simon: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 205; Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 263–274; Chistovich: “Chr. Reading" 1860 II, 273–275. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 361; Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 305–306; Chistovich: “Chr. Reading" 1860 II, part. 554. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 65–77; Wed Chistovich: Neop. Philosophy, "Chron. Reading" 1860, II part 556–558. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 77–85, 100. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 94, 95, 99, cf. “Chr. Thurs. 1860, II part 558; J. Simon: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 353. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 95, 97. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 101–112. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 106. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1860 II part, 560. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 109. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 112–116; Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1860 Part II, 560–561. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1860 II part, 562; Wed Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 229–231. Vladislavlev the same. 116–120; “Chr. Thu." 1860, II, 562. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Reading" 1860 II, 555, 556, 569, 570. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1860, II, 573–574; Wed Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 209–212, 220–221. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 213–216; [49] Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1860, II, 577. Vladislavlev the same. 208–209; J. Simon: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. I, 577–578. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1860, II, 575–576; Wed Vladislavlev: Philosophy Plotinus: 63; 253–261. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1860, II, 576 pp. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1861, Part I, 53–54. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, II, 65–68. Chistovich: Neopl. Philosophy, "Chron. Thu." 1861, Part I, 59. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. II, 97–98. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. II, 101–108. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. II, 97–101. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alex. II, 105–108; Wed Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 227–229. J. Simon, II, 200–202, 206: Vacherot II, 58, 60. De diis et mundo I agree with Sallust, a philosopher of the school of Iamblichus; Vacherot II, 120–126; Chastrel 113, 114; Chistovich, “Christ. Reading" 1861, Part I, 59–61. Vol. I, LXII, Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus 54 pp. De abstinentia II, 34. Vacherot II, III and gave. Ad Marcell, 16. Vacherot II, 113–115. Vladislavlev: Philosophy of Plotinus, 234–238. Vacherot: Hist. de l'ecole d'Alexandrie, II, 115-118; Wed Chastel: Hist. de la destr. Du pagan., 108, 109. Vacherot II, 126–140; Wed Chastel 117–118; Chistovich: “Chr. Thu." 1861, I, 62–66; J. Simon II, 218–242. Vacherot: Hist.de l'ecole d'Alex. II, 141–142. Minucius Felix: Octavius, ch. IX, 319; Wed Athenagoras: Past. About hr. Chapter 3 71–72 pp. Works. Dr. hr. Russian apologists Pre. Preobrazhensky. Moscow. 1867 Justin much. I Apol. 5 ch. 42 pages rus. Per. Preobrazhensky. Moscow. 1864 Letter of Pliny to Thrann; Tacit. Ann. XV, 44; Sueton. Nero. Aubë Hist. des persecutions de 'Eglise, 70. Cod. Just. I, 13. Aube. Hist. des persecutions, 160. Contr. Hier. C. 2. In Patr Curs. Comp. t. 22. p. 797 et seq. Aubë Hist. des persecutions p. 159. Aubë Hist. des persecutions p. 139 Chastel, 147, not. 1; Aube 136. Aubë Hist. des persecutions 489–512. Contra Cels. VII, 9, 11; VI, 40, 24: V, 59, 54. Ibid.I,28; Just. Much. Conversation with Tryphon ch. 17, art. 170. Chistovich: “Chr. Thu." 1860, II, 584–588. This is the opinion of Aube (74–104). But Boissier does not consider it sufficiently thorough, pointing out the great difference between Fronto and the pagan Cepilius from Op. Felix's minutia in some opinions and in a style that Fronto has very characteristic features. He is rather inclined to assume that Cotta is here derived from Cicero’s dialogue: “On the Nature of the Gods,” finding in it more similarities with Cicily, or even Cicero himself, see Boissier: The Fall of Paganism 181, 182 pp. Contra Celsum V, 25. Wed. Tertul Advers. Gentes II, 69. Migne ser. Lat. T. V. Meliton, - Scriptures of other apol., Russian. Per. 298yu Homil. Clement. IV, 7. Migne II< sr. gra c. Bl. Theodoret: Ed. Sylburgii, 6, 12. Vladislavlev, 279. Art. Tsvetkova. II rib. to TV St. father Part XXV p. 337. Octavius ch. V, 311. Works of the ancients. hr. apologists, Russian lane Octavius ​​X, 321, Ancient. hr. apologist, Russian lane August. De civ. Dei X, 29. N. Lebedev: “The Work of Origen Ave. Celsus”, 214 pp. Origen: Contra Cels. IV, 24, 98, 90. Last To Diognotus, 1, 13. Op. ancient hr. Apoolg. Rus. lane Creation Bl. Jerome (Russian translation) vol. 3, 143. Letter to Ctesiphon. Wed. S. Augustini. Epist. 102. Opera t. 2 col. 373. Ibid.; Euseb. Contra Hier. C. 2. In. Patr. Curs. Comp. t. 22, p. 797 et seq. Eactant. Jnst. Div. V, 2; Eus. Contr. Hier. 797 and gave. Opera Hieronimi. T. 5. Col. 513. Comment. In Danielem. Opera Hieronimi. T. 7. col. 57. Comment. In Math. Lib. I, c. IX. Opera Hieronimi. T. 2, col. 988. Ibid. T. 7, col. 335–336. Contra Cels.I, 19; IV, 10, 11 et seq., 41. Ibid. I, 17, 18. Wed. Porfiry: Evsev. Cer. East. book Chapter 6 19. Lactan. Inst. Div. L.IV p.13. August. De Civit. Dei. Lib. XIX c. 23. Euseb. Demonst. Evang. Lib 3 p. 134 edit. 1688. Ibid. I, 9. Wed. Iset Much. 1 ap. 53 ch. Contra Celsum III, 50–55. Codratas, Aristides, Clavidia Appolinaria bishop. of Hierapolis, Melito of Sardis, Miltiades, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian. 3–71, 72 Rus. lane Preobrazhensky. Add. To ed. Creation Holy Fathers XXV part page 327: “Review of the apologist. Tudov east. Fathers and teachers of the church in the 4th and 5th centuries." P. Tsvetkova. Created. Holy Fathers, Russian lane v. 17. Created. Holy Fathers Russian lane vol. 17, p. 19. Contr. Cels. VII, 64, 69; Minutsyu Felix, 349–350, Just. Much. I, 9; Clim alex. Protrept. c. IV paragraph 62. Edit. Reinhold Klotz. Lipsiae. 1831. Clement. Alex. Protrepticus c. IV. Contr. Cels. VIII, 17–22. Iset Much. 2 ap. Ch. 12, p. 128. Speech to the Hellenes ch. 2 p. 33, cf. Exhortation to the Greeks 44–46; O autocrat. 100–102. Rus. lane Clement. Alex. Protrpticul II ch. paragraph 28–40. Euseb. Praep. Ev. I, 6–10. 48 ff. Euseb. Praep. Ev. III, p. 153 ff. Euseb. Praep. Ev. IV, 2 pp. 236 ff. Iset Much. 2 ap. Chapter 13 129 pp. Ibid 8, 10 ch. 123, 125 pp. cf. Octavius ​​XX, 336. Origen Contra Cels. VII, 59, I, 4, 5, XIII, 52. Climent alex. Protrept. c. I; Stromat. T. I, c. XIII, XIV, V, VI, VII. Orogen Contr. Cels. IV, 3–4 Lebedev: 42–50. Eg. Iustyu Muchyu I ap. 54–64, Clim. Alex. Protrept. c. VIII. Stromat. T I, p. XXI, XXIV. See research by prof. Lovyangin “On the attitude of classical writers to biblical ones according to the views of Christian apologists.” St. Petersburg. 1872. Contr. Cels. V, 27, 28 et seq. Ibid. III, 48–49, cf. Clement. Alex. Paedagog I c. IV. Euseb. Praep Ev. VII, VIII, p. 508 et seq. Euseb. Demon. Ev. Lib I, c. 3–4 p.m. 28ff in Patr. Curs. Compl. t. 22. Contra Cels. IV 3, 66, cf. Just. Much. Apol. I, 28, 43; II, 7, 14; Tatiyan - speech against the Greeks ch. VII. Sochin. Dr. hr. Russian apologists Per. Afan. Alexandrian: The Word of the Incarnation. God of the Word. Creation Holy Fathers; rus. Per. Vol. 17. Page 144. Afanas. Alex. “The Word on the Gentiles” and “The Word on the Incarnation of God the Word.” See an excerpt from the work “On the Resurrection,” attributed to Justin Mtsuchenik, “The Resurrection of the Dead.” Athenagora, 3 books. To Autolycus of Theophilus, Tertul. Apologist. Ch. 48 de ressur. C. 12, “Octavius” Minutius Felix ch. 34. Origen – Contra Cels. V, 18, 19, 57. Contr. Cels. IV, 37, VI, 62–64. Contra Celsum VIII, 17, 19–22; VII, 63–66; VI, 10. Wed. Arnob. Adv. Gentes. Lib. 6. Lactant. Iust. Div, lib. II, cap. 2; Clement. Stromat. VII, 2. Tertull. – De Praescriptione Haereticorum 8, 10. Apologeticus 46, 282, 285. Contr. Cels. III, 47, 48. Contr. Cels. I, 9. Euseb. Praep. Ev. I, 3, p. 29 onwards Patrol. Curs Compl. t. 21. Talk about Trif. Jude ch. VII, p. 155. Chapter 1 109 pp. rus. Per. Sochin. Dr. hr. Apologists. See eg. Euseb. – Demonst. Ev. T. III, p. 2 p.m. 168ff, p. 3 p.m. 188 et seq. and in general the last books of this op. Contra Cels. I, 68, III, 28; Wed Homil. II, 34, Migne Patrol curs ser. Grace. t. II. Contr. Cels. VII, 4. cf. Euseb. Demonst. Ev. IV-VI, p. 345 ff. N. Lebedev: Work of Origen, Ave. Celsus, 50–58 pp. K Autol. Ch. 2, p. 170 rus. lane Last To Diognet 7, 21 pp. Conversation with Trif. Jude Chapter 8 156 pp. Last to Diog. Ch. V-VI, 18–19. Athenag. Petition for Christians, ch. II, art. 81, 82 Wed. Just. I ap. Ch. 14–16. I ap. Ch. 20.21, pp. 58–59. Contra Cels. II, 11; Wed Just. Much. II ap., 10; I, S, 17, 20, 21, 22. Allard. Julien l'Apostat. I, 259–263. Epist. Ad. S. P. Q. Atheniens, 270. Allard. Julien l'Apostat I, 266, 267; Amm. Marcell. XXII, 9. Allard. Julien l'Apostat. I, 278. Epist. Ad. S. P. Q. Atheniens 271–273. Gregory the Theologian 1st Rev. Sl. On Julian page 98; Wed Sozomen V, 2 Allard. Jul. l'apos, 285. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 269–273; 280–282, Julien, Misopogon 351. Contra Julianum VII, 850, 851; Wed Misopogon 353. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 290, 291. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 313; Libanius, Oratio IV. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, 298–306; Eunap. Vitae soph., Maximus. Contra Julianum, II, 559; 566; V, 770, 771; VI, 814, 819, 826; VII, 834, 838, 850, 863, 874. Boissier - The Fall of Paganism, 65–68. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 315–320. Epist. 25, Boissier - The Fall of Paganism, 221-222. Word XLIII, Russian. Per. TV Gr. God . Part 4, page 76. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 323–328. Epist. Ad Themist. 260; Wed Narrow ad. Epist. Ad S. P. Q. Atheniens, 274. Gregory the Theologian 2nd Accusatory Word against Julian pp. 197–198. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 335, 351. Epist. Ad S. P. Q. Atheniens 275. Epist. Ad S. P. Q. Atheniens 275–277. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 376–469. Ammian Marcellin, XX, 4; Libanius, Or. VII X; Zosim. III, 8. Epist. Ad. S. P. Q. Atheniens. 282–283; Wed Zonara XIII, 10. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, I, 482–497. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, 7–10. Zonara XIII, 10; Allard, Julien. L'Apostat, II, 15. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, II, 32–91. Amm. Marcellin, xxii, 5; Allard. Julien l'Apostat, II, 149, 150. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, II, 150. Himere, Oratio VII, 9 (ed. Didot, p. 62), see Allard. Julien l'Apostat, II, 156. Libanius, Epitaphios Julian. Altenburg, 1791–1797 ed. Reiske I, 564. Allard, Julien l'Apostat, II, 155. Sozomenb Cer. East. V, 3; Wed John Chrysostom: “Oh St. Martyr Babyla”, 14; Bibanius, Epitaphios Juliani; Allard, Julien l'Apostat II, 162, 168, 169. Libanius, Epitaphios Juliani (Reiske, t. I, p. 564) see. Julien l'Apostat, II, 158. Linbnius. Ad Julianum – consulem (Reiske, t. I, p. 394) Allard, Julien l’Apostat, II, 213. Ammien Marcellin, XXII, 14; Libanius, -- Ad Julianum consulem (Reiske, t. I, 395) Grieg. Theologian 2nd Region sl. On King Julian, 196-197; Allard Julien L'Apostat, II, 214–215. Allard Julien L'Apostat, II,117. Allard Julien L'Apostat, II, 178–183. Fragment. Orationis epistolaeve cujasdam 296–297. Epist XLIX ad Arsacium, pontix. Galat. Fragment Orationis epistolaeve cujusdam. 305. Fragment Orationis epistolaeve cujusdam. 304–305. Epist XLIX ad Arsacium. Fragment Orationis epistolaeve cujusdam. 305; Epist XLIX ad Arsacium. Grieg. Theologian 1st Region word, 165. Allard Julien L'Apostat, II, 185; Grieg. Theologian 1st Reprove. A word on King Julian, 165 pp. Grieg. Theologian 1st Region sl. On King Julian, 165–166 cf. Epist. 56. Allard Julien L'Apostat, II,177, 183, 185, 186, 195. Epist XLIX ad Arsacium; Wed Fragmentum Orationis epistolaeve cujusdam 305. Allard Julien L'Apostat, II, 189, 190. Liban., Legatio ad Julianum; Allard II, 214. Libanius, Epitaphios. Juliani 580. Julianus- Epist. XXXXI Aetio episcopo, Wed. Sozomen Cer. East. V, 5. Julian. Epist. XXV ad ludeor. Nationi; Sozomen Cer. East. V.22. Allard Julien l'Apostat, III, 130–149. Amm. Marcell. XXIII, 1; Sozom. Cer. East. V, 22; Theodore. Cer. East. V, 20; Julian Epist. XLII; Grieg. Theologian 1st Disclosure Sl. To King Julian; Sozom. Cer. East. V, 18; Socrates Cer. East. III, 12; Theodore. Cer. East. III, 8; Rufin. H. E. I, 32; Aug. C. D. XVIII, 52 Amm. Marcell. XXII, 10; Euseb. Chronic. P. 99; Oros. VII, 30. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, II, 353, 374. Julian. Epist. XXVI and Ll ad Alexandr.; also Epist. VI ad Ecdic. Grieg. God. 1st Disclosure Sl. On King Julian 136–137; Wed Sozom. Cer. East. III, 17. Theodore. Cer. East. III, 6, 7; Grieg. Theologian 1st Disclosure Sl. To King Julian; Sozom. Cer. East. V, 10; Abbr. Cer. East. III, 2; Amm. Marcell. XXII, 11. Grieg. God. 1st Region sl. On King Julian, page 148. Theodorite. III, 20, Wed. Sozom. VI, 2. Julian. In deorum matrem p. 178; Wed Abbr. Cer. East. III, 1, 260. Naville, Julien l'Apostat et sa philosophie 97–108; Julianus: In regem Solem 139. Contra Julianum II, 588, 590. In regem Solem, 158; In deorum Matrem 172. In deorum matrem, 175–178; Wed Kirill Alex. – interpretation of the Old Testament law on food: Contra Julianum, VIII, 990. Adver. Imper. canes, 195. Adver. Imper. canes, 193. Ad Heraclium de Cynica secta, 213. Advers. Imper. canes, 199. Epist. Ad. S. P. Q. Atheniens. 275–277. Julian. Ep. XXVII; Liban. Ad Julianum consulem; Amm. Marcell. XXII, 1; XXIV, 7. Julian. Epist. Ad. S. P. Q. Atheniens. 275, epist. XVII. Libanius, Epitaphios Juliani; Allard, Julien l'Apostat II, 110–111. Allard. Julien l'Apostat, II, 168–175. Libanius. Epitaph. Juliani; Wed Liban. Orat. Parent. § 83; Amm. Marcell. XXII, 5. Liban. Epist XIV; Bl. Jerome Epist. LXX (according to ed. Mini) ad Magnum. S. Cyrilli Contra Julianum Acctam. Ad Theodosium 507 ed. Mini t. LXXVI. Neumann-Juliani imp / librorum contra Christ. Quae supersunt. P. 125 ff. In Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite des letters de l'empereur Julien (pp. 135–138). Bides and Cumont published an excerpt from a refutation of Julian, compiled by Bishop, found in one of the Moscow libraries. Caesarea (early 10th century) – Aretas. Neumann restored one passage at a time (Theol. Liter. Zeitung, 1899) One passage from the 2nd book of Julian regarding the Christian teaching about the Logos and the contradictions in the teaching about Him in the 4th Gospel with the Synoptics. Allard. Julien l'Apostat III, 108 not. 4. Excerpts from works. Feud. Monc. See Patr. Curs. Compl. T. 66, p. 715 et seq. Socrates, Cer. East. VII, 27. The works of Gregory the Theologian, two accusatory words against the wicked Tsar Julian, concern only the personality of the emperor and his administrative activities and do not concern his polemical work, which at that time St. the father did not even know, judging by the fact that he does not make any mention of this work. Chrysostom’s denunciation of Julian in his book “On St. Martyr Babyla." Allard Julien l'Apostat, III, 126. Not. 6. Soz. V, 18, II, 52. Neumann: Juliani imper. Librorum contra Christ. Quae supersunt. 10–13. Excerpts from the apologetic work of St. Cyril, preserved in the book of Leontius and John and in John of Damascus, were published by Cardinal Angelo Mai in his Bibliotheca nova Patrum Romae. 1852–1854. t. II. p. 488–492. They also contain extracts from St. Cyril and from Julian. A new edition of them with the text of the 1st book of Julian’s work, preserved by St. Cyril, and with extensive historical and bibliographic notes was made by Neumann in the work: Juliani impertoris librorum contra christianos Quae supersunt. (Leipzig. 1880, 1 volume in 8 o, 246 pages). The apologetic work of St. Cyril was first published by Nicholas Borbonius in 1630 in Greek and Latin. In 1696 it was again published by Ezekiel Spangheim, together with all the works of Julian, with notes by Dionysius Petavius ​​and other scholars and with a preface by Spangheim himself and with some of the small fragments that have survived. It does not exist translated into modern languages, but the polemical work of Julian contained in it was translated into German from the above-mentioned Neumann edition under the title: Kaiser Julians Bucker gegen die Christen (Leipzig. 1880 in 8 o 52 pp.) and into French, together with other works of Julian, in 1821. Oeuvres completes de l'empereur Julien. Paris, (translation by Tourlet) and in 1863 (translation by Talbot); in addition, even earlier it was translated by the Marquis d’Argens under the title Defense du paganism par l’empreur Julien en grec et en francois, avec dissertations et des notes. Berlin 1764. Contra Julianum, II, 559. Contra Julianum II, 566; also 570 – in the text of St. Kirill. Contra Julianum III, 615–618. Contra Julianum II, 567–570. Clement of Alexandria has not yet referred to them. The first reference to them is made by Lactantius. Contra Julianum IV, 690, Court. VI, 16–20, XIII, 12–13. Contra Julianum III, 630, 646, 666, 667; IV, 678; IX, 987. Libanius. Epitaphios Juliani; Reiske, t. I, p. 581. Oenvres completes de Julen l'apostat. Paris 1863 preface Contra Julianum II, 606, 607. Contra Julianum II, 607. 610. Julian. Adv. Imper. canes, 188. Ibid. I, 546, II, 571, 574; Wed Exhortation to El. Ch. 8, Tatian – Speech to the Hellenes. 32; Athenag. Passed. Oh Christ. 7; Theophilus. K Autol. II, 89; III, 17; Evs. Pr. Ev. XIV, 3, Lact. Divin. Ins. I, I; Clement. al. Page III, 17. Contra Julianum. II, 575. Contra Julianum. II, 602. Contra Julianum II, 587, 590. Contra Julianum III, 635, 643. Rom. X, Eph. III, 6, Galat. III, 28. Contra Julianum III, 662, 663. Contra Julianum IV, 711, 714. Cp. Porphyrius de abstinentia I, 38, Proclus in Tim. 47; Eusebius - Praepar. Evang. V, 6. Contra Julianum. IV, 678. Contra Julianum IV, 705–706–707, 711. Contra Julianum. IV, 719. Contr. Julian. II, 583–590. Contr. Julien. III, 650, 651. Contra Julianum IV, 682–687. Contra Julian. III, 634, 635. Contra Julianum IV, 706–711. Contra Julianum III, 654–663. S. Augustini. Epist 102, Operd. T. 2. Col. 373. Epistle to Diognetus ch. 9. Civ. Dei; VII, 32, XVIII, 47 Blessed. Hieron. creativity rus. lane vol. 3, 143. Contra Julianum III, 667. Fragment. Orationis epistolaeve cujusdam, 289. Deut. IV, IV, 24. Contra Julian. V, 738. 1st word against Julian, 174. Contra Julianum V, 766, 767. Contra Julianum VI, 798, 799. Contra Julianum VI, 790, 791. Contra Julianum VI, 819, 822. Contra Julianum VII, 838. Contra Julianum VII, 842, 843. Contra Julianum VII, 850, 851. Contr. Julian. VI, 802, 803. Contra Julianum V, 771–778. Oratio I, p. 80–85; Oratio VI – adv. Imper. canes, 192, 197. Contra Julianum VII, 835. Contra Julianum VII, 863. Ibid. V, 775. Cf. Just. Uv. to ell. II, 24; Evsev. Prep. Ev. IX, 10, 413. Contra Julianum V, 770, 771. Contra Julianum VII, 843, 846, 847. Contra Julianum VII, 851–858. Contra Julianum IX, 970, 971. Epist. XXV, compare Contr. Julian. X, 1046. Julian. Epist. LXIII ad Theod. Pontis. Asiae. Contra Julianum VIII, 886. Contra Julianum VIII, 886, 887. Contra Julianum VIII, 899, 902. Contra Julianum VIII, 902. Deut. IV, 2, X, 13. XXVII, 26. Contra Julianum IX, 991, 994. The newest rationalist criticism also dates the deification of Jesus Christ not to the first times of Christianity, but while Julian thinks that the beginning of the deification of Christ was laid by John, Strauss, the author of the Life of Jesus and one of the representatives of this criticism, attributes it to Paul and then to the unknown compilers of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the 4th Gospel. H.Kellner. Hellenismus und Christenthum 317 approx. 2. Contra Julianum 1002–1003. Contra Julian. X, 1011, 1014. Contra Julian. VIII, 903–906. Contra Julianum VIII, 891–903. Var. III, 36–38; Contra Julianum VIII, 910–911. Contra Julianum VIII, 915–922. Contra Julianum VIII, 914. Contra Julianum VIII, 942–945. Contra Julianum VI, 826, 827. Contra Julianum X, 1018–1027. Contra Julianum IX, 994–1002. Heb. X, 4. Contra Julianum IX, 959–970. Contra Julianum X, 10, 1050–1058. Jerem. IV, 4. Wed. Ibid IX, 26, VI, 10. Acts. VII, 51. Contra Julianum X, 1042–1047. Contra Julianum VII, 870–874; IX, 986–991. Ibid VIII, 887. VII, 834. Contra Julianum VI, 814, 815. Contra Julianum VII, 850–851. Contra Julianum XII, 874, 875. Contra Celsum III, 59–63. Epist. IV; epist. LXIII; Fragment. 305. Oeuvres completes de l'emereur Julien, 413 note 4 Paris, 1863. Contra Julianum VI, 815–819.